
Texas Senate to consider bill that could reshape how history and race are taught in universities
Texas senators could vote this week on a bill that would drastically limit how the state's public universities teach their students about history, race and inequality.
Senate Bill 37 would also create a way to file complaints about universities that higher ed experts say could threaten their funding and create a profound chilling effect.
'I really hope people are paying attention because there's some pretty high-stakes gambles we're taking,' said Neal Hutchens, a professor at the University of Kentucky's College of Education, about the proposed legislation.
Hutchens reviewed SB 37 when it was first filed last month and after its author, Sen. Brandon Creighton, filed an extensive rewrite of the legislation last week that included significant differences from the original version of the bill. The public was not invited to comment on the revamped legislation, which was quickly voted out of the Texas Senate's K-16 Education Committee last week.
Here are some of the most notable changes to the bill and what they might look like in practice.
Control over curricula
An earlier version of the bill would have required each system's board of regents to create committees to review curricula every year and ensure courses did 'not endorse specific public policies, ideologies or legislation.' Texas professors criticized that provision as being too vague.
'Could teaching about the existence of LGBTQ people in the American past be considered promoting an 'ideology' of gender and sexual non-discrimination? There is no end to the topics that could be censored because political leaders consider them to be ideological in nature,' said Lauren Gutterman, who teaches history at the University of Texas at Austin, in written testimony the American Association of University Professors submitted to the committee last month. Gutterman said she was writing in her capacity as a private citizen.
If the current version of SB 37 passes both the Senate and House, the boards would instead screen courses every five years to ensure they 'do not distort significant historical events'; they do not teach that one race is superior or bears personal or collective responsibility for the actions committed by other individuals of the same race; and they are not based 'on a theory that racism, sexism, oppression, or privilege is inherent in the institutions of the United States or this state or was created to maintain social, political or economic inequalities.'
Hutchens said this language could have been inspired by Florida's Stop the Woke Act or model legislation provided by conservative nonprofit policy groups that focus on higher education, like the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal in North Carolina.
'I certainly didn't see this as necessarily addressing the concerns that faculty had raised regarding the original bill,' Hutchens said.
SB 37 would also create a statewide committee that would evaluate which core curricula at public universities are 'foundational' and which could be cut. The committee would be formed by three appointees from the governor, two from the lieutenant governor and two from the speaker of the House of Representatives. The bill doesn't require that any members be students, faculty or university administrators. The commissioner of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board would serve as an ex-officio member.
This committee would share its findings with the universities' boards of regents by Dec. 1, 2026, and the boards would have to adopt and implement rules based on those findings by 2027.
Tools to report
The original bill would have created a nine-person office to investigate claims that universities have broken state law.
The new version gives that responsibility to an ombudsman within the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. They would investigate compliance with SB 37 as well as laws that put restrictions on free speech activities on campuses and that prohibit university police departments from limiting the enforcement of immigration laws, among others. Notably, it adds that any person can file a report as long as they provide sufficient information to follow up on the claim.
Hutchens worried this could lead to a 'tsunami of meritless complaints' or the targeting of individual faculty members.
'It could undercut academic freedom and it could be another reason that you see Texas colleges, universities, the public ones, become not as desirable for people, for that really, really top talent to pursue positions,' he said.
If the ombudsman determines a university is not complying with the law and it does not resolve the issue within 30 days, they could refer it to the Attorney General's Office, which could sue the university to compel it to comply with the law or recommend to the Legislature that the institution's state funds be withheld.
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board does not currently have an ombudsman position. Right now, the agency is responsible for reviewing complaints from students related to tuition and fees.
Faculty, hiring limitations
Creighton and other Republicans have previously criticized what they see as faculty's excessive influence in university decisions that they say should rest with the board of regents.
SB 37 initially proposed only allowing tenured professors to join the faculty bodies that advise university administrators on some curricular and academic issues — known as faculty councils and senates. Creighton struck out that requirement, but added that members who use their position for 'personal political advocacy' could be immediately removed.
This comes after Angie Hill Price, the speaker of the faculty senate at Texas A&M University, testified in opposition to SB 37 last month.
'I am very concerned how this bill will impact us because we're not broken,' she said during her testimony last month.
She added that there is a lot of evidence to show that the faculty senate at the flagship university has contributed to its successes, including being one of the first institutions to top more than $1 billion in research expenditures.
'All this has happened with the faculty senate directly involved with enhancing the curriculum and working with our students to improve their experience both inside and outside the classroom,' Hill Price said.
SB 37 also initially proposed the board of regents should be responsible for hiring anyone in a leadership position. The new version of the bill would allow presidents to hire these individuals, but they must not delegate the responsibility to anyone else and the board can overrule their decisions.
Typically, leadership positions like deans are hired by their universities' presidents after a search committee composed of faculty, staff and students vets the candidates.
Emphasis on job readiness
The new version of SB 37 also borrows ideas from other pending legislation that aims to phase out degree programs that don't clearly provide a return on investment for students, who sometimes take on large amounts of debt to complete them.
It would give the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board the power to review and rate programs every five years, and universities would not be able to continue using state money in programs that receive unfavorable ratings or enroll students in them.
The value of a degree has been under renewed scrutiny in recent years as loan debts increase and enrollment decreases at universities across the nation.
Although Texas is not experiencing the latter, lawmakers are right to criticize colleges for not doing more to connect students to careers after graduation, said Josh Wyner, vice president of the Aspen Institute.
But Wyner said Texas should be cautious when making decisions about what programs to target. Students who are pursuing philosophy undergraduate degrees don't typically become philosophers — they become lawyers and social workers after getting advanced degrees, he said.
'We have to be careful that we don't legislate out credentials that actually will have labor market value or value to society,' he said.
___
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
31 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A Trump family project spurs resignations and a criminal charge in Serbia
Advertisement In November, one week after Trump won reelection, the Serbian government greased the skids by declaring that the site — a bombed-out building that serves as an icon to Serbians' suffering during a 1999 conflict — was no longer considered a culturally protected asset. That paved the way for the Trump family project. Dozens of architects and cultural historians at the state-run Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments cried foul, accusing the government of violating the law. Several days after the government's decision, they fired off a letter saying the property's status as an 'immovable cultural property' could be revoked only if a team of the institute's experts approved it. And they hadn't. 'From the beginning, we knew it was a political decision,' said Estela Radonjic Zivkov, the institute's former deputy director. She said she was pressured by state intelligence officers not to challenge the government on this case, a clear sign of Serbian leaders' intense interest in the project. She did so anyway. Advertisement Now, seven months later, the Trump family project has become both a Serbian scandal and a glaring example of just how far a foreign government was willing to go to further the financial interests of Trump's family. And it underscores recurring concerns that the family's business dealings have become harder to separate from Trump's official decisions. Serbian college students who have been leading mass protests against Aleksandar Vucic, the country's strongman president, have seized on the development as an example of what they see as their government's corrupt ways. In late March, thousands demonstrated at the site. Last month, they and other critics celebrated a surprise victory. Serbia's organized crime prosecutor charged Goran Vasic, Zivkov's boss and the director of the cultural institute, with abuse of power. The prosecutor's office said Vasic had admitted falsifying a document to justify stripping the site of its protected status. No one knows how far the inquiry will go. But one question that has been publicly raised is whether Sinisa Mali, Serbia's powerful finance minister, pressured cultural heritage officials to either back the project or resign. Mali has ties to the White House through Richard Grenell, a longtime Trump ally and the current envoy for special missions. Mali has declined to comment on the project, citing the continuing investigation. Affinity Partners, Kushner's company, says the deal is under review. Vucic has minimized the criminal inquiry, saying that 'there was not any kind of forgery.' Advertisement Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, has said that 'everything President Trump does is to benefit the American people.' Vucic's office did not respond to a request for comment, but the Serbian leader said last year that he 'died laughing' at the notion that 'I used this for political influence on Trump.' As far back as 2013, Donald Trump was eyeballing the Belgrade site for a hotel. The idea arose again in his first term as president. Grenell, who then was Trump's troubleshooter for the fractious relationship between Serbia and Kosovo, encouraged Serbian leaders to consider redeveloping the site with American investment. After Trump lost reelection in 2020, Grenell urged Kushner to take up the project and served as an early intermediary. Grenell met with the Serbian president in 2022 and 2023 and posted images of himself on social media with Mali in 2021. Grenell could not be reached for comment. By May 2024, the Serbian government struck a deal with a company affiliated with Kushner. It agreed to give the developers a 99-year, no-cost lease that could be converted to ownership, also free of charge, according to a draft agreement reviewed by The New York Times. In return for contributing the land, the Serbian government will receive 22 percent of the development's profits, according to people familiar with the deal. There was a hitch: The Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments wasn't going along. Dubravka Djukanovic, an architect and college professor who led the institute, was opposed to changing the site's protected status. In an interview, she said the complex, which was designed by a renowned Serbian modernist architect, should instead be restored and put to public use. Advertisement Last June, she said, she was summoned to a meeting with Mali. Olivera Vuckovic, director of a parallel city institute, was also summoned, according to a person familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of job repercussions. Mali had a blunt message, that person said: Get behind the project or resign. Djukanovic said she swiftly resigned because of the meeting with Mali, but she declined to give further details because of the investigation. Vuckovic could not be reached for comment. The issue simmered for another six months, until after Trump won reelection. On Nov. 14, the Serbian government announced it had revoked the site's protected status. At the cultural institute, Zivkov, then the deputy director, said the staff immediately got to work on a letter saying that the government had 'grossly violated the Law on Cultural Heritage.' If the government trampled its own law in this case, the letter said, 'any cultural property that inconveniences an investor or poses a political or other obstacle may be erased in the same way.' It is unclear whether it was the letter from the institute's staff that prompted the criminal investigation. The institute's director was temporarily detained for questioning, then charged with abuse of power in mid-May. He has not yet appeared in court. Ian Brekke, the top lawyer for Affinity Partners, flew to Belgrade right after that news broke, according to a person familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe confidential business matters. Serbian officials told him the controversy boiled down to a simple administrative error, the person said, but Kushner's team is still assessing the situation. Advertisement This article originally appeared in .


The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Attorneys get more time to argue over contested copper mine on land sacred to Apaches
A U.S. district judge in Arizona has opened the door for the next round of legal wrangling as environmentalists and some Native Americas seek to stop the federal government from transferring land in Arizona for a massive copper mining project. Judge Dominic Lanza in a ruling issued Monday denied motions that sought to halt the transfer pending the outcome of the case. However, he did preclude the U.S. Forest Service from proceeding with the land exchange until 60 days after the agency issues a required environmental review. Lanza said that would give the parties more time to analyze the environmental report and file amended complaints. He said granting a preliminary injunction now would be premature since the review will differ in some ways from the one that spurred the legal challenge four years ago. 'It is unfortunate that the result of this order will be to force the parties to engage in another stressful, abbreviated round of briefing and litigation activity' when the new review is issued, he said, acknowledging the unusual circumstances. Attorneys for the federal government and the mining company agreed during a recent hearing to the 60-day delay. That time frame also is specified in the legislation that Congress passed and then-President Barack Obama signed in 2014 authorizing the exchange. The group Apache Stronghold, the San Carlos Apache Tribe and others welcomed more time to fight for Oak Flat, an area they consider as holy. 'In this critical moment, we call on the Trump administration and Congress to halt the transfer to a Chinese-owned mine, and honor what is sacred,' said Wendsler Nosie Sr., leader of Apache Stronghold. 'As we continue to fight in court, know this: Nothing will turn us away from defending the spiritual essence of our people, the lifeblood that connects us to the creator and this land.' A statement from Resolution Cooper said the ruling is consistent with prior decisions and gives the parties time to review the final environmental impact statement that will be issued later this month. 'We are confident the project satisfies all applicable legal requirements,' said Resolution president and general manager Vicky Peacey. She added that years of consultation with tribes and communities resulted in changes to the mining plan to reduce potential effects. The fight over Oak Flat dates back about 20 years, when legislation proposing the land exchange was first introduced. It failed repeatedly in Congress before being included in a must-pass national defense spending bill in 2014. San Carlos Apache Chairman Terry Rambler said Monday that the bill was not in the best interest of the American people, Arizona or his tribe. He said concerns persist about the mine's use of groundwater and the pending obliteration of the culturally significant site. Apache Stronghold and the tribe sued the U.S. government in 2021 to protect the place tribal members call Chi'chil Bildagoteel, which is dotted with ancient oak groves and traditional plants the Apaches consider essential to their religion. The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected an appeal by the Apache group, letting lower court rulings stand. The project has support in nearby Superior and other traditional mining towns in the area. The company — a subsidiary of international mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP — estimates the mine will generate $1 billion a year for Arizona's economy and create thousands of jobs.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why The Planes Russia Lost In Ukraine's Drone Strike Are Such A Big Deal
Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) carried out a massive drone strike against Russia's military on June 1, specifically targeting the invading power's so-called strategic aircraft. These are amongst the most precious assets Russia has, and their loss represents a significant blow not just to the country's pride, but it's actual combat strength. That these attack were conducted so far inside of Russian territory doesn't merely add insult to injury, it massively expands the scope of its vulnerability. Codenamed Spiderweb, the Ukrainian operation involved smuggling 150 first-person view (FPV) drones into Russia, which were then hidden within the roofs of wooden cabins. The cabins were then hauled off by cargo trucks by hired Russian drivers who had no idea they'd become accomplices in a strike against their own country. Once those trucks were parked near the target airbases [Kyiv Post], the roofs were remotely opened, allowing the drones to leap out and kamikaze themselves into the parked planes. Reports indicate that a total of 117 drones assaulted four airbases across the breadth of Russia, damaging or destroying 41 aircraft. While this operation doesn't necessarily change the immediate situation on the ground of the war, it will leave a lasting impact on Russia and, very possibly, the future of warfare. It's a pretty big deal. Read more: These Are The Cheap Cars That Consumer Reports Actually Recommends Buying There are a lot of claims flying around about what planes exactly got hit, not all of which have been verified. Thus far, it seems like the losses definitely include Tupolev Tu-95s (pictured), Tupolev Tu22Ms, and Beriev A-50s. Tu-95s (called "Bears" by NATO) are relics from the 1950s; they don't even use jets, just old-school propellers. Roughly comparable to an American B-52, it is a slow but sturdy heavy bomber. The Tu-22M (called "Backfires") is also a heavy bomber, but has the distinction of being supersonic, capable of flying over Mach 3. They are both capable of firing cruise missiles, and in fact have done so throughout the Russo-Ukrainian War. Critically, they are also nuclear-capable, making them a central part of Russia's claim to superpower status. A-50s (called "Mainstays"), meanwhile, are airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) planes, analogous to the American E-3 AWACS. These are basically flying radar stations, able to detect enemy planes at vast distances and then coordinate friendly aircraft in the ensuing battle. Without them, fighters and bombers have to rely on their own (puny) on-board radar systems. If Russia ever wants to win an air battle, it needs its A-50s. There's a saying that fighter pilots make movies, but bomber pilots make history. Strategic bombers are the planes that can deliver huge payloads into a wide area, causing immense devastation. They're how you take out, say, an entire enemy military base. They are also one leg of the so-called nuclear triad, the name of the three ways one country can nuke another: By intercontinental ballistic missile (the big ones in the silos), by submarine, or, in this case, by strat bomber. To be a major global military power, you have to have a vast fleet of strat bombers. Without them, while you still might be able to conduct smaller strikes against smaller targets, you won't be able to seriously threaten hardened installations from the air, and your nuclear strike capability is curtailed. Operation Spiderweb, therefore, hasn't simply been "another" Ukrainian attack; it has struck a direct blow to Russia's ability to project military force at significant scale. That's bad enough for Russia on its own merits. But it's actually worse than it seems. So Russia has lost some important bombers. Surely, it will just replace them, right? Well, the country has just one small problem: It can't. The Tu-95 and Tu-22M are not even in production anymore, given that they are both Cold War relics. Russia's modern(ish) strat bomber is the supersonic Tu-160 (called "Blackjack", pictured), somewhat similar to America's B-1B Lancer. The catch is that Russia hasn't actually built a Tu-160 in years, and it won't be cheap or easy to get production back up and running again. That means the planes that Ukraine destroyed weren't just blows, but permanent blows. The little country has materially weakened the bigger one, not just for this war, but for the foreseeable future. By how much? According to Ukraine, Operation Spiderweb took out a whopping 34% of Russia's entire bomber fleet. One-third. Of its entire bomber fleet. That can't be replaced. To be fair, it's not yet clear how many of these planes were merely damaged, not destroyed. Some of them will likely be repaired. Then again, there are also unconfirmed reports that Spiderweb also hit some of the precious Tu-160s. If those are also getting taken out, Russia's biggest, most expensive, most devastating planes are getting bombed back into the stone age... by cheap drones. A Tu-160 heavy bomber costs about $500 million. A first-person view (FPV) drone, like the ones Ukraine used in Spiderweb, costs somewhere around $500. FPV drones are designed to be remote piloted using VR goggles so that you can see exactly what the drone sees, unlike more conventional camera drones that you might watch through your phone. This gives the operator a much more detailed view of where the drone is flying, making them a good choice for racing, exploring or, well, blowing up the nuclear strike capability of a major world power. Once smuggled into Russia in wooden cabins hauled by unsuspecting Russian truck drivers, the drones were controlled remotely by Ukraine's operatives via Russia's own 4G and LTE cell phone services. Good thing those airbases had excellent reception (or bad thing, if you're Russian). As kamikaze drones strapped with explosives, all the operators had to do was fly them straight at the strat bombers' most vulnerable points, and then, boom. For what it's worth, immediately after the attack, Russia claimed that it had captured these operators. Ukrainian officials found that interesting, as they replied by saying all the operators were already safely back in their home country. Operation Spiderweb may well be looked back on as a turning point in the development of warfare. The fact that a global world power's nuclear bombers, some of the most important and expensive assets it has, can be successfully destroyed by a couple of cheap drones signals a sea-change in the balance of combat power. Generally speaking, warplanes were considered broadly safe once parked back at their airbase; that's clearly no longer the case. Countries may have to start investing in hardened aircraft shelters, which will be hugely expensive at scale; simply slapping car tires on the bombers clearly isn't enough. In other words, military aircraft are now getting even more expensive to field, while cheap drones are only getting more capable. Meanwhile, on June 4, just three days after Operation Spiderweb, Ukraine's Military Intelligence (HUR) conducted a successful cyberattack against the United Aircraft Company, the manufacturer of the Tu-160 bomber and many other Russian planes. HUR made off with 4.4 gigabytes of classified information, leaving only one thing behind: a graphic image of a Russian plane being snatched by a (presumably Ukrainian) owl. First, strike the bombers; then, strike the bomber manufacturer. All with non-conventional weaponry. Traditional views of military hardpower are being upended by the creativity and heroism of Ukraine's defenders. The future of our world may depend on how other countries, including America, adapt to these lessons. Not surprisingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin has vowed to retaliate for Ukraine's daring attack. Indeed, on June 7, Russia launched a huge drone and missile strike across Ukraine, hitting the cities of Kyiv, Chernihiv, Lutsk, and others. On June 9, it then launched its single largest drone attack of the entire war; critically, it targeted an airbase far from the border, thus mirroring Spiderweb in that way. Still, let's be clear: "Single largest drone attack of the entire war" means 479 drones, or just nine more than the previous record-holding strike on May 31, before Spiderweb even happened. In other words, Russia is throwing everything it has at Ukraine on a weekly basis anyway; at least so far, its "retaliations" have been just another day at the office. Putin's war has been so brutal that there may not be much more he can really do. In the meantime, the ground war grinds on. Peace talks between the two sides in Istanbul continue, so far without much to show for it. The question for Putin is how much of a price he's willing to pay to keep the war going, in exchange for what gains. Spiderweb changes that calculus dramatically. Whether a dictator cares remains to be seen. Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox... Read the original article on Jalopnik.