SB 37 doesn't fix problems at Texas universities. It undermines faculty, students
Several Republican-sponsored bills this session go after higher education even further. But in my view, Patrick's priority bill, SB 37, should be most vehemently opposed by Texans who care about the quality of higher education in this state.
In crafting SB 37, Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, has abandoned the culture war language of 'wokeness' and 'CRT,' or critical race theory. Instead, the bill promises to provide more oversight of universities and promote excellence in higher education.
At first glance, that may sound rather innocuous. But the bill has harmful implications for our public colleges and universities. It will lead to inefficiencies, undermine democratic processes and deny educational liberty and student choice, among other negative effects.
SB 37 would create an Office of Excellence in Higher Education to oversee compliance in our public colleges and universities. But the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and the Board of Regents already provide such oversight. Adding another layer of bureaucracy will lead to unnecessary government spending and duplicate an infrastructure that already exists.
SB 37 would also require that half of the members of faculty senates and councils be elected. Appointed faculty are more likely to align with the views of the administration, which would reduce the range of perspectives that would be offered in deliberation. The bill would also expand senate membership to constituencies outside the university and limit faculty membership to tenured faculty.
Faculty senates in Texas already serve in an advisory capacity to the president, but under this configuration, only the most elite members of the university workforce — those with tenure — would even be eligible for service. As tenured faculty make up only a minority of the faculty workforce, this severely undermines any semblance of democratic deliberation.
SB 37 would also eliminate minors and certificate programs that politicians determine are under-enrolled. But certificates and minors cost the university virtually nothing to offer. Offering fewer will effectively eliminate students' ability to seek the credentials they believe are best for them, regardless of the popularity of those studies.
Additionally, SB 37 would place the core curriculum at each institution under the review of an appointed committee. This committee would ensure that 'courses do not endorse specific public policies, ideologies or legislation' — a vague provision that in practice could easily lead to state censorship of education.
Like any bureaucratic system, universities could be more efficient in delivering the services the state has asked them to provide. A real inefficiency that should be addressed, for instance, is the increase in highly-paid upper administrative positions at universities that have increasingly taken the work of governance out of the hands of faculty.
But this bill doesn't fix any real problems in our public colleges and universities. Instead, SB 37 implies that faculty are not experts in the fields in which they've spent decades working. It suggests bureaucrats are better at managing organizations than those who labor in them every day. And it contends that students don't deserve the educational liberty to choose the courses of study that they deem best.
I'm sure if he reached out, Sen. Creighton would find faculty to be willing partners in making our universities the best in the world. Instead, he has proposed a course of action that will greatly hamper our pursuit of excellence. SB 37 is not only bad for Texas colleges and universities, it's bad for Texas.
Pauline Strong is a professor at the University of Texas and president of the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) chapter at UT Austin.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Senate Bill 37 would weaken public universities in Texas | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump trains his fire on GOP allies, and worries Republicans
President Trump is increasingly directing his frustrations at individual Senate Republicans, and turning his fire in recent days on key allies. The president this week publicly excoriated Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) over upholding the 'blue slip' tradition and pushing a congressional stock trading ban, respectively. While Trump has long had a tendency of airing his grievances out in public — especially toward those he views as disloyal — the latest barbs about staunch backers are raising eyebrows, and drawing questions about whether the strategy will continue to be effective in advancing his agenda. President Trump is increasingly directing his ire at individual Senate Republicans, turning his fire in recent days on key allies. The president this week publicly excoriated Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) over upholding the 'blue slip' tradition and pushing a congressional stock trading ban, respectively. While Trump has long had a tendency of airing his grievances out in public — especially toward those he views as disloyal — the latest barbs about staunch backers are raising eyebrows, and drawing questions about whether the strategy will continue to be effective in advancing his agenda. 'I don't think it's helpful for the president … to get in a tit for tat with other Republican members,' said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( a member of GOP leadership. 'He needs every single one of us, and we need him.' Trump has repeatedly tangled with Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), a libertarian-minded Republican who is not shy about voting against the president's priorities, as well as Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the former Senate GOP leader who once spoke out against Trump, has voted against several of his nominees, and has become a leading voice in favor of the Ukraine aid Trump often rails against. Earlier this summer, he put off some Senate Republicans by attacking Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) over his opposition to Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' A number of Republicans indicated they were not big fans of the way the president went after a vulnerable incumbent seen as a team player, and one who had helped advance key Trump nominees. Tillis announced his retirement shortly after. But Trump seemingly crossed another line with Republican lawmakers this week by not only calling to eliminate the 'blue slip' process — which gives veto power to senators for district judge and U.S. attorney picks for their individual state — but by going after Grassley personally. The 91-year-old Iowa Republican is the most senior member of the Senate GOP conference and is both well-liked respected in the Capitol. Trump posted on Truth Social that he got Grassley reelected to the Senate 'when he was down by a lot,' then reposted other commenters who urged followers to 'light up Grassley's office' and called Grassley a 'RINO,' the acronym for Republican in name only, 'sneaky' and 'good at playing the good guy instead of being the good guy.' 'They're very angry about how Grassley was treated because he's one of the fairest people that's walked these halls,' one Senate GOP member told The Hill. 'It was the wrong fight to pick.' Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said the attack on Grassley surprised him. 'I think the president may have gotten some bad information from somebody,' he said. Trump also found a dearth of support in the Senate GOP conference for ending the 'blue slip' tradition, which hands the minority party some control over the process. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), an ardent Trump backer, noted that he used them to block judges in his home state during former President Biden's White House tenure. 'I know that Sen. Grassley has worked really hard to defend the president's nomination, and we all support the blue slip process,' Rounds said. 'That is one power and one authority that the Senate will give up. We are not going to turn that over to the Executive Branch alone.' Two days later, Trump went after Hawley personally on TruthSocial over him siding with Democrats to back a congressional stock trading ban that also extends to presidents and vice presidents. 'Why would one 'Republican,' Senator Josh Hawley from the Great State of Missouri, join with all of the Democrats to block a Review, sponsored by Senator Rick Scott, and with the support of almost all other Republicans, of Nancy Pelosi's Stock Trading over the last 25 years. The information was inappropriately released just minutes before the Vote — Very much like SABOTAGE!' Trump wrote on Truth Social. Although Hawley's level of support in the conference isn't near Grassley's, he is still a fan favorite of the MAGA base. The Missouri Republican on Thursday said he spoke with Trump on Wednesday night after the social media broadside and made clear to him that he wasn't targeting him by siding with Democrats. While the stock ban he proposed would affect presidents, it wouldn't go into effect until 2029, meaning it wouldn't be imposed against Trump himself. Hawley added Trump was under the impression from other Senate Republicans that he would be affected. In total, Senate GOP sources believe the more Trump goes after individuals who are largely supportive of his legislative and nomination efforts, the less effective they get over time. 'It dilutes the threat of him criticizing people for actually opposing his agenda if he's criticizing people for Republican mainstream positions,' said one Senate GOP aide, specifically pointing to the Iowa Republican. The Senate Republican agreed. 'I think that he's dropping a couple of more proverbial straws and he probably needs to proceed with caution,' the Senate GOP member said. 'You reach a point where if you go after so many people, the people you haven't gone after start wondering if they're next — and that's when maybe institutional protection becomes a priority here.' Trump, however, has also shown restraint at times. He has notably not publicly attacked Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) despite her vote against the 'big, beautiful bill' and the bill clawing back public media and foreign aid funding, along with a couple of his high-priority nominees. And some top allies believe that Trump's barbs are effective. 'That's his forte. … He is spreading the wealth,' Tuberville said with a laugh. 'He is holding back on nobody. He knows his gameplan and he's going to implement it and he thinks he needs more help.' Others believe it's yet another sign that it's time for the chamber to recess for the August break as members become increasingly cranky. Capito specifically pointed to the war of wards between Hawley and Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) over the stock trading ban at the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee on Wednesday, and Sen. Cory Booker's (D-N.J.) diatribe against his Democratic colleagues —on top of Trump's attack on Grassley. 'Everybody's going after everybody,' Capito said. 'It's the hot summer. I think it's just indicative that it's time to take a breath.' 'It's the reason why August is a miserable time here in D.C.,' she added. 'We're exemplifying it.'
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The small episode this week that helps explain why people distrust Congress
The need for this legislation was shown by a Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up That backdrop made the Senate debate feel overdue. But to move further, Democrats needed to be on board. The legislation was originally dubbed the Advertisement The committee debate on Wednesday quickly turned combative with the main dispute rising between Republicans on the panel. Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri quipped, 'I'm not a billionaire, unlike others on this committee.' Fellow Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida, one of the chamber's wealthiest members who was seated next to him, shot back: 'I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money. But somehow, if you've made money, you're supposedly — I think Senator Hawley suggests — you shouldn't be serving, because you might trade stocks. Advertisement 'Anybody want to be poor? I don't,' continued Scott. To many Americans, that's exactly the problem. Public service doesn't suffer from a shortage of wealthy members, it suffers from the perception that political access and information is being leveraged to enrich the already rich. Even in this moment of supposed reform, political calculation won out. To avoid a Trump veto, senators inserted a carve-out delaying the ban for presidents and vice presidents until after the 2028 election, effectively shielding Trump and JD Vance for now. The bill squeaked through committee on an 8‑7 vote, with Hawley the lone Republican supporting it along with Democrats. When Trump was asked about by reporters if he would sign it, he appeared open-minded. 'Well, I like it conceptually,' said Trump. 'I don't know about it. But I like it conceptually.' Hours later, Trump went on Truth Social to ridicule Hawley as a 'second-tier senator,' sending a clear signal that if it ended up on his desk the bill would end up in a veto. Advertisement What changed? Senate leadership is already signaling it's unlikely to ever bring the bill up for a floor vote. In the House, Florida Representative Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican, says she'll try to force a vote in September, but she's facing the same entrenched resistance that has killed past attempts at reform. The backdrop of wealth disparity only makes the spectacle more glaring. According to OpenSecrets, the median net worth of US senators is about $1.7 million, with some far richer: Scott is worth closer to $200 million, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner is worth $248 million, Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell has $34 million, North Dakota Republican John Hoeven is worth around $60 million. More locally, Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren's estimated net worth is roughly $10 million, and Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse has close to double that. Compare that to the rest of America: The That asymmetry may drive a reason the public supports a ban by overwhelming margins. It could also just be the basic premise that elected leaders shouldn't get rich in office using insider information. This shouldn't be a hard sell. Instead, they may well punt and mock the lone Senate Republican willing to side with public opinion. Advertisement For those who believe Washington operates for insiders, this episode offers no rebuttal. A common-sense ethics reform, years in the making, popular across party lines, even grudgingly backed by Pelosi, got watered down, politicized, and left to die. And for what? James Pindell is a Globe political reporter who reports and analyzes American politics, especially in New England.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Kamala Harris hints at a 2028 re-run, raising the question: Can a woman win?
Kamala Harris does not want to be governor of California, which has a whole lot of contenders (and some voters) doing a happy dance this week. But with her announcement Wednesday that she is bowing out of a race she never officially entered, Harris has ignited a flurry of speculation that she's warming up for another run at the White House in 2028. Whether you like Harris or not, a possible run by the XX chromosome former vice president raises a perennial conundrum: Can a woman win the presidency? 'This question is legitimate,' Nadia E. Brown told me. She's a professor of government and director of the Women's and Gender Studies Program at Georgetown University. She points out that post-election, Democrats can't figure out who they are or what they stand for. In that disarray, it may seem easy and safe in 2028 to travel the well-worn route of 'a straight, old white guy who fills the status quo.' That may be especially true in the Trump era, when an increasingly vocal and empowered slice of America seems to believe that women do, in fact, belong in the kitchen making sanwhiches, far away from any decision beyond turkey or ham. Brown points out that even Democrats who flaunt their progressive values, including how much they'd love to vote for a female president, may harbor secret sexism that comes out in the privacy of the voting booth. Post-2024, Harris' defeat — and deciphering what it means — has caused a lot of 'morning-after anxiety and agita,' she said. 'We're all doing research, we're all in the field trying to figure this out.' While confused Democrats diddle in private with their feelings, Republicans have made race and gender the center of their platform, even if they cloak it under economic talk. The party's position on race has become painfully clear with its stance that all undocumented immigrants are criminals and deserving of horrific detention in places such as 'Alligator Alcatraz' or even foreign prisons known for torture. The Republican position on women is slightly more cloaked, but no less retrograde. Whether it's the refusal to tell the public how Trump is included in the Epstein files, the swift and brutal erosion of reproductive rights, or claims, such as the one by far-right podcaster Charlie Kirk, that the only reason for women to attend college should be to get a 'Mrs.' degree, Republicans have made little secret of the fact that equality is not part of their package. Although Trump's approval ratings have tanked over immigration, he did win just over half of the popular vote last fall. So that's a lot of Americans who either agree with him, or at least aren't bothered by these pre-civil rights ideas on race and gender. Add to that reality the eager pack of nice, safe Democratic white guys who are lining up for their own chance at the Oval Office — our current California governor included — and it does beg the question for the left: Is a woman worth the risk? 'I've definitely seen and heard consultants and, you know, even anxious women donors say, 'Maybe this means we can't run a woman.' And I think it's completely normal for certain elements of the party to be anxious about gender,' said Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, a grassroots advocacy group. She too thinks the gender question is 'logical' since it has been blamed — though not by her — as 'the reason we lost to Donald Trump twice in a row, right? Whereas Biden was able to beat him.' While Timmaraju is clear that those losses can't — and shouldn't — be tied to gender alone, gender also can't be ignored when the margins are thin. Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive political organizing group Our Revolution, which backed Bernie Sanders for president in 2016, said that gender and race are always a factor, but he believes the bigger question for any candidate in 2028 will be their platform. Harris, he said, 'lost not because she was a woman. She lost because she did not embrace an economic populist message. And I think the electorate is angry about their standard of living declining, and they're angry about the elites controlling D.C. and enriching themselves.' Greevarghese told me he sees an opposite momentum building within the party and the electorate — a desire to not play it safe. 'Whoever it is — male, female, gay, straight, Black, white, Asian — the candidate's got to have a critique of this moment, and it can't be a normie Dem.' Brown, the professor, adds, rightfully, that looking at the question of a female candidate's chances through the lens of just Harris is too narrow. There are lots of women likely to jump into the race. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are just two names already in the mix. Brown adds that an outside contender such as a woman from a political dynasty (think Obama) or a celebrity along the lines of Trump could also make headway. The criticisms of Harris, with her baggage of losing the election and critiques of how she handled the campaign and the media, may not dog another female candidate, especially with voters. 'Whether Kamala runs again or not, I'm optimistic that the American people will vote for a female president,' Vanessa Cardenas told me. She is the executive director of America's Voice, an advocacy group for immigrants' rights. Cardenas points out that Hillary Clinton received more than 65 million votes (winning the popular vote), and Harris topped 75 million. If just Latinos had gone for Harris, instead of breaking in an ongoing rightward shift, she would have won. Cardenas thinks Latino votes could shift again in 2028. 'After the chaos, cruelty and incompetence of the Trump presidency, Latino voters, like most Americans, will reward candidates who can speak most authentically and seem most ready to fight for an alternative vision of America,' she said. 'I believe women, and women of color, can credibility and forcibly speak to the need for change rooted in the lived experiences of their communities.' Timmaraju said that regardless of what Harris decides, Democrats will probably have one of the most robust primaries in recent times — which can only be good for the party and for voters. And rather than asking, 'Can a woman win?' the better question would be, 'Do we really want a system that won't let them try?'
