Crackdowns in the Classroom: Texas Targets Curriculum and Campus Speech

It's been a busy week for higher education with another onslaught of attacks, from the clamp-down on alleged "race and gender ideology" in the classroom by the Texas A&M University System (TAMUS) Board of Regents, and the expansion of legislative oversight of campus speech for both faculty and students. For educators committed to the freedom to teach and the freedom to learn, these shifts raise urgent questions about the future of teaching and the mission of our public universities and community colleges.

The center of this week's developments is the TAMUS Board of Regents meeting, where yesterday the board unanimously approved a policy that requires each campus president to pre-approve courses that are perceived as "advocating for race and gender ideology or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity."

The new policy defines race ideology as "attempts to shame a particular race or ethnicity, or anything that promotes activism on issues related to race or ethnicity rather than academic instruction." Gender ideology, meanwhile, is defined as a "concept of self-assessed gender identity replacing, and disconnected from, the biological category of sex."

The policy also prohibits faculty from teaching material not consistent with the approved syllabus. These policies are effective immediately, with enforcement beginning at the start of the spring 2026 semester.

The regents also previewed new procedures to audit all course content across the system's schools every semester. The system's vice chancellor for academic affairs, James R. Hallmark, said that syllabi and course details will be submitted into a database and then analyzed by artificial intelligence (AI) to screen for compliance.

Course review is a rigorous process, which has historically used shared governance structures and garnered input from faculty and administrators alike. Now, with SB 37 in effect, not only are faculty at TAMUS stripped of their ability to provide input on the courses taught at their university but their experience and expertise are being replaced by AI to perform one of the most critical roles on a college campus.

More than 140 people submitted written testimony, with many others also providing oral testimony at the hearing - one of which was Dr. Leonard Bright, our Texas A&M AAUP chapter president.

"Texas A&M has recruited some of the best teachers and scholars in the nation. These dedicated professionals should be treated with the respect they deserve," Bright said. "Instead, we are tasked with serving as foot soldiers in a crusade to decimate what has made Texas higher education a powerhouse of research: the commitment to academic rigor, carried out every day by highly trained and credentialed faculty."

Campuses on a tighter leash

In Austin yesterday, legislators held the first hearing of the new Joint Committee on Free Speech in Higher Education. This launches a sweeping review of campus speech following incidents that exposed what many committee members describe as growing intolerance and inconsistent responses from universities.

The lawmakers cited the Sept. 10 killing of Charlie Kirk as a catalyst for the creation of this committee. Chairman Terry Wilson stated in his opening remarks that, "Freedom of speech is not the freedom to threaten, harass, or disrupt. Academic freedom is not the license to defy public accountability."

The committee heard testimony from 11 invited witnesses, including University of Texas at Austin President Jim Davis; UT Austin's general counsel, Amanda Cochran-McCall; and Rickey Adam, Turning Point USA regional manager. Officials from state higher education agencies, law enforcement, as well as student body presidents were also invited witnesses.

The line of questioning examined implementation of SB 37, the state of free speech on campuses, and the implementation of SB 2972, which bans expressive activity during certain times of the day and semester. Committee members were largely concerned about three topics:

• pathways for students to report censorship
• whether there was "more intolerance to conservative dialogues than liberal ideologies"
• pro-Palestine protests on UT Austin's campus in April 2024

As the Legislature continues its review, with public testimony planned for next year, it remains to be seen how Texas' public universities will balance the complex intersection of free speech, academic freedom, and protest rights.

In another front of higher education advocacy, the Texas AFL-CIO joined an amicus brief defending the Texas Dream Act, which allows eligible students to pay in-state tuition regardless of immigration status. Educators recognize that access to higher education is inseparable from academic freedom.

As Texas AFL-CIO President Rick Levy stated, "Texas students' success, regardless of how they became Texans themselves, is deeply connected to the success of our communities, our economy, and our country."

Denying tuition equity undermines students' ability to pursue education and the ability of universities to fulfill their teaching mission. We are grateful for the Texas AFL-CIO's legal support for the continued success of all students.

Our state government has paid much lip service to bolstering higher education and ensuring more students are degreed by the year 2030.

The policies approved by the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents, the restriction on campus free speech, and stripping students from access to in-state tuition directly defy that declared statewide priority. Instead of expanding access to higher education or increasing funding for course offerings, improving student life, and life-saving research, state leaders are more concerned with placing on a muzzle on the very faculty members that make our public institutions great.