A recently established office in Texas, empowered to investigate potential violations related to diversity, curriculum, and decision-making at public universities, currently lacks written guidelines outlining the procedures for such investigations. This gap persists despite the office having accepted complaints for almost three months.
The Office of the Ombudsman, which operates under the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and is directed by a gubernatorial appointee, was established last year in response to concerns from Republican lawmakers. They argued that public universities had shifted their focus towards promoting liberal ideologies rather than adequately preparing students for the workforce.
The ombudsman accepts complaints from students, faculty, and staff who allege that universities are infringing upon two specific state laws: a 2017 prohibition against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices and programs at public institutions, and a 2025 law that restricts faculty involvement in certain curriculum, grievance, and disciplinary matters. The implications of these investigations are significant; should the ombudsman determine that a violation has occurred and the university fails to rectify the issue promptly, it can recommend that state lawmakers restrict the institution’s access to state funding until compliance is achieved.
State law mandates that the ombudsman’s office provide both complainants and the subjects of complaints with a copy of its investigative policies and procedures. However, upon request for these documents, Ombudsman Brandon Simmons directed inquiries to a webpage on the office’s site that outlines the complaint filing process, including deadlines for notifications and responses, as well as timelines for reports. The adequacy of this information in fulfilling legal requirements remains ambiguous.
The webpage does not clarify how investigations are initiated, the standards of proof applied in reaching conclusions, or the options available to universities or employees who dispute the ombudsman’s findings.
Experts in higher education emphasize that having clear, written policies is essential for ensuring fair and consistent investigative processes. Neal Hutchens, a professor at the University of Kentucky specializing in higher education law and policy, noted that public confidence in the system hinges on an understanding of its operations. Without clear guidelines, the authority wielded by the office may seem vague and intimidating to both institutions and faculty members.
“It just has a big question mark for everyone,” Hutchens remarked.
In addition, the ombudsman’s office has sought permission from the Texas Attorney General to withhold basic complaint data from the public, including the number of complaints received, their filing dates, the alleged violations, and the status of ongoing investigations.
Brandon Simmons was appointed as the inaugural ombudsman by Governor Greg Abbott in October, with records indicating he was the sole candidate for the position. Previously, Simmons had a career in technology and law, and he left his role as chair of the Texas Southern University System Board of Regents, during which the institution faced scrutiny from a state audit over financial and operational deficiencies.
The office commenced accepting complaints through an online portal on January 9. Although Simmons initially agreed to a verbal interview, he later opted to respond to inquiries in writing.
When questioned about the investigative processes, Simmons refrained from providing detailed responses. Regarding how the public might assess the office’s effectiveness, he declined to suggest specific benchmarks, stating, “This office seeks to increase public confidence in higher education and to support the continuing ascent of Texas universities’ student success and research and development.”
In a subsequent response to a public records request, the office acknowledged the absence of documented policies or procedures for conducting investigations. Despite repeated inquiries from The Texas Tribune over a two-week period, a response was only provided shortly before publication, again directing attention to the office’s webpage.
“Additional policies and procedures will continue to be developed as outlined by Texas law,” Simmons added.
Although the law does not specify when an investigation should be initiated, it does permit the office to request information from a university, which must respond within 30 days. Following this, the office is required to report to the university’s board of regents, determining whether a violation occurred and recommending corrective measures if necessary.
If a university fails to address a violation within 180 days, the ombudsman can escalate the matter to the state auditor and recommend that lawmakers prohibit the institution from utilizing state funds until compliance is achieved.
Additionally, the law mandates that the office maintain a record for each complaint and submit annual reports to state officials, including the governor and legislative leaders, summarizing the number of complaints received, investigations conducted, and findings made.
In efforts to gain insight into the ombudsman’s activities, The Texas Tribune reached out to public university systems to inquire whether they had received any notices of complaint or related records. Six systems reported no notifications, one had not responded by the time of publication, and the University of Texas System indicated it possessed relevant records but sought guidance from the attorney general regarding their release.
Lawmakers involved in establishing the ombudsman office have expressed differing opinions on its operational transparency and disclosure protocols. State Senator Paul Bettencourt, chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, emphasized the necessity of developing a “some type of complaint procedure” and has called for Simmons to present on this topic at an upcoming committee hearing. Bettencourt also indicated that he had requested data on the number of complaints filed.
When asked about protections for universities or employees who are the subjects of complaints, as well as standards of proof and appeals processes, Bettencourt stated, “I’m going to leave that one open.” He envisions the ombudsman as more than just an enforcement body, suggesting it should serve as a “neutral place” for resolving issues without resorting to public disputes on social media, referencing a past controversy at Texas A&M.
State Representative Matt Shaheen, who sponsored the legislation that created the office, expressed satisfaction with the procedural outline provided on the office’s website, despite it lacking critical investigative standards. He cautioned against prematurely disclosing information on pending complaints, noting that they could be unfounded or “malicious in nature,” though he would support releasing aggregate complaint data after investigations conclude.
Addressing the absence of an appeals mechanism, Shaheen suggested that those dissatisfied with the ombudsman’s findings could bring their concerns to lawmakers, who would ensure their perspectives were heard.
Prior to the establishment of the ombudsman office, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board dealt with a narrower scope of student complaints, primarily focusing on whether universities adhered to state regulations concerning tuition, financial aid, consumer protections, and specific academic standards. Students were generally required to exhaust internal grievance processes at their institutions before the board would intervene, and the agency lacked authority to mandate changes in university policies or recommend restrictions on state funding.
Since taking office, Simmons has appointed staff from conservative legal and policy backgrounds to the ombudsman office. On April 1, he announced the hiring of Ryan D. Walters, a former deputy attorney general for legal strategy and an attorney at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, as deputy director and general counsel. Simmons also brought on Edgardo Mondolfi, another former employee of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, as his assistant.
In contrast, other Texas agencies exhibit greater transparency regarding their complaint investigation processes. The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, for example, typically conducts interviews with the complainant, the respondent, and relevant witnesses, collects pertinent documents, and may conduct site visits before submitting a report to a prosecutor. In cases seeking penalties, the agency considers factors such as the severity of the violation, intent, and whether the respondent took steps to correct the issue once identified, as well as the necessity for stronger penalties to deter future misconduct. Respondents are afforded the opportunity to request a hearing before an administrative law judge and may seek rehearing or judicial review thereafter.
Concerns are growing regarding the implications of a new office wielding expansive authority yet lacking clear procedures for teaching, research, and open inquiry at public universities. Liliana Garces, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s College of Education, highlighted that such apprehensions are not unfounded.
Her research team conducted a study on the implementation of the anti-DEI law at UT-Austin, interviewing nearly 100 administrators, faculty, and students over more than a year. Their findings indicated that the university exceeded the law’s requirements, with officials advising faculty to submit research proposals for legal review and to avoid certain language, despite research being exempt from the law.
Garces attributed this overcorrection to concerns raised by undercover videos that depicted university employees discussing ways to continue DEI initiatives, coupled with pressure from Republican leaders suggesting noncompliance. This environment led universities to feel as though they were under surveillance, prompting them to exceed the law’s stipulations.
“Compliance became this moving target where just any kind of visibility created liability for the institution,” she stated.
