When Consolidation Is Elimination: Ethnic Studies, Faculty Governance, and Power at UT, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

When Consolidation Is Elimination: Ethnic Studies, Faculty Governance, and Power at UT

by 

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

April 24, 2026

UT President Jim Davis talks with Daily Texan
News Editor Maryam Ahmed in his office during the
first sit-down interview of his tenure.

In an April 9, 2026 interview with The Daily Texan, reporter Maryam Ahmed pressed UT President Jim Davis on decisions that cut to the core of the university’s academic mission: the consolidation of Ethnic Studies and related departments, the restructuring of faculty governance, and the question of public trust in higher education (Ahmed, 2026a, 2026b). What emerges is not reassurance, but a troubling portrait of governance redefined, faculty voice narrowed, and critical fields rendered administratively vulnerable under the language of “efficiency” and “stewardship.”

At issue is not whether combining departments yields intellectual “fullness,” as Davis suggests. Ethnic Studies, African and African Diaspora Studies, Mexican American and Latina/o Studies, and Gender and Sexuality Studies are already deeply interdisciplinary by design. They were built to cross boundaries, challenge siloed thinking, and interrogate power. The claim that they must be consolidated to achieve interdisciplinarity reflects not innovation, but a misreading—or dismissal—of their intellectual foundations.

What remains unspoken is that “consolidation” is rarely neutral. It often functions as a quiet form of elimination—not of people, but of departmental standing, autonomy, and power. Departments carry budget authority, hiring lines, curricular control, and institutional visibility. Collapse them, and you reduce the number of sites where faculty exercise collective authority. This is not merely organizational—it is political. Power moves upward and inward, away from the very units that have historically produced the most sustained critiques of inequality.

Equally flawed is the premise that these fields are not already in dialogue. Ethnic Studies and Gender and Sexuality Studies have long operated in robust conversation—through joint appointments, cross-listed courses, and shared theoretical frameworks. To suggest they must be administratively merged to “see from different angles” misreads their history and erases existing collaboration. What is presented as integration risks becoming administrative diminishment.

When department chairs raised objections, Davis acknowledged “difference of opinion,” but deferred to a “consensus recommendation.” The question is unavoidable: whose consensus—and under what conditions was it produced?

That question takes on added urgency in light of Texas Senate Bill 37. The elected Faculty Council has been replaced with an appointed advisory body that, by Davis’s own admission, is “not intended to be representative.” This is not a procedural adjustment; it is a redefinition of governance itself. Representation is not incidental—it is the democratic core of faculty authority. What replaces it is curated input: invited voices without collective power.

Davis casts this shift as a move from “discord” to “stewardship.” But governance without disagreement is not governance—it is management. The Faculty Council’s openness enabled contestation, visibility, and record. Informal conversations, however frequent, cannot substitute for structures that allow faculty to deliberate, dissent, and hold leadership accountable. They invite candor, perhaps—but not power.

Seen in this light, the consolidation of Ethnic Studies is not an isolated decision. It is part of a broader transformation in how authority is organized and exercised. When representative structures weaken, decisions about curriculum and resources become more susceptible to top-down rationales—especially those framed in neutral administrative language. Terms like “efficiency” and “balance” function as what critical policy scholars call “discursive cover,” recasting political choices as technical necessity (Fairclough, 1992; Tauber & Wolf, 2018).

Davis denies that political pressures shaped the decision. Yet this claim must be read within the context of Texas Senate Bill 17, which has already dismantled DEI infrastructure and chilled institutional commitments to equity. Even without explicit directives, universities operate under conditions of anticipatory compliance—aligning themselves with perceived political expectations to avoid risk. In such an environment, structural changes to fields like Ethnic Studies rarely occur in a vacuum.

The same ambiguity surrounds resources. Davis insists that “nothing has changed,” yet acknowledges uncertainty ahead. Faculty concerns about moving from multiple funding streams to fewer reflect well-established patterns: consolidation often leads to internal competition, diminished autonomy, and eventual contraction. The metaphor of a recombined pie obscures a central reality—who controls the knife.

There is also an intellectual cost. Ethnic Studies does not simply add perspective; it anchors critical inquiry into race, power, colonialism, and inequality. When absorbed into larger units, its distinctiveness—and its capacity to challenge dominant frameworks—can be diluted. The result is not interdisciplinarity, but incorporation: difference folded into sameness.

Public trust will not be restored through consolidation or administrative redesign. It is built through transparency, accountability, and genuine shared governance. It requires not only listening to faculty, but ensuring they have real, representative power in shaping institutional direction.

UT Austin is not just reorganizing departments—it is redefining who gets to decide what counts as knowledge, whose voices carry authority, and which fields are allowed to remain visible as distinct sites of critique.

And that is the real stakes of this moment: not whether programs are combined, but whether the university still has the structural capacity—and the political will—to sustain knowledge that speaks back to power, rather than being quietly reorganized out of it.

References

Ahmed, M. (2026a, April 9). Exclusive: UT President Jim Davis reflects on first year leading University. The Daily Texan. https://thedailytexan.com/2026/04/09/exclusive-ut-president-jim-davis-reflects-on-first-year-leading-university/

Ahmed, M. (2026b, April 9). Read the full transcript of UT President Jim Davis’ first interview since taking office. The Daily Texan. https://thedailytexan.com/2026/04/09/read-the-full-transcript-of-ut-president-jim-davis-first-interview-since-taking-office/

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.

Tauber, R., & Wolf, S. (2018, December 5). Students, faculty discuss free speech. The Williams Record. https://williamsrecord.com/4037/news/students-faculty-discuss-free-speech/

Texas Culture Wars in Historical Context: What 'Minority Civil Rights and the Texas Legislature' Reveals, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Texas Culture Wars in Historical Context: What 'Minority Civil Rights and the Texas Legislature' Reveals

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

December 30, 2025

Download here [pdf]

Reading Minority Civil Rights and the Texas Legislature (2018), a 22-page historical pamphlet I picked up in a legislative office last session is like holding a mirror to the present. 

The document offers an unflinching account of how Texas—since its founding—has been shaped by racial hierarchy, exclusion, and the enduring efforts of Black, Mexican American, and other minoritized communities to claim the full rights of citizenship. I appreciate the honesty. However, what becomes abundantly clear is this: the culture wars roiling Texas today are not new. They are the latest iteration of a long struggle over whose history, humanity, and political power this state will recognize.

Texas was built as a slaveholding society, its early laws explicitly designed to secure racial domination. Black Texans were denied citizenship, movement, literacy, and basic protections. Tejanos (Spanish for 'Texan')—despite their leadership in the revolution and early Republic—were pushed to the margins once Anglos consolidated power. 

After the Civil War, Reconstruction gains were met with Black Codes, Jim Crow statutes, and violent backlash. Mexican Americans faced parallel systems of segregation (“Juan Crow”), discriminatory policing, and routine exclusion from juries, schools, and the vote.

Yet the record also reminds us that resistance has always been part of the story—from Reconstruction legislators like Matthew Gaines and George Ruby, to Tejano lawmakers like Navarro and Seguin, to civil rights leaders such as Barbara Jordan, Héctor García, and the activists of LULAC, the NAACP, and the G.I. Forum. Each generation confronted efforts to roll back rights and narrow the definition of who counted as a “real” Texan.

Today’s culture wars follow this same pattern. Current battles—over teaching race and gender, restricting Ethnic Studies, banning books, suppressing voting rights, policing immigrants, and centralizing state authority over local communities—mirror earlier attempts to solidify racial power under the guise of “neutrality,” “order,” or “protecting children.” 

Just as past lawmakers used Black Codes, literacy tests, poll taxes, and segregation statutes to preserve social hierarchy, today’s leaders deploy curriculum bans, border militarization, and mid-decade redistricting efforts to limit democratic participation and narrow the public imagination.

What the historical record makes clear is that Texas has repeatedly oscillated between moments of democratic expansion and reactionary retrenchment. The culture war is simply the latest backlash against multiracial democracy—another attempt to redefine belonging by silencing the histories and communities whose presence destabilizes myths of Anglo exceptionalism.

But history also teaches us that backlash never has the final word. The same state that produced Jim Crow also produced Barbara Jordan. The same state that once denied Tejanos entry into the legislature now sees Latino lawmakers shaping statewide policy. Every wave of repression has been met by movements that expand freedom and insist on truth.

We are living through another such moment. What is being targeted is not only DEI, Ethnic Studies, or “divisive concepts,” but the capacity of Texans to understand their own history and to build a multiracial, pluralistic democracy. The historical record reveals a simple truth: when Texas suppresses knowledge, it is preparing to suppress rights. When it restricts whose stories may be told, it is deciding whose lives matter.

Understanding the deeper historical roots of Texas’ culture war does not diminish its urgency—but it does give us clarity: we have inherited a long, unfinished struggle to make Texas the democratic society it claims to be. And as past generations showed, progress comes not from silence or retreat, but from organized, principled resistance.

History is not repeating itself—it is calling upon all people of good conscience to finish the work.

Reference

Senate Publications and Printing. (2018). Minority Civil Rights and the Texas Legislature. https://www.lrl.texas.gov/scanned/SIRSI/MinorityCivilRightsandtheTexasLegislature.pdf

“It’s Unwritten History”: The Long Fight for Native American and Indigenous Studies for Texas Public Schools, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

“It’s Unwritten History”: The Long Fight for Native American and Indigenous Studies for Texas Public Schools

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

November 10, 2025

This excellent, half-hour conversation on the unwritten history of the long struggle for the inclusion of Native American and Indigenous Studies for Texas schools is both clarifying and deeply engaging. It shines light on voices that have too often been excluded from our state’s curriculum — and on the persistence of those who have worked tirelessly to change that.

I encourage readers to pair this Fronteras segment with an earlier blog post I shared, “Texas State Board of Education renews American Indian/Native Studies course," by Riddhi Bora in Shift/Press, July 4, 2025,” by Riddhi Bora, published in Shift/Press on July 4, 2025. Together, these pieces trace a remarkable trajectory of advocacy, collaboration, and resilience that has brought us to this historic moment.

My heartfelt thanks to Norma Martinez, Marian Navarro, and Texas Public Radio for hosting this important conversation. Their coverage reminds us that Native Studies is not simply about adding another elective to the curriculum—it’s about restoring visibility and dignity to Indigenous histories and worldviews that have been systematically erased or distorted for generations.

As the program notes, the new American Indian/Native Studies course was formally approved by the Texas State Board of Education in June, giving districts across the state the option to offer it as an elective. Students who enroll will now have the opportunity to learn about the histories and living cultures of American Indian peoples and to understand contemporary issues from Native perspectives.

This victory follows years of organizing, from early pilot programs like the one launched in Grand Prairie ISD in 2021 to sustained advocacy by educators, tribal leaders, and allies such as Hawana Townsley—a descendant of Comanche leader Quanah Parker—who helped design the original curriculum. As Townsley so beautifully put it, “We want to ignite that spark of interest so that maybe these students… will take a lifelong journey to learn more about us now and historically.”

Equally inspiring are the words of Marisa Pérez-Díaz, a steadfast advocate on the State Board of Education: “If we provide resonant curriculums where our students can see themselves in the language and experiences, there's a connection there—a deeper commitment to their education, and we'll see more successes.”

And as Orlando Lara, co-founder of the Ethnic Studies Network of Texas, reminds us, this victory is part of a much longer lineage: “The call for ethnic studies in Texas has a long, long history… there’s this long kind of unwritten history that we’re sort of starting to write now.”

Indeed, that history is being written—by educators, parents, students, and community leaders who refuse to let erasure define our collective memory.

As the Department of Education recently clarified in its letter to the National Indian Education Association, the teaching of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian history does not constitute “DEI” or “CRT.” It is, rather, an act of historical honesty and educational equity—something our democracy requires if it is to survive and thrive.

And similarly, the inclusion of Mexican American Studies and African American Studies in public schools does not constitute DEI or CRT—it is about rightful representation, rigorous scholarship, and honoring historically marginalized peoples whose intellectual traditions and lived realities have been excluded from mainstream curricula.

Clearly, there is more work ahead. But our progress is real, and it is worth celebrating.

You can listen to the full Fronteras episode here.

Fronteras: ‘It’s unwritten history’— The years-long fight to offer American Indian/Native Studies in Texas public schools

by Norma Martinez & Marian Navarro | Texas Public Radio | August 29, 2025

A photo from the North Texas Ethnic Studies Regional gathering in Ft. Worth, Texas 2019.
Jonathan Perez

Following approval from the Texas State Board of Education in June, school districts across the state now have the option to offer American Indian/Native Studies as an elective course.

Students who enroll in the course will learn about the history and living cultures of American Indians and understand issues and events from Native perspectives, according to the Texas Education Agency.

Approval came following a years-long process and amid a new state law that bans diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in public schools.

The basis of the Native American Studies course was piloted in 2021 in the Grand Prairie Independent School District.

Hawana Townsley — a descendant of 19th century Comanche leader, Quanah Parker —helped craft the curriculum from the beginning.

“We want to ignite that spark of interest so that maybe these students that are in the class will find an interest, and this will become a lifelong journey that they are taking to learn more about us now and historically,” she said.

Marisa Pérez-Díaz, a member of the Texas State Board of Education, has been a champion for ethnic studies.

“(If) we provide resonant curriculums where our students can see themselves in the language and in the experiences, there's a connection there,” she said. “There's a deeper commitment to their education, and we'll see more successes.”

Orlando Lara, co-founder of the Ethnic Studies Network of Texas, agreed.

“The call for ethnic studies in Texas has a long, long history,” he said. “There's this long kind of unwritten history that we're sort of starting to write now.”

Read a recent letter from the Department of Education below on why American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian history is not classified as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or Critical Race Theory (CRT).

Letter From Department of Education to NIEA by Texas Public Radio 

TPR was founded by and is supported by our community. If you value our commitment to the highest standards of responsible journalism and are able to do so, please consider making your gift of support today.

Tags
Fronteras TPRTop Stories

Norma Martinez
Norma Martinez can be reached at norma@tpr.org and on Twitter at @NormDog1
See stories by Norma Martinez

Marian Navarro
marian@tpr.org
See stories by Marian Navarro

Manufactured Outrage and the Assault on Academic Freedom in Texas, by Dr. Pauline Turner Strong

On September 18, 2025, Dr. Pauline Strong—professor of anthropology at UT-Austin and president of the AAUP chapter—published an urgent guest column titled “Manufactured outrage is killing academic freedom in Texas: Enough with the ‘gotcha’ attacks. Let professors teach. Let students learn.”

Dr. Strong recounts the troubling case of a Texas A&M faculty member who was fired after a student objected to a lesson on gender identity in a children’s literature course. The student wrongly claimed the content was “illegal” under a Trump-era executive order and framed the incident as a “gotcha” moment. Yet, as Strong notes, the professor was teaching directly from the syllabus and within her expertise.

The dismissal, backed by A&M President Mark Welsh and accompanied by the removal of a dean and department head, was made possible by recent Texas laws (SB18 and SB37) that eroded due process and faculty governance. Strong argues that these politically motivated attacks—often targeting those who teach race, gender, and sexuality—are designed to instill fear, weaponize syllabi against faculty, and undermine higher education’s mission.

She warns that if professors can be fired for not pre-listing every topic in a catalog description, countless faculty jobs are at risk, and Texas will face inevitable lawsuits. More importantly, students will lose opportunities to learn how gender and sexuality intersect with literature, history, law, health, education and so on.

Her message is clear: “Enough is enough.” Texas must resist the corrosive politics of manufactured outrage, defend academic freedom, and allow professors to teach and students to learn without fear of intimidation or retaliation.

If you are a faculty member, adjunct, graduate instructor, researcher, or higher education professional, you can stand in solidarity by joining Texas AAUP-Texas AFT. Membership offers:

• Collective protection in the face of politically motivated dismissals.

• Advocacy for academic freedom and shared governance.

• A community committed to defending higher education as a space of inquiry, not intimidation.

Together, we can resist manufactured outrage and affirm the right of professors to teach and students to learn without fear.

-Angela Valenzuela

Manufactured outrage is killing academic freedom in Texas

Enough with the "gotcha" attacks. Let professors teach. Let students learn.

By Pauline Turner Strong, Guest columnistSep 18, 2025

People cAross the campus at Texas A&M University, where a professor was fired last week after a student 

objected to a lesson on gender identity in a course on children’s literature.

The Washington Post/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Sep 18, 2025. Last week, Texas A&M University president Mark Welsh fired a faculty member after a student recorded herself objecting to a lesson on gender identity in a course on children’s literature. The student said the lesson was contrary to her religious beliefs, and she incorrectly claimed that the course content was “illegal” because it violated President Donald Trump’s executive order stating that federal agencies would recognize only two genders, male and female, defined “at conception.” 

The faculty member pointed out that the lesson was not illegal, and told the student “if you are uncomfortable in this class, you do have the right to leave,” which she did. 

The media has largely adopted a framing of this interaction as a “gotcha” moment, in which a student documented a faculty member doing something wrong. In fact, the teacher was following the syllabus and teaching in her area of expertise, just as she was supposed to do. 

Attacking faculty for teaching about gender identity is particularly easy, because gender has become a central lens for humanistic and social scientific fields of study. 

According to Welsh, the professor in question was fired because her lesson on gender identity did not align with the generic, sentence-long catalog description of the course. If faculty who teach about the wide range of gender identities that have existed across time and world cultures can now be fired for not flagging that content in a course catalog, with the long time lag that entails, there is no end to the number of instructors who may lose their jobs — and the number of lawsuits the state will face.

Moments like this — politically-motivated attempts to undermine faculty, especially those who teach courses on race, gender and sexuality — have become all too common in Texas and beyond. 

In accordance with House Bill 2504, passed by the Legislature in 2009, faculty members at public colleges and universities in Texas are required to publish their syllabi online during the first week of classes. Those critical of our teaching regularly point to these publicly available syllabi to attack professors, falsely claiming these materials are “revealing” something that has been hidden. 

The truth is, the syllabus for the Texas A&M class makes clear that gender and sexuality are among the topics considered in the course. 

Political leaders have similarly sought to undermine teaching and research around race, gender and sexuality by taking pictures of faculty members, campus events and scholarly books, in an attempt to “catch” faculty members secretly indoctrinating students. These tactics are designed to stir up a sense of outrage by claiming to “uncover” the daily workings of academic life that are not at all covert. They also seek to instill fear in faculty. 

What was especially disturbing this past week was the fact that Texas’ political leaders jumped aboard a disingenuous attempt to portray a faculty member as trying to get away with something, and they successfully pressured a university president to fire a professor. 

This dramatic action — as well as Welsh’s dismissal of a dean and department head from their administrative positions — was enabled by several laws passed by the Texas Legislature over the past three years. SB18, passed in 2023, weakened faculty members’ rights to due process, while this year's SB37 dramatically undermined their role in institutional decision-making. Together, these measures cleared the path for higher ed administrators to fire faculty members swiftly, on vague grounds, and without due process. 

Faculty who teach controversial subjects, such as gender identity, are now particularly vulnerable to politically-motivated “gotcha” attacks and expedited dismissals, even when they are teaching relevant course material in their area of expertise. This runs counter to Texas A&M’s own policies, which state: “Each faculty member must be free from the corrosive fear that others, inside or outside the university community, because their vision may differ, may threaten the faculty member’s professional career.” 

And Texas students will suffer the most, because they are being deprived of learning how gender and sexuality relate to many fields, including history, law, health sciences, mental health services and — yes — literature. 

Enough is enough. Texas must allow faculty and college students to explore freely the breadth of human knowledge, and administrators must support us in that time-honored quest. 

Pauline Turner Strong is a professor of anthropology and the president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) chapter at the University of Texas at Austin. She is expressing her views as a private citizen.

Texas A&M president resigns after instructor’s firing over gender teachings, Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Washington Post

Friends:

Texas A&M University President Mark A. Welsh III has announced his resignation barely a week after a viral video set off a storm of political outrage that ended with the firing of senior lecturer Melissa McCoul and the removal of both a dean and department head.

The controversy began in Professor McCoul’s children’s literature course when a student objected to her teaching of Jude Saves the World, a novel whose main character is nonbinary. The student insisted the lesson was “illegal” and against religious belief. McCoul, who had successfully taught the text in previous semesters, maintained that her teaching was both lawful and academically appropriate. 

For the record, it's not illegal since anti-DEI, Senate Bill 17 allows us as faculty to continue to teach and conduct research. The moment was nevertheless secretly recorded, uploaded to social media, and swiftly seized upon by political figures eager to weaponize it.

Welsh—a retired four-star general and former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—soon found himself under heavy fire from state leaders including Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Rep. Brian Harrison, who demanded his ouster and the dismantling of all so-called “DEI and LGBTQ indoctrination” in Texas universities. His attempt to appease critics by firing McCoul and demoting administrators did not silence the uproar. In the end, he stepped aside.

Now, faculty and students at Texas A&M face an unsettling reality: a campus climate increasingly shaped by political dictates rather than academic judgment. McCoul, by all accounts a respected instructor with more than a decade of teaching experience, is fighting her termination through an appeal.

From what I have gathered about Welsh’s own defense of academic freedom—including a thoughtful LinkedIn post shared by Dr. Leonard Bright—I cannot help but wonder if his willingness to stand by this principle hastened his exit. It is sobering to realize that one of our state’s largest and most prestigious public university could not shield its president from partisan attack when he appeared to affirm what is, after all, a constitutional right.

As assaults on higher education escalate across the nation, Welsh’s resignation is a stark warning. It signals not only the erosion of academic freedom but also the weakening of democratic norms. The question we face is urgent: Will Texas universities defend the right of professors to teach and students to learn without fear, or will they surrender to political interference? The future of higher education in this state—and the public it serves—depends on the answer.

—Angela Valenzuela

Texas A&M president resigns after instructor’s firing over gender teachings

President Mark A. Welsh III is stepping down after a video of a student accusing an instructor of illegally teaching “gender ideology” led to the instructor’s firing.

Texas A&M University President Mark A. Welsh III (Mark Felix/For The 

Washington Post)

Molly Hennessy-Fiske | Washington Post | September 19, 2025

HOUSTON — The president of Texas A&M University’s flagship campus is stepping down a little over a week after a viral video of a student accusing an instructor of illegally teaching “gender ideology” led to the instructor’s firing, the removal of a dean and department head, as well as calls for investigations — including by the Justice Department.

President Mark A. Welsh III is a retired four-star general who trained as a fighter pilot and later served as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He has also held roles including associate director for military affairs at the CIA, commandant of cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy and dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at A&M.

Welsh took over at Texas A&M two years ago after M. Katherine Banks retired as university president in the wake of a scandal involving the botched hiring of journalism professor Kathleen McElroy. That job offer provoked backlash from the Texas GOP because of McElroy’s work on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, which Texas has since banned.

Welsh will step down Friday, according to a statement released by Texas A&M late Thursday.

“Today, President Welsh has submitted his resignation, and both the Board of Regents and I agree that this is the right moment for change,” Texas A&M Chancellor Glenn Hegar said in a separate statement posted on X.

Hegar, a former GOP state lawmaker, thanked Welsh for his service and contributions to the university. He said the nine-member Board of Regents — appointed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) — will conduct a nationwide search for Welsh’s successor and appoint an interim president “to guide the university during this transition.”

On Friday, Welsh posted a statement that shed little light on why he decided to resign, apart from the recent controversy.

“When I was first appointed as President of Texas A&M University, I told then Chancellor John Sharp and our Board of Regents that I would serve as well as I possibly could until it was time for someone else to take over. Over the past few days, it’s become clear that now is that time,” Welsh wrote.

“It was the right decision for him to do for himself, the university, students, and faculty,” said Leonard Bright, a professor at Texas A&M’s Bush School of Government and Public Service, in a text message. “Now, we look to the university and (board of regents) to conduct an earnest search for a replacement who will fully support the values of academic freedom and protect the university from political interference in our classrooms.”

State Rep. Brian Harrison (R), who posted the viral video and audio recordings of Welsh while repeatedly demanding his ouster, celebrated his resignation Thursday on X.

“As the first elected official to call for him to be fired, this news is welcome, although overdue,” Harrison wrote. “Now … END ALL DEI AND LGBTQ INDOCTRINATION IN TEXAS!!”

The video excerpt that contributed to Welsh stepping down was shared by Harrison on Sept. 8. It was filmed on July 29 during a children’s literature class, but neither the student — whom Harrison declined to identify because they had requested anonymity — nor instructor Melissa McCoul appear on camera.

In a statement emailed to The Washington Post by her attorney this week, McCoul said the class was on the second of three days reading a middle-grade contemporary fiction novel called “Jude Saves the World” that she had taught in “several previous iterations” of the class.

“The main character, Jude, is nonbinary. The plot largely deals with Jude’s difficulties with ADHD in school, their relationship with their friends, mother, and grandparents, and their friend group’s attempt to build an LGBTQ-accepting social club in their town,” she said.

McCoul said that on the first day, she had provided “contextual background information on sex, sexuality and gender as they applied to children’s literature, as well as the ways things like toys and clothing are often gendered,” and was recapping those points when the video was filmed.

The footage begins as the student interrupts to insist the lesson is “not legal, and I don’t want to promote something that is against our president’s laws.”

“According to our president, there’s only two genders,” the student says, alleging that the instruction “very much goes against, not only myself, but a lot of people’s religious beliefs.”

In response, McCoul can be heard telling the student that “if you are uncomfortable in this class, you do have the right to leave. What we are doing is not illegal.”

She then referred the student to a department head, noting that officials were aware of the concerns. “I’m not convinced that your proposal will be effective in stopping me from teaching things that are biologically true, because I do have the legal and ethical authority, professional expertise in this classroom,” McCoul said, before telling the student to leave.

A day later, McCoul was fired. Her attorney Amanda Reichek, a Democratic former Texas judge, has released a statement calling McCoul “a highly regarded senior lecturer,” noting that she had “over a decade of teaching experience under her belt when she was summarily terminated” and is appealing her firing.

After the video went viral, Welsh also removed McCoul’s dean and department head, but that did not satisfy Harrison or Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), a staunch ally of President Donald Trump.

“His ambivalence on the issue and his dismissal of the student’s concerns by immediately taking the side of the professor is unacceptable,” Patrick posted on X last week.

Abbott had already threatened to fire Welsh in January after the university’s business school invited doctoral students and faculty to a conference designed to promote classroom diversity. Welsh responded by pulling the university out of the conference.

Several other presidents of major U.S. universities have also been forced out or resigned under pressure in recent years, as elected officials and conservative activists — including in the Trump administration — increasingly scrutinize campus culture and decisions.

Trump and his administration have this year attacked Columbia, Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Virginia. Texas A&M, with an enrollment of more than 79,000, is the largest state school to face such backlash and is among the largest universities in the country.

Texas GOP leaders have passed laws this year strengthening their control over university curriculums, hiring and protests.


Susan Svrluga contributed to this report from Washington.

A Win for DEI in the Courts as Texas Doubles Down on Censorship

Friends:

A Trump-appointed federal judge has just handed down a major defeat to the Trump administration’s ongoing war on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in education. Judge Stephanie Gallagher ruled that the U.S. Department of Education’s attempt to force states to certify that no schools used DEI “leapfrogged procedure and ran headfirst into serious constitutional problems” (Schultz, 2025).

As Brooke Schultz reports in Education Week, the administration had demanded that states sign a letter pledging schools would eliminate DEI or risk losing federal funds. Gallagher struck this down as unlawful, pointing out that the Department not only bypassed proper rulemaking procedures but also overstepped its authority by trying to dictate curriculum—something federal law prohibits (Schultz, 2025). For educators and unions that have resisted what they describe as a “war on education,” the ruling is a clear victory.

But in Texas, the fight is far from over. Senate Bill 12 (SB 12), passed earlier this year and set to take effect on September 1, 2025, bans DEI outright in K-12 schools. The law prohibits schools from considering race, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation in hiring, instruction, or programming. It even requires parental permission for student clubs, sets up grievance systems for parents to file complaints, and authorizes disciplinary action against teachers who engage in DEI work (Texas Legislature Online, 2025; Texas Tribune, 2025).

Civil rights groups such as the ACLU of Texas and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT) warn that SB 12 represents an assault on student rights and inclusive education. They have already announced plans to challenge the law in court, arguing that it strips away support systems for LGBTQIA+, Black, and Brown students while creating a climate of fear for educators (ACLU of Texas, 2025).

The contradiction is stark: at the federal level, a Trump-appointed judge ruled that anti-DEI mandates violated the Constitution. Yet in Texas, state leaders are charging ahead with some of the harshest restrictions on DEI in the country. These dueling developments remind us that the battle for inclusive, equitable public schools will be fought both in the courts and in our communities.

As educators, parents, and advocates, we must remain vigilant. The federal ruling is a sign that justice and constitutional protections can prevail, but Texas’s SB 12 shows just how quickly rights can be rolled back when fear and ideology drive policy. The fight for schools that affirm all students—regardless of race, gender, or identity—has never been more urgent.

Now is the time to act. Support organizations like the ACLU of Texas and SEAT that are preparing legal challenges, attend local school board meetings to resist the chilling effects of SB 12, and amplify the stories of students and teachers most impacted. Our collective voice is the strongest defense against censorship, erasure, and the dismantling of inclusive education.

With our students and Gen Z Texans in mind, we desperately need you to get out and vote, too, so that we can build a better and brighter Texas. 

Check out my "power-of-3.5 percent" blog I posted yesterday. 

We can totally do this. Sí se puede! Yes we can!

-Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

References

ACLU of Texas. (2025, May 24). ACLU of Texas comments on passage of SB 12, a bill that bans diversity, equity, and inclusion in K–12. https://www.aclutx.org/en/press-releases/aclu-texas-comments-passage-sb-12-bill-bans-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-k-12

American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. (2025, June 23). ACLU of Texas, SEAT will sue over S.B. 12 — Texas law that prohibits programs and discussions involving race, gender identity, and sexual orientation in K‑12 schools [Press release]. ACLU of Texas. https://www.aclutx.org/en/press-releases/aclu-texas-seat-will-sue-over-sb-12-texas-law-prohibits-programs-and-discussions

Schultz, B. (2025, August 15). Ed. Dept.’s anti-DEI efforts leapfrog procedure and run headfirst into serious constitutional problems, judge rules. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org

Texas Legislature Online. (2025). Senate Bill 12 analysis, 89th Legislature. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/analysis/pdf/SB00012F.pdf

Texas Tribune. (2025, May 24). Texas law bans DEI in K–12 schools, limits discussion of gender and sexuality. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/24/texas-dei-ban-schools-senate-bill-12 

Trump Can’t Require Schools to Certify They Won’t Use DEI, Judge Says

The Ed. Dept.'s anti-DEI efforts leapfrog procedure and ‘run headfirst into serious constitutional problems,’ the judge, a Trump appointee, ruled

Brooke Schultz, EdWeek | August 15, 2025

The Trump administration ran “into serious constitutional problems” by asking states to certify their school districts don’t use diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, a federal judge ruled this week.

Maryland District Judge Stephanie Gallagher on Thursday sided with a coalition of plaintiffs—including the American Federation of Teachers, the nation’s second-largest teachers’ union, and the Eugene, Ore., school district—that sued in an effort to strike down several efforts made by the U.S. Department of Education to curb educators’ use of what it called “illegal DEI practices” without defining the term.

The plaintiffs were challenging a Feb. 14 department memo, sent to K-12 schools and universities, telling them to cease using “race as a factor in admissions, financial aid, hiring, training, and other institutional programming,” and a certification requirement, through which the Education Department threatened to withhold federal funding unless states signed a letter saying no schools used DEI.

Gallagher, along with other federal judges considering similar cases, had already agreed with plaintiffs that the Feb. 14 “Dear Colleague” letter ran afoul of the law, but her 76-page order Thursday fully considered the certification requirement. A Trump-appointed judge, Gallagher found it unlawful.

“This court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue in this case are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair. But, at this stage too, it must closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires. Here, it did not,” she wrote in her opinion. “And by leapfrogging important procedural requirements, the government has unwittingly run headfirst into serious constitutional problems.”

The ruling is a victory for the educators who have repeatedly challenged President Donald Trump’s administration for its swift and aggressive action to carry out the president’s policy agenda. Since taking office, the Trump administration has zeroed in on what it calls “illegal DEI”—issuing executive orders and launching other policy efforts to curb its use.

Plaintiffs called Gallagher’s opinion an “invaluable decision that will have a sweeping and positive impact on public schools, teachers, and students.”

“Threatening teachers and sowing chaos in schools throughout America is part of the Trump-Vance administration’s war on education, and today the people won,” the coalition, represented by the group Democracy Forward, said in a statement. “While the fight to protect public education is far from over, today’s ruling is an important victory.”

An Education Department spokesperson said, despite the ruling, the agency “remains committed to its responsibility to uphold students’ anti-discrimination protections under the law.”

“While the department is disappointed in the judge’s ruling, judicial action enjoining or setting aside this guidance has not stopped our ability to enforce Title VI protections for students at an unprecedented level,” the spokesperson continued.

Judge says administration can’t express viewpoints at ‘expense of constitutional rights’

Early into his second term, Trump signed an executive order threatening federal funds if schools used DEI, which he termed “discriminatory equity ideology.” The Education Department began working in tandem by issuing anti-DEI memos, opening an “End DEI” portal for the public to report the use of DEI, and directing states and school districts to certify they wouldn’t use DEI in order to receive federal funds. The department has also opened at least 65 civil rights investigations into school districts and colleges over alleged use of DEI, alleging violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for initiatives such as a Black Student Success Plan in Chicago.

Twenty-one states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had said they would sign the certification, according to an Education Week tally. Twenty-five states declined to sign it. The Education Department set an April 24 deadline.

The actions sparked several lawsuits, and three judges in April agreed with plaintiffs that they didn’t pass legal muster, putting them on hold for slightly different reasons.

Gallagher, appointed to the federal bench in Trump’s first term, found in April that the administration hadn’t followed proper procedure in directing schools to eliminate DEI programs, which she said represented a significant policy change. She also found that the directive overstepped the federal government’s authority with respect to curriculum, which it’s prohibited by law from influencing or prescribing.

Her April ruling temporarily blocked the Feb. 14 “Dear Colleague” letter on DEI. Her Thursday ruling was the final finding in the case.

In the Thursday decision, Gallagher said the letter and certification requirement “both make credible and specific threats of enforcement relating to classroom speech.” She also found that the administration did not properly follow rulemaking procedures.

“The administration is entitled to express its viewpoints and to promulgate policies aligned with those viewpoints,” she wrote. “But it must do so within the procedural bounds Congress has outlined. And it may not do so at the expense of constitutional rights.”

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten called Gallagher’s decision a “huge win” and “sweeping indictment” of the Trump administration’s actions.

“This decision rightly strikes down the government’s attempt to dictate curriculum, and, in so doing, upholds the purpose and promise inherent in our public schools,” she said in a statement.