Under SB 37, Texas universities will focus on educating, not indoctrinating
Nationally, we've seen students and faculty more concerned with acting as campus hall monitors, policing what is deemed socially acceptable from a one-sided political perspective. Activism often takes precedence over learning.
Thankfully, legislators in Texas are taking this matter seriously. Lawmakers are poised to pass Senate Bill 37, which can restore the purpose of our state's public higher education institutions: Preparing students for success in their post-graduation lives while encouraging them to pursue truth, knowledge and excellence.
Column: Universities should foster debate and critical thinking. SB 37 will stifle that | Opinion
SB 37 takes governance decisions out of the hands of radical faculty and administrators, allowing for increased oversight by the people of Texas and their representatives. It encourages eliminating useless course requirements and majors that enroll few students.
Does this amount to 'thought policing?' Hardly. It counters what's been taking place on campuses for years: Students and faculty alike have been policing what can and cannot be said under the guise of 'social justice' and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. DEI groupthink discourages debate, pushes a single narrative. It shuts down criticism — the opposite of the free and open inquiry our universities are meant to encourage and foster.
The claim that professors 'won't be able to teach' certain subjects involving the founding principles of our country is ludicrous. Nothing about SB 37 will affect courses in the many excellent programs at our universities, from finance to physics, from neuroscience to philosophy. It poses no obstacle to the study of great books. It addresses the many courses at our academic institutions that aim at indoctrination.
For example, a keyword search I conducted of the University of Texas' 2024-25 course offerings shows that three of the most frequently mentioned terms in course descriptions are 'gender,' 'race' and 'identity.' Meanwhile, the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence and Abraham Lincoln are mentioned fewer than than 10 times combined. This is taking place at our state's flagship university — showing how extensive the problem is and why SB 37 is needed.
What to know: House moves to advance SB 37 on faculty senate, core curriculum review.
SB 37 would empower an ombudsman to monitor compliance with the bill's provisions, ensuring that required courses focus on academic excellence and research with real-world impacts. It doesn't empower the ombudsman to eliminate courses that don't meet those criteria. If professors want to teach courses on Marxist theory, they can still do so. But that course won't be forced on students in order for them to graduate.
Texas' state colleges and universities are among the best in the nation. Our educators teach and prepare world-class graduates. Our researchers produce groundbreaking innovations across disciplines and industries that have transformed our state and national economies.
To maintain our state's distinction in a rapidly evolving global market, our higher education institutions must stay focused on academic excellence and research with real-world impacts. They need to prepare students to succeed. That means bringing greater accountability and efficiency to our institutions of higher education. Under SB 37, Texas students will receive a higher-quality and better-rounded education.
Daniel A. Bonevac is a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas SB 37 will restore integrity to higher education | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
20 minutes ago
- USA Today
GOP lawmaker proposes renaming Kennedy Center after Trump
Rep. Bob Onder, R-Missouri, introduced a bill that would designate the Kennedy Center as the 'Donald J. Trump Center for Performing Arts.' WASHINGTON - A House Republican is proposing to rename the iconic John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts after President Donald Trump. Missouri Rep. Bob Onder has dubbed his bill the 'Make Entertainment Great Again Act" and would re-designate the District of Columbia institution that was named in remembrance of Kennedy, the 35th president who was assassinated in 1963. Onder's plan would change the building's name to the 'Donald J. Trump Center for Performing Arts" and comes after a key House panel also voted to put first lady Melania Trump's name on the Kennedy Center's opera house. Onder in a statement said Trump has 'entertained audiences for decades,' referring to the two-term Republican president's prior run as host of the reality TV show "The Apprentice" and appearances in films such as "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York." More: Made-for-TV presidency: How Trump's celebrity past shaped his first 100 days 'I cannot think of a more ubiquitous symbol of American exceptionalism in the arts, entertainment, and popular culture at large than President Trump,' added Onder, a freshman GOP lawmaker who represents a central Missouri district that includes the suburbs of St. Louis, Columbia and Jefferson City. But the proposal quickly received pushback from critics. Maria Shriver, a niece of former President Kennedy and also the former first lady of California, said it makes her 'blood boil.' 'It's so ridiculous, so petty, so small minded. Truly, what is this about? It's always about something. 'Let's get rid of the Rose Garden. Let's rename the Kennedy Center.' What's next?' she wrote on X. With House lawmakers out for their annual summer break, there won't be much action taken on the bill until after they return. In February, Trump appointed himself chairman of the Kennedy Center and pushed out billionaire philanthropist David M. Rubenstein, who previously served in the role. He also dismissed individuals part of the chair's board of trustees. Trump complained of "woke" programming at the Kennedy Center, citing "drag shows" held there as one of the reasons for taking command of the center and vowing to stop such performances. The Kennedy Center, affiliated with the National Symphony Orchestra and Washington National Opera, hosts more than 2,000 performances a year. It is described as the "living memorial" to Kennedy on its website. USA TODAY reached out to the Kennedy Center for comment. Contributing: Joey Garrison and Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, USA TODAY
New York Post
20 minutes ago
- New York Post
Josh Hawley bill would give millions of Americans $600 each from tariff revenue
Sen. Josh Hawley rolled out a new bill late Monday to give $600 in tariff rebates to millions of American workers and families, days after President Trump floated the idea. 'Americans deserve a tax rebate after four years of Biden policies that have devastated families' savings and livelihoods,' Hawley (R-Mo.) said in a statement. 'Like President Trump proposed, my legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country.' The Republican's American Worker Rebate Act would provide at least $600 to each adult and dependent child, with higher payments possible if tariff revenue exceeds projections for the year. Married couples who file taxes jointly and make more than $150,000 per year combined, heads of households who make more than $112,500 per year and individuals earning more than $75,000 per year will see their rebates reduced by 5%. Tariff revenue has topped $113 billion so far in fiscal year 2025, and the US posted a budget surplus for June as tariff revenue soared to $27 billion. 3 The Missouri Republican said he would introduce the tariff rebate bill after President Trump expressed interest in the idea. Getty Images 3 President Trump unveiled a suite of tariffs earlier this year as part of his effort to overhaul US trade policy. AFP via Getty Images Both Trump himself and administration officials like Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick have claimed tariff revenue can be used to quickly pay down the federal deficit, which clocked in at $1.8 trillion last fiscal year. However, the president suggested to reporters as he left the White House for Scotland Friday that his team was 'thinking about a little rebate.' 'The big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said at the time. 'But we're thinking about a rebate.' Hawley's bill would dish out money under similar parameters to COVID-19 relief Congress passed beginning in 2020. 3 Sen. Josh Hawley has long branded himself as a populist-style Republican. Getty Images The first payments, of $1,200 to individuals making up to $75,000 and $2,400 to couples making up to $150,000, were issued in March 2020. A second round of payments, of $600 to individuals and $1,200 to couples under those thresholds, was doled out in December 2020. The third and final payment, of up to $1,400 to individuals and $2,800 to couples, was approved as part of the Biden-era American Rescue Plan in March 2021. Most conservatives have insisted that the administration focus on reducing the deficit and have warned about the inflationary effect of handing out more spending money while trying to keep prices down. 'While it's always politically advantageous to hand out money to constituents, the fact is the federal government has no money to give at this point,' Heritage Foundation chief economist EJ Antoni told The Post Friday in response to Trump's initial rebate float. 'When the annual deficit is over $1 trillion, the priority has to be getting that down, not giving the Treasury another outlay.'
Medscape
20 minutes ago
- Medscape
Dire Warnings, Rosy Future: Medicare at 60
The creation of Medicare in 1965 was hailed as a watershed for the social safety net, offering millions of older Americans financial security and freedom from worry about their medical expenses. But critics of the legislation cast dire warnings about what the law would do to the nation's physicians, the doctor-patient relationship, and even the country's way of life. Who was right? To mark the 60th anniversary of Medicare, Medscape asked leaders in healthcare, American history, and public policy to reflect on the words of the program's earliest champions and critics. Comments have been edited for length and clarity. Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kennedy, August 14, 1960. Then-Senator John F. Kennedy , spoke in support of a national insurance program for the elderly at an event on August 14, 1960: "Three out of every five of these [people over age 65] — more than 9.5 million people — must struggle to survive on an income of under $1000 a year. …This poverty and hardship turn into heartbreak and despair when illness threatens. Medicines and drugs are more expensive than ever before — hospital rates have more than doubled — doctor bills have skyrocketed. …Those over 65 suffer from chronic diseases at almost twice the rate of our younger population — they spend more than twice as many days restricted to bed — and they must visit a doctor twice as often." Commentary Keith Wailoo, PhD, Henry Putnam University professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and past president of the American Association for the History of Medicine: "An important backdrop behind JFK's comment is reflecting 10 years prior on the failure of President Harry Truman's national health insurance proposals. The frustrations and the stories he's telling were evident after World War II. Keith Wailoo, PhD "He's describing a landscape where — in the course of the war — private insurance became more attached to employment, wage freezes meant that companies couldn't raise wages, unions lobbied and employers argued that benefits could be increased, and as a result of a momentous Supreme Court ruling, health insurance became increasingly a byproduct of employment. Healthcare costs were rising, and insurance was becoming a passage point to getting hospital care. "The face of the poor and medical needy were the elderly by 1960. They were not working, and because of advancing life expectancy, there was more infirmity and yet they were locked out of the system. "So we've recreated the world, and with that we have also changed people's expectations about what they can hope for." Ronald Reagan and the American Medical Association, 1961 audio recording on LP. In 1961, Ronald Reagan released a speech against a proposed bill that would cover hospital costs for the elderly. The effort was later revealed to be part of a campaign by the American Medical Association (AMA) to quash efforts to create a national health insurance program. Reagan said: "[The bill] was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time, socialized medicine. … First, you decide that the doctor can have so many patients, they're equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren't equally divided geographically. So a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town, and the government has to say to him, 'You can't live in that town. They already have enough doctors,' and from here, it's only a short step to dictating where he will go." Commentary Reid B. Blackwelder, MD, associate dean for graduate medical and continuing education, DIO, Quillen College of Medicine, East Tennessee State University, and past president of the American Academy of Family Physicians: "Reagan's warning that nationalized health insurance would lead to government direction for where physicians practice has not happened. Physicians have the freedom to accept insurance or not and to practice anywhere they want. Sadly, our country is facing increasing healthcare deserts for various reasons. Reid B. Blackwelder, MD "We already had a serious and growing access problem for patients. Now, patients in rural areas especially are losing even more access to primary care physicians and specialists as rural hospitals shut down and physicians like obstetricians stop practicing outside of urban areas. "Ironically, Medicare is perhaps the most lenient health insurance in terms of providing that freedom of choice Reagan described for patients. Because Medicare is popular and widely accepted by patients and physicians, patients can readily choose the physician they want, including subspecialists. On the other hand, for-profit insurance has created significant limits on which physicians a patient may select based on acceptance of that insurance and cost. It can be difficult for a patient to see the physician of their choice." Dr Edward Annis ( left ), holding an anatomical model of a human heart, speaks with TV host Johnny Carson ( right ) on the The Tonight Show , December 11, 1963. Edward Annis, MD , chairman of the AMA 's speakers' bureau — and later president of the association — appeared in a televised May 21, 1962, address about the proposed King-Anderson bill, an early iteration of what would become the legislation that created Medicare. Annis said: 'It wastefully covers millions who do not need it, it heartlessly ignores millions who do need coverage. It is not true insurance. It will create an enormous and unpredictable burden on every working taxpayer. It offers sharply limited benefits. And it will serve as a forerunner of a different system of medicine for all Americans.' Commentary Jonathan Oberlander, PhD, professor of social medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and editor of the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law: "The AMA's overheated rhetoric against Medicare did not age well. Doctors would later face challenges to their clinical autonomy, as Annis had feared, but that intrusion came from private managed care insurers trying to control skyrocketing costs, not Medicare. "Yet the AMA was right about one thing. Although they didn't admit it during the 1960s, Medicare's architects saw the program as the first step to universal health insurance, and after covering the elderly, they hoped to next turn to children and eventually cover everyone via government insurance. Medicare for All was the aspiration. "That did not happen, and although Medicare expanded eligibility in 1972 to cover persons with permanent disabilities and end-stage renal disease — six decades after the program's enactment — its primary beneficiaries are still older Americans, an outcome that would have stunned its creators. "After Medicare's enactment in 1965, the AMA's opposition to the program faded, much to Annis' consternation. Forty years later, he still expressed regret that the association did not take a more 'militant' stand highlighting the program's problems." Dr Edward Annis (right) with Dr Arthur Fleming. Annis continued: "This King-Anderson Bill is a cruel hoax and illusion. … It will come between the patient and his doctor." Commentary Reid B. Blackwelder, MD, associate dean for graduate medical and continuing education, DIO, Quillen College of Medicine, East Tennessee State University, and past president of the American Academy of Family Physicians "The special and powerful relationship between patients and physicians is a real thing. Medicare did not damage it. Other insurance coverage did not damage it. Having any insurance coverage is one of the foundations of getting to good health outcomes. The other is having a source of comprehensive care. Patients need both. "The very real threat to the physician-patient relationship that is accelerating today is from legislative intrusions into the patient room. When laws are passed that make even just exploring options with patients around things like reproductive health a criminal offense, government has overstepped. "When laws are enacted that require a physician to call their lawyer rather than a specialty consult before providing life-saving care, we have entered a new and dangerous era of governmental oversight. Recent laws have done more damage to the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship that Medicare actually helped improve." Rep. Durward Gorham Hall, 1969 Representative Durward Gorham Hall, MD (R, Missouri), made these remarks below during debates on Medicare in the House of Representatives: "This conflict is testing whether art and science of medicine will be permitted to grow and flourish in freedom and competitively, or whether progress in medicine will be stunted and shriveled by an excess of Government control." Commentary Jonathan B. Jaffery, MD, MS, MMM, chief healthcare officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges: "By supporting the training of physicians, Medicare helps create the physician workforce for future generations of Americans, crucial for the care of an aging population. And through iterative developments over the last 60 years, such as Coverage with Evidence Development or the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovations, the Medicare program — coupled with federal investments in biomedical research — has been able to support innovations in both medical technologies and models of care delivery that continue to improve the lives and well-beings of millions. Jonathan B. Jaffery, MD "The reality is, prior to 1965, many elderly Americans with healthcare needs were forced to rely on financial support from their families or spend all their life's savings, hope for charity care, or forego care altogether. And of course, the cost of care has only skyrocketed, so that in 2025 even very high-net worth individuals would struggle to cover the costs of a lengthy hospitalization or extended illness, let alone the price tag of many new life-saving medications." Hall continued: "The result will inescapably be third-party intrusion in the practice of hospitalization and medicine. His diagnostic and therapeutic decisions would be subject to disapproval by those controlling the expenditure of tax money." Commentary G. William Hoagland, senior vice president, Bipartisan Policy Center, former executive at Cigna, and former US Senate staffer "Representative Hall was prescient in his observation about the future of healthcare resulting from the creation of Medicare. The 60-year history of the Medicare program, particularly since the enactment of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act in 1982, the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010, has resulted in the 'corporatization' of healthcare. G. William Hoagland "Today, Medicare Advantage, dominated by 'third-party' corporate insurance companies, has transferred the physician's independent decisions to actuaries and corporate financial decision makers. The result has also been horizontal consolidation of what were locally controlled entities to nationally or regionally controlled corporations along with vertical consolidation of payers and care delivery entities. "The impact of these changes, along with dramatic scientific advances in diagnosis with advanced treatment protocols, precipitating higher healthcare utilization, has not been to reduce costs but to in fact increase healthcare costs." President Lyndon Johnson ( left ) flips through the pages of the Medicare bill so former President Harry Truman ( right) can see it. Following passage of the Social Security Amendments of 1965 out of the Senate by a vote of 68-21, President Lyndon B. Johnson said: "It will help pay for care in hospitals. If hospitalization is unnecessary, it will help pay for care in nursing homes or in the home. And wherever illness is treated — in home or hospital — it will also help meet the fees of doctors and the costs of drugs." Commentary Bruce Leff, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Transformative Geriatric Research, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore: "Johnson's statement regarding care at home was appropriate for the mid-1960s. To this day, skilled home healthcare remains the most used home-based service by Medicare beneficiaries. "Since Medicare was enacted, a bevy of evidence-based home care delivery models have been developed and proven. These home-based models span the care continuum including home and community-based services, home-based primary care, transitional care, and home-based palliative care. Bruce Leff, MD "Unfortunately, Medicare payment policies incentivized the centralization of care in facilities and a facility-centric culture of care delivery. Care delivery hasn't kept pace with the needs of an aging population with a high prevalence of homebound older Americans or with the advances that enable even hospital care to be delivered to patients in their preferred setting, their homes. "The hospital of the future will comprise of emergency departments, operating rooms, and intensive care units. Most other care can and will be provided in the home setting. We have all the pieces to develop this future home-based care vision. Achieving this vision will require a culture shift with associated payment and regulatory enhancements, ongoing attention to improvements in technology, logistics, and data management." An elderly woman shows her gratitude to President Lyndon B. Johnson for his signing of the Medicare healthcare bill in April 1965. Johnson continued: "Older citizens will no longer have to fear that illness will wipe out their savings, eat up their income, and destroy lifelong hope of dignity and independence. For every family with older members, it will mean relief from the often-crushing responsibilities of care." Commentary Gretchen Jacobson, PhD, vice president, Medicare program, Commonwealth Fund: Gretchen Jacobson, PhD "One third of Medicare beneficiaries said in 2023 that it was difficult to afford healthcare costs. More than 1 in 5 beneficiaries reported in 2023 delaying or skipping needed healthcare because of the cost. Similarly, some Medicare beneficiaries trade off paying for other necessities to pay for needed healthcare. The lack of a limit on out-of-pocket spending on hospital and physician services for traditional Medicare has, for most traditional Medicare enrollees, necessitated purchasing supplemental insurance coverage. Yet, the limited availability of this supplemental coverage has resulted in more beneficiaries enrolling in Medicare Advantage and high underinsurance rates among those in traditional Medicare without supplemental coverage. "Medicare beneficiaries who do not have a family caregiver and cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket for a formal caregiver are typically forced to deplete their financial resources to qualify for Medicaid coverage, the largest payer for long-term care in the US."
