Texas Tech University, a public university in Lubbock, announced in April 2026 that its five schools would phase out all academic credentials centered on sexual orientation or gender identity. The new policy, on April 9, also requires instructors to use “alternate materials” when courses address these topics.
Texas Tech, led by former Texas Republican state legislator , is not the first university to try to restrict instruction on gender, sexual orientation and other topics in recent years.
In 2023, for example, that banned students at public universities from majoring in critical race theory, gender studies, .
Texas Tech, however, goes further with this new memo. It also bars graduate students from writing “degree-culminating” theses or dissertations on sexual orientation or gender identity, something system appears to have done.
As a scholar who studies the , I doubt the policy would survive a possible constitutional challenge in court, given freedom of speech protections. Even if courts ultimately strike the policy down, though, it may still leave a lasting mark, by signaling that some universities are willing to prioritize politics over independent academic inquiry.
Texas Tech’s policy shift
Texas Tech’s policy, which will begin taking effect in June 2026, requires faculty to teach in compliance with that declares there are “.”
The law echoes the language of an the Trump administration issued in January 2025 that said “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.”
Despite that air of certainty, there that does not fit a model.
Texas Tech faculty will soon be largely prohibited from teaching about gender fluidity or gender as a spectrum. There are narrow exceptions to this rule, such as discussions about , so long as instructors do not “advocate for or validate sociological frameworks.”
Although current faculty may continue researching “topics of their choosing,” new faculty will be hired “in alignment” with the memo.
Students, meanwhile, can continue to conduct “general independent student research,” and write standard term papers, for example, on one of these subjects. But students cannot write graduate theses or dissertations on sexual orientation and gender identity.
By legal standards, these new policies are not neutral, curricular decisions. This is because the state of Texas favors one viewpoint – that there are only two biological sexes – that this public university system now reflects.
For nearly 60 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has the idea of viewpoint . This discrimination occurs allows speech favoring one opinion, while restricting speech expressing an opposing opinion.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees the region where Texas Tech is located, has also long recognized that “.”
In a statement to the Associated Press in April, is “focused on ensuring our academic programs are rigorous, relevant, and produce degrees of value.”
He added that this focus “is matched by our unwavering support for the First Amendment and the open exchange of ideas that define a public university. Texas Tech will continue to be a national leader on both fronts.”
Part of a broader story
The Texas Tech policy is the latest example of a broader political effort to reshape what public universities may teach and research.
Several other public universities have also recently limited programs or coursework involving gender and identity studies.
In 2022, Florida’s , perceived as race-related concepts in classrooms and workplace training sessions. Some faculty members left Florida public universities, and in .
In 2022, federal judge Mark Walker called that Florida law “” and , holding that the state cannot grant academic freedom only to viewpoints it favors. The restrictions remain blocked, .
Texas A&M English professor Melissa McCoul sued that university after she was fired in September 2025, following a .
Texas A&M later in January 2026.
The University of Texas at Austin and the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Department into a single in February 2026. The university is also reviewing which majors, minors and courses within that new department students may pursue and enroll in.
These changes reflect a broader political climate in which some politicians and university leaders increasingly frame gender identity and other academic subjects as . That trend has intensified alongside the Trump administration’s surrounding and .
Limiting academic research
Texas Tech was established in 1923 to prepare students for technical and agricultural professions, and “elevate the ideals, enrich the lives, and increase the capacity of the .”
That mission reflects the American Association of University Professors’ . The statement describes universities as dedicated to “the common good” through the “free search for truth.”
Universities are therefore expected to pursue scholarly inquiry according to , not partisan priorities. That commitment is reflected in the thesis and dissertation process, through which faculty evaluate students’ ability to conduct .
Although disfavored on some Texas and Florida campuses, topics such as HIV disparities in LGBTQ+ populations continue to be as public-health subjects. The same is true for and family rejection among LGBTQ+ adolescents and services for transgender youth.
With such lines of inquiry curtailed, some Texas Tech students now question whether the university can still provide an “honest education.” Some Texas Tech faculty members .
Restricting academic independence
A by the American Association of University Professors documented the toll of political interference on university faculty across the country, including in Texas.
One-quarter of the 1,100 Texas professors and researchers surveyed said they are seeking jobs outside the state. More than 60% said they would not encourage graduate students or colleagues to work at a university in Texas.
When the state decides which questions may and may not be researched, it is doing more than shaping curriculum. It is regulating the boundaries of knowledge itself by determining what future scholars may study and what universities are permitted to discover.
That – more than any single line in a memo – is what I believe should concern anyone who cares about the integrity of higher education. And it is precisely the danger longstanding First Amendment protections for academic freedom were designed to prevent.
Original article
Comments