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.
Dear President Davis, Provost Vanden Bout, Vice-President Cochran-McCall, Dean Ades, and Dean Reddick:
The Executive Committee of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) at the University of Texas at Austin calls on you urgently to address the revocation of visas of international students on our campus. In the past week, we have learned of three visa revocations at UT Austin: two are students who have graduated but were working in the U.S., while one is currently a doctoral candidate in the Cockrell School of Engineering. This is likely only a fraction of the actual number, as administrators and current or former students themselves may not yet be aware of visa terminations made by the Department of Homeland Security through the Student Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). The number of revocations will surely grow in the weeks ahead. According to an article published by Inside Higher Ed yesterday, at least 147 students have had their visas revoked across the country over the past five days, including nine at Texas A&M.
According to Texas Global, UT Austin currently has a total of 6,644 international undergraduate and graduate students. These students are a vital part of our community and their safety and security is at risk. Many international students have already conveyed to us the fear and uncertainty that they are experiencing. This has affected their ability to travel, to teach, to present their research, and to express their political views. These students are facing the threat of legal status termination, without due process, and the end of their educational pursuits at UT Austin, as well as the prospect of detainment, deportation, or immediate departure from the country. Our students’ lives and their futures are at stake.
In accord with the national leadership of the American Association of University Professors, we call on you to institute best practices at the University of Texas at Austin designed to minimize harm to international students, including:
Checking SEVIS daily to see if student and postdoctoral scholars’ visas have been revoked and notifying them immediately of any changes in their legal status.
Ensuring that any students whose visa or legal status is revoked and who is either detained or deported can remain enrolled at UT Austin and can continue their program of study until completion, whether the student is an undergraduate or graduate student.
Allowing any student or postdoctoral scholar who is receiving a fellowship, stipend, or salary from the University and is deported the opportunity to continue to receive that funding until the end of their contract or course of study.
Providing and paying for legal support for UT Austin students and postdoctoral scholars whose visas are revoked.
Refraining from complying with any orders to disclose personal information of international students or postdoctoral scholars, whether these orders come from the Trump administration, DOJ, DHS, ICE or other government agencies involved in the investigation, prosecution, or deportation of international students and scholars.
Communicating UT Austin’s policies and actions to international students, postdoctoral scholars, faculty, and students in order to address the fear and uncertainty on campus.
As leaders of the flagship campus in the UT system, your actions are a model to your peers at public colleges and universities across the state. We call on you to do everything in your power to protect our international students and postdoctoral scholars in this moment of crisis.
Thank you for your consideration. We stand ready to work with you.
Sincerely,
Dr. Pauline Turner Strong, President, AAUP chapter at UT Austin*
Dr. Brian Evans, Past President, AAUP chapter at UT Austin*
Dr. Andrea Gore, Vice President, AAUP chapter at UT Austin*
Dr. Lauren Gutterman, Secretary, AAUP chapter at UT Austin*
Dr. Steven Seegel, Treasurer, AAUP chapter at UT Austin*
Dr. Karma Chavez, Member, Executive Committee, AAUP chapter at UT Austin*
*speaking for ourselves as private individuals, not on behalf of our employer
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.
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.
AAUP@UT 