University of Texas System invests $100M in UT civics school: 'A crowning achievement'
The University of Texas System is investing $100 million in the School of Civic Leadership at its flagship campus in Austin. The "transformative" boost is meant to elevate the school into a leading hub for fostering future civic leaders and impactful change agents, board Chairman Kevin Eltife announced at a news conference Thursday alongside top Texas political leaders.
The money will be used to renovate UT's Biological Laboratories building as the school's new home and create a "statement" building just north of campus, said Justin Dyer, the school's dean. It's currently housed in the Littlefield building, but the move will make the school more central and allow room for it to grow.
Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick praised the investment during the news conference. Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, a Republican megadonor who has reportedly funded vacations for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and donated to the new University of Austin, was also pictured at the event, though he did not speak.
"We've been hungry as leaders of this state to see the transformation and education that the University of Texas is delivering to this school," Abbott said. "It is absolutely essential that we as a state, the University of Texas as a university, that we be able to do the reformation ... in regards to classic education, to classic civics. To say the least, there's been a dramatic departure from those principles and precepts over the past two decades."
The Texas Legislature in 2021 initially established the Civitas Institute, a think tank housed at UT and funded by the state, to foster intellectual diversity and explore foundational questions. In 2023, UT System regents voted to establish a school in which to house the Civitas Institute. Similar schools have been established across the country to restore trust among conservatives, who say are often outnumbered on university campuses and report distrust in higher education.
Abbott and Patrick have taken particular interest in public universities over the last few sessions, particularly in rooting out diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and stripping power from faculty members, who the top government leaders have derided as too "woke" or liberal leaning. An attempt to end faculty tenure failed last session, however, Senate Bill 37 — a Patrick priority bill being considered in the current session — aims to significantly restructure governance in higher education by reducing faculty authority over governance, core curriculum and hiring.
The school will offer its first undergraduate degree this fall, focused on civic honors. The Civic Leadership School offers a master's degree in civics and two minors — one in civics and one in philosophy, politics and economics. The school has 14 faculty members.
Multiple incoming freshman who are pursuing an undergraduate degree at the Civic Leadership School gathered at Thursday's event to celebrate the news. Shane-David Willet said he hopes to pursue a degree in law and politics, and the announcement was "awesome."
"Being a part of the first class, that can be a really special thing," Willet said. "You have the time to make real inroads. ... I'm really excited."
Elia Davis, another incoming freshman, switched her major to civic honors after being admitted to the school, believing it was the best way to prepare her for a career in law and politics.
She picked the program because of "how freethinking it is and how you can think about both conservative and liberal ideas without focusing on one or the other," Davis said. "It's a lot of free thinking, free speech, kind of going back to the old American ideals."
Patrick touted the investment as another vehicle in which Texas is leading in higher education and soon in civic education.
"This is a crowning achievement, and this will lead universities around the country to follow," Patrick said. "We've been given a magnificent opportunity from our founders and today is the day in Texas we begin to claim our inheritance once again."
The institute has been criticized as being a conservative project because Republican lawmakers and donors helped organize it, the Texas Tribune reported in 2021, but the school has billed itself "pre-partisan" and although it's attractive to conservative students, it says it fosters discussion around all ideas. UT leaders say the school was founded on free speech and free inquiry, and explores education that is "needed to preserve constitutional democracy."
The investment comes at a time when universities may face a funding shortfall due to institutional enhancement funds being cut from the state's budget proposal — depriving UT of an estimated $38 million — as well as sweeping federal funding cuts for research. Republican Sens. Brandon Creighton of Conroe and Paul Bettencourt of Houston said they would withhold extra funding for higher education institutions until universities assert their compliance with Senate Bill 17, a 2023 law that outlawed DEI initiatives and programs in colleges and universities.
On Thursday morning, Eltife told regents and university leaders that this is a "trying time" due to "serious possible federal budget cuts to research and grants."
"We are chosen to lead by example, to focus on our true mission, which is doing what's in the best interest of students and patients," he said.
In an interview after the announcement, Eltife told the American-Statesman that this investment has been in the works for three or four years, and it reflects how the board's belief and confidence in this school and its potential.
"We're putting our money where our mouth is," he said. "... The board is proud to make this investment, and we're going to do everything we need to to make sure this school is adequately funded and they can hire the right faculty, because our students are going to love this school."
When asked about institutional enhancement funds, he said he has been in conversation with Patrick, who is supportive of higher education, and that he is confident higher education will be "happy" at the end of the legislative session.
The boost is also one of the first major announcements since Davis was appointed to the top post at UT in February. "There is really other no time you can recall where this group of people has gathered before this event," Davis said, adding that it affects the "historical" impact the investment will have on students.
A timeline for construction has not yet been announced, but Dyer, the school's dean, said leaders have been busy crafting classes, recruiting faculty members and preparing to welcome incoming freshman to the interdisciplinary program.
"Crucially, this investment will position the University of Texas at Austin as the national leader in a growing system to restore classical and civic education in the heart of higher education," he said.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: University of Texas System announces $100M investment in civics school
Hashtags

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


CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
Sellers: US under Trump is ‘drifting towards authoritarianism' – full interview
CNN Political Commentators Bakari Sellers, Xochitl Hinojosa, Kristen Soltis Anderson, and Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis join CNN's Dana Bash to respond to President Trump's decision to federalize thousands of National Guard troops and deploy them to Los Angeles.


CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
GOP Sen. Johnson: Trump's bill ‘just doesn't go far enough' to cut spending
Republican Sen. Ron Johnson tells CNN's Dana Bash that "nothing's really changed" in his criticism of President Trump's spending and tax cut bill.


Fox News
27 minutes ago
- Fox News
CHUCK DEVORE: Trump moves fast to save LA from a 1992 repeat
Los Angeles is rioting again. Mobs, amped up by professional agitators and implicit support from Democratic elected officials, have attacked federal law enforcement officers with deadly intent. This violence, which includes hurling rocks, torching cars, launching fireworks, and assaulting federal law enforcement officers, aims to prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) from carrying out lawful deportation efforts. Missing the irony, the rioters enthusiastically waved the flags of nations to which they are fighting against being returned. In response, federal and some local law enforcement deployed tear gas and flash bangs to disperse the crowd in the LA suburb of Paramount. But with law enforcement lives clearly threatened and the local law enforcement response less than robust, President Donald Trump ordered up 2,000 members of the National Guard to restore order. Additional active duty troops are said to be on standby. Predictably, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass clutch their pearls, whining about "cruel" immigration enforcement while the city spirals into anarchy. Newsom labeled Trump's federalization of the National Guard "purposefully inflammatory." He said it would escalate tensions—one supposes the future presidential candidate sees the ruckus as "mostly peaceful." The pro-immigration without limits group, the League of United Latin American Citizens, predictably condemned Trump's order, claiming it "marks a deeply troubling escalation in the administration's approach to immigration and civilian reaction to the use of military-style tactics." Trump isn't moved by the criticism. He doesn't want to see federal law enforcement officers killed or injured by anarchists and would-be revolutionaries for simply doing their jobs. I saw this movie before. In 1992, as a California Army National Guard captain, I patrolled LA's scorched Crenshaw District during the Rodney King riots. Looters ran wild, businesses burned, and chaos reigned until Gov. Pete Wilson called up the National Guard and President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act, sending 3,500 federal troops—active duty Army and Marines—to back 10,000 federalized Guardsmen. Order swiftly returned. It worked. There's a big difference—so far—between today's unrest and that of 1992. The Rodney King riot was initially sparked by resentment over what was seen as excessive police force. Due to LA's chronically under-staffed police department and a tactical error—pulling back law enforcement from an intersection that had been taken over by a violent mob—the riot quickly spiraled out of control. By the end, some 63 people were dead, 2,383 injured, 12,111 arrested, and more than $2.3 billion in inflation-adjusted property damage was inflicted. In comparison, the 1992 LA riot equaled all the death, injuries, arrests, and damage of the 2020 George Floyd-Antifa-BLM riots of 2020 combined. In 1992, once law and order broke down, opportunistic looting and arson quickly followed. Today's riots are fueled by open-borders radicals and their enablers, not anger over police using excessive force. ICE is enforcing federal law, rounding up illegal immigrant criminals and those with final deportation orders. And the danger, so far, is more focused on federal law enforcement officers, not private property per se. Thus, there's a subtle difference in the call-up of troops, both in the size of the deployment—13,500 in 1992 vs. 2,000 today—and in their purpose. Normally, National Guard personnel, when operating on a state mission for a governor, can enforce civilian law. The post-Civil War Posse Comitatus Act which generally prohibits the use of the military to enforce civilian laws doesn't apply. But when the Guard is federalized—that is, called up to federal service—the Posse Comitatus Act's restrictions apply to the Guard, just as they do to active-duty service members. But there's a big exception: The Insurrection Act. Through 1992, presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act 31 times. Essentially, when local law and order break down, the president is authorized to use the military to enforce civilian law. But Trump has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act. What he did instead was to call up the California National Guard and potentially some Marines to protect federal law enforcement officers. Thus, these military personnel will not be allowed to arrest agitators and rioters or conduct immigration enforcement operations, but they will be allowed to perform force protection missions and provide logistical support. Of course, if that's not enough. Trump can always invoke the Insurrection Act, federalize more National Guard soldiers—even from other states—and send in additional active-duty forces, just as Eisenhower and Kennedy did to smash segregationist resistance in the 1950s and 60s. Newsom and Bass are at fault here. Their failure is glaring. Californians have been voting with their feet for years, fleeing Newsom's wrong-headed policies. Now, his mismanagement of LA's violence will torch what is left of his presidential ambitions. These rioters aren't protesters—they're insurgents. Like Antifa in 2020, they're attacking federal authority, targeting ICE agents enforcing laws Congress passed. Newsom and Bass coddle them. Since they won't act, Trump must. The left will scream "tyranny," and some retired generals will fret about "politicizing" the military. But anarchy is a brutal tyranny of its own kind.