University of Texas System bans drag shows in campus facilities
The University of Texas System announced Tuesday its universities are banned from sponsoring drag shows or hosting them in their facilities, a few weeks after the Texas A&M System's board of regents approved a similar ban.
'If the board of regents needs to take further action to make this clear, we will do so,' UT System Board of Regents Chair Kevin Eltife said in a statement on Tuesday, adding that this is a measure 'to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and executive orders, including any restriction on the use of public funds.'
Eltife declined to say what specific laws they were seeking to comply with, but the move appears to be in response to recent executive orders issued by President Donald J. Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
In January, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to take all necessary steps to ensure funds are not used to promote gender ideology. A few days later, Abbott directed state agencies to reject efforts 'to distort commonsense notions of biological sex.'
Texas A&M University System Board of Regents cited these executive orders when it passed its own drag show ban last month.
The system was sued by the Queer Empowerment Council, a student group at the College Station flagship that organizes Draggieland, an annual drag show that was slated to take place at the Rudder Theatre on March 27.
'Texas A&M can't banish student-funded, student-organized drag performances from campus simply because they offend administrators. If drag offends you, don't buy a ticket,' said Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a national free speech group representing the students in this case.
Judge Lee H. Rosenthal heard arguments Tuesday morning in federal court in Houston on whether to block the ban temporarily. It's unclear when he'll make a decision.
Texas A&M has argued in court documents that drag is not expressive speech protected under the First Amendment.
The system has also suggested it might lose funding if it disregards federal and state guidance and allows Draggieland to proceed in the campus theater. It said this fiscal year, federal appropriations made up 12% of its budget; federal contracts and grants 16%; and tuition and fees, some of which come from federally-backed student loans, 25%.
Texas A&M, which is being defended by the Texas Attorney General's Office, also took issue with the characterization that the system has banned on-campus drag shows. It described the Rudder Theatre as a limited public forum and pointed out that students were allowed to dress in drag to protest the board's decision on campus a few days later.
The UT System's drag show ban comes a few days after Tarrant County Judge Tim O'Hare urged the board of regents to follow in A&M's footsteps.
O'Hare, who graduated from the University of Texas at Austin with a bachelor of business administration in finance in 1991, pointed out that UT-Arlington recently hosted an event that featured a drag performer. KERA reported that the event O'Hare was likely referring to was not funded by the university, but a student group. That is also the case with Draggieland at Texas A&M University in College Station.
The UT System consists of 14 institutions that educate more than 256,000 students.
The UT System Board of Regents' next meeting is scheduled for May 7-8, but it can call a special meeting before that time.
The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage.
Disclosure: Texas A&M University, Texas A&M University System, University of Texas at Austin and University of Texas System have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
We can't wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas' breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more.
Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025.
TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
How the House Settlement will reshape Texas A&M athletics
How the House Settlement will reshape Texas A&M athletics It's time for the universities and colleges to back up the Brinks trucks as they get ready to deal with all the financial obligations as a result of the House settlement approval on Friday evening. After years of lawsuits and the rise of NIL in college athletics, regulation is finally being introduced. However, the legal battles are far from over, and precedent-setting cases will likely continue for years. For now, we can examine how this approval, alongside the Texas bill, will shape Texas A&M athletics, particularly with universities now permitted to directly pay athletes. Financial Impact The most significant factor is money. The landmark case, approved by Judge Claudia Wilken, allocates $2.5–$3 billion to former players from 2016–2024 who were unable to benefit from NIL. Additionally, a revenue-sharing model essentially establishes a salary cap, beginning at approximately $20 million for the upcoming season and increasing annually over the next decade. Scholarship & Roster Changes Another major shift is the removal of scholarship limits, replaced by roster restrictions. Texas A&M head football coach Mike Elko has repeatedly highlighted the challenges this presents when shaping a team while awaiting regulatory clarity. These uncertainties complicate roster management as teams prepare for rapid policy implementation. Title IX Implications An unresolved concern is how funding will be allocated across various sports, particularly women's athletics. Even though money is earmarked for women's sports, the exact distribution under the settlement remains unclear. Following their strong season, fans are calling for increased funding for Texas A&M's softball team, led by Coach Trisha Ford. With the sport's popularity on the rise, financial investments may shift in the coming years. Texas A&M's Position Athletic Director Trev Alberts has faced criticism for his early fiscal conservatism, yet he has positioned Texas A&M ahead of the curve. At the annual SEC meetings, Alberts reinforced the university's commitment to expanding scholarships. Current & Future Scholarship Allocations: Overall: 255 → 400+ 255 → 400+ Football: 85 → 105 85 → 105 Men's Basketball: 13 → 15 13 → 15 Women's Basketball: 15 → 15 15 → 15 Baseball: 11.7 → 34 11.7 → 34 Softball: 12 → 25 12 → 25 Men's Track & Field: 12.6 → 45 12.6 → 45 Women's Track & Field: 18 → 45 While changes will impact each university differently, Texas A&M is well-positioned to provide a strong student-athlete experience without cutting sports. However, the future remains uncertain as college athletics enters a new era of free agency, where players may seek better opportunities elsewhere if an opportunity to secure their future financially presents itself. Contact/Follow us @AggiesWire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Texas A&M news, notes and opinions. Follow Jarrett Johnson on X: @whosnextsports1.
Axios
4 hours ago
- Axios
ABC suspends correspondent for calling Stephen Miller a "world-class hater"
ABC News Senior National Correspondent Terry Moran was suspended after he characterized top Trump aide Stephen Miller as "richly endowed with the capacity for hatred" in a since-deleted post, the network confirmed to Axios Sunday. The big picture: The incident is ammunition for the administration's attacks on and distrust of traditional media. The Trump administration has squeezed legacy media from several angles in its first few months, prompting legal battles over funding and First Amendment rights. Driving the news: An ABC News spokesperson confirmed in a statement to Axios that Moran " has been suspended pending further evaluation." "ABC News stands for objectivity and impartiality in its news coverage and does not condone subjective personal attacks on others. The post does not reflect the views of ABC News and violated our standards," the statement read. Catch up quick: Moran, who in April conducted an at-times testy interview with President Trump marking his first 100 days in office, shared a post to X shortly overnight Saturday calling both Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff, and the president "world-class" haters. "The thing about Stephen Miller is not that he is the brains behind Trumpism," Moran's post started, according to a screenshot. He continued, saying that Miller's ability to translate Trump-world impulses into policy is not "what's interesting." "It's not brains. It's bile," he said. "Miller is a man who is richly endowed with the capacity for hatred. He's a world-class hater." Moran contended Miller's "hatreds are his spiritual nourishment." What he's saying: Miller, responding to Moran's post, argued that "[f]or decades, the privileged anchors and reporters narrating and gatekeeping our society have been radicals adopting a journalist's pose." Miller has been a driving force behind the president's controversial immigration crackdown and is one of his most-trusted aides. Zoom out: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described Moran's rhetoric as "unacceptable and unhinged" on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures," saying ABC confirmed it would be taking action.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Harvard can't truly win its fight against Trump
Imagine a boxing match in which one fighter can block the blows of his opponent but isn't permitted to hit back. When struck by a low blow, the injured fighter may appeal, but the referee can only admonish the unscrupulous fighter to abide by the rules. He is not allowed to end the match by throwing in the towel — and his opponent is free to keep punching. This is the situation in which Harvard now finds itself. The Trump administration has accused Harvard University of tolerating antisemitism and implementing diversity, equity and inclusion policies that violate civil rights laws. On those tenuous grounds, the federal government has frozen or terminated billions in research funding, launched at least eight highly intrusive investigations, threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status and tried to end its ability to enroll international students. If a private actor illegally crippled Harvard's ability to operate, the university could ask a court to order the defendant to desist, award the institution attorneys' fees and costs and mandate monetary compensation for the harms it suffered. But the federal government has sovereign immunity, largely protecting it from suits and monetary damages. Harvard has already sued the government twice. The first lawsuit, filed in April, accuses the Trump administration of withholding billions in federal funding 'as leverage to gain control of academic decision making' in flagrant violation of the First Amendment and the procedural safeguards of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The second lawsuit, filed in May, challenges the government's revocation of Harvard's right to enroll international students 'without process or cause, to immediate and devastating effect for Harvard and more than 7,000 visa holders,' as another 'blatant violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act.' In both suits, Harvard seeks injunctions vacating the government's orders and reimbursement of its legal fees and costs. Just hours after Harvard filed its second lawsuit, the judge issued a temporary restraining order barring implementation of the edict prohibiting Harvard from enrolling international students. But neither lawsuit seeks — or can request — monetary compensation for the extraordinary harm Harvard is suffering at the government's hands. Harvard's research programs have been thrown into disarray, its reputation tarnished and, it argues, 'its ability to recruit and retain talent, secure future funding, and maintain its relationships with other institutions' significantly diminished. Harvard has been forced to allocate at least $250 million to salvage some of the research jeopardized by the government's funding freeze. The school has already spent huge amounts of time, energy and money responding to the government's many investigations and sweeping demands for information. And the fight is only in its early rounds. Although the Constitution does not explicitly address sovereign immunity, courts have held from the earliest days of the republic that the government cannot be sued without its consent. This principle is drawn from English common law, which assumed that 'the King can do no wrong.' As legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky has observed, the effect of sovereign immunity is 'to ensure that some individuals who have suffered egregious harms will be unable to receive redress for their injuries.' Congress can waive the government's immunity from suit through laws such as the Administrative Procedure Act, which underpins most of Harvard's claims against the government. But while that law allows courts to declare certain government actions illegal and issue injunctive relief, it does not permit the award of monetary damages. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows plaintiffs to seek damages for certain negligent or wrongful acts by government officials, such as a car crash or sexual assault. But its waiver doesn't extend to acts involving the performance of 'a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.' The law is thus rendered useless to parties injured by government edicts or policies, however damaging or illegal. As the Supreme Court has noted, protecting the government from monetary damages for policy judgments 'prevents judicial 'second-guessing' of legislative and administrative decisions.' Sovereign immunity also reduces the risk that liability concerns will prevent government officials from taking sound but potentially costly actions. But monetary damages serve two important legal functions: they help compensate victims for their injuries, and, by leveling the playing field, they deter government officials from committing wrongful acts. Without the ability to obtain monetary compensation, Harvard can deflect some of the government's attacks through court orders, but it cannot be made whole for the harm done to its finances, its reputation and members of the campus community. Worse still, there is nothing to deter the government from continuing its assault. And some actions will be difficult to challenge in court, such as the government's threat to exclude Harvard from future research grants, and its recent decision to pause all international student visa interviews, an action that will harm hundreds of colleges and universities, including Harvard. And under legislation working its way through Congress, the school may end up paying roughly $850 million annually in endowment excise taxes. As much as some critics of Harvard may revel in watching America's oldest, richest and most influential university humbled, the country benefits enormously from an institution that has trained eight American presidents, produced 161 Nobel laureates and made countless life-changing discoveries in medicine, science and technology, earning 155 patents last year alone. Harvard's experience demonstrates how much the rule of law depends on those in power exercising that power with restraint and in the public interest. Harvard cannot win this fight. It is rigged. But that doesn't mean the university should not stay in the ring, litigate, mobilize its alumni, donors and friends, and enlist the support of other colleges and universities, hoping to remain standing long enough for a new Congress and administration to stop the carnage. And, to that end, to make sure voters understand that when government officials are hell bent on punishing their political enemies (real and imagined) regardless of how large the collateral damage, just about every American loses. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
