Letter from TAMUK Chapter AAUP-AFT
A curtain of censorship is descending on the classrooms of Texas A&M University-Kingsville as
you return to campus for the spring semester. At this moment, there is an Artificial Intelligence
(“AI”) Inquisition under way as the Texas A&M University system’s computers search your
professors’ syllabi, course materials, lectures, handouts, and assignments for “advocacy of
gender and race ideology.” What exactly is covered under the terms race or gender ideology has
been kept purposefully vague and unclear. Neither is it clear how AI keyword searches will
reveal advocacy of race or gender ideology. This censorship regime has been imposed by the
Texas A&M System’s Board of Regents, all of whom are political appointees, to quash what
they perceive to be “indoctrination” and to enforce its own political orthodoxy across the system.
This political interference in the classroom is precisely the kind of threat to academic freedom
that, in the heat of the Cold War, the Supreme Court soundly rejected as unconstitutional.
It is worth quoting briefly from the opinion of the majority in that case, Sweezy v. New
Hampshire.
The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost
self-evident…. Scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and
distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to
evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise, our civilization will
stagnate and die.
A concurring opinion noted that “a university ceases to be true to its own nature if it becomes a
tool of Church or State or any sectional interest.” The freedom of professors to teach without
political interference is an extension of the First Amendment rights that all Americans share,
with the proviso that academics are speaking in their areas of expertise and subject to rigorous
peer review that ensures that teaching and research are in line with the best practices and base of
knowledge in their disciplines. The current system policy substitutes the black box of AI
machinery for peer review and grants the university president final authority on what is taught in
the classroom. The intrusion into the classroom that is being undertaken today using the
inquisitorial tools of Artificial Intelligence machinery vastly exceeds the reach of the
government, even during the height of the Red Scare. This should give every professor across the
university pause, regardless of their political views and the discipline in which they teach.
The results of the AI-fishing expedition on TAMUK’s campus have not been publicized yet, but
as of January 7th some 200 classes taught at College Station in the College of Arts and Sciences
were flagged and either cancelled or censored by that university. One class that has been featured
prominently in the news coverage is a course entitled Contemporary Moral Problems.Specifically, the professor of this course has been forbidden to teach readings from Plato’s
Symposium which describe Aristophanes’ myth of the origin of the sexes. The offending passage
reads as follows: Aristophanes began “by treating the origin of human nature. The sexes were
originally three, men, women, and the union of the two….” Later, in the passage, Aristophanes
explained the origins of sexual desire, including same sex attraction. These topics, which
certainly fit within the range of subject matter one would expect to engage with in a college
course on contemporary moral issues, have been deemed “advocacy of gender ideology” and
stricken from the syllabus.
The AI investigation being conducted here at TAMUK remains ongoing, but it seems likely that
teaching the history of slavery, which of necessity involves describing the social construction of
race, the development of white supremacy, and the lasting impact of slavery, may trigger
investigation. One definition of “advocating racial ideology” given by the Texas A&M System
characterizes it as teaching which “leads, encourages, or requires a student to feel personal
shame over treatment of slaves in America….” The history of slavery often does make Anglo
students (who may sometimes feel judged) and Black students (who rightfully don’t want to see
their history defined by slavery), and Mexican American students (who may ask what does this
have to do with me?) feel uncomfortable. Similarly, we have been told by our provost that we
must teach that there are only two biological sexes, in accordance with President Trump’s
executive order. To teach otherwise is to advocate gender ideology. But, if the history of the
body, or anthropological study of different cultural conceptions of the body, or philosophical
treatises on gender and sexuality, are introduced in a general education class, the professor will
likely be found in violation of system policy, even if the professor is teaching about a historical
interpretation or a feature of another culture, rather than professing a belief themselves.
These are only two examples of knowledge that, if taught, might likely result in a visit from the
AI Inquisitors. But these examples proliferate across many disciplines in the College of Arts and
Sciences. And, if you think your engineering, business, agriculture, and hard science professors
are immune from such threats, let me assure you they are not. While “advocating gender and race
ideology” are the targets of the current political regime, there will be others. How much longer
will your economics professor feel comfortable teaching about the effects of tariff or tax
policies? Or under a different political regime, how long will they feel safe preaching the free
market? Will your health science professor be able to teach about vaccines and health policy
without interference? Will your geology professor feel free to teach that the Earth is 4 billion
years old? Will your wildlife professor feel comfortable lecturing on human origins of climate
change and its effect on local wildlife? Will the anatomy of intersex people be off limits in a
biology or human anatomy course? It is worth remembering that regimes change, sometimes in
the short run. Academic freedom and tenure are in place to protect all students and faculty from
political interference in their classrooms. The curtain of censorship that now descends on
research and teaching of “gender and racial ideology” may soon fall elsewhere. ParaphrasingMartin Niemöller, when they came for the historians, I taught business, so I did not speak out.
When they came for the English professors, I taught engineering, so I did not speak out. And we
know what comes next. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
Clearly, this censorship regime violates constitutionally protected academic freedom and
undermines the quality and reputation of the education that students at TAMUK expect. Another
victim of this regime of censorship will be the “caring campus” we rightfully cherish as a feature
of our small university. Can TAMUK be a “caring campus” when professors are frightened that
they might become the next viral victim of clipped social media posts? Can a “caring campus”
flourish where faculty look with distrust at administrators who are equally afraid for their jobs as
they try to determine how to institute policies that violate the principles of free inquiry that have
guided them throughout their careers? This assault on academic freedom also threatens the
history of inclusivity that is the heritage of Texas A&M University-Kingsville and Texas A&I
before that. Remember, we are not Aggies. We are Javelinas. TAMUK is the university of Carlos
Guerra and José Angel Gutierrez, leaders of the Chicano movement in Texas; we were the first
university in Texas to integrate its football team; our students and faculty led the movement to
develop Mexican American studies and were at the forefront of bilingual education; our students
and faculty held teach-ins and led strikes across South Texas as they combatted the
discriminatory education daily encountered by Mexican American children. We have a heritage
of inclusion and a history as a caring campus. But for how long? If we don’t welcome LGBTQ+
students and if we deny their existence and their histories as “gender ideology,” can we be a
“caring campus?” If we are not allowed to truthfully tell the stories of the enslaved, or the stories
of dispossession, violence and disenfranchisement of Mexican Americans in South Texas, can
we be a “caring campus”? If we must parrot the ideological line of one political viewpoint (or
another) in our teaching, can we be said to be educating the young people of our region and
state? In short, can we fulfill the mission of Texas A&M University-Kingsville and live up to its
history if we allow this silencing of academic thought? The answer, of course, is no.
We call first on the Board of Regents to reconsider these policies and to reflect on the
reputational damage done to a university system where Plato is placed on the Index. We call on
President Vela and Provost Palmer to respect the long history of academic freedom, shared
governance, and tenure that has undergirded academic freedom at TAMUK. We call on
administrators to stand as best they can against these censorship efforts, not to comply in
advance, and to refuse to be the “ordinary men” and women needed by ideologues to impose
their will. We call on faculty to teach their consciences and expertise, with kindness and
sympathy for alternative viewpoints, but also with courage in their convictions and uncowed by
political threats. We call on students to accept the challenges to cherished assumptions that come
from a college education as they build up the intellectual foundations of their own world views.
Finally, we call on the entire university community to defend the “caring campus” that President
Vela has sought to foster. Remember, we are Javelinas.