Translate

Sunday, October 18, 2026

While We Fight the Culture Wars, Who’s Picking Our Pockets? A Political Reckoning in South Texas, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

While We Fight the Culture Wars, Who’s Picking Our Pockets? A Political Reckoning in South Texas

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Happy Sunday morning.

Gaige Davila’s October 6, 2026, Texas Observer article, “South Texas Is Moving On from Trump,” offers a fascinating and potentially consequential look at the shifting political landscape of South Texas. After Donald Trump made significant gains among Latino voters in 2024, the region now appears to be reconsidering its support for the Republican Party. Rising living costs, increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement, data centers, and growing frustration with billionaire influence in politics are contributing to this shift.

Particularly revealing is Davila’s reporting on Republican candidates who are distancing themselves from Trump and his policies, even as Democrats seek to reconnect with voters around bread-and-butter issues such as affordable living, public education, infrastructure, and community safety. As several political observers caution, however, it remains too early to know whether this represents a lasting political realignment or a reaction to the present administration.

What I find especially compelling is the possibility that South Texas voters are moving beyond the divisive culture wars that have dominated our politics for far too long. State Representative and gubernatorial candidate Gina Hinojosa, who grew up in Brownsville, captures this frustration when she observes that while ordinary Texans have been fighting among themselves over partisan differences, billionaires have been the real winners. Her question—“Who does Texas belong to?”—gets to the heart of what is at stake.

For communities whose histories are rooted in struggles for educational opportunity, economic justice, and civil rights, this election is about far more than party loyalty. It is about whether government serves working families and local communities or the wealthy and powerful interests that increasingly shape our political and economic lives.

What I find especially encouraging is that the curtain is finally being pulled back on the culture wars, exposing how they can function as political distractions that keep ordinary people divided and fighting among themselves while powerful interests consolidate their wealth, influence, and control over public policy. While we're encouraged to fight over race, immigration, gender, and identity, far too little attention is paid to who is profiting, who is paying the price, and how working families are being shortchanged.

This reminds me of a remarkably perceptive observation by President Lyndon B. Johnson, recounted by his former aide Bill Moyers in 1988. Reflecting on how racial prejudice could be exploited to distract working people from their shared economic interests, Johnson reportedly said:

“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”

—Lyndon B. Johnson, as recalled by Bill Moyers (1988)

Johnson was speaking specifically about the exploitation of racial prejudice, but his observation speaks to a larger political dynamic that remains relevant today. When people are persuaded to see their neighbors as the source of their problems, they may pay less attention to those who wield economic and political power over their lives. And that is precisely why we must question whose interests are served by the seemingly endless culture wars consuming our public discourse.

Perhaps the most hopeful development is that more voters are beginning to connect the dots, recognizing that the real struggle is not necessarily between neighbors with different political loyalties, but between the public interest and a political and economic system increasingly responsive to those with the deepest pockets. The more clearly voters see through these distractions, the harder it becomes for those in power to divide us while picking our pockets.

Davila’s reporting reminds us that Latino voters are neither politically monolithic nor permanently aligned with any party. Their votes must be earned through policies that meaningfully improve their lives and honor their communities.

Indeed, no political party or candidate is entitled to anyone’s vote. Period. In my opinion, every vote must be earned, and every elected official must remain accountable to the people they serve. Political loyalty should never be presumed on the basis of race, ethnicity, geography, or historical party affiliation. Nor should voters be treated as electoral commodities, courted when their support is needed and forgotten once the ballots are counted.

Voters deserve to be taken seriously, listened to, and respected. Their support should be earned through meaningful engagement, demonstrated integrity, and policies that address the real concerns and aspirations of their communities.

Ultimately, democracy is strongest when voters hold elected officials accountable, question their promises, and insist that public service means serving the public rather than powerful special interests. No party owns our votes, and none should ever take them for granted.

Democracy belongs to the people—not to political parties, wealthy donors, tech billionaires, or powerful special interests. And the moment we allow any political party to take our votes for granted, we diminish our own power to demand the representation, accountability, and justice we deserve.

References

Davila, G. (2026, October 6). South Texas is moving on from Trump. The Texas Observer. https://www.texasobserver.org/south-texas-2026-trump-cuellar-gonzalez-hinojosa/

Moyers, B. D. (1988, November 13). What a real president was like: To Lyndon Johnson, the Great Society meant hope and dignity. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1988/11/13/what-a-real-president-was-like/d483c1be-d0da-43b7-bde6-04e10106ff6c/




The region looks poised to return to its centrist-Democrat roots, as the president fails to bring down costs and the reality of mass deportations takes hold. But 2028 could be another test.

by Gaige Davila October 6, 2026, 7:15 AM, CDT

Ten years after Donald Trump was first elected President, the Republican Party has placed its chips on a region that would have made little sense at any other time in the last century: South Texas. Yet, if current polling holds, the GOP may have already overplayed its hand.

Congressional districts from San Antonio down to Brownsville, aggressively (and perhaps foolishly) redrawn at Trump’s orders, are at the crux of any Republican midterm hopes to hold the U.S. House, and state legislative races are similarly key to the party keeping its comfortable supermajority in Texas’ lower chamber. Up to the top of the ballot, where South Texas voters were key to James Talarico’s primary victory and where Brownsville-raised Gina Hinojosa sits one rung down, the region may hold the car keys. All as Republicans run without the man who seemed to break Democrats’ hold in the area on the ticket.

With weeks left to go, proclamations of another “red wave” coming to the region—after Trump flipped the majority-Latino South Texas border in 2024 and the GOP seized a state Senate seat while holding onto a congressional and state House district snagged two years before—are no more. Instead, national GOP leadership, like House Speaker Mike Johnson, is anxiously coming to stump for South Texas’ GOP candidates, working to convince voters that the stakes are high for the Republican Party this year.


Supporters of Texas Democratic candidate for Governor Gina Hinojosa
during a campaign rally in Brownsville on September 15 (Gaige Davila)

“[Democrats] want to remove the president, okay. They want one, unicameral body, the House, to run everything. You have to ask yourself why,” Johnson told a couple dozen people in Sinton in August at The Butter Churn, where he was campaigning for Monica De La Cruz, who since 2022 has represented Congressional District 15, which sprawls from near San Antonio down to the Rio Grande. “Because they have calculated that, over the next couple of cycles, they can elect enough Marxist communists to take over the whole thing.”

The national GOP has opened a “battle station” in Harlingen, near Brownsville in the Rio Grande Valley, much like they did in McAllen years prior, hoping to hold the electoral gains it made in the four-county, 1.4-million-person southern tip of the region. That hold looks increasingly tenuous as the popular Tejano singer Bobby Pulido has turned De La Cruz’s CD-15 into a toss-up, per the Cook Political Report, and incumbents Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar look increasingly likely to keep their districts, the 34th and 28th, that were re-gerrymandered for GOP pickup.

The prognosis is perhaps unsurprising in retrospect, since there were always signs the 2024 South Texas swing could have been peculiar to that specific presidential context. Downballot Democrats largely survived the Trump wave. And all that was before, of course, South Texas became ground zero for the harsh realities of Trump’s mass deportation project.

South Texas GOP candidates are appearing to now distance themselves from Trump and his policies—after ICE has arrested tens of thousands of people in the agency’s Harlingen and San Antonio sectors, where most of these races are located; after the cost of living has continued to increase in these metro areas; and after sometimes-trillionaire Elon Musk’s company town and its proliferation outside of Brownsville has drawn more ire from surrounding communities with each rocket launch. Democrats are capitalizing on the frustration, with the party’s confidence resurging.

Dems are coalescing around messaging that also seems to be resonating statewide, such as the platform of Austin state Representative Gina Hinojosa, the gubernatorial hopeful whose roots are in the Valley. This includes lowering the cost of living, holding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accountable after repeated violence, and getting billionaires out of politics.

Red scare efforts aside, South Texas’ GOP candidates for Congress and the state Legislature are actually running on similar platforms to Democrats on some issues, vying for the same kind of support that has kept the region—up until recently—a stronghold for moderate Democrats. Republican legislator Janie Lopez, who won her San Benito-based state House seat in 2022, is campaigning on fixing roads and flood infrastructure. One of De La Cruz’s TV ads talks about lowering costs for people working in restaurants. Eric Flores, a former federal prosecutor under the Biden administration who’s challenging Gonzalez, has made water one of his campaign focuses. Nary a “mass deportations” sign in sight.

Two years prior, it seemed everyone running in South Texas races had a border security ad, even Michelle Vallejo, a progressive who was then running in a losing bid against De La Cruz.

Now, De La Cruz herself has advocated for and helped release some people from ICE detention. But it may be too late to create distance from ICE, Trump, and the cost of living, experts told the Texas Observer.

“We’ve seen a sea change, in just two years: a sea change in Latino voting from what we saw in ’24, where we saw a substantial number of Latinos vote for Trump, vote for Republicans,” Jon Taylor, the University of Texas San Antonio’s political science department chair, told the Observer. “And now, if you look at polling, consistently now you’re seeing a complete flip in the other direction toward Democrats.”

This loss of support isn’t limited to Latino voters in South Texas, but—as both the site of 2024’s perhaps most surprising pro-Trump swing and many of the president’s most harmful policies in practice—South Texas may serve as the definitive referendum on the White House occupant this November.

“I have to say, it doesn’t feel like 2018 quite for me,” Vicente Gonzalez, the incumbent Democratic congressman for CD-34, which runs from Brownsville to Corpus Christi, told the Observer in a September phone call. “I wasn’t working near as hard as I am right now in 2018, I’ll tell you that.”

Having been redrawn last summer into a district that went for Trump in 2024 by 10 points, Gonzalez says Democrats can’t take another election for granted in South Texas. But Democratic turnout during the primaries this March has Gonzalez hopeful.

That’s partly because Gonzalez has already managed to survive a decade’s worth of election cycles, in the 34th and in the neighboring 15th, which he vacated voluntarily and is now held by De La Cruz.

Back in 2022, the self-described “triple threat” of De La Cruz plus Mayra Flores and Cassy Garcia all of whom were Rio Grande Valley-based, right-wing Latinas vying for seats with districts that stretched as far as San Antonio and its suburbs, garnered much media attention. South Texas’ Latino voters were simultaneously being invested in by the Republican party and disinvested in by Democrats, or so the narrative went. But the Blue Dog Dem congressmen, Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar—whose Laredo-based 28th stretches down into the Valley—held Flores and Garcia at bay. Cuellar then rebuffed (criminal pardon-related) speculation that he might change parties late last year, setting up the two men, often derided by liberals within their own party in the past, as the resilient paragons of the South Texas Democrat style.

Vicente Gonzalez in November 2022 (Denise Cathey/The Brownsville
Herald via AP)

Eric Flores, Gonzalez’s opponent, prevailed in the March GOP primary thanks to Trump’s backing and recently got a stump speech from Vice President JD Vance in Harlingen. Earlier this year, Trump visited a Corpus Christi Whataburger with Flores in tow. The president has twice posted a video on his social media channels calling for people to vote for Flores. He’s done similar for De La Cruz.

But, following the primaries, Flores’ campaign signs don’t say he’s endorsed by Trump anymore. He also recoiled when a local Democratic Party made campaign signs that looked like Flores’ older signs, saying the National Guard Army veteran was “Trump Endorsed” and supported ICE. In a statement on social media, Flores used the term “dirty tricks” to describe the signs that tied him to the president who likely secured his congressional nomination for him and to the federal agency that’s carrying out the same president’s signature policy promise.

A survey from Texas Southern University’s policy research arm says the race is now in Gonzalez’s favor. Mark P. Jones, one of the authors of the survey report and a professor of political science at Rice University, said the GOP, when they redrew districts in 2025, depended on a voting bloc to turn out that likely won’t this election: young, Latino men who voted for Trump.

“It’s not that many of them have decided to become Democrats, although some will vote Democratic,” Jones told the Observer, describing some of the survey respondents. “They are disillusioned by Trump and are not motivated to turn out to vote for anyone this year.”

Redistricting is also a factor in De La Cruz’s reelection chances. The new CD-15 map, though shifted just slightly east, removed about 60 percent of De La Cruz’s previous constituents, meaning she had to introduce herself to voters while her opponent, Bobby Pulido, is one of the most successful Tejano artists of all time. In South Texas, his name recognition is undeniable, and policy-wise he’s running in the established mold of Gonzalez and Cuellar. Which means De La Cruz, arguably, does not have the incumbent advantage, despite two terms in Congress.

“You add that with he had a profile of someone who you can’t easily portray as left, as a coastal elite, or a coastal liberal, and that he’s from the Valley,” Jones said. “But [he] also has, historically, had a set of positions and has a profile of somebody who’s a traditional South Texas centrist.”

Democrats are largely eschewing progressivism this cycle, after the failed congressional bids in recent cycles of Vallejo and Jessica Cisneros, who nearly ousted Cuellar in two Dem primaries. With one exception: the Bernie Sanders-backed Julio Salinas, who won the Democratic primary for the McAllen-based House District 41 against former city council member and moderate Democrat Seby Haddad.

“South Texas voters are, in their heart of hearts, centrist Democrats. The majority are,” Jones said of the region’s electorate going from blue to red and possibly back to blue. “That’s the dominant political organization in South Texas. … They also are not going to vote for extreme Republican candidates if they’re given a palatable Democratic alternative.”


Henry Cuellar and Tano Tijerina 2026 campaign signs posted next to each
other in Laredo (Justin Miller)

As for whether the Blue Dogs are truly back in town, Gonzalez said it will take some time to know for sure. Trump is omnipresent in the GOP’s South Texas races, having endorsed all the current Republican congressional and legislative candidates and made a handful of appearances in the area, but this remains a midterm race. Time will tell if, one way or another, a 2024-like effect can be achieved in 2028.

“I think it’s going to take another couple of election cycles to really say there is a trend one way or another,” Gonzalez said. “I always said Donald Trump brings a different type of excitement to an election.”

Eric Flores’ campaign did not respond to the Observer’s request for an interview.

In mid-September, at an event center on the southwestern edge of Brownsville, Gina Hinojosa was welcomed by hundreds of people, as Selena’s “Como Me Duele” reverberated from several loudspeakers through a space that hosts many of the city’s quinceañeras.

It was as “South Texas” of a homecoming as Hinojosa could have. She’s represented central Austin in the Texas Legislature since 2017 but was raised in Brownsville, making the Rio Grande Valley a recurring campaign stop since she announced her candidacy in her hometown eleven months prior. With less than two months left before the election, Hinojosa blamed the state’s healthcare, public school, and electricity woes on Greg Abbott, his donors, and tech billionaires.

“What people have finally figured out is, as we’ve been in our partisan tribes for the last 10 years, fighting each other with the culture wars over Thanksgiving dinner, fighting with our families about culture wars, the only people winning those wars are the billionaires,” Hinojosa said. “Like, 15 billionaire tech dudes who just have massive money and massive power and all of our data, and are about to blow up this planet … if we don’t come together fast to save ourselves—that’s what this election is about. Who does Texas belong to?”

Though she didn’t mention issues particular to the Valley in her speech, she did tell the Observer afterward that ICE was not the kind of border security she supported. That morning, she had visited homes under construction with the South Texas Builders Association, a group with a president that has become particularly outspoken about ICE detaining people on job sites and about regretting his prior support of Trump. A few days before her visit to Brownsville, two ICE agents pulled a teenager out of a car at an Alamo intersection, punched his face several times, then put him in handcuffs.

“These ICE raids are not making us more safe. They’re making us less safe,” she said. “I support border security here at the border. We want secure communities, right? But that’s making us less safe, not more safe.”

Nearly everyone who came to the rally lined up to take photos with Hinojosa, as Cameron County’s senior Democratic players talked among themselves, leaning against the stage. Former classmates of Hinojosa brought yearbooks to sign, supporters their campaign signs, and one person an infant child.


Hinojosa signs the shirt of Lisa Peña’s son, Romeo, on September 15
(Gaige Davila)

Zoe Griffith, a first-time voter from Brownsville who has organized with Healthy Futures of Texas, attended the rally with her mother, Christine Ramos, a local high school teacher and Marine veteran. Griffith said that Hinojosa’s positions against data centers and egregious ICE arrests are why she’ll be voting for her.

“Having seen Greg Abbott and how he runs in Texas, I want to see better change from my generation, and especially the generations that come before me,” she told the Observer. “Having people like Gina, especially as a female role model, it brings me more hope.”

Gaige Davila is the Texas Observer's 2026-27 David McHam investigative reporting fellow covering the border and immigration. Davila is from Port Isabel in the Rio Grande Valley. He studied investigative journalism at Arizona State University.

Wednesday, October 14, 2026

Hispanic Heritage Month Recognition from the Texas Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (TADOHE)

My heartfelt thanks to the Texas Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (TADOHE) and its President, Dr. Shawntal Brown, for this incredibly generous and moving recognition during Hispanic Heritage Month. I am deeply honored and genuinely touched by your beautiful words. This brings tears to my eyes.

To be recognized by colleagues whose own work is so deeply rooted in educational equity, social justice, and the dignity of all students makes this acknowledgment especially meaningful.

As I reflect on the journey that has brought me here, I am reminded that whatever I may have accomplished has never been mine alone. It belongs equally to the students, colleagues, families, community advocates, and organizations with whom I have had the privilege of learning, struggling, and building over the years. Our work has always been collective, grounded in the conviction that education should affirm rather than diminish who we are, where we come from, and what we bring to the world.

I am especially grateful for TADOHE's leadership and for the courageous work you continue to do during these challenging times for higher education. Your commitment to keeping equity, inclusion, academic freedom, and educational opportunity at the forefront matters now more than ever. I have treasured our collaborations and look forward to continuing this important work together.

And how meaningful to receive this recognition during Hispanic Heritage Month, when we honor not only the contributions of our communities but also the generations of sacrifice, resilience, love, and struggle that have made our own journeys possible.

Thank you, TADOHE, for this beautiful tribute, for your friendship and partnership, and for reminding us of what is possible when we stand together in service of our students and communities. I receive this honor with deep humility, gratitude, and renewed commitment to the work that remains before us.

Con todo mi corazón, ¡gracias mil! ❤️

—Angela Valenzuela


TADOHE HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH SPOTLIGHT
Honoring Dr. Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.
Scholar. Author. Educator. Advocate. A Champion for Educational Equity.
Some educators change lives inside the classroom. Others change the very conversation about what education should be. Dr. Angela Valenzuela has devoted her career to doing both.
As we celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, the Texas Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (TADOHE) proudly recognizes one of Texas's most influential voices in educational research, policy, and advocacy: Dr. Angela Valenzuela of @The University of Texas at Austin.
A professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy and Director of the Texas Center for Education Policy, Dr. Valenzuela has spent decades challenging educational inequities and advocating for students whose voices and experiences have too often been overlooked.
Her scholarship changed the conversation.
Her groundbreaking book, Subtractive Schooling: U.S.-Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring (1999), examined how educational institutions can undermine students' cultural identities, languages, and sense of belonging.
Drawing upon research conducted in Houston, Texas, her work challenged educators to rethink not only how they teach, but how they value the young people entrusted to their care.
The book received the American Educational Research Association's Outstanding Book Award in 2000 and remains an influential contribution to educational scholarship.
A LEGACY OF NATIONAL RECOGNITION
In 2026, Dr. Valenzuela received the prestigious Social Justice in Education Award from the @American Educational Research Association, recognizing her extraordinary contributions to educational research, equity, and social justice.
Her accomplishments extend well beyond academic publications. From her leadership with Academia Cuauhtli to her involvement in Black Brown Dialogues on Policy, Dr. Valenzuela has demonstrated that meaningful progress comes when research, community engagement, and collective action work together.
A VALUED PARTNER IN TADOHE'S MISSION
TADOHE has been honored to collaborate with Dr. Valenzuela and her colleagues through initiatives including our 2026 Summer Summit, From Mandates to Movements: Reclaiming Equity and Freedom in Higher Education.
Her dedication to building meaningful partnerships reflects a principle central to our mission: lasting educational progress requires collaboration, courageous leadership, and a commitment to creating opportunities for all.
MORE THAN A SCHOLAR. A LEGACY OF IMPACT.
The true measure of an educator's influence cannot be found in a résumé, a title, or even an award.
It lives in the students who discover their potential.
It lives in the educators who reconsider their approaches.
It lives in communities empowered to advocate for their children.
And it lives in the doors opened for generations still to come.
Dr. Angela Valenzuela reminds us that educational excellence and respect for cultural identity should never be competing ideals. They belong together.
On behalf of TADOHE, we celebrate her scholarship, leadership, and remarkable commitment to strengthening education in Texas and beyond.
Please join us in congratulating and celebrating Dr. Angela Valenzuela!
LIKE to celebrate her contributions to education.
COMMENT with your appreciation for Dr. Valenzuela or an educator who made a difference in your life.
SHARE her remarkable story so others can discover her work.
FOLLOW @TADOHE as we continue honoring extraordinary educators, scholars, and leaders transforming higher education!
Elevating Voices. Advancing Equity. Strengthening Higher Education in Texas.
#TADOHE #HispanicHeritageMonth #AngelaValenzuela #UTAustin #TexasLonghorns #EducationalEquity #HigherEducation #HispanicExcellence #EducationalLeadership #TexasEducationAgency

Free Public Screening of The Long Game: Texas Public Education documentary—October 20 at UT Austin, 6-8:30 PM

Free Public Screening of The Long Game: Texas Public Education (that centers the story of the takeover of the Houston Independent School District), October 20 at UT Austin

Please join us Tuesday, October 20, from 6:00 to 8:30 PM at the University of Texas at Austin for a free public screening of The Long Game: Texas Public Education, followed by a panel discussion on education policy in Texas. The event is free and open to everyone!

At a time when public education in Texas faces extraordinary political and institutional pressures, understanding the larger forces shaping our schools has never been more important.

The Long Game is a powerful and deeply moving documentary that examines the political, economic, and ideological forces working to reshape—and, in many respects, dismantle—public education in Texas. Through the voices of teachers, parents, students, principals, superintendents, and community members, the film reveals what is at stake in the struggle over the future of our public schools.

Importantly, the documentary situates today's education battles within a larger historical and political context, inviting us to consider the connections among racism, capitalism, privatization, and the ongoing struggle for equitable, democratically accountable public education.

As Dr. Amy Grillo, Associate Professor of Practice at Mount Holyoke College, observes:

"This film accomplishes in less than a couple of hours what I spend an entire semester trying to help my students understand about the interconnection between racism, capitalism, and the demise of public education as we know it."

Following the screening, I'll be joining a panel discussion exploring the documentary's implications for education policy in Texas and, importantly, what we can do as educators, parents, and community members to defend and strengthen our public schools. 

I've already seen the film, and I can tell you that it is absolutely riveting—both deeply troubling in what it reveals and enormously important in helping us understand the larger forces shaping the future of public education. It's a film that deserves to be seen, discussed, and shared widely.

Event Details

  • Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2026

  • Time: 6:00–8:30 PM

  • Location: SZB 1.510 (Al Kiva), UT Austin, College of Education

  • Admission: FREE and open to the public

  • Program: Documentary screening followed by a panel discussion on education policy in Texas

This event is presented through the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy at UT Austin.

I especially encourage educators, students, parents, researchers, community advocates, policymakers, and everyone concerned about the future of public education to attend.

Public education belongs to the public. Its future should concern all of us. We cannot defend what we do not understand, and documentaries like The Long Game help us recognize the larger structures and political interests influencing decisions about our children's schools and communities—together with their devastating impacts on teachers and children, generally.

Parking is available in the Brazos Garage. When you get out of the garage, the best way to get to the building is to walk on the MLK side, passing the Blanton, and making a right on the sidewalk that hugs the Sanchez Building. The entrance will take you exactly to the Al Kiva auditorium in the College of Education. Note: Don't be discouraged by all the construction going on in front of our building. The innovation will be gorgeous, with outdoor classroom spaces, once completed by sometime next Spring.

Please join us for an evening of learning, reflection, and important conversation. Bring a friend, colleague, or family member. All are welcome!

Learn more and watch the trailer: www.thelonggamedocumentary.com



Tuesday, October 13, 2026

When University Leaders Go Silent: Free Speech is not a Gag Order on University Leaders, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

When University Leaders Go Silent: Free Speech Is Not a Gag Order on University Leaders

by 

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

 October 13, 2026

We do get some insights from an earlier blog post (Valenzuela, 2026), Neutrality on Shaky Ground: Who Gets to Speak at UT?, in which I raised serious questions about the University of Texas at Austin's commitment to institutional neutrality, particularly when it comes to whose voices are welcomed, whose events receive institutional assistance, and whose expression is burdened by administrative obstacles.

That earlier discussion centered on the striking differences in how the university appeared to handle speaking engagements involving conservative commentator Ben Shapiro and left-wing political streamer Hasan Piker. I questioned the shifting explanations, changing sponsorship designations, and apparent inconsistencies in the application of university policies. My concern was never whether either speaker had a right to express his views. Both did. Rather, it was whether a public university could credibly claim institutional neutrality while seemingly applying different standards to different political viewpoints.

Now, the October 12 Austin American-Statesman report by Lily Kepner and Faith Bugenhagen, "Debate ended after UT guest speaker uses racist and homophobic slurs, creating backlash," raises an even more disturbing question: What happens when university leaders invoke free speech to explain their silence while students are left feeling unsafe, humiliated, and abandoned by the very institution entrusted with their education?

The incident involved far-right provocateur Myron Gaines, who appeared at an event organized by Uncensored America. According to the Statesman, Gaines repeatedly directed racist, sexist, and homophobic insults toward members of the audience, including UT students. The confrontation escalated to the point that university police shut down the event before its scheduled conclusion.

But what happened afterward is perhaps just as troubling.

UT spokesperson Mike Rosen defended the university's response by emphasizing its commitment to free speech and student safety. Yet when asked about the actual content of Gaines's remarks, he declined to comment.

Think about that.

A speaker comes to one of the nation's leading public universities and directs degrading racial and sexual insults at students. Black students publicly express fear and outrage. A mother contacts university leadership because she is frightened for her daughter's safety. And the administration cannot bring itself to unequivocally condemn the racism and bigotry that precipitated the controversy.

Where is the leadership? Where is the moral clarity? And what, precisely, does student safety mean to this administration?

Let us be absolutely clear: The First Amendment protects offensive, even hateful, speech in many circumstances. Public universities cannot prohibit speakers simply because administrators or students find their views reprehensible. These constitutional protections are essential to academic freedom and democratic life.

But protecting someone's legal right to speak does not require institutional silence in the face of racism, misogyny, or homophobia.

Free speech is not a gag order on university presidents.

University leaders have a First Amendment right to speak, too. More importantly, they have an ethical and educational responsibility to articulate the values of the institutions they lead. They can defend constitutional protections while simultaneously affirming that racism, bigotry, and the deliberate degradation of students are fundamentally incompatible with the university's educational mission.

The Statesman provides an especially revealing historical comparison.

In 2017, when white supremacist, Islamophobic, and anti-immigrant messages appeared on the UT campus, then-President Greg Fenves did not hide behind constitutional language or retreat into bureaucratic silence. He publicly condemned the messages and convened a town hall to address the campus climate.

Fenves understood something the current administration appears to have forgotten: The obligation to protect free expression does not absolve university leaders of the responsibility to exercise moral judgment.

What has changed?

Why was it possible for a university president in 2017 to condemn racist expression unequivocally, while in 2026 students are left pleading for similar leadership? These questions become even more urgent when placed alongside the concerns I raised in my October 7 blog.

There, I questioned whether institutional neutrality was becoming less a consistent governing principle than a mechanism through which university power determines whose speech receives assistance and whose encounters resistance. Who gets access to university facilities? Who bears extraordinary security costs? Who benefits from institutional sponsorship or intervention? And whose presence on campus is treated as controversial, burdensome, or threatening?

The latest controversy exposes another dimension of this problem.

University leaders appear prepared to exercise extensive authority over university curricula, academic departments, campus demonstrations, and the procedural arrangements surrounding public events. Yet when students ask those same leaders to condemn overt racism, the administration suddenly seems unwilling to exercise its authority to speak.

This is a deeply troubling contradiction.

We are witnessing the restructuring and elimination of academic programs that generations of students and faculty fought to establish. African and African Diaspora Studies and Mexican American and Latina/o Studies have been directly affected by institutional decisions that raise fundamental questions about whose histories, experiences, and intellectual traditions deserve a permanent home at the university.

Meanwhile, the Statesman reports that Black students are drawing connections between these institutional decisions and their experiences of racial hostility on campus.

They are right to ask whether these developments are related.

This is not to suggest that every administrative decision has the same purpose or that the university bears responsibility for every hateful statement made by an invited speaker. Rather, it is to recognize that students experience these developments cumulatively—and in an increasingly hostile and dismissive context. 

They are watching programs disappear, hearing public expressions of contempt directed toward members of their communities, and observing an administration that appears reluctant to defend them with any corresponding clarity.

What message does this send?

For UT senior Gorgeous Monroe, the university's response left her feeling that the institution was not standing with its own students. The Texas Black Students Alliance described the incident as something far more serious than an ordinary disagreement, saying it left Black students feeling less safe. The newly formed Texas Unapologetically Black organization likewise expressed alarm about the normalization of racist rhetoric.

And then there is Brandy Gaither, the mother of a Black UT student, who contacted university leaders because she feared for her daughter's safety.

These expressions of fear should alarm every member of the university community.

We should not dismiss them as oversensitivity, political disagreement, or the inevitable discomfort that accompanies free expression. They represent a breakdown of trust between students and the institution responsible for their education.

A university cannot credibly claim to prioritize student safety if it treats students' expressions of fear as secondary to managing institutional liability and public controversy.

Of course, safety cannot mean insulation from every offensive or disturbing idea. Universities must remain places where difficult arguments can be made, conventional beliefs challenged, and competing viewpoints vigorously debated.

But there is an enormous difference between encountering challenging ideas and being personally subjected to racial humiliation. And there is an equally important difference between acknowledging that hateful speech may be constitutionally protected and responding as though university leaders have nothing meaningful to say about it.

Safety is not merely the absence of physical violence. It also involves knowing that the university takes threats and harassment seriously, that students have access to appropriate institutional support, and that university leaders recognize their dignity as integral to the educational environment.

This is not a demand for censorship. It is a demand for leadership.

Indeed, what makes the current situation especially disturbing is that President Jim Davis has spoken publicly about the importance of civics education, civil debate, and positive values. According to the Statesman, he has acknowledged that individuals may have the right to say cruel things on a university campus while expressing hope that a revised core curriculum will cultivate more constructive civic engagement.

But how can a university credibly teach civility while its own leaders appear unwilling to model it?

What kind of civic education are students receiving when the institution's practices communicate that some perspectives enjoy access and support while others encounter obstacles, and that expressions of racial hatred may elicit little more than procedural explanations?

Students learn democracy not only through what appears in their textbooks but through how institutions exercise power, enforce rules, respond to injustice, and treat the people entrusted to their care.

This is precisely why the elimination of programs such as African and African Diaspora Studies and Mexican American and Latina/o Studies matters so profoundly. These fields emerged from generations of struggle against the exclusion of communities whose histories and experiences were systematically marginalized within the university itself.

They were never simply about adding diversity to an otherwise complete curriculum. They represented demands for intellectual recognition, institutional accountability, and equal educational opportunity.

Now, as students again organize to defend their dignity and belonging, we are reminded of how unfinished that struggle remains.

There is something particularly painful about watching young people arrive at a university full of intellectual promise only to discover that they must fight to be recognized as fully belonging to the institution they have chosen.

And there is something profoundly disappointing about an administration that appears more willing to manage the controversy surrounding racism than to confront its corrosive effects on campus life.

President Davis and the university's senior leadership owe students and the larger community more than carefully calibrated statements about constitutional obligations.

They owe them an unequivocal condemnation of the racist, sexist, and homophobic rhetoric documented at this event. They owe students a meaningful opportunity to be heard and a transparent explanation of how the university will address targeted harassment and threats within constitutional limits. They owe the public an accounting of how university policies governing speech, facilities, security, and institutional support are applied across viewpoints.

And they owe the entire university community a demonstration that academic freedom, constitutional rights, and equal educational opportunity are not competing commitments but mutually reinforcing responsibilities.

None of these obligations requires abandoning the First Amendment. On the contrary, they demand taking it seriously.

It is possible to defend the rights of people whose speech we despise while publicly challenging the racism and bigotry they express. It is possible to preserve viewpoint neutrality in the administration of university policies without pretending that all speech reflects the values of the institution. It is possible to protect intellectual freedom while making absolutely clear that students should never have to question whether their university regards their humanity as negotiable.

This should not be controversial.

The students speaking out deserve our gratitude, our attention, and our support. Their activism reflects precisely the kind of democratic courage that universities claim to cultivate. They are demanding accountability, institutional consistency, and the simple recognition that their safety and dignity matter. But students should not have to carry this burden alone.

When students feel unsafe, parents fear for their children's well-being, and racist abuse is met with institutional silence, the problem extends far beyond one offensive speaker or one campus event. It reveals a crisis of moral leadership.

And when the same university has demonstrated a willingness to exercise institutional power over so many other dimensions of academic life, the silence becomes all the more difficult to defend. UT Austin cannot claim the mantle of institutional neutrality while allowing that principle to become an excuse for selective enforcement, opaque decision-making, or moral disengagement.

Nor can it credibly prepare students for democratic citizenship if its own leaders fail to demonstrate the courage, consistency, and accountability that democracy requires. The First Amendment protects the freedom to speak. It does not relieve university presidents of the responsibility to lead.

And right now, the students of the University of Texas at Austin deserve far better.

Reference

Kepner, L., & Bugenhagen, F. (2026, October 12). Debate ended after UT guest speaker uses racist and homophobic slurs, creating backlash. Austin American-Statesman. https://www.statesman.com/news/education/article/ut-debate-myron-gaines-sexist-racist-slurs-22468982.php

Valenzuela, A. (2026, October 7). Neutrality on shaky ground: Who gets to speak at UT? Educational Equity, Politics & Policy in Texas. https://texasedequity.blogspot.com/2026/10/neutrality-on-shaky-ground-who-gets-to.html

UT students, parents and Black student groups are questioning the decision to allow a far-right speaker on campus amid concerns about racist speech at UT.

By ,Staff Writers

Members of the UT campus community begin their march from the UT Tower to the Texas State Capitol ahead of a Texas Senate Education Committee hearing on campus free speech and a DEI ban in 2024. Two years later, Black student organizations are speaking against a far-right speaker's recent racist remarks on campus and condemning the university for creating a climate where that speech is allowed.

Sara Diggins/American-Statesman