
Texas Governor Signs Bill That Throttles Public University Senates
Texas has passed a wide-ranging law that greatly diminishes the size, influence and independence of the faculty senates at its public colleges and universities.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 37 into law on June 22, the deadline for him to sign or veto legislation. The Texas State Legislature had passed the bill on May 31 after it went through several revisions.
The new law, authored by Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, contains several elements that significantly strengthen the power of university governing boards and central administrators over the curriculum, hiring of university personnel, program review and other academic matters. It becomes effective September 1.
It also strips away much of the authority that duly constituted faculty bodies have held under the traditional norms of shared governance and shifts it to the political appointees who constitute institutional governing boards.
For example, administrators and boards often have deferred to faculty opinon about general education requirements, but in Texas, that might no longer be the case because under the new law, a governing board 'may reserve the right to overturn any decision made by the institution regarding any changes to the general education curriculum.'
The legislation also creates a new "Office of the Ombudsman' within the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Appointed by the governor, that office will have the power to investigate allegations that universities are not following the dictates of SB 37 and other legislative requirements, and it can threaten their funding if they don't comply with the law.
However, it's the law's new constraints on the composition and role of faculty senates that have generated some of the most heated debate between opponents and proponents. Here are six ways that faculty senates at Texas institutions will be affected by the new law.
According to the new law, "only the governing board of an institution of higher education may establish a faculty council or senate at the institution." If a board decided to do away with such a body, the law appears to permit it. If a board decides to authorize a faculty senate, it alone has the power to define how members are selected, consistent with other provisions summarized below.
A governing board must ensure that the senate ensures adequate representation of faculty from each college at the institution, but unless the board decides otherwise, the law sets the maximum number of senate members at 60, with at least two representatives coming from each college or school at an institution.
Of those 60, the bill requires that, of the two representatives from each college or school, one member is appointed by the president or chief executive officer of the institution, with 'the remaining members elected by a vote of the faculty of the member's respective college or school.'
In addition, the law gives a university's president or chief executive officer the power to appoint a senate's presiding officer, associate presiding officer, and secretary. And, under the new law, it's the president who gets to specify how an institution's senate conducts its meetings.
SB 37 sets different term limits for faculty senate members, depending on whether they were elected or presidentially appointed. Presidential appointees are permitted to serve six consecutive years before having to take a break for two years, but elected members are permitted to serve only two years before having to take the required two-year break.
Faculty can have their senate membership removed at any time. According to the bill, faculty members could be be immediately removed from a senate for 'failing to conduct the member's responsibilities within the council's or senate's parameters, failing to attend council or senate meetings, or engaging in other similar misconduct.'
In addition, they 'may be removed on recommendation of the institution's provost and approval by the institution's president or chief executive officer.'
According to the bill a faculty senate 'is advisory only and may not be delegated the final decision-making authority on any matter.' In addition, a faculty senate 'may not issue any statement or publish a report using the institution's official seal, trademark, or resources funded by the institution on any matter not directly related to the council's or senate's duties to advise the institution administration.'
Not surprisingly, the new law has generated a wide range of reactions. Supporters contend it will help end what they believe is the liberal bias of higher education faculty.
Creighton, SB 37's author, insists the measure was necessary to increase transparency and end faculty's politicalization of universities.
"For too long, unelected faculty senates have operated behind closed doors, steering curriculum decisions, influencing institutional policy, issuing political statements to divest from Israel, and even organizing votes of 'no confidence' that undermine public trust," he said. "SB 37 reaffirms that the authority belongs to the board of regents so that our universities can stay focused on what matters: educating students, conducting research and preparing the next generation of Texas leaders."
A National Review columnist agreed, claiming, 'it is the professors and their fundamental disconnect from reality that are leading higher education astray. By freeing Texas schools from the grip of zealous faculty members, S.B. 37 can serve as a model for other states facing left-wing radicalism.'
Critics, however, contend that the law represents big government overreach, undermines shared governance, increases partisan political influence, and jeopardizes academic freedom.
Brian Evans, president of the Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors, said SB 37 "imperils the foundations of our higher education system and threatens Texas' ability to recruit and retain faculty at the head of their fields, as well as students driven to learn and engage critically with complex subjects. SB 37 will put what we teach in the hands of political appointees rather than in the hands of faculty who have studied these subjects and understand their nuances. The passage of SB 37 is a dark day for Texas colleges and universities, with many more to come."
Attempts to strip faculty senates of their influence have become an increasingly popular strategy among conservative legislators in other states, and some university presidents have even led the charge at their institutions. However, Texas's sweeping new law may represent the most aggressive state attempt yet to throttle the role of faculty in university shared governance. That's been an oft-stated goal of several of the state's elected officials, including Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.
As a former university president, I appreciate how frustrating the pace and the debates of faculty senates can sometimes be. But like many other administrators, I also learned how the collective voice of faculty members elected by their peers could frequently contribute to better decision-making in the long run. Texas may now have a chance to learn that same lesson.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
SoftBank and Trump may not be enough to save Intel
Intel's (INTC) stock got a boost on Tuesday after SoftBank Group announced Monday that it would take a $2 billion stake in the struggling chipmaker. Shares of Intel climbed more than 8% in midday trading. The news followed a Bloomberg report last week that the Trump administration is considering taking up to a 10% stake in the company. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed in a CNBC interview Tuesday that the investment would involve the US government converting Intel's grants from the Biden-era CHIPS and Science Act — worth $10.9 billion — into an equity stake aimed at stabilizing the company's US manufacturing business. Bessent did not confirm the size of the stake the government would take. Intel has fallen behind in an industry it once dominated. Its manufacturing division is bleeding cash, just as its legacy computer chip segment forfeits market share to rivals Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Qualcomm (QCOM) in the PC space. Intel is also woefully behind AMD and Nvidia (NVDA) in the AI race. The company's market capitalization of $111 billion is less than half of its value in 2021. And CEO Lip-Bu Tan has been forced to lay off 15% of the company's workforce and shelve plans to build plants in Europe. But the troubled chipmaker is the only large-scale US-based leading-edge chip manufacturer, giving it geopolitical significance as the nation looks to reshore semiconductor production. Intel's problems, however, may be too big for either SoftBank or the Trump administration to solve on their own. Intel in need of direction Deutsche Bank analyst Ross Seymore said news of the US potentially taking a stake in Intel, combined with the SoftBank investment, shows that "[Tan] is taking bold actions to solidify Intel's financial and strategic positioning during its ongoing difficult transformation process." Tan became CEO in March after Intel's board ousted former CEO Pat Gelsinger late last year. But others on Wall Street expressed skepticism that those investments would be enough to save Intel from its decline, which resulted from years of missteps. Loop Capital analyst Gary Mobley wrote in a recent note to clients that the support from SoftBank and, potentially, the US government may be "akin to a lifeline with no secure anchor at the other end," because while Intel may be "finding new buyers of its primary equity capital," that may not guarantee it can find customers for its manufacturing business. Gelsinger established Intel's third-party chip manufacturing business, otherwise known as its Foundry, in 2021 as a means of competing with rival TSMC, which produces chips for companies including Nvidia, Apple (AAPL), AMD, and others. But so far, its Foundry business has been a disappointment, struggling to secure customers. While Intel has said it reached agreements to build chips for Amazon (AMZN) and Microsoft (MSFT), the company is still its own largest manufacturing client. Intel's plan includes building chips based on newer technologies, including its 18A and upcoming 14A node design processes, part of Gelsinger's plan for five process nodes in four years. But 18A, which was initially supposed to roll out in the first half of 2025, is now slated to debut in 2026. Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon was similarly critical of Intel's cash infusion in his own investor note, writing, "We do not believe that Intel's capability gap has anything to do with money." Rasgon also questioned whether the US taking a stake in Intel would be enough to complete the company's domestic manufacturing expansions. "Intel was originally supposed to get these CHIPS Act funds for free; giving up 10% of the company for them seems worse," he wrote in a note to clients. "And if the goal is to help Intel build substantial US capacity, $10.9B really isn't enough." Moor Insights and Strategy founder and chief analyst Patrick Moorhead told Yahoo Finance that while SoftBank's $2 billion investment and the prospect of a potential US stake are good things, the company would require as much as $40 billion to build out its next-generation 14A technology. Still, getting the US government involved, at least in the short term, could prove to be a boon for the company. "My short-term answer is that the US government is a kingmaker, and they just made Intel the king, and they are going to wrap policy around that to make Intel foundry successful," Moorhead said. If the government sticks with Intel for the long haul, though, Moorhead said it could further complicate the company's development problems, leading to a lack of innovation, inefficiencies, and growing costs. "My hope is that Intel gets back on its feet, it turns itself into a reputable, leading-edge foundry, and the government sells the stake," he said. Laura Bratton is a reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Bluesky @ Email her at Email Daniel Howley at dhowley@ Follow him on X/Twitter at @DanielHowley. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US appeals court puts the brakes on contested land transfer for Arizona copper mine
A U.S. appeals court has temporarily blocked the transfer of federal forest land in Arizona to a pair of international companies that plan to mine one of the largest copper deposits in North America. The transfer was scheduled for Tuesday. But a panel of judges with the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals issued a temporary injunction late Monday in response to last-minute appeals by a Native American tribe and environmentalists. The land includes Oak Flat — an area used for centuries for religious ceremonies, prayer and gathering of medicinal plants by the San Carlos Apache people and other Native American tribes. The fight over Oak Flat has spanned two decades, with the latest legal wrangling centered on a required environmental review that was released by the U.S. Forest Service earlier this summer and an appraisal of the land to be mined by Resolution Copper about 60 miles (96 kilometers) east of Phoenix. Before the land exchange can happen, the plaintiffs argued that the federal government must prepare a comprehensive review that covers 'every aspect of the planned mine and all related infrastructure.' They said the government failed to consider the potential for a dam breach, pipeline failure and if there was an emergency plan for a tailings storage area. As for the appraisal, they said it doesn't account for the value of the copper deposits that are at least 5,000 feet (1,500 meters) below the surface. The appeals court plans to hear arguments on the merits of the case later this year. Opponents of the mine consider the court action a victory, saying prayers are paying off. 'This injunction comes in a desperate time of asking for miracles, all over the country and all over the world,' Wendsler Nosie Sr. of the group Apache Stronghold said in a statement shared on social media. Nosie, a former tribal chairman, described the land and water at Oak Flat as precious. Apache Stronghold, the San Carlos Apache Tribe and other plaintiffs having been fighting for years to save what tribal members call Chi'chil Bildagoteel. The area is dotted with oak groves and traditional plants the Apaches consider essential to their religion. 'We will continue praying that the court understands the grave injustice of trading our sacred grounds to foreign mining companies that seek to destroy Chí'chil Biłdagoteel to extract copper that will be exported overseas,' Tribal Chairman Terry Rambler said in statement. Resolution Copper — 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. The project has support in the nearby community of Superior. Resolution Copper has said the project underwent an extensive review by the U.S. Forest Service that has included consultation with tribes that have ancestral ties to the land. 'The collaborative process has directly led to major changes to the mining plan to preserve and reduce potential impacts on tribal, social, environmental and cultural interests,' the company stated. The Forest Service has argued in court filings that it has no discretion because the land exchange was mandated by Congress when language was included in a must-pass national defense spending bill that was signed into law in 2014 by then-President Barack Obama. There have been unsuccessful legislative attempts in the years since to withdraw the Oak Flat area from mining activity. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DOD to offer new medal for personnel deployed to Southern Border
The Pentagon announced a new military decoration that will recognize service members stationed at the U.S.-Mexico border as part of the Trump administration's effort to bolster border security. A U.S. defense official confirmed to Military Times the veracity of a memorandum regarding the medal that began circulating online several days ago. 'Effective immediately, the Mexican Border Defense Medal (MBDM), is hereby established to recognize Service members deployed to the U.S. international border with Mexico for DoD support to United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP),' a memo uploaded to the Navy subreddit reads. Previously, service members collaborating with CBP were awarded the Armed Forces Service Medal, but the Mexican Border Defense Medal will take its place, according to the memo. Military personnel qualify for the medal if they have been 'permanently assigned, attached, or detailed to a unit that deployed' in support of a military operation supporting CBP within 100 nautical miles of the U.S.-Mexico border after Jan. 20, 2025, when President Trump assumed office. After chase, US Navy, Coast Guard intercept 1,296 pounds of cocaine Military personnel must have operated within Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California or the adjacent U.S. waters out to 24 nautical miles, the memo said. Service members and veterans can apply to have their Armed Forces Service Medal swapped out with the Mexican Border Defense Medal, but they are not allowed to possess both at once. Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20 to deter the 'unlawful mass migration' of illegal aliens into the United States by deploying supplemental military personnel along the Southern Border, among other strategies. Over the last eight months, the administration has ramped up its border security mission. U.S. Northern Command established Joint Task Force-Southern Border on March 14, 2025, to lead immigration enforcement efforts. As of July 2, approximately 8,500 military personnel were attached to the task force. The administration has also deployed the U.S. Navy to intercept and halt the flow of illicit drugs into the country. On Aug. 11, U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer Sampson, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, intercepted 1,296 pounds of cocaine from a drug smuggling vessel. Solve the daily Crossword