After two legislative sessions in which Republican lawmakers hammered universities as bastions of liberal indoctrination, campuses across Texas are restricting how race and gender can be taught and requiring instructors to present controversial subjects in a “balanced” way. At the University of Houston, some deans have taken the unusual step of requiring faculty to certify they “teach, not indoctrinate.”
Tensions on campus escalated when a five-page
checklist instructing professors on how to review course materials was unveiled last month during a faculty council meeting.
Some professors say the checklist, coupled with the certification effort, reinforce what they see as a false premise: that indoctrination is widespread in university classrooms. They say the efforts pressure instructors to avoid controversial topics altogether.
University officials say the certifications are not required — even though some deans described them as mandatory, with one saying punishment was an option for noncompliance — and that the checklist is a draft that is optional for faculty use.
The officials say the reviews are part of efforts to comply with Senate Bill 37, a new state law that requires boards of regents at least once every five years to review the core classes all undergraduates must take to graduate and ensure they prepare students for civic and professional life. The law does not prohibit teaching of certain topics or require instructors to submit written assurances about their teaching.
In her annual State of the University address last fall, Chancellor and University of Houston President Renu Khator opened by warning that universities face mounting attacks and declining public trust.
“The landscape of higher education is changing fast,” she said, “The attacks — justifiable or not — are constant.”
Khator pointed to a 2024 Gallup survey that found public confidence in higher education had fallen to a record low, with only 36% of Americans saying they had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in colleges and universities. A July 2025 update showed trust ticking up to 42%, the only major U.S. institution to see an increase regardless of party affiliation.
The certification requirement and checklist trace back to a series of messages and internal reviews that began late last year.
Language about indoctrination appeared in Khator’s Nov. 21 message urging “faculty colleagues” to review their course titles, syllabi and content, writing that the university’s “guiding principle is to teach them, not to indoctrinate them.” She also directed department chairs and deans to help provide an objective assessment of courses and asked the Provost’s Office and the Office of General Counsel to begin reviewing the core curriculum for compliance with SB 37.
In a Jan. 27 campuswide update, Khator said the SB 37 core curriculum review had been completed and would be presented at the March 12 meeting of the board of regents.
In early February, some deans began requiring faculty to sign written statements affirming they were teaching critical thinking, not indoctrinating students.
In a Feb. 3 email, Daniel P. O’Connor, dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, said he had “no evidence” any instructor was violating the university’s academic commitment but described the acknowledgement as necessary “to document that all instructors are aware” of the expectations, review their courses, and make revisions as needed.
In email replies to O’Connor, some faculty declined to sign the acknowledgment, calling the premise of widespread indoctrination a “straw man.”
Using language drafted by the university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, faculty wrote that signing the acknowledgement could be construed as “some admission of guilt concerning these false accusations.”
“I have never engaged in indoctrination and … take offense, as a scholar, at such insinuations,” the emails said. “To have them paired with insinuations that I might have done otherwise … seems like it would bind me to admission of guilt for doing something that I have not done.”
The emails also asserted that administrators lack the authority to require faculty to sign the acknowledgment or punish them for refusing.
Two other UH deans — Heidi Appel of the Honors College and Yarneccia D. Dyson of the Graduate College of Social Work — also described the certification as required in emails to faculty. Both cited language stating SB 37 requires that courses “do not endorse specific policies, ideologies or legislation,” wording that appeared in earlier drafts but was removed before the law was passed. In a message to Honors College instructors, Appel wrote that full-time faculty who declined to sign the acknowledgement would be ineligible for merit salary increases, while part-time faculty — many of whom work on semester- or year-long contracts — could risk reappointment. She gave them a deadline of Feb. 9.
O’Connor, Appel and Dyson did not respond to an email containing detailed questions and a follow-up phone call.
Robert Zaretsky, who has taught at UH for 36 years and holds a joint appointment in the Honors College and the Department of Modern and Classical Languages, declined to sign.
“When I saw the word indoctrination, for me, that’s a red line,” he said. “It was as if there was a good chance that we are indoctrinating our students.”
Zaretsky said he felt able to refuse because he has tenure, but he worried the policy could pressure instructors and adjunct faculty who “have bills to pay and don’t have job security.”
Amid disagreements over the acknowledgments, instructors got their first look at the draft checklist during a Feb. 11 meeting of the faculty council’s curriculum committee. The document asks faculty to rate their courses “yes,” “partially” or “no” on whether they require students to adopt a particular political or ideological viewpoint, present multiple perspectives and avoid requiring students to express their personal beliefs or penalizing them for those beliefs.
According to faculty members present at the meeting, the agenda said nothing about the checklist, with committee members saying they were not involved in drafting it.
University officials said the checklist was written by a faculty group, but they have declined to name participants or explain how members were selected.
The confusion over the document’s origins comes as SB 37 also reshaped faculty governance at public universities. Faculty senates have traditionally operated as independent bodies elected by professors. The new law requires boards of regents to establish any faculty council or senate and allows university presidents to appoint members.
Zaretsky said he first saw the checklist when it circulated among faculty on a private email list after the meeting. He said it could complicate classroom instruction, particularly the recommendation that faculty present multiple perspectives on controversial topics.
“Our students struggle with even one article,” he said. “To have them read multiple articles … it’s going to sink the course. It’s too much ballast.”
In a March 2 letter, 174 UH professors who are members of AAUP urged the faculty council to formally vote on the checklist rather than allow it to move forward without a recorded position.
The professors argued that nothing in SB 37 prevents the faculty council from voting and warned that failing to do so would amount to “silent approval of the administration’s actions.”
“We understand the pressures you are under, and we understand how difficult this moment is. Nonetheless, we prevail on you to be courageous and accurately represent the sentiments of the faculty at this critical juncture,” the letter said.
The dispute has also prompted the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to write to the university and argue that requiring faculty to affirm they present multiple perspectives or avoid certain viewpoints could violate First Amendment protections for academic freedom. University officials disagreed, saying the guidelines were drafted by faculty for voluntary use and that no mandatory affirmations or enforcement mechanisms exist.
Dona H. Cornell, UH’s chief legal officer, said in a letter responding to FIRE that the broader course review is intended to demonstrate the strength of the university’s academic standards.
“Our comprehensive, transparent review of all courses is intended to publicly verify what our faculty and alumni already know: that a UH education is built on the highest standards of excellence,” she wrote.
Documents reviewed by The Texas Tribune show the review process has already led to revisions in at least one course in the Graduate College of Social Work.
In November, Dyson, the college’s dean, sought volunteers to review 12 spring courses and offered a stipend as compensation.
By mid-December, faculty scheduled to teach those courses were sent revised “approved” syllabi for the spring semester. The revised syllabus for one class cut several readings focused on race, gender and sexuality and removed more explicit references to those topics from the course’s objectives.
The controversy at UH is part of a broader wave of scrutiny across Texas public universities. After SB 37 took effect in September and a video of a Texas A&M professor discussing gender identity sparked backlash from leading conservatives, public university systems moved to preempt further criticism by reviewing and revising courses.
Texas State University flagged hundreds of courses for review and told faculty to use an artificial intelligence tool to revise titles, descriptions and learning outcomes in favor of more neutral language.
At Texas Tech, the chancellor created a review process requiring certain instruction on race and gender to be disclosed, and, in some cases, approved before it can be taught.
Texas A&M regents approved a policy restricting courses that address “race or gender ideology” without written approval, while University of Texas regents adopted a rule requiring campuses to ensure students can graduate without studying what they describe as “ unnecessary controversial subjects ” and to take a “broad and balanced” approach when those topics arise.
___
The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage.
Disclosure: University of Houston has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
___
This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
