In April 2026, Texas Tech University announced it will phase out academic programs related to sexual orientation and gender identity. This change is detailed in a memo stating that faculty must use different materials when teaching these topics. Under this new policy, graduate students are also barred from writing theses or dissertations on gender identity or sexual orientation.
Brandon Creighton, a former Texas Republican state legislator and the university’s leader, is driving this directive. It’s not the first time a college has restricted such subjects. For instance, in 2023, Florida passed a law banning critical race theory and gender studies in public universities.
Texas Tech’s memo takes the restrictions a step further. It prohibits one of the few major public universities from allowing graduate-level work on these topics, something seen as unprecedented.
Experts believe this policy might face legal challenges due to First Amendment protections for free speech. A scholar focusing on law and public policy doubts the policy’s longevity, suggesting it represents a shift towards prioritizing certain political views over academic freedom.
Texas Tech’s new rules align with a 2025 Texas law claiming there are “only two sexes.” This echoes a 2025 executive order from the Trump administration that aimed to simplify gender recognition to two binary sexes. While some may view this as clear-cut, numerous studies highlight that biological variations often don’t fit this binary model.
This policy change means that faculty will largely avoid teaching about gender fluidity. While there are some exceptions for discussing intersex traits, they can’t advocate for broader sociological frameworks.
Students can still perform general research and write papers on these subjects, but their higher-degree work is restricted. Legally, these decisions are not neutral; they reflect a state preference that limits academic discourse. Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected viewpoint discrimination in education, which these policies may be challenging.
Creighton has publicly defended the curriculum changes, stating they aim for rigorous and relevant programs that uphold First Amendment rights. However, this policy is part of a larger trend. Other states have witnessed similar actions, prompting some educators to leave their positions due to concerns about censorship and political interference.
In 2022, Florida also passed legislation likely restricting race-related discussions in education, which prompted criticism and legal battles around academic freedom. Similarly, faculty at Texas A&M University faced backlash for discussing gender identity and led to their women’s and gender studies program being cut.
The political climate surrounding these issues reveals a growing tendency to view academic subjects, especially those related to identity, through a partisan lens. Laws and executive orders from past administrations have increasingly shaped these academic conversations.
Texas Tech’s roots date back to 1923, aiming to prepare students for technical professions and encourage democratic engagement. In contrast, the university’s new policies appear increasingly at odds with the values of academic independence and truth-seeking articulated in historical documents like the American Association of University Professors’ principles on academic freedom.
Research into important topics, such as LGBTQ+ health disparities, is still being conducted elsewhere. However, many students and faculty members at Texas Tech now wonder if the university can provide a truthful educational experience. Some faculty members are considering other job opportunities in response to this restrictive environment.
A recent survey by the American Association of University Professors found that around 25% of Texas professors are actively looking for positions outside the state, and over 60% do not recommend Texas universities to others. This paints a concerning picture regarding academic independence and integrity in higher education. It illustrates the potential long-term impacts of state-influenced curriculum decisions on the breadth of knowledge explored in our universities.
