HIGHER ED: FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT
This article is the first part of a series exploring the changes in higher education in Texas over the last several years.
The war over free classroom discussion in Texas has reached its first major battle: a challenge by the American Association of University Professors.
The suit claims AAUP members employed throughout the Texas Tech University System have been the victims of an unconstitutional overreach by the board of regents, specifically through the memoranda of Chancellor Brandon Creighton, through the implementation of a controversial course and curriculum review by the system, which began in 2025.
While many claims are centered around instruction in the arts, troubling instances involve crucial material from medical and law instruction that was removed from university courses for undergraduates. Besides these, the complaint mentions a “chilling effect” as a result of the crackdown, restricting the instructors’ ability to mention even offhandedly subjects and words that have been forbidden.
Though the first hints of change came in September 2025, with The Concho Observer reporting on new policies being established at Angelo State University specifically limiting any instruction or classroom discussion related to sex and gender identity, the scope of the complaint alleges far more wide sweeping censorship policies than originally reported.
A War on Words and Ideas
According to the AAUP complaint, information about the landmark Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford was removed from a freshman level constitutional law class at TTU Law School.
They say that at the Health Sciences School in El Paso, medical doctors were told to avoid using the word “disparity” when discussing health outcomes among hispanic or black women.
Information in a class about the horrors of the holocaust was flagged for removal, as the class acknowledged that among the millions killed or prosecuted in that genocide were thousands of gay or bisexual men.
The process did not spare even typically wide ranging and varied subject like literature or drama, as Pulitzer Prize winning dramas like “Angels in America,” were barred from drama classes, as they referenced “the existence of more than two genders or sexual orientation.”
The AAUP says that all of these, and more, were removed from the curriculum; or instructors were advised against teaching during the materials during the 2025-2026 school term by provosts in a course-review process the AAUP claims left professors and instructors struggling for explanations.
The complaint also alleges vagueness that violates their 14th Amendment rights to due process, as their members were not made fully aware of the very process underway to effectively remove some of them from employment.
The professors allege the Creighton memorandum was established with discriminatory sentiments, with the removal of specific content specifically related to black history, civil rights, and minority issues, thus violating the 14th Amendment.
The complaint asks the court to find the Creighton memorandum unconstitutional on 1st and 14th amendment grounds and seeks an injunction preventing the Creighton Memoranda and any other policy or practice with similar restrictions or prohibitions from being enforced.
Defending His Legislation
While the court challenge continues, the plaintiffs having filed a preliminary injunction as of Aug. 3 2026, Chancellor Creighton has been busy defending the process to the press, and before the Senate Committee on Higher Education, which met July 28 to hear testimony.
During the hearing, when Sen. Royce West of Dallas asked why the Dred Scott case had been removed from a constitutional law class, Creighton expressed doubt that information about a Supreme Court case would ever be removed from a college course of that nature, and suggested that perhaps in that instance, the information had been removed prior to the review process through a misunderstanding by the instructor or professor.
He also clarified that neither he, nor the regents, would be in a position to review individual sections of a class.
These statements do not align with allegations in the complaint, nor do they align with the public statements made by Creighton earlier this year.
In an interview with Everything Lubbock in April of this year, Creighton described the course review process as “deliberative” – telling a reporter “The regents process and input, and our teams working together for what is ultimately submitted; some of these are 13, 14, 15-hour days to meticulously get through all those syllabuses and reading materials…”
The complaint also claims direct communication from the board of regents led to the removal of content, with quotes from emails to back up the claims.
Transforming Higher Ed
Depending on who he’s talking to, Chancellor Creighton more-or-less takes credit for the changes to higher education in Texas.
When the interviewer further pressed on the issue of the course content review process, Creighton defended the process again saying that this was not the “first time” a university system has conducted a course review.”
At the beginning of that interview, Creighton took full credit for the legislation that made the changes possible, telling them it was a state law he “specifically drafted and passed through 100 steps in the legislative process.”
On July 28, he again characterized the course review process as “deliberative,” and said that besides being fully legal thanks to laws he got passed as a state senator, the university’s actions were wholly in line with executive orders issued by Pres. Donald Trump and Gov. Greg Abbott.
High Value Degrees
In addition to those influences, Creighton reiterated a claim he’s repeated often in the months following the full implementation of his reforms. One that seems to make an outsized impression on the committee members.
“We’re hearing from our CEOs, in the private sector, that we need to take it seriously. In the last 10 to 12 years, [they] said that would consider leaving the state if we don’t focus more directly and certainly with full intention of delivering degrees of the highest value.”
Creighton mentions this, intimating that the only content removed from courses within the TTU system was information of little or no value to future employers.
He told the committee that of the thousands of courses and degree plans on offer within the system, that only 60 courses were subject to further review by the board of regents.
While they were quick to tout this number, they also admitted that hundreds of courses were edited prior to the course review process, in anticipation of what would be removed.
How Did We Get Here?
To those who have watched the story closely from the beginning, the criteria for what needed to be removed was evident: anything related to black history, queer history, racism, discrimination or violence against minorities.
Anything related to diversity, equity, or inclusion.
The story itself is difficult to capture quickly and simply, as it wasn’t just one law or one policy that forced the changes.
Rather, many different laws passed over several legislative sessions, from several branches of government, that turned into the strings of a broad sweeping net.
Changes like these would not have been possible in years past, at least not that the rapid pace they have been made this time.
Faculty senates, the inner governing body of the faculty at state universities in Texas, used to play a far more significant role.
This is among the most crucial things they changed.
Creighton’s SB 37 makes faculty senates powerless to oppose any changes to the processes taking place –or any other school decision. Thanks to changes in the law, faculty senates are advisory bodies only now.
Some university systems in Texas chose to eliminate them completely, like the Texas State System.
Others, like Angelo State, kept the faculty senate but amended rules necessary to comply with law.
The New Laws
In order to understand what’s been going on at Angelo State, and the other four schools in the system; those are the health sciences colleges at El Paso and Lubbock, Texas Tech, Angelo State, and Midwestern State Universities, which have set the template for what’s expected of higher education in Texas, one must understand the laws that were drawn up that led to the move.
Senate Bill 17 (2023)
Author: Brandon Creighton. This law, “Relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at public institutions of higher education,” sought the closure of those programs.
S.B. 17 contains numerous exceptions, namely that no part of the bill is to be construed that the mere mention of diversity, equity, or inclusion is not prohibited. An exception which seems to have also led to confusion throughout the system, as indeed many things have been removed from almost every level of education and government that mention such topics.
Creighton told the Senate Committee on Higher Education hearing on SB 17 in March 2023, that the bill was designed to removed “DEI ideology,” which “mirrors old Marxist talking points dividing the world into the oppressed and oppressors.”
The complaint notes, that “after the passage of Senator Creighton’s SB 17, the Black Cultural Center at Texas Tech University was defunded and repurposed to be the “Campus Engagement Center” in September 2023, a little over one year after its founding.”
They continue: “Building on the efforts to curtail racial justice perspectives related to so-called
‘wokeness’ in S.B 17 and S.B. 18, Senator Creighton authored SB 37 in the 2025 legislative session.”
Senate Bill 37 (2025)
Author: Brandon Creighton. Established a new doctrine in higher education in Texas, by removing, through law, any authority vested in faculty senates, institutions which have historically played a vital role in the course review process. By making these institutions advisory bodies only, the legislators found a way to enforce their measures.
Language that was eventually struck from this bill forms one of the arguments in the AAUP’s complaint, a line which read:
“Eliminate curriculum that: (A) teaches identity politics; (B) teaches that individuals of one race are inherently superior to individuals of another race or that individuals of one race bear personal or collective responsibilities for actions committed by other individuals of the same race; (C) is based on a theory that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, or privilege is inherent in the institutions of the United States or this state was created to maintain social, political, or economic inequities; or (D) requires or attempts to require students to adopt an ideology.”
Creighton described his wishes in 2024, to a forum at the Texas Youth Summit, saying “In this session we’re [going to] strengthen it even more. So ESG [Environmental, Social, and Governance] and CRT [Critical Race Theory] in our K-12 in our public schools and the DEI woke garbage in our university level, Texas is taking a stand…”
The AAUP claims that this language which never made it into the bill, was still made into policy within the TTU system.
House Bill 229 (2025)
Author: Ellen Troxclair. Senate Sponsor: Mayes Middleton. This measure was advertised as the “women’s bill of rights” by state legislators.
The bill contains no amendments which enumerate the rights of women, instead focusing on a strict definition of what “male” and “female” mean to the state of Texas.
Specifically, the bill defines “female” and “woman,” as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,” and “male” or “man,” as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”
Putting aside the fact that there are millions of people who live and are born with various combinations of reproductive traits, known medically as intersex persons, the bill leaves no room for any possibility that a woman or a man might not be born with the capability to produce ova or sperm respectively, only that their reproductive systems were developed to do so.
This measure has come under considerable scrutiny from human and civil rights groups, and doctors.
Executive Orders from Abbott and Trump
The executive order issued by Pres. Donald Trump in September 2020, EO 13950, was eventually declared unconstitutional by a federal court, and rescinded by Pres. Joe Biden during his term.
The order would have defined in similar terms, other studies of discrimination in America:
[Prohibited concepts include] “[O]ne race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist; (3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex.”
Eventually, in 2025, two more executive orders would be issued in January, one from Trump and Abbott each. Again they mirrored each other, but this time focused on gender.
From a Concho Observer report in September of that year: “On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order titled ‘Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Trust to the Federal Government.‘
“It is important to remember that executive orders are simply instructions to the executive branch about what the administration’s policy will be. They do not have the force of law and can be modified, rescinded or revoked by the next administration.”
The order states, “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes male and female,”instructing, “the Executive Branch will enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality” setting out definitions of words like sex, male, female, men, boys, women, girls etc. It directs the Secretary of Health & Human Services to provide the U.S. Government, and the public, clear guidance on the sex- based definition within 30 days.
“It also directs federal employees to enforce laws governing sex-based rights, protection, opportunities, and accommodations to protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes, and requires agencies to use the word “sex” and not “gender” in any federal policies or documents.”
On Jan. 30 2025, Governor Abbott issued a letter stating: “As the Chief Executive Officer of the State, I direct you to follow state and federal law. All Texas agencies must ensure that agency rules, internal policies, employment practices, and other actions comply with the law and the biological reality that there are only two sexes—male and female.”
The EO, and the governors letter (often referred to at the time as the governor’s executive order, but was merely a letter) were the ones given as the legal basis for the change in policy in September 2025.
But the story is more curious than meets the eye, as it is not too often that the man who helped pass the laws is almost immediately put in a position to carry out their full enforcement. That man is Chancellor Brandon Creighton.
Creighton’s Quest
Just one year ago, Brandon Creighton could have been described as the one of the most important legislators in the Texas Senate.
Having just wrapped up his sixth session as senator, he was elected at the beginning of that term as President Pro Tem of the senate, making him the third in line of state succession.
He even served three days as interim governor in 2025, when Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick traveled to Washington DC to attend the inauguration of President Donald Trump.
Though its likely that the TTU system will argue that much of the information removed from the curriculum throughout the review process was perhaps the result of “misunderstanding” on the part of professors and provosts, it’s time now to turn to the man responsible for the review and the laws which enabled it, Creighton himself.
Is there anything in his legislative career that would offer a glimpse at the personal views and beliefs of the Chancellor?
This series is in progress.
Further reporting on this subject from the Concho Observer:
New Trans Policy Creates Confusion on Campus
Inside Angelo State’s LGBTQ+ Policy Meetings
Students React to Policy at Angelo State
Redacted Emails Reveal Policy Rollout Within TTU System
Concho Observer Editor and Reporter-at-Large Matthew McDaniel contributed to this report.
1 Comment
Pingback: A&M Regents Sued Over Free Speech in Classroom - The Concho Observer