Faculty organizations have taken legal action against Texas Tech Chancellor Brandon Creighton and the university system’s regents, seeking a federal court intervention in El Paso to halt classroom restrictions they claim have stifled academic freedom regarding race, gender identity, and sexual orientation, while also discriminating against Black faculty members.
The lawsuit, filed by the Texas American Association of University Professors-American Federation of Teachers alongside the national American Association of University Professors, contests two memos issued by Creighton shortly after he assumed the chancellor role last year.
The plaintiffs argue that the restrictions set forth in these memos infringe upon First Amendment rights by permitting university officials to suppress disfavored perspectives. They contend that these policies violate the Fourteenth Amendment by creating ambiguity for professors about what content could result in disciplinary action, and they claim that the directives specifically target instruction on Black history and racial inequality.
In Creighton’s initial memo, released on December 1, faculty were warned they could face consequences for not adhering to newly imposed limitations on course content related to race, sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. It mandated that faculty submit their course materials concerning these subjects for review and approval by the regents.
A subsequent memo, dated April 9, escalated these measures, mandating the gradual elimination of academic programs focused on sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, it required professors teaching core and introductory undergraduate courses to utilize alternative materials if their syllabi included those topics.
While the memo noted that certain materials could still be taught if deemed necessary for patient care, professional credentials, or advanced studies, the lawsuit asserts that these exceptions were inconsistently applied.
The policies impact the entire five-institution system, which encompasses Texas Tech University, two health sciences centers, Angelo State University, and Midwestern State University.
The complaint includes specific instances of how these restrictions have been enforced, such as a professor at the Texas Tech Health Sciences Center in Lubbock being informed that medical students could not engage with or observe care for transgender patients, even when those patients presented unrelated health issues. It also cites an incident where a Holocaust course would need to be removed from the core curriculum if it included discussions of gay and bisexual victims of the Nazis, and instances where regents prohibited the teaching of significant works such as Plato’s Republic and Ta-Nehisi Coates’ National Book Award-winning Between the World and Me.
Furthermore, it alleges that an instructor at Texas Tech Health Sciences Center El Paso was advised against using the term “disparity” in class, which hindered their ability to teach critical health issues affecting the local population, including the higher prevalence of diabetes and cervical cancer mortality rates among women along the Texas-Mexico border.
One example highlights the lawsuit’s argument that the exceptions outlined by Creighton were both confusing and applied inconsistently. Despite stating that certain materials could still be included for patient care or professional credentialing, a professor initially had to remove vital content on transgender and intersex patients from a medical course, only to later be allowed to include it for students in clinical rotations, which had already commenced for others.
The plaintiff organizations are urging the court to declare Creighton’s memos unconstitutional and to prevent the university from enforcing these or any similar policies. They argue that faculty members have already been compelled to certify compliance for summer and fall courses, suggesting that these restrictions will continue to adversely impact both educators and students.
A representative for the Texas Tech System has dismissed the allegations within the lawsuit.
Erin Wilson, a spokesperson, stated, “Our commitment to academic integrity and the First Amendment rights of our students will not be distracted by lawsuits as we continue to deliver rigorous academic programs, relevant coursework, and groundbreaking research.”
Wilson also countered several claims made in the complaint, asserting that teaching about civil rights and historical events, including Nazi atrocities, remains permissible and that instructors are not obligated to omit works that reference sexual orientation or gender identity in standard texts.
Additionally, she maintained that the board of regents has neither altered nor rejected any courses at Texas Tech’s health sciences centers.
Creighton has previously justified the restrictions as necessary for compliance with state and federal regulations, asserting that they ensure students receive degrees of value.
In a December interview referenced in the complaint, Creighton expressed that Texas Tech aims to convey inclusivity across all backgrounds, framing the restrictions as a means to promote “diversity of viewpoint.” When questioned about whether limiting discussions on gender identity, sexuality, and race contributed to this goal, Creighton affirmed that they did, describing the guidance as a “continuum of common sense.”
A former Republican state senator, Creighton took on the chancellor position in November. During his tenure in the Senate, he chaired the Higher Education Committee and sponsored Senate Bill 37, legislation that granted governor-appointed regents expanded authority over curriculum. His December memo indicated that Texas Tech’s course review was the “first step” in implementing that law.
The lawsuit contends that Creighton’s memos exceed the legislative intent of the law. An earlier draft of SB 37 had proposed requiring regents to eliminate curricula that focused on “identity politics” or that was founded on theories of systemic racism, sexism, oppression, or privilege within U.S. or Texas institutions. While this language was ultimately omitted from the final law, the faculty groups argue that Creighton imposed similar restrictions upon becoming chancellor.
The complaint references Creighton’s broader legislative history to support its assertion that the memos are at least partially motivated by racial discrimination. It notes his opposition to removing Confederate monuments after the George Floyd protests, his support for failed attempts to limit the teaching of critical race theory in public universities, and his sponsorship of Senate Bill 17, which prohibits diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and programs in higher education.
“Chancellor Creighton is attempting to achieve through executive action what he could not accomplish in the Texas legislature: erasing the history, identities, and lived experiences of LGBTQ individuals and people of color from the classroom,” remarked Nicholas Hite, senior attorney at Lambda Legal.
The faculty organizations are being represented by Lambda Legal, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.
Texas Tech is not alone in implementing similar restrictions. The Texas A&M University System regents enacted a comparable policy in November following a viral incident in which a student confronted a professor regarding gender identity content in a children’s literature class. This controversy resulted in the professor’s termination, the removal of two college leaders from their administrative roles, and the resignation of the university president, alongside a systemwide audit of courses.
The A&M policy, which was approved prior to Creighton’s memos, stipulates that no academic course within the system may advocate for “race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity” unless the course and its materials receive prior approval from the university president. It also prohibits faculty from teaching material that contradicts an approved syllabus.
When asked why the organizations chose to sue Texas Tech rather than Texas A&M, Texas AAUP-AFT President Teresa Klein stated that their current focus is on Texas Tech, but they are “exploring everything.”
Antonio Ingram II, senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, characterized Texas Tech as “one of the most egregious forms of censorship we’ve seen nationwide,” highlighting the limitations placed on graduate student research and the closure of entire departments. He noted that a favorable ruling could have implications for other university systems, including Texas A&M and the University of Texas System, although additional legal actions might be necessary.
