New Restrictions Leave Some Texas Students Questioning Where They Belong in College

Friends:

I write to congratulate the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) and Dr. Chloe Latham Sikes for producing a timely and much-needed study on the consequences of Texas' anti-DEI policies for college-bound students.

Their report, Staying on Course When Schools Steer Clear, gives voice to what many of us have been hearing since the passage of Senate Bill 17: students are questioning not simply where they can attend college, but where they will be welcomed, supported, and safe.

Drawing on the experiences of more than 90 Texans—including high school students, parents, educators, and counselors—the study finds that recent state and federal policy changes have diminished students' sense of belonging, reduced confidence in campus supports, complicated the work of college counselors, and heightened concerns about both physical safety and mental health. Particularly troubling is that some students are now removing Texas colleges from their application lists altogether because they no longer believe these institutions will support them.

These findings should concern everyone who cares about the future of our youth, and higher education itself, in Texas. When students begin to self-select out of public institutions—for which their families pay taxes—because they fear exclusion or lack of support, the state risks losing talented young people whose contributions are essential to our civic, economic, and intellectual future. This dynamic potentially places an added "tax," if you will for families who cannot keep their children in the state.

What makes this report especially valuable is that it does more than document the problem. It also offers practical, community-based resources and recommendations to help students navigate these new barriers and expand their pathways to college.

IDRA and Dr. Sikes have provided an important public service by grounding this debate in the lived experiences of Texas families rather than political rhetoric. At a moment when questions of belonging, opportunity, and educational equity are under intense scrutiny, this research offers evidence that policymakers, educators, and the public would do well to take seriously.

Congratulations to IDRA and Dr. Chloe Latham Sikes for this important contribution to the field and to the ongoing struggle to ensure that every student has a genuine opportunity not only to access higher education, but to thrive once they arrive.

-Angela Valenzuela

View as a webpage • July 9, 2026

New Restrictions Leave Some Texas Students Questioning Where They Belong in College

IDRA Study Participants Report Concerns About Support, Safety and Access Following Recent Diversity Policy Changes

(July 9, 2026 • San Antonio) Federal and state restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion have created new barriers to college access for students across Texas, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds.

IDRA’s two-year study provides an early look at how these policies are affecting high school students’ access to and success in college.

In 2023, Texas passed Senate Bill 17, which bans diversity, equity and inclusion offices at public colleges and universities. That same year, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly limited race-conscious admissions in higher education in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC decision.

“All students deserve access to college and the support they need,” said lead researcher, Dr. Chloe Latham Sikes. “Participants in IDRA’s study report that recent policy changes compromised their sense of belonging in college, limited scholarship opportunities, diminished campus supports for historically marginalized students, and heightened concerns about physical and mental safety on college campuses.”

The report, Staying on Course When Schools Steer Clear: A Community-Based Study on the Impacts of Texas' Diversity Policy Change on High School Students and Tools to Expand their College Pathways, includes perspectives from more than 90 Texans across the state, primarily high school students. Students, parents, educators and college counselors reported that recent policy changes are affecting college access in several ways, including:

Counselors reported greater difficulty encouraging students to pursue college.
Students and counselors reported a diminished sense of belonging when exploring college options.

Educators and students expressed concern about reduced support for students transitioning to college, particularly first-generation students.

 
Parents reported heightened concerns about students' physical safety and mental health on campus

“[The impact of the policy changes] has made me more cautious… and also intentional about choosing a college that not only offers strong academics but also provides a safe and supportive environment for my daughter, especially in the absence of [diversity, equity and inclusion] programs.” – Parent

“I’ve definitely just taken at least five colleges off my list just based on the DEI [response and them] not supporting students whatsoever when it comes to this.” – High school student

One high school student said: “It has definitely changed my perspective on which colleges I'm even going to apply to, because I obviously don’t want to be on a campus that doesn’t support me.”

A parent shared that the new state law (SB 17) “has made me more cautious… and also intentional about choosing a college that not only offers strong academics but also provides a safe and supportive environment for my daughter, especially in the absence of [diversity, equity and inclusion] programs.”

The report offers recommendations for supporting students academically and addressing longstanding barriers to college access and affordability.

Drawing on community input, IDRA developed a Community-based College Access Technical Assistance package that includes three toolkits and more than 15 bilingual resources to support students’ transition to college.

To learn more about the study, contact Chloe Latham Sikes, Ph.D., at chloe.sikes@idra.org.Media contact: Thomas Marshall III, M.Ed., at thomas.marshall@idra.org.

Beyond the Bans – Changes Limiting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Practices Compromise Student Opportunity
IDRA is an independent, non-profit organization. Our mission is to achieve equal educational opportunity for every child through strong public schools that prepare all students to access and succeed in college.

Reach Out To Us

IDRA
5815 Callaghan Road, #101
San Antonio, TX 78228
United States

Texas' New School Voucher Law [INFOGRAPHIC] /Nueva Ley de Vales Escolares de Texas—FROM Intercultural Development Research Association [INFOGRAFIA]

 Friends,

Compliments of Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA), here are infographics in English and Spanish, on Texas' new school voucher law.

-Angela Valenzuela

Urgent Message from IDRA: Act Right Now to Stop Federal Vouchers!

 Friends:

The Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) out of San Antonio has just issued this warning. This is indeed concerning, a federal voucher program that would override states that have voted these down.

-Angela Valenzuela

#vouchers #DoSomething 

View as Webpage  •  May 13, 2025 Urgent: Act Right Now to Stop Federal Vouchers! Today at 2:30 pm ET, members of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee began discussing a budget reconciliation bill that includes a federal voucher program. If it passes, the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) will divert much-needed public funds from our nation’s public schools that educate the vast majority of young people. The act would provide a dollar-for-dollar tax credit to individuals who give money to voucher-granting organizations. This federal voucher would siphon up to $20 billion from public funds to individual families to homeschool their children or send them to private schools, even in states where voters have previously rejected voucher schemes. All vouchers hurt public schools and the diverse children in them. Now is the Time to Act! Here's what can you do right now… Learn more See our infographic on the below: 5 Reasons Private School Vouchers Would Hurt Students.   Learn more about ECCA from the National Coalition for Public Education (statement, overview and talking points) and the Alliance to Reclaim our Schools.   See this letter from the Advancement Project and coalition partners to understand the particular impact a federal voucher would have on public schools, students of color, and working-class and middle-class families.   See the report Shelter Skelter: How the Educational Choice for Children Act Would Use Tax Avoidance to Fuel School Privatization from the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy and the summary of this report. Contact Members of Congress Now It is critical to contact the members who represent you and members of the House Ways and Means committee and tell them to oppose the inclusion of a voucher in the reconciliation bill now.   You can email the members of Congress who represent you here.   You can email all the Ways and Means Committee members here. For more information, contact Morgan Craven, J.D., IDRA’s National Director of Policy, Advocacy, and Community Engagement at morgan.craven@idra.org. IDRA is an independent, non-profit organization. Our mission is to achieve equal educational opportunity for every child through strong public schools that prepare all students to access and succeed in college. Reach Out to Us IDRA 5815 Callaghan Road, #101 San Antonio, TX 78228 United States If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please (Unsubscribing is not supported in previews).

"SB 37 Will Harm Students’ Development as Critical Thinkers"—TLEEC Testimony Against Senate Bill 37, March 20, 2025

Friends:

Sen. Brandon Creighton's (R-Dist. 4) Senate Bill 37 merits a close read not only because it is injurious to the purposes of higher education, but it could prove to be model legislation for other states. It is an anti-tenure and anti-faculty governance bill and is premised on the view that we are not doing our job in higher education in preparing young people for productive lives in society. At worst, we're allegedly and falsely about "woke indoctrination" instead of real education. 

As University of Houston's Dr. Maria Gonzalez demonstrated in her testimony, citing all the Texas institutions that granted the very legislators on Senate Education Committee their college diplomas, the system isn't broken, but rather doing what it's supposed to be doing. Similarly, Texas AFT's Amanda Garcia said that if it's not broken, it shouldn't be fixed.

To get the whole picture, I encourage you to listen for yourselves to the testimony delivered in yesterday's hearing in the Senate Committee on Education (Part I and Part II).  Of course, as usual, the invited testimony was approving of the bill while everyone else that spoke was strongly opposed. 

I am happy to share here this Texas Legislative Education Equity Coalition policy brief on the bill from which witness Vivek Datla testified. A version of it will most certainly come out of the Senate. A goal would be to stop it in the House.

Of course, reach out to whoever represents you to express your views on this horrific legislation that spells disaster for Texas higher education should any version of this become law.

-Angela Valenzuela

SB 37 Will Harm Students’ Development as Critical Thinkers

TLEEC Testimony Against Senate Bill 37, submitted by Vivek Datla to the Texas Senate K-16 Education Committee, March 20, 2025

Dear Chairman Creighton and members of the K-16 Education Committee,

My name is Vivek Datla, and I am an IDRA Education Policy Fellow testifying on behalf of the Texas Legislative Education Equity Coalition (TLEEC) against Senate Bill 37. Our coalition is a statewide collaborative of more than 38 organizations and individuals with the mission to improve the quality of public education for all children, with a focus on racial equity. We advocate at the local, state and national levels for high-quality teaching, curricula and instructional practices, bilingual education, fair funding, and enhanced college access and success.

TLEEC opposes SB 37 and is specifically concerned about Sections 51.315 and 454 and the potential of these proposals to censor students’ exposure to diverse curricula and ideologies as taught by field experts. The sections would diminish students’ exercise of free thought and academic judgement and impede the overall development of students as critically thinking adults.

Shared Governance Structures Promote Fair Curricula, Critical Thinking and Free Expression

Texas’ public universities do a great job of developing students and preparing them for the workforce. They consistently rank highly in publications of the nation’s best college institutions. They are powered by the principles of shared governance developed jointly in the 1960s by the American Association of University Professors, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

In producing those guidelines, the representatives of faculty, school leaders and governing board members recognized that the shared interests of different university bodies necessitate collaboration, shared management of responsibilities, and freedom of expression without fear of reprisal. Those shared interests should, as they correctly described, create and maintain an educational process that enables students to “be stimulated by it to become independent adults” and that transmits to them “the cultural heritage of the larger society,” including the “strength, freshness of view and idealism of the student body.” Research suggests that when students engage with curricula that challenge previously held beliefs, they become more civically engaged and are better prepared to cooperate with others in their workspaces and in their communities (Son Holoien, 2013).

It was understood then that decisions concerning curricula and instructional methods are best left, as they are now, to field and research experts: the faculty who work directly with students daily to introduce them to diverse subject matter, foster their creative thinking and analytical skills, and prepare them for careers after college that require them to exercise individual judgement to work with others to solve complex problems.

SB 37 Creates Vague Requirements and Processes that May Induce a “Chilling Effect” on Curriculum and Instruction

SB 37 introduces vague and potentially harmful constraints on students’ exposure to diverse curricula and ideas, while transferring curriculum oversight from faculty to new and unnecessary review committees. Specifically, we are concerned about bill language that seeks to establish an office to “address matters of academic discourse,” though the bill does not clarify allowable or unallowable discourse.

Additionally, we are concerned that the bill restricts any curricula from endorsing “specific public policies, ideologies or legislation,” though these terms and what endorsement is are not defined. This lack of clarity and the broad nature of these proposals are likely to create a political chilling effect on higher education courses, curricula and activities that ultimately reduces students’ exposure to and discussion of complex topics, inhibiting their development as critical thinkers in the process.

Recommendations

TLEEC urges the following recommendations.

• Maintain and strengthen shared governance structures that allow for engagement with diverse curriculum curated by experts.
• Support Texas colleges to offer students a diverse range of perspectives, experiences and opportunities that will prepare them to be critical thinkers, innovators and leaders.

For questions, please contact TLEEC either through Kaci Wright at IDRA (kaci.wright@idra.org), Dr. Chloe Latham Sikes at IDRA (chloe.sikes@idra.org) or Jaime Puente at Every Texan (puente@everytexan.org).

Resources

Son Holoien, D. (September 2013). Do Differences Make a Difference? The Effects of Diversity on Learning, Intergroup Outcomes, and Civic Engagement. Princeton Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity. https://inclusive.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf7151/files/pu-report- diversity-outcomes.pdf

Texas Legislative Education Equity Coalition (TLEEC) is a collaborative of organizations and individuals with the mission to improve the quality of public education for all children, with a focus on racial equity. The coalition convenes organizations and individuals who advocate in the interest of public school students at the local, state and national levels.

TLEEC Member Organizations

ARISE Adelante Asian Texans for Justice Austin Justice Coalition Big Thought Black Parents and Families Collective Breakthrough Central  Texas Coalition of Texans with Disabilities Culturingua Dr. Hector P. García G.I. Forum Easterseals Central Texas Educators in Solidarity (EIS) Ethnic Studies Network of Texas (ESNTX) Every Texan Houston Community Voices for Public Education IDRA McNeil Educational Foundation for Ecumenical Leadership Measure Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) Mexican American School Board Members Association (MASBA)

National Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies (NACCS) – Tejas Foco San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce SEAT (Students Engaged in Advancing Texas) Southwest Region Youth Legislative Action Center Texas American Federation of Teachers Texas Association for Bilingual Education (TABE) Texas Association for Chicanos in Higher Education (TACHE) Texas Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (TADOHE) Texas Association of Mexican American Chambers of Commerce (TAMACC) Texas Center for Education Policy at the University of Texas – Austin Texas Hispanics Organized for Political Education (HOPE) Texas League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) Texas NAACP Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA) The Arc of Texas UnidosUS (formerly known as NCLR) UP Partnership