Astrid Gandaria, Sandra Orta, and Mayra Reyes, formerly employed as lecturers with the School of Social Work at The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV), filed a lawsuit in US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division, on October 21, 2024, alleging discrimination and retaliation. The discrimination allegations stem from repeated public comments made by the School of Social Work Dean Luis Torres-Hostos about their accent and Mexican ancestry (national origin). The alleged discrimination also extends to actions taken while two of the women were on FMLA leaves for cancer treatment, and to their disability status. The alleged discrimination would include violations of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
The women also allege retaliation for raising concerns over workload issues that resulted in one of them being underpaid by over $24,000 and other issues which involved a negative work environment, alleged veiled threats, intimidation, and an investigation whose findings were never revealed to one of the plaintiffs.
The lawsuit can be found under Astrid Gandaria, Sandra Orta, and Mayra Reyes, Plaintiffs, v. University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Defendant, filed October 21, 2024. UTRGV President Guy Bailey, UTRGV Provost Luis Zayas, and UTRGV Dean of the School of Social Work Louis Torres-Hostos are named in the lawsuit.
The UTRGV Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and Texas Conference of the AAUP-AFT were first contacted about the terminations of these faculty members in early summer 2024. The Texas AAUP-AFT Office of Faculty Representation helped the faculty members evaluate their cases, and all three plaintiffs chose the law firm of Hill Gilstrap, PC, to represent them.
We’d like to invite you to testify with us in person on Nov. 11th. When testifying, you would speak for yourself as a private citizen using your First Amendment Rights. One the day of the hearing, we’ll provide logistical support and advice at the Capitol. For those who can’t make it to the Capitol, there are opportunities to advocate through calling Legislative offices and giving feedback on testimonies. With Texas AFT, we’ll provide training and coordinate talking points for our two-minute testimonies:
Higher-Ed in the Interim: Teach-In and Advocacy Training, Thursday, Nov. 7th, 6pm, RSVP to aaup.texas@gmail.com
The Texas Senate Higher Ed committee holds hearings between the biennial Legislative sessions to gather information concerning bills they are planning to file. The next session begins January 14, 2025. Here’s more info on the next session.
Higher Education – “Faculty Senates”: Review and analyze the structures and governance in higher education, focusing on the role of “faculty senates,” and like groups, in representing faculty interests to higher education institution administrations. Make recommendations to establish guidelines for the role and representation of faculty by “faculty senates”,and like groups, at higher education institutions in Texas.
Stopping DEI to Strengthen the Texas Workforce: Examine programs and certificates at higher education institutions that maintain discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. Expose how these programs and their curriculum are damaging and not aligned with state workforce demands. Make recommendations for any needed reforms to ensure universities are appropriately educating students to meet workforce needs.
Improving K12-College Pathways: Review the availability of Advanced Placement and dual credit course offerings in high schools and examine the transfer requirements required for students to receive higher education course credit. Identify the current challenges to streamlining the transfer process, including adequate counseling for high school students. Make recommendations to ensure students receive credit for successful completion of these courses.
Our faculty working conditions are our students’ learning environment, and the need to advocate for better faculty working conditions to improve the quality of education is greater than ever.
In our August survey, faculty revealed deep dissatisfaction with the state of higher ed in Texas, highlighting the negative impacts of political interference and deteriorating working conditions on faculty morale and retention [1]. The top concern was the state’s political climate followed by anxieties about academic freedom, salary, and diversity, equity, and inclusion issues.
We’re much stronger together when championing free inquiry, free expression, and open dissent, which are critical for student learning and the advancement of knowledge. Our collective voice is stronger when advocating against infringement on academic freedom and its safeguards of due process and shared governance. We can push for transparency and participation in budget decisions, and call out administrations when they cut teaching budgets while bloating their own administrative budgets. [2]
Since 1915, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has been the central organizing force in higher ed due to its widely adopted principles on academic freedom [3] and shared goverance [4]. In Texas, the advocacy by AAUP members is amplified by the 66,000 members and 40 staff of Texas American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Texas AAUP is affiliated with Texas AFT.
Texas AAUP-AFT provides training for advocacy on campus as AAUP members and with your elected officials as private individuals using your First Amendment Rights. Here’s the link to join. Membership benefits include liability insurance and legal aid. Monthly dues are on a sliding scale, and membership is kept confidential. Here are several reasons to join AAUP. Please provide a nonwork email address on the registration form to allow us the widest possibility latitude in discussing issues and action to take.
[2] Faculty Compensation Survey. AAUP has been conducting this survey since 1972. The data are drawn from a national database to which colleges and universities report salary data. The survey has shown that faculty salaries have been flat since 1972; i.e., they have not increased after adjusting for inflation. The survey also tracks administrative bloat, which draws significant resources away from the hiring of more faculty, multi-year employment contracts and tenure, staff compensation, and student support.
[3] Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom & Tenure, jointly formulated by American Association of Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) representing college and university administrations and AAUP representing professors. Adopted by more than 85% of public and non-profit four-year universities in the US.
[4] Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, jointly formulated by the AAUP, American Council on Education, and Association of Governing Boards of Universities & Colleges. The AAUP represents faculty, ACE represents college and university administrations, and AGB represents University Systems, Boards of Regents, and Boards of Trustees. ACE has more than 1500 college and university members and AGB has more than 1300 college, university, and system members.
Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors is affiliated with Texas American Federation of Teachers
AAUP is concerned about all faculty, regardless of rank or tenure status. We champion academic freedom, advance shared governance, and organize all faculty to promote economic security and quality education. Below, I mention several ways National AAUP and Texas AAUP-AFT have been advocating for professional track faculty, and we’re always looking for ways to do better. We organize faculty of all ranks and tenure status on topics of concern to our members. Please join us at Texas AAUP-AFT.
National data. Nationally, about 24% of faculty have tenure, 9% are on tenure-track, and 67% are not on tenure track. Of those not on tenure track, about 70% are part-time and 30% are full-time. AAUP has published in-depth data analysis in the following:
At UT Austin, about 50% of faculty are on tenure-track or are tenured and 50% are professional track faculty, not including the medical school.
Salary survey. Each year since 1972, AAUP has been conducting a faculty salary data. The data are drawn from a national database to which colleges and universities report salary data. The survey has shown that faculty salaries have been flat since 1972; i.e., they have not increased after adjusting for inflation. The survey also tracks administrative bloat, which draws significant resources away from the hiring of more faculty, multi-year employment contracts and tenure, staff compensation, and student support. The survey tracks salaries for instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, and full professors. Instructors are employed on short-term contracts without the possibility of earning tenure. At many institutions, assistant professors are on the tenure-track, and associate and full professors have tenure. Also, decline in state support for public higher ed causes a shift towards more non-tenure-track faculty:
Advocacy for non-tenure-track faculty. Many bills and priorities at the State Legislature affect all faculty, regardless of rank or tenure status. For example, none of the topics at Texas Senate Higher Education Subcommittee Hearing on Sept. 27, 2024, relate to tenure. All three items affect all faculty, regardless of rank or tenure status.
AAUP’s statements on academic freedom in teaching, research, and expression apply to all teachers. Teachers include all faculty, regardless of rank or tenure status, as well as graduate students, researchers, and others in a teaching role.
In the AAUP principles, the safeguards for academic freedom include due process, shared governance, and tenure. AAUP principles say that upon the eighth year of appointment, a full-time non-tenure-track faculty member should receive de facto tenure.
Texas AAUP-AFT has been advocating for due process and shared governance for tenure-track, tenured and non-tenure track faculty. We’ve also been advocating for rolling multiyear employment contracts for NTT faculty and for strengthening tenure.
In October 2023, Texas AAUP-AFT officers created an Office of Faculty Representation to advocate for faculty. 15 of our first 30 cases have been for non-tenure-track faculty. For example, our second case which was in October 2023 was for a non-tenure-track faculty member facing dismissal under the new tenure bill, Texas SB 18. On the same day the faculty member called us, we rallied AAUP members on the Faculty Senate to help the faculty member navigate the process, and within a couple of days, had arranged a lawyer to represent them in the grievance hearing. The faculty won their grievance hearing and the dismissal notice was dismissed.
Something might have struck you in that grievance case. The tenure bill, SB 18, was weaponized against non-tenure-track faculty members. This is because the second part of SB 18 defines 10 reasons for “good cause” to dismiss a faculty member, and that they apply to all faculty, regardless of rank or tenure status. Once SB 18 passed, Texas AAUP rallied the Faculty Senate presidents across the state to raise the bar for the 10 actions that can lead to dismissal to require that they be severe, intentional, and pervasive. This standard was adopted in the UT System and many other systems. Raising the bar helps all faculty members, regardless of rank or tenure status. Here’s the UT Austin AAUP Chapter response to the UT System concerning the UT System implementation of SB 18:
In the last Texas Legislature, we were able to garner bipartisan support to change the definition of tenure on the House floor from one-year employment contracts to continuous employment. This also saved multi-year employment contracts for professional track faculty. In fact, this bipartisan change in the definition of tenure is being used as a basis for a class action lawsuit by non-tenure-track faculty at Dallas College for their replacement of multi-year employment contracts with one-year employment contracts for faculty. All of their faculty are non-tenure-track. Here’s a visual summary of the Texas AAUP Legislative advocacy in the last session:
In the last Texas Legislature, Texas AAUP-AFT also helped stop the censorship bill, SB 16. This would have placed gag orders on all faculty (regardless of rank or tenure status) on topics related to gender, nationality, or ethnicity as well as political, social, and religious beliefs and practices.
Again, in the twelve months of existence, the Office of Faculty Representation has handled appeals and grievances for 15 non-tenure-track faculty members. Here’s another example: The faculty member’s Dean reassigned their duties in a way that caused a $40,000/year loss in income that had been stipulated in their employment contract. The faculty member had been afforded due process. We helped with their appeal and accompanied them in their meetings with their Dean. The Dean restored the $40,000/year in compensation.
We encourage all AAUP members to be involved in the Faculty Senate and its standing committees. Faculty Senate recommends policy changes, and hears appeals from tenure-track, tenured and non-tenure-track faculty concerning annual reviews and promotion cases as well as faculty grievances.
At UT Austin, for example, many AAUP members who are NTT faculty members have held leadership roles in the Faculty Council and its committees, including the Educational Policy Committee and IT Committee. The President of the Faculty Council in 2022-2024, Jen Moon, is an AAUP member and Professor of Instruction. We keep AAUP membership confidential, but Jen has made her AAUP membership public.
Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors is affiliated with Texas American Federation of Teachers
Updated November 20, 2025.
In Texas, the need to organize faculty to advocate on campus and in the State Legislature is greater than ever. By itself, Texas AAUP lacks the lobbying, policy analysis, IT support, media consultants, and lawyers to meet the need. All statewide and campus chapter officers in Texas AAUP are volunteers, and Texas AAUP has no employees. National AAUP staff, which have dwindled from about 60 to 25 in the last two years, are very efficient but are stretched thin to serve the 42,000 AAUP members and 500 campus chapters.
Texas AFT, with 66,000 members and 45 staff, amplifies Texas AAUP advocacy. Texas AFT has organizers, lobbyists, policy analysts, IT, media consultants, and lawyers. During the last Legislative session in Spring 2023, Texas AFT gave us the training, guidance, and staff support to champion academic freedom. Through Texas AFT, Texas AAUP garnered bipartisan support to amend the definition of tenure in SB 18 to be continuous employment instead of one-year contracts.
On March 30, 2024, Texas AAUP voted in favor to affiliate with Texas AFT. The agreement took effect on March 30, 2024, because Texas AFT, National AAUP, and National AFT had already approved the Affiliation Agreement. The agreement was possible because National AAUP had affiliated with National AFT on August 1, 2022.
Through the affiliation agreement, Texas AAUP became Texas AAUP-AFT and AFT Local 8041A. That is, Texas AAUP-AFT is now a Local Union within Texas AFT. Texas AFT hired two full-time organizers solely for Texas AAUP-AFT who started July 1, 2024, Alvaro Chavez and Amanda Garcia. During the Texas Legislative Session from Jan. 14, 2025, to June 2, 2025, Amanda Garcia has been primarily a lobbyist who was at the Legislature every day lobbying for academic freedom, tenure, and shared governance in higher education.
Per the Affiliation Agreement, “The Texas AAUP will pay the Texas AFT the per capita consistent with the Texas AFT constitution on all its members that it receives dues.” (page 7). Here, “per capita” means “per member”. On July 15, 2024, Texas AFT President Zeph Capo adopted a sliding scale of three dues bands with $120 for the highest dues band, $60 for the middle dues band, and $30 for the lowest dues band. President Capo considered different groupings of the nine National AAUP dues bands into three levels using data from National AAUP before making his final decision. The AAUP Lifetime Members as of July 15, 2024, would be grandfathered in and would not have to pay any additional dues.
No matter how the nine National AAUP dues bands are grouped into three bands, there will be a different impact on those in each of the nine National AAUP dues bands. Here’s the effect calculated for each band. The highest increase as a percentage of salary occurs in National AAUP dues bands 1, 4, and 7, and National AAUP dues bands 3, 6, and 9 have the lowest percentage increase.
First, I consider three salary levels in each band that represent the lowest, middle, and highest salary in that band. In band 1, I set the lowest salary to $20,000. In band 9, there’s only one salary, which is $120,001:
AAUP Salary Band
Lowest
Middle
Highest
1
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
2
$30,001
$35,000
$40,000
3
$40,001
$45,000
$50,000
4
$50,001
$55,000
$60,000
5
$60,001
$65,000
$70,000
6
$70,001
$75,000
$80,000
7
$80,001
$90,000
$100,000
8
$100,001
$110,000
$120,000
9
$120,001
Below, I subtract the new dues as a percentage of their academic income from the National AAUP dues as a percentage of their academic income:
AAUP Salary Band
Lowest
Middle
Highest
1
0.38%
0.30%
0.25%
2
0.18%
0.15%
0.13%
3
0.06%
0.06%
0.05%
4
0.30%
0.28%
0.25%
5
0.16%
0.15%
0.14%
6
0.09%
0.08%
0.08%
7
0.22%
0.20%
0.18%
8
0.15%
0.14%
0.12%
9
0.10%
These new dues include National AAUP dues and Texas AFT dues. The Texas AFT dues help cover the salaries of the organizers, lobbyists, policy analysts, IT support, and media consultants who are assisting our members.
In addition, Texas AAUP-AFT also receives 4% of the National AAUP dues back for its cash reserves and also receives funding from Texas AFT.
Collectively, the new dues structure will help Texas AAUP-AFT build its Legal Defense Fund. Here are example legal costs:
$ 2,500 Letter from a lawyer
$ 25,000 Legal Representation through a Faculty Grievance Process
$250,000 Legal Representation through trial
The volunteers in the Texas AAUP-AFT Office of Faculty Representation are assisting 80 faculty in responding to investigations, discipline, and/or dismissal. Prior to the Texas AAUP-AFT registration portal opening on Sept. 27, 2024, everyone using OFR services would have had to pay for legal representation out of their personal funds. Since Sept. 27, 2024, members who join through the Texas AAUP-AFT registration portal would be eligible for our Legal Defense Fund.
From September 27, 2024, to August 31, 2025, here are the current Texas AAUP-AFT dues to provide the services and support critical for Texas AAUP-AFT members to advocate on campus and in the Legislature:
$155/yr (or $12.50/mo) for annual income below $50k (AAUP bands 1-3) $305/yr (or $25.42/mo) for annual income $50k-80K (AAUP bands 4-6) $451/yr (or $37.60/mo) for annual income above $80k (AAUP bands 7-9)
For comparison, the top dues category is $633/year for the Texas Faculty Association and $42.25/mo for the Austin Community College AFT Local. The new Texas AAUP-AFT dues structure would apply when one renews their membership or joins as a new member.
Texas AFT increased its dues on Sept. 1, 2025. Here’s the new sliding scale dues structure for Texas AAUP-AFT based on one’s annual academic income:
$13.34/month for an annual income of $50,000 or less $26.74/month for an annual income between $50,000 and $80,000 $39.48/month for an annual income above $80,000.
In Texas, the need to organize faculty to advocate on campus and in the State Legislature is greater than ever. Through the Texas AFT dues, Texas AFT provides the staff support through organizing, lobbying, policy analysis, IT support, media consultants, and lawyers to meet the need. National AAUP does not have these resources. As we build the Texas AAUP-AFT Legal Defense Fund using our new dues structure, we’ll be able to help cover more and more of the costs for legal representation for our members, with a goal of having a fully funded Legal Defense Fund in two years.
Best,
Brian
Brian L. Evans, PhD | He/His/Him | aaup.texas@gmail.com | 512-516-5991 President, Texas AAUP-AFT Conference, AFT Local 8041A
President Jay Hartzell Office of the President University of Texas at Austin
Dear President Hartzell:
On behalf of the University of Texas chapter of the American Association of University Professors, we write to express our surprise and disappointment at your decision to refuse to review Ann Stevens for a possible second term as Dean of the College of Liberal Arts. For over 100 years, the AAUP has stood for the values of academic freedom, shared governance, and due process—all fundamental to the greatness of American research universities. We believe that your action with respect to Dean Stevens is a serious violation of due process and damaging to the reputation of UT Austin.
Dean Stevens was selected in 2019 from a national pool of applicants, following a rigorous review process overseen by then-Provost Maurie McInnis. Faculty, staff, students, and deans all participated in reviewing Dean Stevens’ qualifications and vision for the College of Liberal Arts. We believe that a review of her accomplishments as Dean would demonstrate the strong support she has among faculty, staff, students, and fellow deans, and we are certain that she deserves such a review. The Regents Rules, the Handbook of Operating Procedures, and AAUP principles all support this view.
Regents Rule 20102 on the Appointment of Institutional Administrative Officers states in Section 3, Consultation: “The Board of Regents endorses the principle of reasonable consultation in the selection of administrative officers of the institutions and the primary operating units and expects the president, as he or she deems appropriate, to consult in the selection process with the representatives of the faculty, staff, and student body.” We understand that the President is not bound by the recommendations of a consultative body, but we maintain that the President is obligated to engage in a meaningful process of consultation—as has been customary at the University of Texas at Austin.
Moreover, the Handbook of Operating Procedures 2-2130 on the Evaluation of Deans of Colleges and Schools states the following under B. Periodic Evaluation, 1. Timing: “At a time not later than the conclusion of a six-year appointment as dean, an evaluation committee shall be constituted in the same manner as a consultative committee for deans of established schools and colleges (see HOP 2-2110).” Looking at HOP-2-2110, we find under 4. Committee Composition for Selecting Deans of Established Schools and Colleges: “Five voting members of the faculty of the school or college for which a dean is being sought, elected by that faculty by the Hare-Clark Preferential Voting System, and two voting members of the General Faculty, not including administrative officials, appointed by the President; three students appointed by the President from a panel of not fewer than five nor more than ten names selected by the student council for that school or college; and such other persons as the President may deem appropriate.”
The Regents Rules and the HOP are consistent with the AAUP Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, which states in section 2.c.: “The selection of academic deans and other chief academic officers should be the responsibility of the president with the advice of, and in consultation with, the appropriate faculty. Determinations of faculty status, normally based on the recommendations of the faculty groups involved, are discussed in Part 5 of this statement; but it should here be noted that the building of a strong faculty requires careful joint effort in such actions as staff selection and promotion and the granting of tenure. Joint action should also govern dismissals; the applicable principles and procedures in these matters are well established.” As to Faculty Evaluation of Administrators, the AAUP states: “Fellow administrators, faculty, students, and others should participate in the review according to their legitimate interest in the result, with faculty of the unit accorded the primary voice in the case of academic administrators.” The full statement gives a strong rationale for the involvement of faculty, staff, and students in decisions regarding administrators.
Clearly the faculty, staff, and students of the College of Liberal Arts have a “legitimate interest” in the evaluation of Dean Stevens for retention or replacement. As the AAUP rightly states, just as the selection of an administrator requires careful joint action, the evaluation of administrators must also involve faculty, staff, and students of the unit concerned. Anything short of this is unfair to Dean Stevens and disrespects the joint efforts that faculty, staff, and students have made, and continue to make, under her leadership.
We urge you to reconsider your decision to refrain from evaluating Ann Stevens for retention as Dean of the College of Liberal Arts. Based on UT System and UT Austin rules, as well as AAUP standards, the Dean should be allowed to present her accomplishments just as CoLA faculty, staff, and students should be allowed to share in the evaluation of her tenure as Dean. The course that you have embarked on will destabilize the largest college in the university; harm relations with faculty, staff, and donors; negatively affect recruitment efforts; and cast doubt on UT Austin’s commitment to established principles of governance. For the good of the University, we ask that you restore a fair and thorough review process in this case as well as in future cases.
Sincerely yours,
Executive Committee, UT Austin Chapter, American Association of University Professors (Pauline Strong, Brian Evans, Andrea Gore, Lauren Gutterman, Steven Seegel, Karma Chavez)
Cc: Rachel Davis Mersey, Interim Executive Vice President and Provost Amanda Cochran-McCall, Vice President for Legal Affairs Stella Flores, Chair, Faculty Council Ann Huff Stevens, Dean, College of Liberal Arts
The Texas A&M University chapter of the American Association of University Professors (TAMU-AAUP College Station) writes to express our concerns regarding the inactivation of minors and certificates currently being considered. We agree with the request of the Speaker of the Texas A&M Faculty Senate, Dr. Angie Hill Price, that the current inactivation process be invalidated and that all minors and certificates be allowed to continue their work of educating and enrolling new students.
The AAUP, as a national association committed to free speech and shared governance, is concerned about recent media reports, which suggest external influences on Texas A&M’s curriculum decisions. Objectively, these media reports raise questions about the integrity of the inactivation process.
In particular, the LGBTQ minor is a relatively new addition to the curriculum. We believe it should be given a reasonable and transparent timeline to recruit and graduate students, as with any other academic program. The AAUP supports the Women’s Studies faculty in their opposition to the minor’s deactivation and believes any deactivations must be implemented in a manner that involves faculty in all steps of the process. Specific to this minor, the unanimous vote by the Women’s Studies program against the inactivation of the minor underscores the desire of this faculty to have these studies continued.
The “inactivation process” as it currently stands appears to deviate from Texas A&M’s Standard Administrative Procedures (SAPs). It is crucial that faculty remain involved and engaged at every stage of academic decision-making, as codified in the University’s SAPs. The “inactivation process” as it currently stands appears to deviate from Texas A&M’s Standard Administrative Procedures (SAPs) (i.e., 11.99.99.M0.01 and 11.99.99.M0.02) and SOCSCOC’s expectations with respect to academic governance.
The Faculty Senate plays a vital role in this governance process, and we strongly urge the University to reaffirm its commitment to shared governance in all academic matters – particularly those that may not align with prevailing public opinion. As educators, we all share the responsibility for creating an open forum for study, where students are empowered to explore their chosen fields without undue interference. In a free and open society, education must remain a pillar of self-expression, intellectual curiosity, and creativity. Our future as a society depends on safeguarding academic freedom, ensuring that it is applied equally to all, without bias or constraint.
For faculty facing investigations, discipline, or dismissal, you are not alone! We have your back. We’ll be available to
go with you at any meeting to advocate for you
give advice on navigating your situation
provide a list of attorneys for information purposes
In these settings, administrators and investigators are not on your side.
As a tactic, administrators and investigators will
call a meeting to “ambush” a faculty member with allegations, and many faculty will react to clear their name and overshare.
choose to say things that are not true or misleading to see what information you would share.
Record all meetings with administrators and investigators. Texas is a one-party recording state. You don’t have to notify others or obtain their permission. More info.
Your work email account is not private because administrators can obtain access. Use private email accounts and secure messaging (e.g. WhatsApp or Signal) for non-work matters.
Backup important email messages and files onto non-work accounts if permitted. A college or university can disable your access to work e-mail and other work platforms at any time.
$8M Professional Liability Coverage including $35k in Legal Action Trust to respond to criminal investigations
Legal defense fund for employment matters. Legal costs split 1/3 Texas AAUP-AFT, 1/3 Texas AFT and 1/3 National AFT. Texas AAUP-AFT will need to build its legal defense fund.
Director of Public Affairs & Legislative Counsel, Patty Quinzi, JD
New Texas AAUP-AFT Dues Structure, Brian Evans
Now that Texas AAUP-AFT is an AFT Local of Texas AFT, we’ll be updating our dues model to build our legal defense fund and help cover the cost of Texas AFT staff and productivity tools.
New dues combine dues for Texas AFT, National AAUP, National AFT:
$451/yr for academic income above $80k (AAUP bands 7-9)
$305/yr for academic income between $50k-80K
$155/yr for academic income $50k and under
New Texas AAUP-AFT registration link launched Sept. 27, 2024. Payment is monthly through a bank draft. More manageable payments than the usual annual renewals for AAUP membership.
2. Political Interference, Legislative Advocacy & Political Action Panel
Anthony Elmo, Texas AFT Director of Political Organizing, advocates for shared interests of K-12 and Higher Education expressed in the Texas AFT Educator’s Bill of Rights, and directs the Committee on Political Education (COPE) to give info about voter registration, voting, and candidate positions on public K-12 and higher ed
Christina Das, NAACP Legal Defense Fund Civil Rights Attorney.
Q: Ok to encourage students in the classroom to register to vote?
A: Yes for all eligible voters. A QR code given to learn more.
Teresa Klein, Texas AAUP-AFT VP, spoke about Project 2025.
Prof. David Rabban is at the UT Austin Law School. He served as AAUP General Counsel 1998-2006 and Chair of AAUP Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure from 2006-2012. “His teaching and research focus on free speech, higher education and the law, and American legal history.” [Ref]
Academic Freedom is necessary for the function of a professor
Peer review feature of academic freedom.
What is the relationship between academic freedom and the general political expression outside their expertise
A professor cannot do their job to have findings that offend someone leads to their firing
Extending Academic Freedom to political speech
The whole point of academic freedom is
Professors should have the rights as anyone else
Societal interest in the production and dissemination of knowledge
Professors in Classics should be able to apply lessons to contemporary topics
First five investigations by AAUP after 1915 involved protected speech
1917: Donor said they would give $10M to Harvard if a certain faculty member who opposed US involvement in World War I would be dismissed. The Harvard President separated academic freedom from political speech, and said both should be protected.
Legal cases of academic freedom began in 1950’s.
Sweezy v New Hampshire 1957 – Academic freedom is a First Amendment right, and differentiated First Amendment free speech from academic freedom
Keyishian v Board of Regents – Academic freedom is a special concern of the 1st amendment – seminal case (cited many times)
First amendment protections apply to state (government) actors, not private actors, but some private universities voluntarily give First Amendment protections
Hundreds of lower court decisions say academic freedom is a First Amendment Right
Generally – applies to the content of academic speech.
Some rulings limit academic freedom to content.
Academic freedom protects legitimate pedagogical decisions for your course
Giving materials and instructions to the students in a classroom to register to vote is not likely protected by academic freedom.
Discussion of intramural issues usually protected by academic speech.
Outside speech and political speech not necessarily academic freedom, but have free speech rights.
Rabban’s argues the following two statements should be incorporated into First Amendment Law
Even though legal cases recognize academic freedom, courts do not always use academic freedom as a criterion to decide a case.
Determining what is protected speech of the professor
Employee Speech Juris Prudence – speech rights of public employees
Garcetti v Ceballos – “speech of public employees not protected when in the course of normal job duties” – BUT does not apply decision on public employee speech to faculty academic speech
Other Court of Appeals cases recognize Garcetti exception:
Meriweather v. Hartop 2021
Pickering standard – two-prong weight
Professor’s speech rights outweighs right of institution for efficient operation.
Issue is of Public Concern
There is a public interest in the professor’s dissemination of knowledge.
Questions
Has 5th circuit recognized academic freedom as free speech?
Ok to encourage students in the classroom to register to vote? Not likely protected by academic freedom
How much speech related to university governance is protected? Conflicting decisions by the courts.
Common Themes in AAUP Campus Chapter Reports
Issues mentioned by AAUP chapters at public campuses
Compression– faculty of a lower rank making higher salary
Administrative bloat– exponential increase in number of administrative positions along with excessively high salaries and raises for administrators (20% raise vs. 2% for faculty)
Low and high enrollments affecting campus budgets
Faculty workload policies
Increased expectations for research without appropriate administrative support or reduction in teaching load
General counsel and compliance officers having unchecked power
Collegiality. For faculty, AAUP recommends evaluating teaching, scholarship, and service. Collegiality should not be separate but can be included in the three categories. AAUP Statement.
Dual Enrollment Courses
must comply with higher ed laws and campus policies, but many K-12 students, parents, and principals are expecting compliance with K-12 laws and K-12 school policies
faculty are being reassigned to serve dual credit against their will, and certain faculty are being excluded with due process
Trinity University AAUP Chapter – Tahir Naqvi (President)
University of Dallas AAUP Chapter – John Osoinach (President)
Texas A&M System
Prairie View A&M AAUP Chapter – David Rembert (President)
Tarleton State AAUP Chapter – Reggie Hall (not present)
Texas A&M AAUP Chapter – Tom Blasingame (President)
Texas A&M Corpus Christi AAUP – Kelly Bezio (President)
Texas A&M San Antonio AAUP Chapter – Martha Saywell (VP)
West Texas A&M AAUP Chapter – Ryan Brooks (President)
Texas Southern University – Cary Wintz (not present)
Texas State System
Texas State University AAUP Chapter – Patrick Smith (Convener)
Sam Houston State University AAUP Chapter – Mike Vaughn (VP)
Sul Ross University AAUP Chapter (not present)
Lamar University AAUP Chapter – Pat Heintzelman (President)
Texas Tech University AAUP Chapter – Andrew Martin (President)
Texas Woman’s University AAUP Chapter – Diana Hynds (President)
University of Houston AAUP Chapter – Daniel Morales (not present)
University of North Texas – Todd Moye (not present)
UT System
UT Arlington AAUP Chapter – Penny Ingram (President)
UT Austin AAUP Chapter – Polly Strong (President)
UT Dallas AAUP Chapter – Simon Fass (President)
UT MD Anderson AAUP Chapter – Bill Wierda (not present)
UT Permian Basin – Derek Catsam (not present)
UT Rio Grande Valley AAUP Chapter – Dora Saavedra (President)
UT San Antonio AAUP Chapter – Alistair Welchman (not present)
Additional Information on Agenda Topics
About AAUP. AAUP advocates
for free inquiry, free expression, and open dissent, which are critical for student learning and the advancement of knowledge
against infringement on academic freedom and its safeguards of tenure, due process, and shared governance
Since 1915, AAUP has been the central organizing force in higher ed in its widely adopted principles on academic freedom and shared governance and its 42,000 members and 500 campus chapters championing these principles.
Campus and Legislative advocacy from its 66,000 members & 40 staff
Workplace protections including liability coverage and legal aid
TexasHigher Ed ecosystem. Our public and private colleges and universities collaborate in teaching, research, and community outreach. Graduates of our private institutions become faculty members at our public institutions, and vice-versa. From our Texas AAUP survey in Fall 2024, faculty at public and private institutions reported the political climate in Texas was interfering significantly with recruiting and retaining faculty. We’re in this together!
SB 18. How do I fire thee? Let me count the ways… Although SB 18 defines 10 reasons for regular and summary dismissal for tenured faculty, public colleges and universities have been using SB 18 to dismiss non-tenure track and tenure-track faculty as well. Of the 10 reasons, seven are vague or undefined. All reasons can be weaponized by administrations. SB 18 is now in law as Texas Education Code 51.942.
SB 17 bans certain DEI programs and practices in public colleges and universities. Although SB 17 has exceptions for academic course instruction and research, it has a chilling effect on both. Certain discussions about DEI by faculty outside academic course instruction and research can be construed as training, which can lead to termination under SB 17. Several administrations are over-complying with SB 17. Texas AAUP provides guidance on anti-DEI SB17 and its exceptions for academic course instruction, scholarly research, and creative works.
Texas AAUP-AFT Delegation – Brian Evans, Pat Heintzelman, Jim Klein, Teresa Klein, Polly Strong, and Cary Wintz
South Carolina AAUP Delegation – Mark Blackwell, Dave Bruzina, Carol Harrison, Adam Houle, Sharon O’Kelley, and Shawn Smolen-Morton
June 20, 2024
The Texas delegation at a reception after a good day of discussing collective action for higher education. From left to right, Jim Klein, Pauline Strong, Cary Wintz, Pat Heintzelman, Brian Evans, Teresa Klein, representing AAUP Members at Del Mar College, UT Austin, Texas Southern, and Lamar University. Brian, Jim, and Teresa are Texas AAUP Officers.
The 2024 AAUP Conference and Biennial Meeting, which is held every other year, offered seminars and panel discussions on academic freedom and shared governance as well as voting on constitutional amendments and resolutions. Every four years, including 2024, officer elections are held. About 200 people attended the June 13-16 meeting in Washington, DC. Polly Strong and Lauren Gutterman tweeted updates @TexasAAUP.
Here’s a quick summary from the seminars and panel discussions:
UCLA Law Professor Taifha Natalee Alexander presented their CRT Forward Project that tracks policies and laws for K-12 and higher ed to ban CRT and related issues such as banning DEI. They track Lexis and Westlaw legal databases as well as 4,000 newspapers, and publish info at an eighth grade level to reach a wide audience.
Dr. Patricia Okker, President of New College in Florida until removed by board members appointed by Gov. DeSantis. New College is a public Liberal Arts College. Pres. Okker says attacks on academic freedom are political theater. Shift from “defend” to “champion” “academic freedom” and share positive outcomes of academic freedom grounded in student experiences. The reason for academic freedom is the search for truth. Let’s take back the phrase “search for truth”.
Mark Bostic, Director AAUP Organizing and Services, led a discussion with state conferences. Conference agendas, efforts, and structures vary widely in reaction to state politics. The AFT-AAUP affiliation has benefited some conferences like Texas and distressed conferences like Oregon, but has had no effect on conferences like South Carolina. Many Collective Bargaining Chapters report redundancy of services, differences in mission, and increasing dues due to the AFT affiliation.
Malori Musselman, AAUP Organizer, led a discussion with advocacy chapters. Members shared organizing struggles, conflicts with administration, and successes. Several chapters formed recently or are in the process of forming, and were seeking advice. Malori offered tips and directed chapters to training opportunities.
Here’s a quick summary of committee reports:
Treasurer Rudy Fichtenbaum reported declining revenue, increasing expenses, and drawing from cash reserves to balance the budget. Please see the Appendix.
AAUP Vice-President Paul Davis reported on organizing. With support from the AFT, 16 new AAUP Collective Bargaining Chapters have been founded in the last two years, representing 4,000 new members. AFT spent $12M in the effort, and AFT and AAUP will split the dues equally. Paul stressed the conversion of advocacy chapters to collective bargaining and the affiliation’s focus on large institutions.
Here’s a quick summary from the Assembly of Delegates (94 delegates):
Elected President Todd Wolfson (wolfsont@gmail.com), VP Rotua Lumbantobing (rltobing@gmail.com), Secretary-Treasurer Danielle Aubert, and At-Large Members Chenjerai Kumanyiki and Paul Davis. Here’s an interview with Todd & Rotua. Their four-year terms began June 16, 2024.
Passed a Constitutional Amendment to allow the Association to compensate officers and Council members by compensating their institutions for release time from teaching or other assigned duties or by compensating them directly at an equivalent rate for their participation in Association matters. The Constitution continues to allow reimbursement “for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the performance of their duties” for officers and Council members.
Advocated with the AAUP Council to lift the staff hiring freeze ordered by Interim Director Nancy Long in January. At present, 30 of 60 staff positions remain unfilled. Hardest hit units are organizing, communications, membership, and government relations. This affects the work of the AAUP and impedes the ability of members and chapters to advance the mission of the AAUP.
After the above discussion of the impact of the staff hiring freeze, several AAUP members formed an ad-hoc committee. The committee’s first action was to ask the newly elected leaders to address the severe staff shortage on June 19, 2024. The committee is Jill Dumesnil, Brian Evans, Emily Ford, Johanna Foster, Nicole Gallagher, Afshan Jafar, Bethany Letiecq, Ernesto Longa, Harmon Oskar, Cristina Restad, and Saranna Thornton.
AAUP delegations from Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas met to discuss plans to organize together. All of our Legislatures will reconvene in January. We hope to hold virtual meetings as well as a hybrid biennial meeting starting Summer 2025 to alternate with the biennial National AAUP Meetings. Virginia AAUP will also be joining.
We would like to thank Irene Mulvey for her service as AAUP President 2020-2024. We are grateful for her leadership including:
Affiliating with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
Providing AAUP guidance during the pandemic
Expanding Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure to include disciplinary expertise in racial equity
Turning AAUP into a more nimble organization with faster responses to crises
AAUP membership is about 42000, with 32000 in collective bargaining units and 10000 in advocacy chapters. In Texas and across the South, all of our chapters are advocacy chapters. States that allow collective bargaining units in the public sector might have collective bargaining and advocacy chapters. Ohio has both. Florida only has advocacy chapters.
Appendix: Treasurer’s Report
The fiscal year is the calendar year. Treasurer Rudy Fichtenbaum reported declining revenue and drawing from cash reserves to balance the budget.
Revenue
2023
2022
2023 vs. 2022
Coll. Barg. Dues
6,222,562
6,376,861
(154,299)
Advocacy Dues
1,733,077
1,799,693
(66,616)
AFT Support
1,807,127
1,522,917
284,210
Other Revenue
195,796
352,357
(156,561)
TOTAL
9,958,562
10,051,828
(93,266)
AFT Support was budgeted at $3,769,381 in 2023 per the AAUP affiliation agreement.
Expenses
2023
2022
2023 vs. 2022
Salaries & Benefits
5,497,811
5,246,762
251,049
Contracted Services
1,099,768
842,860
256,909
Joint Organizing
38,707
124,079
(85,373)
Business
236,314
443,155
(206,841)
Meetings & Travel
647,610
713,410
(65,800)
AFT Per Capita
1,965,408
909,176
1,056,232
Other
1,116,409
1,038,389
128,020
TOTAL
10,652,027
9,317,831
1,334,196
In Fiscal Year 2023, AAUP had 17,112,114 in Assets and 6,366,405 in Liabilities, which gives 10,745,708 in Net Assets.
AAUP@UT 