Without first-class public universities, Texas cannot be a first-class state
Our state's commitment to state-supported higher education goes all the way back to the Texas Constitution in 1876. Article 7 directs the Legislature to 'provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class' to be called 'The University of Texas.' The very first responsibility of this university is 'the promotion of literature.'
Senate Bill 37, under consideration in the Texas Legislature, would change our public universities so radically that they would no longer be first-class.
Without first-class public universities, Texas cannot be a first-class state.
While the state Constitution affirms the connection between studying literature and a thriving citizenry, the members of the 89th Legislature apparently feel differently. Under SB 37, hiring for faculty positions in liberal arts, communication, education and social work — but no other fields — become the responsibility of a state governing board whose members would not necessarily have either disciplinary expertise in the relevant academic subjects or training in college-level teaching and learning.
Why does this matter to anyone besides a few professors? To put the question another way, what do we actually do in the liberal arts?
'Liberal' arts does not mean 'liberal' as distinct from 'conservative.' In this context, 'liberal' derives from the Latin word liber, 'free.' Liberal arts are the subjects which befit free people to study, and which enable us to flourish as a free society.
The core of the liberal arts is learning to ask good questions and to respond to those questions effectively. Students in liberal arts often explore enduring human issues that can never be resolved once and for all, but that we all wrestle with as members of a pluralistic society.
How do I balance my obligations to myself and my family with my responsibilities to larger groups, such as my town, my workplace, and my country?
How do I work with people different from me to achieve goals that benefit us all?
How do I live my own deeply held values in a way that acknowledges that other people have different values that they believe in equally deeply?
None of these questions has one 'right' answer. Yet all of us ask them, often repeatedly, throughout our lives. Students in the liberal arts explore these questions through the subject-area expertise of their professors and by engaging with the variety of perspectives among their fellow students about human experiences that are brought to life in the art and literature of different times and places.
Such experiences not only characterize a successful college experience, but effective workplaces. Public universities hobbled by SB 37 would not simply violate Article 7 of the Texas Constitution. They would also endanger the Texas economy, to which public universities contribute billions of dollars annually.
Knowing how to ask a good question has never been more important than it is now, because of the increasing presence of AI in our lives. The information we get out of AI is only as good as the prompts we give it. Anyone who has used AI knows that it takes time, effort and know-how to create a good question.
Fostering transformative learning experiences for the young people of Texas is the most challenging and the most rewarding thing I have ever done. Combining deep subject area expertise with teaching experience in order to grapple with crucial human questions for the benefit of individuals and society is the work of a lifetime.
That is what makes a university first-class. Not faculty hired by political appointees, and certainly not SB 37.
Deborah Beck is the Christie and Stanley E. Adams, Jr. Centennial Professor in Liberal Arts and professor of classics at the University of Texas.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: State lawmakers want to strangle liberal arts in Texas | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
5 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The convictions that count are the ones that sometimes sting
I bring up Goldberg's essay not only to recommend it but also because I was struck by the question with which he introduced it: 'What principle do you hold,' he challenged his readers, 'that is against your self-interest or political desires?' Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's a cogent and revealing test. It obliges anyone who answers the question to think about whether they embrace their convictions as a matter of principle or merely because they're convenient. Anyone can defend the freedoms or prohibitions that serve their own purposes. The truer test of ideological and moral seriousness is whether you adhere to your principles even when doing so cuts against your interests, tastes, or partisan loyalties. Advertisement This isn't an ivory-tower abstraction. American history is rich with examples of people who upheld principle at real personal cost. John Adams, though a patriot who hated British rule, risked his career to defend the redcoats accused in the Boston Massacre, convinced that even despised defendants deserved counsel and a fair trial. Justice John Marshall Harlan, raised in a Kentucky family of enslavers, broke with his social milieu to insist in his lone dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that 'our Constitution is color-blind.' And in 1960, Richard Nixon, urged by allies to contest an election marred by serious irregularities, refused to plunge the nation into turmoil, saying the country's stability mattered more than his own ambition. I have tried to meet that test in my own writing — with what success, I leave others to judge. For instance, I defend the right even of Holocaust-deniers to spread Advertisement I have sometimes put a version of Goldberg's question to candidates in a primary election: Can you name a position you take that is clearly opposed by most of your party's base? Rarely have I gotten a substantive answer. Most politicians duck the question, unwilling to announce that they uphold an unpopular position on principle — even though doing so would be pretty strong evidence that their convictions were genuine. What makes this problem worse is the increasingly common belief that only those who agree with us are legitimate participants in American life. Too many on the right write off their opponents as anti-American, while too many on the left see theirs as irredeemably bigoted or authoritarian. If you begin from the premise that dissenters are not merely wrong but illegitimate, then there is no reason to extend to them the rights or freedoms you claim for yourself. But that mind-set drains principle of all meaning. Defending free speech only for your allies is like championing religious liberty only for your own faith: That's not upholding a principle — it's wielding a partisan cudgel, something that has become endemic in contemporary American life. So much of what bedevils our civic discourse these days, Goldberg writes, begins with 'the premise that America is defined by our politics and, therefore, the people with the wrong politics are not Americans.' Which is why Goldberg's challenge ought to be posed more often. A principle that only applies when it's easy isn't much of a principle at all. So, readers, I'll put the same question to you: What principle do you hold that runs against your own interest or desire? Please give it some thought and share your reflections. In a future column, I'll share some of the more intriguing and noteworthy responses. Advertisement Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Pirro to ease prosecutions for carrying registered rifles, shotguns — calls DC law ‘violation of the Supreme Court's holdings'
Registered rifle and shotgun owners may no longer face felony charges for carrying their weapons in Washington, DC due to concerns the district's restrictive gun laws run afoul of Supreme Court rulings, US Attorney Jeanine Pirro explained Tuesday. The policy shift, first reported by the Washington Post, comes after Pirro said she received guidance from the Justice Department and solicitor general determining that DC's prohibitions on registered, but non-permitted, rifle and shotgun owners violate the Second Amendment. The DC law 'is clearly a violation of the Supreme Court's holdings,' Pirro told the Washington Post, confirming the Trump administration's memo. Advertisement 3 US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro speaks during a press conference in Washington, DC, on Aug. 12, 2025. REUTERS The Supreme Court struck down DC's ban on handgun ownership in the home for self-defense in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case. The high court further expanded gun rights in the 2022 NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case, where a majority of justices determined that the Constitution protects the rights of gun owners to carry firearms in public for self-defense. In the Bruen case, the Supreme Court also found that gun laws must be 'consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' Advertisement Pirro, a notoriously tough-on-crime former judge, was adamant that the new guidance would not impact her ability to prosecute gun crimes, and get illegal firearms off the streets of the nation's capital. 'Nothing in this memo from the Department of Justice and the Office of Solicitor General precludes the United States Attorney's Office from charging a felon with the possession of a firearm, which includes a rifle, shotgun, and attendant large capacity magazine pursuant to DC Code 22-4503,' she told the outlet. 'What it does preclude is a separate charge of possession of a registered rifle or shotgun,' she added. DC's stringent gun laws prohibit open carry and, in general, require individuals to obtain a concealed-carry permit – which are not issued for shotguns or rifles – in order to leave home with a firearm. Advertisement 3 A person carries a rifle in public during a Second Amendment protest in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Sept. 12, 2023. AP 3 Pirro, a notoriously tough-on-crime former judge, was adamant that the new guidance would not impact her ability to prosecute gun crimes, and get illegal firearms off the streets of the nation's capital. AP Unlawfully carrying a registered long gun in DC can result in a fine and imprisonment for up to five years. Advertisement In response to a request for comment from The Post, Pirro said: 'Criminal culpability is not determined by the instruments people employ but by the intent and conduct of the actor.' 'Crimes are intentional acts and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent by my office regardless of what instruments of criminality are used,' her statement continued. 'My job is to keep this city, its citizens, its businesses, and its visitors safe from harm and I will do that to the fullest extent of the law.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
From TikTok to frontrunner, inside Paz's presidential campaign in Bolivia
Senator Rodrigo Paz, the surprise top finisher in Bolivia's first-round presidential election, spent years traveling the country, posting hundreds of social media videos and honing his image like a full-time influencer. The 57-year-old center-right economist secured 32.1 percent of the votes in Sunday's election, followed by right-wing former president Jorge "Tuto" Quiroga, who took 26.8 percent, according to official preliminary results. It's unclear if lingering name recognition may have helped Paz, the son of former president Jaime Paz Zamora, who led Bolivia from 1989 to 1993 and ran for re-election twice, finishing fourth both times. But just one week before the election, the polls were still placing Paz between third and fifth place in the six-way race. "He has charisma like his father," said Sara Medina, a 51-year-old lawyer in a plaza in Tarija. "He knew how to reach the people." Paz and Quiroga will compete in a runoff on October 19 to decide who will end 20 years of left-wing government in the Latin American country. Though his rivals dominated television screens and filled streets with ads, charismatic Paz connected to the electorate through a combination of social media savvy and the traditional tool of politicians everywhere: pressing the flesh and face-to-face interactions. - Without money - Paz didn't rely on jingles, political fliers or renting venues for rallies. "This is a case where authenticity and digital storytelling have overcome the traditional machinery of mass media and money," said Erick Hurtado, a Bolivian political marketing expert. And while his team applied their own guerrilla marketing strategy, Paz is hardly an outsider. His experience in politics runs two decades deep, having served as mayor, councilor, deputy and senator under the Christian Democratic Party banner. His popularity has only grown since adding Edman Lara -- nicknamed "Captain Lara" -- to the ticket as vice president, thanks to his spontaneity and popularity on social media. "They connected directly with... a younger, more popular electorate," Hurtado said. Since 2023, Lara has become an anti-corruption champion, using videos and livestreams to reveal police abuse on Instagram and TikTok, garnering tens of thousands of likes and comments. "While Lara worked social media, Rodrigo traveled to many places across the country" on bare bones road trips, reaching far-flung destinations after long hours of travel, Hurtado said. Paz says he has visited 220 of Bolivia's 340 municipalities since he began his tours four years ago. In July, when Paz was excluded from a business forum in Bolivia's economic hub, Santa Cruz, his campaign crashed the event. They hoisted a massive banner with a phone number on it, cajoling organizers "to invite the candidate" to participate in forums and debates, gaining traction online. Monday, the day after the first round elections, Lara stole the show during a rally attended by thousands of supporters in El Alto. "I am the guarantee. If Rodrigo Paz does not deliver, I will confront him," he said, issuing a warning to his own running mate. - Center stage - While Paz won with an overwhelming 46.9 percent of the vote in the capital city, he only took third place in his home region of Tarija -- reflecting voter dissatisfaction with his performance there as mayor. "His name carries historical weight, but he hasn't won the support of his own turf," Hurtado said. "There was a sort of punitive vote." The next round of voting will be different for Paz and Lara, who will now be at the center of national debate, and the target for attacks. "They are no longer the unexpected contenders," Hurtado said. "They need to deepen their narrative, expand their proposals, and shield themselves from social and digital warfare," while maintaining a personal touch with voters. With two months left before the runoff, Hurtado warns, "Captain Lara's anti-corruption discourse has been powerful, but it's not enough to govern." gta/vel/db/nn/sla/dw/abs
