The Fight for Higher Education: A Minority Perspective on both the Liberal University and President Michael Roth, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

The Fight for Higher Education: A Minority Perspective on both the Liberal University and President Michael Roth

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.
August 26, 2025

On June 1, 2025, Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University, appeared on Face the Nation with a sober warning: America’s universities are under siege. His words echo what many of us already feel—that the right-wing assault on higher education is not about protecting students, but about silencing dissent and reshaping universities into tools of authoritarian control.

Michael Roth, Wesleyan University President

Roth pointed to a troubling trend: increased visa restrictions and scrutiny of international students. For decades, these students have enriched our universities, bringing new perspectives and strengthening democracy. Now, instead of welcoming them, the government is using fear as a weapon—meant not for safety, but to intimidate campus communities into silence.

“This heightened scrutiny is meant to instill fear on college campuses… and I’m afraid it is working. I’m afraid, too. But we have to defend our freedoms.” – Michael Roth, Face the Nation (June 1, 2025)

That admission is telling. When university presidents themselves feel constrained from speaking out, this should be a bright, neon sign, signaling danger to our democracy. The silencing of higher education leadership threatens to normalize submission, paving the way for broader suppression across society. 

I spoke with a UT student activist this week who said that the students are afraid “because of what happened on campus in Spring 2023.” She referred to the violent arrests and the crushing of dissent when the students marched for DEI and pro-Palestine. I was saddened to learn of this scarring effect on our students. It's not supposed to be this way.

Where Roth Misses the Mark

In the July 26, 2025 episode of The Gray Area, Roth acknowledged that universities do need to change. He argued that campuses should broaden the range of political and cultural views they engage, but that this process must occur organically within the academy—not be imposed through authoritarian politics that seek to gut institutions altogether.

By his own admission, Roth has long argued that higher education reproduces intellectual homogeneity, with faculty often hiring in their own image reflecting matters of comfort and affinity rather than a commitment to genuine diversity of thought and background. He characterizes this as “prejudice”—or what pundits more commonly label as “bias.”

This is where I interject. Roth names "prejudice" but softens it, casting exclusion as faculty “comfort” rather than as systemic injustice rooted in Eurocentrism. In so doing, he risks sounding like an apologist for the very exclusions that marginalized scholars have struggled against for decades.

Higher education has only begrudgingly opened space, with many of us still struggling for a foothold. Were this not the case, we would never have had the in-depth analysis of such bias as laid out in the Independent Equity Committee (IEC) report (2019).

Yet Roth’s framing risks obscuring the structural inequities that the IEC report documents as entrenched features of the academy. For decades, higher education has reproduced sameness—faculty hiring in their own image, privileging comfort over difference, and narrowing the range of voices deemed legitimate.

Beyond “Both-sides-ism”

Both Roth’s critique and the demands of marginalized communities highlight this structural conservatism. The difference lies in what each sees as the remedy and the stakes.

Roth’s call for broader viewpoints risks collapsing into the narrow, colonial logics of ‘both-sides-ism,’ where structural inequities are obscured in the name of balance. By contrast, communities of color have long pressed for something deeper: not balance within the old frame, but transformation of the frame itself—a struggle for epistemic justice, meaning fairness, equity, and representation in the production of knowledge.

The overlap suggests a shared recognition of the dangers of insularity. Yet the divergence is revealing: Roth frames the challenge primarily as a matter of political balance, while scholars of color insist that the struggle is not merely about balance but about epistemic inclusion—expanding whose knowledge counts, whose voices are heard, and whose experiences are legitimized within the academy. 

That distinction matters, because one treats the problem as an internal “fix” for higher education’s legitimacy, while the other treats it as one of knowledge equity and who gets to shape the future of the academy and society.

Universities as Scapegoats

Roth correctly talks back to those who say that colleges and universities have brought today’s backlash on themselves through insularity, elitism, or intolerance of differing views. Roth sees this as unfair, arguing that the policies currently confronting higher education are not natural consequences of campus culture but deliberate political attacks.

Framing universities as somehow “deserving” this wave of legislation doesn’t just excuse it—it helps justify authoritarian overreach. Of course, critique is needed, but it should strengthen higher education, not be twisted into cover for dismantling academic freedom and democracy itself.

In one of his most forceful points on Face the Nation, Roth rejected the claim that current attacks on universities are really about fighting antisemitism:

“The idea that you are attacking antisemitism by attacking universities… I think is a complete charade. On the contrary, I think more Jews will be hurt by these attacks than helped.” – Michael Roth, Face the Nation(June 1, 2025)

In short, universities should be spaces for debate, not reduced to spectacles of scapegoating in the service of political or partisan battles.

The Texas Frontline

For those of us in Texas, Roth’s concerns are painfully familiar. With Senate Bill 17 dismantling DEI offices in higher education and chilling the climate for students, faculty, and staff of color, we’ve seen firsthand how authoritarian overreach cloaks itself in the language of “fairness” or “protecting students.”

In reality, these measures erode inclusion, silence marginalized voices, and weaken the democratic mission of public education. Roth’s warning reminds us that what happens in Texas is not isolated—it’s part of a national campaign to undermine academic freedom and reshape universities into compliant institutions.

This is a fight we cannot afford to sit out. Roth is correct in saying that this is an attack on civil society itself. Faculty, students, and community allies must organize, resist, and insist on universities that foster truth, inclusion, and democracy.

Even if the battle is far from over, I am happy to report that we at UT Austin continue to be on the frontlines of this struggle in Texas (Valenzuela, Unda, & Mena Bernal, 2025). The attacks we are seeing are not the endgame; they are part of a decades-long project to silence difference and control knowledge itself. Our response must be just as sustained, just as creative, and just as determined.

Why It Matters for Democracy

When universities lose their independent standing and edge closer to the ideology of those in power, we face a slippery slope. Higher education ceases to function as a space of critical inquiry and instead becomes an instrument of state control. This is precisely what authoritarian regimes do. What begins as subtle pressure to align with dominant political currents can quickly evolve into direct censorship of ideas, restriction of research agendas, and silencing of protest and dissenting voices.

This erosion not only undermines the integrity of academic institutions but also weakens civil society itself, since universities have historically provided one of the few protected arenas for cultivating democratic habits of questioning, debate, and discovery. In short, when higher education becomes an echo chamber for those in power, it fails in its public mission and accelerates the very authoritarian tendencies it ought to resist.

References

Bingamon, B. (2024, November 22). The right-wingification of UT: Texas targets liberal enemies within one of the top U.S. schools. Austin Chronicle.

Illing, S. (Host). (2025, July 26). What the right’s war on college is really about [Audio podcast episode]. In The Gray Area. Vox. https://www.vox.com/the-gray-area/421054/college-ai-attack-roth-wesleyan-trump (vox.com)

Independent Equity Committee. (2019, October 8). Independent Equity Committee. (2019, October 8). Analysis of representation and compensation for Hispanic faculty at UT Austin. University of Texas at Austin.

Roth, M. (2025, June 1). Michael Roth discusses threats to higher education [Interview]. Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan. CBS News. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlCnVgd-jkc

Valenzuela, A., Unda, M. & Mena Bernal, J. (2025). Disrupting Colonial Logics: Resistance to SB 17 in Texas Higher Education, Ethnic Studies Pedagogies, 3(1).

Valenzuela, A. (2024). Monopoly Tycoons in a Game of Jenga: The Censorship of Bodies, Protest, and Speech at UT-Austin, Texas Observer

After Texas’s DEI Ban, College Students Are Reconsidering State Schools—BUT READ THIS FIRST!

This story in The Nation on how Senate Bill 17 is impacting youth represents a sad state of affairs. Our youth here in Texas are clearly impacted. And negatively so. All I can say is that policy is made by people and not Jesus. Plus, Jesus, I am confident, would never author or support policies that hurt people. What can you do?

Remain informed and get involved. You do have a legislator that represents you. If you don't know who they are, you can find out here. 

After doing so, reach out to them or their staff to express your sentiments to them. The more that legislators hear from their constituencies that they're supposed to represent, the greater the chance that you will get heard. After all, they want to get re-elected and your vote counts. 

Without a doubt, these are scary and concerning times. However, more than ever, young people impacted need to let these sentiments motivate them. I love how Harvard University pollster John Della Volpe uplifts youth with hard facts in his recently published book titled, Fight: How Gen Z Is Channeling Their Fear and Passion to Save America. 

From his book, I just learned that Genz and Millennials account for two-fifths of the electorate and they trend progressive. Within that, women more than men are progressive. Now that's electoral power! 

Della Volpe goes into these trends in enormous detail. I encourage all to read this inspiring text. There is a growing literature in this regard, as well. I have, for example, cited Twenge (2023) on this blog before. Also, read this piece by Brownstein (2020) from four years ago in The Atlantic titled, "The GOP’s Demographic Doom: Millennials and Gen Z are only a few years away from dominating the electorate." Oh, my! I think we're "a few years away" now.

All told, the future is yours for the taking, but this can't be an abstraction. It must and can very much be a lived reality. You gotta' have stamina and listen closely and stay attuned to that "generational call" to your generation's "higher purpose" as John Della Volpe terms it. Sí se puede! Yes we can! And we're all the better for it!

In the meantime, consider attending the upcoming May 3, 2024 hearing on SB 17, the very bill in question: Senator Brandon Creighton Announces Oversight on Senate Bill 17 Implementation. You have a voice so use it. There is also power in presence. And always be kind to yourselves, too, and to those around you. Love yourselves. 

As a wise, caring friend once told me when I was your age, a college student, experiencing the gathering clouds of emotion and despair as I contemplated the possibility of dropping out, he said, "Every way in which you are different is every way that you are strong." His perfectly timed uplifting words have been of enduring consequence to me.

Talk to your teachers, professors, ministers, rabbis, parents, community leaders, and trusted elders. Write letters to your local newspapers. Organize with like-minded youth, both in-person and online. Avoid negative, hateful groups and people. Listen to that faint whisper in the ear, that ancestral call to action to make a better world.

My Good Friday energy tells me to tell you that where two or three are gathered, Providence always manifests if done with a good and honorable intention. Struggles like these are not for the faint of heart. And they are always optimally carried out in and with community. It's the only way we can survive this manufactured crisis and organized malaise via the weaponization of policy.

Be well. Be encouraged. Be inspired. 

Love, not hate, is the most powerful force of all. 

Sí se puede! Yes we can! 

-Angela Valenzuela

#GoodFridayEnergy

References

Brownstein, R. (2020, Oct. 23). The GOP’s Demographic Doom: Millennials and Gen Z are only a few years away from dominating the electorate, The Atlantic.

Della Volpe, J. (2022). Fight: How Gen Z is channeling their fear and passion to save America. St. Martin's Press.

Twenge, J. M. (2023). Generations: The Real Differences Between Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents—and What They Mean for America's Future. Simon and Schuster.

After Texas’s DEI Ban, College Students Are Reconsidering State Schools

In June, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law banning diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in the state university system—including multicultural centers and campus identity groups.

by Aina Marzia | The Nation |  March 26, 2024

A student student sits in a lecture hall while class is being dismissed at the University of Texas at Austin. (Brandon Bell / Getty)

In 2023, the Texas Legislature proposed SB 16, banning the teaching of critical race theory at Texas universities. Among the right, CRT has become a scapegoat, with legislators railing against public schools’ teaching the history and legacy of racial injustice in the United States. 

Now, Texas politicians have gone even further, targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in state colleges.

SB 17, which went into effect January 1, has been a ticking time bomb since it was signed by Governor Greg Abbott in June. The bill bans DEI and its programs, clubs, and organizations within the University of Texas college system, the largest university system in the state with more than 250,000 enrolled students and 21,000 faculty.

During the months-long transition period, UT schools had to close down multicultural centers and realign their practices to comply with SB 17, remove specialized inclusion programs, and defund campus identity groups. Two months after the law went into effect, prospective students are reconsidering what these universities can do for them.

In an e-mail to students on January 23, the director of the Multicultural Engagement Center, Brandelyn Flunder, said that “our doors remain open (for now at least), our programs do not.” The e-mail also shared the loss of several special campus activities like New Black Student Weekend, Adelante, CultivAsian, and graduation ceremonies for Black, Latinx, and Asian students.

“The MEC, an office where many students of color would go to meet with friends, study, talk to their advisers, and where many of the organizations that garnered safe spaces for students of color would meet and stash their things is now closed,” said Katherine Ospina, a senior at the university studying International Relations, and the director of Latinx Community Affairs. “This was the one place I would go to get work done every day, and there was a collective sentiment of relaxation past those doors. My experience at UT has changed drastically as a result of this bill.”

“It seems as though we are taking a step back in reforming an ideal, equitable society,” says Samantha Alvarez, a freshman at UT Austin studying Public Relations. “Coming from a family of immigrants, knowing UT eliminated a scholarship program for undocumented students is both frustrating and saddening.”

In a joint statement on February 2, five community organizations at UT Austin shared how shutting down the engagement center was “part of a larger pattern of over-compliance of SB 17 at the hands of UT Administration.” According to the statement, the center, which was originally supposed to remain open and to restructure, was “wrongfully” shut down.

“These acts push the idea that our spaces are invalid, that our communities are illegal, and that the people in these organizations exclude anyone,” says Xochimilo Vazquez, a junior at UT studying psychology and government and the community engagement chair of the Native American & Indigenous Collective. “This also endangers my friends, family, and peers. Why should I have to take into consideration my safety when applying to a higher academic institution that boasts about being an intellectually pioneering institution? What intellectually pioneering institution ever led with racism?”

Following the bill’s passage, these organizations were informed that they would no longer be allowed to continue operating as sponsored student organizations. Former UT clubs, which were once reliant on annual funding from the university, have started seeking donations to continue operating.

At UT Dallas, one of the largest UT schools, the bill eliminated the Office of Diversity Equity, and Inclusion and created a new Office of Campus Resources and Support. The ODRS “is entirely separate and will lead activities that are SB 17 compliant,” according to their website. “As a new entity, the entire scope of OCRS is still being determined.”

“These clubs provided a sense of community where I could connect with others who shared similar experiences and cultural backgrounds,” says Sahil Lalani, a freshman studying business administration. “The closure of these vital spaces would have influenced my decision-making when considering Texas colleges.”

“I would not have worked in admissions if the metrics in place were the same two years back,” says Ospina, who also works as a student recruiter. In high school, she says, she would have been reluctant to apply to the university if these bills had been passed. “The idea of staying here postgraduation is extremely narrow.”

For current high school seniors in the state who are considering attending colleges within the UT system, this legislation has clouded their decisions. “I anticipate SB17 definitely affecting the decisions some students make regarding post–secondary education options, especially POC university enrollment in the state, specifically those who seek a more inclusive environment to attain their education,” said Nancy Sutherland, a high school counselor in Texas.

Popular

1. Don’t Believe the Hype—Biden’s Israel Policy Hasn’t ChangedDon’t Believe the Hype—Biden’s Israel Policy Hasn’t Changed

   AÍDA CHÁVEZ

2. Ronna’s Out. But the Folks Who Hired Her Remain at NBC News.Ronna’s Out. But the Folks Who Hired Her Remain at NBC News.

   JOAN WALSH

3. Online Gambling Has Swallowed Professional SportsOnline Gambling Has Swallowed Professional Sports

   DAVE ZIRIN

4. After Texas’s DEI Ban, College Students Are Reconsidering State SchoolsAfter Texas’s DEI Ban, College Students Are Reconsidering State Schools

   STUDENTNATION / AINA MARZIA

“Eliminating DEI offices as a whole strips away many potential students’ motivation to attend higher education,” says Haala Tariq, a high school senior in Houston. “One of my goals was to explore the cross-sections between marginalized communities and the conventional healthcare system. Senate Bill 17 will make it harder for the university to receive research funding from organizations that consider commitments to diversity when awarding grants.”

“The elimination of DEI on college campuses may lead to less cultural awareness and political participation as well as a decline in resources for people of different backgrounds,” said Sutherland. “Without DEI resources, this could potentially result in a decline in student success, and ability to perform in a global environment, particularly for minority populations.”

“I wanted to send my child and my nephews to the University of Texas, but now I don’t know,” says Dr. LaShawn Washington, who got her master’s and bachelor’s degrees at UT Austin and worked at the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement as a student. “SB 17 is based on the argument that DEI doesn’t work, but a lot of these people are white conservatives, or it is conservative political think tanks making arguments about something that wasn’t made to serve them,” said Washington.

“I fear Texas has taken a big step away from the celebration of equality,” says Alyssa Perez, a high school senior who was recently accepted into UT Austin and UT El Paso. “And I fear what other freedoms they can take away.”

While Perez is choosing to attend a school in-state because of financial constraints, other high school seniors are willing to take the hit economically for a more fulfilling college experience outside of Texas. “I feel unsafe with our political climate, so much so that I’ve essentially resigned myself to debt and student loan stress,” says Greg Rico, a transgender high school senior from Texas. “I applied to two Texas public schools, but I don’t plan on attending either of them.”

Understanding Texas’s DEI Ban at Public Universities – Infographic

 Helpful infographic compliments of the Texas Legislative Equity Coalition.

-Angela

Understanding Texas’s DEI Ban at Public Universities – Infographic

Texas is home to many exceptional higher education institutions. Unfortunately, the state legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 17 last spring, a law that prohibits diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and offices at public universities. It went into effect on January 1, 2024.

This new anti-DEI law introduced changes that will have far-reaching consequences for college quality and accessibility in Texas.

SB 17’s broad language invites ambiguities and has sparked concerns about the potential chilling effects on campuses for student support services, centers and outreach programs.

The law also requires universities to certify compliance each year before they can spend  any money received from the state for the upcoming year, which comprises a significant portion of their budgets. If universities fail to comply, they will lose state funding and could face legal action.

Check out this infographic to see what SB 17 affects and what it doesn’t. (See PDF version)