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/

Student legislation proposes ethnic studies class, Native American and Indigenous Cultural and Resource Center

Glad to see undergraduate students at UT taking a lead in Ethnic Studies.  I gather from this November 15, 2018 piece in the Daily Texan that the proposed class would help all UT undergraduate students to get at least some exposure to the experiences of ethnic groups in the U.S.  Resolution 1807 also requests specific support for Native American and Indigenous Studies in creating a Cultural and Resource Center.  

This looks like a great and important start.

-Angela Valenzuela


Student legislation proposes ethnic studies class, Native American and Indigenous Cultural and Resource Center

Photo Credit: Ryan Lam | Daily Texan Staff

BY SARA SCHLEEDE
November 15, 2018

Students can explore African, Latin American and Native American studies and more through UT-Austin curricula, but the opportunity to study many ethnic groups at once can seem limited. 

Senate Resolution 1807, introduced at the Senate meeting Thursday night, advocates for the creation of an ethnic studies class to allow underclassmen the chance to explore the study of different ethnic groups in the United States.

Senate policy director Amrutha Sreedharane said the class would not be able to offer a comprehensive history of all ethnic groups but hopefully, would ignite a student’s interest to learn more after being introduced to the topics.  

“This class would be co-taught from faculty from different ethnic studies departments,” computer science senior Sreedharane said. “It wouldn’t just be a content-based class but skill-building to teach students on how to think about these issues as a whole.”

In addition, Senate approved S.R. 1805 in support of allowing course seats to be reserved for students pursuing specific certificates and minors. This would add to UT’s current course registration system which allows departments to restrict course seats by major, honors programs and course prerequisites.

“We reached out to eight or nine different colleges,” said Greg Pauloski, natural sciences policy director and computer science junior. “All of them responded positively to the legislation, saying if they were to use it, they would find it useful, but there would only be limited cases in which they would find it necessary.”

Senate also approved Joint Resolution 1802 in support of the creation of a Native American and Indigenous Cultural and Resource Center. 

The legislation requests the allocation of a space in central campus — such as the Flawn Academic Center, the Student Activity Center or Patton Hall — for Native American and Indigenous students, faculty and community members to convene. The Native American and Indigenous Collective is currently one of the six agencies housed in the Multicultural Engagement Center in the Student Activity Center. 

“This center will be located in central campus to combat the historical marginalization and displacement that Native American and Indigenous communities continue to endure,” the legislation reads. 

Social work junior Eli Cortez said he has heard many suggestions to create another Multicultural Engagement Center or expand upon the current facility. Cortez, an officer for Queer and Trans People of Color Agency, said he does not believe building a space specifically for Native American and Indigenous students will put other groups at a disadvantage and that his organization supports the legislation.

“To just lump all marginalized groups together to say they all have to move at the same time, fall back at the time, or share the same resources is a form of discrimination in and of itself,” Cortez said.