Texas Tech University officials have advised faculty against broadly disseminating a memo from the chancellor that imposes restrictions on graduate work related to sexual orientation and gender identity. This directive has raised alarms among experts who believe it could result in wasted time and financial resources for prospective graduate students.
In an email dated April 17, Mark Sheridan, the vice provost for graduate and postdoctoral affairs and dean of the Graduate School, instructed faculty members to inform only select prospective and newly admitted graduate students if their research interests might conflict with these new limitations.
Graduate students and higher education specialists argue that this selective notification approach may leave many unaware of the restrictions until it is too late to adjust their academic plans. When questioned about the university’s decision not to inform all prospective graduate students, Texas Tech spokesperson Allison Hirth stated that “program-specific advising is the most effective way” to convey accurate information regarding students’ fields of study.
Hirth, who serves as the associate vice president of marketing and communications, emphasized that this guidance is part of a broader commitment to transparency and student success.
On April 9, Chancellor Brandon Creighton issued a memo prohibiting future graduate student theses, dissertations, and other culminating research projects from focusing on sexual orientation or gender identity. Current students, however, are allowed to continue such work temporarily.
Afterward, Sheridan communicated with department chairs and academic leaders, instructing them not to distribute Creighton’s memo. Instead, he advised that communications with prospective and newly admitted students be “targeted,” according to a copy of the email obtained by The Texas Tribune.
In these communications, faculty members are directed to inquire about students’ research interests using specific language that highlights the prohibition of work centered on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Students are encouraged to discuss their proposed research interests “as soon as possible” with their designated faculty contacts. Those interested in topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity are advised to consider other programs that might be more aligned with their academic goals.
Hirth reiterated that the university’s aim is to ensure that students are adequately informed so they can make choices that align with their educational and professional aspirations. She noted that academic advising is tailored to individual students and routinely addresses program requirements and potential constraints on their study paths.
Destiny Dunn, who is set to graduate this semester with a master’s degree from Texas Tech’s School of Theatre and Dance, expressed that had these restrictions been in place during her application process, she would not have chosen to enroll. Dunn, who was unclear about her final project at the time of her application, stated that the program’s flexibility allowed students to create one-person plays that often reflect their personal experiences.
Stacy Hartman, a program officer for higher education initiatives at the American Council of Learned Societies, emphasized the need for Texas Tech to clearly communicate what research topics are permitted in offer letters and on departmental websites. She expressed concerns that the selective communication could unfairly impact students across various disciplines, particularly in the humanities and social sciences.
Hartman pointed out that good research often evolves through a series of questions, and it is unreasonable to expect students to preemptively know whether their work may touch upon restricted topics.
Graduate students face greater challenges when switching schools compared to undergraduates, as their progress is closely linked to specific advisors, departments, funding arrangements, and research topics. Students who discover late that their research is not permitted may find themselves with limited options: applying to different programs and potentially losing credits or altering their thesis topics, which could delay graduation.
Paula Krebs, executive director of the Modern Language Association, remarked that restrictions on graduate research and classroom discussions are highly unusual, and it is unjust for any graduate program to admit students under misleading pretenses.
Creighton’s memo extends beyond graduate research, mandating that universities within the Texas Tech system identify programs focused on sexual orientation and gender identity by June 15 and subsequently freeze admissions to those programs.
While Texas Tech maintains a commitment to strong academic scholarship across various disciplines, Hirth affirmed that being a public institution necessitates compliance with state laws and guidelines that impact certain instructional and research areas.
Prior to his appointment as chancellor, Creighton served as a Republican state senator and was instrumental in enacting Texas’ 2023 ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in higher education. This legislation carved out exceptions for academic instruction, research, and creative work from its prohibitions. Texas Tech officials have cited state and federal guidance regarding gender identity as part of the legal framework they must navigate.
Texas Tech offers a women’s and gender studies undergraduate minor and graduate certificate and hosts an annual conference related to these studies. The recent conference proceeded as planned on April 23, albeit with a reduced program. Provost Ron Hendrick acknowledged the changes in his remarks, emphasizing the importance of fostering dialogue across disciplines and perspectives.
In light of Creighton’s memo, student organizations such as Students Engaged in Advancing Texas and Raiders Against Censorship are mobilizing for a demonstration at the upcoming regents meeting in Lubbock, intending to highlight the importance of academic freedom.
Dunn’s own one-person play addressed water disparities in Flint, Michigan, but noted that two of her peers altered their projects due to uncertainty surrounding Texas Tech’s shifting restrictions. Although Dunn did not change her project, she expressed anxiety about being monitored by peers during her teaching of a theater appreciation class this semester.
Conservative activist groups have released undercover recordings of university staff discussing their responses to Texas’ DEI ban, contributing to a climate of apprehension among students and faculty. Dunn remarked on the difficulties of discussing theater history without intersecting with issues of gender and censorship, drawing parallels to the current situation at Texas Tech and nationwide.
When asked if she would have chosen Texas Tech had the restrictions been clearly communicated during her application, Dunn firmly stated she would not have. “In no way would I have done that because it’s been psychologically damaging,” she reflected.
Josh Lile, a first-year doctoral student in Texas Tech’s College of Education, expressed that while the restrictions may not directly impact his current studies, they have led him to reconsider his future at the university. Lile, who selected Texas Tech for its online program to balance his academic pursuits with raising children and teaching high school math, has already invested considerable funds into his education and would face financial loss if he were to transfer.
Despite having a general idea of his research focus on teacher development when he applied, Lile acknowledged that he did not have a fully formed dissertation topic upon enrollment. He argued that if Texas Tech genuinely aims for transparency, prospective students should be informed about these restrictions prior to making their commitments. “Why wouldn’t you?” he questioned. “If you’re this proud of this, then own it.”
