Read more at Texas Tribune.

The Texas A&M University System’s board of regents will vote on Thursday on whether to prohibit faculty at its 12 universities from teaching “race or gender ideology” unless those lessons are pre-approved by each campus president or a delegate.

The proposal appears to be the first time that a Texas public university system offers definitions of what kind of instruction related to race and gender should not be permitted. 

“Race ideology,” the draft of the proposal says, would encompass any concept that “attempts to shame a particular race or ethnicity” or “promotes activism on issues related to race or ethnicity rather than academic instruction.” The proposal would define “gender ideology” as “a concept of self-assessed gender identity replacing, and disconnected from, the biological category of sex.” 

The policy does not say how the university would decide what constitutes “race ideology” or “gender ideology,” or what would happen if a faculty member is accused of violating the rule. A Texas A&M University System spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

The regents’ Committee on Academic and Student Affairs will hear presentations and consider the proposed policy on Thursday morning, according to the agenda for the meeting. The full board of regents will take public testimony on the proposal and vote on it later that day. The meeting will be livestreamed and the public is invited to testify.

Leonard Bright, president of the Texas A&M Chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said faculty were not consulted on the proposed changes, which he called “a direct violation” of their expertise and freedom to teach. 

“And if that’s the case, there’s just going to be a further black eye on higher education here in Texas,” he said.

Robert Shilby, special counsel for campus advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the proposal would “invite unlawful censorship, chill academic freedom, and undermine the core purpose of a university,”

“Hiring professors with PhDs is meaningless if administrators are the ones deciding what gets taught,” he said. “Faculty will start asking not, ‘Is this accurate?’ but ‘Will this get me in trouble?’ That’s not education, it’s risk management.”

In a Monday email to faculty, Simon North, interim dean of Texas A&M’s College of Arts and Sciences, acknowledged that the proposal raised many questions about its implementation, “such as the criteria that will determine when course content is considered relevant, controversial, or inconsistent with a syllabus; the mechanisms by which course material would be approved and compliance evaluated; and the timing of implementation.” He added that he is working with the provost’s office to answer those questions and that he will seek input on the proposal from other leaders in the college and department heads. 

“Approval of these revisions could have far-reaching implications for undergraduate education, and the scope of the implications will depend on the answers to these questions,” North said.

Faculty are already signaling they will show up in force to the regents’ meeting to push back against the proposal. Bright, a professor at Texas A&M’s Bush School of Government and Public Service, said professors are organizing testimony, drafting statements and coordinating with colleagues across Texas to oppose the revisions. 

He said the policy would affect disciplines across the university — from political science and history to public service and biology — and that some faculty fear it would shift control over classroom content from faculty to administrators. He added that some of his colleagues believe the revisions are an attempt to “institutionalize indoctrination” and that if the proposed changes are approved, they will likely be challenged in court.

The proposed prohibition comes two months after the system’s College Station flagship fired Professor Melissa McCoul, whose discussion of gender identity in a children’s literature class was secretly recorded by a student and later circulated online, drawing fire from Republican lawmakers and ultimately toppling the university’s former president. 

Since McCoul’s firing, other university systems have begun imposing their own restrictions on classroom content. 

On Sept. 25, the Texas Tech University System instructed its faculty to ensure their courses comply with a federal executive order, a letter from Gov. Greg Abbott and a new state law that recognizes only two sexes. In the weeks that followed, Texas’ other public university systems — including the University of Texas, University of North Texas, Texas State and Texas Woman’s University — announced or began internal audits of their course offerings. All said they were acting to ensure compliance with state or federal law, though few detailed what they were looking for or what changes might follow. 

No state or federal law prohibits instruction on race, gender or sexual orientation in universities. However, recent state legislation has put direct and indirect pressure on how universities implement policies related to race and gender. 

In 2023, the Texas Legislature approved Senate Bill 17, which banned diversity, equity and inclusion offices and initiatives at the state’s public universities. Earlier this year, lawmakers approved Senate Bill 37, which gave governor-appointed university regents the final say on whether to approve new courses and prohibited lessons that “advocate or promote the idea that any race, sex, or ethnicity or any religious belief is inherently superior to any other.” An earlier version of the legislation would have required that college courses “not endorse specific public policies, ideologies or legislation,” but the proposal was narrowed down after pushback from professors who said such a restriction would lead to self-censorship and infringe on academic freedom. 

The Texas A&M Board of Regents will also consider on Thursday a new policy that would bar faculty from teaching material “inconsistent with the approved syllabus for the course.” The clause mirrors the reason university officials gave McCoul for firing her. They said she refused to change her course content to match the catalog description, but McCoul and other faculty have countered that course descriptions are often broad and that professors are expected to design their own syllabi and teach according to their expertise.

McCoul has appealed her termination through the university’s Committee on Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure, which concluded its hearing last week. The committee is expected to share a recommendation with interim university President Tommy Williams in the coming weeks on how to respond to McCoul’s appeal, but Williams is not obligated to follow it.