The problem began with a vaguely worded memo. Last Thursday, Tedd L. Mitchell, chancellor of the Texas Tech University system, instructed the presidents of the five system campuses to ensure that their universities comply with current state and federal laws that “recognize only two human sexes: male and female.” He asked them to review “course materials, curricula, syllabi, and other instructional documents,” then “make timely adjustments where needed.”
That set off a panic. Professors began texting and calling each other, wondering: What does this mean for my teaching and research? Then the Office of the Provost at Texas Tech University, the largest of the five campuses in the system, posted guidance on its web page — only to take it down yesterday.
The chancellor’s memo didn’t come out of nowhere. Texas has been embroiled in controversies over what professors can say, or teach, about gender identity in the classroom. A viral video of an exchange about gender between a student and instructor led to the firing of the instructor, the removal of two administrators, and the resignation of the president at Texas A&M University at College Station. And Angelo State University, a small campus within the Texas Tech system, has directed instructors not to suggest that there are identities beyond male and female, assigned at birth.
Some Texas Tech faculty members were relieved this week by the guidance from the provost’s office, which answered specific questions about what the chancellor’s memo means for their courses. But the nature and variety of the questions submitted to the provost confirmed — even before the office removed the guidance — that confusion over what can be taught or discussed in class is far from over.
On Wednesday afternoon, after the questions and answers had been online for several days, and updated at least once, they were removed. By Wednesday evening, they had been replaced with a note that said the FAQs were being updated.
Kristina Butler, executive director of communications and media relations in the office of the chancellor, said the guidance was taken down because it was a “working draft” meant for internal review. The questions and responses have been sent to the system office, she said, for further review. Asked if that meant the guidance could change, she said that was possible.
“This is a developing area of law, and we are working to provide general guidance collectively to faculty while responding to individual questions,” Butler said in a statement Wednesday evening.
Among the questions and answers in the original guidance:
- A faculty member who teaches lifespan human development asked whether they can teach what is covered in the textbook on the topics of biological sex, gender identity, and chromosomal abnormalities that lead to ambiguous genitalia.
- An instructor who teaches survey methods asked if discussions of survey questions that include male, female, nonbinary, and other categories are now banned.
- Another faculty member asked: “If I am teaching a course on gender and sexuality in classical Greece and Rome, will I be fired if I teach that eunuchs were sometimes considered a third sex?”
In each case, the provost’s guidance affirmed the instructor’s right to teach “textbook-based content,” “real-world survey practices,” or historical perspectives, “as long as it’s clearly framed as part of scholarly exploration and not as promoting a particular viewpoint.” The guidance also noted that the chancellor’s memo does not apply to research.
Because of these caveats and cautions in the guidance, some faculty members said it hadn’t done much to alleviate professors’ fears that they could be targeted by legislators, students, or the public — even if they believe they are teaching relevant course material.
“There’s a lot of room and ambiguity, like, what’s course-relevant, what’s discipline-specific?” said an associate professor who works in the College of Arts and Sciences and asked for anonymity for fear that they could be fired. “Does that mean that psychology, sociology, human development, anthropology, are all off-limits now [from interference] and we’re good? I doubt it.”
That professor, who had been communicating with colleagues across campus about the chancellor’s memo and was interviewed before the provost’s guidance was removed, said some people had changed their courses before it came out Tuesday. “A lot of faculty spent the weekend rapidly revising everything.”
“Everyone’s so scared right now. Everyone’s just trying to not get fired,” said the associate professor. “People don’t go to campus as much, because why would you? They shut their doors. They don’t want to meet.”
Adam B. Steinbaugh, a senior attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), said he’s heard from a number of faculty members in the Texas Tech system following the chancellor’s memo.
“They’re just as confused as we are,” he said. And when directives are unclear, faculty members are going to “stay very far away from the line in order to avoid even the possibility of losing their job or threatening the livelihood of their colleagues.”
Anecdotal evidence suggests that might already be happening. An email to students from the instructor of a biology course, captured in a screenshot shared with The Chronicle, stated that to be in compliance with the chancellor’s order, the instructor had adjusted the curriculum so that sex-linked inheritance will no longer be taught and students will no longer be assessed on pedigree analysis, a method for charting genetic traits in families.
Steinbaugh believes that universities are intentionally creating a chilling effect to avoid further scrutiny. “They don’t want to be the center of focus. They do not want to attract the attention of lawmakers. And the way that they are going about doing that is to try to get people to stop talking.”
‘University-Approved Messaging’
The provost’s guidance also answered questions from faculty members about syllabus language, such as whether they can include a personal statement of student support. The advice: “Including such statements may draw unwanted attention under current guidance.” Instead, faculty members were encouraged to use excerpts from “recommended syllabi language” that is “aligned with university-approved messaging and still convey support for all students”
Andrew W. Martin, a professor of studio art and president of the Texas Tech chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said Wednesday that while parts of the guidance were problematic — such as discouraging the use of preferred pronouns and other forms of student support — and “there’s still an alarming lack of a clear defense of academic freedom,” he also felt that the administration had expressed “a strong commitment to maintaining faculty trust.” And he noted that vice provosts were meeting with deans, directors, and department chairs to develop further guidance.
The fact that the guidance from the provost’s office was taken down for review by the central office, he said later in the day, “is extremely concerning.”
Martin still has faith the university can come up with effective guidance, but because the system stepped in to preempt institution-level guidance, “it essentially puts all of the things I have faith in in doubt.”
Martin is sympathetic to the position the university’s administration is in. “People need to understand what it’s like to run a major research university in a red state that is completely controlled by the Republican Party.”
Steinbaugh, the FIRE attorney, said the administration is trying to “have its cake and eat it too,” by offering supportive guidance to the faculty without also stating that the executive order on gender — and similar state-level guidance on the issue cited in the chancellor’s letter — are not relevant to teaching.
But Martin says that might only make things worse. He is glad that organizations like FIRE are vociferously defending faculty rights, but said the university taking such a stance could backfire. “If that strong endorsement, very overt and loud, results in further limitations being imposed on the university,” he said, “we’re not going to be gaining what we need to gain.”
