A Texas House panel faces backlash from students and professors after it abruptly ended public testimony on a contentious bill. This legislation proposes to transfer authority from faculty members, granting greater control over curriculum and hiring decisions to university regents appointed by political figures.
Frustration mounted among dozens of Texas students and teachers who were denied the opportunity to testify against a law they believe threatens academic freedom and shared governance in higher education.
During a hearing on May 6, the House Higher Education Committee abruptly halted public testimony registration for Senate Bill 37 just 26 minutes in, a decision made much sooner than is typically observed. A proposed law aims to centralize authority among politically appointed university regents, thereby restricting faculty involvement in curriculum, hiring practices, and academic decisions.
Approximately 20 individuals, including Dr. Pauline Strong, an anthropology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, remained silent. “The outcome was marked by disappointment, surprise, and disheartenment,” she stated. Austin is the city that I call home. A significant number of individuals traveled from distant locations.
Senate Bill 37, introduced by Senator Brandon Creighton, has successfully passed through the Senate and seeks to implement reforms in Texas higher education. Concerns have been raised that this move may suppress dissent and inject politics into university governance. The legislation permits the examination and potential defunding of universities that violate state laws.
Representing the Texas AFT, Amanda Garcia stated, “This isn’t a bill we can clean up later.” The impact on pupils and teachers is expected to be detrimental for the foreseeable future.
Chair Rep. Terry M. Wilson, R-Georgetown, stood by his authority to set the testimony window, yet he did not provide a rationale for the early cutoff. Wilson permitted extensive testimony regarding another contentious bill the previous week.
Political scientist Brandon Rottinghaus has stated that the brief legislative session restricts opportunities for public engagement. Critics contend that SB 37's limitations on public comments were intentional and represent a broader initiative to silence academic voices.
