The first big implementation test for Texas’ new college oversight law is moving from a Senate hearing to university regents, where course and program decisions are expected soon.
Texas universities are preparing to send core-course recommendations to boards of regents this fall under Senate Bill 37, the state law that expands oversight of public higher education. University leaders have until Jan. 1 to complete reviews of general education requirements, making the coming months an early measure of how far the law will reach into classrooms.
That timeline framed a July 28 Texas Senate Higher Education Committee hearing in Austin, where lawmakers heard sharply different accounts of the rollout. Invited university officials described implementation as manageable, while students, professors and advocates warned that the law is already encouraging censorship and overcompliance.
The next decisions move to regents
SB 37 is no longer only a legislative fight. The immediate question is what university systems will recommend when reviewed courses and programs reach governor-appointed regents.
Many systems told lawmakers they expect recommendations on which classes to remove from core curricula to go to boards of regents this fall. Those decisions could determine whether the law mainly produces administrative trimming or broader changes to what students are required to study.
The law requires universities to regularly review the core courses students must take. Those courses must be measured against standards that they are “foundational and fundamental,” prepare students for civic life and help ready them for the workforce.
What SB 37 shifts
SB 37 gives governor-appointed university regents expanded authority over day-to-day operations at Texas public colleges. That includes influence over which courses are offered and who is hired, areas that have traditionally involved significant faculty input.
The measure also directs schools to consider low-enrollment academic programs for elimination. It reduces the role of faculty senates, the elected professor groups that often help shape academic policy, and created an office to investigate whether public institutions are complying with state law.
Supporters describe those changes as accountability for taxpayer-funded universities and a push toward degrees with clearer workforce value. Critics argue the same tools can pressure campuses to narrow instruction, especially on politically sensitive subjects.
Administrators described a manageable rollout
At the Senate hearing, invited officials from the Texas Tech, University of North Texas, University of Texas, Texas A&M, Texas State and University of Houston systems largely told lawmakers they had not encountered major problems carrying out the law.
Administrators described reviews of core classes and academic programs as part of a broader focus on efficiency and workforce value. Their testimony gave Republican lawmakers a basis to argue that warnings about SB 37 had been overstated.
State Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, framed the hearing as a rebuttal to predictions that the law would damage higher education. He said there had been a “drumbeat that the sky was somehow falling,” pointed to record higher education enrollment and called the rollout “a stunning success.”
Critics say classrooms are narrowing
Students, professors and advocates offered a different account at a separate news conference and around the hearing. They said SB 37 has encouraged universities to restrict teaching, suppress discussion of race and gender, and make professors and students fear punishment for engaging with complex topics.
Edwin Jahir Escamilla Flores, a Texas State University student, said he expected college to strengthen his critical thinking and creativity. Instead, he said, classes have become less open because students and professors fear consequences for discussion and debate on difficult subjects.
The disagreement turns on what universities believe the law requires. Supporters say public colleges should be accountable, efficient and focused on useful degrees. Opponents say those goals cannot be separated from academic freedom if students are to receive a full education.
The overcompliance dispute
Critics argue some campuses have gone beyond SB 37’s text, particularly on teaching related to race and gender. Antonio Ingram, senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said university policies limiting how professors teach those subjects are not justified by the law.
That distinction is central because an earlier version of the bill that did not pass would have given regents more direct authority over lesson content, including how students learn about race and sex. Opponents say universities are imposing restrictions that lawmakers did not ultimately include in the final law.
Some university leaders reject that interpretation. Texas Tech Chancellor Brandon Creighton, a former state senator who authored SB 37, has said new policies are intended to comply with the law’s mandates.
Budget cuts and lawsuits may define the limits
The oversight fight is also tied to program cuts. At the University of North Texas, leaders recently eliminated or consolidated at least 70 academic programs while trying to close a $45 million budget shortfall.
Chancellor Michael Williams told the committee that SB 37’s requirement to review low-enrollment programs helped inform those decisions. Supporters can point to that as evidence of discipline; critics see a risk that financial pressure and political oversight will reinforce each other.
Courts may also shape how far implementation can go. Ingram is representing two faculty groups that sued Creighton and the Texas Tech System, alleging policies connected to implementation violate First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
For now, the law’s early record depends on which evidence receives more weight: administrators reporting few operational problems and strong enrollment, or students and advocates describing a chill that may not appear in enrollment data. The fall regent decisions will make the next stage of that test more concrete.
Leave a Reply