Testifying Through Midnight: Standing for Higher Ed and Academic Freedom in Texas: SB 37 Left Pending, But Our Commitment Is Not

 

A Long Day, A Powerful Stand: Testifying Against SB 37

I’m so proud of all of us who testified last night in opposition to Senate Bill 37. We signed up between 7:30 and 8:30 AM and didn’t finish until around 1:15 AM—that’s when this photo was taken. It was a marathon day, but a meaningful one.

SB 37 proposes a sweeping, bureaucratic overhaul that strips faculty of their rightful role in shaping curriculum. It transfers decision-making power away from those who know the content best—our educators—and places it in the hands of politically appointed regents. It aims to intimidate faculty from teaching about race, gender, religion, politics, or sexuality. It's a glorified gag order.

Under this bill, anyone can anonymously report a faculty member to an ombudsman, who would then escalate the case to the Legislature. Each public college and university in Texas would be required to establish an internal mechanism to manage these complaints—effectively creating a statewide surveillance system. 

Someone likened this to Nazi Germany in their testimony.  "Thought police," they said. Some are calling it the "Death Star," because it will so horribly harm higher education should it pass. Yes, our expertise, autonomy, and inclusive education are under attack, but we're pushing back as we speak. 

For a helpful breakdown, I encourage you to read this excellent blog post by the Texas AAUP: SB 37: Undue Big-Government Intrusion into Public Higher Ed.

Someone at the hearing noted—and I agree—that the very filing of this bill, especially following last session’s SB 17, has already inflicted serious damage on Texas higher education. Faculty are leaving in droves, and their replacements are nowhere in sight, particularly with stories of failing search committees. We're having difficulty recruiting doctoral students right now at UT, especially when they have other, better options. 

I tell prospective students that now is the time to come to UT. Join the movement! I've never seen so much youth engagement in the legislature in the 25 years of my own involvement. Many of us are literally harvesting the fruits of our labor. Gen Z is changing the world, but they need us. We're in this together.

Frankly, SB 37 would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. This bill is not just ridiculous; it’s harmful. And the fact that it’s even under consideration speaks volumes about where we are politically.

Still, in the face of this, I feel immense gratitude. I’m honored to be part of the beautiful, resilient community that has come together around this fight. Deep thanks to AAUP President Brian Evans and Texas AFT’s Amanda Garcia for their tireless leadership, and to all the students and faculty who traveled from across the state to testify.

SB 37 was left pending, which means the fight isn’t over.

My dear friends and colleagues, we can win this. We just can't let our guard down. 📢 Take action: Please reach out to your representatives and urge them to oppose this harmful bill. Here's a resource to help you do just that:

👉 ACTION LINK

Then we'll party! 😊😊😊

In solidarity,

-Angela Valenzuela

SB 37 – Faculty Senates & Curriculum—Texas AFT Bill Summary & Talking Points

Here is another analysis of SB 37 from Texas AFT. Numerous groups are engaged in this struggle, with Amanda Garcia emerging as a powerhouse organizer, leading the charge with remarkable skill and unwavering dedication. 

She works closely with AAUP President Brian Evan on the numerous bills targeting higher education, including those by Senators Bettencourt and Middleton, SB 1489, and SB 452, respectively, that are mentioned at the end of this AFT Summary below.

I applaud the numerous organizations involved, including Texas Students for DEI that Amanda and her peers formed during the 2023 session in response to Senate Bill 17, Texas' anti-DEI bill.

You can follow them on Instagram @txstudentsfordei

I re-post herein their most recent posts on these bad bills. Go to tinyurl.com/legetoolkit to their super helpful toolkit to learn of what you can do to combat these terrible proposals.

-Angela Valenzuela

SB 37 – Faculty Senates & Curriculum

Texas AFT Bill Summary & Talking Points

Contact agarcia@texasaft.org 

Broad Overview: SB 37 restructures the governance of public institutions of higher education by establishing oversight committees, increasing the power of governing boards, and limiting the autonomy of faculty councils to advisory roles. It mandates comprehensive evaluations of curricula and administrative decisions, tying state funding to compliance with new procedural standards. These changes constrain academic freedom, centralize excessive control in governing bodies, and burden institutions with bureaucratic processes that will hinder their educational mission and innovation.

SECTION 1: General Education Review Committees (Sec. 51.315) 

• A new section, Section 51.315, is added to the Education Code establishing a "General Education Review Committee" for each institution of higher education.
• Each institution must form a review committee to annually "maintain or eliminate” courses in the core curriculum and check for workforce alignment.
• Shall ensure courses in the curriculum “do not endorse specific public policies, ideologies, or legislation” 

• Composition: Committees may include tenured faculty and local industry partners.
• Duties: The committee ensures courses are foundational, prepare students for civic and professional life, and are free from ideological endorsements.
• Recommendations: Committees make recommendations on course retention or elimination, and institutions must publicly post these before board consideration.

• Compliance Reporting: Institutions must certify compliance annually to the Office of Excellence and provide reports to continue receiving state funds. 
• Institutions may not spend appropriated funds until the governing board submits to the legislature and THECB certifies compliance.

SECTION 2: Governing Board Powers and Duties (Sec. 51.352) 

• New Responsibilities for Governing Boards: Boards will now have the authority to approve or deny the hiring of individuals for specific leadership positions (vice president, provost, dean, etc.) and must regularly evaluate the chief executive officer to assist them in achieving performance goals such as student retention and graduation rates.
• “Maintaining or increasing student retention and graduation rates, the amount of money available for research, and making efforts to ensure a variety of perspectives are represented among administration and faculty”

• Decision-Making Authority: Governing boards can now overturn decisions made by campus administrations and must post notices on their websites about meetings where finalists for leadership positions will be considered, along with the curriculum vitae of those candidates.
• Annual Reporting: The governing board must annually report to the governor, the lieutenant governor, the speaker of the house, and each member of the legislature a report regarding decisions made by the board for the academic year on:
• The hiring of administration and faculty, curriculum, any review and evaluation of the institution’s administration

SECTION 3: Faculty Council or Senate (Sec. 51.3522) 

• Sec. 51.3522 Defines a faculty council or senate, and only the governing board may establish a faculty council/senate that adopts the policies:
• Members must be tenured.
• For each college or school: one member appointed by the institution president, one member elected by faculty vote.
• A faculty senate is advisory only, and “may not publish a report directly related to the council’s duties.”
• Each proposal from faculty senates must be reviewed by the governing board, institution administration, and system administration. 
• A member serves a one-year term and may only be a member again after four years.

• Notices/business must be made public:
• Agendas “with sufficient detail to indicate the items on which final action is contemplated”
• Votes must also be public when pertaining to a vote of no confidence and policies related to curriculum and academic standards.
• Advertisements for tenured faculty positions except STEM fields

SECTION 4: Minor Degree and Certificate Programs Review (Sec. 51.989) 

• Sec. 51.989 is added to specify the review process for minor degree and certificate programs
• 🚩Review Criteria: The president and provost must develop a process for reviewing minor and certificate programs and identify programs with low enrollment, leading to consolidation or elimination. 
• To avoid consolidation or elimination, undergraduate programs must have graduated at least 10 students in the preceding two years, OR at least 5 students enrolled at the time of review; graduate programs must have at least 3 students enrolled at the time of review and 3 students graduated in the preceding two years.
• Must show industry data demonstrating workforce demand for the program.
• Periodic Review: Presidents and provosts conduct reviews every four years, subject to board approval for any changes. 

SECTION 5: Governing Board Member Training (Sec. 61.084)

• Training Content: Focuses on roles, duties, governance topics like ethics, policy development, and budgeting.
• Topics covered: audit procedures, legislation that creates higher education institutions, the role of governing boards including its disciplinary and investigative authorities, faculty council/senate policies, the Legislature and state budget.
• Affirmation: Board members must affirm understanding of their responsibilities upon completing training. 

SECTION 6: Faculty Evaluation (Sec. 51.942) 

• Evaluation Process: New requirement for comprehensive performance evaluations for tenured faculty members to occur at least once every six years and no more than once every yea
• Performance evaluation is based on teaching, research, service, patient care, administration, and peer review. It should also be directed toward professional development. The performance evaluation will incorporate “commonly recognized” due process rights. For those receiving unsatisfactory ratings, a short-term development plan with performance benchmarks must be established.
• 🚩 “A faculty member is subject to revocation of tenure or disciplinary action for incompetency, neglect of duty, or other good cause; a faculty member may not be involved in decision-making in a grievance review process or faculty discipline process.”

SECTION 7: Office of Excellence in Higher Education (Ch. 454, Government Code)

• Establishment: The Office of Excellence in Higher Education, administratively attached to the THECB. The director of the office will be appointed by the governor with approval by the senate.
• “Serves at the pleasure of the governor.”
• Mandates the creation of General Education Review Committees within each institution to annually assess the core curriculum and provide recommendations on coursework, ensuring that these courses meet foundational educational standards while maintaining neutrality regarding public policies.
• Role: Acts as an intermediary between the legislature, the public, and institutions. The office is responsible for investigating noncompliance by institutions with state law or institution policy. An institution must respond to the office’s information request within 30 days. Findings will be submitted to the attorney general and the governing board and is subject to investigation. 
• Annual Report: The office will submit an annual report to the governor, lieutenant governor, the attorney general, and the chair of each standing committee the number of reports of noncompliance, the number of investigations, and a summary of investigations results.

SECTION 8-11: Implementation and Transition 

• Timelines: Implementation begins in the 2025-2026 academic year, with initial recommendations due by 2027. 
• Existing Councils: Current faculty councils must be reconstituted or ratified by October 1, 2025, to comply with new standards. These sections collectively aim to increase oversight and standardize processes across Texas public higher education institutions, with significant implications for governance, academic freedom, and administrative operations.
• 
  
• 

"SB 37 doesn't fix problems at Texas universities. It undermines faculty, students," by Dr. Polly Strong—OpEd

Friends:

Do give this op-ed on Senate Bill 37, authored by Dr. Pauline Strong, a close read. I am very concerned that Texans aren't aware of this horrible bill, SB 37 that essentially controls the higher education curriculum premised on the false premise of "woke indoctrination." Geez, how offensive can they be!

We are in a drought state and we have a water crisis, a housing crisis, and growing income inequality. Our leaders should focus on these things rather than wasting time and taxpayer dollars on finding ways to silence professors who might actually critique them. This is not heading in the right direction.

The bill will at some point soon make its way to the House Higher Education Committee where we hope it dies. It is constitutionally not sound.

Do not be fooled that this is not about "fixing" higher education. For starters, it ain't broke! If anything, it's about curtailing faculty governance and turning us into a corporation. We are not a business, and it is unethical for us to be run by a non-elective body—as SB 37 proposes—that has control over curriculum and hiring.

Talk about killing higher education!

This is terrible policy.

-Angela Valenzuela

SB 37 doesn't fix problems at Texas universities. It undermines faculty, students | Opinion
by Pauline Strong
Austin American-Statesman | March 24, 2025

Texas public higher education has been in the crosshairs of right-wing politicians since February 2022. That month, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick threatened “looney Marxist professors” with the end of tenure after the University of Texas faculty council issued a statement affirming its faculty’s right to academic freedom. Patrick’s threats led to the 2023 passage of Senate Bill 17, which banned diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts at universities, and SB 18, which weakened the protections of faculty tenure.

Several Republican-sponsored bills this session go after higher education even further. But in my view, Patrick’s priority bill, SB 37, should be most vehemently opposed by Texans who care about the quality of higher education in this state.

In crafting SB 37, Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, has abandoned the culture war language of “wokeness” and “CRT,” or critical race theory. Instead, the bill promises to provide more oversight of universities and promote excellence in higher education.

At first glance, that may sound rather innocuous. But the bill has harmful implications for our public colleges and universities. It will lead to inefficiencies, undermine democratic processes and deny educational liberty and student choice, among other negative effects.

SB 37 would create an Office of Excellence in Higher Education to oversee compliance in our public colleges and universities. But the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and the Board of Regents already provide such oversight. Adding another layer of bureaucracy will lead to unnecessary government spending and duplicate an infrastructure that already exists.

SB 37 would also require that half of the members of faculty senates and councils be elected. Appointed faculty are more likely to align with the views of the administration, which would reduce the range of perspectives that would be offered in deliberation. The bill would also expand senate membership to constituencies outside the university and limit faculty membership to tenured faculty.

Faculty senates in Texas already serve in an advisory capacity to the president, but under this configuration, only the most elite members of the university workforce — those with tenure — would even be eligible for service. As tenured faculty make up only a minority of the faculty workforce, this severely undermines any semblance of democratic deliberation.

SB 37 would also eliminate minors and certificate programs that politicians determine are under-enrolled. But certificates and minors cost the university virtually nothing to offer. Offering fewer will effectively eliminate students’ ability to seek the credentials they believe are best for them, regardless of the popularity of those studies.

Additionally, SB 37 would place the core curriculum at each institution under the review of an appointed committee. This committee would ensure that “courses do not endorse specific public policies, ideologies or legislation” — a vague provision that in practice could easily lead to state censorship of education.

Like any bureaucratic system, universities could be more efficient in delivering the services the state has asked them to provide. A real inefficiency that should be addressed, for instance, is the increase in highly-paid upper administrative positions at universities that have increasingly taken the work of governance out of the hands of faculty.

But this bill doesn’t fix any real problems in our public colleges and universities. Instead, SB 37 implies that faculty are not experts in the fields in which they’ve spent decades working. It suggests bureaucrats are better at managing organizations than those who labor in them every day. And it contends that students don’t deserve the educational liberty to choose the courses of study that they deem best.

I’m sure if he reached out, Sen. Creighton would find faculty to be willing partners in making our universities the best in the world. Instead, he has proposed a course of action that will greatly hamper our pursuit of excellence. SB 37 is not only bad for Texas colleges and universities, it’s bad for Texas.

Pauline Strong is a professor at the University of Texas and president of the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) chapter at UT Austin.

Texas House Bill Proposes to Ban DEI in Required University Curriculum: We must OPPOSE HB 2548, HB 2311, and HB 2339

These extremists think they are so clever with their Defunding Indoctrination in Education (DIE) Act which is, of course, a play on words with the ongoing attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI.  Geez, what a lie that it "harms community" without providing evidence that this is so and without being transparent that this is an attack by white leaders on the 1964 Civil Rights Act that allowed Black and Brown communities access to public accommodations, education, employment opportunities, and voting rights by prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 

Now, their contrived deployment of the scientistic language of "a positive return on investments...after graduation" is white supremacy disguised as race-neutral economic rationality, while reinforcing systemic barriers to access and success for marginalized communities and obscuring the structural inequalities that shape educational and career outcomes that the 1964 CRA addressed.

By framing education solely in terms of financial returns, they ignore the historical and ongoing discrimination that limits opportunities for Black and Brown communities, perpetuating the very inequities the 1964 Civil Rights Act aimed to eliminate.

Rep. Ron Reynolds is absolutely correct that HB 2548 in his analysis of the bill:

"H.B. 2548 is nothing more than an ideological gag order designed to keep students from learning the full truth about American history and society," he said in a written statement shared by AJC.

Please learn from this piece and these links about HB 2548, HB 2339, and HB 2311—and the damage that they portend. How? These bills are not just misguided—they are weapons designed to disfigure public education, siphoning resources, eroding equity, and dismantling the foundation of opportunity for marginalized communities. We must recognize this threat for what it is: a deliberate assault on our future. And we must resist—vigorously, relentlessly, and without compromise.

-Angela Valenzuela

Texas House bill proposes to ban DEI in required university curriculum

Lily Kepner, Austin American-Statesman. March 1, 2025



Before students at the University of Texas graduate, they are required to take global cultures and cultural diversity courses. It's part of a plan set in 2006 to ensure students take "skills and experiences courses" to prepare them to enter the world and hold successful careers after graduation.

Former UT President Jay Hartzell has said the university is reviewing its graduation requirements to ensure they are still best for students and the workforce. But state Rep. Cody Harris, R-Palestine, has filed a bill to limit diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education curriculum.

House Bill 2548 — one of several proposals to legislate courses and curriculum over race, gender or sexuality at public universities — comes after similar attempts in the 2023 legislative session to pass legislation to keep faculty members from "compelling" students to adopt a belief about race, sex, society or politics died in the House.

HB 2548 specifically seeks to ban coursework that is required or otherwise "constrain(ed)" — such as by "failing during any semester to provide sufficient open seats in alternative courses" — on the following topics as they "relate to contemporary American society":

• Critical race theory, whiteness, systemic racism, institutional racism, anti-racism, microaggressions, decolonization
• Race-based reparations, privilege, diversity, equity, inclusion, stratification, marginalization
• Intersectionality, gender identity, social justice, cultural competence, decolonization
• Systemic or structural bias, implicit bias, unconscious bias, decolonization

The bill would not prevent required classes on "historical movements, ideologies, or instances of racial hatred or discrimination," including slavery and the Holocaust, but it says the courses can't "distort significant historical events" or consist of curriculum based on "theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States." If degree programs specifically state they concern one of those topics, such as LGBTQ+ or African American studies, they can continue with the requirements, but other majors, like sociology, cannot.

The Austin Justice Coalition, university professors and community members came together last week to oppose Harris' bill, saying the proposal would censor diversity courses.

Chas Moore, founder and co-executive director of the Austin Justice Coalition, a local organization that advocates to improve the lives of people of color and impoverished Texans, said the bill is "another attempt to erase, eradicate and diminish very large groups of people," invalidating the experience of marginalized residents who still face oppression.

"Our college institutions ... are the places where a lot of kids, for the first time, they get to take deep dives into history," Moore said. "But now instead of incentivizing this, we want to penalize institutions, take away academic freedom, put all types of work into the administration just in the name of this crazy attack on diversity, equity, inclusion."

Rep. Ron Reynolds, D-Missouri City, who sponsored the conference room at the Capitol for the AJC and others, said Harris' bill follows a national pattern to "suppress discussions on system injustice and maintain the status quo of inequality."

"H.B. 2548 is nothing more than an ideological gag order designed to keep students from learning the full truth about American history and society," he said in a written statement shared by AJC. "We will not let extremists erase our history or dictate what knowledge students can access."

Harris did not return multiple American-Statesman calls seeking comment.

Other proposals

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Senate, on the first day of the legislative session had indicated his desire to ban "critical race theory" in higher education, and many GOP lawmakers have been outwardly critical of diversity-related coursework.

Moore said at the Feb. 20 news conference that the group was highlighting Harris's bill because of his seniority. Rep. Daniel Alders, a freshman republican from Tyler, introduced a similar bill on course requirements.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, an influential conservative think tank, released draft legislation that would push civic education as required coursework and establish an "independent School of General Education" at each higher education institution that has the "sole control over most of the new required courses," also reflecting a push to center civics and Western history over more diverse requirements.

Rep. Carl Tepper, R-Lubbock, and Sen. Mayes Middleton, R-Galveston, both proposed bills that would sunset programs that do not give students a positive return on investments on average after graduation, likely in response to an interim charge from Patrick seeking to prioritize "credentials of value" over "DEI."

Rep. Brian Harrison, R-Midlothian, has filed legislation to further expand the state's DEI ban in higher education. HB 2311 would fully eliminate DEI-related coursework, student organizations, research and recruitment — which were exempted in Senate Bill 17, the 2023 law by Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, that prohibited DEI-related offices, programs and hiring at public universities and colleges effective Jan. 1, 2024.

Harrison also filed HB 2339, the Defunding Indoctrination in Education (DIE) Act, which would prohibit LGBTQ+ courses and programs at colleges and universities as well as any program "in diversity, equity, and inclusion, including but not limited to, promoting differential treatment of individuals on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity."
'Going to inevitably harm our communities'

Esmeralda Rubalcava Hernandez, an adjunct professor in social work at St. Edwards University and a doctorate candidate at the University of Texas at Arlington, who studies how immigration and policing intersect, said at the news conference that bills targeting higher education curriculum would prevent requiring sociology students from taking courses in diversity, giving them a limited understanding of the future people they might serve.

"To send social work, sociology, criminal justice and other students out into the profession without knowing the realities that impact every single one of us today, regardless of our racial identities, of our ancestries, we are all impacted," she said. "Not having students who know this and are out doing work in communities, is going to inevitably harm our communities. It is going to cause a great amount of danger to people who are already marginalized."

Sully Snook, at St. Edward's University senior, said they became a sociology major to "learn how the world works" and has gained valuable knowledge about society by taking diversity courses. They spoke at the conference to ensure other Texas students wouldn't lose that chance.

"I'm learning so much that lower ed doesn't teach people," Snook said in an interview after the news conference. "It's so important and impactful to be able to see the truth."

Mary Elizabeth with the Austin Justice Coalition, said Harris' bill will "stifle free exchange of ideas" and prevent societal problems from being addressed. Elizabeth, a white woman, said she was shocked to see Harris' bill would restrict required courses mentioning gender too.

"That's new for me," Elizabeth said. "While I support all marginalized groups, I want women across Texas to know they're in the spotlight as well."

Dominique Alexander, a minister who is the founder and president of social justice organization Next Generation Action Network, said Harris' bill would prevent students from learning about the racism, gender inequity and injustice in today's world and thus prevent them from solving it.

"We understand that the American history, the true American history, is a history of all," Alexander said. "This kind of censorship creates the fear of classrooms. It forced professors to second guess their words and suppress a critical conversation that is necessary to shape and inform citizens, limiting students' educational exposure."

The House Committee on Higher Education has not yet met to consider these bills. The Senate Committee on K-16 Education has not yet heard bills related to higher education curriculum.

"We cannot build a society if students are denied the tools to understand injustice," Alexander added. The next "Thurgood Marshall, Angela Davis, Barack Obama could be sitting in a Texas classroom right now. We cannot rob them of the knowledge or the courage that's needed to form and transform our society."

Eric Hepburn, a San Gabriel Unitarian Universalist fellow, introduced himself as a white Christian man who is against HB 2548 because he believes it would prevent Texans from confronting the hard truth about modern society.

"I walk here with only love in my heart," he said. "No one can be protected from the truth."