Translate

Tuesday, February 24, 2026

SEAT and the Student Bill of Rights: Texas Youth Shaping the Democratic Present, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

SEAT and the Student Bill of Rights: Texas Youth Shaping the Democratic Present

by 

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

February 24, 2026

It’s time for another shout-out to the extraordinary young people of SEAT (Students Engaged in Advancing Texas) and their powerful Student Bill of Rights. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: people need to know about this work. 

In my 25 years as a policy analyst and advocate at the Texas Legislature, I have never witnessed youth activism at the scale and intensity that I see today. 

I would even venture to say that we are living through a historic high point of youth engagement in our state. 

This level of organizing did not happen overnight. It reflects decades of groundwork, mentorship, courage, and persistence—and SEAT is just one of many remarkable youth formations. It does not even include the powerful activism of young leaders connected to LULAC, the NAACP, the Texas Freedom Network, and other organizations across Texas.

Congratulations to SEAT for developing what is arguably one of the most important democratic documents to emerge from Texas youth in recent years.

Crafted by students, for students, the Student Bill of Rights reminds us of something too often forgotten in public education debates: young people are not passive recipients of policy. They are primary stakeholders in their own futures.

In a political climate marked by book bans, attacks on truthful curriculum, punitive discipline practices, and the narrowing of student voice, this declaration reframes education as a site of agency, dignity, and collective care. It calls for high-quality public education, holistic well-being, freedom of expression, and truthful, critical curriculum—not as partisan demands, but as democratic necessities.

By linking student agency to public accountability and insisting that all students be served regardless of identity, history, or circumstance, SEAT articulates a vision of education rooted in belonging rather than exclusion. This Bill of Rights does more than outline aspirations; it models civic leadership in real time, reminding Texas that students are not merely the leaders of tomorrow—they are shaping the democratic present.

Follow them on Twitter and Instagram @studentsengaged 

Sending y’all much love. 🩷🩷🩷

Student Bill of Rights

SEAT (Students Engaged in Advancing Texas) | Adopted Jan. 6, 2025



Students Deserve:


  1. Agency to make decisions in education

  2. High quality public education for all

  3. Safe and welcoming school environments conducive to growth

  4. Freedom of expression in a pluralistic, multicultural democracy

  5. Holistic student care to support health and well-being

  6. Truthful, critical, and substantive curriculum

  7. To be leaders of today, not only of tomorrow

  8. Streamlined and personalized pathways for lifelong learning




SEAT believes all students and children shall be served under this bill, no matter their identity, lived experiences, disciplinary histories, or present interactions with public and educational institutions. All students deserve equal and positive treatment under the rule of law and this declaration of rights.


This Bill of Rights was crafted by the SEAT Roundtable Collective in Aug. 2024 - Jan. 2025 as a declaration for students, by students. We deserve a seat at the table.

View online: studentsengaged.org/bill-of-rights


  1. Agency to make decisions in education.

Having a seat at the table means students reclaiming ownership of our education, giving us power and freedom in the everyday social situations that impact our school experiences, and thus, our futures. We shall not be tokenized as an outsider or subjugated as political pawns in decisions most impacting us. Our voices have power.

Students are the primary stakeholders in education, but we are traditionally excluded from policy-making decisions in school boards and the state legislature. Officials cannot best represent students when they cultivate a "power over" relationship instead of "power with" students.

School boards directly influence education policy about students, often without us. These governing bodies should sufficiently include students in conversations, roundtables, workshops, committees, and most importantly, on the same dais where they legislate.

  1. High quality public education for all.

Education is a cornerstone of community and democracy. Students spend a significant portion of our childhood and adolescence in a classroom, and we want it to mean something for us. We want education to be a highlight of our youth and fulfill our sense of confidence.

Public schools must serve everyone to the fullest extent, throughout rural and urban communities, regardless of socioeconomic disparities. Students should face no entry barriers to accessing a quality education meant to help us learn and grow alongside peers. We can address chronic absenteeism by taking measures to uphold quality education.

Strong teachers help shape strong students. Our student experiences are defined by educators’ working experiences. We must invest in a workforce of educators who are duly committed to students, highly competent, and sufficiently compensated for teaching demands.

Trust is critical to students’ relationships with adults at school. Students should feel that our educators and administrators care about our needs as individuals, not merely as numbers or written records. Retention of educators and cultivating a school community of joy serves everyone.

The quality of facilities significantly influences students’ desire to attend and thrive at school. Students deserve functioning facilities with prime infrastructure, free from dangers to student health, including excessive temperatures, harmful substances, or biohazards.

Students deserve the right to school libraries that provide access to resources and knowledge, in the form of books, the Internet, guidance by librarians, and more. Libraries and classrooms shall be boundless for fostering exploration, imagination, and possibility.

Schools should be a support system meant to break cycles of marginalization. Not all families can or want to be involved in fostering a student’s educational trajectory. Education systems must be accountable to helping first-generation or dropout-prone students thrive, despite any potential barriers like wealth or citizenship status.

  1. Safe and welcoming school environments conducive to growth.

When students enter school each day, we should not fear gun violence, bullying, harassment, or a prison sentence. School should support students coming as we are, with limited English proficiency or in proximity to the impact of substance abuse. Schools can make a difference in a student’s life if it becomes a central goal for education.

Gun violence is a public health epidemic and a reality for Generation Z and Alpha. These cycles of violence do not need to be a broken record. We are ready to turn the page toward safe storage measures and preventing guns from ending up in the hands of anyone in crisis or who has made threats of violence toward themself or others.

Let’s educate, not incarcerate. Student discipline must improve situations, not worsen them. School officials have the subconscious power to permanently affect a student’s life trajectory. Instead of punitive alternative programs, racially biased to involve students of color, restorative practices can help shatter the school-to-prison pipeline.

The carceral state disproportionately harms marginalized youth and establishes no accountability. Incarceration costs excessive public dollars and too often repeats with recidivism. We must invest in students’ future as leaders, not victims of a broken juvenile system.

Education systems should enforce contemporary, comprehensive anti-discrimination policies that protect all students. We can cultivate compassion in school culture for students to best learn and grow skills needed in adulthood.

Ensuring schools take proactive measures to prevent drug abuse and support affected students is essential for fostering overall student well-being. Actions by school and public officials, instead of complicity or roundabout attempts at solutions, can contribute to safer educational environments.

Bilingual education should serve students from a variety of language backgrounds. Texas is a multilingual state. Our education system should empower, not shame, native tongues and language learning.

Children are one of the most disabled groups of people. Disabled and neurodivergent students should not be unfairly punished or judged for behavioral actions considered outside of normative societal standards.

When environments are not safe, students should be aware of processes for reporting issues or talking to trusted adults who will advocate for us. School professionals should hold responsibility toward protecting students with utmost integrity regardless of school pressures.

  1. Freedom of expression in a pluralistic,
    multicultural democracy.

To freely express ourselves is core to shaping our lives and bettering the future. Texas is an enormous state with rich culture. Our diversity makes us great. Schools must empower students to be the best of ourselves.

Discriminatory dress codes, targeting students across gender norms and ethnic-cultural styles, distract from education and harm self-esteem. The right to our own bodies is critical, and the State belongs away.

Generation Z is the most openly LGBTQ+ generation in history. Names and pronouns are centermost in our lives. Regardless of what we call ourselves, it matters more that others refer to us in affirming ways. To support student well-being and social confidence, we must embolden inclusive community values of respect that do not give power to deadnaming and misgendering.

As lawmakers seek to blur the separation of Church and State, public schools must support students secularly and without enforcing religious customs. We should, however, learn of diverse world faiths and defend students’ individual right to religious liberty. Nationalism, especially bolstering religious doctrine, undermines faith and education.

Students clubs, organizations, and athletics should be spaces for us to explore interests, engage in social causes, and create community. Students should have equal access to lead or participate in clubs. School publications should respect student voices without censorship.

When power structures aren’t right, students deserve the unfettered ability to challenge oppression, especially when imposed by authority. Our right to assemble and petition must be protected, not trampled.

  1. Holistic student care to support health and well-being.

Entering school each day, students bring a reflection of our personal lives into the classroom. Regardless of socioeconomic status, wraparound services fulfill student needs and steer us on a track to success, fostering better social and learning environments for all.

From food to healthcare, including breakfast and menstrual products, schools must fulfill our basic needs before expecting us to perform socially and academically. These services should be provided to students at no individual cost and without stipulations.

Schools should have nurses, sufficiently equipped with inhalers, epipens, insulin, overdose medication, and other necessary, potentially life-saving measures for students. All students should be generally knowledgeable of resource locations and how we can access them in an emergency.

Amid a youth mental health crisis, school counseling and seamless pathways to additional services are vital for vulnerable students to navigate trauma, substance abuse, adverse experiences, and everyday dilemmas.

Neighborhood transportation between home and school is necessary to ensure student safety and breaking barriers for students and families on financial, physical, or workplace bases.

After-school tutoring and programs, both social and extracurricular, are vital to narrowing the gap between student performance, well-being, learning loss, and at-home factors contributing to a student’s situation at school. Schools should be a community of care for students.

  1. Truthful, critical, and substantive curriculum.

Students must hold agency to indiscriminately access and utilize our education in ways that affirm our identities and help us discover the unfamiliar. Teaching to an unjust status quo is a disservice to the youngest generation of Texans.

Students deserve the right to educate ourselves about sensitive topics, especially when politically contentious. To foster a love for reading and learning, no one should decide for students what we can or cannot read. We must hold the individual agency to decide which books we read.

We should trust the expertise of librarians and educators to curate age-relevant and educationally-suitable collections. Interest groups and politicians with ulterior motives should not hold greater authority over the autonomy of all families in a school system.

Curricula should represent Texas’ vast diversity in culture and ideas. We must teach the truth, with fact-based evidence and critical perspectives. Commonplace myths and false narratives make dangerous impressions on students and hold no educational suitability. If we are to act as critical thinkers, we must not lie to students. Truth must be the norm.

Education should be liberating and life-giving. To facilitate freedom, we must teach standards, not standardization. Rote memorization for heavy testing and data collection treats students homogeneously. Instead, we must give life to each students’ uniqueness, curiosity, and passion.

  1. To be leaders of today, not only of tomorrow.

To best navigate the complexities of today’s Texas, students must be equipped with the education necessary for becoming a generation of success, impact, and excellence. We must be prepared for our futures so we determine and shape our trajectories. Critical thinking is crucial to becoming an active member of society.

Our 13 years in K-12 schools must adequately prepare us with resources and curriculum for financial and medical literacy. Learning to file taxes, buy a car or home, and understand legal contracts instills confidence in our socioeconomic lives. Comprehensive fact-based sex ed curriculum, with an emphasis on consent, is necessary to reduce domestic violence and STDs. This is how we build a society with competency and respect for one another.

With the integral presence of the Internet in contemporary life, we must learn responsible digital citizenship. Social media is a valuable tool in which we must safeguard our rights for free use. Big Tech should be held accountable for dangers posed to youth. Empowering students with multimedia literacy and judgment of reality facilitates a more informed, cooperative, and engaged society.

We must actualize power for civic leadership, navigating interpersonal conflict, and building professional relationships. We must be aware of our elected officials at all levels of government and understand that we play a critical role as a Fourth Branch of government. Learning how to engage in civic institutions through voting and public engagement will help us shape, not merely inherit, the world we wish to live in.

  1. Streamlined and personalized pathways
    for lifelong learning.

Education is a life-long endeavor. Opportunities for Higher Education must be affordable, accessible, and student-oriented.

There is no singular or correct path for students. Education should challenge us to be the best of ourselves while simultaneously handing us the keys to our own academic, social, and professional journeys.

Districts should provide classroom instruction and hands-on experiences for learning Career and Technical Education.

K-12 education should prepare us for post-school opportunities that empower and encourage excellence. We should have opportunities to explore Higher Education through online research and firsthand experiences. Academic advising should be available to all students.

University finances should hold students in their best interest. We should be given an educational experience worth our investment and be spared from malicious billing practices. Financial aid should ensure any student with the interest of pursuing higher education is guaranteed such opportunity.


Monday, February 23, 2026

Academia Cuauhtli, the Eagle’s Vision, and the Architecture of Belonging: Education in the Shape of a Circle, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Academia Cuauhtli, the Eagle’s Vision, and the Architecture of Belonging: Education in the Shape of a Circle

by 

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

February 23, 2026

In “Academia Cuauhtli and the Eagle: Danza Mexica and the Epistemology of the Circle,” co-authored with Emilio Zamora and Brenda Rubio, we examine what it means to build Academia Cuauhtli as more than a Saturday school program in Austin, Texas. We frame it as an effort to rethink education itself.

The eagle’s vision represents the ability to see in all directions at once—expansively and relationally. For those of us working in community, it reminds us that while no single person can carry all the knowledge required to sustain an ambitious initiative like Academia Cuauhtli—with its Summer School program, parent development component, and curricular writing work—together, we can. 

It also symbolizes the aspirations we collectively hold for the children, families, and community in our care, alongside the disciplined precision with which the eagle, from great heights, fixes its gaze and moves with intention. Analytical clarity. This is what we want for all children—especially in this moment of chaos and uncertainty—so that they may see their world clearly, act with purpose, and rise with confidence rather than confusion.

Access full article here.

At the heart of this work is the circle. It is best exemplified by Danza Mexica or Aztec "dance," connoting not performance, but ceremony and a way of knowing and being in the world, including in educational spaces like Academia Cuauhtli about which I have previously blogged over the years.

In Danza Mexica, individuals form into a circle or concentric circles depending on the size of the group. Movement unfolds collectively. No one stands in front. No one stands above or below. Everyone faces inward toward a shared center—toward memory, spirit, healing, ancestors, and community.

The form itself encodes reciprocity, relationality, and a shared, sacred purpose.

This stands in contrast to the dominant architecture of schooling.

Most classrooms operate through vertical authority structures. Knowledge flows from expert to novice. Students are ranked, sorted, and compared. Time is segmented into benchmarks and testing cycles. Culture is often treated as enrichment rather than foundation.

The circle disrupts this logic.

An epistemology of the circle understands knowledge as generative and co-constructed rather than extractive or subtractive. It recognizes the body as a site of learning. It treats memory as living presence. It invites families, community members, scholars, and children into shared intellectual space. It refuses the idea that culture is peripheral to academic rigor (Colin, 2014).

For us at Academia Cuauhtli, the circle is also a form of pedagogy. It is history enacted through rhythm and specific movements (dance steps) across various ceremonies preserved throughout time. It is language, philosophical concepts, and civic education carried in collective movement. It signals and affirms that children—especially those labeled as “English learners” and targeted by subtractive, deficit-driven discourses—stand within powerful knowledge systems that have survived conquest, colonization, and erasure.

The circle also carries political meaning.

In a moment when ethnic studies programs are dismantled, faculty governance is constrained, and curriculum is policed under the language of “neutrality,” the circle offers another organizing principle. Education can be structured around relational accountability (or "responsibility") rather than surveillance. It can center dignity rather than deficit.

The eagle—or "Cuauhtli," in Nahuatl—symbolizes vision and strength. Yet the eagle rises from within the circle. Aspiration without community becomes isolation. Achievement without memory becomes assimilation.

The circle is not nostalgia. It is infrastructure, a third space situated between the over-prescribed role of the school and the under-prescribed role of the home in the education of our youth.

If we take educational equity seriously, we must ask: What would it mean to organize our classrooms, research partnerships, and institutions around relational centers instead of competitive hierarchies?

The answer does not begin with new mandates.

It begins with remembering—and practicing—the circle as a way of knowing and being in the world.

References

Colín, E. (2014). Indigenous education through dance and ceremony: A Mexica palimpsest. Palgrave MacMillan.

Valenzuela, A., Zamora, E., & Rubio, B. (2015). Academia Cuauhtli and the Eagle:" Danza Mexica" and the Epistemology of the Circle. Voices in Urban Education, 41, 46-56.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1074841.pdf



Congressman Joaquín Castro: Bearing Witness in the Dilley, Texas Detention Center, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Congressman Joaquín Castro: Bearing Witness in the Dilley, Texas Detention Center

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

February 23, 2026

When Joaquín Castro speaks about what he witnessed in Dilley, Texas, he is not speculating—he is bearing witness. He has reported that eight women are currently pregnant inside the South Texas Family Residential Center, a federal immigration detention facility funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and operated under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Eight pregnancies unfolding behind barbed wire.

These women remain largely out of public view, their prenatal care subject to conditions we can only imagine. As Castro emphasized during his February 20 visit, detention centers are not designed to safeguard maternal health. They are designed to confine.

He has also raised serious concerns about CoreCivic, the private corporation operating the facility, citing failures to provide even basic dental and general medical care to those detained. BlackRock is its largest shareholder. The land and structures are owned by Target Hospitality. The City of Dilley neither owns nor manages the site.

Originally opened in 2014 for family detention, the center houses hundreds of migrants — primarily women and children — and has long faced scrutiny over health care, living conditions, and the well-being of children held there.

If routine medical care is already inadequate, what does that mean for women who require consistent prenatal monitoring, proper nutrition, rest, and emergency responsiveness? What happens if complications arise?

The moral gravity deepens when we remember Liam Cornejo Ramos—and now two-month-old baby Juan Nicolas, reportedly suffering from bronchitis, who was recently deported to Mexico. An ill infant deported. Pregnant women detained. Children experiencing psychological, emotional, and physical harm in confinement.

A drawing shared with Congressman Castro by a child
during his visit who is currently held in detention.

These are not bureaucratic footnotes. They are human lives shaped by policy decisions and corporate contracts. When health care becomes secondary to detention quotas and profit margins, we move into dangerous territory.

Castro’s testimony pulls back the curtain. If these women are kept out of sight, they must not be kept out of conscience. Dilley is more than a point on a map. It is a test of our collective humanity. What we tolerate there, especially for pregnant women and sick children, will define us long after the headlines fade.

Sunday, February 22, 2026

UT’s Gender and Ethnic Studies Shake-Up: Name the Pressures. Name the Politicians. Name the Agenda. by Angela Valenzuel, Ph.D.

UT’s Gender and Ethnic Studies Shake-Up: Name the Pressures. Name the Politicians. Name the Agenda.

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Feb. 22, 2026

Austin American-Statesman reporter Lily Kepner’s article on the University of Texas’s decision to consolidate its ethnic and gender studies departments repeatedly invokes “pressure,” “politically unpopular programs,” and unnamed “conservative politicians.” Yet it never identifies who is applying this pressure, what specific actions they have taken, or how these programs have been deemed unpopular. That omission is not incidental—it is the central issue.

The story claims UT’s decision follows “months of pressure from conservative politicians to eliminate ‘liberal’ education and ‘gender ideology.’” Which politicians? What letters, hearings, budget threats, regent directives, or formal communications substantiate this assertion? If such evidence exists, it should be documented. This is not a reference to Senate Bill 37 or its author, former Senator Brandon Creighton, now president of Texas Tech University. He is one actor. The question concerns the broader agenda the article implies but does not name.

The characterization of these departments as “politically unpopular programs” is equally unsupported. By what measure? The article reports 307 undergraduate majors across the affected departments, notes national rankings placing UT at the top in Latin American History, and references decades of student demand dating to the 1970s. Faculty describe strong interdisciplinary enrollment from engineering, pre-med, and other colleges. These are indicators of institutional vitality, not marginality.

Meanwhile, departments unrelated to race, ethnicity, or gender remain structurally intact. If this were a neutral effort to address administrative “fragmentation,” consolidation would be evenly distributed. It is not. The selective restructuring of African and African Diaspora Studies, Mexican American and Latino Studies, and Women and Gender Studies warrants scrutiny the article gestures toward but does not pursue.

The piece references Governor Greg Abbott’s intervention at Texas A&M, system-level restrictions on race or "gender ideology,” course audits on gender identity, and SB 37’s restructuring of faculty governance. Yet it stops short of connecting these developments to UT’s decision in a sustained way. The result is a narrative of diffuse cultural tension rather than a clear account of political and structural mechanisms.

Those mechanisms are concrete: SB 17’s dismantling of DEI infrastructure, SB 37’s weakening of faculty governance, and sustained public criticism of race and gender scholarship by state leadership. And now there is an additional layer. 

Last week, the UT System Board of Regents adopted new guidance regarding the teaching of so-called “controversial topics,” directing institutions to ensure such material is “germane” to course objectives and framed in ways that avoid perceived ideological advocacy. While presented as a reaffirmation of academic neutrality, the policy introduces new ambiguity: Who determines what is “germane”? How is ideological advocacy defined? And what mechanisms will be used to monitor compliance?

For faculty in fields already publicly targeted, this creates policy-induced precarity. When governance structures have been weakened, DEI offices dismantled, and course content subjected to heightened scrutiny, consolidation cannot be viewed in isolation. The cumulative effect is an environment in which academic decisions are made under the shadow of legislative intervention and board-level oversight.

University administrators invoke “balance,” “efficiency,” and “fractured fields”—whatever the heck this means. If anything, the administration is actively doing the fracturing in which case this must reflect a level of psychological projection at work. Go figure.

If consolidation is driven by enrollment metrics or financial concerns, comparable data across all departments should be released. Transparency would clarify whether this is pedagogical recalibration or politically shaped reorganization.

Instead, “pressure” functions as an unnamed force—shaping outcomes without accountability. Universities evolve. Units merge. Priorities shift. But when programs centered on race, ethnicity, and gender are restructured amid weakened faculty governance, legislative hostility, and new board directives on “controversial topics,” skepticism is analytical, not ideological.

The public deserves clarity. If elected officials, regents, or donors are influencing curricular structures, that influence should be reported. If this is an internal decision grounded in measurable criteria, the data should be made public.

When actors remain unnamed and evidence unstated, “pressure” becomes a placeholder for power no one is required to own. In moments like this, clarity is not optional. It is the responsibility of both institutions—and those who report on them.


After anti-liberal pressure, University of Texas to consolidate gender and ethnic studies

Affected departments include those that focus on African and African Diaspora Studies, Mexican American Studies, Women and Gender Studies and American Studies.

By Lily Kepner, Staff WriterFeb 12, 2026 | Austin American-Statesman

A demonstrator holds up a sign at the base of the UT Tower during a protest at the University of
Texas at Austin on Monday, October. 13, 2025. About 150 people gathered to protest Trump's
compact and potential cuts to ethnic and gender studies programs in UT's College of Liberal Arts.

Aaron E. Martinez/Austin American-Statesman


The University of Texas’s College of Liberal Arts will consolidate its long-standing ethnic and gender studies programs into one new department.

The university will immediately begin the process of creating the new Department for Social and Cultural Analysis Studies after months of pressure from conservative politicians to eliminate “liberal” education and “gender ideology” from the state’s flagship. There is no target date for the change to go fully into effect.

UT’s decision follows Texas A&M University move to close its Women and Gender Studies Department earlier this year. In a 9 a.m. meeting with department chairs Thursday, Interim Dean David Sosa said curriculum and degree programs in the departments are being reviewed.


The future of the centers and programs within the existing departments is not yet clear, two faculty in the meeting confirmed. It is also unclear if layoffs will eventually accompany the consolidations, but Sosa did not announce any immediate firings, two faculty said.

The college launched a committee last fall to explore the consolidation of overly “fractured” departments, prompting student protests to protect the programs.

Affected departments include those that focus on African and African Diaspora Studies, Mexican American and Latino Studies, Women and Gender Studies and American Studies, which have a combined 307 undergraduate majors, according to UT data.

The Asian Studies department, which was not included in Thursday’s meeting, has 185 majors. Middle Eastern Studies, also not included in the call, has 80. Department chairs from Germanic Studies, Slavic and Eurasian Studies, French and Italian will be combined into a new department of European and Eurasian Studies. The departments teach foreign languages — a course requirement for COLA graduates.

Having an official designation as a UT department matters — it allows programs to receive funding for events, faculty and a greater voice in tenure and promotion decisions. Consolidating the programs effectively eliminates any institutional support for the politically unpopular programs, and further curtails faculty input in university decisions.

“There can be no reason for this decision other than an authoritarian takeover of Texas’ flagship university,” Lauren Gutterman, associate professor of American Studies and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, said. “If this was about too much fragmentation or small majors, then why are departments like Religious Studies, Middle Eastern Studies, and Classics unaffected?”

UT Spokesperson Mike Rosen declined to comment by press time. Two hours after the meeting, UT President Jim Davis announced the changes in an email to campus. He confirmed that as the university reviews what majors, minors and certificates the new departments will offer, all students currently in the programs will be allowed to continue.

Davis said he asked the College of Liberal Arts to analyze what fields make sense to stand alone or come together based on student-to-faculty ratio, program size, student demand and resources. The consolidation doesn’t mean the subjects aren’t “worthy” of research and teaching, but allows them to be “researched and taught in the broader context of other fields, classes, disciplines, and departments,” he wrote.

“These two new departments reflect our ongoing commitment to academic excellence and our responsibility to ensure that every student at UT Austin has access to a balanced and challenging educational experience,” Davis said.

Sydney Jael Wilson, a women and gender studies graduate student, speaks at a protest at the University of Texas at Austin on Monday, October. 13, 2025. About 150 people gathered to protest Trump's compact and potential cuts to ethnic and gender studies programs in UT's College of Liberal Arts. Aaron E. Martinez/Austin American-Statesman


Women and Gender Studies officially became a department at UT in 2023, but gender and ethnic studies classes have been taught at the university for decades. The centers that house the faculty and classes started in the 1970s and 1980s after students pushed for courses that better reflected their personal backgrounds.

Faculty say the decision is misguided and will gut departments that have brought UT prestige for decades. U.S. News and World Reports listed UT as the top program in the country for graduate studies in Latin American History. College Factual, an online data-driven college ranking site, listed UT as the top school in Texas to get an undergraduate degree in ethnic studies.

“We no longer seem to be a place where we value knowledge for the sake of knowledge,” Alison Kafer, director of LGBTQ studies in the women’s and gender studies department, said in an interview earlier this month. “If we close this department, we are closing it for political reasons, because our numbers are great.”

What does consolidation mean?

The university will begin preparing for the new departments immediately, though they will not officially consolidate until September, faculty said. Curriculum and degree programs are still being reviewed.

A new UT policy revised this September requires the school’s president to direct an “efficient in-depth and judicious review process” before deciding to abandon or reduce academic programs and positions. The president is not bound by the recommendation of the provost or a committee, according to the policy. The policy strongly recommends the preservation of existing degree programs until all current students can complete them.

A previous policy required UT’s president to consult with Faculty Council leadership before eliminating any academic program or position. UT System ended faculty senates and councils to comply with Senate Bill 37 this September.

Why is this happening?

While no law restricts what can be taught at public universities, conservative politicians have put pressure on universities to eliminate programs deemed too liberal.

Political pressure intensified last fall when Gov. Greg Abbott demanded that Texas A&M University fire a children’s literature professor who taught about gender identity in one of her courses. Since then, university systems across the state have scrutinized programs deemed overly political.

In January, Texas A&M University closed its Women and Gender Studies department. Regents also approved a new policy that bans courses that “advocate” for race or gender ideology without prior approval. Texas Tech University System also banned such courses and issued a directive to only teach that there are two genders.

Both policies have been criticized by civil rights groups who equate the measures to censorship, stifling academic freedom. Others insist academic freedom has limits, and the fields have gone too far.

The UT System confirmed last fall that it would audit classes for mentions of gender identity. Officials have since remained quiet on how the system will handle increasing pressure to police instruction related to gender and sexuality. UT Regents will meet next week at a planned quarterly meeting.

At the flagship, Provost William Inboden has openly critiqued education related to race and gender as fields of study “often accompanied by partisan activism.” He has said the fields “must be studied,” but suggested the studying leaves students with an “imbalanced view of the United States.”

UT President Jim Davis, who is not an academic, said in a university address last year that UT would look to broaden overly “fractured” fields and bring “balance” to curriculum.

But all the cut programs are known for being interdisciplinary and skills-based, attracting students across the university from engineering to pre-medicine, faculty said. Faculty in the departments each have different specialties, allowing for innovative and collaborative research.

UT’s African and African Diaspora Studies became a department in 2010. It offers a major, minor, certificate, graduate and PhD programs. American Studies, which became a department in 1998, focuses on cultural, intellectual and social life in the United States. Mexican American and Latina/o Studies became a department in 2014.

“Gender and ethnic studies have transformed the study of the humanities and social sciences, and now they are what they are,” said Lisa Moore, UT’s Chair of Women and Gender Studies, in an interview before the consolidation announcement. “We can’t unknow what we know… It’s just not the case that we can believe that only a small slice of human beings are responsible for everything that’s good about the world.”

The cuts come as UT expands its academic offerings in other humanities fields.

UT offers more than 170 fields of undergraduate study and 230 graduate programs. The university has added about a dozen more in the past five years. The School of Civic Leadership just announced a new donor-funded program in Western Civilization and Jewish Studies. The school plans to open two more majors focused on increasing civic education.

Meanwhile, UT is also exploring consolidation in the School of Information and College of Natural Sciences. UT System regents will vote next week on UT's plans to establish a new School of Computing within the College of Natural Sciences. The organizational change would turn the School of Information into a Department of Information. The new school would also hold the Department of Computer Science and Department of Statistics and Data Sciences, and offer the same degrees, according to the agenda released Thursday afternoon.

Faculty insist the consolidated fields at UT are being targeted and defunded for political reasons, not because of waning student interest, funding restrictions or the value of the scholarship. They fear it will hurt the future reputation of the university and students' freedom to learn.

“The changes that are happening are going to, and already have created damage that will last for, I don’t know, decades,” Moore said. “I’ve never seen the forces that want to break down higher education (be) so successful as now.”

This is a developing story and will be updated.


Conference Videos from "40 Years of Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas: An Anniversary Symposium, February 20-21, 2026

Conference Videos from "40 Years of Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas: An Anniversary Symposium," February 20-21, 2026

Conference videos are now available from “40 Years of Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas: An Anniversary Symposium,” held February 20–21, 2026, commemorating four decades since the 1987 publication of Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986 by David Montejano. Montejano’s pathbreaking work fundamentally reshaped how we understand Texas history—demonstrating that the state was forged not through a singular Anglo narrative, but through deeply contested political, economic, and racial formations involving Mexicans and Anglos alike. 

The symposium gathered scholars, undergraduate students, graduate students, and community members to reflect on the book’s enduring influence, its methodological interventions, and its continued relevance amid contemporary struggles over knowledge, curriculum, and power in Texas.

The conversations captured in these videos are both historically grounded and urgently present. At a moment when Mexican American history and ethnic studies face renewed scrutiny, the symposium reminds us why Montejano’s scholarship mattered—and still does. His analysis of racial formation, state violence, labor control, and political exclusion provides an indispensable framework for understanding not only the Texas of the 19th and 20th centuries, but the policy battles unfolding today. 

These recordings are a gift to the broader community: an opportunity to revisit a foundational text and to consider how rigorous, community-rooted scholarship continues to shape the intellectual and political life of Texas. 

On a personal level, David is an old friend of mine who most certainly deserves this loving, heartfelt recognition. It was very moving learning about his struggles in bringing this book to fruition (see Plenary session below). By al means, buy and read the book!



The seminal book Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986 by David Montejano is celebrating 40 years in print by the University of Texas Press, and it remains one of the most insightful analyses of Texas history to date. Hailed as “the most important race-class analysis of the Chicano experience,” a generation of scholars continue to cite Montejano’s work as an influence on their careers and a model for revisionist historical sociology. The two-day symposium Anglos and Mexicans: Still Making Texas is organized by graduate students in the Department of Mexican American and Latina/o Studies (MALS) under the guidance of Associate Professor C. J. Alvarez, providing an opportunity for inter-generational dialogue that reflects on the book’s legacy and future contributions to Latino Studies and Texas history.

"Long before the explosion of scholarly interest in the borderlands in the 2000s, Montejano asked penetrating questions about how Mexican-descent people make Texas society during the 150 years after the Texas Revolution. Decades after its publication, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986 remains a landmark for the study of Mexican Americans, Texas and North America." - Benjamin H. Johnson, Professor in History at Loyola University of Chicago.

Join Latino Studies and MALS at UT Austin for two full days of panel presentations and keynotes, including a keynote plenary by author David Montejano on February 20, along with Texas historians Emilio Zamora and Neil Foley, and moderated by MALS Department Chair Karma Chavez. The symposium will include panel discussions with prominent scholars from across Texas and the United States, as well as a Saturday plenary on the future of Texas history and a graduate student-focused panel of emerging scholarship. Email stillmakingtexas@gmail.com with questions or for more information.

SYMPOSIUM SCHEDULE

Friday February 20-21, 2026
Gordon-White Building 2.206 | 210 W. 24th Street | The University of Texas at Austin


9:30 - 11:00am
Session I
Sonia Hernandez, Texas A&M University
Benjamin Johnson, Loyola University
moderated by Paul Del Bosque, The University of Texas at Austin


11:15 - 12:45pm
Session II: Grad Student Lightning Round
ethen peña, The University of Texas at Austin
Jackeline Guajardo, The University of Texas at Austin
Kara Alexandra Culp, The University of Texas at Austin
Leslie Torres, Texas A&M University
Alex Navarrete, Texas State University
moderated by Alfonso Ayala, The University of Texas at Austin


1:45 - 3:15pm
Session III
Phillip (Felipe) Gonzales, The University of New Mexico
Carlos Blanton, The University of Texas at Austin
Aaron Sanchez, Texas Tech University
moderated by Annaliese Martinez, The University of Texas at Austin


4:00 - 6:00pm
Plenary I: Looking Back with Anglos and Mexicans
David Montejano, University of California, Berkeley
Emilio Zamora, The University of Texas at Austin
Neil Foley, Southern Methodist University
moderated by Karma Chavez, The University of Texas at Austin

Saturday, February 21, 2026


9:30 - 11:00am
Session I
John Weber, Old Dominion University
Elliott Young, Lewis & Clark College
moderated by Paulina Serrano, The University of Texas at Austin


11:15 - 12:45pm
Session II: Grad Student Lightning Round
Jose Roberto Campos Cordero, The University of Texas at Austin
Paul Del Bosque, The University of Texas at Austin
Danielle Sanchez, The University of Texas at Austin
Laura Lamb, The University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley
moderated by C. J. Alvarez, The University of Texas at Austin


1:45 - 3:15pm
Session III
John Moran Gonzalez, The University of Texas at Austin
Annette Rodriguez, The University of Texas at Austin


4:00 - 6:00pm
Plenary II: Looking Ahead in Texas History
Jonathan Cortez, The University of Texas at Austin
Alana de Hinojosa, Texas State University
Monica Muñoz Martinez, The University of Texas at Austin
moderated by ethen peña, The University of Texas at Austin


Note: Please forgive the disruption in the recording; the video begins anew here.

This event is organized by graduate students in the Department of Mexican American & Latina/o Studies under the guidance of Associate Professor C. J. Alvarez and co-sponsored by Latino Studies, the Humanities Institute, the Center for the Study of the Southwest at Texas State University and the Alliance for Texas History.