Friends,
This is all so surreal. The Texas A&M University System decided yesterday to restrict any course that “advocates race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity.” This is a blatant intrusion of politics into the classroom. Despite the regents’ rhetoric about “rigor” and “transparency,” this policy is designed to give university presidents—and by extension the state—the power to pre-approve what faculty can teach. When a professor must seek administrative permission to assign a chapter mentioning race, gender, or sexuality, academic freedom is no longer intact.
The new “24-7 reporting mechanism” for students to flag “inaccurate or misleading content” introduces a surveillance element that is as chilling as it is unnecessary. It effectively deputizes students to police their professors, echoing the “snitch” systems used during the Red Scare, when politically motivated accusations served as tools to intimidate and purge faculty. Far from enhancing instruction, this kind of mechanism discourages honest inquiry, prompts self-censorship, and erodes the trust that makes learning possible. It is designed to chill speech, not strengthen education.
Claims that these changes “reinforce academic freedom” are disingenuous. Academic freedom means that scholarly experts, not political appointees, determine what is appropriate for their courses. Once content tied to race, gender, or identity requires presidential approval, the independence of teaching and research is already compromised.
This entire effort follows a familiar pattern: create a controversy, punish educators, and then impose sweeping restrictions in the name of “fixing the problem.” It mirrors the logic of SB 17 and other recent attempts to dismantle DEI and sanitize discussions of power, inequality, and identity across Texas higher education.
The policy applies to all twelve A&M institutions, affecting more than 150 existing courses on gender and sexuality alone. Its reach is enormous. And its purpose is clear: to suppress whole areas of study—Black studies, Latino studies, Indigenous studies, gender studies, queer studies—that challenge political orthodoxy and broaden students’ understanding of society.
We should call this what it is: censorship dressed up as oversight. When politicians decide which histories and identities are permissible in the classroom, the university stops being a place of inquiry and becomes an instrument of ideology. Texas A&M’s decision is not just a setback for academic freedom in Texas; it is a warning to the country about how quickly public education can be hollowed out when fear and politics drive policy.
-Angela Valenzuela
Texas A&M System approves new policy that could limit 'race or gender ideology' courses
 |
| The Academic Building at Texas A&M University. Houston Public Media |
Courses at Texas A&M University System schools that advocate "race or gender ideology or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity" will only be allowed with pre-approval, following a policy change approved Thursday.
The Texas A&M University System Board of Regents voted unanimously to approve two policy changes that limit curriculum related to sex and gender identity and prohibit faculty from teaching material outside of the approved course syllabus. While the policy changes go into effect immediately, they will not be enforced until the spring semester, according to the board.
Several former and current faculty members spoke against the changes ahead of the board's vote. Two faculty members spoke in favor of the change, and nearly 150 letters were also sent to the board regarding the proposal.
Speaking ahead of the committee vote Thursday, committee chair Sam Torn said a rigorous review of university courses will accompany the policy changes.
"The board agreed it was essential for the Texas A&M University System to refine existing policies and lead the way with an in-depth and repeatable review of our courses so that we can, simply put, make sure we are educating, not advocating, and that we are teaching what we say we are going to teach," Torn said.
The policy changes came several months after then-Texas A&M University President Mark Welsh resigned after controversy over a gender-related lesson resulted in the ousting of several educators. Welsh reportedly received a $3.5 million payout after resigning.
The university system's Civil Rights Protections and Compliance policy also has been revised to state that "No system academic course will advocate race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity, unless the course and the relevant course materials are approved in advance by the member CEO or designee."
Before the final vote, the board updated the policy revision, changing it from "teach race or gender ideology" to "advocate race or gender ideology."
This means a university president or other high-level administrator will have the review authority over course material. According to the Texas A&M University course catalog, there are over 150 courses regarding gender and/or sex offered on the main campus.
The system's Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure policy was also revised to "clarify that a faculty member will not teach material that is inconsistent with the approved syllabus for the course," according to the meeting agenda.
Additionally, the board approved changes to the system's Expressive Activity on Campus policy to comply with Senate Bill 2972, which, according to Inside Higher Ed, limits how, when and where individuals can hold demonstrations on campus.
These policy changes apply to all 12 of the universities under the Texas A&M System, which includes Texas A&M University, Prairie View A&M, Tarleton State, West Texas A&M and others.
Texas A&M System Chancellor Glenn Hegar said courses and curriculum will be reviewed to ensure transparency and academic responsibility.
"This is not a one-time review," Hegar said. "We will review courses every semester to ensure our students are receiving the appropriate course material."
The new race and gender policy has garnered condemnation from educational rights advocates, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which sent a letter to the regents earlier this week arguing the policy amounted to censorship.
"We urge the board to reject these proposals, which invite — indeed, practically guarantee — unconstitutional political interference with faculty teaching and academic freedom," the letter reads. "Academic freedom requires that faculty, not administrators, determine whether, when, and how to teach material germane to the topic of their courses."
Before the final vote, FIRE special counsel Robert Shibley told Houston Public Media the policy change would affect a wide swath of curriculum, from civil rights to the Civil War or even classical Greek plays.
"That would subject dozens or potentially hundreds of courses to the veto of high-level administrators," Shibley said. "So, even if a faculty member just wants to assign one chapter of a book, and it has something to do with race or gender, that means that the college president is going to have to pre-approve that."
James Hallmark, vice chancellor for academic affairs for the Texas A&M System, said during Thursday's meeting the new policies are not meant to "introduce new limitations on scholarly inquiry."
"This does not diminish academic freedom; it reinforces the balance between academic freedom and academic responsibility," Hallmark said. "These policy changes complement the academic review and transparency initiative currently underway, and together they ensure clear course purposes, student accessible reporting mechanisms, regular review, and continuous quality improvement."
As part of the review process, Hallmark said there would be a "24-7 reporting mechanism" for students to report what they consider "inaccurate or misleading course content."
Shibley, the FIRE special counsel, said the potential creation of such a reporting mechanism could have a "chilling" effect on faculty.
"That just increases the likelihood of chilling faculty members from following their academic conscience and teaching what they think is appropriate for that course," he said. "Obviously, you hope everybody is going to be doing everything in the best faith possible. But hope is not a plan, and you want to make sure that your policies don't invite that kind of abuses."
Torn, the committee chair, said the policy change is "not symbolic" and that course enrollment, "workforce relevance," and "financial stewardship" would be among additional criteria included in the review process.
Shibley said there will likely be legal fallout from the policy changes due to legal precedent from the Red Scare of the 1950s that protects professors from political interference.
"The Legislature and the government generally is not allowed to launder censorship attempts through different third-party agencies," he said. "These sort of vague and overwrought policies invite the kind of abuses to the extent that they're basically inevitable."
No comments:
Post a Comment