College professors say the move is an attack on academic freedom, threatening their ability to teach topics involving race or ideology. Republican lawmakers say the government must hold taxpayer-funded institutions accountable and roll back what they see as liberal bias on campus.
The proposal would give politically connected regents more power to determine course offerings and to decide what’s included in lessons, such as how students learn about race or sex.
Under Senate Bill 37, a governor-appointed ombudsman would investigate matters such as whether a school is getting around the Republican state ban on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Faculty members would have significantly less influence under the bill.
Democrats slammed the bill during a floor debate Saturday, describing it as bureaucratic overreach meant to intimidate faculty members from speaking out — either on state or school policies — or teaching about topics that make some people uncomfortable.
“Do we really want a future where Texas students only get a state-sanctioned, sanitized version of history or science? Or controversial topics are avoided for fear of some tip line complaint? That is not education,” state Rep. Vincent Perez , D- El Paso , said on the House floor.
Republican State Rep. Matt Shaheen, who introduced the House version, responded that it would “do absolutely nothing to dampen free expression.”
The measure “aligns the curriculum, aligns our degrees and aligns our certificates with what employers in this state and the future employers of this state need,” Shaheen said, adding that he believes it would attract more professors, students and jobs to Texas .
The proposal is a departure from how universities have long operated. Regents set hiring practices and review course changes but generally don’t participate in day-to-day operations.
The bulk of hiring and academic decisions are left to campus leaders. Meanwhile, professors, deans and provosts historically have had wide latitude on course content.
Faculty members say increased regulation would mean they couldn’t teach perspectives that lawmakers disagree with, forcing them to self-censor to avoid scrutiny from the governor’s investigator.
Many fear that the restrictions would lead to a brain drain, driving current and prospective professors to teach in other states.
Democrats pointed to outgoing University of Texas System Chancellor James Milliken’s recent announcement that he is leaving for California. Milliken did not note state politics as a reason behind his decision to head west to take over the nation’s largest university system.
Republican State Sen. Brandon Creighton, who introduced the bill, has said he wants students to graduate with “degrees of value” faster and at a lower cost.
House lawmakers voted 85-56 to pass SB 37.
A version of the bill calling for even more oversight and tighter restrictions passed the Senate in April. The two chambers must now iron out their differences before the bill can head to Gov. Greg Abbott . The legislative session ends June 2 .
Regents would have final say over what courses are included in a university’s core curriculum, under the House version.
Democratic State Rep. Donna Howard and Perez criticized the bill Saturday for putting these decisions in the hands of “bureaucrats” and “individuals without subject matter-expertise” rather than educators.
“We are sending [faculty] a message that they are no longer trusted to do their jobs,” Howard said.
According to the bill, governing boards would oversee that core courses are “foundational and fundamental” and “prepare students for civic and professional life” and “participation in the workforce.” Courses could not “promote the idea that any race, sex, or ethnicity or any religious belief is inherently superior to any other.”
Republican lawmakers say the bill is needed to address ideological biases on campuses.
Hatred is being “taught to our children” and “spewed on college campuses,” state Rep. Steve Toth , a Republican, said. He brought up as an example chants of “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” at campus protests. Some classify the chant as antisemitic, because they feel it suggests the elimination of the state of Israel , while others consider it a call for peace and liberation of the Palestinian people.
Perez pushed back, noting that Toth was conflating “freedom of expression made by students” on campus and “actual course content.”
“That’s the real danger with this bill,” Perez said.
Regents would have final say on presidents’ decisions to eliminate low-enrollment minors and certificates that do not have “specific industry data to substantiate workforce demand.”
Professors in the arts, humanities and social sciences say they worry that could threaten their fields of study. Students with such degrees often end up in a variety of jobs or don’t get a high-paying job immediately after graduation, making it difficult to collect data that ties degree outcomes to one industry.
Regents could eliminate courses they disagree with ideologically, including in areas such as ethnic studies and gender studies, because the bill relies on subjective criteria, critics say.
Students, faculty and staff alleging that schools are running afoul of such restrictions — along with other state laws, such as the ban on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in public colleges — could turn to a new ombudsman. That state officer could issue a civil investigative demand, which would require the school hand over relevant documents, or recommend the Legislature bar schools from spending state money.
Arwyn Heilrayne, a sophomore at the University of Texas at Austin studying theater education, told a House committee earlier this month that she recently applied to colleges outside the state.
She wants to teach theater after graduation but worries that relevant courses could be cut and her professors “silenced” under the bill, she said.
Some conservative students, however, see the proposal as a reprieve from courses that promote “ideological conformity” and those that have no relevance to their degrees.
At a recent House committee hearing, Will Rodriguez , a recent Texas A&M graduate who studied finance, said the core courses he took to fulfill graduation requirements — including those on architectural world history and Olympic studies — did not help prepare him for the workforce and were instead “wasted time and money.”
Under the proposal, regents would also have final say on hiring decisions for provosts, assistant provosts, vice presidents and deans.
Faculty senates would also be overhauled to limit professors’ influence. Senates could be established only by governing boards and would only play an advisory role. Under the bill, a school’s president would appoint some faculty to the senate rather than professors voting on all candidates as they currently do. Senates also would be limited to 60 members.
The Senate -approved version gives even more authority to governing boards, allowing them to withhold state funds or eliminate certain degree programs based on their return on investment and student debt levels unless they are necessary to meet state workforce demands. Regents also would approve every tenured faculty job posting in liberal arts, communications, education and social work.
©2025 The Dallas Morning News. Visit dallasnews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
