 |
| Diane Guo |
Note that for this post, I am using the title of the print version that appeared on April 8th (the longer, online piece is titled "Another legislative session. Another attack on higher education.")
To keep abreast of the legislative attack on higher education, I encourage you to read AAUP's regularly updated statement, Higher Ed Bills in the 2025 Texas Legislature.
Senator Creighton's horrific Senate Bill 37 (SB 37 alongside Shaheen's HB 4499), if passed, will be a self-inflicted death knell to Texas higher education. It's why I like the print version title, it is, after all, actual education that teaches critical race facts, among others, that they fear.
This is such a backward agenda. These folks need to go back to college to fill in their own gaps in knowledge or at least sensitize them to how they are willfully and preemptively seeking to create gaps in knowledge.
Geez, in today’s rapidly evolving global landscape, the role of education has become increasingly pivotal. As societies grapple with complex challenges and transformative technological advancements, including AI and as I just learned, "AGI," artificial general intelligence, the demand for critical thinking has never been higher. Nor has the need for innovation and interdisciplinary collaboration ever been greater.
At a juncture in human history characterized by the unprecedented acceleration of knowledge production, educational institutions must not only disseminate information but also cultivate the intellectual agility required to navigate and shape an uncertain future. Why isn't this compelling?! It most certainly should be.
Legislators need to cease and desist and take care of real issues like poverty, the environment, access to quality healthcare, protecting immigrants' and asylum seekers' rights, protecting animal life, and ensuring well-funded and PK-20 equitable education for all communities, particularly considering the recent dismantling of the federal Department of Education. Though important to challenge, bills like SB 37 and so many others, these bogus "culture wars" amount to weapons of mass distraction so that we don't actually focus on what is actually important to Texans.
-Angela Valenzuela
Texas Legislators Don't Fear Indoctrination. They Fear Education.
Senate Bill 37 is the latest attempt to exert government control over our classrooms.
The Daily Texan Editorial Board
April 8, 2025
Where do the attacks on higher education end? Not in this legislative session, apparently. Texas Senate Bill 37, written by State Sen. Brandon Creighton, passed in committee on Thursday. If passed in both chambers, it would create an Office of Excellence in Higher Education. The office, led by a governor appointee, would be responsible for investigating claims by the legislature that colleges have broken state laws or university policies.
After sending a letter to the governing boards of Texas public universities, Creighton filed the bill, claiming several instances of Texas universities breaching recent anti-DEI legislation. In the letter, he threatened to suspend funding if universities did not comply with the ban.
Texas Legislators Don't Fear Indoctrination. They Fear Education.
Senate Bill 37 is the latest attempt to exert government control over our classrooms.
The Daily Texan Editorial Board
April 8, 2025
Where do the attacks on higher education end? Not in this legislative session, apparently. Texas Senate Bill 37, written by State Sen. Brandon Creighton, passed in committee on Thursday. If passed in both chambers, it would create an Office of Excellence in Higher Education. The office, led by a governor appointee, would be responsible for investigating claims by the legislature that colleges have broken state laws or university policies.
After sending a letter to the governing boards of Texas public universities, Creighton filed the bill, claiming several instances of Texas universities breaching recent anti-DEI legislation. In the letter, he threatened to suspend funding if universities did not comply with the ban.
Under SB 37, university governing boards, selected by the Texas governor, have the power to appoint members of UT’s leadership. These boards have the final say in hiring vice presidents, provosts and deans, which raises concerns about outside influence thrust upon the University.
This legislation represents a thinly veiled attempt to control universities by allowing the proposed Office of Excellence in Higher Education to dictate what can and cannot be taught in classrooms, a dangerous overreach that could result in intellectual suppression in higher education institutions.
“This bill would make censorship more possible,” said Pauline Strong, president of the UT chapter of the American Association of University Professors. “We don’t know what kind of agenda an official in that capacity would have, but we do know that there are attempts currently to narrow the range of topics that students learn and the range of perspectives that faculty offer.”
Topics that do not align with the Governor’s ideology, including those related to race, gender and cultural studies, will undoubtedly be first on the chopping block. Relevant curriculum created by qualified professors will take a backseat to conservative propaganda and political agendas.
For students to form independent opinions, they must be exposed to uncomfortable truths. Restricting scholarly discourse undermines the well-rounded education that students attend this University to obtain.
“We have to be quite wary of when the state is trying to tell professors and students what they can teach, what they can learn, especially in this context,” said Antonio Ingram II, senior counsel for the Legal Defense Fund. “These students could go to war, they could fight for the country, and they can’t learn about systemic racism.”
The bill states that this office will directly link curriculum content and overview to the Board of Regents, which will set a precedent that undermines professors’ positions at universities across Texas. How can the Board of Regents, most of whom lack experience in academia, understand how university courses should be taught and structured better than professors?
“SB 37 requires that all decisions at core curriculum and academic programs have to be approved by an office that would be headed by an appointee of the governor,” Strong said. “That is a violation of the principle of academic freedom and could really limit the creativity and the innovation in the curriculum. I think it would damage the education that students receive.”
Gov. Greg Abbott has heavily influenced the University of Texas System through his appointments to the Board of Regents. Texas Senate Bill 17, which banned diversity, equity and inclusion offices and practices, already limits ideological dissent outside of academic settings. SB 37 reiterates the tightening grip of conservatism in Texas education, particularly in response to a curriculum that includes critical discussions of race, gender and systemic inequality.
“The state is putting itself in a position to say what is appropriate to teach and what is not appropriate to teach in a way that runs afoul of centuries of constitutional precedent around the First Amendment,” Ingram II said.
If SB 37 passes, it would compromise the Texas Council Faculty of Senates, a federation of faculty from various Texas public universities who advise on higher education. The bill infringes on the council’s authority to act as a self-governing body.
“Senate Bill 37 takes any kind of decision-making authority away from faculty, explicitly and legally, saying that there’s no authority granted to faculty governance,” said Joseph Velasco, president of the Texas Council of Faculty Senates.
SB 37 would advance a partisan agenda for higher education in Texas, discouraging high-quality educators from coming — or staying — to teach at UT. From attempting to eliminate tenure to restricting faculty councils, Texas officials continue to demonstrate little interest in the opinion of those this bill would directly impact.
“Faculty want to teach in an environment in which they have academic freedom,” Strong said. “They want the freedom to research and to teach in the areas of their expertise, without government censorship. So, the more government censorship there is in Texas, the less motivation there will be for faculty to teach here.”
The bill infringes on universities’ current responsibilities, but its wording remains vague and fails to clarify several key details.
For instance, the bill prohibits course content that “endorses” specific policies, ideologies or legislation. However, what constitutes an endorsement isn’t explained anywhere in the text. Despite referring to the office’s responsibility to investigate several times, there is no explanation of what these investigations might entail or what the breadth of the office’s authority may be.
The legislation’s ambiguity could result in self-imposed censorship, as faculty will feel forced to conform to new standards. Ingram II describes the potential repercussions of this lack of clarity.
“When a law like this becomes enacted, if it were to pass, it’s what we call a ‘chilling effect,’” Ingram II said. “It means professors will be afraid to teach. They’ll be afraid to fully have curriculum that reflects empirical, data-based information for fear of enforcement.”
This fearful environment undermines critical thinking and intellectual exploration, both key values in higher education. Professors and administrators in charge of building curriculum will feel the political pressure to abide by a filtered version of academic discussion.
“Schools must focus on fundamentals of education, not indoctrination,” Abbott said in an X post in January.
The hypocrisy written into this bill is clear. While pushing against alleged indoctrination, Texas lawmakers are attempting to change our system to enforce their own.
The editorial board is composed of associate editors Emily Harrison, Tenley Jackson, Tanya Narwekar, Ava Saunders, Anjali Shenoy and editor-in-chief McKenzie Henningsen.
This legislation represents a thinly veiled attempt to control universities by allowing the proposed Office of Excellence in Higher Education to dictate what can and cannot be taught in classrooms, a dangerous overreach that could result in intellectual suppression in higher education institutions.
“This bill would make censorship more possible,” said Pauline Strong, president of the UT chapter of the American Association of University Professors. “We don’t know what kind of agenda an official in that capacity would have, but we do know that there are attempts currently to narrow the range of topics that students learn and the range of perspectives that faculty offer.”
Topics that do not align with the Governor’s ideology, including those related to race, gender and cultural studies, will undoubtedly be first on the chopping block. Relevant curriculum created by qualified professors will take a backseat to conservative propaganda and political agendas.
For students to form independent opinions, they must be exposed to uncomfortable truths. Restricting scholarly discourse undermines the well-rounded education that students attend this University to obtain.
“We have to be quite wary of when the state is trying to tell professors and students what they can teach, what they can learn, especially in this context,” said Antonio Ingram II, senior counsel for the Legal Defense Fund. “These students could go to war, they could fight for the country, and they can’t learn about systemic racism.”
The bill states that this office will directly link curriculum content and overview to the Board of Regents, which will set a precedent that undermines professors’ positions at universities across Texas. How can the Board of Regents, most of whom lack experience in academia, understand how university courses should be taught and structured better than professors?
“SB 37 requires that all decisions at core curriculum and academic programs have to be approved by an office that would be headed by an appointee of the governor,” Strong said. “That is a violation of the principle of academic freedom and could really limit the creativity and the innovation in the curriculum. I think it would damage the education that students receive.”
Gov. Greg Abbott has heavily influenced the University of Texas System through his appointments to the Board of Regents. Texas Senate Bill 17, which banned diversity, equity and inclusion offices and practices, already limits ideological dissent outside of academic settings. SB 37 reiterates the tightening grip of conservatism in Texas education, particularly in response to a curriculum that includes critical discussions of race, gender and systemic inequality.
“The state is putting itself in a position to say what is appropriate to teach and what is not appropriate to teach in a way that runs afoul of centuries of constitutional precedent around the First Amendment,” Ingram II said.
If SB 37 passes, it would compromise the Texas Council Faculty of Senates, a federation of faculty from various Texas public universities who advise on higher education. The bill infringes on the council’s authority to act as a self-governing body.
“Senate Bill 37 takes any kind of decision-making authority away from faculty, explicitly and legally, saying that there’s no authority granted to faculty governance,” said Joseph Velasco, president of the Texas Council of Faculty Senates.
SB 37 would advance a partisan agenda for higher education in Texas, discouraging high-quality educators from coming — or staying — to teach at UT. From attempting to eliminate tenure to restricting faculty councils, Texas officials continue to demonstrate little interest in the opinion of those this bill would directly impact.
“Faculty want to teach in an environment in which they have academic freedom,” Strong said. “They want the freedom to research and to teach in the areas of their expertise, without government censorship. So, the more government censorship there is in Texas, the less motivation there will be for faculty to teach here.”
The bill infringes on universities’ current responsibilities, but its wording remains vague and fails to clarify several key details.
For instance, the bill prohibits course content that “endorses” specific policies, ideologies or legislation. However, what constitutes an endorsement isn’t explained anywhere in the text. Despite referring to the office’s responsibility to investigate several times, there is no explanation of what these investigations might entail or what the breadth of the office’s authority may be.
The legislation’s ambiguity could result in self-imposed censorship, as faculty will feel forced to conform to new standards. Ingram II describes the potential repercussions of this lack of clarity.
“When a law like this becomes enacted, if it were to pass, it’s what we call a ‘chilling effect,’” Ingram II said. “It means professors will be afraid to teach. They’ll be afraid to fully have curriculum that reflects empirical, data-based information for fear of enforcement.”
This fearful environment undermines critical thinking and intellectual exploration, both key values in higher education. Professors and administrators in charge of building curriculum will feel the political pressure to abide by a filtered version of academic discussion.
“Schools must focus on fundamentals of education, not indoctrination,” Abbott said in an X post in January.
The hypocrisy written into this bill is clear. While pushing against alleged indoctrination, Texas lawmakers are attempting to change our system to enforce their own.
The editorial board is composed of associate editors Emily Harrison, Tenley Jackson, Tanya Narwekar, Ava Saunders, Anjali Shenoy and editor-in-chief McKenzie Henningsen.
No comments:
Post a Comment