Latest news with #SB37
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Under SB 37, Texas universities will focus on educating, not indoctrinating
American higher education is broken. It costs too much and adds too little value. Too many courses indoctrinate rather than educate. Faculty construct requirements to force students into classes they don't want to take — classes of little intellectual value that do nothing to prepare them for careers. Activist faculty who spend little time on serious research dominate faculty governance bodies. 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
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Universities should foster debate and critical thinking. SB 37 will stifle that
Several years ago, on the last day of my argumentation and debate class at the University of Wisconsin, where I taught before coming to the University of Texas, a student approached me. 'The semester is over,' said the student, who sat in the front row with a bumper sticker for then-Republican Gov. Scott Walker on his computer. 'Will you tell me what your personal politics are?' 'To be honest, I'm very far left of the Democratic party,' I told him. 'Damn,' he said, 'I could've sworn you were a Libertarian.' My job as professor is to treat my students with respect. This student did the work: He defended his views with evidence, engaged with material from diverse viewpoints and learned the best scholarship my field had to offer, regardless of whether it lent itself to particular political conclusions. Column: Under SB 37, Texas universities will focus on educating, not indoctrinating | Opinion People from both sides of the political spectrum have accepted the premise that universities silence students. Research partly corroborates this view. A Knight Foundation-Ipsos study on campus free speech found that roughly two-thirds of students self-censor in classroom discussions, especially when the topics involve race, gender, LGBTQ issues or religion. That same study found 60% of students said that campus climate contributes to the stifling of free speech, but the nature of that climate is not defined. The Right has taken this as evidence that conservative students suffer, but the Knight study found that Black students, who are more likely to have liberal or left-leaning politics, are the most likely to report difficulty using their free speech rights. What are we to make of this information? There have always been students who don't feel safe sharing their views. The largest constituency of students who still feel that way are the ones that have historically felt that way. This certainly tracks with my experience as a university educator for the past 25 years. What is missing in analyses about campus free speech and safety is a discussion of power. Many college students are white, and Black students are a small minority. When it comes to national power, it is still unusual to find people of color in positions of power, from the government to the lectern to the board room. When the group you identify with does not have structural power, it is easy to understand why you wouldn't feel safe expressing yourself. This is not the situation that white students find themselves in on campuses, regardless of whether their opinions are in the minority. This is also why classes with Black professors who intervene in that power structure are vital. What to know: House moves to advance SB 37 on faculty senate, core curriculum review. Professors are not here to validate every opinion that may exist on a given issue. My role as professor is to create an affirming environment for students to learn how to defend their views with evidence, to critically interrogate the views they hold, and to learn the best scholarship in my field of study. My job is also to teach students how to think critically, to write well, to solve problems, and to understand those who are different from them. The Texas Legislature is poised to pass Senate Bill 37, which would place ideological litmus tests on courses in the state core curriculum. This proposal is based, at least in part, on the belief that conservative views are being stifled at our universities by professors like me. I vehemently disagree with this premise. I encourage our elected officials to use their critical thinking skills to discern what a university education is for. If it is to prevent students from engaging with diverse viewpoints in their required curriculum, then our democracy is truly at risk. Karma R. Chávez is the chair of the Department of Mexican American and Latina/o Studies at the University of Texas. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Universities should foster debate. SB 37 will stifle that | Opinion
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Faculty and students blast Texas House panel for limiting testimony on bill that targets state universities
Pauline Strong wanted to speak to lawmakers last week about how a bill they're considering would make her think twice when discussing sensitive topics with her anthropology students at the University of Texas at Austin. But she had to drop off her grandchildren at school first. Despite rushing to the Texas Capitol afterward, she missed the window to register to testify against Senate Bill 37 by a few minutes. Strong, who testified last session in opposition to a bill banning diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in higher ed, didn't expect registration to end so early this time. 'It was disappointing, it was surprising, it was disheartening,' Strong said. 'And I'm someone who came from Austin. There were lots of people who were driving from Houston or other parts of the state who left very early in the morning and arrived too late to testify.' Dozens of students and professors like Strong, who were unable to testify against a bill they fear could limit the free exchange of ideas on college campuses, voiced their frustration on Thursday over losing one of their few chances to address lawmakers directly. 'This is not a bill we can risk cleaning up in the next legislative session. It will impact our students and teachers for the worse forever,' said Amanda Garcia with the Texas American Federation of Teachers. SB 37 would limit faculty's influence on academic decisions and give university systems' regents, who are political appointees, more power to decide what curricula are taught, as well as which administrators are hired at the state's public colleges and universities. It would also establish another way for universities to be investigated for breaking state law — and potentially lose funding at a time when they are already facing significant financial headwinds. SB 37, which was passed by the Senate last month, was one of 10 bills scheduled for a public hearing in the House Higher Education Committee on May 6. During committee hearings, lawmakers debate the contents of a bill and invite witnesses to comment on the proposal. They also give the general public an opportunity to share their thoughts on the legislation. Rep. Terry M. Wilson, the Georgetown Republican who chairs the committee, started the hearing just after 8 a.m. with an announcement — the committee would not accept any more people registering to testify for or against SB 37 after 8:30 a.m. As chair, Wilson may limit testimony. He didn't do so with another controversial proposal brought before his committee, House Bill 232, which would make it more difficult for undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition. When HB 232 was considered on April 30, Wilson allowed people to register to testify until just before the hearing concluded at 1:06 a.m. the following day. Wilson did not comment Thursday on his decision to close early the witness registration window for SB 37. To Garcia, limiting testimony on SB 37 was a clear attempt to silence overwhelming dissent. To others, it was typical for a part-time Legislature that hurries to pass new laws in a 140-day window every two years — work that must conclude by June 2. 'They have to hustle in a way that doesn't always lend itself to having many voices heard,' said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston. Texas allows anyone to register to give testimony during committee hearings to go over proposed legislation, but the process can be cumbersome. People must register at kiosks in the Capitol by a deadline that each committee's chair or clerk has broad discretion to set. The hearings can last all day and have long interruptions whenever members must leave to debate and vote on legislation in their chambers. This makes it harder to participate for Texans who have jobs they can't step away from or who don't live near Austin. This session, farmers from Johnson County waited 18 hours to testify for a bill to limit toxic chemicals in fertilizers, and public school advocates waited 20 hours to testify against a bill to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms. Sometimes, public testimony can result in more measured legislation, Rottinghaus said. He pointed to Senate Bill 3 as an example. Originally written in the Senate as a ban on THC, the House proposed only tightening regulations after hearing testimony that was both technical and emotional. 'Whether that will ultimately change the bill, I don't know, but I think just as a general kind of notion that this is really important, that having people make their voice heard and giving legislators more information about what is going on is a big part of the process,' he said. One of the concerns the professors and students who didn't get to testify on SB 37 brought up on Thursday was that the proposal could limit the teaching of race and inequality. Jaime Cantú, an assistant professor of biology at Austin Community College, said the bill could keep future medical professionals from learning about health disparities. He worried that under SB 37, he could be fired for teaching his students about how Interstate 35 has historically served as a dividing line between those who have access to health care in Austin and those who do not. He said he often mentions this to his students, who are mostly low-income people of color making sacrifices to become nurses. Aihanuwa Ale-opinion said she's thankful to have learned about how public health structures have and can perpetuate inequality as a biology student at UH. 'Rather than instill feelings of guilt, this has empowered me with the knowledge necessary to create better structures that are more inclusive and has inspired me to be a better peer, a better professional and a better advocate,' she said. State Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, who authored SB 37, said faculty have too much control over schools' curricula, which has led to liberal bias in the classroom and many students taking classes that ultimately don't serve them in their careers. State Rep. Matt Shaheen, a Plano Republican carrying the legislation in the House, has proposed a version of the bill that removes some of the most controversial parts, such as a requirement that regents approve the hiring of faculty in certain disciplines and a provision to eliminate degree programs with a low return in students' investment. But the bill still has its detractors. Both versions of the bill limit the number of faculty who can be elected to serve on bodies that advise the university or college administration. Both also contain a provision that says faculty who engage in political advocacy can be immediately removed from these bodies. On May 6, the House Higher Education committee heard public testimony for about two hours before it recessed at about 10 a.m. They reconvened 11 hours later at 9 p.m. and adjourned at about 1 a.m. the next day. In the end, more than 80 people testified about SB 37. Although Strong was one of 20 people who missed the deadline to register, she stayed at the Capitol all day, helping her colleagues whittle down their remarks and practice so they could maximize the time allowed to speak: two minutes. In her 32 years at UT-Austin, Strong has developed curriculum and been on search committees to hire deans. She said she wanted to tell lawmakers that the bill's premise is faulty. Faculty who take on these responsibilities don't do so lightly, and their goal is not to indoctrinate students, she said. In fact, she added, those students serve as one of several checks on faculty. They fill out surveys after every course, and any complaints they make are investigated and addressed through mentoring and discipline, which can include termination, Strong said. 'Faculty are not getting away with teaching that is shoddy, out-of-date, or ideologically narrow,' she said. 'Our colleagues, administrators and students make sure of that.' The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage. Disclosure: University of Texas at Austin and University of Houston 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. First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why university professors say Texas Senate Bill 37 would be disastrous for higher education
A Texas House committee is proposing to eliminate several controversial measures targeting higher education from a Senate-approved bill that seeks to remove university faculty from shared governance and hiring decisions, while restricting required coursework for students. As the Texas House Higher Education Committee took up Senate Bill 37 late Tuesday, with discussions stretching into early Wednesday, dozens of professors and students sat in stiff chairs urging lawmakers to reject the legislation. The central debate between the bill's proponents and opponents focused on a key question: When does education shift into indoctrination, and does higher education in Texas require more regulation? The House's version of SB 37, presented by Republican state Rep. Matt Shaheen of Plano, made significant changes to the Senate's proposal, notably keeping final authority on academic degrees and curriculum with universities. The Senate's version grants that authority to university boards of regents, which are political appointments. Shaheen said he met with university leaders three times before introducing his revisions, and many who testified before the committee thanked him for the changes. 'A lot of the changes that they requested are in this bill,' Shaheen said about university leaders. The House version also restricted university system regents' hiring authority to presidents, vice presidents and deans. Texas A&M University System General Counsel Ray Bonilla testified that this revision would reduce the boards' legal liability for employment decisions. The House panel also cut the Senate-outlined process for ending degree programs with certain levels of associated debt, softening language to direct presidents to review programs and minors for low enrollment that "may require consolidation or elimination." Most processes now are "at the institutional level," Shaheen said in allaying fears about political appointees ― such as boards of regents that are appointed by the governor ― overruling decisions made by faculty experts. The bill, however, kept in place the regents' "ultimate authority" over nearly all decisions, including on whether to allow faculty senates to exist at an institution and to annually review leaders who oversee curriculum. Despite the House changes, professors, students and higher education advocates who testified against the bill argued that any version of SB 37 would crush institutions' ability to foster productive faculty governance and education. SB 37 states that a university's core curriculum cannot 'advocate or promote the idea that any race, sex, or ethnicity or any religious belief is inherently superior to any other race, sex, or ethnicity or any other religious belief," and it creates a new Office of Ombudsman to investigate public accusations that a school's curriculum isn't following SB 37 or an anti-diversity, equity and inclusion bill that lawmakers passed in 2023. Professors from disciplines including medicine, history, social work, music and art testified that the bill would restrict their ability to address topics such as diversity, racial disparities or history. "In the past, I have not shied away from exploring difficult aspects of American history, including racial segregation and Japanese internment. This would no longer be possible if SB 37 passes," said Lauren Gutterman, who testified as an individual but spoke from her experience as a UT associate professor who teaches history classes that count toward core requirements. "How could I talk openly about history of immigration or LGBTQ rights movement when I know what could happen?" she asked. 'Pigeonholed': Why some lawmakers, students are backing Texas SB 37 Sen. Brandon Creighton, the Republican from Conroe who chairs the Senate Education K-16 Committee and authored SB 37, said his legislation provides a clear delineation of faculty senates' advisory role and tailors university curriculum and degrees to "credentials of value" at a time when trust in higher education institutions is shrinking among Republicans. From 2012 to 2019, Republicans' views on colleges having a negative effect on the country jumped from 35% to 59%, while Democrats have remained largely stable in their positive view of higher education at 67% over the same period, according to the Pew Research Center. "We're teaching courses that are not going to aid a student in their career and the like, we need to seriously ask why that's being offered," Shaheen said. William Rodriguez, a senior at Texas A&M, testified that as a finance major to fulfill his requirement, he took a class in which he felt "pigeonholed" into only certain views, such as with global warming. Those who testified later said scientific facts and historical events do not need to be political, but they fear they will become partisan tools. Paola Martinez, a senior at UT-El Paso, took a women studies course and said she read no politically conservative or moderate lessons, and she wished she had been exposed to more viewpoints. Texas isn't alone in seeking to regulate higher education. In Indiana, lawmakers inserted a provision in its state budget that stripped faculty senate powers, allocated more authority to regents and established an enrollment threshold for degrees. Ohio and Utah have also passed laws limiting how and what faculty members may teach. But the Texas proposal has gained national attention for its scope and its implications for academic freedom. Under SB 37, faculty members can't be involved in considerations over faculty grievances nor will they have final decision-making authority over someone's hiring, delivering on Gov. Greg Abbott's call during his State of the State address in February to keep faculty members from employment deliberations. The bill would also prohibit faculty members from electing their own faculty governance leader and from electing its membership. Instead, an institution's president would pick the faculty senate leadership, while retaining the power to remove any member who appears to advance a political agenda. Caitilin Smith, who testified as an individual but teaches human sexuality and development, shared anonymized end of semester feedback from her students about critical thinking in her classes, including a conservative Christian who said they found "opportunities for greater education and understanding, especially with topics I'm not comfortable with." With SB 37, she said, students would not be pushed to learn in the same way, lowering the value of a university education that is supposed to prepare students not just for careers but for meaningful lives. "Our society and our workforce need graduates who are able to have difficult conversations while remaining grounded in their values," Smith said. "SB 37 will transform our institutions of higher learning into mere degree mills, and many of us will not stand for that or even stay in Texas for that." At 1 a.m. Wednesday, the bill was left pending in committee after about a half-hour of committee members quizzing Shaheen on officials' testimony. Shaheen said he has "high confidence" the Senate will accept the changes. Wynne Chin, a distinguished professor at the University of Houston who is a past faculty senate president, advised the House panel that SB 37 is already depriving Texas of top talent. "Regarding recruiting, this bill is already being raised as a point of concern from people I'm trying to hire. Conversely, several star professors at UH have told me they are seriously considering leaving Texas because of this bill," Chin said. "And personally, a number of universities have already reached out to me to consider joining their institutions explicitly mentioning their awareness of this bill. "Overall, this bill's proposed structural changes will lead to increased costs and less effectiveness immediately and negative longer term economic impact on Texas due to inability to recruit top talent and brain drain of our world class researchers." This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: SB 37 risks Texas' higher education freedom, excellence: faculty
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Without first-class public universities, Texas cannot be a first-class state
According to recent reports, Texas now boasts 16 top-tier universities, more than any other state. The majority are public institutions, including the University of Texas flagship here in Austin. 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
