April 3, 2025 Update on the Crucial Work of Texas AAUP and Texas AFT in the Texas Legislature

Friends,

I can't say enough about the excellent leadership we have in Texas fighting the good fight for higher education, meaning the right to learn, teach, and conduct research. C'mon folks it's not hard to see why we need this freedom in Texas higher education.

It is shady, by the way, that the legislature didn't livestream their voucher hearing today in the Texas State Legislature as they always do. It's crazy that folks watched the hearing on Twitter instead of the full light of day. Glad that the Twitter work-around allowed it to get covered regardless.

In any case, take a few minutes to listen to this April 3rd update on various bills under consideration at the Texas State Capitol. Thanks to Patty Quinzi, Amanda Garcia, and Brian Evans for all their incredible advocacy this session. AAUP and Texas AFT together constitute a formidable partnership. If your any one you know needs academic freedom and protection, please join AAUP here: https://connect.aft.org/app/memberforms/8041A/JoinTheFight

Happy to share.

-Angela Valenzuela

Danza Mexica Ceremony on April 8, 2025 at 12 Noon in the Outdoor Rotunda, Texas State Capitol

***PLEASE SHARE WIDELY***

Friends,

Next Tuesday, April 8th at noon, please join Texas State Rep. Christina Morales (Houston, Dist. 145) in celebrating her birthday—which is actually on Thursday, but Tuesday is what's going to work out. The ceremony will be conducted by Abuela Rosa Tupina and Kalpulli Teokalli Teoyollotl.

A great showing by members from her district in Houston would be really nice.

Boy, do we need prayer and ceremony at the Texas Capitol. Let's also get Rep. Morales' Social Studies bill, House Bill 178, heard. It desperately needs a hearing. I know that's what I'm praying for right now.

All are welcome.

-Angela Valenzuela

Let's Not Weaken Higher Education Standards: HB 1705 and Companion Bill SB 530 Could Turn Texas Higher Ed into "Diploma Mills"

Friends:

Time sensitive. HB 1705 is getting heard shortly. There are STRONG reasons why we should not weaken education standards as HB 1705 seeks to accomplish. It's companion bill in the senate is SB 530. We don't want to become a "diploma mill," my friends. Nor do we want to deprive students of a quality, legally recognized education. Here is how you can help by either attending and participating in today's hearing or submit online testimony at the link provided below.

Bill Hearings

HB 1705 on Tuesday, April 1, 2025, 8am-until, Texas House Committee on Higher Ed. Agenda. Oral testimony. Submit online testimony.

SB 530 on Thursday, April 3, 2025, 9am-until, Texas Senate Committee on Education K-16. Agenda. Same as HB 1705. Oral testimony only.

If there is an issue with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), no problem. Let's address this head-on with SACS. Dismantling it and subjecting accreditation to "whoever" is reckless. Minimally, go to this link and tell whoever represents you in the Texas House that this would be a very harmful policy should it become law. 

-Angela Valenzuela


HB 1705 Weakens Education Standards at Colleges and Universities

March 31, 2025|  Texas AAUP Blog




Last Revised: April 1, 2025

Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)

Contact: aaup.texas@gmail.com and agarcia@texasaft.org

Social: X @TexasAaup and Bluesky @texasaaup.bsky.social

Join: Join Texas AAUP with several reasons for joining

Texas Faculty Association (TFA)

Contact: tfa.president@texasfacultyassociation.org

Join: Enrollment form and several reasons for joining

Concerns About HB 1705

HB 1705 seeks to remove the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) as the sole statutorily-mandated accrediting agency for Texas public colleges, universities, and health institutions, excluding law schools and medical schools.[1]

About SACS

SACS is one of seven regional accrediting agencies recognized by the federal government. It is an institutional accreditor for quality assurance in higher education. SACS is the common denominator of shared values and practices among its members in the U.S. and internationally, approved by the SACS Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) Executive Council, Board of Trustees, and Appeals Committee of the College Delegate Assembly.[2]

About Institutional Accreditation

The United States has no Federal Ministry of Education or other centralized authority exercising national control over postsecondary educational institutions. To ensure a basic level of quality, the practice of accreditation arose in the U.S. as a means of conducting non-governmental, peer evaluations of educational institutions and programs.

Institutional accreditation applies to an entire institution, indicating that each part of the institution is contributing to the achievement of its objectives. The various commissions of the regional accrediting associations (like SACS) perform institutional accreditation.[3]

In Texas, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) has the authority to recognize accrediting agencies. The list includes general accrediting and specialized accrediting entities. Under current law, institutions in Texas may choose from the list so long as the accrediting entity is appropriate to the mission and content of the institution’s activities. Current law specifically names SACS as an accrediting entity and allows the THECB to designate additional accrediting entities.[4]

Why SACS Needs to Remain Statutorily Included as an Accreditor

If a public college, university, or health institution is not accredited by an agency federally recognized like SACS, its students will no longer be eligible for federal student financial aid, its degrees will not be recognized at other institutions or corporations, and it will be ineligible for federal research grants and certain private grants.

The Texas Equalization Grant provides up to $5,810/year in income-based financial aid per qualifying student who is attending private and independent Texas colleges, universities, and health institutions.[5] Eligible institutions either qualify under Texas Government Code Section 61.003 or “are located within this state and meet the same program standards and accreditation as public institutions of higher education as determined by the board”.[6]

Removing SACS as the sole accreditor for public institutions of higher education could expand the number of private and independent colleges, universities, and health institutions eligible for a Texas Equalization Grant, resulting in either a significant budget increase for the Texas Equalization Grant program or significant loss of funding for the Texas Equalization Grants at the institutions current eligible for it. In Fall 2023, 131,674 students were enrolled in private and independent colleges, universities, and health institutions.[7]

Some employers, institutions, and licensing boards only recognize degrees earned from institutions accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the federal government. In some states, it can be illegal to use a degree from an institution that is not accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency, unless approved by the state licensing agency.

SACS assesses the quality of different components of the institution as well as the overall quality of the institution. For example, SACS ensures that instructors have appropriate expertise in the courses they teach, as evidenced by their degrees earned and other relevant experience. SACS also ensures that the institution implements policies and procedures to guarantee that instructors have the freedom to teach, so students have the freedom to learn.[8] Further, SACS requires that “the institution (a) publishes and implements policies on the authority of faculty in academic and governance matters, (b) demonstrates that educational programs for which academic credit is awarded are approved consistent with institutional policy, and (c) places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of the curriculum with its faculty.”[9]

Verified accrediting bodies like SACS protect students from “diploma mills.” The federal government's Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has been involved with keeping diploma mill degrees from the federal workplace. "OPM has provided ongoing guidance to federal departments and agencies... making it clear that so-called 'degrees' from diploma mills will not be accepted for purposes of qualifying for federal positions, for student loan repayment, and for purposes of paying for employees to obtain college degrees." [10]

Removing SACS as the sole accrediting body can strip current and future students from having access to a quality and legally recognized education. We urge you to vote against HB 1705.

References

[1] https://reportcenter.highered.texas.gov/agency-publication/miscellaneous/texas-higher-education-coordinating-board-recognized-accreditors/

[2] https://sacscoc.org/

[3] https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/higher-education-laws-and-policy/college-accreditation

[4] Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Recognized Accreditors | Report Center

[5] https://comptroller.texas.gov/programs/education/msp/funding/aid/state-programs/txteg.php

[6] https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.61.htm#61.222

[7] https://reportcenter.highered.texas.gov/reports/data/texas-higher-education-enrollments-2024/

[8] 2024 SACSCOC Resource Manual for Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, Sec. 6.4, Page 54.

[9] 2024 SACSCOC Resource Manual for Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, Sec. 10.4, Page 96.

[10] https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/higher-education-laws-and-policy/college-accreditation/diploma-mills-and-accreditation

Why A ‘Lay Low’ DEI Strategy Is Especially Bad Right Now, by Dr. Shaun Harper

Friends:

In total agreement with Dr. Shaun Harper. It's very clear to me that our leaders within our institutions and corporations need to speak up. This is a time for leadership, not silence or complacency. Failing to take a stand only enables those who seek to undermine truth, equity, and justice.

Angela Valenzuela

Why A ‘Lay Low’ DEI Strategy Is Especially Bad Right Now

ByShaun Harper 

Jan 15, 2024, 07:28pm EST | Forbes

r. I am a diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) expert



Some business leaders are renaming and hiding their DEI initiatives. getty

Politicized attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion have frightened many educational, military, and corporate leaders. Executives don’t want their organizations to be targets of unnecessarily polarizing, headline-grabbing schemes to mislead the public about DEI. Some are therefore running scared, renaming, and not calling attention to their DEI initiatives. This strategy isn’t what our democracy needs right now.

Why are leaders suddenly so interested in deemphasizing certain programs, policies, and accountability systems? Over the past three years, 44 states have introduced legislative bans on the teaching of topics related to DEI in K-12 schools, according to data published in Education Week. Those efforts have succeeded in 18 states thus far. Local school boards across the 32 remaining states have enacted assorted DEI suppression policies. Also, a Chronicle of Higher Education legislative tracker shows that DEI initiatives have been defunded at colleges and universities in Florida, Texas, Tennessee, and other states.

Last summer, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives demanded that all DEI activities be stripped from the annual military budget, which delayed passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for months. Other DEI opponents are intentionally and recklessly mischaracterizing all DEI programs and policies as too-woke, divisive indoctrination. For example, in a recent tweet, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk dubbed DEI initiatives racist and sexist. Musk didn’t specify which ones, thus his assertion presumably applies to all of them.

Across industries, businesses have significantly rolled back their internal DEI efforts. Some, but definitely not all of this is attributable to the negative press that DEI has received since 2021. Too many leaders have been duped by extraordinarily effective misinformation and disinformation campaigns; they actually believe what obstructionists baselessly allege. And then there are those who were never truly committed to DEI — any convenient excuse to abandon and disinvest is fine with them.

Fortunately, lots of leaders know better. They understand how people and our nation benefits from organizations that are diverse, equitable, and inclusive. They know the price of DEI initiatives is only a tiny fraction of what discrimination and harassment lawsuits cost. There are some white male CEOs, specifically, who recognize the importance of having leadership teams that reflect the diversity of their customers and the demographics of America. Notwithstanding such appreciation for DEI, many leaders are spooked right now.

“Let’s just do the work without calling unnecessary attention to ourselves,” is one popular response. Renaming programs and positions to make them not so obviously tied to DEI is another protective sustainability tactic. This is the wrong strategy for numerous reasons.

First, when organizations don’t show their work, people presume that DEI initiatives therein are versions of the extremism they hear about on conservative broadcasts and read on social media. Leaders who know that children aren’t being taught pornographic content in K-12 classrooms, that white workers aren’t being told in every campus or corporate DEI training that all of them are racist, that only people of color are being hired and promoted, and that other ridiculous DEI myths aren’t universally (or even mostly) true have a professional responsibility to counter such harmful misinformation and disinformation with facts about what actually is occurring.

In the absence of public information about high-quality, reasonable, and totally appropriate DEI efforts, significantly more Americans will be poisoned by lies that are being aggressively spread through well-coordinated, well-funded campaigns. What sense does it make to know something is a lie and to have examples of what’s actually true, yet deliberately hide those truths for fear of what liars might do? This is a paradoxical, peculiar brand of dishonesty that gives too much power to liars.

A ‘lay low’ DEI strategy also strongly conveys to women, people of color, queer people, persons with disabilities, people from non-dominant religious groups, and others who make organizations diverse that they aren’t worth fighting for and protecting. Hiding DEI efforts also conveys the same disappointing message to diverse customers, clients, partners, investors, and community members. It also weakens trust among the very people that DEI initiatives are intended to protect and serve.

Furthermore, keeping quiet about DEI is bad role modeling for current and future leaders. Today’s employees and managers who witness executives mute an essential part of the business are being taught that it’s fine to mistreat it as a disposable imperative when they become senior leaders someday. Spinelessness runs the risk of becoming a cultural leadership behavior in those settings. Loudly declaring that DEI was among the organization’s highest priorities immediately after George Floyd’s murder (one of many performative actions executives took in June 2020), then subduing it now signals to current and aspiring leaders that it’s okay to contradict themselves.

Lastly, institutions and industries need inspiring examples of DEI effectiveness. Laying low denies colleagues elsewhere access to adaptable, replicable, and scalable models of success. The “as long as we do the work” and “it doesn’t matter what we call it” logics undermine internal and external opportunities for organizational learning. If diversity, equity, and inclusion are indeed the ultimate aims, then they should be called by their name — not by cryptic, imprecise, politically palatable synonyms. Good DEI efforts that eliminate individual harm, improve teams, reduce risks, and strengthen organizations in numerous other ways must be proudly showcased and defended.

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website.

‘Evil and Cruel Intent’: Trump Demands Smithsonian Toe the Line and Do Its Part to Whitewash America’s Past—or Lose Funding As Outrage Mounts Over Attempt to ‘Erase History’

Friends:

I want to remind you that whitewashing the Smithsonian and other institutions is blatant censorship. And then calling it "divisive" is a deliberate attempt to silence historically marginalized voices and erase uncomfortable truths rather than engage in honest discourse about the past.

First, the reason these museums and exhibits exist to begin with, at least in part—if not in great part—is that our standard curriculum is already whitewashed. That's what my book, published 25 years ago, Subtractive Schooling (1999), critiqued as part of a larger systemic process of culturally and linguistically subtractive educational assimilation that is the norm, hardly the exception, in U.S. public education. 

Cultural and linguistic erasure is another way to express this.

Second, this illuminates how textbook bans and why deliberations over Texas state standards are so high stakes. They're about the reproduction of a critical consciousness in youth and practitioners. After all, greater inclusion in state curriculum is what we, as civil rights groups alongside various other coalitions and organizations, have advocated for, a number of us for decades. Right now, for example, is Christina Morales' social studies bill, House Bill 178, really needs a hearing.

Third, this attack exists because extremists don't want us, as Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities, to have power. They don't want us to have a curriculum that will tell our children and youth that there are people and institutions in world history who, in their drunkenness with power, commit horrible acts like censoring knowledge and erasing the histories of marginalized communities. 

They fear an education that empowers our children to think critically, to question injustice, and to recognize the patterns of oppression that have shaped the world. By controlling the narrative, they seek to maintain the status quo—one where ignorance prevails, and the voices of Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities are silenced. 

Fourth, we refuse to be erased. Our own history already tells us that we will continue to teach, to learn, and to fight for a future where truth is not a privilege but a right. To draw on Dr. Dolores Delgado-Bernal, we will always have those "pedagogies of the home" that correct sins of omission and commission in state curriculum with the actual truths of history. 

I know my Mom and Dad taught us about their own experiences under McCarthyism with lessons that called out white supremacy while watching the evening news, having conversations at church or around the dinner table that served as correctives to history and social studies textbooks intended to tell us our story with incomplete or biased accounts. My mom always said she knew better than the textbooks because "I lived it," she would say. She could not be gaslighted.

I'm also always reminiscent of the late Gloria Anzaldúa who in her pathbreaking book, Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, stated correctly that there isn't a Tejana or Tejano alive who doesn't know that the lands were taken from them. She nailed it with that statement. It's in our genetic memory.

Here is another similar article to the one posted below that is about this censoriousness that I'm calling out. Trump Moves to Rewrite Black History at Smithsonian, Targets African American Museum and DEI in New Order

May cool heads prevail. This has happened before in U.S. history. Elections are a real solution to all this nonsense, by the way. Midterms are scheduled for November 2026 and involve every single seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and one-third or so of the Senate. We must get the vote out.

-Angela Valenzuela

‘Evil and Cruel Intent’: Trump Demands Smithsonian Toe the Line and Do Its Part to Whitewash America’s Past—or Lose Funding As Outrage Mounts Over Attempt to ‘Erase History’

By Christian Boone | Atlanta Black Star | March 28, 2025

Comments

President Donald Trump has claimed to have “saved free speech” and he’s issued an executive order empowering Vice President JD Vance to “eliminate improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology” from the 21 museums and learning centers operated by the Smithsonian Institution, including the National Zoo.

Vance, who currently serves on the Smithsonian Institution’s Board of Regent, will coordinate with the White House budget office to ensure future funding isn’t spent on programs that “degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with federal law and policy.”

Republican presidential nominee, former President Donald Trump holds a campaign rally at the PPG Paints Arena on November 04, 2024 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. With one day left before the general election, Trump is campaigning for re-election in the battleground states of North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Michigan. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The order could have a chilling effect on programs or exhibits that chronicle shameful chapters in American history, such as slavery or Jim Crow laws.

Trump addressed what he called a “concerted and widespread” effort over the past decade to rewrite American history by replacing “objective facts” with a “distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth,” adding that it casts the “founding principles” of the United States in a “negative light.”

During his re-election campaign, Trump threatened to withhold funding from schools that taught slavery was central to American history. The president’s pledge closely aligns with the stated goals of Project 2025, the right-wing policy document that Trump disavowed on the campaign trail but has widely implemented since reassuming power.

In his latest order, the president has specially targeted the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which opened in 2016 as President Barack Obama was concluding his second term.

Trump says the museum promotes “divisive narratives,” alleging the museum “has proclaimed that ‘hard work,’ ‘individualism,’ and ‘the nuclear family” are aspects of ‘White culture.'”

Trump has also put the spotlight on the Women’s History Museum, which he claimed planned to recognize “men as women.”

Trump had made no secret of his attempt to reshape the country’s culture, which he says has been corrupted by “wokeness.” He’s signed a slew of executive orders aimed at eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion measures within the federal government, which has elicited a number of legal challenges.

The president has already fired the board of the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., and installed himself as chairman. The move led to widespread criticism from actors and directors, causing several to cancel upcoming performances. Since then, Trump-friendly acts, like the J6 chorus and Lee Greenwood, have been booked in their place.

The president’s acolytes have also pushed to implement similarly themed, MAGA-friendly materials into public schools. In Oklahoma, teachers are encouraged to use content created by PragerU, founded by conservative radio host Dennis Prager and funded by right-wing donors. PragerU has more than 3 million subscribers on YouTube and calls itself “a free alternative to the dominant left-wing ideology in culture, media, and education.”

America’s troubled racial history is de-emphasized, if not whitewashed, in the PragerU curriculum.

According to Yahoo! News, a PragerU video features an animated Frederick Douglass calling slavery “a compromise” while criticizing abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison for being too strident. Another PragerU video, about the end of the Civil War, has Ulysses S. Grant complimenting Confederate general Robert E. Lee, calling him “a good man” who just happened to be caught on the opposite side.

In the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order, Trump has called for the interior secretary to restore federal properties, including parks, memorials and statues, which “have been improperly removed or changed in the last five years to perpetuate a false revision of history.” In most cases, the names or statues removed were of Confederate generals.

Recasting troubled times in a more positive light is at the heart of Trump’s agenda, which he said aims to promote “American greatness.” Vance will join the Smithsonian Board of Regents and to spearhead the purge. The Smithsonian museums offer free entry to up to 30 million visitors each year.

The blowback to Trump’s plan has been swift and hostile.

One volunteer at the NMAAHC noted that the museum helps people trace their genealogy back to slavery.

“The rest of the museum talks about the slave trade, slavery & Civil Rights,” he wrote on X. “Let that f****** piece of s*** try to change that.”

Another former volunteer wrote, “Sometimes history is hard and painful, but needs to be seen and heard so it’s not repeated and that is not anti-American as he claims.”

One critic described the order as “a direct attack,” while another pointed out that Trump’s order is “an attempt to erase history.” Another added, “Evil and cruel intent, always smh.”

“First Trump removes any reference of diversity from the present — now he’s trying to remove it from our history,” Texas congresswoman Jasmine Crockett wrote on X. “Let me be PERFECTLY clear— you cannot erase our past and you cannot stop us from fulfilling our future.”

POWERFUL TEXT FOR THESE TIMES: The Broken Spears (La Visión de lo Vencidos) by Miguel Leon Portilla

Friends,

I encourage everyone to read the truly magisterial text published in 1959 by the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico by Dr. Miguel León-Portilla. Originally compiled from texts written in Nahuatl and translated into Spanish before being rendered into English by Lysander Kemp, this work provides invaluable insight into the Indigenous perspective on the Spanish conquest. The illustrations in the text, adapted from original paintings found in authentic codices, were created by Alberto Beltrán.

A crucial clarification: Dr. Miguel León-Portilla (February 22, 1926 – October 1, 2019) did not write The Broken Spears himself, aside from his introduction. Instead, this text is a meticulously compiled historical record that preserves firsthand Indigenous accounts written in the aftermath of the Spanish invasion of Tenochtitlán, now Mexico City. It's chock full of lessons for today—like right now with the dismantling of our own government institutions and processes.

The Broken Spears draws on evidence from codices and other writings, including formal pleas to King Philip of Spain, imploring his mercy in light of the devastation and trauma suffered by the Aztecs, or Mexica [pronounced me-chí-ca], following the Spanish-led invasion and the ultimate fall of Tenochtitlán in 1521. These accounts acknowledge the complexity of Indigenous responses to the Spanish presence—some groups aligned with Hernán Cortés, believing they were securing their own futures, only to have their trust cruelly betrayed by the invaders.

I sympathize with those who sought peace, for among the Mexica were true peacemakers who hoped for a harmonious coexistence. Yet their choices had lasting, unintended consequences, as is evident from the sorrowful and tragic letters to King Philip. The Indigenous peoples were divided, and some found elements of Christian teachings resonant with their own worship of the Sun God, making conversion to Christianity less alien than commonly assumed.

This text offers an unflinching and vivid portrayal of the fall of Tenochtitlán, immersing readers in the catastrophe as if it had happened yesterday. The narrative is gripping, haunting, and profoundly moving. Even after reading Dr. León-Portilla’s introduction—which is fascinating in its own right—one cannot help but be drawn deeply into the Indigenous testimonies. I highly recommend the audiobook version, which powerfully conveys the intensity of the events described.

Without a doubt, despite his extensive scholarship, The Broken Spears stands as Dr. León-Portilla’s most significant and enduring contribution. He was one of Mexico’s greatest anthropological minds, and La Visión de los Vencidos (the Spanish title of The Broken Spears) remains a groundbreaking work in the study of Indigenous perspectives on the conquest. It gives voice to the Nahuatl people, who perhaps foresaw that future generations would read their words and bear witness to their suffering and resilience. How prescient and thoughtful our ancestors were.

What I additionally find fascinating is it captures a moment in world history before the concept of race or racism existed, but rather ethnicity, including among the "Tenoch" peoples themselves and beyond. 

I look forward to a reading group we have formed that is dedicated to discussing this essential text, and I encourage all of you to read it as well. For ease of reference, I have included a video of Dr. León-Portilla speaking about The Broken Spears, as well as a Wikipedia entry on Miguel León-Portilla. 

Angela Valenzuela

Wikipedia, Miguel León-Portilla 

Miguel León-Portilla (22 February 1926 – 1 October 2019)[1] was a Mexican anthropologist and historian, specializing in Aztec culture and literature of the pre-Columbian and colonial eras. Many of his works were translated to English and he was a well-recognized scholar internationally. In 2013, the Library of Congress of the United States bestowed on him the Living Legend Award.[2]

Early life and education[edit]

Born in Mexico City, Miguel León-Portilla had an interest in indigenous Mexico from an early age, fostered by his uncle Manuel Gamio, a distinguished archeologist. Gamio had a lasting influence on his life and career, initially taking him as a boy on trips to important archeological sites in Mexico and later as well.[3] León-Portilla attended the Instituto de Ciencias in Guadalajara and then earned a B.A. (1948) and M.A. summa cum laude (1951) at the Jesuit Loyola University in Los Angeles. Returning to Mexico in 1952, he showed Gamio a play he had written on Quetzalcoatl, which resulted in Gamio introducing his nephew to Ángel Garibay K., whose publications in the 1930s and 1940s first brought Nahuatl literature to widespread public attention in Mexico. Needing to make a living, León-Portilla began attending law school and worked at a financial firm. At the same time he taught at Mexico City College, an English-language school in the Condesa neighborhood. Other instructors included important scholars of Mexican indigenous history and culture, Wigberto Jiménez Moreno, Fernando Horcasitas, and Eduardo Noguera. Gamio persuaded León-Portilla to drop his law studies and job in business to work at the Inter-American Indian Institute [es; pt], a specialized organization of the Organization of American States,[4] which Gamio directed.[5] León-Portilla began graduate studies at the UNAM, completing his doctoral dissertation, La Filosofía Náhuatl estudiada en sus fuentes, in 1956, which launched his scholarly career.[6]

Career[edit]

His dissertation on Nahua philosophy was published in Mexico, and then translated to English as Aztec Thought and Culture: A Study of the Ancient Nahuatl Mind (1967) and then many other languages.[7] It was the first of his many works to be translated to English. His translations of Nahuatl and Spanish texts on the conquest of Mexico, first published in Mexico as Visión de los vencidos, translated to English as The Broken Spears, is the way many undergraduate students in the United States are introduced to accounts from indigenous participants and not Spanish conquistadors.[8]

León-Portilla spearheaded a movement to understand and re-evaluate Nahuatl literature and religion, not only from the pre-Columbian era, but also that of the present day, especially since Nahuatl is still spoken by 1.5 million people.[2] His works in English on literature included Pre-Columbian Literatures of Mexico (1986),[9] Fifteen Poets of the Aztec World (2000),[10] and with Earl Shorris, In the Language of Kings: An Anthology of Mesoamerican Literature, Pre-Columbian to the Present (2002).[11] He also compared the literature of the Nahuas with that of the Inca.[12] Another area of research was on indigenous religion and spirituality, with works including Native Meso-American Spirituality (1980),[13] and South and Meso-American Native Spirituality: From the Cult of the Feathered Serpent to the Theology of Liberation (1997).[14] He also published a work on the Maya, Time and Reality in the Thought of the Maya (1990).[15]

León-Portilla was instrumental in bringing to light the works of Franciscan Fr. Bernardino de Sahagún, a 16th-century primary source on the Aztec civilization, whose twelve-volume General History of the Things of New Spain, often referred to as the Florentine Codex, are crucial for understanding Nahua religion, society, and culture, as well as for providing an account of the conquest of Mexico from the Mexica viewpoint. León-Portilla was the first to denote Sahagún as the "Father of Anthropology in the New World".[16]

He contributed to the understanding of the development of the field of Mesoamerican history in Mexico. With Garibay, León-Portilla made contributions to the study of nineteenth-century Mesoamerican historian Manuel Orozco y Berra.[17][18] León-Portilla also published two volumes on the work of Mesoamerican humanists, including his mentor Garibay.[19]

In the field of colonial Nahuatl studies, particularly the New Philology, León-Portilla's work on a collection of late sixteenth-century wills in Nahuatl, The Testaments of Culhuacan, contributed to the understanding of local-level interactions within a Nahua town.[20][21]

A subordinate but important interest of León-Portilla was the early history and ethnography of the Baja California Peninsula. He addressed this region in more than 30 books and articles, including a 1995 volume collecting several of his earlier publications.[22]

Early in his academic career in 1969, he was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship.[23] That was the first of many academic awards and recognitions, including the Belisario Domínguez Medal of Honor, the highest award bestowed by the Mexican Senate. In 1970, he was elected to membership of Mexico's National College[24] and, in 1995, to membership of the United States National Academy of Sciences.[25] From 1987 to 1992, he served as his country's permanent delegate to UNESCO, during which time he successfully nominated five pre-Columbian sites in Mexico for inclusion on the World Heritage List.[26] On 12 December 2013, León-Portilla received the Living Legend Award from the U.S. Library of Congress.[2] He was also a member of the Mexican Academy of Language and the Mexican Academy of History.[27]

Personal life[edit]

León-Portilla married Ascensión Hernández Triviño, a Spanish linguist and academic, in 1965. Their daughter, Marisa León-Portilla, is also a historian.[28]

León-Portilla died in Mexico City on 1 October 2019 after having been hospitalized for much of the year.[29] The federal Secretariat of Culture announced that his body would lie in state on 3 October 2019 at the Palacio de Bellas Artes.[29]

Notable works[edit]

Texas senators propose faculty senate limits, curricula reviews. Professors want answers by Lily Kepner of the Austin American-Statesman

UT Mexican American and Latino Studies professor and UT AAUP member, Dr. Karma Chavez, said SB 37's curricular provision banning ideology would negatively impact the School of Civic Leadership, established by conservatives last session to promote liberty.

The UT SCL should totally be protesting Senate Bill 37 as they accord emphasis to the importance of open discourse that they absolutely cannot have without academic freedom. Conservatives, where is the outrage?

In any case, savor this quote by Dr. Karma Chavez, best quote of the session, I would say!

"In its about statement, it endorses several ideologies, including Western civilization, the American constitutional tradition, the Western tradition and the notion of a free society. These are all ideological and what the school that you all created endorses," Chavez said. "If what you truly value is a free society, you can't have it both ways."

This quote makes me smile not in a "gotcha' kind of way, but in a "what an astute observation" kind of way. Dr. Karma Chavez captures the contradiction and circularity of legislative animus against liberal ideologies without recognizing the harm they are poised to incur to the very ideologies they favor. No they cannot have it both ways.

This is not a snappy comeback but rather invites reflection of the kind that lingers and shapes discussions and, we trust, the nonsense that SB 37 represents. 

A big thanks to award-winning Lily Kepner, as well, for being on the education beat at the Austin American Statesman since 2023. We are so fortunate to have you with us in Texas. Thank you for being there. Your journalism is outstanding. Follow her on Twitter at @lilykepner

May all have a blessed day today!

-Angela Valenzuela

Texas senators propose faculty senate limits, curricula reviews. Professors want answers.
Lily Kepner | March 24, 2025 | Austin American Statesman



American Federation of Teachers director of political organizing for Texas Anthony Elmo speaks as educators gather to rally in support of the "Educator’s Bill of Rights" at the outdoor rotunda in the Texas Capitol Monday, March 17, 2025. Teachers met with lawmakers as a part of Texas American Federation of Teachers advocacy day, asking for reforms such as a defined work day, reliable pensions and an increase in state funding to public schools. Mikala Compton/American-Statesman

After much discussion and impassioned testimony from professors and education advocates, several proposals aimed at restricting faculty senates and regulating shared governance at public universities were left pending at the Texas Senate K-16 Education Committee's first hearing focused on higher education.

The most controversial of the proposals on the docket was Senate Bill 37 ― a Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick priority bill filed by Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, who chairs the committee. The bill aims to increase oversight of faculty senates, instruct university presidents to appoint half the members, and solidify the panels' advisory roles.

It would also establish an Office of Excellence in Higher Education to investigate "matters of academic discourse" and report them to the governor, attorney general and lawmakers, Creighton said. Opponents of SB 37 argued that the new office would create a climate of fear, not accountability, and further suppress speech.

The bill was heard along with SB 452, by Sen. Mayes Middleton, R-Galveston, which would allow Texas university systems' regents to approve or reject the hiring of each department head within the institutions they govern, and SB 1489, authored by Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, which states faculty councils can't have the final say on any decisions, can't conduct investigations or approve personnel decisions, must live stream their meetings, post all votes and have their proceedings open to the public.

Creighton's SB 37 would also go a step further and instruct boards of regents to establish a general education review committee at each institution to annually examine core curricula. The committee of tenured faculty members and industry partners would ensure the curricula prepares students for "civic and professional life," and does not "endorse specific public policies, ideologies, or legislation," according to the bill.

Professors and education advocates, who waited six hours for public testimony to begin, said the curricula review provision opens the door for ideological censorship and restricts courses. More generally, they said regulation of faculty senates is unnecessary, would add bureaucracy at the expense of efficiency and create a climate of fear.

In an interview with the American-Statesman after the hearing, Creighton said SB 37 seeks to codify and add accountability to faculty senates. He said the Senate K-16 Education Committee plans to consider amendments to SB 37 borne from public testimony, including adjusting a requirement in the proposal that faculty council members must be tenured. A person during public testimony pointed out that many community colleges are non-tenure institutions.

"There's a reason why three leaders in the Senate brought forward different governing related bills," Creighton said in an interview. "How I reflect on it is that we need to codify certain provisions that let our boards or regents understand what obligations and responsibilities they have as political appointees, some of them have different perspectives on what their roles are, and that's very important, because they're the top spot."

Why are Texas lawmakers examining faculty senates?

Faculty senates are governing bodies of elected faculty members who represent professors and make recommendations on matters from curricula to policy changes, but do not have final say on decisions.

Lawmakers this session are seeking to regulate faculty senates over Republican sentiment that education has become too liberal.

Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) pushed back against the proposals, asking the authors why they were necessary. He argued that the proposals would push higher education institutions to the political right and questioned whether it was realistic to expect so much more from regents, who are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate.

"Why are we putting, I guess you could say, handcuffs on what (faculty senates) are able to do?" West asked.

Creighton insisted SB 37 is meant to codify the faculty councils' advisory roles and explicitly state university regents' authority over all matters. The bill also adds "guardrails" to the panels through term limits, member appointments and requiring their meetings to be open to hold them more "accountable," he said.

"We're even having concern among university professors about the conduct and actions that are taken by (faculty) representatives that sometimes create an environment where some professors don't feel welcome to weigh in," Creighton said in an interview. "As a committee working on governance for universities, our oversight and responsibility, it's not odd. If anything, I think we're behind."

Sherry Sylvester, senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Austin, said during her invited testimony that she supports SB 37 to build on the success of the state's 2023 SB 17 law, which gutted universities of diversity equity and inclusion offices, support and hiring practices.

In her support for limiting faculty senates, Sylvester accused Texas A&M faculty of "circumventing the A&M board of regents" in 2023 in the botched hiring of university professor Kathleen McElroy to direct a new journalism department at the flagship institution. The university then tried to backtrack the offer when conservative groups and some regents criticized her past diversity-focused research, according to an internal review. Texas A&M paid her a $1 million settlement. McElroy, a Black woman, is a tenured University of Texas professor and former journalist at several outlets, including the Statesman and New York Times.

"Over the last couple years, it's been clear that there are a number of misperceptions about the role of boards of regents on our campuses," Sylvester said.

Sylvester also cited statistics from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression that suggests 47% of conservative professors self-censor for fear of reaction, compared to 19% of liberal faculty members. The report also found that about 20% of professors say conservatives would "fit well" in their department.

Angie Hill Price, current speaker of the Texas A&M faculty senate, testified against the Senate bills and denied that faculty senate's limit any perspectives. The Texas A&M panel has representation of all viewpoints, she said in response to questioning.

"I would not want to constrain anybody on being able to express their opinion," Hill Price said.

Ray Bonilla, general counsel at Texas A&M University, who Bettencourt invited to testify under SB 1489, said the faculty's role in curricula is essential, but agreed with Bettencourt's codification of their advisory role.

"We want their authority, we need their authority,” Bonilla said. "We need their input on establishing the right curricula, the right majors, the right programs, research programs. ... But in terms of the decision-making authority (it's) very clear for us. The top of the pyramid is our board of regents."
University faculty, lawmaker question curricula review

The Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors, which collected 50 testimonies against the bill in two days, found that one of the most concerning aspects of SB 37 was the provision seeking to regulate curricula.

Manos Papadakis, a professor of mathematics at the University of Houston who testified as an individual and identified himself as a longtime Christian conservative who voted for Bettencourt, was against the curricula review provision.

"We don't really need that because we have many layers of examining core curricula and we do that in department levels, college levels, university levels, and finally the provost,” he said. “What is the purpose of the committee outside all these loops? Is it to control political discourse?”

SB 37 does not specifically mention DEI coursework, but it comes after the Senate Higher Education subcommittee last fall reviewed an interim charge from Patrick to remove diversity, equity and inclusion from workforce curricula. Attempts in states such as Florida to legislate diversity in curricula have been roiled in legal battles, but the Florida Board of Governors voted in January to remove hundreds of classes about race and gender in its general education curricula at its 12 state universities.

Papadakis insisted lawmakers need to understand the difference between education and workforce training, as they increasingly seek to prioritize "credentials of value" that benefit the state's workforce over liberal arts education.

"This bill is missing that," he said.

Karma Chavez, a member of UT's chapter of AAUP, said the curricula provision in SB 37, which would bar ideology, would affect the new School of Civic Leadership, which conservative lawmakers created last session to focus on liberty.

"In its about statement, it endorses several ideologies, including Western civilization, the American constitutional tradition, the Western tradition and the notion of a free society. These are all ideological and what the school that you all created endorses," Chavez said. "If what you truly value is a free society, you can't have it both ways."

In an interview, David DeMatthews, associate professor in educational leadership and policy at UT, said though he agrees schools can benefit from curricular review, he does not think this bill is a "good faith effort" to get there.

"It's not like the state has set out to study 'What are the challenges confronting higher ed,' and through a thoughtful, scientific based inquiry process, they've arrived at faculty councils being the problem," DeMatthews said. "Instead, it seems like the theory of action behind the bill is that through increasing the control that the state has over the institution — elected leaders have over the institutions of higher ed — then higher ed will improve. There's no evidence to suggest anything like that."

DeMatthews added that even if it doesn't restrict the faculty council's already limited power, this bill could create a chilling effect that drives more talent out.

This story has been updated to add a gallery.

Music to Our Ears: UT interim President Jim Davis vows to advocate for faculty, adhere to state policies

Friends:

In this moment of tumult spawned by extremist legislators' ill intentions in the form of Senate Bill 37, Interim UT President Jim Davis' words are encouraging:

"If we will hold our values and act through those values, then we will maintain those values," Davis said. "How we adapt (to new laws) and how we don't lose faith and hope that this can be a good place, that's important to me."

"My essence is of this place, and I love this place as you do," Davis said. "I care about its future. I care about how we can steward it through the time we're in a positive, constructive, optimistic way."

He also told the Austin American-Statesman that he intends to be a "champion for UT." This is undoubtedly music to all of our ears. This is exactly what we need—music, not more discord, division, or destructive policymaking that undermines the very foundation of our academic community.

That is exactly the message that we, as students, staff, and faculty, need to hear—especially given the reckless and unnecessary harm already inflicted by the Texas State Legislature. 

Governor Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Patrick, and bill author Senator Creighton should never have bought into the anti-DEI rhetoric, as doing so has severely undermined our educational mission in higher education. Rather than seeking a balanced, constructive approach—one of reforming and strengthening DEI initiatives—they have opted for outright dismantling, showing no willingness to find a middle ground that fosters progress and uplift instead of outright destruction and regression. 

Their actions have not only stifled innovation and inclusivity in higher education but have also set a troubling precedent that prioritizes their anti-intellectual political ideology over academic integrity, equity, and the broader societal benefits that diversity brings.

The governor and the legislature must step back and allow us to fulfill our roles without unwarranted interference. Instead of persistently undermining and berating faculty, they should be directing their attention to far more pressing and constructive matters that genuinely benefit our state and its citizens. If they can't do this, these leaders need to move on and make room for those that really do want to serve Texas.

Thank you, President Davis for standing up. We need other state leaders who actually understand and care about Texas higher education to do so, as well.

-Angela Valenzuela


UT interim President Jim Davis vows to advocate for faculty, adhere to state policies

Lily Kepner, Austin American Statesman | March 26, 2025




A month into his new role, interim University of Texas President Jim Davis addressed the institution's Faculty Council, touching on the scrutiny state lawmakers have placed on such groups and on controversial higher education proposals coming down from the federal and state governments.

In his first address to the monthly meeting of elected professors, Davis addressed the intensity of the current moment, when higher education is under scrutiny on a federal and state level.

"You may feel like you're under siege from all fronts," Davis told the council of elected professors at their monthly meeting Monday. "Well, let's go take the message back."

Davis took the reins of UT after the UT System's board of regents met in February to appoint him to the top spot after President Jay Hartzell announced in January that he would be leaving at the end of the spring semester to lead Southern Methodist University, a smaller, private university near Dallas.

Davis is taking UT's high office at a time when state lawmakers are seeking to increase oversight of university curriculum and hiring; to withhold funding from public institutions of higher education that don't comply with Texas' 2023 anti-diversity, equity and inclusion law in "spirit" and letter; and to restrict millions in institutional funding.

More: UT System names James Davis, senior vice president and former deputy AG, as interim president

The Faculty Council, which lawmakers have proposed to codify and restrict to an advisory nature alone, is the home of shared governance at a higher education institution. At UT, the council's monthly meeting begins with a report from the president, who then takes questions from the council's elected members on university operations, decisions or updates.

Davis, who does not have experience teaching but is a Longhorn alum and former UT chief operating officer and vice president of legal affairs, also took his time at the podium to explain his history with and his love of the university. He stressed how his life has been shaped by and deeply intertwined with UT, his alma mater where his father taught when he was a kid, the school his son attends and his mother graduated from, and where his daughter works.

More: Texas senators propose faculty senate limits, curricula reviews. Professors want answers.

In an interview with the American-Statesman after the meeting, Davis emphasized how his first month on the job has been marked by leadership meetings ― from student government, the Dean's Council, Faculty Council's executive committee, Staff Council and Faculty Council to lawmakers and alumni.

"This is a place of learning, and (I spent) a month deeply listening trying to understand the subtlety and nuance of all the issues," he said in an interview. "In the modern era, you can get caught into a moment of thinking that you know the answer because you read it some place on Twitter or whatever else. But to really pause and listen and be attentive first, that's been my first 30 days; it's been a lot of that. But it's been great, almost like reconnecting back with my university in a whole new way."

More: More than 60 Texas workers laid off in U.S. Department of Education mass layoffs: records

'Issues and concerns and fears'

To the faculty, Davis promised that "we haven't forgotten about you," emphasizing their importance to the university and its success.

Davis pointed to challenges faculty members are facing, including federal government changes to education structure and research funding, and, more vaguely, what he said are perceived and real "issues and concerns and fears and challenges and threats" from the Legislature.

More: UT-Austin researchers told to halt work on $6.1M worth of projects due to Trump orders

Faculty members pressed him on proposals such as Senate Bill 37, which would legislate faculty senates and restrict faculty voices. Davis said he "can be a reporter back" about the faculty council and its merit, but he neither gave a value judgement on the bill nor said he will support or oppose it. When it comes to advocacy about the university, Davis said he does not want to ever say anything that would hurt UT's future. But he said he knows from UT's history that the institution has weathered ideological clashes and funding gaps while also holding true to its values and complying with the state and federal laws.

"If we will hold our values and act through those values, then we will maintain those values," Davis said. "How we adapt (to new laws) and how we don't lose faith and hope that this can be a good place, that's important to me."

'Do not think I'm not out there'

When asked by faculty members about how to stand up and rebut the perception of UT and faculty as foes, Davis echoed Hartzell's persistent call to emphasize the university's uncontroversial merit, in its research, labs and classrooms, and rally stakeholders around that messaging.

"Sometimes we are defined by myth, sometimes defined by rumor, or by outlier behavior, but our character is different," Davis said. "Do not think that I'm not out there talking about this university, promoting the university, expressing the quality that we all experienced and learned and understand and love, and how we do that collectively matters as well."

More: Texas House bill proposes to ban DEI in required university curriculum

His priorities at UT, as per what regents charged him with, will be to invest in faculty, sustain UT's aging infrastructure and improve UT's operational efficiency, he said.

But he will also be a champion for UT, he said. In the interview ― the Statesman's first brief conversation with him about his appointment since he initially declined to comment until he was settled in the role ― Davis stressed that the message he wants to share is about UT's excellence both in higher education and in Texas.

What he's learning now is how that excellence is and should be defined, he said.

"The idea of excellence that everyone in this room agrees with — we don't always agree on how to define it, and that's the thing I'm going to try to really understand, the various facets of excellence," he said.

He told faculty members that communication with them will be a priority, and that he is honored to represent their voice.

"My essence is of this place, and I love this place as you do," Davis said. "I care about its future. I care about how we can steward it through the time we're in a positive, constructive, optimistic way."