Texas A&M University requires approval of courses that ‘advocate’ certain ideologies
The Texas A&M University System’s Board of Regents decided Thursday that courses that “promote racial or gender ideology, sexual orientation, or gender identity” will now require presidential approval.
Faculty and outside advocacy groups say the new rules infringe on academic freedom, and for many professors questions remain about how the policies will be implemented and enforced. The policy changes, approved by a unanimous vote after a lengthy public comment period, fit a pattern of scrutiny at Texas A&M University that escalated after a video of students challenging teachers about a gender identity course went viral, leading to the firing of teachers and the resignation of then-President Mark Welsh.
Dan Braaten, associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University in San Antonio and president of the campus chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said he was shocked but not surprised by the “egregiousness” of the policies.
“Teachers are very worried,” Braaten said. “They want to know, can they teach the courses they plan to teach in the spring? Who’s going to look at their syllabi? … Does the president of every A&M university have to approve every syllabus? Is there a penalty for that? It’s a total … gross violation of academic freedom.”
The board approved the new rules as a revision to existing system policies. The policy on “Civil Rights Protection and Compliance” would be revised to state that “no systematic academic course will promote racial or gender ideology, sexual orientation or gender identity unless the course is approved by the member’s chief executive officer.” It would also define “gender ideology” as “a self-assessed concept of gender identity that supersedes and is divorced from the biological category of sex.”
Likewise, “racial ideology” is defined as “concepts that seek to shame particular races or ethnic groups, accuse them of being oppressors in a racial hierarchy or conspiracy, reduce their value as contributors to society and public discourse because of their race or ethnicity, or assign them inherent guilt based on the actions of their presumed ancestors or relatives in other parts of the world. This also includes course content that promotes activism on issues related to race or ethnicity, rather than academic instruction.”
Teaching and Advocacy
A previous revision proposed that racial or gender ideologies would not be “taught” in any systematic academic course, but before the policy was formally presented to the full board, the verb was changed to “advocate.” It’s unclear how the system will differentiate between advocacy and regular guidance on these topics. Board representatives declined Wednesday to comment on the policies ahead of the board’s vote. they didn’t respond Inside higher educationQuestions raised after policy approval.
A second policy on “Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure” previously stated that “each faculty member has the right to discuss in class the subject he or she teaches with full freedom, but faculty members shall not raise controversial issues unrelated to the subject matter of the class.” The approved amendment adds that faculty may not “teach material that is inconsistent with the approved course syllabus.”
In a partially redacted email from November 10, Inside higher educationA Texas A&M faculty leader said administrators at several universities have discussed implementation plans ahead of the board’s vote. An administrator also told faculty leaders that the policy change was unlikely to result in a formal syllabus approval process but was instead aimed at keeping course content aligned with learning outcomes.
The board received 142 written comments before Thursday’s vote, and eight faculty members spoke out against the policy change during the meeting’s public comment period. Some are also calling for the reinstatement of professor Melissa McCoul, who was fired in September.
“This is not a college-level education, this is cruelty and political indoctrination in wolf’s clothing,” said Leonard Bright, a professor of government and public services and president of the AAUP chapter at Texas A&M University-College Station. “I need to tell my students, ‘What you are here to learn, I can’t tell you because I can only tell you this information, even though this knowledge is available at every major university in the world.'”
Sonia Hernandez, a liberal arts professor who teaches Latin American history, shared a past example that highlights the pitfalls of the new policy.
“I once had a student who took issue with my discussion of the importance of military history. He was opposed to war and felt strongly about its devastating impact on society, but it was full academic freedom — not picking a topic, not propaganda, not ideology — that allowed me to share my research on the intersection of war and identity with the class,” Hernandez said.
Two faculty members — finance professor Adam Kolasinski and biomedical engineering professor John Criscione — spoke in support of the policy change.
“I don’t think anyone should say that Germans who were born two generations after the Holocaust were somehow responsible for the Holocaust, because that’s really prohibited here,” Kolasinski said. “My colleagues seem to think the policy says something it doesn’t actually say.” Kolasinski also suggested the board change the language from “advocate” back to “teach.”
AAUP President Todd Wolfson urged the board to reject the proposed policy change in a statement Tuesday. So does Brian Evans, president of the AAUP Texas conference, whose members include faculty on the Texas A&M campus.
“By considering these policy changes, the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents is telling faculty, ‘Shut up and teach, and we’ll tell you what to teach,'” Evans said in the statement. “This language and the censorship it imposes will cause irreparable damage to the university’s reputation and prevent faculty and students from fulfilling their primary missions on campus: teaching, learning, critical thinking, and creating and sharing new knowledge.”
FIRE officials wrote in a statement on Monday, “It makes no sense to hire professors with Ph.D.s if administrators decide what to teach… Faculty need to be licensed to teach students about modern controversies, including civil rights, the Civil War, and even ancient Greek comedies. This is not just bad policy. It invites illegal censorship, chills academic freedom, and undermines the core purpose of the university. Faculty will start asking ‘Is this accurate?'” but “Will this get me in trouble?” This isn’t education, it’s risk management. “
Artificial Intelligence Powered Course Review
Also on Thursday, the board discussed conducting a detailed system-wide review of all courses using an artificial intelligence-driven process. A faculty leader said in a Nov. 10 email that the system has piloted the review process on the Tarleton State campus, with most of the courses flagged being in the College of Education, which includes the sociology and psychology departments. Board members said they intend to complete course reviews regularly, once each semester.
“The Texas A&M University System acted first and set an example for other systems to follow,” Registrar Sam Tohn said of the curriculum review at Thursday’s meeting.
The system will also use EthicsPoint, an online system that allows students to report inaccurate, misleading or inappropriate course content that differs from the course description. When a student submits an EthicsPoint complaint, system staff will be alerted and, if the complaint is determined to be valid, forwarded to the appropriate university.
