Last week, faculty at Texas A&M University learned that about 200 courses would be affected by a new policy restricting classroom discussions of race and gender.
The policy was adopted back in November and was largely the result of a viral video where a student recorded an argument with a professor over a discussion about gender identity in class.
It’s a development that’s been of interest to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).The nonprofit advocates for free speech.
Graham Piro, of FIRE’s Campus Rights Advocacy team, joined the Texas Standard for more analysis on the policy. Listen to the interview above or read the transcript below.
This transcript has been edited lightly for clarity:
Texas Standard: Well, the spring semester at Texas A&M kicked off this week. How has this issue affected student enrollment in some courses?
Graham Piro: To put it mildly, it seems like it stirred up some chaos on campus.
There have been a couple of reports in media outlets this week about students scrambling because classes are being canceled, administrators stepping in to dictate what can and cannot be taught, faculty in a state of confusion… So as of right now it seems this has thrown campuses in the system into an uproar.
Well, what types of materials are being affected in what some, including your group, have described as censorship?
The most absurd one that we’ve heard about was readings from the philosopher Plato that were ordered to be removed from a course on philosophy. Now if that sounds absurd to you, that’s because removing philosophical readings from one of the most important philosophers in history from a course on moral philosophy would seem to be exactly the kind of absurd outcome that we warn about when we talk about the chilling effect and the overreach of laws like this.
We also saw reporting that some sociology courses have been canceled, such as an introduction to race and ethnicity because it touched on issues of race, gender, or sexual orientation – which is prohibited by this guidance.
So how do these restrictions square with the First Amendment more broadly, the restrictions at A&M this semester?
The restrictions, in our view, violate the First Amendment’s protections for academic freedom.
The First Amendment provides robust protections for the right of academic freedom in the classroom. In fact, the Supreme Court, in a decades-old decision, described academic freedom as a special concern to the First Amendment.
What that means is that faculty members have the ability to determine how and whether to approach controversial, potentially upsetting topics in their course, provided that those topics are germane or they relate to the topic that the faculty members are teaching.
Our concern is always going to be when administrations appear to be targeting specific ideas or topics that pertain to the topic of a course where faculty academic freedom allows those faculty members to determine how best to approach those ideas. Instead, administrators appear to be putting their thumbs on the scale for what they do and do not want said in the classroom.
Texas Tech has undergone similar policy revisions. How does this course review compare?
We’re definitely concerned that Texas Tech is following some of the examples that the A&M system has set. For example, last month, the Texas Tech University system put out a memo basically ordering a course review in the same manner of topics including race and sex.
So we’re very concerned right now that Texas Tech is going to undergo its own review and it will result in the same sorts of censorious outcomes.
Well, you’ve written about these developments in Texas for FIRE, and you describe a “chilling effect” this could have at other universities. Tell us why.
Simply put, when an administration signals that it is going to target specific ideas and viewpoints on campus, it forces faculty to start walking on eggshells, and they have to think twice before they speak, before they choose certain course materials, for fear of running afoul of administrative guidance that targets specific ideas for punishment, and they could have their courses canceled, they could get in trouble.
It’s the sort of chilling effect that the First Amendment does not allow for.
Well last fall, FIRE filed a lawsuit against Texas for banning all expressive activities on campus at night and in the early morning hours, and this was largely seen as something designed to suppress campus protests.
Tell us the latest about the lawsuit. What’s the update?
In October, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the UT system from enforcing this law that we said banned virtually all protected expression on public university campuses after dark. And what this does is it blocks the law from going into effect while the case will continue through the courts.
Well, FIRE follows free speech policy on a national level. So what we’re seeing at A&M, is this something that’s happening around the country, or is this limited to Texas?
Unfortunately, there is some precedent from a couple of years ago in Florida.
There, the state passed the Stop Woke Act, which similarly targeted certain ideas about race and sex – basically saying that faculty cannot teacher advocate or inculcate certain ideas about these topics in the classroom.
There, we successfully got a court to prevent the law from going into effect with respect to its application to college classrooms. In fact, a judge called that law “positively dystopian.”
We are very concerned that Texas is following the same unconstitutional footsteps.
What are you keeping an eye on now that the semester is underway and you have these concerns?
We’re going to continue to keep an eye on all of the university systems in Texas and more broadly across the country looking at university systems – again, public institutions that are bound by the First Amendment, targeting specific ideas, specific viewpoints. We would certainly urge any faculty members who are getting in trouble for trying to teach about specific topics or ideas to get in touch with us.
And any advice for students?
To push for the proper education to encounter difficult ideas, to be enthusiastic and to stand up for your rights in the classroom to encounter certain difficult ideas and to not have your education neutered by overreaching legislation or overreaching directives that specifically target outcomes.
We firmly believe that students are capable of encountering difficult, controversial or potentially upsetting ideas and responding to those ideas instead of turning to censorship.
