Texas A&M Bans Faculty from Promoting "Race and Gender Ideology"

New Policies at Texas A&M University System

Texas A&M University System regents have approved new policies that will require each campus president to approve any course that could be seen as advocating for "race and gender ideology or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity." These changes are part of a broader effort to address concerns about the content of university courses, particularly those involving sensitive social issues.

The policy defines race ideology as "attempts to shame a particular race or ethnicity" or anything that "promotes activism on issues related to race or ethnicity rather than academic instruction." Gender ideology is defined as "a concept of self-assessed gender identity replacing, and disconnected from, the biological category of sex."

In addition to this, the regents approved a policy that will prohibit faculty from teaching material inconsistent with the approved syllabus for each course. Both policies go into effect immediately, but enforcement will begin in spring 2026.

Response to Controversy

The changes were largely in response to a student’s secret recordings of a professor discussing gender identity in a children’s literature course, which sparked conservative outrage and sent shockwaves through Texas’ higher education institutions. Regents Chair Robert Albritton stated that the board had received 142 letters of written testimony on the new policies. Ten people — all professors — testified on the items, with eight speaking against and two in favor.

Faculty and students also entered the room when the full board took up the items for consideration, overflowing the seats and leaving multiple people standing in the back of the room. Professor Andrew Klein, a geography professor, expressed concerns about the vagueness of the language, stating that faculty are now assuming that all instructions in the topic of concern will be prohibited.

Audits and Transparency Initiatives

Regents also previewed new rules and procedures to audit all course content in the system’s 12 schools every semester. These steps were ordered in response to the recordings. Chancellor Glenn Hegar announced the audits the day after the secret recordings went viral.

“The purpose of attaining that level of detail was to understand if the course was truly an elective, a choice of the student or if in some way a student may have had no other choice but to take that particular course,” said James R. Hallmark, the system’s vice chancellor for academic affairs.

The AI analysis will consider things such as whether the course applies to the core curriculum or is a requirement for a major or elective. It will also take into account the syllabus and details such as where it’s taught and enrollment numbers.

Impact on Faculty and Students

The proposals approved by the board mirror the concerns university officials raised when they fired professor Melissa McCoul over the videos that went viral in September. University officials said McCoul refused to change her course content to match the catalog description, but she and other faculty have countered that course descriptions have historically been broad, and that professors are expected to design their own syllabi and teach according to their expertise.

McCoul has appealed her termination through the university’s Committee on Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure, which concluded a hearing on the topic last week. The committee is expected to share a recommendation with interim university President Tommy Williams in the coming weeks on how to respond to McCoul’s appeal, but Williams is not obligated to follow it.

Free Speech Concerns

The proposals have come under fire by free speech experts and university faculty alike. Robert Shilby, special counsel for campus advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the proposal would “invite unlawful censorship, chill academic freedom, and undermine the core purpose of a university.”

“Hiring professors with PhDs is meaningless if administrators are the ones deciding what gets taught,” Shilby said. “Faculty will start asking not, ‘Is this accurate?’ but ‘Will this get me in trouble?’ That’s not education, it’s risk management.”

Ongoing Challenges

The changes are also causing confusion among some faculty. In an email sent to faculty on Monday that was obtained by The Texas Tribune, Simon North, the interim dean of Texas A&M’s College of Arts and Sciences, acknowledged the proposals raised questions about its implementation, “such as the criteria that will determine when course content is considered relevant, controversial, or inconsistent with a syllabus.” He added that he is working with the provost’s office to answer those questions and that he will seek input on the proposal from other leaders in the college and department heads.

Broader Implications

Since McCoul’s firing, other university systems have begun imposing their own restrictions on classroom content. On Sept. 25, the Texas Tech University System instructed its faculty to ensure its courses comply with a federal executive order, a letter from Gov. Greg Abbott and a new state law that recognizes only two sexes. In the weeks that followed, other systems announced or began internal audits of their own. All said they were acting to ensure compliance with state or federal law, though few detailed what they were looking for or what changes might follow.

No state or federal law prohibits instruction on race, gender or sexual orientation in universities. However, recent state legislation has put direct and indirect pressure on how universities implement policies related to race and gender.