Under SB 37, Texas universities will focus on educating, not indoctrinating
Nationally, we've seen students and faculty more concerned with acting as campus hall monitors, policing what is deemed socially acceptable from a one-sided political perspective. Activism often takes precedence over learning.
Thankfully, legislators in Texas are taking this matter seriously. Lawmakers are poised to pass Senate Bill 37, which can restore the purpose of our state's public higher education institutions: Preparing students for success in their post-graduation lives while encouraging them to pursue truth, knowledge and excellence.
Column: Universities should foster debate and critical thinking. SB 37 will stifle that | Opinion
SB 37 takes governance decisions out of the hands of radical faculty and administrators, allowing for increased oversight by the people of Texas and their representatives. It encourages eliminating useless course requirements and majors that enroll few students.
Does this amount to 'thought policing?' Hardly. It counters what's been taking place on campuses for years: Students and faculty alike have been policing what can and cannot be said under the guise of 'social justice' and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. DEI groupthink discourages debate, pushes a single narrative. It shuts down criticism — the opposite of the free and open inquiry our universities are meant to encourage and foster.
The claim that professors 'won't be able to teach' certain subjects involving the founding principles of our country is ludicrous. Nothing about SB 37 will affect courses in the many excellent programs at our universities, from finance to physics, from neuroscience to philosophy. It poses no obstacle to the study of great books. It addresses the many courses at our academic institutions that aim at indoctrination.
For example, a keyword search I conducted of the University of Texas' 2024-25 course offerings shows that three of the most frequently mentioned terms in course descriptions are 'gender,' 'race' and 'identity.' Meanwhile, the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence and Abraham Lincoln are mentioned fewer than than 10 times combined. This is taking place at our state's flagship university — showing how extensive the problem is and why SB 37 is needed.
What to know: House moves to advance SB 37 on faculty senate, core curriculum review.
SB 37 would empower an ombudsman to monitor compliance with the bill's provisions, ensuring that required courses focus on academic excellence and research with real-world impacts. It doesn't empower the ombudsman to eliminate courses that don't meet those criteria. If professors want to teach courses on Marxist theory, they can still do so. But that course won't be forced on students in order for them to graduate.
Texas' state colleges and universities are among the best in the nation. Our educators teach and prepare world-class graduates. Our researchers produce groundbreaking innovations across disciplines and industries that have transformed our state and national economies.
To maintain our state's distinction in a rapidly evolving global market, our higher education institutions must stay focused on academic excellence and research with real-world impacts. They need to prepare students to succeed. That means bringing greater accountability and efficiency to our institutions of higher education. Under SB 37, Texas students will receive a higher-quality and better-rounded education.
Daniel A. Bonevac is a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas SB 37 will restore integrity to higher education | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
House GOP advances Trump megabill after Johnson calls conservative holdouts' bluff
House Republicans advanced their 'big, beautiful bill' full of President Trump's legislative priorities early Thursday morning, overcoming a key procedural hurdle after GOP leaders left the vote open for hours to quell an internal revolt. The chamber voted 219-213 to adopt a rule governing debate on Trump's domestic agenda, opening up discussion on the megabill and teeing up a final vote on the package. The vote was something of a gamble for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who has faced opposition to the legislation from various corners of his ideologically diverse conference. Heading into the rule vote, conservatives had warned that they would sink the procedural measure unless it was delayed beyond Wednesday. Johnson called their bluff, held the vote open for more than five hours, and then adopted the rule after winning just enough support — an effort that got a big boost from Trump, who spoke with some of the holdouts during the long, midnight impasse. Adoption of the rule sets the stage for Johnson and his leadership team to pass the legislation later Thursday morning, well ahead of their self-imposed July 4 deadline. The Senate had passed the same bill on Tuesday, so the legislation will head directly to Trump's desk, where he's expected to sign it with a ceremonial flourish on Independence Day. The chamber adopted the rule after a whirlwind of an afternoon on Capitol Hill, which saw a different procedural vote stall for more than seven hours as holdouts huddled with Johnson and White House aides behind closed doors. It marked the longest vote in House history. Hardline conservatives have hammered the 'big, beautiful bill,' wary that it cuts too little in federal spending and piles too much onto the national debt. Those concerns only grew after the package returned from the Senate, which had altered the initial House bill in ways that increased deficit spending. On Wednesday morning, a number of hardline conservatives had vowed to vote against the rule if it came to the floor. By Wednesday evening, those warnings had softened slightly. But shortly before the House rule hit the floor, several spending hawks told reporters that if Johnson called the vote they would abstain, requesting more time to learn the details of the Senate-passed bill. The Speaker called the vote anyway, successfully calling their bluff and allowing the tenuous process to move forward. Leadership called the vote minutes after Trump urged Republicans to approve the megabill Wednesday night. 'It looks like the House is ready to vote tonight. We had GREAT conversations all day, and the Republican House Majority is UNITED, for the Good of our Country, delivering the Biggest Tax Cuts in History and MASSIVE Growth. Let's go Republicans, and everyone else – MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!' Trump wrote on Truth Social. But then leaders were forced to again hold a vote open for more than five hours to solidify support. For several hours, it stalled at four GOP 'no' votes and 10 Republicans withholding their vote. Eventually, two of the holdouts voted to advance the measure, but Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) flipped his 'yes' vote to 'no,' putting the tally at 207 to 217. Several hours later, the president spoke directly with some of the holdouts, including Reps. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Massie. Not long afterward, Johnson announced that he'd secured the votes to pass the rule. The House will now proceed to debate on the 'big, beautiful bill' and then a vote on final passage, which Johnson said he expected around 8 or 8:30 a.m.
Boston Globe
38 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Locked shampoo and woke politics: Will Auchincloss take on Markey?
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's all shadowboxing right now. Auchincloss, 37, has said he is running for reelection. Still, when asked in the spring if he might challenge Markey, Advertisement Representative Jake Auchincloss joined protesters on June 1 outside of Milford Town Hall a day after 18-year-old Marcelo Gomes da Silva was detained by ICE. Jessica Rinaldi/Globe Staff Like Markey, Auchincloss is up for reelection in 2026. So he would have to give up his House seat to run a primary race against Markey. That didn't work out for his predecessor, Joe Kennedy III, who challenged Markey in 2020 and lost that election, along with his seat in Congress. But that was a different time, when Markey's wokeness, best illustrated by the endorsement he received from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, was a cherished prize. Advertisement Today, Democrats are trying to negotiate the new, furiously unwoke world of MAGA, in which a deportation center for undocumented immigrants is located in the Florida Everglades, the better to watch would-be escapees try to evade hungry alligators. In Massachusetts, Governor Maura Healey is kicking migrants out of hotel shelters and Auchincloss is expressing concerns about 'degradations to public order,' such as drug use, loitering, panhandling, encampments, vandalism, and shoplifting that could 'compound into lawlessness.' In MAGA world, both Markey and Auchincloss would be considered soft on 'degradations to public order.' Auchincloss didn't get into such nuance in his blog post. He just talked about how Democrats get less popular 'every time a customer has to ask the CVS clerk to unlock the shampoo.' Markey, meanwhile, shows no signs of running from the progressive label. Last month, Advertisement Message to fellow Democrats: As long as Markey is upright, he's running. When it comes to progressive cred, the biggest endorsement that Markey could get would still come from AOC. Will he get another nod from her? Her press office did not respond to a question about that. If Representative Ayanna Pressley, a member of the House progressive 'squad' that includes AOC, got into the race, that could influence the calculation. From the Markey camp comes word that he and Ocasio-Cortez continue to have a close relationship and are collaborating on a wide range of legislation. At the right time, there is reason to believe there would be 'a celebration of that partnership,' a Markey source said. AOC's most recent endorsement went to Mamdani. In giving him her blessing, she Across the country, including in Massachusetts, Democrats are adjusting to the MAGA era. Shortly after last November's election, Representative Seth Moulton, who represents Massachusetts' Sixth District and who is also mentioned by political insiders as a possible Markey challenger, worried out loud about the safety of his children if they must compete against transgender athletes. Given the shifting political ground, is an endorsement from AOC as valuable to Markey in 2026 as it was in 2020? Or does he risk looking too woke? To put it another way — is running against locked-up shampoo a winning strategy for Auchincloss? Advertisement Something to chew on, along with your Fourth of July hotdog. Joan Vennochi is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
39 minutes ago
Massachusetts advocates fear Trump's bill will unravel health safety net in Obamacare's model state
BOSTON -- In the state that served as the model for Obamacare, advocates and health care workers fear the Trump administration is trying to dismantle piece-by-piece a popular program that has provided insurance, preventive care and life-saving medication to hundreds of thousands of people. Provisions contained in both the Senate and House versions of the massive tax and spending cuts bill advancing in Congress — a centerpiece of President Donald Trump's agenda — could strip health insurance from up to a quarter of the roughly 400,000 people enrolled in the Massachusetts Health Connector, according to state estimates. The changes would create anew the coverage gaps state leaders were working to close when Massachusetts in 2006 became the first U.S. state to enact a law requiring nearly every resident to have health insurance, state officials say. Beyond the effect on residents' health, losing care could have broader repercussions — both for the program's finances and residents' ability to make a living. 'The idea of needing to unwind that now and pull back on that promise and commitment is really frustrating and heartbreaking and cruel and counterproductive,' said Audrey Morse Gasteier, executive director of Massachusetts' health insurance marketplace. Trump and Republican supporters in Congress say the changes, which include new documentation requirements and limitations on who can apply for tax credits to help pay for insurance, are necessary to root out what they call fraud, waste and abuse. The Affordable Care Act changes proposed in both versions of the bill, along with massive cuts to Medicaid and other programs, would eliminate roughly $1.1 trillion in health care spending over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. In Lawrence, a mill community of around 90,000 people on the Merrimack River, where more than 80% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, Kesia Moreta said she's already seeing people slip out of the state's health care network because of the Trump administration's aggressive effort to crack down on illegal immigration. Moreta, who manages a program created under the ACA that helps people sign up for coverage, said clients have been missing meetings out of fear that being enrolled for health insurance will harm their effort to stay in the U.S. legally. Recently, a father of a U.S.-born teenage son with epilepsy deleted every email related to his health plan and stopped answering calls from the Connector after watching reports about deportations on social media. When his son's medication ran out, Moreta said the father finally reached out, whispering over the phone, 'Is this going to get me deported?' 'That breaks our hearts,' Moreta said. More than 98% of Massachusetts residents have health insurance, the lowest rate of uninsurance in the country, according to the Massachusetts Health Insurance Survey. Vicky Pulos, an attorney for the Mass Law Reform Institute who helps low-income people gain access to health care, said Republicans who tried and failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act during the first Trump administration have decided to take it apart incrementally despite its growing popularity. 'It really seems like this is just a less transparent way of effectively dismantling the accomplishments of the Affordable Care Act in both Medicaid and the marketplace,' Pulos said. The changes, she added, 'will massively drive up the number of uninsured but without openly repealing the ACA.' Another provision included in both the House and Senate bills would require people applying for or renewing coverage to provide more documentation of their income, household size and immigration status to be eligible for premium tax credits when the state marketplace already has that information, which Morse Gasteier said would cause 'friction, red tape and delays.' The Trump administration has said the proposals will 'put a stop' to immigrants 'stealing taxpayer-funded health care benefits meant for American citizens.' No states use federal money to provide health insurance to people who are in the U.S. illegally. Some, like Massachusetts, use state tax dollars to do so to provide basic primary care services for a small population of vulnerable residents, like children. No undocumented immigrants receive insurance through the state marketplace. Of the 400,000 enrolled in the state marketplace, around 60,000 are noncitizens who are in the U.S. legally and would lose access to federal premium tax credits if either chamber's version of the bill becomes law. The number includes domestic violence and human trafficking victims, refugees, people granted asylum or humanitarian parole, temporary protected status and other work-authorized immigrants. Without the credits, premiums will cost upwards of $500 or $600 — an increase many people can't afford, Morse Gasteier said. Around half are green-card holders with an annual income of $15,000 a year or less. The remaining 40,000 people expected to lose coverage are U.S. citizens Morse Gasteier said could be stymied in applying or recertifying coverage by provisions like the increased documentation requirements. Morse Gasteier said Massachusetts' marketplace worked 'tirelessly' to enroll vulnerable and hard-to-reach populations after the state program — formed under the leadership of then-Gov. Mitt Romney and known as 'Romneycare" — was created. She worries that if people hear help is no longer available, 'entire populations will just sort of give up on health insurance.' In addition to affecting residents' health, that could have an economic impact in the state. Immigrants with legal status enrolled in the state marketplace tend to be younger than the rest of the population, Morse Gasteier said. Their presence brings premiums down for others because they tend to be healthier. In Lawrence, advocates who help people obtain insurance coverage though the ACA marketplace say the burden would fall disproportionately on people with chronic health issues like diabetes and chronic heart disease. The Greater Lawrence Community Action Council assists around 10,000 people a year with either signing up for or renewing health insurance. 'If you're not healthy, let me tell you, you can't work. If you can't work, you can't pay your bills. It's just as simple as that,' said GLCAC CEO Vilma Martinez-Dominguez. Moreta said one man who called her from the emergency room recently said he discovered his health insurance had lapsed. Moreta said she could help him renew it, and urged him to wait at the hospital. He told her not to do anything. He was leaving the hospital. She has no idea what became of him.
