When the UT System Board of Regents meets this Wednesday and Thursday, they will vote on a proposal that will fundamentally reshape how hundreds of thousands of students across University of Texas academic and medical institutions encounter “controversial” topics. If passed, the proposal will give university administrators new authority to determine what subjects are taught, how they are taught and what topics must be excluded entirely from higher education.
The proposal comes in the wake of months of political pressure concerning how Texas universities teach race, gender and sexuality. Texas A&M eliminated its women’s and gender studies programs in late January. And here in the UT system, UT Austin announced last month it will consolidate seven liberal arts departments, including African and African Diaspora Studies, Mexican American and Latino Studies and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies, impacting more than 800 students pursuing majors, minors and graduate degrees.
This system-wide policy proposal, titled “Expectations of Academic Integrity and Standards for Teaching Controversial Topics,” describes teaching as a “solemn covenant” while imposing new constraints on faculty. It requires instructors to “fairly present differing views and scholarly evidence on reasonably disputed matters,” “eschew topics and controversies that are not germane to the course,” and “avoid introducing undisclosed material that is not clearly relevant.”
On its face, the language appears measured. But critics warn the policy’s vagueness — made manifest in phrases like “reasonably disputed matters” and “unnecessary controversial subjects” — creates a chilling effect that will ripple through classrooms from El Paso to Dallas.
“The policy restricts the freedom of instructors to respond to student questions on past and current events, bring new breakthroughs and innovations into the course and challenge students to think about what could happen in the future,” the American Association of University Professors Texas chapter said in a Monday press release. “In order for students to have the freedom to learn, instructors need the freedom to teach.”
A template courtesy of College Station
The UT System is not charting new territory. It is following a path laid out by the Texas A&M university system, which implemented similar restrictions beginning this spring semester.
The results at A&M have been swift, and to critics, alarming. According to reporting from the Texas Tribune, its “controversial topics” policy has led to a graduate-level ethics and public policy course on race and ethnicity being canceled three weeks into the semester; the cancellation of an introductory sociology course; a communication course on religion and the arts renumbered and stripped of its core curriculum status; and a philosophy professor directed to remove Plato readings related to race and gender from a core course.
Leonard Bright told the Texas Tribune that race, gender and sexuality were common things that would be discussed in his canceled ethics and public policy course, because that topic is a natural part of the readings and discussions a graduate-level course like this includes. Bright said that telling university administrators this was not enough for their approval.
“I want us to continue to teach hard topics and to engage with controversial issues,” Dean John Sherman wrote in an email to Bright. “But I also expect us to follow the process laid out for the approval of syllabi and to ensure alignment between our syllabi and our course descriptions. Put simply, transparency does not equal censorship.”
I want us to continue to teach hard topics and to engage with controversial issues. Put simply, transparency does not equal censorship.
— John Sherman, Texas A&M Dean
Texas A&M is also leading the push to use artificial intelligence to audit and rewrite course content related to race and gender. Professors at the university used AI to cut out words administrators flagged as “signalling advocacy” from their syllabi so the courses could be taught this semester. These “advocacy” terms included “value diversity,” “embrace activism,” and “commit to change.”
Legal shadows: Keyishian and the First Amendment
The UT System’s proposal arrives with a specific citation. It invokes Regents Rule 31004: “Faculty members are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing his or her subject.” But that freedom, the policy argues, “must be balanced by a faculty member’s responsibility.”
Civil liberties experts point to a landmark Supreme Court case that speaks directly to these questions. In Keyishian v. Board of Regents, the Court struck down New York state laws requiring educators to sign loyalty oaths and avoid “treasonable or seditious speech,” ruling them unconstitutionally vague. Keyishian remains in effect today.
Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice William Brennan declared that academic freedom is “a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.” The classroom, he wrote, is “peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas.'”
Critics of the University of Texas’ proposal, including the Texas branch of AAUP, argue its undefined phrases create precisely the kind of chilling effect Keyishian forbids.
“The proposed policy is a continuation of the unconstitutional violation of instructors’ right to academic freedom as recognized by the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Keyishian,” AAUP Texas wrote in its press release.
‘The entire point of higher education’
For students at UTD, the policy raises urgent questions about what they will be allowed to learn and who decides it.
David Baker, neuroscience junior and Student Government vice president, said the proposal will set an incredibly dangerous precedent within the classroom if approved.
“The entire point of an institute of higher education is to be a place where people experience all kinds of ideas, whether they’re comfortable or not,” Baker said. “Limiting the topics of conversation to stop ‘controversial’ discourse is a very, very slippery slope to further restricting freedom of speech across the board.”
Business analytics sophomore Nivedah Maniv said she was particularly concerned by how the sweeping terminology of the proposal could stop students from learning about different viewpoints and current events.
“For example, in my Business Law class, we discussed current news, what’s going on, current trials and so forth,” Maniv said. “If current events are seen as controversial, we wouldn’t be able to discuss them at all. Professors would be scared to even bring it up. A lot of times what’s going on in our world is very polarizing, and if we can’t talk about it or discuss it, then it definitely will take a toll. We should for example be able to talk about queer people, trans people and Palestinians because their lives matter and shouldn’t just be erased from classes.”
If current events are seen as controversial, we wouldn’t be able to discuss them at all. Professors would be scared to even bring it up. We should for example be able to talk about queer people, trans people and Palestinians because their lives matter and shouldn’t just be erased from classes.
— Nivedah Maniv, Business analytics sophomore
Neuroscience senior and SG president Giana Abraham said during her time as an Archer Fellow, she learned just how important civic freedom is, and that this is not it. Abraham said she is concerned the proposed policy will require instructors to avoid topics that can be deemed controversial or irrelevant to a course to ensure “balance,” but what constitutes “germane” or “balanced” remains undefined — leaving instructors to guess what might draw scrutiny.
“Civil discourse is absolutely a cornerstone of the conversations and growth we have as college students,” Abraham said. “Having these conversations is something that is absolutely essential to being a normal member of society in the future. I am concerned that the vagueness of this communication will make it so that key parts of the college experience, being challenged, meeting others and learning new things, simply never happen.”
Silence and uncertainty
At UTD, where approximately 30,000 students navigate a campus known for its STEM focus and growing arts and humanities programs, the proposed policy lands in a context of recent institutional silence. For students, the policy’s timing — coming mere days after UT Austin’s consolidation announcement — feels deliberate.
“I think this is all bad,” SG Webmaster and computer science senior Farhan Iqbal said.
Others were more direct. “Fuck the UT Regents,” computer science junior Joe Su said.
Maniv said that the chilling effects may already be visible, even if the policy hasn’t yet passed.
“I’ve heard a lot of my peers and also other professors talk about censorship; how they’re scared of including controversial topics, especially with the Internet making anyone go viral,” Maniv said. “I shouldn’t keep hearing how professors in other schools keep having their free speech limited, and I certainly don’t want to hear it here.”
I shouldn’t keep hearing how professors in other schools keep having their free speech limited, and I certainly don’t want to hear it here.
— Nivedah Maniv
Maniv pointed to an incident from her freshman year involving a teaching assistant as an example of ideological censorship on campus.
“One of my TAs was under investigation recently for his involvement with the pro-Palestinian protest movement on campus,” Maniv said. “That’s scary because the faculty can’t have a voice. It isn’t right that just because they work with the school, their voice is stripped. It’s unfair. They should be able to protest and express themselves.”
What happens Thursday
The Board of Regents meeting begins Feb. 18. Item 6 on the agenda, carrying the recommendation of the Chancellor and the Executive Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, asks for the board’s approval of the controversial topics proposal.
If approved, the policy will take effect across all UT System institutions including UTD, UT Arlington, UT Austin, UT Rio Grande Valley, UT San Antonio, UT Tyler, UT Permian Basin, UT El Paso and the system’s health institutions.
“With the political polarization of so many topics that I view as human rights — for example, trans issues, LGBTQ issues, the Palestinian genocide —I think this vague wording will definitely limit and hinder college students’ ability to learn,” Maniv said. “And I think that’s really scary. All of us should be aware of this.”
This is a breaking news story. The Retrograde will provide more details as new information emerges.