In recent years, Texas Republicans have made significant changes to public higher education, mirroring trends seen in other conservative states. These alterations have sparked debates about the implications for academic freedom and the autonomy of educational institutions. Key measures include the prohibition of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, a reduction in faculty influence over university governance, and mandated curriculum assessments.
However, Senate Bill 37, signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott, introduces a unique element not found in similar legislation from other states: the establishment of an ombudsman position. This role is specifically designed to ensure compliance with SB 37 and the previously enacted ban on DEI initiatives, which is set to take effect in 2024.
According to the law, the ombudsman will act as the director of compliance and monitoring, tasked with overseeing adherence to these new regulations.
The appointment of the ombudsman is under the governor’s purview, with the state Senate holding the power to approve or reject the nominee. Furthermore, the governor retains the authority to dismiss the ombudsman at will, granting him significant control over this oversight role. Critics, including faculty and advocates for academic freedom, express concerns about the potential politicization of this position, especially since it can recommend withholding state funding from non-compliant institutions.
Under SB 37, the ombudsman is empowered to receive and investigate complaints from students and staff regarding violations of the law, which prohibits race- and sex-based affirmative action in hiring practices, as well as any training or programs related to race, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
Additionally, complaints can be lodged concerning specific provisions of SB 37, which include requirements for regular reviews of general education curricula, the appointment of faculty senate leaders by institutional presidents, and restrictions on faculty participation in hiring decisions. The ombudsman has the authority to recommend legislative action to restrict state funding if an institution fails to comply with these mandates.
Equipped with state subpoena power, the ombudsman can compel universities to cooperate with investigations and is required to submit annual reports to the governor and lawmakers detailing complaints, investigations, and outcomes.
As of now, Governor Abbott has not announced his choice for the ombudsman role. In response to inquiries about the rationale behind this new position, the governor’s press secretary emphasized the importance of prioritizing quality education over political agendas, highlighting the law’s restrictions on faculty hiring authority.
Concerns have been raised by faculty and academic freedom advocates regarding the implications of this oversight role, particularly the lack of clarity surrounding the investigation processes and the potential consequences for universities under political pressure.
Concerns Over Political Oversight
Critics of the ombudsman position are particularly worried about the political nature of the appointment process and the perceived redundancy of the role. Brian Evans, president of a prominent faculty association, noted that existing compliance offices within institutions already handle complaints. He argued that introducing a politically appointed monitor disrupts the established governance structure in higher education.
Evans further described the ombudsman as a form of ‘thought police’ under the governor’s control, possessing the power to compel investigations and interrogations. This concentration of authority raises significant concerns about the potential for misuse of power.
Emily Berman, a representative from another faculty organization, anticipates that the ombudsman will conduct extensive investigations, regardless of the validity of the complaints. The looming threat of legislative funding cuts creates a strong incentive for universities to align with the expectations of this politically appointed official.
Moreover, Berman pointed out that there are already multiple layers of state oversight in place, including governing boards and a statewide coordinating board, which raises questions about the necessity of this additional oversight.
Joe Cohn, a policy director at an organization advocating for diverse viewpoints in higher education, expressed concerns about the lack of independence of the ombudsman, emphasizing that the role’s alignment with the governor’s interests could lead to politically motivated actions.
Amy Reid, an advocate for free expression in education, warned that the measures outlined in SB 37 could create a chilling effect on free speech within academic settings. She likened the ombudsman’s role to that of a third-party monitor, which could impose external scrutiny on universities.
While some institutions, such as the Texas A&M University system and the University of Texas system, have not publicly criticized the new oversight role, the University of Texas system described it as an opportunity for increased transparency and accountability in higher education.