Texas Tech University System officials released a memo on Monday formally putting these and other policies in writing.
“Effective immediately, faculty may not include or promote course content in any form that conflicts with the following standards,” Chancellor Brandon Creighton wrote in a memo to system presidents that was forwarded to faculty. System faculty told us the standards include specific rules about race and sexual orientation that have not been previously discussed Inside higher education. The memo also states that Texas Tech’s system recognizes only two genders — male and female.
Angelo State University first introduced a vague anti-trans policy with a phone review game in September that has now been made explicit and rolled out across Texas Tech’s five-university system. Course content related to race and sexuality is also now under scrutiny. While the memo does not prohibit direct discussion of transgender topics or any topic that implies there are more than two genders, policies across the country that suggest there are only two genders or genders have been used to limit the rights of transgender people.
Texas Tech isn’t alone in doing so. Public systems in Texas have adopted varying politically motivated curriculum reviews, leaving faculty members across the state angry and confused. For example, the University of Texas System recently completed a review of all courses on gender identity, and the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents last month approved a new policy requiring presidential approval of courses that “advocate for racial or gender ideology, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
According to Creighton’s memo, faculty and staff may not “promote” or instill the belief that one race or gender is superior to another; that a person is consciously or unconsciously inherently racist, sexist, or an “oppressor”; that anyone should be discriminated against because of their race or gender; that moral character is determined by race or gender; that individuals bear responsibility or culpability for the actions of others of the same race or gender; or that meritocracy or a strong work ethic is racism, sexism, or “a product of oppression.”
Creighton defines advocacy as “presenting these beliefs as true or necessary and forcing students to affirm them rather than analyze or criticize them as an opinion. This also includes course content that promotes action on issues related to race or gender, as opposed to academic instruction.”
The memo also outlines a board-controlled review process, with a flow chart, for courses that include content related to gender identity and sexual orientation. Although the memo mentions competitions earlier, it is unclear whether course content related to competitions will also be subject to this review.
“We’ve entered this slow rollout process. We have to go through all the courses and basically have the flowcharts done before the flowcharts come out,” said an Angelo State faculty member who wished to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation. “Anything involving transgender people [people] was marked. “
Creighton, a former member of the Texas Senate, justified the new rules using Senate Bill 37, a law he sponsored earlier this year that, among other things, gave control of the Faculty Senate to the Board of Governors of Public Institutions and established a review process for general education courses every five years. An earlier version of the bill that passed the Senate contained language very similar to the restrictions in the Texas Tech memo, including censoring certain course topics that suggest the superiority of any social, political or religious belief over others and allowing administrators to unilaterally remove members of the Faculty Senate for their personal political opinions. Current law does not prohibit teaching about transgender identity, racial inequality, systemic racism, homosexuality or any other personal topic.
“This directive is the first step in the Board’s continued performance of its statutory duty to review and oversee programs in accordance with Senate Bill 37 and related provisions of the Education Act. Curriculum reviews under Senate Bill 37 will go some way to ensuring that each university offers valuable degrees,” Creighton wrote.
A spokesman for the Texas Tech University System did not respond. Inside higher educationQuestions about the memorandum, including possible next steps.
“The Board’s responsibility is to preserve the integrity of our academic mission and preserve the trust of Texans,” Board of Trustees Chairman Cody Campbell said in the release. “The Board welcomes the clarity of Senate Bill 37, which reaffirms the Board’s role in curriculum oversight. This new framework strengthens accountability, provides support for our faculty, and ensures that our universities remain focused on education, research, and innovation, core commitments that enable the TTU System to continue to be a national leader.”
One faculty member told us that faculty across the system are very unhappy with the changes but aren’t sure how to fight back. Inside higher education. Kelli Cargile Cook, a professor emeritus at Texas Tech University texas tribune She began drafting her resignation letter.
“I have been teaching since 1981 and this will be my last class. I am very much looking forward to working with the seniors in our major, but I cannot stand what is happening at Texas Tech,” she told forum. “I think the memo is dodgy because, on the surface, it lists beliefs you can agree with. But when you think about how to put it into practice, the very act of a board approving courses — by political appointees, uneducated, not researchers — is a slippery slope.”
Brian Evans, president of the Texas chapter of the American Association of University Professors, criticized the memo on Tuesday.
“Empowering administrators to scrutinize the instructional decisions of faculty experts is harmful to universities, students and the country,” Evans said. “Such a system is inconsistent with long-standing principles of academic freedom, university policy, and the First Amendment.”
Graham Piro, a fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s Campus Advocacy Legal Defense Fund, denounced the memo in a statement Tuesday.
“Texas Tech’s memorandum unconstitutionally lays out specific views on these topics, meaning faculty must toe the state’s line on these issues, and those who dissent face penalties. The memo is also so broadly worded that it would be easy for an overzealous administration to punish professors who try to stoke controversy in the classroom or advocate outside the classroom for course changes to reflect pedagogical developments,” Pirro said.
“Decades ago, the Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment ‘cannot tolerate laws that cast a shadow of orthodoxy in the classroom.’ Instead, it wrote that ‘truth’ is discovered not through ‘authoritative selection’ but through ‘multiple languages.’ These principles are timeless and Texas Tech should not compromise them no matter which way the political winds blow today.”
He also likened the memo to Florida’s Stop Woke Act, a bill currently blocked by a federal court that severely limits how Florida faculty can talk and teach about race, gender and sexuality.
