From the Forty Acres to the Capitol: Reclaiming Higher Education as a Public Good, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D. April 15, 2026

From the Forty Acres to the Capitol: Reclaiming Higher Education as a Public Good

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

April 15, 2026

Last Monday, under the unforgiving Texas sun, I walked alongside students,faculty, and community members from the University of Texas at Austin to the Texas State Capitol. I took the video myself—one small act of documentation in what felt like a much larger moment of collective purpose. Despite the heat, there was an unmistakable energy among participants: determined, hopeful, and unyielding.

We marched not just in protest, but in affirmation—of what higher education should be.

That same day, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) jointly launched a sweeping new policy framework: A Blueprint for Strengthening and Transforming Higher Education. Timed ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, the platform directly confronts the escalating, far-right attacks on colleges and universities across the country—attacks that many of us in Texas know all too well.

At its core, the blueprint insists on something both simple and profound: higher education is a public good, not a corporate enterprise.

The platform centers four urgent pillars: restored public funding so that college is a democratic right rather than a debt sentence; freedom to learn, with protections against ideological policing and political interference; shared governance that restores faculty and staff authority over curriculum and institutional priorities; and labor reform that ends the exploitation of contingent faculty while securing fair wages and collective bargaining rights.

These are not abstract principles. They are urgent interventions in a moment defined by what can only be described as the attempted political capture of our institutions.

It was especially powerful to have Randi Weingarten, national president of the AFT, with us on the ground. In the video I captured, you can also see Todd Wolfson—who also serves as AFT Vice President—alongside UT Austin’s own Christopher Bryan, speaking to the stakes of this moment with clarity and conviction.

What we are witnessing is not just policy debate—it is a struggle over the very purpose of the university.

Will our institutions serve democracy, or will they be hollowed out and repurposed for ideological control?

The AAUP–AFT blueprint answers this question with clarity and resolve. It calls on all of us—educators, students, policymakers, and community members—to actively defend academic freedom, freedom of expression, and the right to protest, while restoring meaningful shared governance and the full protections of tenure. These are not abstract ideals; they are the conditions that make it possible for us to carry out our core missions of teaching, research, and service—and to sustain universities as institutions accountable to the public good rather than to political or corporate control.

As we made our way to the Capitol, step by step, chant by chant, I was reminded that these rights are never simply granted—they are claimed, defended, and renewed through collective struggle.

It was a proud day. And a necessary one.

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.

Higher Ed Bills in the 2025 Texas Legislature—from Texas AAUP and Texas AFT, AFL-CIO—Updated April 23, 2025

Friends:

I'm happy to simply be a conduit for this super helpful roster of bills that represent Texas AAUP and Texas AFT legislative priorities, bills about which to be concerned, and hopeful bills.

Hats off to the excellent work of the Texas AAUP and Texas Texas American Federation of Teachers.  I'm a proud member of Texas AAUP that is in partnership with the Texas AFT. I'm in Houston right now getting a check-up at MD Anderson. Sharing this is the least I can do.

-Angela Valenzuela

Higher Ed Bills in the 2025 Texas Legislature
January 22, 2025| academic freedom, faculty senates, freedom to research, freedom to teach, shared governance, tenure

Updated April 23, 2025.

Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) affiliated with the Texas American Federation of Teachers (AFT), AFT, AFL-CIO


Leaders of Texas AFT and Texas AAUP-AFT advocating on the Opening Day of the Texas Legislative Session, January 14, 2025





Please consider joining Texas AAUP-AFT to advocate for the freedom to learn, teach, and research, and here are several reasons to join. Below, we give a short introduction to higher ed in Texas, the Texas AAUP-AFT higher ed Legislative priorities, concerning higher ed bills, promising higher ed bills, and a list of higher ed bills filed. All bills have now been filed for this session.

A Short Introduction to Higher Education in Texas

Texas has 1.4M students and about 80,000 faculty in public higher education: [Ref]

74 community & technical colleges -- meet workforce development needs for Texas in skilled labor (e.g. plumbers, electricians, HVAC technicians, welders, and medical technicians) and prepare students for additional educational opportunities at universities

37 universities – give students the foundation to enter professional careers (e.g. business, community service, engineering government, journalism, law, nursing, STEM, and teaching) and develop innovative research ideas and technologies.

15 health institutions – provide medical treatment in all 254 counties in Texas, including half of the 22M clinical visits each year and 1 in 7 who seek hospital care in Texas. For example, MD Anderson Cancer Center is part of the UT System.

At these institutions, faculty help students develop the critical thinking, knowledge, skills, and professional networks for responsible citizenship and productive careers.

In 2024, Texas enrolled 1.56 million students, with more than 90% being at public institutions. [Ref] Two-year community colleges and four-year public universities enrolled about 675,000 students each in 2023, and health institutions enrolled 27,410. In addition, 500,000 dual credit high school students took college courses in 2024, with 93% at two-year public colleges and 7% at public four-year colleges. Among all Texas residents enrolled in college, 14.7% leave the state to attend school. [Ref]

According to a study by the National Science Foundation, State of Texas funding per full-time public higher education student dropped from $6,292 in 2002 to $5,541 in 2023 after adjusting for inflation.

Each public university and health institution is governed by one of the seven university systems whose governing boards are appointed by the Governor. There are also 50 community college districts whose governing boards are elected by the local community. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board coordinates higher ed activities among the six university systems and 50 community college districts.

Research expenditures by public institutions in fiscal year 2020 were $5.4B from federal ($3B), state ($1.4B), and private ($1B) sources. The public institutions with the largest research expenditures were The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center ($1.2B), Texas A&M University ($1.1B), and The University of Texas at Austin ($0.9B) in fiscal year 2020.

Texas AAUP-AFT Higher Education Legislative Priorities

Higher Education Legislative Priorities for Texas AAUP-AFT include the following four items:

1. Freedom to Learn and Teach: Encouraging and protecting free inquiry, free expression, intellectual exploration, and open dissent.

Instructors have expertise in their discipline through advanced study, work experience, scholarly work, and lifelong learning. Exercising freedom of expression and other First Amendment Rights empowers instructors to help students develop the critical thinking, knowledge, training, and professional networks needed for successful careers. Students and instructors develop and disseminate new knowledge from all viewpoints, including conservative, moderate, liberal, and apolitical, without institutional censorship.

2. Scholarly Research and Creative Works: Removing barriers hindering researchers to win government and private grants.

SB 17 (88th Session) banned diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) employment practices. SB 17 exempts scholarly research and creative works, but neither bans nor exempts grants. Researchers at community colleges, universities, and health institutions are struggling to apply for and receive research funding even if the research is not related to DEI employment practices. This funding funds students to learn advanced skills, and is vital for Texas having the most Research 1 (16) and Research 2 (16) universities of any state:

R1: at least $50M/year in external research funding and award 70+ research doctorates/year.
R2: at least $5M/year in external research funding and award 20+ research doctorates/year.

At R1 institutions, 50% of the faculty are tenured or tenure-track vs. 41% for R2 institutions vs. 33% across all institutions. [Ref] For example, tenured faculty lead multi-site teams to compete for large federal grants, such as the $20M+ 10-year NSF Engineering Research Centers. Texas A&M, Texas Tech, UT El Paso, and UT Austin have these centers. Tenured faculty help institutions in many other ways. [Ref] See the next item.

3. Faculty Economic Security & Tenure: Upholding current tenure policies that recruit and retain workforce development instructors.

Tenure is earned after a six-year tenure-track probationary period of rigorous annual evaluations and a cumulative evaluation of teaching, research, and service. Due to long-term employment, tenure-track and tenured faculty bring the bulk of external research funding, support degrees and certificates, and serve in administrative and leadership roles. To support workforce development, Del Mar College recruits and retains Welding Faculty through tenured positions to compete with the much higher salaries in industry. Tenured faculty undergo peer-based performance review to foster academic professional development. Tenure and tenure-track positions grant faculty due process in dismissals. Non-tenure-track faculty typically receive one-year employment contracts which can be non-renewed without due process.

4. Faculty Senates and Other Advisory Faculty Bodies: Supporting faculty input to improve curriculum, teaching methods, research, and hiring decisions.

On campus, a Faculty Senate is the faculty body elected by faculty that provides a forum for communication among faculty, students, staff, and administration. This forum helps coordinate the division of labor among the four constituent groups to create environments and opportunities for learning and growth for students. Faculty Senates make recommendations to the President on how to foster the highest quality curriculum, teaching methods, research, and faculty, including removal of redundancy in the curriculum. Faculty Senates are a key safeguard for freedom of expression across campus including in learning, teaching, and research. The Faculty Senate and other Faculty Advisory Bodies work cooperatively with the administration in the approval of degrees and other credentials. On all matters, institutional approval resides with the president.

HIGHER EDUCATION BILLS OF CONCERN

April 3, 2025 Update on the Crucial Work of Texas AAUP and Texas AFT in the Texas Legislature

Friends,

I can't say enough about the excellent leadership we have in Texas fighting the good fight for higher education, meaning the right to learn, teach, and conduct research. C'mon folks it's not hard to see why we need this freedom in Texas higher education.

It is shady, by the way, that the legislature didn't livestream their voucher hearing today in the Texas State Legislature as they always do. It's crazy that folks watched the hearing on Twitter instead of the full light of day. Glad that the Twitter work-around allowed it to get covered regardless.

In any case, take a few minutes to listen to this April 3rd update on various bills under consideration at the Texas State Capitol. Thanks to Patty Quinzi, Amanda Garcia, and Brian Evans for all their incredible advocacy this session. AAUP and Texas AFT together constitute a formidable partnership. If your any one you know needs academic freedom and protection, please join AAUP here: https://connect.aft.org/app/memberforms/8041A/JoinTheFight

Happy to share.

-Angela Valenzuela

Let's Not Weaken Higher Education Standards: HB 1705 and Companion Bill SB 530 Could Turn Texas Higher Ed into "Diploma Mills"

Friends:

Time sensitive. HB 1705 is getting heard shortly. There are STRONG reasons why we should not weaken education standards as HB 1705 seeks to accomplish. It's companion bill in the senate is SB 530. We don't want to become a "diploma mill," my friends. Nor do we want to deprive students of a quality, legally recognized education. Here is how you can help by either attending and participating in today's hearing or submit online testimony at the link provided below.

Bill Hearings

HB 1705 on Tuesday, April 1, 2025, 8am-until, Texas House Committee on Higher Ed. Agenda. Oral testimony. Submit online testimony.

SB 530 on Thursday, April 3, 2025, 9am-until, Texas Senate Committee on Education K-16. Agenda. Same as HB 1705. Oral testimony only.

If there is an issue with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), no problem. Let's address this head-on with SACS. Dismantling it and subjecting accreditation to "whoever" is reckless. Minimally, go to this link and tell whoever represents you in the Texas House that this would be a very harmful policy should it become law. 

-Angela Valenzuela


HB 1705 Weakens Education Standards at Colleges and Universities

March 31, 2025|  Texas AAUP Blog




Last Revised: April 1, 2025

Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)

Contact: aaup.texas@gmail.com and agarcia@texasaft.org

Social: X @TexasAaup and Bluesky @texasaaup.bsky.social

Join: Join Texas AAUP with several reasons for joining

Texas Faculty Association (TFA)

Contact: tfa.president@texasfacultyassociation.org

Join: Enrollment form and several reasons for joining

Concerns About HB 1705

HB 1705 seeks to remove the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) as the sole statutorily-mandated accrediting agency for Texas public colleges, universities, and health institutions, excluding law schools and medical schools.[1]

About SACS

SACS is one of seven regional accrediting agencies recognized by the federal government. It is an institutional accreditor for quality assurance in higher education. SACS is the common denominator of shared values and practices among its members in the U.S. and internationally, approved by the SACS Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) Executive Council, Board of Trustees, and Appeals Committee of the College Delegate Assembly.[2]

About Institutional Accreditation

The United States has no Federal Ministry of Education or other centralized authority exercising national control over postsecondary educational institutions. To ensure a basic level of quality, the practice of accreditation arose in the U.S. as a means of conducting non-governmental, peer evaluations of educational institutions and programs.

Institutional accreditation applies to an entire institution, indicating that each part of the institution is contributing to the achievement of its objectives. The various commissions of the regional accrediting associations (like SACS) perform institutional accreditation.[3]

In Texas, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) has the authority to recognize accrediting agencies. The list includes general accrediting and specialized accrediting entities. Under current law, institutions in Texas may choose from the list so long as the accrediting entity is appropriate to the mission and content of the institution’s activities. Current law specifically names SACS as an accrediting entity and allows the THECB to designate additional accrediting entities.[4]

Why SACS Needs to Remain Statutorily Included as an Accreditor

If a public college, university, or health institution is not accredited by an agency federally recognized like SACS, its students will no longer be eligible for federal student financial aid, its degrees will not be recognized at other institutions or corporations, and it will be ineligible for federal research grants and certain private grants.

The Texas Equalization Grant provides up to $5,810/year in income-based financial aid per qualifying student who is attending private and independent Texas colleges, universities, and health institutions.[5] Eligible institutions either qualify under Texas Government Code Section 61.003 or “are located within this state and meet the same program standards and accreditation as public institutions of higher education as determined by the board”.[6]

Removing SACS as the sole accreditor for public institutions of higher education could expand the number of private and independent colleges, universities, and health institutions eligible for a Texas Equalization Grant, resulting in either a significant budget increase for the Texas Equalization Grant program or significant loss of funding for the Texas Equalization Grants at the institutions current eligible for it. In Fall 2023, 131,674 students were enrolled in private and independent colleges, universities, and health institutions.[7]

Some employers, institutions, and licensing boards only recognize degrees earned from institutions accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the federal government. In some states, it can be illegal to use a degree from an institution that is not accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency, unless approved by the state licensing agency.

SACS assesses the quality of different components of the institution as well as the overall quality of the institution. For example, SACS ensures that instructors have appropriate expertise in the courses they teach, as evidenced by their degrees earned and other relevant experience. SACS also ensures that the institution implements policies and procedures to guarantee that instructors have the freedom to teach, so students have the freedom to learn.[8] Further, SACS requires that “the institution (a) publishes and implements policies on the authority of faculty in academic and governance matters, (b) demonstrates that educational programs for which academic credit is awarded are approved consistent with institutional policy, and (c) places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of the curriculum with its faculty.”[9]

Verified accrediting bodies like SACS protect students from “diploma mills.” The federal government's Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has been involved with keeping diploma mill degrees from the federal workplace. "OPM has provided ongoing guidance to federal departments and agencies... making it clear that so-called 'degrees' from diploma mills will not be accepted for purposes of qualifying for federal positions, for student loan repayment, and for purposes of paying for employees to obtain college degrees." [10]

Removing SACS as the sole accrediting body can strip current and future students from having access to a quality and legally recognized education. We urge you to vote against HB 1705.

References

[1] https://reportcenter.highered.texas.gov/agency-publication/miscellaneous/texas-higher-education-coordinating-board-recognized-accreditors/

[2] https://sacscoc.org/

[3] https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/higher-education-laws-and-policy/college-accreditation

[4] Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Recognized Accreditors | Report Center

[5] https://comptroller.texas.gov/programs/education/msp/funding/aid/state-programs/txteg.php

[6] https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.61.htm#61.222

[7] https://reportcenter.highered.texas.gov/reports/data/texas-higher-education-enrollments-2024/

[8] 2024 SACSCOC Resource Manual for Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, Sec. 6.4, Page 54.

[9] 2024 SACSCOC Resource Manual for Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, Sec. 10.4, Page 96.

[10] https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/higher-education-laws-and-policy/college-accreditation/diploma-mills-and-accreditation

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.

UT is becoming the face of Texas’ higher education failures. That must change, The Daily Texan Editorial Board

Friends:

I am glad that the Daily Texan Editorial Board is weighing in on findings from a recent survey conducted by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which shows that faculty are deeply concerned about the condition of higher education in Texas. 

The short of it is that while our institutions must comply with Texas legislative mandates, they must also heed the concerns of their faculty. Without either shared governance or ensuring basic protections, how can higher education institutions hope to attract and retain the very talent that upholds their prestige?

Failing to listen to its faculty risks making UT Austin and all Texas higher education a symbol of Texas' shortcomings and failures. I truly hope that this message reaches Texas universities statewide, including UT Austin, so that our leaders can grasp what is at stake.

My intention is to foster a constructive dialogue that leads to positive change. I believe that by working together in a spirit of shared governance, we can overcome these challenges and continue to thrive despite ongoing legislative animus.

-Angela Valenzuela

UT is becoming the face of Texas’ higher education failures. That must change.
The Daily Texan Editorial Board

October 10, 2024

The recent publication of a survey of Texas faculty is as clear-cut as it is concerning.

According to a Sept. 5 American Association of University Professors (AAUP) survey, Texas faculty are dissatisfied with the conditions and direction of higher education in Texas. 61% of those surveyed would not recommend Texas for a faculty position to out-of-state colleagues, and 26.3% plan to interview elsewhere next year. Top concerns for faculty include the state’s political climate, academic freedom, salary, and diversity, equity and inclusion issues.

As one of Texas’ flagship institutions and a top 10 public university, UT represents the Texas education system internationally. UT can’t afford to neglect its faculty without risking long-term damage to its reputation and academic standing. At the time of publication, UT did not respond to a request for comment.

In his Sept. 18 State of the University Address, President Jay Hartzell said he, the provost and the deans will be working on “how, across the entire academic enterprise, we attract more elite faculty and students.”

Faculty is essential to the success of any university. But as it stands, we are failing ours. If UT wants to recruit and retain top-tier faculty, UT must prioritize their satisfaction and address key issues impacting their success. UT has a responsibility to protect academic freedom, and this begins with protecting faculty well-being.

According to the AAUP survey, the failure to address faculty concerns may result in a decreased retention of faculty, loss of academic talent and damage to the quality of higher education.

“These findings serve as a wake-up call for policymakers, administrators, employers, and other concerned citizens, emphasizing the urgent need to address the concerns raised by faculty members,” the survey said.

Intellectual debate and dialogue allow students and faculty to build upon each other’s independent analysis and critical thinking. State legislation constantly challenges the boundaries of academic freedom. Increasing limitations on academic freedom can have hefty implications not just on our education but on our political structure.

“(Faculty) are worried that people outside the University are going to be telling us what we can and can’t teach, what we have to say and what we can’t say in the classroom,” said Daniel Brinks, a professor in the School of Law and chair of the government department. “That will be a problem for students’ ability to learn, faculty’s ability to teach and do research, and the University’s ability to be an authentic academic institution.”

Senate Bill 17 has had lasting impacts on faculty perceptions of academic freedom. The University’s over-compliance with SB 17, including firing certain staff members without justification, raises concerns about UT’s commitment to faculty well-being amid the enactment of legislative changes.

“There’s a chilling effect … with Senate Bill 17, which banned DEI programs and practices, but it also put in there some pretty severe penalties,” said Brian Evans, president of the Texas Conference of AAUP. “If you are a faculty member perceived to be giving a training on diversity, equity and inclusion, you can face disciplinary action, including being terminated or dismissed.”

Additionally, SB 18 was intended to ban tenure at Texas public universities. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick proposed the bill because he felt professors at UT use the stability their tenure provides to “poison the minds of our next generation,” as he wrote in a Feb. 18, 2022 statement.

“These professors claim ‘academic freedom’ and hide behind their tenure to continue blatantly advancing their agenda of societal division,” Patrick wrote in a statement released April 20, 2023.

The bill was modified to keep tenured professors — with caveats. However, they can still be let go at the University’s discretion.

SB 18 may disproportionately impact untenured faculty who speak publicly on identity-related issues. The bill instills fear, making professors weary that a progressive curriculum would get them fired. If UT wants professors to continue to foster discourse in their classrooms, they must actively seek to protect tenure and ensure the stability of faculty.

“(AAUP) felt that SB 18 would potentially erode the protections of tenure … the whole reason there’s tenure is to protect academic freedom,” said Andrea Gore, a professor in the College of Pharmacy and Vice President of UT Austin’s chapter of AAUP. “If we didn’t have something that told us our jobs are going to be secure if we tackle difficult topics, we might not tackle those topics, and that would be a huge disservice to the students of the state of Texas.”

Forums exist for faculty to air their grievances, including the Faculty Council, but rarely does faculty input result in actual change. For example, the Council released a July 12 report criticizing UT’s handling of pro-Palestian demonstrations, and the council openly condemned President Hartzell’s mass layoffs following SB 17, which they said were made “without consultation of Faculty Council Leadership or other faculty leaders, in violation of shared governance practices, and without due process.”

In neither case did UT change or reverse its course of action despite callouts from faculty. If faculty cannot make change at UT, they may look for employment somewhere they can.

“Faculty Council, to me, is mostly a propaganda machine … it gives a veneer of a democratically-run institution,” said Stuart Reichler, an associate professor of practice in the College of Natural Sciences. “The reality is that the President and the other top administrators at the University decide what does and doesn’t happen.”

UT does have a requirement to adjust its practices according to the Texas legislature, but it also has a responsibility to recognize and act on the pleas of those it employs. If we can’t provide the basic protections our faculty deserves, how can we expect to attract and retain faculty members who contribute so to the prestige of UT Austin?

The University will soon become the face of Texas’ higher education failures unless it starts truly listening to its faculty.

The editorial board is composed of associate editors Tenley Jackson, Tanya Narwekar, Ava Saunders and Anjali Shenoy and editor-in-chief McKenzie Henningsen.

Student threatened with suspension sues University of Texas for 'unlawful retaliation': ON THE IMPORTANCE OF FACULTY VOICE AND GOVERNANCE

Friends:

This is an evolving story at UT. One notes the importance of faculty voice and governance for due process and democracy as this student's lawsuit cites a UT Faculty Council committee report that supports Ammer Qaddumi's case. I agree with the American Civil Liberties Union's statement that free speech rights should be "generously protected." To this, I would include university faculty, as well, together with the academic freedom we need to teach truthfully in the college classroom. I am proud of our faculty and our faculty leadership for expressing their voices.

I am also proud of the great work by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) members at UT who contributed to the Faculty Council committee report, as well. Our chapter may be among the largest in our state.

To be clear, the Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Texas Faculty Association (TFA), along with their partners in other Southern states, have been leading the fight against interference in academic freedom, advocating for the protection of shared governance, due process, and tenure.

Our AAUP state leader, Dr. Brian Evans, together with other fantastic AAUP leaders at UT and statewide are currently organizing to have a voice in the upcoming 2025 Texas Legislative Session, as well.

Another important, related point that should also be abundantly clear is that when faculty fight for free speech and academic freedom at the legislature and beyond, these are student issues that both students and advocates need to vigorously support, as well. Similarly, when students and advocates fight for K-12 issues in the Texas State Legislature, these are higher education issues. 

After all, the attack on academic freedom in 2023 was presaged by the attack on Critical Race Theory in 2021. Expressed differently, many of us knew in 2021 that this issue would re-appear in higher education in the following 2023 legislative session—and it did in the form of SB 16 (related to higher education curriculum), SB 17 (attack on DEI), and SB 18 (attack on tenure). of the three, the latter two bills become law.

This speaks to a tendency in policy for folks to say, "I do K-12" or "I do higher ed." I maintain that these logics make us vulnerable that extremists are happy to exploit. Not that all have to know or do everything, but rather it's important to have a little epistemic humility and to know that there is a larger policy arena out there to which we must also be mindful. 

Here is where networks and partnerships matter. For example, I'm thrilled that Texas AFT and AAUP recently voted on March 30, 2024 in favor of this partnership: Affiliation Agreement Between Texas AFT and the Texas AAUP Conference. After all, censorship is an issue that affects the entire educational pipeline. I would also argue that we need to give our K-12 teachers much more academic freedom over their classrooms than they do now. The teachers we work with at Academia Cuauhtli—who are dual language/bilingually certified teachers—always tell us that what they like about our school is their freedom to impart their craft and to develop curriculum that is specific to the communities they teach.

You may join AAUP at this link. Here are several reasons to consider joining. No worries. Membership is kept confidential. You can also learn about how to start your own chapter at your own college or university, public or private, here.

Follow Texas AAUP on X @TexasAaup and @aaup_utAustin.

AAUP makes a difference. A big one.

-Angela Valenzuela

Student threatened with suspension sues University of Texas for 'unlawful retaliation'

by Lily Kepner | Aug. 30, 2024 | Austin American-Statesman

Pro-Palestine protesters hold a rally after The University of Texas at Austin’s commencement ceremony at Royal-Memorial Stadium on Saturday, May 11, 2024 in Austin. About 100 protesters, which included current and graduating students and faculty and staff, gathered to call for the University of Texas at Austin to divest from weapon manufacturers that supply arms to Israel. -Aaron E. Martinez/American-Statesman

A student threatened with suspension is suing the University of Texas, UT President Jay Hartzell and former Provost Sharon Wood, claiming they violated his First Amendment rights when he was arrested at a pro-Palestinian protest on April 24.

The suit, filed Tuesday, alleges that UT "unlawfully attempted to prevent that speech" and is now trying to suspend the student and bar him from campus for three semesters pending a hearing Friday. In an additional motion filed Wednesday, the student seeks a temporary restraining order against the disciplinary hearing, which a federal judge denied Thursday afternoon.

"It's pretty evident that the university's actions targeting that demonstration were really just unambiguously unlawful," Brian McGivern, the lawyer representing the case from Austin Community Law Center, told the American-Statesman in an interview. "My hope is that the lawsuit will also deter them from blindly, unapologetically breaking the law."

More:Can Texas public universities remove protesters from campus? First Amendment experts explain

McGivern said the discipline threatened against the student is "unlawful retaliation."

Ammer Qaddumi, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, is a member of the Palestine Solidarity Committee, the group that organized the April 24 protest and was the first person arrested by police after a dispersal order.

"The police sought out a mediator from among the crowd to communicate directives to, and Mr. Qaddumi volunteered to fill that role. At their request, Mr. Qaddumi shared with the other demonstrators the officers’ directives to disperse," the lawsuit states.

More:$5,200 for Pok-e-Jo's barbecue: A look at UT's expenses for pro-Palestinian protests

It describes Qaddumi addressing the crowd when they regathered on Speedway to listen to officers and communicating to officers about the challenges with dispersal when "at that moment, at approximately 12:49 p.m., he was arrested by UT Police Department officers on the accusation of criminal trespass."

Video evidence posted by the news service Al Jazeera, as well as reporter accounts, show Qaddumi helping police before a UT police officer arrested him. Fifty-six other people were arrested that day, though all criminal trespassing charges were quickly dropped "due to insufficient evidence."

Because of Senate Bill 18, a 2019 Texas law, all university public spaces are established as traditional public forums, affording them the highest scrutiny in free speech law, McGivern said.

This conduct would not meet the standard required to allow censorship, McGivern argues, even for a university.

"The University is a state entity, and it's one of the bedrock principles of our democracy that the state cannot casually censor speech ... except in very specific situations," McGivern said. "There's no good faith argument that they can make that what they are doing is lawful, except by relying on statements of facts that are pure fiction."

More:Analysis: UT increases limits on free speech after pro-Palestinian protests, Abbott order

On April 23, the university preemptively canceled the registered student group's plans to protest due to officials' belief the demonstrators planned to break rules and disrupt the campus. Wood, whom Hartzell announced Tuesday would return to the engineering faculty starting Sept. 1 after stepping down as provost, emailed the Dean's Council early the next morning to say UT "is working to ensure this type of disruption doesn't happen." Hartzell has said he asked outside law enforcement to meet protesters, fearing the protest would break rules and disrupt campus.

The president and provost were named and sued for damages in their personal capacity due to both parties showing their involvement in prior restraint with the protest, McGivern said.

More:UT offers deferred suspension to some pro-Palestinian student protesters, one suspension

University spokesperson Mike Rosen said the university is aware of the lawsuit and will respond in court filings, but he pointed to Hartzell's comment in April that UT followed its rules and protocols and that it protects free speech that follows those rules.

"Today, our University held firm, enforcing our rules while protecting the Constitutional right to free speech. Peaceful protests within our rules are acceptable. Breaking our rules and policies and disrupting others’ ability to learn are not allowed," Hartzell wrote then. "The group that led this protest stated it was going to violate Institutional Rules. Our rules matter, and they will be enforced. Our University will not be occupied."

The lawsuit states the Palestine Solidarity Committee was not intending to break university rules, accusing the university of conflating their intentions with national groups.

Protests largely organized by chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine, which the Palestine Solidarity Committee is a part of, spread across universities nationwide last spring after more than 100 protesters in an encampment were arrested at Columbia University on April 18 when demanding their institution divest from weapons manufactures contributing to Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza.

The UT protest was held in solidarity with others across the nation but was planned to be a gathering on the South Lawn with workshops, teach-ins and pizza, organizers said on social media. At a protest April 29 not organized by the Palestine Solidarity Committee, protesters did briefly set up a surprise encampment and police arrested 79 people.

More:Seventy-nine pro-Palestinian protesters arrested after setting up encampment at UT Austin

The lawsuit heavily cites a UT Faculty Council committee report that says the university broke its rules in silencing protesters' free speech preemptively, something UT denies.

The Statesman's reporting has showed the university changed its free speech rules this summer to state off-campus police can in some instances enforce university rules, something that was not present explicitly at the time of the arrests, though police have assisted the UT police before. It also changed the rules to cite drumming as amplified sound. The April protests didn't use amplified sound but they did involve drums.

More:UT faculty panel accuses school of violating its own rules during pro-Palestinian protests

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas previously raised concerns about the disciplinary process, encouraging the university in a letter to Hartzell to treat students in a content-neutral way and to protect their free speech rights generously. At least one other student protester also faces suspension, the Statesman previously reported.

The university has said disciplinary proceedings are separate from the law, though it publicly criticized County Attorney Delia Garza for dropping criminal trespassing charges because they did not meet the highest standard of evidence that protesters broke the law.

U.S. District Judge David Ezra on Thursday denied the temporary restraining order motion sought by Qaddumi, saying "no injury currently exists," as the hearing Friday will determine whether or not Qaddumi is suspended, and the university is following due process through having a hearing, according to his order.

In his lawsuit, Qaddumi seeks compensatory and punitive damages from defendants and a permanent injunction against disciplinary proceedings.

"This (is part of) a larger phenomenon that we see today with certain leaders, very publicly, very unapologetically, breaking the law in ways that they know are illegal ... and then trying to gaslight the public or lie to the public to justify it," McGivern said. "What people should know is that they deserve better leadership."