UT’s Gender and Ethnic Studies Shake-Up: Name the Pressures. Name the Politicians. Name the Agenda. by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

UT’s Gender and Ethnic Studies Shake-Up: Name the Pressures. Name the Politicians. Name the Agenda.

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Feb. 22, 2026

Austin American-Statesman reporter Lily Kepner’s article on the University of Texas’s decision to consolidate its ethnic and gender studies departments repeatedly invokes “pressure,” “politically unpopular programs,” and unnamed “conservative politicians.” Yet it never identifies who is applying this pressure, what specific actions they have taken, or how these programs have been deemed unpopular. That omission is not incidental—it is the central issue.

The story claims UT’s decision follows “months of pressure from conservative politicians to eliminate ‘liberal’ education and ‘gender ideology.’” Which politicians? What letters, hearings, budget threats, regent directives, or formal communications substantiate this assertion? If such evidence exists, it should be documented. This is not a reference to Senate Bill 37 or its author, former Senator Brandon Creighton, now president of Texas Tech University. He is one actor. The question concerns the broader agenda the article implies but does not name.

The characterization of these departments as “politically unpopular programs” is equally unsupported. By what measure? The article reports 307 undergraduate majors across the affected departments, notes national rankings placing UT at the top in Latin American History, and references decades of student demand dating to the 1970s. Faculty describe strong interdisciplinary enrollment from engineering, pre-med, and other colleges. These are indicators of institutional vitality, not marginality.

Meanwhile, departments unrelated to race, ethnicity, or gender remain structurally intact. If this were a neutral effort to address administrative “fragmentation,” consolidation would be evenly distributed. It is not. The selective restructuring of African and African Diaspora Studies, Mexican American and Latino Studies, and Women and Gender Studies warrants scrutiny the article gestures toward but does not pursue.

The piece references Governor Greg Abbott’s intervention at Texas A&M, system-level restrictions on race or "gender ideology,” course audits on gender identity, and SB 37’s restructuring of faculty governance. Yet it stops short of connecting these developments to UT’s decision in a sustained way. The result is a narrative of diffuse cultural tension rather than a clear account of political and structural mechanisms.

Those mechanisms are concrete: SB 17’s dismantling of DEI infrastructure, SB 37’s weakening of faculty governance, and sustained public criticism of race and gender scholarship by state leadership. And now there is an additional layer. 

Last week, the UT System Board of Regents adopted new guidance regarding the teaching of so-called “controversial topics,” directing institutions to ensure such material is “germane” to course objectives and framed in ways that avoid perceived ideological advocacy. While presented as a reaffirmation of academic neutrality, the policy introduces new ambiguity: Who determines what is “germane”? How is ideological advocacy defined? And what mechanisms will be used to monitor compliance?

For faculty in fields already publicly targeted, this creates policy-induced precarity. When governance structures have been weakened, DEI offices dismantled, and course content subjected to heightened scrutiny, consolidation cannot be viewed in isolation. The cumulative effect is an environment in which academic decisions are made under the shadow of legislative intervention and board-level oversight.

University administrators invoke “balance,” “efficiency,” and “fractured fields”—whatever the heck this means. If anything, the administration is actively doing the fracturing in which case this must reflect a level of psychological projection at work. Go figure.

If consolidation is driven by enrollment metrics or financial concerns, comparable data across all departments should be released. Transparency would clarify whether this is pedagogical recalibration or politically shaped reorganization.

Instead, “pressure” functions as an unnamed force—shaping outcomes without accountability. Universities evolve. Units merge. Priorities shift. But when programs centered on race, ethnicity, and gender are restructured amid weakened faculty governance, legislative hostility, and new board directives on “controversial topics,” skepticism is not ideological; it is an analytical inference from the institutional and political conditions surrounding these decisions.

The public deserves clarity. If elected officials, regents, or donors are influencing curricular structures, that influence should be reported. If this is an internal decision grounded in measurable criteria, the data should be made public.

When actors remain unnamed and evidence unstated, “pressure” becomes a placeholder for power no one is required to own. In moments like this, clarity is not optional. It is the responsibility of both institutions—and those who report on them.

After anti-liberal pressure, University of Texas to consolidate gender and ethnic studies

Affected departments include those that focus on African and African Diaspora Studies, Mexican American Studies, Women and Gender Studies and American Studies.

By Lily Kepner, Staff WriterFeb 12, 2026 | Austin American-Statesman

A demonstrator holds up a sign at the base of the UT Tower during a protest at the University of
Texas at Austin on Monday, October. 13, 2025. About 150 people gathered to protest Trump's
compact and potential cuts to ethnic and gender studies programs in UT's College of Liberal Arts.
Aaron E. Martinez/Austin American-Statesman

The University of Texas’s College of Liberal Arts will consolidate its long-standing ethnic and gender studies programs into one new department.

The university will immediately begin the process of creating the new Department for Social and Cultural Analysis Studies after months of pressure from conservative politicians to eliminate “liberal” education and “gender ideology” from the state’s flagship. There is no target date for the change to go fully into effect.

UT’s decision follows Texas A&M University move to close its Women and Gender Studies Department earlier this year. In a 9 a.m. meeting with department chairs Thursday, Interim Dean David Sosa said curriculum and degree programs in the departments are being reviewed.


The future of the centers and programs within the existing departments is not yet clear, two faculty in the meeting confirmed. It is also unclear if layoffs will eventually accompany the consolidations, but Sosa did not announce any immediate firings, two faculty said.

The college launched a committee last fall to explore the consolidation of overly “fractured” departments, prompting student protests to protect the programs.

Affected departments include those that focus on African and African Diaspora Studies, Mexican American and Latino Studies, Women and Gender Studies and American Studies, which have a combined 307 undergraduate majors, according to UT data.

The Asian Studies department, which was not included in Thursday’s meeting, has 185 majors. Middle Eastern Studies, also not included in the call, has 80. Department chairs from Germanic Studies, Slavic and Eurasian Studies, French and Italian will be combined into a new department of European and Eurasian Studies. The departments teach foreign languages — a course requirement for COLA graduates.

Having an official designation as a UT department matters — it allows programs to receive funding for events, faculty and a greater voice in tenure and promotion decisions. Consolidating the programs effectively eliminates any institutional support for the politically unpopular programs, and further curtails faculty input in university decisions.

“There can be no reason for this decision other than an authoritarian takeover of Texas’ flagship university,” Lauren Gutterman, associate professor of American Studies and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, said. “If this was about too much fragmentation or small majors, then why are departments like Religious Studies, Middle Eastern Studies, and Classics unaffected?”

UT Spokesperson Mike Rosen declined to comment by press time. Two hours after the meeting, UT President Jim Davis announced the changes in an email to campus. He confirmed that as the university reviews what majors, minors and certificates the new departments will offer, all students currently in the programs will be allowed to continue.

Davis said he asked the College of Liberal Arts to analyze what fields make sense to stand alone or come together based on student-to-faculty ratio, program size, student demand and resources. The consolidation doesn’t mean the subjects aren’t “worthy” of research and teaching, but allows them to be “researched and taught in the broader context of other fields, classes, disciplines, and departments,” he wrote.

“These two new departments reflect our ongoing commitment to academic excellence and our responsibility to ensure that every student at UT Austin has access to a balanced and challenging educational experience,” Davis said.

Sydney Jael Wilson, a women and gender studies graduate student, speaks at a protest at the University of Texas at Austin on Monday, October. 13, 2025. About 150 people gathered to protest Trump's compact and potential cuts to ethnic and gender studies programs in UT's College of Liberal Arts. Aaron E. Martinez/Austin American-Statesman

Women and Gender Studies officially became a department at UT in 2023, but gender and ethnic studies classes have been taught at the university for decades. The centers that house the faculty and classes started in the 1970s and 1980s after students pushed for courses that better reflected their personal backgrounds.

Faculty say the decision is misguided and will gut departments that have brought UT prestige for decades. U.S. News and World Reports listed UT as the top program in the country for graduate studies in Latin American History. College Factual, an online data-driven college ranking site, listed UT as the top school in Texas to get an undergraduate degree in ethnic studies.

“We no longer seem to be a place where we value knowledge for the sake of knowledge,” Alison Kafer, director of LGBTQ studies in the women’s and gender studies department, said in an interview earlier this month. “If we close this department, we are closing it for political reasons, because our numbers are great.”

What does consolidation mean?

The university will begin preparing for the new departments immediately, though they will not officially consolidate until September, faculty said. Curriculum and degree programs are still being reviewed.

A new UT policy revised this September requires the school’s president to direct an “efficient in-depth and judicious review process” before deciding to abandon or reduce academic programs and positions. The president is not bound by the recommendation of the provost or a committee, according to the policy. The policy strongly recommends the preservation of existing degree programs until all current students can complete them.

A previous policy required UT’s president to consult with Faculty Council leadership before eliminating any academic program or position. UT System ended faculty senates and councils to comply with Senate Bill 37 this September.

Why is this happening?

While no law restricts what can be taught at public universities, conservative politicians have put pressure on universities to eliminate programs deemed too liberal.

Political pressure intensified last fall when Gov. Greg Abbott demanded that Texas A&M University fire a children’s literature professor who taught about gender identity in one of her courses. Since then, university systems across the state have scrutinized programs deemed overly political.

In January, Texas A&M University closed its Women and Gender Studies department. Regents also approved a new policy that bans courses that “advocate” for race or gender ideology without prior approval. Texas Tech University System also banned such courses and issued a directive to only teach that there are two genders.

Both policies have been criticized by civil rights groups who equate the measures to censorship, stifling academic freedom. Others insist academic freedom has limits, and the fields have gone too far.

The UT System confirmed last fall that it would audit classes for mentions of gender identity. Officials have since remained quiet on how the system will handle increasing pressure to police instruction related to gender and sexuality. UT Regents will meet next week at a planned quarterly meeting.

At the flagship, Provost William Inboden has openly critiqued education related to race and gender as fields of study “often accompanied by partisan activism.” He has said the fields “must be studied,” but suggested the studying leaves students with an “imbalanced view of the United States.”

UT President Jim Davis, who is not an academic, said in a university address last year that UT would look to broaden overly “fractured” fields and bring “balance” to curriculum.

But all the cut programs are known for being interdisciplinary and skills-based, attracting students across the university from engineering to pre-medicine, faculty said. Faculty in the departments each have different specialties, allowing for innovative and collaborative research.

UT’s African and African Diaspora Studies became a department in 2010. It offers a major, minor, certificate, graduate and PhD programs. American Studies, which became a department in 1998, focuses on cultural, intellectual and social life in the United States. Mexican American and Latina/o Studies became a department in 2014.

“Gender and ethnic studies have transformed the study of the humanities and social sciences, and now they are what they are,” said Lisa Moore, UT’s Chair of Women and Gender Studies, in an interview before the consolidation announcement. “We can’t unknow what we know… It’s just not the case that we can believe that only a small slice of human beings are responsible for everything that’s good about the world.”

The cuts come as UT expands its academic offerings in other humanities fields.

UT offers more than 170 fields of undergraduate study and 230 graduate programs. The university has added about a dozen more in the past five years. The School of Civic Leadership just announced a new donor-funded program in Western Civilization and Jewish Studies. The school plans to open two more majors focused on increasing civic education.

Meanwhile, UT is also exploring consolidation in the School of Information and College of Natural Sciences. UT System regents will vote next week on UT's plans to establish a new School of Computing within the College of Natural Sciences. The organizational change would turn the School of Information into a Department of Information. The new school would also hold the Department of Computer Science and Department of Statistics and Data Sciences, and offer the same degrees, according to the agenda released Thursday afternoon.

Faculty insist the consolidated fields at UT are being targeted and defunded for political reasons, not because of waning student interest, funding restrictions or the value of the scholarship. They fear it will hurt the future reputation of the university and students' freedom to learn.

“The changes that are happening are going to, and already have created damage that will last for, I don’t know, decades,” Moore said. “I’ve never seen the forces that want to break down higher education (be) so successful as now.”

This is a developing story and will be updated.

'Inflection point': leadership shakeups over ideological differences continue at UT, by Lily Kepner, Austin American-Statesman, Oct. 20, 2025

I came across a piece this week that felt like both a gut punch and a rallying cry. Art Markman—a respected scholar and long-serving leader at the University of Texas—was dismissed from his position as senior vice provost for academic affairs “due to ideological differences.” His departure is only the latest in a wave of leadership changes that have shaken our flagship university.

Six of UT’s eighteen dean positions are either vacant or held by interim leaders. Top administrators have been replaced through closed processes without faculty input. Longtime deans, including College of Education Dean Charles Martinez, are stepping down after years of remarkable service. Each new announcement lands like another bruise on a university so many of us have devoted our lives to building.

UT was built not by edict, but by generations of educators and students who believed in public higher education as a public good. That legacy is not erased by political fiat or administrative reshuffling. It lives on in classrooms, in labs, and in every act of courage that insists knowledge must serve people and the pursuit of truth, not power.

I know I don’t speak for everyone, but I have reason to believe I speak for many of our faculty at UT-Austin:

We are still here.

We are still teaching, conducting research, and mentoring our students.
We are still building knowledge, nurturing hope, and standing firm in our values.

We will not abandon the promise of the university we love. 🩷

— Angela Valenzuela

---

'Inflection point': leadership shakeups over ideological differences continue at UT
The quiet removal of an academic university leader marks yet another departure from UT due to differences in vision as new leadership aims to reshape and reform higher ed.

By Lily Kepner, Staff Writer, Austin American-Statesman Oct 20, 2025

Art Markman, former senior vice provost for academic affairs, was terminated from his administrative position 

mid-September in the latest sudden removal of a university administrator.

HANDOUT/Marsha Miller

Art Markman started at the University of Texas 27 years ago as a psychology professor. After taking on several leadership roles, he rose in the ranks to oversee academic affairs at the acclaimed institution, which offers nearly 400 undergraduate and postgraduate degrees.

Even as top leadership turned over in recent years and conservative lawmakersextended their influence into state colleges and universities, Markman remained in the post for four-and-a-half years.

University of Texas President Jim Davis at a news conference at UT in Austin, Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2025. 

Davis was named interim president in February 2025 and was officially appointed to the role in September through

an alternative process that did not involve a national search. Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman

But in mid-September, the university fired him from his position as senior vice provost for academic affairs “due to ideological differences,” he told colleagues in an online post Tuesday. 

The quiet removal of the university leader marks yet another departure from UT due to differences in vision as new leadership aims to reshape the university. Six of 18 dean positions are held by interim or soon-to-be departing leaders, a reflection of the tremendous turnover the university has grappled with over the past two years.

Since the start of 2025, the UT System named a new chancellor, and the flagship Austin campus installed a new president and provost. All three leaders were announced as finalists without faculty input or a national search.

“We’re at an inflection point,” said Cal Jillson, a Southern Methodist University political science professor who studies political interference in higher education. “The conservative political leadership of the state, I think, has become impatient.” 

Markman’s departure from the administrative role comes as the UT System audits gender identity courses for compliance with the law and leadership’s “priorities,” and “enthusiastically” reviews a compact offered by the administration of President Donald Trump that would give UT special funding benefits in exchange for agreeing to certain demands. Students say these developments spark fear that allegiance to conservative priorities could impede their education, such as a professor’s ability to teach about or recognize the existence of transgender people.

William Inboden, UT’s new provost and second-in-command, oversaw Markman. Inboden assumed the role Aug. 1 as a vocal critic of higher education determined to restore trust with the American public, particularly with conservatives, who studies show feel more distrustful of the industry. In an article he authored last month, Inboden accused academia of breaking the public’s trust by prioritizing identity politics over traditional western education and quieting conservative views.

Panelist, William C. Inboden, former director of the Clements Center at University of Texas-Austin, 

at an event held at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, on Wednesday, September 16, 2015.

Inboden is now provost of the institution and said he intends to repair trust in higher education. 

Rodolfo Gonzalez/Austin American-Statesman

“Taken together, these several trends — of universities' failing to uphold academic freedom, of their increasing ideological imbalance, of some departments' adopting a posture of relentless criticism of the United States, of entire disciplines' succumbing to esoterica — have eroded higher education’s fulfillment of its part of the social contract,” he wrote. “Repairing the damage will not be easy.”

Inboden said UT and the University of Florida, where he worked previously, “are addressing these criticisms through a theory of reform that begins with reviving liberal education” and making universities more ideologically balanced.

The University of Texas declined to comment about why Markman was stripped of his duties overseeing academic programming, stating they do not comment on personnel matters. Markman also declined comment. His university web page indicates he continues to serve as a professor of psychology, and the administrative position is now held by an interim leader.

UT is under tremendous pressure to represent the political perspective of state Republican leadership, Jillson said. But succumbing to political pressures has historically hurt the university’s function, prestige and stability, he added.

“There’s a great deal of tension right now as the political leadership of the state leans into its expectation that it controls the public universities of the state,” said Jillson. “Those political purges of the leadership of our top universities take a major toll.”

‘Next Chapter’ in Changing Leadership

Markman is not alone in losing his post: this fall, College of Education Dean Charles Martinez told faculty he would not be renewed as dean, a role he has served in since 2019, making him the longest serving dean currently at the institution. The dean before him served 28 years.

A dean’s term typically lasts six years with the potential to renew, but administrators serve at the pleasure of the president and provost and work in tandem to advance the mission of the university and college.

Inboden wrote to faculty that Martinez “decided to conclude his tenure as dean,” and a national search would determine his replacement. But Martinez, who led the college to significant success in rankings, enrollment and research, said he expressed interest in continuing.

“Although I have expressed my commitment to continue serving as your dean as we work to mature and sustain the success we have achieved over these past seven years, it is important to acknowledge this time of significant change in higher education,” Martinez said in an email to faculty. “With new leadership in place at UT, our president and provost are working to build the team they need to advance their vision and priorities within this changing landscape.”

Gov. Greg Abbott talks with interim University of Texas President Jim Davis during a session Thursday 

at the University of Texas Law School. Abbott signed Senate Bill 37 into law this year, empowering regents, 

whom he appoints, to have more control at universities in core curriculum, hiring and programs.

Mikala Compton/American-Statesma

Martinez wrote he is confident Davis and Inboden will consult faculty “input and perspectives as they guide UT into its next chapter.” 

In an interview, Martinez told the American-Statesman he is tremendously proud of his tenure at the university and the impact the college has had on Texas. Under his leadership, the college refined graduate degree programs to align with changing workforce needs, increased student enrollment by 40% in six years, aimed to increase teacher retention state-wide through a new teacher mentoring program and developed a program to tailor research to the most pertinent needs of the state, he said.

Despite Martinez’s success and popularity as College of Education dean, the conservative online outlet Texas Scorecard accused Martinez of promoting “far left content” in the college, citing a symposium for LGBTQ scholars and courses centered on diversity. But faculty say Martinez was dedicated to eliminating health and education barriers for all of Texas and empowering the college to create real impact in the state.

Though he declined to comment on specifics around his nonrenewal, Martinez said the college’s success and momentum is unequivocal. He is hopeful the college’s impact and service-driven work to tackle the teacher shortage and other persistent education barriers will continue beyond his term.

“Even with a little bit of surprise and sometimes lack of what feels like clarity in this process, the college’s success we’ve achieved together is so strongly recognized across the campus and out of the campus, and certainly by our president and provost,” Martinez said. “That will continue to be the strength and the foundation for the future.”

‘People are leaving’

As the UT leaders look to fill vacancies, a new law has reshaped who will have a say in leading the institution going forward. Senate Bill 37 empowers governor-appointed regents, who now have the authority to approve and veto all leaders at the dean level and higher and to review core courses, programs and degrees.

One-third of the university’s 18 dean positions are currently in flux, including the top role at the College of Liberal Arts, where leader Ann Stevens was not renewed last year by former President Jay Hartzell over differences in vision. McCombs School of Business Dean Lillian Mills announced she will retire from her post next May, and UT is searching for a dean for the Jackson School of Geosciences. Interim deans lead the School of Information, the College of Liberal Arts and the Moody College of Communication. 

Both Davis and Inboden declined repeated interview requests at the beginning of their appointments to discuss their priorities in the role. 

The University of Texas, founded in 1883, has had a profound influence on the history of Austin. 

The UT Tower houses the top leadership of the school, including the president and provost's offices.

Aaron E. Martinez / American-Statesman

And turnover isn’t only impacting administrators. Stephen Russell, a former UT professor in child development with a focus on LGBTQ youth, started a new job at Arizona State University this year. 

After the 2023 passage of the Senate Bill 17, a law that restricts diversity, equity and inclusion offices and support staff, recruiting talent to come to the university grew difficult for the first time since he’s been at the university, he said. Russell thought Austin would be his home forever, but last year the political turmoil, impending passage of SB 37 — and the turnover — pushed him to leave, he said. 

“Part of the story (of why I left) was the turnover of the university administrators — people I had worked with and known and respected for many years,” he said. “People are leaving. I think it’s going to be really hard to rebuild a great university.”

Education Dean Martinez’s non-renewal, is “chilling” for the future of the university, Russell said in an interview before Markman’s termination became public. The child development professor noted that the move contradicts the success the school and the university have had without political interference, he said.

“What is so wrong with this university that it needs to be reformed?” Russell said. “Unless you’re from the perspective of the university is nothing but a ‘wokefest’ and needs to be completely changed — that is bananas when you look at UT and how successful UT was in the last 60 years and in the last 10 years.”

Texas senators propose faculty senate limits, curricula reviews. Professors want answers by Lily Kepner of the Austin American-Statesman

UT Mexican American and Latino Studies professor and UT AAUP member, Dr. Karma Chavez, said SB 37's curricular provision banning ideology would negatively impact the School of Civic Leadership, established by conservatives last session to promote liberty.

The UT SCL should totally be protesting Senate Bill 37 as they accord emphasis to the importance of open discourse that they absolutely cannot have without academic freedom. Conservatives, where is the outrage?

In any case, savor this quote by Dr. Karma Chavez, best quote of the session, I would say!

"In its about statement, it endorses several ideologies, including Western civilization, the American constitutional tradition, the Western tradition and the notion of a free society. These are all ideological and what the school that you all created endorses," Chavez said. "If what you truly value is a free society, you can't have it both ways."

This quote makes me smile not in a "gotcha' kind of way, but in a "what an astute observation" kind of way. Dr. Karma Chavez captures the contradiction and circularity of legislative animus against liberal ideologies without recognizing the harm they are poised to incur to the very ideologies they favor. No they cannot have it both ways.

This is not a snappy comeback but rather invites reflection of the kind that lingers and shapes discussions and, we trust, the nonsense that SB 37 represents. 

A big thanks to award-winning Lily Kepner, as well, for being on the education beat at the Austin American Statesman since 2023. We are so fortunate to have you with us in Texas. Thank you for being there. Your journalism is outstanding. Follow her on Twitter at @lilykepner

May all have a blessed day today!

-Angela Valenzuela

Texas senators propose faculty senate limits, curricula reviews. Professors want answers.
Lily Kepner | March 24, 2025 | Austin American Statesman



American Federation of Teachers director of political organizing for Texas Anthony Elmo speaks as educators gather to rally in support of the "Educator’s Bill of Rights" at the outdoor rotunda in the Texas Capitol Monday, March 17, 2025. Teachers met with lawmakers as a part of Texas American Federation of Teachers advocacy day, asking for reforms such as a defined work day, reliable pensions and an increase in state funding to public schools. Mikala Compton/American-Statesman

After much discussion and impassioned testimony from professors and education advocates, several proposals aimed at restricting faculty senates and regulating shared governance at public universities were left pending at the Texas Senate K-16 Education Committee's first hearing focused on higher education.

The most controversial of the proposals on the docket was Senate Bill 37 ― a Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick priority bill filed by Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, who chairs the committee. The bill aims to increase oversight of faculty senates, instruct university presidents to appoint half the members, and solidify the panels' advisory roles.

It would also establish an Office of Excellence in Higher Education to investigate "matters of academic discourse" and report them to the governor, attorney general and lawmakers, Creighton said. Opponents of SB 37 argued that the new office would create a climate of fear, not accountability, and further suppress speech.

The bill was heard along with SB 452, by Sen. Mayes Middleton, R-Galveston, which would allow Texas university systems' regents to approve or reject the hiring of each department head within the institutions they govern, and SB 1489, authored by Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, which states faculty councils can't have the final say on any decisions, can't conduct investigations or approve personnel decisions, must live stream their meetings, post all votes and have their proceedings open to the public.

Creighton's SB 37 would also go a step further and instruct boards of regents to establish a general education review committee at each institution to annually examine core curricula. The committee of tenured faculty members and industry partners would ensure the curricula prepares students for "civic and professional life," and does not "endorse specific public policies, ideologies, or legislation," according to the bill.

Professors and education advocates, who waited six hours for public testimony to begin, said the curricula review provision opens the door for ideological censorship and restricts courses. More generally, they said regulation of faculty senates is unnecessary, would add bureaucracy at the expense of efficiency and create a climate of fear.

In an interview with the American-Statesman after the hearing, Creighton said SB 37 seeks to codify and add accountability to faculty senates. He said the Senate K-16 Education Committee plans to consider amendments to SB 37 borne from public testimony, including adjusting a requirement in the proposal that faculty council members must be tenured. A person during public testimony pointed out that many community colleges are non-tenure institutions.

"There's a reason why three leaders in the Senate brought forward different governing related bills," Creighton said in an interview. "How I reflect on it is that we need to codify certain provisions that let our boards or regents understand what obligations and responsibilities they have as political appointees, some of them have different perspectives on what their roles are, and that's very important, because they're the top spot."

Why are Texas lawmakers examining faculty senates?

Faculty senates are governing bodies of elected faculty members who represent professors and make recommendations on matters from curricula to policy changes, but do not have final say on decisions.

Lawmakers this session are seeking to regulate faculty senates over Republican sentiment that education has become too liberal.

Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) pushed back against the proposals, asking the authors why they were necessary. He argued that the proposals would push higher education institutions to the political right and questioned whether it was realistic to expect so much more from regents, who are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate.

"Why are we putting, I guess you could say, handcuffs on what (faculty senates) are able to do?" West asked.

Creighton insisted SB 37 is meant to codify the faculty councils' advisory roles and explicitly state university regents' authority over all matters. The bill also adds "guardrails" to the panels through term limits, member appointments and requiring their meetings to be open to hold them more "accountable," he said.

"We're even having concern among university professors about the conduct and actions that are taken by (faculty) representatives that sometimes create an environment where some professors don't feel welcome to weigh in," Creighton said in an interview. "As a committee working on governance for universities, our oversight and responsibility, it's not odd. If anything, I think we're behind."

Sherry Sylvester, senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Austin, said during her invited testimony that she supports SB 37 to build on the success of the state's 2023 SB 17 law, which gutted universities of diversity equity and inclusion offices, support and hiring practices.

In her support for limiting faculty senates, Sylvester accused Texas A&M faculty of "circumventing the A&M board of regents" in 2023 in the botched hiring of university professor Kathleen McElroy to direct a new journalism department at the flagship institution. The university then tried to backtrack the offer when conservative groups and some regents criticized her past diversity-focused research, according to an internal review. Texas A&M paid her a $1 million settlement. McElroy, a Black woman, is a tenured University of Texas professor and former journalist at several outlets, including the Statesman and New York Times.

"Over the last couple years, it's been clear that there are a number of misperceptions about the role of boards of regents on our campuses," Sylvester said.

Sylvester also cited statistics from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression that suggests 47% of conservative professors self-censor for fear of reaction, compared to 19% of liberal faculty members. The report also found that about 20% of professors say conservatives would "fit well" in their department.

Angie Hill Price, current speaker of the Texas A&M faculty senate, testified against the Senate bills and denied that faculty senate's limit any perspectives. The Texas A&M panel has representation of all viewpoints, she said in response to questioning.

"I would not want to constrain anybody on being able to express their opinion," Hill Price said.

Ray Bonilla, general counsel at Texas A&M University, who Bettencourt invited to testify under SB 1489, said the faculty's role in curricula is essential, but agreed with Bettencourt's codification of their advisory role.

"We want their authority, we need their authority,” Bonilla said. "We need their input on establishing the right curricula, the right majors, the right programs, research programs. ... But in terms of the decision-making authority (it's) very clear for us. The top of the pyramid is our board of regents."
University faculty, lawmaker question curricula review

The Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors, which collected 50 testimonies against the bill in two days, found that one of the most concerning aspects of SB 37 was the provision seeking to regulate curricula.

Manos Papadakis, a professor of mathematics at the University of Houston who testified as an individual and identified himself as a longtime Christian conservative who voted for Bettencourt, was against the curricula review provision.

"We don't really need that because we have many layers of examining core curricula and we do that in department levels, college levels, university levels, and finally the provost,” he said. “What is the purpose of the committee outside all these loops? Is it to control political discourse?”

SB 37 does not specifically mention DEI coursework, but it comes after the Senate Higher Education subcommittee last fall reviewed an interim charge from Patrick to remove diversity, equity and inclusion from workforce curricula. Attempts in states such as Florida to legislate diversity in curricula have been roiled in legal battles, but the Florida Board of Governors voted in January to remove hundreds of classes about race and gender in its general education curricula at its 12 state universities.

Papadakis insisted lawmakers need to understand the difference between education and workforce training, as they increasingly seek to prioritize "credentials of value" that benefit the state's workforce over liberal arts education.

"This bill is missing that," he said.

Karma Chavez, a member of UT's chapter of AAUP, said the curricula provision in SB 37, which would bar ideology, would affect the new School of Civic Leadership, which conservative lawmakers created last session to focus on liberty.

"In its about statement, it endorses several ideologies, including Western civilization, the American constitutional tradition, the Western tradition and the notion of a free society. These are all ideological and what the school that you all created endorses," Chavez said. "If what you truly value is a free society, you can't have it both ways."

In an interview, David DeMatthews, associate professor in educational leadership and policy at UT, said though he agrees schools can benefit from curricular review, he does not think this bill is a "good faith effort" to get there.

"It's not like the state has set out to study 'What are the challenges confronting higher ed,' and through a thoughtful, scientific based inquiry process, they've arrived at faculty councils being the problem," DeMatthews said. "Instead, it seems like the theory of action behind the bill is that through increasing the control that the state has over the institution — elected leaders have over the institutions of higher ed — then higher ed will improve. There's no evidence to suggest anything like that."

DeMatthews added that even if it doesn't restrict the faculty council's already limited power, this bill could create a chilling effect that drives more talent out.

This story has been updated to add a gallery.

With DEI on Texas Legislature's agenda, here's what's proposed for higher education, by Lily Kepner, Jan. 13, 2025

Dear Fellow Texans,

I urge you to give Lily Kepner’s piece your close attention, as the attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in the 89th Texas Legislative Session (2025) begins anew. Granting politicians greater control over university curricula poses a significant threat to the reputation and integrity of Texas universities. We must not let this happen.

Let’s stand together to oppose these bills at the state level while also keeping a vigilant eye on the federal “Dismantle DEI Act.” It is astonishing to witness U.S. Rep. Greg Murphy's proposed legislation, which seeks to eliminate the study of race-based disparities in health care. Such understanding is vital for addressing systemic health inequities and providing fair, unbiased treatment. Consider the disproportionate impact of diabetes on Mexicans and Mexican Americans, sickle cell disease on African Americans, and cardiovascular disease on both groups compared to white counterparts. These disparities are not fully reducible to social class alone, though poverty remains an undeniable contributing factor.

If politicians succeed in further eroding faculty governance and accreditation standards, our higher education institutions risk devolving into little more than glorified high schools, losing their status as centers of higher learning and critical inquiry. My colleague, Dr. Keffrelyn Brown, captures this concern succinctly:

“When the topics get politicized,” Brown said, “the expertise faculty members have in curriculum and in their fields can be lost, as well as the importance of ethnic studies in preparing students for a diverse workforce and world.
The most important thing to acknowledge is that these issues are not simply opinion-based ideas; these are real fields of study. If we don’t expose our young people to opportunities to interact with knowledge, as well as people across those communities, we risk creating an educated class unable to communicate and work across a variety of differences.”

Exactly. What we teach in the college classroom is not "opinion-based" and how offensive for anyone to think that in the first place. We are serious scholars who conduct serious, ethical research and who have dedicated our lives to this endeavor. Most of us aren't activists but you're turning us into them with every measure that extremist politicians propose. 

Please, let's stop this anti-DEI madness, my friends and fellow Texans.

What can you do in the meantime? Reach out to your representatives and support Texas State Representative Christina Morales’ Ethnic Studies Bill,  HB 178. If you’re unsure who represents you, visit https://wrm.capitol.texas.gov/home to find out.

Together, we can protect the integrity of our educational institutions and ensure our students are prepared to thrive in a diverse and interconnected world. And there ain't nothing wrong with that.

Yours truly,

Angela Valenzuela

With DEI on Texas Legislature's agenda, here's what's proposed for higher education

Lily Kepner
Austin American-Statesman | January 13, 2025




As diversity, equity and inclusion and university faculty topics come into focus for Texas' upcoming legislative session, experts say the continued onslaught against social issues in public universities could be bolder this year – and do more damage as trust in higher education plummets.

More than 200 higher education-related bills alone have been introduced during the pre-filing period ahead of the 89th legislative session's start Tuesday.

In addition to the legislative interim charges set by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick – which include looking at DEI issues in curriculum and faculty senates – multiple bills are in line with President-elect Donald Trump's goals in higher education by also targeting accreditors and undocumented students, who could be threatened under the incoming administration's immigration proposals.

What higher education laws did Texas pass last session and what could be next?

One of the legislative wins for Texas conservatives last year was the passing of Senate Bill 17, the nation's second anti-DEI law that banned DEI programs, staff, offices and hiring at Texas public universities but had exceptions for academic courses, research and student groups.



In the two years since Texas' last session, 11 other states have passed legislation limiting DEI in higher education, and changes have been made in at least 215 colleges in 32 states, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education's DEI tracker.

Kim Conway, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said DEI programs have been “under attack” nationally for the past two years.

“And we expect it to get worse,” Conway said.

Federally, Congress is weighing the “Dismantle DEI Act," by U.S. Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Victoria, and Republican Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, who until recently served as a senator from Ohio. Conway said this was the most drastic of all federally proposed DEI legislation and would prohibit any entity that takes federal grants from any DEI activities and prohibit accreditors from having diversity standards.

Additionally, a bill by U.S. Rep. Greg Murphy, R-North Carolina, would rid medical schools who accept federal funding of DEI, including barring them from teaching about specific races or ethnicities, or race-based disparities, in health care.

Texas' SB 17 banned diversity statements in hiring and DEI-related training, but the law didn't restrict it in courses or for accreditors as the federal bills propose. But with a new session starting, state lawmakers could propose such legislation.

Sherry Sylvester, a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank in Austin that is on the advisory board for Project 2025, said DEI programs have not created the boost in diversity they promised and must be rooted out of Texas entirely.

“I don't think anybody ever believed that we would pass Senate Bill 17, and that would expunge DEI from our universities, that we would never hear about it again,” Sylvester said. “It is calcified in our universities, and we're remaking our universities so that everybody can go and thrive and prosper.”

Sylvester said she feels “really optimistic” about the upcoming state legislative session and efforts to further limit DEI in Texas, such as by examining the process by which academic courses and curriculum are made and approved.

Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, who chairs the Texas Senate Subcommittee on Higher Education, previously told the American-Statesman that he wants to focus on leading students to a "degree of value" for in-demand work over courses tied to what he calls liberal ideology, but he had not filed any bills related to higher education courses as of Friday afternoon.

Multiple state senators have authored bills that would let Texas choose an accrediting agency other than the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, which is currently the only accrediting agency for Texas universities. Sen. Mayes Middleton, R-Galveston, vice chair of the Senate Higher Education subcommittee, filed SB 452, which would require the board of higher education institutions to approve or disapprove the hiring of each department head, giving governor-appointed leaders more control over higher education leaders in the state.

Todd Wolfson, the current president of the American Association of University Professors and a professor at Rutgers University, said the political intrusion into higher education is happening in other Southern states as well. Former politicians in Nevada and Florida have been appointed to lead public universities instead of academics – in the Sunshine State, five of the seven public universities are led by former lawmakers, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

“There is an attempt in certain states to politicize higher ed and to take control of what faculty teach, what faculty research, what students learn and what students say,” Wolfson said. “It's not merely about a DEI initiative or a teaching of critical race theory or gender studies, though it is about those things, it's also about controlling this sector.”

On the curriculum front, an interim charge by Patrick, the state's lieutenant governor who presides over the Senate, seeks to “Stop DEI” in workforce education in Texas. Attempts by other states to do the same, such as Florida's 2022 “Stop Woke Act" to stop curriculum that teaches white privilege or about oppression, have been embroiled in legal battles over free-speech concerns.

Sylvester said anything should be allowed to be studied, but requirements or “indirect” pushes to take “DEI-infused” coursework shouldn’t be allowed. She said university regents – or the governor-appointed boards that rule the public university systems – should be empowered to exercise greater authority, particularly in the face of faculty dissent, and control over curriculum.

Keffrelyn Brown, a UT professor in the department of curriculum and instruction who also teaches in the Center for African American Studies and Women and Gender Studies Center, said that legislation attempting to control curriculum is not new, but it had predominantly targeted K-12 public schools.

When the topics get politicized, Brown said, the expertise faculty members have in curriculum and in their fields can be lost, as well as the importance of ethnic studies in preparing students for a diverse workforce and world.

“The most important thing to acknowledge is that these issues are not simply opinion-based ideas, that these are real fields of study,” Brown said. “If we don't expose our young people to opportunities to interact with knowledge, as well as people across those communities, we stand the chance of creating an educated class that is unable to communicate and work across a variety of different kinds of differences.”

What do these bills mean for Texas?

Even without a legal restriction, Conway, the ACLU policy counsel, said that bills and rhetoric around DEI can chill and censor classroom discussions or topics in the states where they're proposed due to the risk-adverse nature of universities. In Texas, top-down changes to ethnic and diverse studies curriculum at the University of North Texas over the fall were praised by conservative state lawmakers who say such changes are needed to comply with the “spirit” of SB 17 but faced huge opposition from faculty members and free speech advocates.

Similarly, when Texas A&M announced plans to eliminate its LGBTQ minor and 51 other low-producing minors and certificates, that school's Faculty Senate Executive Committee and program faculty members opposed it, but Texas A&M Regents approved the removals anyway.

“What (faculty senates) don't understand, and what I think we'll see reflected in legislation, is no, they are not the final say. The state of Texas empowers the boards of regents to run the universities, faculty is not in the (Texas Education) Code,” Sylvester said. “I think looking at empowering the regents to exercise their authority in every aspect of campus life is what we're going to see.”

Michael Harris, a Southern Methodist University professor who served as Faculty Senate president, said the functions of a faculty senate are largely bureaucratic and uneventful, such as approving the university calendar, and are not as political or defiant as they are painted to be.

The continued focus on DEI and faculty is a continuation of the ideological goals of the last legislative session and a "broader attack" on the industry, Harris said. What is different now, Harris said, is the public’s distrust of higher education, and it could give the political attacks more impact, though he doesn't think higher education itself has changed.

“At the end of the day, higher education used to be given a deference to do what it considered best,” Harris said. “They were institutions that were trusted, and that trust is gone now.”

And the loss of faculty governance would come at a cost, he said, because reducing it could allow partisan politicians to have greater control over topics like civic education, instead of allowing experts to craft curriculum based on "the best knowledge and the best research."

Politics can also create a climate where faculty members don't want to be. According to a 2024 Texas AAUP survey of 950 faculty members, more than half of those surveyed would not recommend working in Texas and more than a quarter plan to take or are actively looking for other jobs.

“In some states, that's the push: let’s stop the ideology attacks, we’ve done that, we’ve won our political points, now can we focus on building high-quality higher education, which we know the long-term economic success of the state is inextricably tied to,” Harris said. “I understand the short-term political benefits, and I don’t, sadly, think the rewards of the political system have changed from last session to this session" in Texas.