Body
A fight over whether university faculty are being asked to prove they “teach, not indoctrinate” is intensifying at the University of Houston, where some deans have pressed instructors to sign written acknowledgments tied to a new state requirement for regents to review core undergraduate courses. The university says the underlying compliance process is intended to meet Texas Senate Bill 37 and that a separate checklist meant to guide course reviews is optional for faculty, even as critics say the approach has practical consequences for what gets taught.
The dispute escalated after a five-page checklist instructing professors on how to review course materials was unveiled last month during a faculty council meeting, according to the report distributed by the Associated Press. Some professors said the checklist and the written certification effort reinforce what they view as a false premise—that indoctrination is widespread in university classrooms—and that the pressure leads instructors to avoid controversial topics rather than address them in context.
University officials said the certifications were not required, but emails from some deans used language describing the acknowledgement as mandatory and suggested noncompliance could lead to consequences. University officials also said the checklist is a draft and optional for faculty use, and that the process is intended to comply with Senate Bill 37, a Texas law that requires boards of regents to review core classes at least once every five years to ensure the courses prepare students for civic and professional life. The law, officials said, does not prohibit teaching of specific topics or require instructors to submit written assurances about their teaching.
In a State of the University address last fall, President and Chancellor Renu Khator warned that higher education faces constant scrutiny and diminishing public trust. Khator opened by saying, “The landscape of higher education is changing fast,” and added that “The attacks — justifiable or not — are constant.” She pointed to a 2024 Gallup survey in which only 36% of Americans said they had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in colleges and universities, and she later cited a July 2025 update showing trust rising to 42%.
The certification requirement and checklist, according to the report, trace back to internal communications and reviews that began late last year, including a Nov. 21 message from Khator urging faculty colleagues to review course titles, syllabi and content. In that message, Khator wrote that the university’s “guiding principle is to teach them, not to indoctrinate them,” and directed department chairs and deans to provide an objective assessment of courses while the Provost’s Office and the Office of General Counsel began reviewing the core curriculum for compliance with Senate Bill 37. In a Jan. 27 campuswide update, Khator said the Senate Bill 37 core curriculum review had been completed and would be presented at a March 12 meeting of the board of regents.
In early February, the report said, some deans began requiring faculty to sign written statements affirming they were teaching critical thinking rather than indoctrinating students. Daniel P. O’Connor, dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, wrote in a Feb. 3 email that he had “no evidence” of any instructor violating the university’s academic commitment, but said the acknowledgement was needed “to document that all instructors are aware” of expectations to review courses and make revisions as needed. In replies to O’Connor, some faculty declined to sign, calling the premise of widespread indoctrination a “straw man,” and they said administrators lacked authority to compel signatures or punish refusals.
Two other University of Houston deans described certification as required in emails to faculty, the report said. Heidi Appel, dean of the Honors College, and Yarneccia D. Dyson, dean of the Graduate College of Social Work, also referenced Senate Bill 37 language in describing course restrictions. The report said that wording tied to what courses must not endorse appeared in earlier drafts of the law but was removed before it passed. Appel told Honors College instructors that full-time faculty who declined to sign would be ineligible for merit salary increases, while part-time faculty could risk reappointment, and she set a deadline of Feb. 9.
Among the faculty who declined to sign was Robert Zaretsky, a professor at the university for 36 years who holds a joint appointment in the Honors College and the Department of Modern and Classical Languages. Zaretsky said, “When I saw the word indoctrination, for me, that’s a red line,” adding that it felt as though there was a “good chance that we are indoctrinating our students.” He said he could refuse because of tenure but worried the policy could pressure instructors and adjunct faculty with less job security. He also said the approach could complicate classroom instruction, including a recommendation that faculty present multiple perspectives on controversial topics.
According to faculty members who attended the Feb. 11 meeting at which the checklist was first shown, the agenda did not mention it and committee members said they were not involved in drafting the document. University officials said the checklist was created by a faculty group, but they declined to name participants or explain how members were selected. The report said Zaretsky first saw the checklist after it circulated among faculty on a private email list following the meeting.
The dispute is unfolding as Senate Bill 37 also reshaped faculty governance at public universities in Texas. The report said faculty senates traditionally operated as independent bodies elected by professors, but the law requires boards of regents to establish any faculty council or senate and allows university presidents to appoint members. In response to the checklist, the report said 174 University of Houston professors who are members of the American Association of University Professors urged the faculty council to vote on the checklist rather than allow it to move forward without a recorded position, warning that failing to act would amount to “silent approval” of the administration’s actions.
The controversy prompted further scrutiny from civil-liberties groups, the report said. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression wrote to the university arguing that requiring faculty to affirm they present multiple perspectives or avoid certain viewpoints could violate First Amendment protections for academic freedom. University officials disputed that view, saying the guidelines were drafted by faculty for voluntary use and that they do not involve mandatory affirmations or enforcement mechanisms, and Dona H. Cornell, the university’s chief legal officer, said in a letter responding to FIRE that the broader course review is intended to demonstrate the strength of the university’s academic standards. Cornell wrote that the review is intended to “publicly verify” that a University of Houston education is built on “the highest standards of excellence.”
Documents reviewed in the report by The Texas Tribune showed that the review process has already led to revisions in at least one course in the Graduate College of Social Work. The report said that in November, Dyson sought volunteers to review 12 spring courses and offered a stipend, and by mid-December, faculty teaching those courses were sent revised “approved” syllabi. In one case described in the report, revised syllabus materials cut readings focused on race, gender and sexuality and removed more explicit references to those topics from a course’s objectives.
The University of Houston controversy is part of a broader set of changes across Texas public universities after Senate Bill 37 took effect in September and after political backlash aimed at classroom discussions of gender identity. The report said Texas State University flagged hundreds of courses for review and told faculty to use an artificial intelligence tool to revise titles, descriptions and learning outcomes toward more neutral language, while Texas Tech created a disclosure and approval process for certain instruction on race and gender. The report also said Texas A&M regents approved a policy restricting courses that address “race or gender ideology” without written approval, and the University of Texas regents adopted a rule requiring campuses to ensure students can graduate without studying what it described as “unnecessary controversial subjects” and to take a “broad and balanced” approach when those topics arise.