Everything’s
bigger
in
Texas
—
including
the
ambition
to
remake
higher
education
in
the
image
of
the
state
legislature.
Over
the
past
several
years,
Texas
has
moved
from
griping
about
“woke
campuses”
to
fundamentally
restructuring
the
governance,
curriculum,
and
tenure
protections
of
its
public
universities.
The
cumulative
effect
is
not
reform.
It’s
consolidation
of
power.
And
the
target
is
the
traditional
independence
of
higher
education.
TL:DR
—
send
your
kids
to
Texas
public
universities,
and
it’s
like
having
the
Texas
legislature
teach
your
kids.
Of
course,
by
kids
I
mean
adults
who
have
a
right
to
a
top-notch
education,
but
I
use
the
word
kids
because
Texas
legislators
seem
hell-bent
on
infantilizing
them.
Let’s
walk
through
what’s
happened.
The
End
Of
DEI
Offices
—
Not
That
There
Was
DEI
In
2023,
Texas
enacted
Senate
Bill
17,
which
effectively
dismantled
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion
offices
at
public
universities.
Institutions
shuttered
DEI
divisions,
laid
off
staff,
and
scrubbed
websites.
Faculty
were
warned
against
programming
or
hiring
practices
that
might
be
construed
as
DEI-adjacent.
Supporters
framed
the
move
as
viewpoint
neutrality.
But
eliminating
administrative
structures
that
facilitate
recruitment,
retention,
and
compliance
with
civil
rights
norms
doesn’t
create
neutrality.
It
shifts
institutional
power
away
from
professional
administrators
and
toward
political
overseers.
And
it’s
not
like
DEI
was
a
big
thing
in
Texas
ever. Looking
at
any
publicly
available
data,
faculty
at
Texas
public
universities
(with
rare
exception,
namely
HBCUs)
are
predominantly
white,
from
elite
schools.
Tenure,
On
A
Shorter
Leash
In
2023,
Texas
also
enacted
legislation
targeting
tenure
at
public
universities.
While
pitched
as
accountability
reform,
the
law
creates
new
layers
of
review
and
authorizes
governing
boards
—
political
appointees
—
to
play
a
more
active
role
in
evaluating
tenured
faculty.
Tenure
was
never
a
lifetime
guarantee
of
employment.
It
was
(and
is)
a
structural
protection
for
academic
freedom
—
the
ability
to
research,
teach,
and
speak
without
fear
that
political
winds
will
determine
your
livelihood.
Of
course,
it’s
easy
to
target
faculty
by
painting
them
all
as
lazy
communists
hell-bent
on
destroying
the
system
they
are
a
part
of
(and
yet
still
somehow
being
lazy).
Governing
Boards
As
Political
Instruments
In
2025,
the
Texas
Legislature
enacted
SB37,
a
piece
of
legislation
that
put
core
curriculum
content
under
political
control
while
purging
faculty
governance.
Using
SB37
as
a
springboard,
at
the
University
of
Texas
System,
the
Texas
A&M
University
System,
the
Texas
Tech
system,
and
the
University
of
Houston,
regents
and
administrators
have
increasingly
asserted
themselves
in
curriculum
without
expertise
or
foundation.
But
it’s
already
been
used
to
fire
people
for
ideas. Melissa
McCoul,
an
A&M
English
professor
who
encountered
an
unfriendly
student
during
a
lesson
in
gender
identity,
was
fired,
despite
a
faculty
panel
ruling
that
she
was
wrongly
fired. Prof.
Thomas
Alter
was
fired
from
Texas
State
University
for
allegedly
inciting
violence
at
*checks
notes*
a
conference.
You
might
remember
that
multiple
professors
across
the
country
were
fired
for
their
personal
views
about
Charlie
Kirk. Kirk’s
TPUSA
created
a
professor
watchlist. Being
on
the
watchlist
often
comes
with
threats
and
harassment. And
you
probably
remember
that
in
Oklahoma
a
graduate
student
was
relieved
of
teaching
duties
after
giving
zero
points
to
a
student
on
an
assignment. In
short,
it’s
not
just
Texas,
but
things
are
bigger
in
Texas.
Beyond
firing
people
for
their
personal
opinions
and
doing
their
jobs,
Texas
public
universities
have
been
working
hard
to
stifle
and
shrink
programs
and
thoughts
Texas
ultra-conservatives
don’t
like.
-
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
plans
to
“consolidate
four
departments,
including
African
and
African
Diaspora
Studies
and
Women’s,
Gender
and
Sexuality
Studies.” -
Texas
Tech
and
Texas
A&M
have
deployed
curriculum
barriers
designed
to
prevent
any
discussion
of
race
and
gender.
It
closed
its
Women’s
and
Gender
Studies
programs. Martin
Peterson,
an
A&M
Philosophy professor,
was
told
to
cut
lessons
about
Plato
because
of
policies
limiting
discussions
of
race
and
gender. -
University
of
Houston
recently
has
issued
“guidelines”
(admin
law
professors
—
is
it
a
guideline
if
it
is
mandatory?)
that
require
faculty
to
conduct
review
of
their
courses
and
certify
a
multilayered
self-assessment. It
includes
what
is
essentially
a
pledge
not
to
indoctrinate
students.
Apparently
one
way
UH
Graduate
School
of
Social
Work
has
already
shown
its
commitment
to
avoid
indoctrination
is
by
canceling
a
course
on
“Confronting
oppression
and
injustice.”
With
respect
to
the
University
of
Houston
pledge,
one
can
think
of
a
few
issues. First,
there’s
no
evidence
anywhere
that
faculty
are
doing
anything
of
the
sort:
academic
literature
does
not
support
the
notion
that
faculty
can
indoctrinate
anyone. Second,
and
more
problematic,
is
that
the
pledge
exceeds
what
is
required
by
an
already
oppressive
statute,
SB37. By
requiring
the
pledge,
administration
accuses
the
faculty
of
something
that
isn’t
happening
and
gives
ammo
to
the
people
with
the
flamethrowers. Third,
administrative
sycophantic
overcompliance
by
itself
just
shows
fealty:
Please,
take
our
lunch
money
again! But
it’s
constitutionally
problematic
in
terms
of
how
faculty
and
students
might
be
silenced
given
the
oppressive
atmosphere
this
will
create. Fourth,
genuflecting
to
legislators
who
aura
farm
by
burning
down
higher
education
will
only
lead
to
worse
oppression. To
invoke
Cory
Doctorow,
administration
and
regents
are
engaged
in
the
enshittification
of
Texas
universities.
Whatever
state
university
is
capitulating
for
the
sake
of
bonus
points,
regents
and
administrators
make
clear:
anticipate
legislative
preferences,
self-censor
accordingly,
and
expect
to
be
fired
the
minute
a
student
makes
you
famous. Some
are
deliberately
complicit
with
the
goals
of
those
holding
the
flame-throwers. Some
are
just
people
who
think
if
you
keep
giving
the
bully
lunch
money
you
stop
getting
bullied.
Beyond
that,
the
general
vibe
being
sent
to
faculty
is
to
just
give
up. Because
even
attempting
to
teach
what
you
think
is
required
compels
you
to
enter
a
rube-Goldbergesque
review
process,
as
this
Texas
Tech
chart
shows:
The
TL;DR
of
that
chart:
Give
up
hope.
Law
schools
have
been
(thus
far)
relatively
insulated,
but
I
do
not
expect
that
to
continue. Will
courses
disappear? Will
there
be
risks
to
teaching
employment
discrimination? Are
some
areas
of
Con
Law
dangerous
to
teach
now,
such
as
Bostock
or
Skrmetti?
And
does
one
think
it
will
just
involve
gender? History
shows
us
that
powerful
people
often
come
after
professors. Remember
the
attempt
to
fire
Oklahoma
professors
who
studied
earthquakes
related
to
fracking? And
recent
events
in
Louisiana
related
to
environment
and
“Cancer
Alley”
demonstrate
the
tremendous
pressures
professors
may
face.
Law
School
Accreditation
I
would
be
remiss
if
I
didn’t
mention
that
in
this
attack
on
higher
education
is
another
potential
trap
for
law
schools: The
elimination
of
the
ABA
as
an
accrediting
body. After
four
decades,
the
Texas
Supreme
Court
issued
an
order
that
essentially
eliminates
the
ABA
as
an
accrediting
body
for
Texas
law
schools. The
ABA,
as
an
aside,
has
been
under
attack
by
some,
including
the
FTC
chair,
for
having
“a
long
history
of
leftist
advocacy”
(really?
—
even
the
Antitrust
Section?)
as
well
as
attacks
on
the
Trump-Vance
administration
(namely,
wanting
a
rule
of
law).
I
refuse
to
be
put
in
an
awkward
position
of
defending
a
monopoly
—
one
that,
contrary
to
the
FTC
chair’s
opinion,
does
not
have
a
long
history
of
leftist
anything
(look
up
National
Lawyers
Guild).
But
I
am
concerned
that
as
states
get
on
this
bandwagon
there
will
be
50
monopolies
that
create
labor
market
barriers
greater
than
those
that
already
exist
in
the
legal
profession. Law
schools
seeking
to
comply
with
50
state
requirements would
likely
be
unable
to
do
so.
Why
This
Matters
Beyond
Texas
Texas
is
home
to
flagship
institutions
like
the
University
of
Texas
at
Austin,
Texas
A&M
University,
and
the
University
of
Houston.
When
a
state
as
big
as
Texas
recalibrates
its
relationship
to
academic
governance,
the
effects
ripple
nationally. You
see
those
effects
in
Ohio,
Oklahoma,
Florida,
and
elsewhere. And
not
just
in
“red”
states.
It
affects
students. Faculty
recruitment
becomes
harder.
Out-of-state
scholars
hesitate
to
come
here,
even
for
conferences. Scholars
already
here
seek
to
leave.
You
might
say
“good!” Until
you
realize
that
the
very
people
who
are
destroying
the
system
will
be
the
first
to
send
their
kids
outside
the
system
they
are
destroying.
If
the
goal
is
to
make
Texas
universities
more
politically
compliant,
these
reforms
are
perfectly
designed
to
create
sycophantic,
anti-intellectual
institutions. But
they
replace
institutions
that
were
once
great
halls
of
learning,
research,
and
academic
advancement
of
society.
Texas
has
taken
a
flamethrower
and
destroyed
that,
and
regents
and
university
administrators
seem
all
too
happy
to
help
burn
the
place
down.
There
are
First
Amendment
issues
lurking
here,
particularly
if
enforcement
drifts
into
viewpoint
discrimination
or
retaliation
for
protected
speech.
Public
universities
are
state
actors.
They
cannot
punish
faculty
for
constitutionally
protected
expression. But
it
seems
like
what
Texas
public
universities
are
doing
is
finding
ways
to
fire
faculty
by
making
them
walk
tightropes
of
pledges
and
curriculum
review.
Conclusion:
Goodbye,
Good
Universities
Once
higher
education
becomes
an
arena
for
direct
partisan
restructuring,
every
change
in
political
power
invites
another
structural
overhaul.
Universities
cease
to
be
stabilizing
institutions
and
become
spoils
systems.
That’s
not
reform.
That’s
disaster.
And
I
foresee
the
next
Texas
legislative
session
adding
more
gasoline
to
the
fire.
PS:
I
did
not
list
the
Texas
legislators
who
are
getting
their
kicks
tearing
down
higher
education.
Some
have
been
hired
by
Texas
universities!
I
don’t
help
people
aura
farm
at
the
expense
of
the
public
good.
LawProfBlawg is
an
anonymous law professor.
Follow
him
on X/Twitter/whatever (@lawprofblawg).
He’s
also
on
BlueSky,
Mastodon,
and
Threads
depending
on
his
mood. Email
him
at [email protected].
The
views
of
this
blog
post
do
not
represent
the
views
of
his
employer,
his
employer’s
government,
his
Dean,
his
colleagues,
his
family,
or
himself.