In university art programs throughout Texas, instructors are dealing with new administration directives and mandates that they fear might compromise their ability to teach effectively. For studio art classes in particular, the directives create dilemmas in encouraging free expression among students in their artwork, and in leading and allowing discussions around relevant social and cultural topics that contemporary artists are engaging with.
The new directives are the result of continuing efforts to comply with evolving Texas law, including Texas Senate Bill 17 (SB-17), a 2023 “public higher education reform” law, and Texas Senate Bill 37 (SB-37) passed in May 2025. The University of Houston (UH), the Texas A&M University (TAMU) system, the Texas Tech University system, Texas State University, Texas Christian University, University of North Texas (UNT), and the University of Texas (UT) system have all enacted changes, including departmental eliminations and program consolidations, imposing syllabi reviews, and speech limits on what can be taught in their classrooms. One major art exhibition has been shut down, and at least one visiting artist event was canceled.
In several cases — including an ongoing series of student-led protests at UNT — faculty and students have responded with denunciations and demands for transparency in decision-making by university leadership, and an end to classroom censorship.
On Thursday, Friday 5, a Houston Chronicle article shared a redacted version of a November 2025 email from Renu Khator, UH President, to university faculty. The email cited compliance with SB-37 in asking instructors to review their “course titles, course syllabi, and course content to ensure that whether knowingly or unknowingly, you are not violating our academic commitment,” which she describes as, “to expose our students to different perspectives.” She continued, “Our responsibility is to give [students] the ability to form their own opinions, not to force a particular one on them. Our guiding principle is to teach them, not to indoctrinate them.” Following a round of self-reviews by instructors, the email states that the provost and university general counsel will conduct a preliminary review to determine whether courses meet the requirements, with an opportunity for faculty feedback before passing the results to the Board of Regents…