April 12, 2026

Members of the Board of Regents, Chancellor Creighton, President Schovanec, and Provost Hendrick,

The Executive Committee of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) at Texas Tech University is hereby responding to the April 9 memorandum from the Chancellor and Board of Regents Academic, Clinical, & Student Affairs Committee to state unequivocally that the policies you are attempting to institute represent politically motivated control over the curriculum of Texas Tech University to the point that our institution will become an indoctrination mill for your preferred political views. Not only will our credibility as a respected public institution of higher education be destroyed, but you are ordering us as faculty to impose your favored viewpoints with no regard for our expertise and our knowledge of current disciplinary research and discourse in our fields. Under the guise of complying with applicable law, you are denying rights of the employees and students of Texas Tech University held under the First Amendment, which we have repeatedly cited as the ultimate legal authority here. Further, your memorandum also violates the fundamental principles of academic freedom that Texas Tech University has long been a proponent of and without which our university will lose accreditation. Freedom of speech is central to American values and academic freedom to pursue knowledge without political interference has been key to America’s economic and scientific global dominance. You are effectively destroying the fundamental separation between political power and the production of knowledge, and we object in the strongest possible terms to your attempt to make faculty the instruments of a politicized take-over of our institution.

As we stated in our letter of October 8 in response to then-Chancellor Mitchell’s memorandum of September 25, 2025: as a public institution, Texas Tech University is bound by the First Amendment, which protects academic freedom as "a special concern" that "does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom." Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967). The Court further explained that our nation “is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not just the teachers involved.” This protection extends with full force to faculty expression in the classroom, provided it is pedagogically relevant. Hardy v. Jefferson Community College, 260 F.3d 671, 680 (6th Cir. 2001). With the actions outlined in this memo, Texas Tech University abandons these principles, which are founded on the AAUP Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure jointly formulated with college and university presidents. Existing Texas Tech University policies continue to grant faculty the right to investigate and discuss issues within their fields of expertise, and to teach and publicize findings without undue interference from administrators, boards of regents and trustees, political figures, or other individuals and entities. The memorandum of April 9, as shared with faculty in the Provost’s April 10 memorandum to deans, associate deans, vice provosts, faculty, and instructors of record, is an egregious example of direct interference with faculty’s ability to teach their fields according to their research and expertise, and denies the First Amendment rights of our students and faculty.

As we stated in our letter of October 8, the University’s assertion that state and federal law recognize only two sexes – male and female – rests on a gross misstatement of the law. Neither Governor Abbott’s 1/30/2025 letter to state agencies nor HB 229 ban faculty from teaching about particular subjects. It should go without saying that a letter from a state governor does not constitute state law.  Moreover, HB 229’s statutory language providing that “a government entity that collects vital statistics on the sex of an individual . . . shall identify each individual as either male or female" has no bearing on what happens in the classrooms of state institutions of higher education. No executive order at the federal or state level has the power to overrule Constitutional rights granted through the First Amendment, nor may federal or state executive orders curtail academic freedom. While executive orders may guide executive branch agencies, as a recent federal court decision makes clear, they "cannot override First Amendment protections" at public universities. Texas A&M Queer Empowerment Council v. Mahomes, 772 F.Supp.3d 792, 805-806 (S.D. Tex. 2025). The version of SB 37 that was signed into law at the conclusion of last year’s legislative session grants governing boards, who are political appointees at four-year institutions, the ability to form undergraduate curriculum committees despite not having any students, staff, or faculty on them. It does not give those committees additional specific authority over graduate programs, nor does it mandate censorship of topics related to race or gender. As we noted previously, courts have determined that President Trump's executive order barring government support for expressions of “gender ideology” violates the First Amendment's ban on regulating speech on the basis of its content, which is exactly what the April 9 memo attempts to do (Rhode Island Latino Arts v. NEA, No. 25-79 WES (D.R.I. Sept. 19, 2025). While the university must follow duly enacted statutes, none of the sources relied upon by the General Counsel justify the University’s abandonment of its obligation to protect faculty speech rights under the First Amendment.

Neither the process for review of instructional materials instituted by the Chancellor’s December 1 memorandum nor the April 9 memo can be justified by the argument that this is necessary to follow the “law” especially as they ignore the First Amendment protections that students and faculty retain, nor do they even attempt to communicate any credible legal theory on which these arguments rest. Further, we remind you that the Fifth Circuit has clearly held that infringements on faculty members’ academic freedom and due process can result in constitutional claims, for which the responsibility may fall directly on the administrators involved, not only on the institution. Stotter v. Univ. of Texas San Antonio, 508 F.3d 812 (5th Cir. 2007). We renew with greatest urgency our recommendation to University leadership to seek independent legal guidance before any further efforts to implement this policy, reliant as it is on the General Counsel’s incomplete and flawed legal reasoning.

To be absolutely clear: you are now creating the lasting damage to Texas Tech University that we previously warned against. You seem to be operating under the idea that faculty positions are scarce enough that you will be able to not only force our current faculty to disregard our students’ and our own rights in the interest of keeping our jobs, but easily replace those unwilling to remain. There is, of course, some truth to the idea that there will always be candidates for faculty positions, even at institutions who actively censor those faculty. You may even be right that you can attract faculty who will support illegal tactics that enforce preferred ideological viewpoints. While positions may be filled, they will be filled only with people who have no choice. The best graduate students and researchers, able to attract federal funding and establish national and international reputations for their scholarly work, will not come to a place that censors them and violates their constitutional rights when they have a choice, as the top scholars will. Leading the nation as exemplary purveyors of politically-dictated curricula will cause our system to lose all credibility as institutions of learning and research. You will have delivered the very instrument for political indoctrination that you have claimed to oppose. Students deserve the right and opportunity to learn in classrooms free of political agendas, studying with faculty who can address their disciplines fully and honestly. Accreditation bodies expect academic freedom and shared governance at universities. As we have warned before, alumni and donors support an institution that stands for intellectual integrity, and rightly question the authority of those who currently hold political power to impose their viewpoint discrimination on students and faculty. Already, your actions make the thought of future membership in prestigious academic organizations like the American Association of Universities a fantasy.

We have collectively dedicated many decades of our careers to Texas Tech, proud to be part of an institution where students learn and faculty teach in an environment of rigorous inquiry, open debate, and intellectual freedom. Under this policy, the Constitution of the United States of America is rendered irrelevant, academic freedom and the core mission of our university are sacrificed, and the Texas Tech University we knew no longer exists.

Sincerely,

Andrew Martin, MFA, President, AAUP Chapter of TTU*

T J Geiger II, PhD, Vice President, AAUP chapter of TTU*

Matthew Pehl, PhD, Secretary, AAUP chapter of TTU*

Andrea M. Romi, PhD, Treasurer, AAUP chapter of TTU*

Lisa Limeri, PhD, At-Large Member, Executive Committee, AAUP chapter of TTU*

Suzanne Shoukfeh, DBA, At-Large Member, Executive Committee, AAUP chapter of TTU*

*speaking for ourselves as private individuals, not on behalf of our employer

Cc: Associate Librarian Ryan Cassidy, Faculty Senate President; Eric Bentley, Vice Chancellor and General Counsel, TTUS