Friends:
I owe this post—and my refusal to stay silent—to my grandchildren. They are the reason I continue to show up, speak out, join in community, build community-based institutions and resist the authoritarian drift we are witnessing in Texas. Yes, grandma is busy, but she has a special purpose in life and she is living it.
I just saw the movie, 2073, that features a grandmother that the viewer never sees because she was taken up, disappeared, for openly challenging the system. It was her work. It resonated.
You can watch the movie on Max, Fandango, or Prime. It's definitely a doomsday, dystopian vision of what could be if we do not seriously work together across difference—not just locally, but globally—to address the current climate crisis we're in and the extreme, undue influence of the "Tech Bros"—the billionaire class—on democracy.
This is what we see playing out right now in the Texas legislature. There was a voucher amendment that would have submitted the vote to all Texans and advocates were hoping that seven or so Republicans would vote against, but that what allegedly happened is that they all got a call from President Trump (I heard this from two sources), and except for two Republicans, Dade Phelan and Rep. VanDeaver, they voted this bill to passage.
After all, they, like the rest of us already knew that if vouchers were submitted to a vote by the public, Greg Abbott and pro-voucher Republicans would lose. Never mind democracy or what should be the democratic purposes of government. These rural Republican representatives, in particular, just sold their communities down the river.
Now, here we are fighting against censorship, legislative takeover, and the Texas House panel cut us out from testifying!
What the dystopian film 2073 imagines as speculative, futuristic fiction—a regime that silences dissent through surveillance, bureaucratic control, and ideological conformity—is no longer fiction for those of us in Texas fighting for academic freedom. Senate Bill 37 operates with the same chilling logic: it punishes educators for teaching uncomfortable truths, strips faculty of shared governance, and closes public testimony before most people even have a chance to speak.
In a press conference last Thursday afternoon, many students a faculty spoke up. Texas AFT’s Amanda Garcia, a recent graduate from UT Austin, lays out SB 37’s harm in stark, unequivocal terms:
“This is not a bill we can risk cleaning up in the next legislative session. It will impact our students and teachers for the worse forever.”
See Texas AFT press conference coverage:
This Week in Higher Education: Educators, Students, & Community Members Tell Legislators ’Hands Off’ Our Colleges & Universities
Glad to see the Austin American-Statesman cover this as well:
Professors, advocates hold rally against SB 37, curriculum limitations
This Week in Higher Education: Educators, Students, & Community Members Tell Legislators ’Hands Off’ Our Colleges & Universities
Glad to see the Austin American-Statesman cover this as well:
Professors, advocates hold rally against SB 37, curriculum limitations
Like the state in 2073, this legislature justifies censorship in the name of order and efficiency, but we know better. These are not neutral decisions—they are calculated efforts to control knowledge, erase histories, and shut down the very conversations that make education meaningful and genuinely helpful to a racial/ethnic and gender-diverse society.
What is happening in Texas is not just an attack on faculty—it is an attack on democracy itself. And we cannot afford to meet this moment with silence. We must name it, challenge it, and refuse to comply with the slow drift into authoritarianism.
All of this is unfolding at a time when we face overlapping crises—none more urgent than the accelerating climate emergency. Instead of silencing educators and dismantling democratic institutions, our leaders should be confronting the existential threats that endanger all of us, especially our children and grandchildren.
On a positive note, there is still time.
-Angela Valenzuela
Faculty and students blast Texas House panel for limiting testimony on bill that targets state universities
 |
University students and faculty gather at the Texas Capitol’s outdoor rotunda on May 15, 2025, to speak against Senate Bill 37, which would reshape how schools pick new courses and hire administrators. Credit: Lorianne Willett/The Texas Tribune |
Pauline Strong wanted to speak to lawmakers last week about how a bill they’re considering would make her think twice when discussing sensitive topics with her anthropology students at the University of Texas at Austin. But she had to drop off her grandchildren at school first.
Despite rushing to the Texas Capitol afterward, she missed the window to register to testify against Senate Bill 37 by a few minutes.
Strong, who testified last session in opposition to a bill banning diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in higher ed, didn’t expect registration to end so early this time.
“It was disappointing, it was surprising, it was disheartening,” Strong said. “And I’m someone who came from Austin. There were lots of people who were driving from Houston or other parts of the state who left very early in the morning and arrived too late to testify.”
Dozens of students and professors like Strong, who were unable to testify against a bill they fear could limit the free exchange of ideas on college campuses, voiced their frustration on Thursday over losing one of their few chances to address lawmakers directly.
“This is not a bill we can risk cleaning up in the next legislative session. It will impact our students and teachers for the worse forever,” said Amanda Garcia with the Texas American Federation of Teachers.
SB 37 would limit faculty’s influence on academic decisions and give university systems’ regents, who are political appointees, more power to decide what curricula are taught, as well as which administrators are hired at the state’s public colleges and universities.
It would also establish another way for universities to be investigated for breaking state law — and potentially lose funding at a time when they are already facing significant financial headwinds.
SB 37, which was passed by the Senate last month, was one of 10 bills scheduled for a public hearing in the House Higher Education Committee on May 6. During committee hearings, lawmakers debate the contents of a bill and invite witnesses to comment on the proposal. They also give the general public an opportunity to share their thoughts on the legislation.
Rep. Terry M. Wilson, the Georgetown Republican who chairs the committee, started the hearing just after 8 a.m. with an announcement — the committee would not accept any more people registering to testify for or against SB 37 after 8:30 a.m.
As chair, Wilson may limit testimony. He didn’t do so with another controversial proposal brought before his committee, House Bill 232, which would make it more difficult for undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition. When HB 232 was considered on April 30, Wilson allowed people to register to testify until just before the hearing concluded at 1:06 a.m. the following day.
Wilson did not comment Thursday on his decision to close early the witness registration window for SB 37.
To Garcia, limiting testimony on SB 37 was a clear attempt to silence overwhelming dissent. To others, it was typical for a part-time Legislature that hurries to pass new laws in a 140-day window every two years — work that must conclude by June 2.
“They have to hustle in a way that doesn’t always lend itself to having many voices heard,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston.
Texas allows anyone to register to give testimony during committee hearings to go over proposed legislation, but the process can be cumbersome. People must register at kiosks in the Capitol by a deadline that each committee’s chair or clerk has broad discretion to set. The hearings can last all day and have long interruptions whenever members must leave to debate and vote on legislation in their chambers.
This makes it harder to participate for Texans who have jobs they can’t step away from or who don’t live near Austin. This session, farmers from Johnson County waited 18 hours to testify for a bill to limit toxic chemicals in fertilizers, and public school advocates waited 20 hours to testify against a bill to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms.
Sometimes, public testimony can result in more measured legislation, Rottinghaus said. He pointed to Senate Bill 3 as an example. Originally written in the Senate as a ban on THC, the House proposed only tightening regulations after hearing testimony that was both technical and emotional.
“Whether that will ultimately change the bill, I don’t know, but I think just as a general kind of notion that this is really important, that having people make their voice heard and giving legislators more information about what is going on is a big part of the process,” he said.
One of the concerns the professors and students who didn’t get to testify on SB 37 brought up on Thursday was that the proposal could limit the teaching of race and inequality.
Jaime Cantú, an assistant professor of biology at Austin Community College, said the bill could keep future medical professionals from learning about health disparities. He worried that under SB 37, he could be fired for teaching his students about how Interstate 35 has historically served as a dividing line between those who have access to health care in Austin and those who do not. He said he often mentions this to his students, who are mostly low-income people of color making sacrifices to become nurses.
Aihanuwa Ale-opinion said she’s thankful to have learned about how public health structures have and can perpetuate inequality as a biology student at UH.
“Rather than instill feelings of guilt, this has empowered me with the knowledge necessary to create better structures that are more inclusive and has inspired me to be a better peer, a better professional and a better advocate,” she said.
State Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, who authored SB 37, said faculty have too much control over schools’ curricula, which has led to liberal bias in the classroom and many students taking classes that ultimately don’t serve them in their careers.
State Rep. Matt Shaheen, a Plano Republican carrying the legislation in the House, has proposed a version of the bill that removes some of the most controversial parts, such as a requirement that regents approve the hiring of faculty in certain disciplines and a provision to eliminate degree programs with a low return in students’ investment.
But the bill still has its detractors.
Both versions of the bill limit the number of faculty who can be elected to serve on bodies that advise the university or college administration. Both also contain a provision that says faculty who engage in political advocacy can be immediately removed from these bodies.
On May 6, the House Higher Education committee heard public testimony for about two hours before it recessed at about 10 a.m. They reconvened 11 hours later at 9 p.m. and adjourned at about 1 a.m. the next day. In the end, more than 80 people testified about SB 37.
Although Strong was one of 20 people who missed the deadline to register, she stayed at the Capitol all day, helping her colleagues whittle down their remarks and practice so they could maximize the time allowed to speak: two minutes.
In her 32 years at UT-Austin, Strong has developed curriculum and been on search committees to hire deans. She said she wanted to tell lawmakers that the bill’s premise is faulty.
Faculty who take on these responsibilities don’t do so lightly, and their goal is not to indoctrinate students, she said. In fact, she added, those students serve as one of several checks on faculty. They fill out surveys after every course, and any complaints they make are investigated and addressed through mentoring and discipline, which can include termination, Strong said.
“Faculty are not getting away with teaching that is shoddy, out-of-date, or ideologically narrow,” she said. “Our colleagues, administrators and students make sure of that.”
The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage.
No comments:
Post a Comment