Conservative lawmakers in Texas have increasingly targeted university faculty, accusing them of promoting “woke” ideologies that allegedly indoctrinate students with left-leaning views. As the 2025 legislative session approaches, some legislators are considering measures that could diminish professors’ decision-making powers regarding campus culture and curriculum. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has suggested that legislative changes be made to the functions of faculty senates, which play a crucial role in shaping academic programs and upholding professors’ academic autonomy.
Critics from the right argue that the university curriculum has become overly liberalized, reflecting ideologies that stray from traditional educational values. Sherry Sylvester, a representative from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, voiced concerns about needing to reevaluate who controls the curriculum if universities are to remain committed to open inquiry and freedom of expression.
In contrast, many professors worry that the Republican-led legislature may disrupt the balance of power designed to protect higher education from political agendas. There is apprehension that without proper representation, faculty might seek opportunities elsewhere, resulting in losses in research and oversight of university administrations. Michael Harris, a higher education expert at Southern Methodist University, highlighted a concerning trend of ideological attacks against faculty, emphasizing the significance of faculty senates in maintaining academic integrity.
Faculty senates consist of professors from various university disciplines who collectively address academic standards, curriculum developments, faculty appointments, and broader institutional issues. These governing bodies are pivotal in advising university leadership and relaying faculty concerns. Texas A&M University President Mark Welsh acknowledged the essential role these bodies play in university governance, insisting they contribute significantly to the institution’s academic mission.
In Texas universities, faculty representatives are elected by their peers to participate in the senates, which hold monthly meetings that often include discussions with university administrators about pressing issues. Faculty emphasize the importance of their insights in decision-making processes and stress that similar to corporate practices, administrators should rely on faculty expertise regarding undergraduate education policies.
Bill Carroll, a former president of the University of Texas at Arlington’s faculty senate, noted that many university administrators may lack recent classroom experience, making faculty input vital for informed decision-making. The faculty senate acts as a bridge, enabling the administration to grasp faculty perspectives and address their needs effectively.
The organizational structure of public universities falls under the oversight of boards of regents appointed by the governor. Although there is no specific state legislation governing the operation of faculty senates, many institutions follow established norms that advocate for academic freedom and shared governance between faculty, administrators, and boards.
Lt. Gov. Patrick has been critical of faculty senates, indicating a desire to eliminate tenure for new faculty appointments in Texas public universities—a proposal widely opposed by academic institutions. His animosity towards faculty leadership escalated after a group of professors at the University of Texas at Austin reaffirmed their right to teach critical race theory, despite state-level prohibitions in K-12 education. Patrick’s derogatory remarks about the faculty sparked outrage and highlighted the tensions between state officials and higher education representatives.
One of the most striking ways faculty senates can register dissatisfaction with university administrations is through votes of no confidence. While such votes are non-binding, they serve as strong indicators of faculty sentiments regarding leadership. A recent incident at West Texas A&M University saw a faculty vote reflecting discontent with the president’s actions, including the abrupt cancellation of a drag show, yet the administration chose to ignore the collective faculty voice.
National trends of diminishing faculty powers have become evident, with some states enacting legislation that restricts faculty input in academic governance. Respective proposals in Arizona sought to limit the role of faculty within university decision-making, though a veto from the state’s Democratic governor halted that progression. Similarly, Florida’s legislation has drawn ire for sidelining faculty recommendations concerning diversity initiatives within educational institutions.
During a recent state Senate meeting, Sylvester proposed stricter transparency measures, suggesting that all faculty senate votes should be public and openly communicated, potentially indicating a growing trend toward heightened legislative oversight of academic governance. While many Texas faculty senates already adopt transparent practices, there are instances where confidentiality serves critical purposes, such as tenure considerations.
The evolving dynamics concerning faculty autonomy and legislative power in Texas could significantly impact educational institutions’ future trajectory, raising questions about the balance of influence between educators and policymakers in shaping the academic environment.
