Professors at Texas A&M University must now get permission to discuss race and gender: Here's what triggered the policy
In a move that has sparked debate over academic freedom and classroom autonomy , the Texas A&M University System regents on Thursday approved a policy requiring professors to obtain prior approval from their campus president before discussing certain race and gender topics. The decision, covering all 12 institutions within the system, comes months after a viral video of a student confronting an instructor over classroom lessons ignited controversy at the flagship campus.
The new policy stipulates that no academic course “will advocate race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity” unless explicitly authorised by the campus president. According to officials, the intent is not to police individual speech but to ensure transparency and oversight in co-curricular content, AP reports.
A first for Texas public universities
This appears to be the first instance of a Texas public university system formally restricting faculty discussion on race and gender topics. Other university systems in the state have undertaken internal reviews or imposed limited restrictions following new state legislation. Critics argue that such measures could impede teaching, undermine academic freedom, and potentially contravene First Amendment protections.
Rana Jaleel, chair of the American Association of University Professors’ committee on academic freedom, told AP that the policy “strikes at the heart of what education means,” highlighting concerns over the free exchange of knowledge without fear of censorship or reprisal.
The backdrop: National and local pressures
The Texas policy follows a broader national discourse on diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education. Universities such as Harvard and Columbia have faced scrutiny from conservative critics, while the administration of President Donald Trump pressed institutions to reconsider admissions policies and campus programming. Last month, Trump requested nine major universities, including the University of Texas at Austin, to eliminate race and sex from admissions and to promote conservative viewpoints.
Within this context, the Texas A&M policy defines “race ideology” as concepts that assign intrinsic guilt based on presumed ancestral actions or that shame a particular race or ethnicity. Similarly, “gender ideology” is defined as a self-assessed gender identity disconnected from biological sex.
A controversial precedent
The policy’s approval comes in the wake of the September firing of Melissa McCoul , a senior lecturer in the English department, after a video surfaced of her debating a student over gender identity in a children’s literature class. McCoul’s dismissal, which followed political pressure from Republican lawmakers including Governor Greg Abbott, prompted the resignation of Texas A&M’s then-president, Mark A. Welsh III.
Leonard Bright, president of the Texas A&M chapter of the American Association of University Professors, told AP that McCoul’s case likely paved the way for the policy. He warned that requiring political or administrative approval for classroom content risks undermining the pursuit of truth in education.
Voices for and against the policy
During Thursday’s regents meeting, eight professors spoke against the policy, urging reconsideration and calling for McCoul’s reinstatement. In contrast, two faculty members expressed support, arguing that academic freedom does not entitle instructors to teach material without oversight. Regent Sam Torn framed the measure as a safeguard to ensure that the university focuses on education rather than advocacy, APreports.
Wider implications
While the policy mirrors recent K-12 restrictions in Texas regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, it uniquely applies to higher education institutions, which previously had broader latitude in course content. As universities nationwide face increasing scrutiny over campus programming and admissions, Texas A&M’s move raises questions about the balance between institutional oversight, political pressures, and the principles of academic inquiry.
For students and faculty alike, the policy signals a turning point: Navigating discussions on race, gender, and identity in classrooms may now require a formal approval process, altering the landscape of academic discourse at one of the nation’s largest public university systems.
The new policy stipulates that no academic course “will advocate race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity” unless explicitly authorised by the campus president. According to officials, the intent is not to police individual speech but to ensure transparency and oversight in co-curricular content, AP reports.
A first for Texas public universities
This appears to be the first instance of a Texas public university system formally restricting faculty discussion on race and gender topics. Other university systems in the state have undertaken internal reviews or imposed limited restrictions following new state legislation. Critics argue that such measures could impede teaching, undermine academic freedom, and potentially contravene First Amendment protections.
Rana Jaleel, chair of the American Association of University Professors’ committee on academic freedom, told AP that the policy “strikes at the heart of what education means,” highlighting concerns over the free exchange of knowledge without fear of censorship or reprisal.
The backdrop: National and local pressures
The Texas policy follows a broader national discourse on diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education. Universities such as Harvard and Columbia have faced scrutiny from conservative critics, while the administration of President Donald Trump pressed institutions to reconsider admissions policies and campus programming. Last month, Trump requested nine major universities, including the University of Texas at Austin, to eliminate race and sex from admissions and to promote conservative viewpoints.
Within this context, the Texas A&M policy defines “race ideology” as concepts that assign intrinsic guilt based on presumed ancestral actions or that shame a particular race or ethnicity. Similarly, “gender ideology” is defined as a self-assessed gender identity disconnected from biological sex.
A controversial precedent
The policy’s approval comes in the wake of the September firing of Melissa McCoul , a senior lecturer in the English department, after a video surfaced of her debating a student over gender identity in a children’s literature class. McCoul’s dismissal, which followed political pressure from Republican lawmakers including Governor Greg Abbott, prompted the resignation of Texas A&M’s then-president, Mark A. Welsh III.
Leonard Bright, president of the Texas A&M chapter of the American Association of University Professors, told AP that McCoul’s case likely paved the way for the policy. He warned that requiring political or administrative approval for classroom content risks undermining the pursuit of truth in education.
Voices for and against the policy
During Thursday’s regents meeting, eight professors spoke against the policy, urging reconsideration and calling for McCoul’s reinstatement. In contrast, two faculty members expressed support, arguing that academic freedom does not entitle instructors to teach material without oversight. Regent Sam Torn framed the measure as a safeguard to ensure that the university focuses on education rather than advocacy, AP
Wider implications
While the policy mirrors recent K-12 restrictions in Texas regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, it uniquely applies to higher education institutions, which previously had broader latitude in course content. As universities nationwide face increasing scrutiny over campus programming and admissions, Texas A&M’s move raises questions about the balance between institutional oversight, political pressures, and the principles of academic inquiry.
For students and faculty alike, the policy signals a turning point: Navigating discussions on race, gender, and identity in classrooms may now require a formal approval process, altering the landscape of academic discourse at one of the nation’s largest public university systems.
Next Story