A Public Service Announcement
By Greg Moses
When you think of Feb. 14th do you think of Valentine’s Day? On Feb. 14th, 2022, the University of Texas at Austin Faculty Council adopted a fateful resolution affirming that “educators, not politicians, should make decisions about teaching and learning” (doc. 19141). Little did they realize that their forthright declaration of a principle old as Plato would be waved around like a bloody shirt. Republican politicians went hunting for Socrates.
Three years later, on Apr. 15, 2025, the Lt. Governor of Texas was still denouncing the “rogue faculty senate at the University of Texas” because it had “foolishly questioned the Texas Legislature’s authority over higher education” (ltgov.texas.gov).
But before we get into the story of the Valentine’s Day resolution or how it is being torched by Republican politicians, it is important to note that the Lt. Governor’s 2025 attack on the 2022 resolution commits the ethical fallacy of mistaking ought for is, right for might.
The Valentine’s Day resolution was an argument about what should be done: politicians should not assert authority over teaching, and faculty should be expected to “stand firm against encroachment on faculty authority.” The Lt. Governor, on the other hand, rebuked the faculty council for questioning a fact that they did not question: “the Texas legislature’s authority over higher education.”
Why would the UT-Austin Faculty Council adopt a long argument that politicians should not interfere in college teaching if the council was assuming that politicians did not have the power to interfere? In fact, as we will see, the UT-Austin Faculty Council had very good reasons to believe that the legislature was going to try to interfere with faculty scholarship and teaching, as happened soon enough.
Mature wisdom lies on the side of the faculty in this preview debate. It makes little sense to argue that politicians should tell college faculty what to teach or how to teach it. The UT-Austin faculty were right to declare that they would “stand firm against encroachment on faculty authority.” Little did they know that their Valentine’s Day resolution would serve as a pretext to firehose faculty and douse the flames of civil rights progress, not only at their campus, but all across their great state.
=+=
With about one week left to go before the end of the 2025 regular session, the Texas Legislature is preparing to join the Lt. Governor’s call to continue punishing faculty and their councils (also known as senates). Determined to drill Texas faculty in lessons they will not be able to “stand firm against,” the Lt. Governor in his capacity as president of the Texas Senate, is urging passage of Senate Bill 37, a law that would abolish faculty councils as we know them by Sept. 1.
The Lt. Governor is already boasting credit for “significantly weakened tenure” in Texas, following the passage of SB 18 in 2023. He counts the attack on tenure as part of “the largest pushback against wokeness in higher education in U.S. history,” an offensive that also included the passage of SB 17 in 2023 that relentlessly banned diversity, equity, and inclusion activities on campus.
Now he wants to crush faculty governance, too. In place of existing councils elected by faculty, SB 37 would require college presidents to appoint at least one member to the council from each college or school and then name the primary officers of the council (“a presiding officer, associate presiding officer, and secretary from the members.”)
Furthermore, among more than 20 pages of provisions in SB 37, college trustees will newly be required to “approve or deny the hiring of” deans or chief academic officers (commonly known as provosts). Collegial norms of shared governance usually treat the position of dean or provost as a matter for college presidents to decide “with the advice of, and in consultation with, the appropriate faculty” (AAUP Redbook 11th 119).
Under SB 37’s takeover of faculty councils, the provost, in turn, would be charged with identifying council members who are guilty of “misconduct,” and if the president agrees with the provost, a faculty council member shall be summarily removed from the council.
The general effect of SB 37 is to increase the authority of politically appointed trustees into spheres of academic operations so that influence flows more smoothly from the governor’s desk. Recent revisions to the bill would even require at least two trustees to serve on presidential search committees. Furthermore, the governor would appoint a statewide higher ed ombudsman who will take complaints, conduct investigations, and refer cases to the state auditor or legislature, including recommendations to withhold funding.
Among the many professional indignities that SB 37 will inflict upon faculty across Texas is the provision that strikes their right to serve on faculty grievance reviews. The president and provost will then have sole authority over faculty grievances. Prohibiting faculty representation during grievance reviews contradicts professional standards of the American Association of University Professors, which assumes the existence of faculty grievance committees, and which states that “In collegial work environments, due process includes an opportunity for peer participation in the review process” (AAUP Redbook 11th 215).
According to the Lt. Governor, the extreme undoing of faculty shared governance in Texas is necessary because “senates must have a clearly defined role at our universities.” What role is that? According to the Lt. Governor, “faculty senates generally serve a purpose and help Boards of Regents make critical decisions impacting university students in Texas.” But apparently, this role does not include issuing Valentine’s Day resolutions which assert faculty responsibility for teaching or that declare faculty resistance against external pressure in the classroom.
Once again, mature wisdom would counsel the Lt. Governor that he is correct to say that “senates must have a clearly defined role.” However, there is a critical flaw in his selection of the Senate that is out of bounds. And he still has time in the coming week to reign in the senate that is running amok.
=+=
Historical tragedies like SB 37 have backstories. In his Apology, Socrates explained to the jury how the accusations against him resulted from long simmering attitudes about his vocation and political choices. Likewise, behind the world-historical clampdown now being imposed on Texas college campuses, we find grudges against civil rights and academic freedom that have been ripening for years.
When the Valentine’s Day resolution of the UT-Austin Faculty Council publicly affirmed “the rights and academic freedom of faculty to design courses, curriculum, and pedagogy, and to conduct related scholarly research,” they were hoping to immunize their community against political attacks. “More specifically,” the 2022 resolution warned that “state legislative proposals seeking to limit teaching and discussions of racism and related issues have been proposed and enacted in several states, including Texas.” Mindful of attacks already underway, the resolution affirmed “the fundamental rights of faculty to academic freedom in its broadest sense, inclusive of research and teaching of race and gender theory” (doc. 19141).
The Valentine’s Day resolution was presented to the council by the Pharmacy professor who chaired the faculty Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility that drafted the resolution. Minutes of the meeting report that the resolution was “co-sponsored and endorsed by the University Faculty Gender Equity Council (UFGEC), the Council for LGBTQ+ Access, Equity, and Inclusion (Q+AEI), the Council for Racial and Ethnic Equity and Diversity, and the Faculty Council Executive Committee” (doc. 19152).
Broad outlines of the UT faculty resolution followed a “Template for Academic Freedom” that was published in 2021 by the American Association of University Professors, PEN, the American Historical Association, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, and then endorsed and adopted by numerous reputable groups and faculty senates, all of whom were concerned about growing right-wing attacks on academic freedom.
The “Template Academic Senate Resolution,” finalized on Sept. 21, 2021, and posted to Google Docs, made an attempt to stand fast against the swift backlash that was sweeping the nation following the global protests against the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. The Texas legislature led the backlash to closely monitor what could or could not be taught about racism in America. When the Texas Governor signed HB 3979 on June 15, 2021, he issued a terse signing statement that called the bill “a strong move to abolish critical race theory in Texas.” He vowed that “more must be done,” and he promised to add the issue to the summer’s special session agenda (gov.texas.gov).
=+=
One year to the day before the Texas Governor signed the bill banning what he called “critical race theory” in public schools, and two years before the Valentine’s Day resolution, the UT-Austin Faculty Council adopted an updated statement on “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” Passed unanimously by the 55 voting members present, the refreshed statement pledged “to provide equitable access and inclusion in all our activities” (doc. 18263). Although the language had been approved by the council’s executive committee on May 15, 2020, ten days before the murder of Houston Native Son George Floyd, the widescale protests of June 2020 made the timing seem momentous.
Minutes of the June 15, 2020, faculty council meeting are worth quoting at length, because, as the book of Proverbs advises, “let the wise listen and add to their learning” (Prov. 1:5). The council minutes presented below have been edited to remove personal names, just as we have done with the Governor and Lt. Governor above:
The University President discussed racial equity, diversity, and inclusion in the wake of the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and many other Black people. Central leadership has put out a statement and are meeting with the various groups that have made requests for action, including student athletes, other student groups, the Precursors, and other alumni groups. The President said, “I want to listen to them and hear what they’re feeling, what they’re seeing, what their priorities are, and work together…on our set of actions.” He has been working with the Vice President for Diversity and Community Engagement and the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement (DDCE) to reconsider the University’s Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan. Additionally, they have been working with the Vice Provost for Diversity and the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost on faculty diversity, and the President and Provost are “nearing adoption of the plan that was brought forward.” Recent reports from the Campus Contextualization Committee will inform how they think about physical aspects of the campus. The President shared a conversation he had with a Black student leader who described “all the little ways that it was difficult to feel like she fully belonged.” A minority student taking a campus tour pulled her aside to ask, “What’s it really like here at UT?” Her response: “It’s really hard, but it’s worth it.” The President said his exchange with that Black student leader “hit me,” and he thought “we can do better” by recruiting diverse talent, making sure they enjoy their UT Austin experience, and ensuring they feel empowered to contribute.
The Faculty Council Chair Elect thanked the many participants involved in revising the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement, which was then presented by a Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies. The Professor said that, in 2018, UT Austin adopted a diversity statement for the first time, but a number of constituencies on campus felt the statement was “not particularly inclusive.” The new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Statement addresses the issue of inclusivity in the second paragraph: “The University is dedicated to attracting highly qualified students, faculty, and staff of all races, ethnicities, peoples, nationalities, religious backgrounds, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, socioeconomic statuses, disabilities and health histories regardless of their marital, parental, age, veteran, or citizenship status.” A Professor of English proposed an amendment to change “provide” to “providing” in the first sentence, which the FCEC accepted.
A Professor of Classics shared the story of James Reeb, a Protestant minister killed in Selma, who “believed that it was impossible for White people who were in comfortable living situations to do anything for the Black minorities while still living where they were living.” He related this insight to “what we’re doing here with this diversity statement,” adding that the statement “will only have meaning if the resources and the commitment are there to really do something.” He added that the percentage of Black students at UT Austin “never varies from somewhere around 4 percent in a state where there are 13 percent African Americans.” The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies remarked that “only about 42 percent of the student population is White,” but agreed that Professor of Classic’s “basic observation is absolutely correct.” He asked, “Why hasn’t the White majority [at UT Austin] changed things so that…we don’t have the problems that we have? I think it’s a challenge for all of us.” The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies agreed that more action is necessary, but reasoned that the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement would set goals, aspirations, and principles to which UT Austin could be held. A Senior Lecturer in Management seconded the Professor of Classic’s concern that a new diversity statement on its own would not solve the problem. He said, “If we’re going to do something, we have to make a commitment to being able to recruit in the marketplace, and the marketplace is more competitive than we’ve ever seen.”
A Clinical Professor from the School of Law suggested that the word “opportunities,” be switched to “access” since the phrase “equal opportunities” in terms of education has come to stand for the narrow hypothesis that students can simply be given a “level starting place” and then “the rest is just…so-called meritocracy.” The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies said he would be in favor of changing the wording. Chair of Staff Council and Executive Assistant for the McDonald Observatory said calling UT Austin a “campus” in the last sentence risks overlooking colleagues who work in physical areas other than the 40 Acres. The Faculty Council Chair responded that, from one perspective, “campus is everything.”
An Associate Professor from the School of Design and Creative Technologies suggested changing “on a diverse campus” to “at a diverse University” to address the concern about excluding parts of UT Austin not within the 40 Acres. She also proposed that the last sentence read “learning and working on a diverse campus” instead of “learning on a diverse campus” to emphasize the important role played by staff. The Faculty Council Chair said the 2018 diversity statement focused on students, but the new statement has been expanded to explicitly include staff and facility. The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies supported changing the wording. The Faculty Council Chair noted that “this is not the final version”; it will be forwarded to “many, many other groups and administration offices” after being voted on by Faculty Council.
The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies closed by saying, “coming together as a University community around these kinds of commitments and statements is particularly important at this time.”
The Faculty Council unanimously approved the proposed new UT Austin Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement. (Doc. 18300)
The wide representation of faculty, staff, and administration voices resonated with a national awakening that was rolling across the world in June of 2020. Language of the resolution stipulated that “Final approval resides with the President” (doc. 18263). Momentum of the 2020 faculty council meeting is worth remembering, the way we cherish the last few seconds of life and love before the family van gets smashed by a rogue truck.
=+=
A Jan. 2025 interim report by the Texas Senate Higher Education Subcommittee alleged that: “Following the political unrest in the summer of 2020, a small group of extremists sought to seize the opportunity to transform public institutions – with the goal of reshaping Texas universities into institutions focused on social justice and equality of outcome” (p. 9). And this is the dark alchemy of how one Texas Senate interim report, signed by three members of a five member subcommittee, came to rebrand June 2020 as a time of “political unrest” and to infer that a gathering at that time of faculty, staff, vice presidents, and the president of UT Austin was but “a small group of extremists.”
The Texas Senate subcommittee interim report of 2025 went on to stipulate that “several legislators received reports from constituents and stakeholders across the state detailing curriculum and course content related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) throughout Texas public institutions.” The lawmakers could have pointed out that the law banning diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus (SB 17) specifically protected classroom teaching. However, in the eyes of the Senate Interim Subcommittee lawmakers, reports about course content were judged to evidence unseemly disrespect for their work: “Though this does not explicitly violate the letter of the law, it contradicts its spirit and does not reflect the expectations of Texas tuition-payers and taxpayers” (p. 33).
SB 37 was therefore crafted in 2025 to compel a new “spirit” of compliance in Texas Higher Education. The spirit of the ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion mandated by SB 17 was not being fully assimilated throughout Texas college classrooms. Faculty council meetings like the ones that happened in June 2020 or Valentine’s Day 2022 would not happen again if trustees, appointed by the governor, could be empowered to more closely supervise the selection of presidents, provosts, and deans; if, in turn, presidents could be empowered to appoint a significant share of faculty council members along with all three of their presiding officers; and if, finally, presidents and provosts would be given sole authority to remove faculty council members from their seats.
SB 37 ensures that a spirit of uncontradicted compliance shall emanate from the high source of the Texas Governor’s office down through faculty councils and into the entire curriculum of Texas higher education, fully satisfying what the Senate Subcommittee Interim Triumverate characterized as “the expectations of Texas tuition-payers and taxpayers” alike.
=+=
Two years after the George Floyd moment, and eight months after the Texas Governor signed the ban against “critical race theory” in public schools, the Valentine’s Day resolution of 2022 was a conscious attempt to rescue civil rights and academic freedom from the disaster that threatens them today. The resolution was debated in an open meeting, where dissent was duly reported in the minutes.
An associate professor of Finance accused the council of requiring “adherence to critical race theory. . . . and now you are complaining about this hypothetical threat that there might be a ban.” He complained that the council resolution did not make mention of the Chicago Statement or the Kelven Report which encouraged institutions to remain neutral and abstain from “declaring a collective opinion on political and social issues” (goacta.org). Minutes report that his dissent concluded with the declaration that the legislature “did not give you autonomy so you could turn our school into a social justice indoctrination camp. They absolutely should be monitoring this.” Two responses are recorded in the minutes.
A professor of Human Development and Family Science argued that the council resolution did not compel faculty to take any particular positions regarding race or gender theory, but “those people who do research on these areas, historians who have been studying the historical impacts of racism, they have the expertise . . . and they should have the right to be able to speak about it.”
And a professor who served on the drafting committee argued that the resolution received unanimous support from the committee “after considerable work and thought and interaction with people of other universities.” Citing the great American rule of resistance, that “we have all got to hang together or we will all hang separately,” the professor of Integrative Biology warned that: “It is critical race theory today. It is going to be . . . climate change or evolution tomorrow, so it affects all of us.” Minutes reflect that the resolution passed “by majority vote: forty-three in favor, five against, and three abstaining” (doc. 19152).
=+=
A moral cyclone of backlash is howling to punish Texas faculty for their so-called “wokeness.” When the House Higher Education Committee heard testimony regarding the anti-tenure bill (SB 18) in 2023, long hours produced not a single witness in its favor. Not one. Yet the committee approved the bill that the Lt. Governor now brags about passing because it significantly weakens tenure.
Similarly, this year, the Texas AAUP counts about 3 witnesses speaking for SB 37, but 300 witnesses against, a ratio of 100-to-one “Texas tuition-payers and taxpayers” pleading with Texas politicians that “educators, not politicians, should make decisions about teaching and learning” in Texas. But once again, the fix was in, the railroad operation blared full steam ahead, and the bill was adopted by the committee along party lines, with Republicans in control.
Finally, under the afternoon light of a simmering Texas sun, on May 24, 2025, when SB 37 was being debated in the Texas House of Representatives, Republicans made it a point to drown out the debate under a crescendo of bar car chatter. The chair of the House tried to gavel them to order. The Democrat who held the floor yelled “shut up!” But the House Republicans, who are on record for mandating orderly classrooms in public schools, could not be bothered to stop talking over the debate.
Voices of faculty and their friends in Texas have been scattered against shrill winds of power. Barring a miracle of conscience, the Lt. Governor’s kneecap campaign will be soon visiting a Texas campus near you. Don’t get caught out supporting civil rights, academic freedom, or social justice. And be sure to get your faculty council opinions realigned with the ruling party in Texas, or there will be hell to pay.
BTW: When I think of Feb. 14th I think of the birthday of Frederick Douglass, author of the term “moral cyclone” who was born into bondage as the property of his father. The term “moral cyclone” is an unexaggerated metaphor for the way Texas faculty will soon be reborn as an intellectual labor force in service to Texas politicians who are eager to crack their power whips against any professor “foolish” enough to “stand firm” against the brazen dictates of a newly revised Texas Education Code. Altogether, Feb. 14th has become a mixed-up metaphor for the passion that joins the love of wisdom to the struggle for a democratic outcome, and only by the grace of God will it turn out differently this year than it did for Socrates back when.
NOTES: SB 37 provisions described above reflect the latest updates reported in the House Higher Education Committee Substitute as of press time. The story was expanded on May 23 to include the section on the Texas Senate Subcommittee on Higher Education Interim Report of Jan. 2025. And a paragraph was inserted on May 24 to reflect the context of debate in the Texas House.
Texas Civil Rights Review 