Texas Tech has two months to shut down its sex and gender courses after the university system passed sweeping new guidance. This marks an escalation from previous restrictions on topics related to race, gender, and sex. It also comes amid a spate of course cancellations and changes across Texas right now. For faculty, the message is loud and clear: the Texas Tech University System does not want you to teach about sex or gender. And if you do, you’d better be careful.
The guidance, issued on April 9, establishes a “strict prohibition” on all academic programs “centered on” sex and gender and creates a “strict prohibition” on such content in core and lower-level undergraduate courses. It also bans “instruction that advocates for concepts of inherent racial or sexual superiority, inherent bias, or collective guilt.”
Banning classes in whole areas of inquiry raises obvious academic freedom concerns. But while one can imagine a college that simply lacks classes “centered on” those topics — many certainly exist — Texas Tech’s guidance goes way past simply being bad for academic freedom and straight to being unworkable at any college or university dedicated to a liberal education.
You don’t need to live in China to experience China’s censorship
You’re most likely reading this article from a country that is not China. So, naturally, you might think that China’s censorship laws have nothing to do with you. Not so fast. The interconnectedness of global commerce has created crevices for authoritarian censorship to seep in, and the…
Texas Tech’s guidance prohibits instructors from teaching that gender identity is fluid, that there are more than two genders, or that gender is distinct from biological sex. (Sorry, Plato!) In core undergraduate courses, “incidental references” to sex and gender content are to be avoided when discussing primary materials for core courses. If course material does include such content? Instructors “must not highlight, assess, or allocate instructional time to it” — with no exceptions.
Forget walking on eggshells. Faculty now need to walk across the verbal equivalent of broken glass if they dare include material that could conceivably violate these rules. If a student asks a question that mentions sex or gender? Be sure not to “assess” the question!
The guidance does make exceptions for upper-level courses, but they are not much better. Analysis of “primary works” is permitted only if it is “strictly objective” and “lacks advocacy for contemporary matters.” If any discussion of sex or gender is linked to a historical figure or event, faculty may teach about that event or figure, but must not include “contemporary . . . advocacy.” Good luck sorting all of that out, faculty members.
Restricting topics on race and sex
The guidance then doubles down on previous system guidance that prohibited faculty from teaching “as absolute truth” certain concepts:
One race or sex is inherently superior to another;
An individual, by virtue of race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, consciously or unconsciously;
Any person should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of race or sex;
Moral character or worth is determined by race or sex;
Individuals bear responsibility or guilt for actions of others of the same race or sex; or
Meritocracy or a strong work ethic are inherently racist, sexist, or constructs of oppression.
If these are presented in a course, then they are required to be presented alongside other perspectives. The university system previously singled out those ideas in a December memo establishing faculty should not “promote or otherwise inculcate” those views in the classroom, indicating that faculty who wish to express the opposing views — the state-sanctioned view — would be just fine. Regardless of what one thinks of these beliefs, prohibiting specific ideas in the classroom under such broad language is clear viewpoint discrimination, or “censorship in its purest form.”
UNC Chapel Hill’s students dabbled in satire. Now the university is investigating.
This essay was originally published by The News & Observer on April 10, 2026.
And last but not least, the system will create standardized syllabus templates, and will require faculty “to clearly disclose all covered topics in their syllabi and faithfully adhere only to those stated concepts.” That’s not a good sign for a state that has already seen other public university systems mandate changes to hundreds of syllabi to remove objectionable course content. In this charged political atmosphere, a requirement that faculty “faithfully adhere” to syllabi content does not allow for the necessary breathing room for faculty to occasionally go off-topic or bring in current events to class discussions. Rather, it sets a conveniently movable tripwire that can be used to go after any faculty member for stray classroom remarks.
Texas cracks down on the First Amendment
The system’s crackdown is the latest in a series of course cancellations, course material changes, and faculty punishments in the state. First, we saw Texas Tech University cancel a course under the guise of reviewing faculty teaching materials. Then Texas A&M University cancelled six courses and modified hundreds of others as part of a sweeping system review of how courses discussed race and gender in class. Texas State University is being sued by two separate professors who were fired for off-the-clock speech.
Texas Tech system chancellor Brandon Creighton said that these changes are necessary to ensure that students are ready for the workforce. But against the backdrop of larger efforts to root out certain ideas from the classroom, it seems that the TTU system is going directly for academic freedom’s jugular by targeting specific, disfavored ideas. Students currently enrolled in these sex and gender majors and minors will be able to finish out their studies. And universities have until June 15 to identify what programs, majors, minors, and other certificates qualify for this directive. After that, certain ideas will be officially verboten in Texas university classrooms.
 | A guest post by
|