The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is concerned with defending academic freedom, freedom of expression, shared governance, due process, and fairness. As such, the AAUP Chapter at UT Austin has serious concerns about two urgent matters related to UT students’ freedom of expression: 1) the restrictions the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies has placed on the functioning of the Graduate Student Assembly and 2) the Office of the Dean of Students’ (ODoS) decision to begin disciplinary proceedings against one undergraduate student affiliated with Students for a Democratic Society and one graduate student affiliated with the University of Texas Graduate Workers’ Union.
On October 15, the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies told David Spicer, president of the Graduate Student Assembly (GSA), that the GSA could not consider two proposed resolutions against Texas statutes SB 17 and SB 37. The Associate Dean for Graduate Studies claimed that both resolutions violated the University’s institutional neutrality policy. Then on November 2, the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies blocked three more resolutions proposed by the GSA on a range of campus matters, arguing that they were beyond the Assembly’s purview because they did not affect graduate students uniquely and directly. Both FIRE and the ACLU of Texas have criticized these attempts to restrict students’ free speech.
On November 7, undergraduate Daniel Ramírez and graduate student Áine McGehee Marley went to Provost William Inboden’s office with a group of students to demand a meeting about UT Austin’s plans regarding the federal government’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” The students were refused a meeting with the Provost and when asked to leave the office, they did so. Subsequently, on November 17, ODoS informed Ramírez and McGehee Marley that they are being investigated for possible violations of University policy, namely unauthorized entry and conduct that interferes with or disrupts university activities. Based on these charges, we are concerned that the University is defining terms like ”disruption” in overly broad ways that impinge on students’ first amendment rights.
Just last week, President Jim Davis testified at the State Capitol before the Senate Select Committee on Civil Discourse and Freedom of Speech in Higher Education. Committee Co-Chair Representative Terry Wilson said, “The people of Texas expect their public universities to uphold the rule of law, to safeguard free expression, and to protect every student’s right to learn in an environment free from fear.” Wilson continued, “When those obligations are ignored, when intimidation takes the place of discourse, the integrity of higher education itself is at risk.” President Davis promised to uphold students’ right to free speech on campus and stated, “UT Austin’s commitment to civil discourse and freedom of speech is strong and will not waver on my watch.” However, the interference with GSA’s right to put forward resolutions and the disciplinary proceedings against an undergraduate and graduate student are part of a series of actions this semester on the part of UT Austin’s administrative leaders repressing student speech.
The AAUP Chapter at UT Austin calls on the Dean of Students Office to drop the disciplinary investigations against the two UT students. We also call on the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies to allow the GSA’s prohibited resolutions to proceed. If UT Austin’s leaders truly support the right to free speech, undergraduate and graduate students must be able to use existing venues to express their ideas about policies on our campus.
Statement by Karma Chavez, President of the AAUP chapter at UT Austin on the impending action by the Texas A&M Board of Regents regarding civil rights and academic freedom
November 11, 2025
We stand in solidarity with faculty and students in the Texas A&M University System who are opposing the revisions to Policy 08.01, Civil Rights Protections and Compliance, and 12.01, Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure. to be considered on November 13, 2025 by the Board of Regents. This resolution is a breach of trust with faculty and students and a serious attack on academic freedom and the quality of education offered at Texas A&M institutions.
The resolution seeks to squelch teaching about gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation at Texas A&M institutions by requiring advance permission from the President to teach about “gender ideology.” This is defined as “a concept of self-assessed gender identity replacing, and disconnected from, the biological category of sex.” As anyone who teaches gender studies knows, the concept of gender is always distinct from sexual difference. Therefore, any teaching about gender issues–e.g., gender pay disparities, gendered work roles, gendered vulnerability to domestic abuse–would be subjected to special scrutiny by administrators unfamiliar with the subject area. This violates academic freedom, faculty’s free speech rights, and Texas A&M’s commitment to quality higher education.
The resolution would also require permission in advance to teach about “race ideology.” This is defined as “a concept that attempts to shame a particular race or ethnicity, accuse them of being oppressors in a racial hierarchy or conspiracy, ascribe to them less value as contributors to society and public discourse because of their race or ethnicity, or assign them intrinsic guilt based on the actions of their presumed ancestors or relatives in other areas of the world.” This definition of race ideology appears to be based on the misconception that faculty engage in indoctrination that belittles their students and attempts to instill shame or guilt in them. This assumption is untrue, based on hearsay, and damages the reputation of the stellar faculty at Texas A&M institutions. Faculty who teach about race engage in empirically-based lectures and discussions, and they must be allowed to do so when such material is, in the faculty’s own estimation, relevant to their course. Doing otherwise violates academic freedom and subjects faculty to unconstitutional prior restraint.
The resolution would also require prior approval for course content that “promotes activism on issues related to race or ethnicity, rather than academic instruction.” This, too, is an unconstitutional prior restraint on faculty’s classroom teaching–and on experiential education as well. There are countless topics that inspire students to engage in activism with respect to race or ethnicity: the history of medicine, the history of US politics and law, the sociology of labor relations, the history of social movements, the history of immigration, global health, global economics, environmental literature, religious history, etc. Prior restraint on the teaching of these topics would greatly damage the ability of Texas A&M faculty to teach their subject matter responsibly. The resolution, if enacted, would also have a chilling effect on students’ ability to pursue their own interests in activism.
Most broadly, the resolution requires all faculty to confine their teaching to material that is consistent with the approved syllabus for the course. Anyone who has taught in a university setting realizes that this would make faculty’s teaching mechanical, out of date, and ineffective. Faculty would have to constantly monitor what they say, and how they respond to student questions and interests, against the approved syllabus. A&M recruits some of the best faculty in the world, and they must be able to teach cutting-edge topics in the areas of their expertise. They must also be allowed to help their students apply their learnings to the real world. Anything else is not worthy of the A&M brand.
In solidarity with Texas A&M faculty and students, and in recognition of the ways these changes could degrade the educational standards for all colleges and universities in Texas, we call on the Regents to vote no on this destructive resolution.
AAUP at UT Austin Expresses Concerns about UT’s “Statement on Academic Integrity”
The Executive Committee of the American Association of University Professors chapter at the University of Texas at Austin (AAUP @UT Austin) is pleased to see the University reaffirming its commitment to academic freedom, but finds certain aspects of the new “Texas Statement on Academic Integrity: Academic Freedom and Its Responsibilities” concerning. For example:
(1) The statement repeats unproven allegations that faculty are responsible for a public loss of trust in the University. We strongly object to this misrepresentation of the dedicated faculty at the University of Texas. We are committed to teaching in a way that respects our subject matter and our students alike. Faculty and courses are regularly evaluated by students, and student criticisms are taken seriously by our colleagues.
(2) The statement creates a false distinction between the classroom and the world that is out of step with best teaching practices. Faculty and students frequently apply course materials to “real world” situations. The University is a forum for discussing the most important issues of the day in a context that values evidence-based argumentation. Limiting the ability of faculty and students to apply course material to the world is not the path to excellence.
(3) It is not clear how this statement will be used or who will be responsible for interpreting it. Our concern is that it could be used to sanction faculty because they have different views about what is balanced instruction on “disputed matters” and “unsettled issues,” or what content is “germane” to a course. According to AAUP principles, faculty should make these determinations. However, in the absence of an elected Faculty Council, we have no assurance that a faculty member, if accused of violating the statement, will receive due process. The statement contributes to a climate of fear that is not conducive to high quality education.
“I am glad to see that the President’s appointed committee is invested in the freedom to teach and learn,” noted Chapter President, Karma Chávez. “But since UT has already affirmed this commitment for decades, I worry that this statement serves to target faculty who teach in the most ‘controversial’ fields, such as ethnic and gender studies.”
“Although higher education nationwide is under political attack, UT’s reputation is strong, as evidenced by another year of record applications and our continued rise in national and international rankings,” commented Chapter Past President, Polly Strong. “That is because our faculty already have integrity and have responsibly employed academic freedom to teach students to understand their fields in a current and sophisticated manner. This statement is a solution in search of a problem.”
We urge the University of Texas to affirm confidence in our world-class faculty’s excellent teaching and to reaffirm the right of faculty to determine what is relevant to leading-edge teaching in their areas of expertise. This is at the heart of the AAUP’s concept of academic freedom.
###
Founded in 1915, the American Association of University Professors has helped to shape American higher education by developing the standards and procedures that maintain quality in education and academic freedom in this country’s colleges and universities. The AAUP chapter at UT Austin works to advance this mission through advocacy, organizing, and education. Officers speak for themselves as private individuals.
Contact: Pauline Strong, PhD, President of the AAUP Chapter at UT Austin, strongpolly@gmail.com
Austin, Texas, September 27, 2025– On September 25, 2025, University of Texas President Jim Davis communicated to faculty his plan for complying with SB 37, the new law that places restrictions on Faculty Senates in public institutions in the state of Texas. Our chapter, together with other chapters in the Texas AAUP Conference, strongly opposed this law, and we now strongly oppose the extremely undemocratic form in which the University of Texas has chosen to implement it.
Since 1920, the American Association of University Professors has promoted shared governance as the best means to ensure meaningful faculty participation in the governance of institutions of higher education. The AAUP’s 1966 Statement on Governance of Colleges and Universities was jointly developed with the American Council on Education and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, and worked into the governing policies of universities across the country, including the University of Texas at Austin. Since even earlier–1945–the University of Texas Faculty Council has served as an essential mechanism for assuring academic freedom, due process, and faculty participation in university deliberations and decision-making.
Although SB 37 puts severe limits on the representativeness of Faculty Senates, it does allow for half of the members of a Faculty Senate to be elected by the faculty. Instead, President Davis has chosen to institute a President’s Faculty Advisory Board and a Faculty Advisory Council in which every single member is recommended by Deans and appointed by the President.
President Davis’s message to the faculty is that he values our guidance, advice, and collaboration. Yet his actions say otherwise. He is replacing an elected Faculty Council with a highly authoritarian, centralized system that will seriously limit the advice that he receives from our highly distinguished faculty. Our chapter President, Pauline Strong, says, “At a time when the University is promoting civics education, it is shocking that the University is instituting such an undemocratic form of governance. What message does this give our students? We strongly urge President Davis to reconsider this decision so that he will receive a wide range of advice from the faculty as a whole, not just those whom Deans and the President deem worthy of being heard.”
Every other public university system in the state has reinstated representative Faculty Senates that conform to SB 37. While these are a pale shadow of our former systems of shared governance, they are still far superior to the system instituted by the University of Texas. We call on President Davis to modify his plan to include elective faculty representatives to the extent allowed by SB 37. We also call on President Davis and Provost Inboden to communicate directly with the faculty–and not only with Deans–with further details about the new faculty advisory structure and how it will affect our crucial rights to academic freedom, due process, and participation in university deliberations–particularly deliberations in those areas in which faculty have particular investment and expertise: the curriculum, hiring, promotion, tenure, faculty grievances, and academic freedom. ###
Since 1915, the American Association of University Professors has helped to shape American higher education by developing the standards and procedures that maintain quality in education and academic freedom in this country’s colleges and universities. AAUP chapters at campuses across the country work to advance the mission of AAUP.
We, the members of the Executive Committee of the American Association of University Professors chapter at UT Austin, are writing because we are deeply concerned by your decision to appoint a single finalist for the position of Provost before convening a Consultative Committee. We are speaking for ourselves as private individuals and not representing any group, institution, or organization other than the AAUP Chapter at UT Austin.
For over a hundred years, the national AAUP has been the foremost proponent of academic freedom, shared governance, and due process in higher education, and our chapter of nearly 300 faculty exists in order to further those values at UT. Although it may be technically allowable, your decision to announce a sole finalist violates the principles of shared governance and the standard policies described in the Handbook of Operating Procedures 2-2110, Consultation in Selection of Key Administrative Officials, which states:
The University of Texas at Austin endorses the principle of reasonable consultation of faculty, staff and students in the selection of key administrative officials. [italics added]
The lack of any consultation up to this point cannot be construed as “reasonable consultation,” nor is a “consultative committee” convened to review a single finalist fulfilling the definition laid out in the HOP, which is:
a committee of specific composition of eligible members that will assist in the hiring process of Key Administrative Officials by recommending nominees for consideration by the decision maker.
This includes reviewing applications, conducting interviews, assessing qualifications, and other specific tasks as charged by the authority convening the committee. [italics added]
For there to be a single finalist before a Consultative Committee is convened, and for its role in reviewing and recommending nominees to have been removed, violates the spirit of shared governance. This time-honored principle is enshrined in the Handbook of Operating Procedures, and ensures that faculty and other stakeholders have a role in decision-making–especially decision-making regarding academic matters.
We understand that the HOP stipulates that the
use of a Consultative Committee in the selection of Key Administrative Officials is mandatory unless the best interest exception applies or the presidential prerogative is invoked.
Your notice to the UT community indicates that in your view the passage of S.B. 37 is reason enough to invoke the best interest exception. We disagree. According to the conference committee report approved by the House and Senate, S.B. 37 will not take full effect until January 1, 2026. Furthermore, passage of S.B. 37 is no reason for the President to preemptively depart from the policy of charging the consultative committee to “select at least three qualified nominees from the applicant pool to be submitted to the decision maker for consideration.” S.B. 37 explicitly allows for “appropriate consultation with faculty, administrators and other stakeholders on matters related to academic policy and institutional operations.” By excluding faculty and other university partners from important stages in the hiring of the university’s chief academic officer–something that incontrovertibly has its greatest effect on the faculty–the meaning of consultation with the faculty is undermined.
In our view, backed by over a century of AAUP statements and decades of precedent at the University of Texas at Austin and other R1 universities, the best interest of the University continues to be for the Chief Academic Officer to be chosen through a nomination process that involves a duly selected Consultative Committee. This allows broad consultation of stakeholders and sets up the new Provost for success. There may well be reason to expedite the process of selection under the current circumstances, but entirely removing the faculty from the nomination process fails to give faculty the meaningful role that it merits in all academic matters. Additionally, this process sets up a very concerning precedent for the future selection of top administrators.
As dedicated and experienced faculty with many decades of collective experience at UT Austin and other R1 universities, we strongly urge you to work with the Faculty Council–still a legitimate body–to convene a Consultative Committee composed as the HOP stipulates:
Nine voting members of the General Faculty, six elected by the faculty using the Hare-Clark Preferential Voting System and three, not including administrative officials, appointed by the President; three students appointed by the President from a panel of not less than five nor more than ten selected in a manner to be determined by student government association(s); and such other persons as the President may deem appropriate. No more than two of the elected members of the committee shall be from any one school or college.
This is a time-tested procedure that helps confer legitimacy on a new administrator, allows for a public discussion about the future of the institution, and affirms the importance of including faculty and other stakeholders in academic hiring decisions. We also strongly urge you to follow this process for future administrative hires as well.
Thank you for taking the time to consider our views. We would also appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the larger issue of how UT Austin interprets and implements S.B. 37. Involving faculty will be an important demonstration of your leadership as President and your understanding of the importance of involving faculty and other stakeholders in decision-making about the future of the University we all cherish.
Sincerely yours,
Pauline Turner Strong, Professor of Anthropology, College of Liberal Arts; Distinguished Leadership Service Professor
President, AAUP chapter at UT Austin
Andrea C. Gore, Professor and Vacek Distinguished University Chair of Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy
Vice President, AAUP chapter at UT Austin
Lauren Gutterman, Associate Professor and Chair of American Studies
College of Liberal Arts
Secretary, AAUP chapter at UT Austin
Brian Evans, Engineering Foundation Professor
Cockrell School of Engineering
Past President, AAUP chapter at UT Austin
Karma R. Chávez, Bobby and Sherri Patton Professor and Chair of Mexican American and Latina/o Studies, College of Liberal Arts
Executive Committee, AAUP chapter at UT Austin
Cc:
David Vanden Bout, Acting Provost
Amanda Cochran-McCall, Vice President for Legal Affairs
AUSTIN, TEXAS — The Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) at UT Austin just learned of President Jay Hartzell’s resignation this morning, and wishes him well in his new position at Southern Methodist University. From our perspective as an organization dedicated to promoting principles of shared governance and academic freedom, the AAUP chapter at UT Austin trusts that the UT Board of Regents will follow AAUP and University of Texas System principles of shared governance by constituting a consultative committee for the Presidential search with meaningful participation of faculty, staff, and students. This is essential in order to build consensus around a new President and to establish a new vision for the University as we move forward.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS – Nationally, AAUP was founded by faculty in 1915. We champion academic freedom, advance shared governance, and organize all faculty to promote economic security and quality education. Texas AAUP was founded in 1964 and affiliated with Texas AFT in March, 2024.
UT Austin AAUP is one of several dozen advocacy chapters in Texas. For more information, please refer to https://aaup-utaustin.org.
Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2024, 10:00-11:30am CT, on Zoom.
Officers: Karma Chavez, Brian Evans, Andrea Gore, Lauren Gutterman, Steven Seegel, and Polly Strong (President) strongpolly@gmail.com.
Free inquiry, free expression, intellectual exploration, and open dissent are critical for student learning and the advancement of knowledge. Academic freedom is the freedom from institutional censorship of the instructional staff ‘s teaching, research, and expression. Academic freedom allows instructional staff to develop and disseminate new knowledge from all viewpoints, including conservative, moderate, liberal, and apolitical. Safeguards include shared governance, tenure and due process.
About AAUP
We champion academic freedom, advance shared governance, and organize all faculty to promote economic security and quality education. If you’re not already a member, please join AAUP – here are several reasons. Please follow us on X @aaup_utAustin and @TexasAaup.
Announcements
Join us for our Austin-area AAUP-AFT social gathering of academic freedom enthusiasts on the third Thursday of the month at 5pm at Tweedy’s Bar at 2908 Fruth St. near the UT campus. Bring a colleague.
The Texas AAUP-AFT Conference Spring 2025 Meeting will be Saturday, Feb. 22, 2025, 9am to 1pm in Austin, Texas, and on Zoom.
Monitored implementation of SB 17 & SB 18. Met with Provost & VP for Legal Affairs to express concerns about over-implementation. Publicized carve-outs for teaching & research.
Educated administrators & faculty on academic freedom & shared governance, including at Dean’s Council meeting (slides).
Advocated for academic freedom & due process for students.
Deeper attacks on academic freedom and its safeguards of tenure, due process, and shared governance than the last session.
Bills expected to censor certain course topics and content, strip faculty oversight of curriculum, and regulate faculty senates into irrelevance
Bills expected to empower Boards of Regents to directly appoint all department chairs and remove shared governance and academic freedom as criteria for university and college accreditation
Bills expected to remove or defund cultural, ethnic, and gender studies across a wide variety of disciplines including Liberal Arts, Social Work, Business, and Medicine.
State conferences bring together members of AAUP campus chapters, along with AAUP members working to form chapters on their campuses. As vehicles for collective action—within, and sometimes beyond, state boundaries—conferences connect faculty members with colleagues from other colleges and universities to advance AAUP principles and goals. Increasingly, they also provide members with a means of fighting back against legislative efforts to target higher education, often in collaboration with other local, regional, or national organizations.
AAUP members from seventeen chapters in Texas first formed a state AAUP conference in 1964. The conference currently represents twenty-eight AAUP advocacy chapters, including twelve new AAUP chapters certified at the June AAUP Council meeting. With AAUP members on seventy-five Texas campuses, the conference is also encouraging the formation of other new chapters in the state. In recent years, the Texas AAUP conference has developed strong relationships with allies such as the Texas Association of College Teachers, the Texas Faculty Association (the state-level affiliate of the National Education Association), the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Texas Students for DEI, and the Texas State Employees Union. While the conference has a long history of engaging with lawmakers on issues relevant to higher education, it has been particularly active in doing so since February 2022, when Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick vowed to end tenure in public colleges and universities and when the Texas legislature began to propose dozens of bills hostile to education. After the national AAUP affiliated with the AFT in summer 2022, the Texas AAUP conference began to coordinate with the AFT’s state federation on legislative advocacy, and it voted in March 2024 to affiliate with Texas AFT. As the first AAUP conference to formalize such a state-level affiliation, the newly named Texas AAUP-AFT offers a model for other AAUP conferences that have the opportunity to affiliate with AFT state federations.
We learned more about Texas AAUP-AFT from conference leaders.
What have the purpose, focus, and activities of the conference been over the years?
Because collective bargaining is not allowed for public employees in Texas, the focus of the state AAUP conference has traditionally centered on advocacy for academic freedom and shared governance and not on contract negotiation. This advocacy has been carried out both in individual institutions of higher learning and, increasingly, in relation to the Texas legislature.
How has the conference involved members in legislative advocacy? Which advocacy strategies have been most effective?
Texas AAUP-AFT members actively advocate for higher education in the state and at national legislative offices. The Texas legislature, which leans hard right, has eroded cornerstones of modern higher education: academic freedom; tenure; and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. Through it all, Texas AAUP-AFT members have formed relationships with legislators on both sides of the aisle and have been able to temper some language in bills that would have harmed the academic profession even more severely.
The Texas legislature convenes every other January for 140 days. During the 2023 legislative session, our members focused on three anti–higher education bills: SB 16, designed to ban certain types of teaching on race and gender; SB 17, to ban DEI offices and practices; and SB 18, to abolish tenure. In fall 2022 and throughout the session, our members drafted white papers that explained the harms of the bills; visited with legislators and their staffers to explain the value of academic freedom, equity, and tenure to a thriving university; and stayed up until all hours of the night to testify against these bills at hearings. Moreover, our members developed a robust media strategy to publicize our viewpoints widely. We also worked closely with allied groups across the state and nation including Texas AFT, Texas Students for DEI, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and several faculty organizations.
These efforts resulted in some significant wins and disappointing losses. SB 16, 17, and 18 all passed the Texas senate. SB 16, however, never made it out of the House Committee on Higher Education— a big win for academic freedom. The Texas House of Representatives passed its own version of SB 18 that didn’t eliminate tenure but significantly diminished tenure protections, and that version became law. SB 17 became law in a form that is wreaking havoc across Texas campuses as administrators appear to have interpreted it in the most extreme ways possible: closing whole academic units, dismissing hundreds of staff members primarily in student services, and preventing faculty members from applying for grants for research, training, programming, or clinical trials that have an equity component.
Nationally, our success has been more evident. We find that sometimes legislators just need to hear from faculty members. A case in point was when Texas AAUP members visited the state’s members of US Congress on the 2016 AAUP Capitol Hill Day and asked for reinstatement of summer Pell Grants. Representative Bill Flores was receptive and pushed it through Congress. We also worked with Senator John Cornyn’s office on several issues, even getting him to cosponsor a bill that the AAUP endorsed.
Why did the conference decide to affiliate with Texas AFT? What are the benefits of state-level affiliation for Texas AAUP-AFT members?
At first, Texas AAUP members were skeptical about the national AFT affiliation. The issues are different for unions in right-to-work states like Texas, and the Texas delegation, along with some delegates from other states without collective bargaining rights, were opposed to the 2022 affiliation vote. That has changed in Texas because of the AFT’s investment in the state. We’ve found that the coordination in legislative advocacy with the AFT has worked to our advantage. Texas AFT already had connections at the legislature that the conference lacked, allowing us to temper, if not stop, some of the worst bills, including the one targeting faculty tenure. Having access to staff is new to us. We have been volunteer-driven in the past. Now we see support from the two new full-time organizers that Texas AFT hired for higher education and from the well-organized and well-seasoned team of forty Texas AFT staff members in government relations, policy analysis, labor law, media relations, IT, and lobbying, who have taken our organizing and training capabilities to the next level. The Texas AFT member benefits of professional liability coverage and legal aid for criminal cases provide peace of mind. We are building our legal defense fund. Probably most important, membership in the AAUP has doubled in the last year in Texas! Faculty are meeting more frequently, and there is a sense that we are not in it alone.
How did the conference go about the process of affiliation? What advice would you offer to other state AAUP conferences pursuing affiliation with AFT federations in their states?
The statewide affiliation with the AFT resulted from the hard work of Texas conference President Brian Evans and Texas AFT President Zeph Capo. Through many meetings with their executive committees, Texas AFT and Texas AAUP were able to find a way to bring the strengths of both organizations to the table. The professional liability coverage benefit was attractive to faculty who are finding themselves in the crosshairs of attacks from various directions. Training opportunities have dramatically increased. Texas faculty members now find themselves part of a larger organization that includes educators from across the K–12 and higher education spectrum.
What are the priorities for Texas AAUP-AFT in the new academic year and beyond?
Texas AAUP-AFT will continue to develop the new relationship with Texas AFT and grow the organization. In April, Lieutenant Governor Patrick issued study items for the January 2025 legislative session that once again target faculty tenure, DEI, free speech, shared governance, and accreditation. Texas faculty members are under no illusion that the attacks will stop. Through our stronger statewide organization, we will have a bigger voice at the legislature.
Texas AAUP-AFT is also training members of its new Office of Faculty Representation to assist individual faculty members in trouble on their campuses. Finally, Texas AAUP-AFT hopes to extend our reach through increased membership. Our expanded access to liability insurance, legal aid, training, and support will all be attractive to faculty in the state.
Tomorrow, November 11, several student and faculty advocacy organizations and civil rights groups will testify at Monday’s Texas Senate Higher Education Subcommittee hearing on the topic “Stopping DEI to Strengthen the Texas Workforce” to underscore the critical need for inclusive curriculum and programs in Texas’ colleges and universities. The organizations are united in their call urging State lawmakers to cease policies and actions that harm Texas campus communities and undermine diversity and inclusivity on campus.
The groups, representing a broad range of Texas-based students, faculty, and advocates, will testify to the benefits and importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion student support services and other programs that prepare students for the Texas workforce. Inclusive programs have not only been found to increase retention, degree completion, sense of belonging, cultural awareness, and well-being among campus communities, they also are crucial to principles of academic freedom key to student learning and development including free inquiry, free expression, and open dissent.
The hearing comes amid growing public concern over the Texas Legislature’s attacks on programs and policies that foster diversity and inclusivity for college students within the state. On The University of Texas campuses, 311 full-time staff providing services to thousands of students were dismissed this year without warning and without any right to appeal. They were dismissed merely because they had worked in DEI positions prior to S.B. 17 taking effect on January 1, 2024. Before S.B. 17 took effect, they had pivoted to non-DEI positions and roles. S.B. 17 bans DEI offices and programs within the state’s public colleges and universities.
“Diversity, equity, and inclusion are strengths on our college campuses and in our classrooms,” said Texas Rising Central Texas Organizer Maggie DiSanza (she/they). “While S.B. 17 continues stripping our institutions of these foundational values, we must stop any additional slashing of liberal arts courses that develop students’ empathy and connection, preparing us for enriching professional opportunities in Texas and beyond. DEI deserves to be celebrated, free of politics. Together, students, alumni, and Texans must boldly, irrevocably denounce efforts to take our universities back to a dark period in history, when our campuses only welcomed the wealthy and white. Texas students deserve better.”
“As Texas students and alumni, we urge the Texas Senate Subcommittee on Higher Education to recognize the value of cultural awareness and inclusion content embedded across various disciplines,” said Texas Students for DEI Member Sophia Chau. “These courses have directly contributed to our professional success by enhancing critical thinking, communication, and teamwork skills. We believe that educational experiences fostering a sense of belonging and understanding better prepare students for the diverse challenges of the workforce and benefit our communities at large.”
“On campus, free inquiry, free expression, and open dissent are critical for student learning and the advancement of knowledge,” said Texas AAUP-AFT President Brian Evans. “For students to have the freedom to learn, faculty need the freedom to teach. Faculty fostering critical thinking in a wide range of topics helps students build the skills they need throughout their lives, including in the workforce. Students don’t learn in a vacuum. This is why faculty and staff help students adjust and thrive on campus and help them connect with a wide range of learning and growth opportunities, both on and off campus. The Texas population is incredibly diverse, and our colleges and universities’ policies, curricula, and programs should be inclusive of their constituents.”
“College campuses must provide a welcoming environment for a melting pot of diverse students and faculty,” said Texas Faculty Association President Pat Heintzelman. “Students should be able to learn about the struggles and accomplishments of their fellow students from various backgrounds. Students must learn to recognize and overcome biases to succeed in the current and every-changing workforce. Faculty must have the freedom to challenge students’ perceptions and views and to teach them to think for themselves. The college classroom should provide a space for students to engage in open dissent and to learn the value of tolerance of ideas contrary to their own. Critical thinking is a learned skill, and faculty need to be able to teach it and to nourish it. Students have a right to learn this skill to prepare them to navigate their roles both as informed citizens and as members of the workforce.”
“Texas’ public colleges and universities are vibrant community centers, meant to reflect and represent the wide range of diversity of identity, background, and academic thought within the state. Yet, attacks on so-called ‘DEI’— designed simply to promote diversity, equity, and inclusivity within campus communities — have disrupted this crucial mission. Inclusive curricula, programs, and policies are critical to the success of all Texas students as learners and as future leaders within Texas’ workforce—especially for Black and other underrepresented students and faculty who disproportionately confront opportunity gaps,” said Sarah Seo, Law and Policy Fellow at the Legal Defense Fund. “Since the implementation of S.B. 17, we have already witnessed its widespread impact on students and faculty, as well as chilling effects across Texas’ public colleges and universities. Texas lawmakers must prevent further harms to the state’s higher education institutions by ending restrictions on DEI and working to ensure that all students, faculty, and campus community members receive the tools and resources they need to thrive.”
Learn more about S.B.17 and efforts to protect truth and inclusivity in Texas’ education system here.
###
Texas Rising – a project of the Texas Freedom Network (TFN) – is building the power of young people in our communities and at the ballot box. Our program organizes and builds power with young people of color in a multi-issue, intersectional social justice framework.
Texas Students for DEI – We are a state-wide coalition of university students and alumni in Texas that work to protect diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in higher education and beyond. We believe that DEI has a crucial role in not only preparing students for the increasingly diverse world they will graduate into, but also to uplift marginalized communities who have been historically–and currently are–ignored or facing discrimination perpetrated by our own universities.
Texas American Association of University Professors (Texas AAUP-AFT) – Nationally, AAUP was founded by faculty in 1915. We champion academic freedom, advance shared governance, and organize all faculty to promote economic security and quality education. Texas AAUP was founded in 1964 and affiliated with Texas AFT in March, 2024. Here’s alink to join Texas AAUP-AFT andseveral reasons to join. Follow us on X@TexasAaupand @aaup_utAustin.
Texas Council of Faculty Senates (TCFS) – We are a federation of faculty senates, councils, and assemblies at the 38 Texas public universities. TCFS members discuss faculty governance experiences and issues, and exchange ideas on higher education with members, agents of state government members and staff of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and others.
Texas Faculty Association (TFA) – We support the freedoms of all faculty and staff, and vigorously supports its members. We are stronger together and want to advocate for you! Here’s a link to join TFA and several reasons to consider joining. Membership is kept confidential. Follow TFA on X @TXFacultyAssoc.
Legal Defense Fund (LDF) -Founded in 1940, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) is the nation’s first civil rights law organization. LDF’s Thurgood Marshall Institute is a multi-disciplinary and collaborative hub within LDF that launches targeted campaigns and undertakes innovative research to shape the civil rights narrative. In media attributions, please refer to us as the Legal Defense Fund or LDF. Please note that LDF has been completely separate from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) since 1957—although LDF was originally founded by the NAACP and shares its commitment to equal rights.
Trinity Valley Community College (TVCC) was sued in Federal Court on October 18, 2024, by former full-time instructor of Anatomy and Physiology, Michael Harman. The suit alleges that Harman was targeted and retaliated against by the college for being a “gadfly” in raising concerns to administrators of violating his Academic Freedom, not following their own procedures with regards to certification of an Open Educational Resource course, underpayments of overload wages to himself and other faculty, and filing open records requests. According to the lawsuit, as a result of his protected activities, TVCC ultimately ended Harman’s employment and threatened to arrest him should he enter college property within the next two years. Harman is suing TVCC for violating his Constitutional rights under the 1st, 4th, and 14th amendments, breaching his contract, and violating his rights under the Texas Public Information Act.
According to the suit, after 12 years of employment with the college and always having excellent evaluations, Professor Harman was non-renewed on May 31, 2024, and initially not given a reason for the non-renewal. However, the non-renewal came just 8 business days after Harman filed a formal grievance to the TVCC Board of Trustees, alleging the college had violated his Academic Freedom by refusing to honor his syllabus policy of failing a cheating student. The suit alleges that the college eventually cited that TVCC non-renewed him because he had violated a 2022 “Memo of Counseling.” According to the suit, that memo was made in retaliation for Harman exercising his protected rights in speaking-out about college administrators not following their own policies, underpaying him and other faculty, because he filed grievances, and because he requested open records requests to the college under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA).
The suit cites that through open records requests, Harman was able to obtain communications among TVCC administrators that showed they were attempting to establish a legal file against him to end his employment for making his open records requests, inquiring into potential pay issues, and for advancing “conspiracy theories” surrounding actions by the administration. The suit exhibits multiple emails Harman discovered through open records requests, including one email in which a supervisor wrote to other administrators “He’s a lunatic!”, and “Have a Harman-free weekend.” One email among administrators cited in the suit had a subject line of “The Harman Effect.”
According to the lawsuit, on the day Harman was non-renewed, he was given a criminal no trespass warming by the campus police chief, declaring that if he remained on or returned to TVCC property without permission within the next two years, he could be arrested and charged with criminal trespass. Harman’s suit alleges that in issuing him the criminal no trespass warming, the college violated his 4th amendment right under the Constitution because it deprived him, without due process, from being able to engage in activities on campus he enjoyed as a private citizen, such as attending sporting events and the Farmer’s Market.
The lawsuit is entitled Harman v. Trinity Valley Community College. Michael Harman is being represented by Hill Gilstrap, PC.
AAUP@UT 