Katherine Mansfield found out that the title of her spring semester course at the University of North Texas had been changed via email.
The graduate level class that she taught to seasoned teachers who were trying to earn a master’s in educational leadership used to be called “Race, Class and Gender Issues in education.” Now, it would be called “Critical Inquiry in Education.”
The course description was also tweaked. Before the course said students would learn how to be “culturally responsive” to their own students and how to “debunk stereotypes and negative views” about students going to school in places where “race, class and gender inequalities exist.”
Now, the course says students will “critically examine current topics related to providing leadership for various student groups.”
The course change was one of at least 78 edits that UNT, the Denton campus with 47,000 students, made to course titles and descriptions in the College of Education’s graduate program. The university also made around 130 edits to undergraduate courses in the same college.
In an email obtained by the Tribune and first reported by the student newspaper, NT Daily, the changes were made after administrators learned of a directive that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick gave to state lawmakers ahead of the upcoming legislative session to examine programs and certificates at public higher education institutions that maintain diversity, equity and inclusion policies and “expose how these programs and their curriculum are damaging and not aligned with state workforce demands.”
The directive builds on Senate Bill 17, a state law that eliminated diversity, equity and inclusion offices on university campuses and prohibited state universities from using funding to support DEI efforts. The law, which went into effect in January, did not apply to course instruction and research.
According to the email from professor Lok-Sze Wong to other faculty in the UNT College of Education, administrators decided this was the best way to protect faculty from being further targeted because course titles and descriptions are “public facing.” Faculty have until fall 2025 to adjust their courses to comply with the new course descriptions, the email said.
The course edits are just one example of how faculty at UNT feel university administrators are overreacting to SB 17, according to interviews with faculty and emails obtained by the Tribune. Faculty say that by reviewing syllabi and courses, the university is overcomplying with a law that doesn’t require such a step.
A university spokesperson denied the changes were related to SB 17 and said the changes to course names, content and readings was part of an effort to ensure the curriculum is in line with state teaching education standards.
“Regardless of their intent, the UNT administration conducted a campaign of censorship of content in more than 200 courses,” said Brian Evans, president of the Texas conference of the American Association of University Professors. “It’s censoring what topics students can discuss and think critically about. In order for students to have the freedom to learn, faculty need to have the freedom to teach.”
Other faculty, including Mansfield, feel the edited course titles and descriptions are administrators’ way of preparing for what’s to come in January when lawmakers come back to Austin.
Last week, at a Texas Senate Higher Education Subcommittee meeting, state Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, said that while DEI-related curriculum does not violate the law, it “contradicts its spirit.”
“The curriculum does not reflect the expectations of Texas taxpayers and students who fund our public universities,” he said. “It also falls short of equipping graduates with practical knowledge and skills that employers seek.”
Since January, UNT administrators and their counterparts at universities across the state have closed DEI offices and reassigned staff to new roles.
Three faculty senate subcommittees at UNT focused on faculty of color, LGBTQ faculty and women were shuttered as well as the Multicultural Center, which housed multiple student services. Library staff were told they couldn’t host events for Pride Week.
While students protested the changes, faculty said they were especially taken aback during a faculty senate meeting last month when Chief Compliance Officer Clay Simmons said the university was interpreting the law to include “exceptions” to the carveout for teaching and research.
“So if you’re doing research on homelessness, you have to be very careful if you’re going to focus on a certain identity within homelessness,” Simmons told faculty. “So if you’re looking at LGBTQ homeless individuals, then you’ll have to make sure that that is narrowly tailored within the scope of work.”
He also showed a presentation slide that said “classroom lessons on DEI topics must be limited to elements of the course.” For example, “a class on mathematics may not include an activity on SB 17-prohibited topics, whether graded or not.”
Simmons told faculty that research would not be exempt unless it contributes to “generalizable knowledge,” a federal definition that applies to research findings that can be applied to a larger population than those studied in the particular research.
Last week, PEN America, a New York-based free speech organization, slammed Simmons for these comments, calling it “the most extreme case of overcompliance with a censorship law we have ever seen.”
“Making up provisions in SB 17 that do not exist is the hallmark of a higher education system that has gone totally rogue,” said Jeremy Young, PEN America’s Freedom to Learn program director, in a press release. “SB 17 already restricts diversity initiatives and programming on campus, which is bad enough. But by extending the reach of this law into areas explicitly protected by the legislation itself, UNT is not only misinterpreting the law but also putting faculty members’ academic freedom in severe jeopardy.”
A few weeks after the faculty senate meeting, Simmons sent an email out to the faculty senate clarifying that research is exempt from SB 17.
“Faculty members are entitled to full academic freedom in research and in the dissemination of the results,” Simmons wrote.
Adam Briggle, a professor and director of graduate studies of philosophy at UNT, said the university’s willingness to preemptively self-censor when the law doesn’t require it is troubling.
“I’m losing faith a little bit that UNT would ever stop this slide,” he said. “When do we actually push back? Where’s the line here? Because you can see how little by little, this could just become a total violation of academic freedoms.”
___
This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.