SB 37 proposes a wide-ranging restructuring of public higher education governance in Texas, driven by concerns over transparency, ideological bias, and misalignment between university priorities and state workforce needs. It introduces new mandates for governing board oversight of curriculum and hiring, requires academic program reviews based on return-on-investment (ROI) metrics, and establishes a centralized Office of the Ombudsman to monitor compliance and enforce penalties. While the bill’s goals of accountability and efficiency are understandable and even laudable, several of its core provisions conflict directly with foundational liberty principles, and as such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 37 unless amended as described below.
The most serious concern lies in the bill’s restriction of general education content. By prohibiting instruction in “identity politics” or “theories of systemic oppression,” the legislation imposes an ideologically selective content filter that risks violating academic freedom and First Amendment protections in public institutions. These provisions are vaguely worded and could chill speech in classrooms, discouraging discussion of legitimate, often complex topics in political science, history, sociology, and law. Whether one agrees with these frameworks or not is immaterial: the constitutional and philosophical imperative is to protect the free exchange of ideas.
Indeed, this recommendation is rooted in a core liberty principle: individual liberty must be preserved even when it protects speech or ideas we personally abhor. Philosophically and constitutionally, liberty is not upheld by banning ideas we dislike—it is upheld by defending the process by which all ideas can be examined, challenged, or affirmed. Higher education institutions, especially public ones, must remain spaces for open inquiry. Suppressing even deeply controversial views sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the liberty we seek to protect.
The bill also undermines limited government by expanding state power through the Ombudsman’s Office, which holds broad investigatory and enforcement authority. These powers, combined with top-down curriculum control, represent an increase in centralized bureaucracy that exceeds legitimate oversight and begins to resemble micromanagement. Additionally, the bill weakens shared governance traditions by restricting the role of faculty senates, limiting institutional autonomy, and reducing opportunities for professional input in curricular and academic decisions.
That said, SB 37 does affirm personal responsibility and some aspects of free enterprise. It seeks to ensure that degree programs are economically viable, helping students and taxpayers understand the financial implications of educational choices. By tying ROI and student debt outcomes to institutional accountability, it encourages efficiency and alignment with real-world needs. However, without protections for non-vocational fields and civic disciplines, the ROI framework may lead to a narrow definition of value, which undermines intellectual and cultural diversity.
The bill does not directly implicate private property rights, but the cumulative effect of its content controls, governance restrictions, and bureaucratic enforcement structure places it at odds with the broader liberty framework.
To reconcile these issues, several amendments are essential: (1) remove or clearly define ideological content bans to preserve academic freedom; (2) place appropriate limits and legislative checks on the Ombudsman’s enforcement authority; (3) restore meaningful faculty governance participation; and (4) ensure ROI measures account for educational value beyond initial salary outcomes.
Without these critical revisions, SB 37 would constitute an overreach by the state into areas of constitutionally protected expression and institutional self-governance.
- Individual Liberty: The bill most directly conflicts with individual liberty through its restrictions on curricular content. It prohibits general education courses from promoting or instructing in concepts such as "identity politics" and "theories of systemic oppression." While such frameworks may be ideologically contentious, censoring them in a public university setting, where First Amendment protections apply fully, is a serious infringement on academic freedom and freedom of expression. Universities are meant to foster rigorous debate, not limit it based on ideological preference. The vague and politically charged language used in the bill could chill lawful speech, discourage critical inquiry, and suppress dissenting views. Even if one personally disagrees with identity politics, defending its presence in the university context is philosophically consistent with a commitment to liberty, which demands the protection of expression, not the regulation of ideas. Liberty is tested not by our willingness to protect popular speech, but by our tolerance of unpopular or controversial ideas.
- Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes personal responsibility by requiring institutions to evaluate degree programs based on return on investment (ROI) and student debt levels. This gives students and families greater transparency about the economic value of different educational paths, encouraging more informed and fiscally responsible decision-making. Institutions are also held accountable for offering programs that align with meaningful career opportunities. In doing so, the bill reinforces the idea that public resources, both financial and institutional, should be managed prudently, with responsibility shared between students, faculty, and administrators.
- Free Enterprise: The bill partially supports free enterprise by attempting to align academic offerings with labor market demand. Encouraging institutions to offer programs that support workforce needs can help build a dynamic, responsive economy and foster innovation in high-demand sectors. However, the bill also risks undermining intellectual freedom and innovation by imposing rigid ROI-based evaluations and restricting certain ideological frameworks. The “marketplace of ideas”, a foundational concept in both free enterprise and democratic society, depends on open intellectual competition. Overregulating which ideas are permissible in the classroom can discourage creative thinking, scholarly risk-taking, and the pursuit of unconventional or interdisciplinary knowledge, all of which are crucial to an entrepreneurial and free society.
- Private Property Rights: The bill does not implicate private property rights. It does not alter regulations around property ownership, land use, or eminent domain. Its scope is confined to the internal policies and governance structures of public higher education institutions.
- Limited Government: While the bill is framed as an accountability measure, it significantly expands the reach of state government into the operations of higher education. The creation of a centralized Office of the Ombudsman within the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), with investigatory powers, civil penalty authority, and the ability to intervene in university affairs, reflects a substantial increase in state control. Additionally, the bill transfers curriculum oversight and faculty governance authority away from decentralized, professional bodies (like faculty senates) to governing boards and the state bureaucracy. This level of top-down control runs counter to the principle of limited government, which holds that central authorities should only intervene when absolutely necessary, and with clear, narrow mandates. The bill crosses into micromanagement of intellectual life, an area where government should tread lightly, if at all.
