Estimated Time to Read: 14 minutes
As the Texas Legislature prepares to hold a joint hearing this week on civil discourse and free speech in higher education, the stakes could not be higher. Recent events have revealed a disturbing trend across public universities in the state. Faculty members have been fired for controversial remarks, student organizations are being silenced through vague administrative rules, and new laws intended to regulate campus protests have already been struck down in federal court for violating the First Amendment.
Despite Texas’s reputation for bold independence and constitutional fidelity, our higher education system is falling behind. According to the 2026 College Free Speech Rankings released by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), not a single Texas university earned a passing grade. From flagship institutions like the University of Texas at Austin to prestigious private schools like Rice University, campuses across the Lone Star State have become hostile to open debate and intellectual diversity.
How Texas Laws Have Affected Campus Free Speech
In recent years, Texas lawmakers have taken an active role in reshaping campus culture. Senate Bill 18, passed in 2019, aimed to protect expressive rights by declaring outdoor campus spaces public forums. The law was a step forward, requiring universities to allow student speech and assembly without prior permission. However, enforcement has been inconsistent, and many institutions have quietly returned to requiring permits or designated zones for protest and tabling.
More recently, Senate Bill 17 banned Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices at public colleges. The intent was to remove ideological gatekeeping from university bureaucracies. However, many of the same DEI-style speech codes and cultural pressures continue to operate under different names. Students and faculty still report self-censorship, with some academic departments enforcing unofficial rules about what can or cannot be said in class.
The most aggressive legislation came in the form of Senate Bill 2972, passed earlier this year in the 89th Legislative Session. Marketed as a tool to protect campus safety and integrity, the law imposed a wide range of restrictions on student speech, including bans on overnight protests, amplified sound, invited speakers, and symbolic expression during the final weeks of academic terms. The law was quickly challenged in federal court, and in October 2025, a judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking several of its core provisions. The court concluded that SB 2972 was content-based, overly broad, and violated the constitutional rights of Texas students.
Texas Universities Rank Among the Worst for Free Speech
The recent FIRE report ranked 257 colleges and universities on the climate for free expression. Texas institutions placed near the bottom across the board. The University of Texas at El Paso scored highest in the state but still received a D grade. Texas A&M, UT-Arlington, and UT-San Antonio followed closely behind, all with D or D-minus scores. Major institutions like Texas Tech, UT-Austin, Texas State University, and the University of Houston received failing grades.
These rankings are based on student surveys measuring comfort with expressing controversial views, administrative tolerance for dissent, and the likelihood of speaker disinvitations or event cancellations. The data paints a bleak picture. Texas students no longer feel free to explore ideas, ask difficult questions, or challenge prevailing narratives. The result is a campus culture that discourages intellectual risk-taking and reinforces ideological conformity.
The Chilling Effect of Administrative Overreach
While DEI offices may be officially disbanded, the bureaucratic culture that empowered them still persists. Many student organizations have been denied access to space, funding, or event approval based on ideological content. Faculty members have faced similar restrictions. These incidents are not isolated. Across the state, university administrators are using vague, undefined standards like “bias,” “disrespect,” or “uncivil behavior” to police speech that would otherwise be constitutionally protected.
Even student newspapers and campus art projects are being subjected to content-based review. Some institutions require prior approval for flyers, posters, or email blasts, with little explanation of how decisions are made. The result is a system where speech is permitted only if it is uncontroversial, inoffensive, and ideologically neutral, a far cry from the robust protections guaranteed by the First Amendment and the Texas Constitution.
What the Courts Have Said About Free Speech in Texas Higher Ed
The federal injunction against SB 2972 was a major rebuke to Texas lawmakers who supported the law. The court ruled that the law was passed in response to political protests and was intended to suppress specific viewpoints, including pro-Palestinian advocacy and opposition to state policy. The judge wrote that the state failed to show how banning speech after 10 p.m. or during final exams was narrowly tailored to any legitimate government interest. He also found that the law’s ban on invited speakers and symbolic expression was overly broad and underinclusive.
This ruling is just the latest in a growing list of court decisions striking down campus speech restrictions. Laws that sound neutral on paper often fall apart under scrutiny because they are selectively enforced or based on vague standards. Texas cannot afford to continue passing laws that result in expensive litigation, student confusion, and public embarrassment.
Why This Interim Hearing Matters
On Thursday, November 13, 2025, the Texas House and Senate Select Committees on Civil Discourse and Freedom of Speech in Higher Education will convene a joint hearing at the Capitol. According to the official notice, the hearing will examine three key areas: (1) how to encourage civil discourse and protect free speech on state college campuses, (2) how Senate Bill 37 is being implemented, and (3) how to ensure campus security during public and social gatherings.
This hearing was formed in the wake of mounting national controversy over campus speech, student protests, and administrative overreach. The committees include lawmakers from both parties, with State Rep. Terry Wilson (R–Georgetown) serving as House Chair and State Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R–Houston) as Senate Chair. Other members include State Reps. Richard Raymond (D-Laredo), Brad Buckley (R-Salado), Caroline Fairly (R-Amarillo), James Frank (R-Wichita Falls), Shelby Slawson (R-Stephenville), and Senfronia Thompson(D-Houston) in the House; and State Sens. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola), César Blanco (D-El Paso), Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels), Bob Hall (R-Edgewood), Chuy Hinojosa (D-McAllen), and Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham) in the Senate.
Though the hearing takes place during the interim, its outcomes could shape the free speech policy agenda ahead of the 90th Legislative Session in January 2027. With courts already blocking unconstitutional speech laws and public trust in campus governance deteriorating, this hearing arrives at a critical moment. Lawmakers have a rare opportunity to lay the groundwork for principled, liberty-focused reforms.
A key focus of this hearing is the implementation of Senate Bill 37, which overhauls academic governance at Texas public universities. The law mandates that university governing boards conduct five-year reviews of general education curricula, approve program changes, and assess minor degrees for workforce alignment. It also limits faculty councils to an advisory-only role, grants governing boards new authority over hiring decisions, and creates a state-level Office of the Ombudsman with investigatory and enforcement powers. While the final bill dropped language banning specific ideological frameworks, it still centralizes control over academic direction in politically appointed boards. As Texas Policy Research previously warned, this shift risks undermining academic freedom, weakening institutional autonomy, and expanding bureaucratic enforcement into classroom life.
Eight Policy Solutions to Restore Campus Free Speech in Texas
As lawmakers prepare for this week’s hearing, it is essential to offer clear, constitutional, and Texas-relevant solutions that move beyond partisan soundbites. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has extensively documented how universities across the country, including many in Texas, routinely adopt vague, overbroad, and unconstitutional speech policies. Their report, Correcting Common Mistakes in Campus Speech Policies, outlines key legal standards and best practices that should guide Texas reform efforts.
The following eight policy solutions draw from those recommendations, recent court rulings, and Texas-specific challenges. Together, they offer a roadmap for restoring intellectual freedom, protecting student rights, and reinforcing civil discourse at public colleges and universities across the state.
1. Align Harassment Policies with the Davis Standard
Texas should require that all public universities adopt harassment policies that reflect the legal definition set by the United States Supreme Court in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education. Only speech that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive enough to deny someone access to education should be punishable. Vague terms like “offensive” or “hurtful” must be eliminated from policy language.
Some critics argue that this standard weakens protections for students in hostile environments. In reality, the Davis standard ensures real misconduct is addressed while also protecting constitutional speech. It targets behavior that is not just unwelcome but harmful enough to materially interfere with someone’s education. Lowering the bar to “offensiveness” invites subjective enforcement, erodes due process, and exposes universities to legal challenges. This reform does not protect bullies; it creates lawful, enforceable boundaries rooted in clarity, not ideology.
2. Eliminate Free Speech Zones and Restore Public Forum Status
The Legislature should eliminate all designated free speech zones and reaffirm that all outdoor areas of campus are public forums. Students should not need permission to speak, gather, or distribute literature in public spaces. Prior restraint through burdensome registration or topic approval processes must end.
Some have said that unrestricted protests could disrupt campus operations. But time, place, and manner restrictions are already allowed under the First Amendment, if they are content-neutral and narrowly tailored. Requiring permits for spontaneous speech or forcing students into “free speech corners” is not about maintaining order. It is about suppressing participation. Universities already have tools to address true disruption. What must be rejected is the presumption that all student expression is disruptive unless pre-approved.
3. Ban Vague Speech Codes Based on Civility or Bias
Lawmakers must prohibit the use of undefined and ideologically charged terms like “civility,” “respect,” “bias,” or “microaggression” in any speech-related policy. These terms are not neutral; they are subjective standards that often reflect the political preferences of those in power. When codified into policy, they give administrators license to chill speech based on feelings, not facts.
Opponents may argue that this opens the door to bigotry. But free speech is not freedom from criticism; it is freedom from government punishment for expressing protected views. Bigoted or offensive ideas can and should be met with forceful rebuttal, but they cannot be banned unless they cross into harassment or incitement. A truly tolerant academic environment requires disagreement, not silence.
4. Require Institutional Neutrality Based on the Kalven Report
Texas should adopt an institutional neutrality policy modeled on the Kalven Report. The principle is simple: universities themselves should not take political stances or promote official viewpoints. Departments and student groups may express ideas freely, but taxpayer-funded institutions must remain neutral to preserve trust and intellectual diversity.
Some critics insist that universities have a moral duty to speak out on social justice issues. But empowering individuals to speak is not the same as making the institution itself an actor in politics. Institutional neutrality does not gag faculty or censor students; it protects dissenters and ensures public universities do not become ideological arms of the state. This principle is about protecting speech, not stifling it.
5. Guarantee Due Process in Speech-Related Discipline
The Legislature must strengthen procedural protections for students and faculty in any disciplinary action related to expression. That includes the right to be notified of charges in writing, the right to legal counsel or an adviser, and the right to appeal. Without these protections, students and faculty can be punished based on perception or politics, not evidence.
Some worry this will create red tape and delay justice. But due process is not an obstacle; it is a safeguard. No one should face expulsion, suspension, or termination for speech-related offenses without clear rules, a fair process, and a chance to respond. Protecting vulnerable students requires real accountability, but that cannot come at the expense of civil liberties.
6. Require Transparent, Centralized Speech Policy Publication
All speech-related policies must be published online, in a centralized and accessible location. No student or faculty member should have to guess whether an unofficial housing manual or IT guide contradicts the university’s stated free speech policy. Any hidden or conflicting rules must be repealed, and policies must be reviewed regularly for constitutional compliance.
Some may claim this level of transparency is burdensome. In fact, it is the bare minimum. When policies are scattered across offices, or worse, transmitted verbally, they create a chilling effect that suppresses lawful expression. Public institutions must speak clearly and with one voice. This reform does not micromanage; it prevents shadow rules and silent censorship.
7. Prohibit Advance Vetting of Speakers and Student Events
The state should ban universities from requiring advance ideological vetting of guest speakers or student events. No student group should have to submit topics, names, or content outlines to host an event, especially for political, religious, or issue-based speech. Spontaneity is a core component of free expression, and controversial ideas are the ones most likely to be targeted by vague policies.
Critics may argue that this opens the door to hate groups or chaos. But universities already have the authority to enforce content-neutral time, place, and manner rules, and to remove genuinely disruptive speakers. What they cannot do is block events simply because administrators disagree with the speaker or find their message politically sensitive. That is prior restraint, and it is unconstitutional.
8. Establish a Free Speech Compliance Commission
The Legislature should create a nonpartisan free speech compliance commission, potentially within the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. This commission would review university speech policies, offer public ratings, and provide technical support, not to police ideas, but to ensure compliance with constitutional standards.
Skeptics may fear this would become a conservative mirror of DEI bureaucracy. But this proposal does not enforce viewpoint conformity; it enforces viewpoint neutrality. Just like accreditation agencies help universities meet academic standards, this commission would help them meet First Amendment obligations. It promotes transparency, not ideology.
A Call to Action for the Texas Legislature
This week’s joint hearing is not a policymaking session; it is part of the interim legislative process, a time for fact-finding, public testimony, and groundwork ahead of the next regular session in January 2027. That distinction matters. Lawmakers are not expected to introduce or pass bills right now, but they are expected to listen, ask tough questions, and begin shaping the policy agenda for the future.
What happens in this hearing will influence whether Texas responds to the free speech crisis with meaningful reforms or continues a pattern of reactionary rulemaking and legal misfires. With students and faculty increasingly self-censoring, with courts rejecting unconstitutional speech laws, and with our universities ranking among the worst in the nation for free expression, it is clear that the status quo is unsustainable.
Texas lawmakers have a rare opportunity during this interim to pause the political noise and focus on principle. That principle is liberty, equal liberty for all viewpoints, without administrative gatekeeping, without partisan censorship, and without vague speech codes that chill open inquiry.
The regular legislative session may not begin until 2027, but the work of protecting civil discourse and restoring free speech begins now.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
