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!
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.
"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.
No comments:
Post a Comment