Katherine Mansfield learned through an email that her spring semester course title at the University of North Texas had been altered. The graduate-level class she teaches, aimed at experienced educators pursuing a master’s in educational leadership, was formerly titled “Race, Class and Gender Issues in Education,” but is now named “Critical Inquiry in Education.”
The course description has also been modified. Initially, it indicated that students would learn to be “culturally responsive” towards their students and to “debunk stereotypes and negative views” pertaining to students in environments affected by “race, class and gender inequalities.” The updated description now states that students will “critically examine current topics related to providing leadership for various student groups.”
The renaming is part of a broader initiative, with the University of North Texas making at least 78 amendments to course titles and descriptions in the graduate program of the College of Education, alongside around 130 changes to undergraduate courses. These adjustments followed a directive from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to state lawmakers, urging them to examine public higher education programs that incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, citing concerns that such programs are damaging and misaligned with the workforce demands of the state.
This directive is an extension of Senate Bill 17, a recent law that removed DEI offices from universities and prohibited financial support for DEI initiatives. Although the law took effect in January, it importantly does not extend to cover instructional methods or research practices.
In a correspondence obtained by the Tribune, Professor Lok-Sze Wong noted that university administrators thought the course title revisions could help safeguard faculty from potential backlash, pointing out that these titles and descriptions are “public facing.” Faculty members have until fall 2025 to revise their course structure to align with the updated descriptions, according to the email.
This instance exemplifies the sentiments among UNT faculty, who express concerns that administrators are overreacting to SB 17 by scrutinizing syllabi and course offerings. Faculty members suggest that the university’s actions indicate an overzealous compliance with a law that doesn’t necessitate such measures.
However, a spokesperson for UNT denied that these changes connect to SB 17, stating that the revisions to course titles, materials, and reading lists are part of an effort to align the curriculum with state standards for teacher education.
Brian Evans, president of the Texas conference of the American Association of University Professors, criticized the situation, claiming that the administration’s actions have resulted in widespread censorship. He argued that this limits the range of topics available for discussion and critical analysis in classrooms, emphasizing that faculty need academic freedom to teach effectively.
Mansfield and other faculty members believe that these revised course titles and descriptions are an effort by administrators to shield themselves from anticipated scrutiny when lawmakers reconvene in January. At a recent Texas Senate Higher Education Subcommittee meeting, State Senator Brandon Creighton commented that while DEI-related curricula do not technically violate the law, they “contradict its spirit,” suggesting that they conflict with the expectations of Texas taxpayers and students supporting public universities.
In the wake of the bill’s enactment in January, UNT administrators, alongside their counterparts at other institutions statewide, have shuttered DEI offices and reassigned the personnel. Additionally, several faculty senate subcommittees focused on support for faculty of color, LGBTQ faculty, and women’s faculty representation were also dissolved, as well as the Multicultural Center that provided various student services. Reports indicate that library staff were instructed not to hold events for Pride Week.
While students voiced their opposition to these changes, faculty expressed considerable surprise during a recent faculty senate meeting when Chief Compliance Officer Clay Simmons indicated that the university was interpreting the law to include “exceptions” for classroom teaching and research.
Simmons cautioned faculty to be cautious when focusing on specific identities within broader topics, such as homelessness. For instance, if examining LGBTQ homeless individuals, one would need to ensure that the focus remains within acceptable parameters outlined by the law. He also presented guidelines indicating that classroom discussions on DEI topics must be confined strictly to the curriculum content.
Simmons previously indicated that while research is generally exempt, it requires adherence to the definition of “generalizable knowledge,” leading to restrictions on how faculty conduct studies and share findings.
Recently, PEN America, an organization advocating for free speech, condemned Simmons’ remarks as an extreme example of overcompliance with censorship laws in academic settings. Jeremy Young, the organization’s Director of Freedom to Learn, expressed concern that the situation highlighted a potential misinterpretation of SB 17, warning against the implications for academic freedom.
In a follow-up correspondence, Simmons reaffirmed that research remains exempt from the constraints of SB 17, stating that faculty should maintain full academic freedom in their research efforts and in disseminating findings.
Discontent continues among faculty regarding the university’s apparent tendency to preemptively self-censor, raising alarms about the erosion of academic freedom. Adam Briggle, a philosophy professor at UNT, articulated his concern about the trajectory of the institution as it increasingly adopts these restrictive measures, questioning when faculty would collectively resist such moves. He fears that this trend may progressively infringe on core academic liberties.