The University of North Texas provost told the faculty senate on Wednesday that media coverage of recent course title changes to align with a state ban on DEI initiatives were misconstrued.
This week, UNT made headlines when its College of Education made changes to the titles and descriptions of 78 course on offer for fall 2025. In early reports, both UNT faculty and advocacy groups said they believed the changes were part of sweeping compliance efforts to bring UNT into compliance with Senate Bill 17, the law passed by the 88th Texas Legislature that forbids public colleges and universities from having diversity, equity and inclusion offices, programs, trainings or initiatives.
Part of those concerns followed an announcement in October that the UNT Office of General Counsel was offering new guidance on both academic research and academic course instruction. That new guidance stipulates that "classroom lessons on DEI topics must be limited to elements of the course,” and that “course activities must relate to the course goal or objective.”
When it comes to DEI topics in research, UNT Chief Integrity Officer Clay Simmons gave an example: “The identity-based aspects must be essential to the research,” he said at the Oct. 9 faculty senate meeting. “So if you're doing research on homelessness, you have to be very careful if you're going to focus on a certain identity within homelessness. So if you're looking at LGBTQ homeless individuals, then you'll have to make sure that that is narrowly-tailored within the scope of work.”
This week, UNT faculty said they found out the bill was making its way into the course catalog.
But Provost Michael McPherson told faculty senators that recent media coverage has not been "entirely accurate." He also said that a faculty email that connected SB 17 to the changes wasn't an official communication from the university.
"First of all, the stuff that was reported in the press was not caused by — or the impetus of those changes — was not SB 17," McPherson said. "In fact, it was an exercise the College of Education was going through to align their curriculum, or realign their curriculum, as it should be, with [Texas Essential Knowlege and Skills]. That's ... basically what we are supposed to be teaching our teachers. So our curriculum needs to align with what those TEKS are, and some of the titles didn't align, and they were changed."
McPherson said the course titles weren't changed in any top-down fashion.
"The other thing that I think is really important context, that didn't really come out at all in the press, was that this was not some sort of administrative dictate handed down from on high," he said. "This went through the usual faculty governance processes. All of the changes were discussed and approved by the faculty curriculum committees at the graduate and undergraduate levels. So that's important for you to know that."
McPherson also reminded faculty that SB 17 isn't supposed to pertain to the classroom.
"In principle, as we all know, SB 17 exempts what's taught in the classroom, and also what one is doing research on," he said. "So when I am asked, or when I'm hearing anecdotes about somebody feels like they have a massive workload now because of SB 17, I need to know some details. I need to know, not anecdotes, not 'I heard this thing, this is what I'm experiencing.' I need to know the particular people so I can get to the bottom of it."
All things considered, however, faculty confusion over the recent fracas is understandable.
If faculty at Texas colleges feel they're under scrutiny over DEI, they probably weren't reassured by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick's Sept. 10 memo about 2024 legislative charges. In a section that highlights SB 17, Patrick asks lawmakers to keep an eagle eye on higher education programs and certificates. And contrary to SB 17, Patrick includes curriculum in the scope he sets out for legislators.
State lawmakers are to "examine programs and certificates at higher education institutions that maintain discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion policies," Patrick said. "Expose how these programs and their curriculum are damaging and not aligned with state workforce demands. Make recommendations for any needed reforms to ensure universities are appropriately educating students to meet workforce needs."
The author of SB 17 also recently mentioned curriculum during a Texas Senate Higher Education Committee hearing.
"While DEI-related curriculum and course content does not explicitly violate the letter of the law, it indeed contradicts its spirit," said Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe. "The curriculum does not reflect the expectations of Texas taxpayers and students who fund our public universities."
A number of national advocacy groups have accused UNT of "overcompliance" to SB 17, and of putting academic freedom of faculty at peril.
"FIRE is concerned by reports of the University of North Texas’s announcement that it will monitor teaching and research in light of SB17, a 2023 bill banning DEI offices and initiatives," the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said in a post on X. "This interpretation of the law threatens faculty’s academic freedom rights and is NOT required by law. SB17 explicitly carves out 'academic course instruction' and 'scholarly research or a creative work' by students, faculty, or other research personnel. Yet UNT insists on suffocating faculty rights by making 78 changes to course titles, setting up a 'Trust Line' for people to report violations, and scrutinizing faculty teaching."
PEN American, an agency that promote the freedom of expression for writers, shared a press release criticizing UNT for its recent decisions. The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas also criticized the university.
"The University of North Texas is censoring faculty from discussing race, gender, class, and equity in course materials," the ACLU of Texas said. "A comprehensive, inclusive education is vital for student success in our diverse state and interconnected world."
However, the university’s Trust Line predates SB 17 by at least two years, and is an anonymous reporting mechanism for all manner of unethical or criminal activity.
At least one faculty senator asked McPherson how UNT administrators plan to protect the academic freedom, especially given Creighton's direct statements about classroom content.
"At what point do you step in and advocate for academic freedoms?" said Adam Briggle, a philosophy professor and faculty senator. "How does that go from an upper administrative perspective?"
"I think that is a great question," McPherson said. "That is, in a nutshell, how I have heard the president [Harrison Keller] articulate the strategy. He believes in academic freedom very much. He thinks our being proactive in that agenda, pushing that, in higher education in general is the proper strategy for us in this and future legislative sessions."
McPherson said there can be some "gray areas."
"For example, suppose one got a grant, and the grant required one to do DEI training as an outcome of the grant. I think there might be a problem there because it conflicts with state law," he said. "But in general, research and teaching are specifically exempted from SB 17."
Faculty senators shared frustrations over using a UNT "decision tool" to test compliance for things like library programs, only to have programs that complied canceled by administration. Another faculty member shared concerns that there is interest in eliminating programs and certificates that could be related to DEI. A faculty member who is not a senator expressed anxiety over the future of his course and its description, which is about DEI subject matter.
"All I can say is that there are reasons for us to influence the process in subtle ways, which we are trying to do," McPherson said. "If I had to speculate — and I hate to speculate — but speaking just as a citizen, it does not seem to me that the Legislature is done with DEI-related stuff. What that means, exactly, I don't know. Our government team is in Austin right now, as a matter of fact."
