The Texas A&M University System has implemented a new policy requiring professors to seek presidential approval before teaching certain topics related to race, gender, and sexual orientation. The rule, approved by the system's regents, applies to all universities within its network and has ignited a debate over academic freedom and classroom censorship.
This move marks a significant step in regulating curriculum content within a public university system in Texas. It follows a period of heightened political scrutiny and a widely circulated video that led to the termination of a lecturer and the resignation of the university's president.
Key Takeaways
- The Texas A&M University System now requires campus president approval for courses discussing certain race and gender concepts.
- The policy affects all institutions in the system, including the flagship campus and law school.
- Critics, including faculty and academic organizations, argue the policy undermines academic freedom and could violate First Amendment rights.
- The decision follows the controversial firing of a lecturer and subsequent resignation of the university president.
A New Layer of Oversight
The policy approved by the Texas A&M University System regents introduces a formal review process for specific academic content. It states that no course will “advocate race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity” without prior approval from the respective campus president.
This directive is not limited to the main campus in College Station. It extends across the entire system, impacting schools such as Tarleton State University and the Fort Worth-based law school. The policy represents one of the first instances of a public university system in the state formalizing rules on what faculty can discuss regarding these specific subjects in the classroom.
James Hallmark, vice chancellor for the system's Office of Academic Affairs, framed the measure as a way to ensure transparency. During the meeting with regents, he stated, “The goal is transparent and document cocurricular review, not policing individual speech.”
Defining the Terms
The policy provides specific definitions for the ideologies it seeks to regulate. It defines “race ideology” as a concept that attempts to shame a specific race or ethnicity, accuse them of being oppressors, or assign them guilt based on the actions of their ancestors.
Similarly, “gender ideology” is defined as the “concept of self-assessed gender identity replacing and disconnected from the biological category of sex.” These definitions are central to how the policy will be interpreted and applied by campus presidents who are now gatekeepers for this content.
Related Policy Changes
In a related move, the regents also approved a policy stating that faculty “will not introduce a controversial matter that has no relation to the classroom subject or teach material that is inconsistent with the approved syllabus.” This adds another layer of control over classroom discussions, aiming to keep instruction strictly within the bounds of pre-approved course materials.
A Climate of Scrutiny
The new regulations were not created in a vacuum. They follow a high-profile incident in September involving Melissa McCoul, a senior lecturer in the English department. A video of McCoul in a dispute with a student over the inclusion of gender identity topics in a children's literature class went viral.
The video attracted significant political pressure from Republican lawmakers, including Governor Greg Abbott. Shortly after, McCoul was fired. The university's then-president, Mark A. Welsh III, resigned soon after, although he did not state a reason for his departure. The events placed the university under a microscope regarding its handling of classroom content and academic freedom.
National Context
The situation at Texas A&M reflects a broader national trend. Universities across the country, including prominent institutions like Harvard and Columbia, have faced scrutiny from conservative critics over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and their responses to campus events. The debate over what is taught in university classrooms has become a focal point of political discourse.
Voices of Dissent and Support
The regents' meeting saw a clear division of opinion. Eight professors from Texas A&M, including Leonard Bright, spoke out against the policy. Bright, who is the president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) chapter at A&M, suggested the policy was a direct result of the McCoul incident.
“Our job is to teach facts, teach the truth, and if … we have to use a litmus test of whether or not it meets someone’s approval, and it could be quite frankly their political approval, then we have no truth,” Bright stated ahead of the meeting.
Many of the faculty members who opposed the rule also called for Melissa McCoul to be rehired. The national AAUP's committee on academic freedom also weighed in, with chair Rana Jaleel expressing deep concern.
Jaleel said the policy “really strikes at the heart of what education means and what universities do, which is circulate the exchange of knowledge without fear of retaliation, without fear of censorship.”
However, the policy did have supporters among the faculty. Adam Kolasinski, a professor in the Department of Finance, was one of two professors who spoke in favor of the measure. “Academic freedom does not mean you get to teach whatever you want,” Kolasinski argued, aligning with the regents' perspective.
Regent Sam Torn summarized the board's position by stating the policy's purpose is to “make sure we are educating, not advocating.”
The Future of Academic Freedom
With the policy now in place, questions remain about its implementation and long-term effects. The university system has not yet provided detailed guidance on how campus presidents will conduct these reviews or what criteria they will use to approve or deny course content.
Faculty members and academic freedom advocates worry about the potential for a chilling effect, where professors may self-censor to avoid a lengthy and potentially politically charged approval process. They argue that subjects like history, sociology, literature, and law cannot be taught comprehensively without engaging with complex and sometimes controversial ideas about race and gender.
The new rules at Texas A&M set a precedent that could influence other public university systems in Texas and beyond. As universities continue to be central arenas for cultural and political debates, the balance between institutional oversight and the academic freedom essential for higher learning remains a critical point of contention.
