H-1B Crackdown Threatens America’s Universities—Just as Public Trust Returns, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

H-1B Crackdown Threatens America’s Universities—Just as Public Trust Returns

by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

September 29, 2025

Link to Emissary, Carnegie Endowment

On September 26, 2025, Emissary (Carnegie Endowment) published a sobering warning by Devesh Kapur and Milan Vaishnav: “Trump’s H-1B Gambit Will Gut American Universities: The financial stakes alone are enormous.” They argue that the administration’s proposed $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas will devastate American higher education, already strained by research funding cuts and political attacks.

The numbers are staggering. In 2024, international students contributed nearly $55 billion to the U.S. economy, supporting 400,000 jobs—roughly a tenth of all positions in higher education (Kapur & Vaishnav, 2025). Their tuition subsidizes domestic students, their research drives innovation, and their presence enriches American classrooms. If that pipeline dries up, universities will face impossible choices: cut programs, lay off faculty, or raise costs for American families.

At the same time, Palmer (2025) with Inside Higher Ed reported that H-1B visas are not only essential for international graduates but also for the professionals who power our universities. In fiscal year 2025 alone, more than 16,700 employees at U.S. colleges and universities received approved H-1B visas, though they were concentrated at about 100 large research institutions (Knott, 2025). This illustrates how dependent our leading universities are on global talent to staff laboratories, research projects, and teaching positions. Without these visas, institutions risk losing the very scholars and specialists who sustain their reputations and research productivity.

Meanwhile, according to the Vanderbilt Project on Unity and American Democracy, new survey data show that public trust in higher education is rebounding.  Specifically, 47 percent of respondents said they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in colleges and universities—a 13-point increase since 2023, and higher than trust levels in the police, the medical system, or large tech companies (Inside Higher Education, 2025). The irony is stark: at the very moment public trust in universities is rising, federal policy threatens to gut them from within.

This is not only an institutional crisis. It is also a human one.

For international professionals, the H-1B system is the bridge between education and livelihood. Families on H-1B visas often depend on dual incomes, with spouses on H4 visas authorized to work. If H4 work rights are rolled back, thousands of families will lose financial stability and face wrenching choices about whether to remain in the U.S. (Law Firm for Immigrants, 2025). Some families have already been split apart by the uncertainty—partners separated across borders, children pulled from schools, households forced to abandon mortgages.

Graduate students are equally vulnerable. Many take on massive debt to study in the United States, betting on the promise of post-graduation opportunities. As Reuters recently reported, students in India and elsewhere are already reconsidering or withdrawing from U.S. programs, fearful that their degrees will trap them in debt with no path to work authorization (Suresh, 2025). One student, after borrowing $80,000, confessed: “The only aim is to finish my degree, find an internship, and try to recover my debt” (Suresh, 2025). These stories are multiplying, and they reveal how quickly the American dream can curdle into a nightmare.

Kapur and Vaishnav (2025) rightly note that other countries—Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and even China—are eagerly opening doors to the same talent the U.S. is pushing away. If we retreat, they advance. We cannot afford to repeat Britain’s 2012 blunder, when restrictions on post-study visas caused enrollment to collapse until the government was forced into a humiliating reversal years later (Kapur & Vaishnav, 2025).

Public confidence is not abstract. It rests on the belief that higher education is a ladder of opportunity. If policy weakens that ladder, the damage will not be limited to international students—it will hurt American families, workers, and communities who depend on strong universities to educate, innovate, and create jobs.

And beyond our borders, there is a larger truth. As the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has long argued, openness to immigrants through pathways like the historic H-1B process is itself a form of global peacebuilding. When we welcome students, scholars, and professionals from around the world, we do more than strengthen our own universities—we cultivate mutual understanding, shared prosperity, and policies that acknowledge the realities of living in an interconnected world.

Protecting our universities protects all Americans. But it also affirms our role in building a more peaceful, collaborative, and globally minded future.

This is an evolving situation and there will be court challenges. To stay current, advocates and H-1B holders should:

• Monitor official US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and State Department news and alert pages, especially the USCIS “H-1B FAQ” and “Alerts” sections (USCIS.gov).

• Subscribe to trusted immigration policy organizations and legal blogs (e.g. American Immigration Council, Boundless, and trusted immigration law firms) that publish rapid analysis and updates.

• Follow reputable media coverage of legal and policy developments—especially from outlets covering immigration, higher education, and science & tech.

• Track court filings and Federal Register announcements for any injunctions, stays, or rulemaking that could suspend or modify the new fee.

• Engage with university, professional association, and immigration advocacy networks that often coordinate rapid alerts, memos, and “calls to action.”

If you are an H-1B visa holder, consider sharing your story—with your colleagues, your community, your representatives, and the wider public—so the human cost of these policies is impossible to overlook. Your experiences bring the data to life and remind us what is truly at stake. If you are a U.S. citizen, I encourage you to stand with those who make our universities thrive.

References

Kapur, D., & Vaishnav, M. (2025, September 26). Trump’s H-1B gambit will gut American universities: The financial stakes alone are enormous. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Emissary. https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/09/h1b-visa-trump-impact-us-universities?lang=en

Knott, K. (2025, September 24). Higher ed’s H-1B visas in 4 charts. Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/2025/09/29/4-charts-breaking-down-h-1b-visas-and-higher-ed

Palmer, K. (2025, September). Despite Trump’s attacks, confidence in higher education grows. Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2025/09/26/poll-public-confidence-higher-ed-growing

Suresh, R. (2025, September 24). Trump’s immigration curbs make Indian students rethink American dream. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com 

Villarroel, L. C. (2025). Trump 2025: Disaster for H-1B visa holders, their spouse, and employer. Law Firm for Immigrants. https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com

Organizing Works: The Reinstatement of Dr. Thomas Alter at Texas State University

Friends,

Good news is always worth celebrating. Texas State University has officially agreed to reinstate Dr. Thomas Alter after a judge issued a temporary restraining order in his favor. Alter, a tenured associate history professor, was dismissed on September 10, 2025, after remarks he made at a socialist conference went viral. The university claimed his words “incited violence,” but Alter’s lawsuit contends that the termination violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and breached contract protections for tenured faculty (Webner, 2025; Whitford, 2025; KSAT, 2025; also see Campus Speech Incident Database, 2025).

His reinstatement is not merely a judicial win—it is a triumph of organizing and public pressure. Students, faculty, unions, and civil liberties groups in Texas and nationally mobilized rapidly. Demonstrations were held outside the Hays County Courthouse, petitions circulated, and national groups like the American Historical Association decried the firing as a violation of academic freedom (AHA, 2025). The collective outcry made it politically and legally hard for the university to maintain its stance.

Alter’s case now moves into its next phase: a full hearing on due process, claims for back pay, and formal vindication of his rights. But the message is already clear: when communities band together, they can push back against institutional attempts to silence dissent. Organizing matters.

-Angela Valenzuela

References

American Historical Association. (2025). Letter objecting to the firing of Professor Thomas Alter without due process (AHA).

Campus Speech Incident Database. (2025). Alter v. Texas State University.

KSAT (2025, Sept. 26). Texas State professor reinstated with pay, will not teach amid lawsuit over political comments

Webner, R. (2025, September 26). Texas State to reinstate fired professor after judge issues temporary restraining order. San Antonio Express-News.

Whitford, E. (2025, September 23). Texas State professor sues, claiming free speech, contract violations, Inside Higher Ed.

Textbooks, Truth, and Justice: Lessons from the Reject the (Racist) Text Campaign Before the Texas SBOE, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Textbooks, Truth, and Justice: Lessons from the Reject the (Racist) Text Campaign Before the Texas SBOE

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

In this November 15, 2016 testimony before the Texas State Board of Education, I speak out against the adoption of a proposed textbook that contained distorted and racist portrayals of Mexican Americans. Textbooks shape how young people understand their history, identity, and place in society. When they disparage or erase our stories, they cause real harm.

The textbook, which would have been used to miseducate our Texas youth—perhaps especially Mexican Americans—was ultimately defeated. So far, the best published recounting of this story is by Dr. Emilio Zamora, as captured in this April 12, 2017 blog titled, "The Mexican Fight for Ethnic Studies in Texas: The Biography of a Cause."

In his reflections, Dr. Zamora, recipient of the National Association of Chicana and Chicano Studies (NACCS) Scholar Award in 2017, recounts how the NACCS Tejas Foco K–12 Committee led a statewide campaign to expose the book’s hundreds of factual errors and racist depictions. The campaign—known as “Reject the Text”—united thousands of scholars, students, educators, parents, and community organizations, including MALDEF, LULAC, school boards, and legislators. Their collective effort persuaded the State Board to vote unanimously (15–0) against adoption.

I share this video because it is vital for the public to see how these decisions are made—and to hear the voices of those who resist attempts to marginalize and misrepresent our communities. My testimony is part of a larger, ongoing struggle for truthful, inclusive, and dignified education in Texas and across the nation.

This victory was more than the rejection of a single book. It affirmed the strength of collective action, the responsibility of scholars to remain rooted in their communities, and the power of organizing for educational justice. It reminds us that even in difficult times, we can prevail.

We must always remember that democracy is also always about authorship and our right to it—both as individuals and communities. 

References

Valenzuela, A. (2016, April 8). "Reject the Text" Testimony Delivered before the Texas State Board of Education, Austin, Texas

Zamora, E. (2017, April 12) "The Mexican Fight for Ethnic Studies in Texas: The Biography of a Cause." https://texasedequity.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-mexican-fight-for-ethnic-studies-in_12.html

‘Fear and hopelessness’: one in four professors in the US south are leaving Survey by AAUP shows nearly quarter of respondents are switching due to states’s politics

Friends,

I recently posted on this topic of faculty departure covered by Olivia Empson in The Guardian. Both address the same finding that roughly a quarter of respondents have already applied for jobs elsewhere since the start of 2023, with another quarter intending to begin a search (Evans & Heinzelman, 2024; also note a similar trend in the "2025 Faculty in the South" survey for faculty in Texas (AAUP, 2025).

This is not just a statistic—it is the lived reality of colleagues, friends, and students across our campuses.

Take the example of Heather Houser, who taught American literature and environmental humanities at the University of Texas at Austin for 14 years. Alarmed by the escalating political interference in higher education, she accepted a position at the University of Antwerp in Belgium. In her words:

“I still feel so much for my students and colleagues back in Texas. It’s hard to know what they’re enduring.”

And indeed, it gets harder with every departure.

I can’t help but wonder if Dr. Houser was a member of the AAUP, which in Texas is affiliated with the Texas American Federation of Teachers. Membership provides access to legal counsel and a platform to fight back. According to President Brian Evans of the Texas Conference of Texas AAUP-AFT, since summer 2024 faculty have secured nearly $1.25 million in settlements, with more than a dozen lawsuits still in the works.

Consider also Wendy Watson, who left the University of North Texas after 15 years to teach at Ball State. In Denton, courses like Gay Rights and the Constitution became impossible to sustain under the chilling shadow of Senate Bill 17 and related measures. Watson described the mood among faculty as one of “fear, frustration, and hopelessness.” Yet even she chose to leave—accepting a 25 percent pay cut and a demotion in rank—just to continue teaching elsewhere.

These stories highlight what is at stake. SB 17 and its legislative kin are not only dismantling DEI infrastructure; they are driving out the very educators most dedicated to preparing students for a pluralistic democracy. The result is a profound brain drain that threatens to weaken our universities, impoverish intellectual life, and diminish opportunities for generations of students.

As a Texas educator who has chosen to stay, I grieve these losses deeply. I grieve for my students, who deserve classrooms where inquiry is not policed and where their full humanity is affirmed. At the same time, I understand the agonizing decisions my colleagues have made. For many, leaving is not abandonment—it is an act of survival, a way to continue teaching and researching in environments where their work is not criminalized.

The sacrifices are immense: pay cuts, uprooted families, new languages and cultures, and the heartbreak of leaving behind beloved students and communities. Yet these departures also carry a stark warning: if lawmakers continue down this path, Texas and its sister states will lose the very people who make higher education strong.

For the record, SB 17 does not prohibit faculty from teaching about race, class, gender, or sexuality when these are part of one’s expertise. Academic freedom, the First Amendment, and due process still apply, though policies and enforcement vary by institution.

This is why it is critical for those of us who remain to know the policies that govern our work. When pressured to change a syllabus or avoid certain material, a simple response—“I need to review the policy before I can make any changes”—can buy time and signal resistance. Document everything: keep written notes, record disciplinary meetings when possible, and bring a colleague or AAUP member as a witness. Always follow up with a brief email summarizing your understanding of the meeting. And remember, you have the right to file a grievance.

What gives me hope is the growing strength of Texas AAUP-AFT, which, according to Dr. Evans, is adding 30–40 new members every day. This is a testament to faculty’s hunger for solidarity, advocacy, and protection.

Here is the link explaining why one should consider joining Texas AAUP-AFT: https://aaup-texas.org/blog/f/join-aaup-to-strengthen-faculty-voices-and-rights. Membership is available to all faculty members, adjunct professors, graduate instructors, researchers, and higher education professionals. Trust me, it's empowering.

We must continue to resist policies that silence scholarship and erase identities, while finding ways to sustain one another and nurture spaces of care, justice, and truth. The exodus of faculty is a tragedy. But those of us who remain—and those who fight from afar—can transform this grief into collective action.

We are not without power. In fact, our collective strength is both well organized and growing rapidly (Valenzuela, Unda, & Bernal, 2025). Together, we have the capacity to defend higher education as a space where knowledge is pursued freely, where students are affirmed in their full humanity, and where truth proves stronger than fear.

—Angela Valenzuela

References

American Association of University Professors. (2025, September 8). 2025 faculty in the South survey. Academe Blog. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/05/texas-faculty-university-political-climate-survey/

Evans, B. L., & Heintzelman, P. (2024, September 5). Large majority of Texas faculty express concern about higher education; More than a quarter consider leaving next year, survey finds [Press release]. Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors & Texas Faculty Association. https://aaup-utaustin.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/texas-faculty-survey-press-release-sept-2024.pdf

Strong, P. T. (2025, September 18). Manufactured outrage and the assault on academic freedom in Texas [Blog post]. Educational Equity, Politics & Policy in Texas. https://texasedequity.blogspot.com/2025/09/manufactured-outrage-and-assault-on.html

Valenzuela, A., Unda, M. D. C., & Bernal, J. M. (2025). Disrupting Colonial Logics: Transformational Resistance Against SB 17 and the Dismantling of DEI in Texas Higher Education. https://www.ethnicstudiespedagogies.org/gallery/Vol3-Issue1-03_DisruptingColonial.pdf

‘Fear and hopelessness’: one in four professors in the US south are leaving

Survey by American Association of Professors shows nearly 

quarter of respondents are switching due to states’s politics


University of Texas students walk through campus on the first day of classes in August 2025.Photograph: The Austin American-Statesman/Hearst Newspapers/Getty Images

Many professors in the US south, particularly in Florida, South Carolina and Texas, are considering leaving their state because of the impact the political climate is having on education, according to a new survey by the American Association of Professors.

Of those interviewed in the survey, roughly a quarter of respondents said they applied for a job in higher education in another state since the start of 2023.

Heather Houser worked as a professor in the English department, teaching American literature and environmental humanities, at the University of Texas at Austin for 14 years. Like the growing number of professors in the stronghold Republican state, she found the increasing government oversight on higher education alarming. Houser left Texas earlier this year for a new teaching position at The University of Antwerp in Belgium.

“I know a lot of people who’ve been on the job market for several years and they’d be gone by now if not for the factors that make it hard to leave,” Houser said. “It comes with sacrifices, and I still feel so much for my students and colleagues back in Texas. It’s hard to know what they’re enduring.”

Texas A&M University president resigns after ‘gender ideology’ controversy

Read more

The survey received responses from approximately 4,000 faculty members across the south and included other states, such as Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, and Kentucky, in its findings. About 25% of the professors in Texas who responded said they have applied for teaching roles in other states in the last two years, with another 25% saying they intend to start a search.

Last year, salary was the top reason as to why educators across the south were seeking employment elsewhere. In this year’s findings, however, “broad political climate” was the top motivator.

“I had been looking to leave UT Austin and Texas for many years,” Houser said, “part was just a desire for personal change, but much bigger was my concern about higher education and the direction it was going. I was worried that the ability to teach things I cared about like environmental or social justice would become increasingly hard or even discouraged.”

The Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, signed a bill in 2023 that banned diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) offices and initiatives in higher education institutions across the state.

Under the law, called SB17, these offices had to start closing from January 2024, and any initiatives that promoted groups of individuals based on race, ethnicity and gender were prohibited in universities. At the University of Texas at Austin, where Houser taught, this led to resource cancellations, office closures and staff firings.

Earlier this month, at Texas A&M, a children’s literature professor was fired after a video of a student objecting to course material about gender identity and sexuality went viral. The dean of the school’s college of arts and sciences and the head of the department were also removed from their roles, the university president, Mark Welsh III, confirmed in a statement.

The university passed an audit earlier in the year to ensure that the school was complying with a new state law banning DEI in public universities, according to Battalion, the student newspaper. The video put significant pressure on the school, primarily from external Republican politicians and officials.

“A lot of people want to leave, but a lot of people might not be able to look,” Houser said, speaking to how difficult it is to get a tenured professor job, especially in the humanities.

Houser received her job offer in Belgium back in summer 2024, before Trump was elected, but couldn’t see anything changing in the state or institution, so she decided to push forward with the move. And it didn’t come without sacrifice. Learning Dutch, taking a pay cut and understanding an entirely new system were just some of the challenges she is having to navigate.

Such is also the case for Wendy Watson, who left a role as a pre-law adviser and professor at the University of North Texas and moved to Ball State University in August this year, after 15 years of teaching there.

“The classes I taught that were most likely to eventually feel the sting of SB17 and the legislation sure to follow were Gay Rights and the Constitution and Jurisprudence,” Watson said. “You cannot teach a robust class on jurisprudence without addressing critical legal studies, critical race theory and critical gender theory. You just can’t.”

In private conversations with other faculty, Watson recounted describing what they all knew: that SB 17 was just the beginning.

“We would likely see specific classes taken out of the catalog. We had already seen our School of Education rewrite course descriptions for both undergrad and grad classes (without input from the faculty who taught those classes) to remove any reference to race, gender and queer identity,” said Watson. “Everyone I spoke with felt fear, frustration, and hopelessness.”

While Watson expressed positive feelings about leaving, the departure again came with immense sacrifice. A 25% pay cut was involved, as was moving from a role as a principal lecturer to an assistant and losing the ability to teach political science.

“If things feel bad for you now, they are likely to get much worse,” was Watson’s advice to other professors considering a similar out-of-state move. “I know it feels like giving up and abandoning your students, but it’s like the guidance on an aeroplane: put your own mask on first and then help those around you.”

Austin’s Children Deserve More Than A Test Score, by María del Carmen Unda & Raul Longoria

Congratulations to Dr. María del Carmen Unda and Raul Longoria for this powerful and timely piece in the Texas Observer. You’ve spoken a truth we have long known: test scores measure poverty far more reliably than they measure learning. 

So why punish the very children and communities already carrying the heaviest burdens—other than to continue filing the deep, bottomless pockets of the testing industrial complex?

Thank you for lifting up the voices of Austin’s students, families, and educators, and for reminding us that partnership—not punishment—is the path to real educational justice.

-Angela Valenzuela

Austin’s Children Deserve More Than A Test Score: The city's “F” schools overwhelmingly serve mostly low-income African-American and Hispanic children 

by María del Carmen Unda & Raul Longoria | September 24, 2025 | Texas Observer

Earlier this month, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) announced that 12 Austin-area schools with an “F” rating could be closed. For many families, this isn’t just a policy decision—it’s a direct threat to thousands of children’s educational stability and their communities’ future. 

The affected schools, all part of Austin Independent School District (AISD) received three consecutive failing grades under the state’s accountability system tied to the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) exam. TEA ordered the campuses to submit improvement plans by mid-November, which could involve major staffing changes or closures. The schools include Winn Montessori, Barrington, Dawson, Linder, Oak Springs, Pecan Springs, Sanchez, Widen, Wooldridge, Bedichek, Martin, and Paredes. As education researchers and community advocates, we know that school ratings often reveal more about poverty than about student learning. Decades of research show that standardized tests don’t measure intellect, creativity, or resilience. They measure zip codes. Numerous studies also highlight the direct ties between the testing industry and the prison industrial complex.

The problem is clear: Austin’s “F” schools overwhelmingly serve mostly low-income African-American and Hispanic children. Closing them on the basis of a flawed metric sends one message: Your community does not matter. 

SCHOOL BUSES IN AUSTIN (SHUTTERSTOCK)

More specifically, data from the Texas Academic Performance Report outlines that the twelve Austin ISD campuses at risk of closure or major intervention serve predominantly low-income African-American and Hispanic student populations (see a full chart here): At these campuses, between 78 percent and 97 percent of students are classified as economically disadvantaged, with most schools exceeding 90 percent. This strongly suggests that socioeconomic status, not instructional quality, is the most consistent predictor of school ratings. Research has long demonstrated that poverty shapes educational outcomes through limited access to resources, higher mobility rates, and increased exposure to stressors outside of school. The racial and ethnic composition of these same schools is between 57 percent and 91 percent Hispanic, while African-American enrollment ranges from 1.9 percent to nearly 39 percent. The clustering of F-rated schools in predominantly Black and brown neighborhoods highlights the racialized nature of standardized testing outcomes, aligning with scholarship that critiques accountability systems as mechanisms that reproduce racial and class stratification. 

TEA’s accountability system disproportionately penalizes schools that serve economically disadvantaged students of color. All twelve schools identified for improvement or closure received failing (“F”) ratings, yet their student demographics highlight structural inequities rather than deficiencies in teaching or learning. 

Parents and teachers have long known what research confirms: Standardized testing is a poor predictor of success. It rewards test-taking strategies, not curiosity. It privileges students with resources, tutors, and stability at home, while penalizing those navigating poverty, language barriers, or trauma. 

Standardized testing has become a billion-dollar business. In 2013, TEA awarded Pearson a $462 million contract, followed by a $280 million contract with Education Testing Services. Nationally, 45 states spend a combined $669 million annually on testing contracts. These corporations reap massive profits, yet there is no evidence that more standardized testing improves student learning or narrows achievement gaps. What these tests do measure—reliably—is the ability of corporations to siphon resources away from Texas students, teachers, and communities.

Instead of doubling down on testing, TEA should reduce the number of exams and provide real support. Before closing schools, the agency must engage communities in honest conversations about what children need to thrive—whether it’s more bilingual staff, smaller classes, or after-school programs. 

Austin’s children deserve more than a test score. Closing schools will not build stronger communities. Listening to them will. TEA must choose partnership over punishment. 

A growing body of scholarship urges states to move beyond single test scores and adopt multiple measures of accountability. Such systems better capture the breadth of student learning by incorporating graduation rates, college and career readiness, access to qualified teachers, and school climate. Authentic assessments—such as project- and portfolio-based evaluations—offer viable alternatives that measure higher-order thinking and student creativity while remaining compliant with the federal Every Student Succeeds Act, which explicitly authorizes states to integrate portfolios, extended performance tasks, and adaptive assessments into their accountability systems. Despite this flexibility, Texas continues to rely almost exclusively on high-stakes standardized tests, ignoring well-established recommendations for more equitable, comprehensive approaches to evaluating student learning and school quality. 

At the state policy level, Texas must fundamentally rethink accountability. Policymakers, TEA, and school leaders should establish school-based teams to collect and analyze both quantitative and qualitative data, ensuring that decisions are grounded in the realities of students, families, and educators. 

These efforts must prioritize schools with the greatest needs and the fewest resources, offering sustained support rather than punitive closures. Specifically, TEA should end costly assessment contracts with for-profit corporations and redirect those funds into classrooms, counseling services, culturally relevant curricula, and community engagement initiatives that actually strengthen schools. 

Dr. MARÍA DEL CARMEN UNDA is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas. Her research examines education policymaking and access in K–12 schools, with a focus on the experiences of students of color.

Raul ‘Neto’ Longoria is a candidate for the Texas State Board of Education, District 5. He is currently pursuing a master’s degree at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, and he has dedicated his career to Austin ISD as a bilingual special education teacher and parent support specialist.