With the end of the 89th legislative session in sight, we have a good understanding of which bills are expected to make it to law, and which are dead in the water. There are only three days left until the last day of the session, also known as Sine Die.
Several major deadlines have already passed. Bills that have passed both the House and the Senate are either on their way to the governor’s desk or in a conference committee, where final disagreements on bills are hashed out between the chambers. Sunday, June 1, is the last day for the House to either adopt conference committee reports (CCRs) or discharge House conferees and concur in Senate amendments.
Here’s where the major higher education bills stand in the process, what they do, and what’s next.
Senate Bill 37: The ‘Death Star’ Bill of Higher Education
What It Does:
- Grants control of curriculum to institution governing boards.
- Creates a statewide “Curriculum Advisory Committee,” with membership chosen by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and does not guarantee proper representation of all types of institutions. This committee has the power to decide the curriculum content for all institutions of higher education, from community colleges to medical schools.
- Allows governing boards to overturn hiring decisions, including for tenured positions.
- Strips faculty of due process rights during grievance procedures by only allowing administrators to participate in the process.
- The institution president appoints members of the faculty senate, including the president, vice president, and secretary of the council. A faculty senate must be abolished by Sept. 1, 2025, unless it is restructured to meet the narrow requirements outlined in the bill. Faculty senates are now advisory only and may not have the final decision-making authority on any matter. A faculty senate member may be removed by the institution’s president without input from the faculty senate body or without an appeals process.
- Establishes a new “Office of the Ombudsman,” appointed by the governor. This office has the power to conduct civil investigations on complaints of noncompliance with any provisions in SB 37 or SB 17 (the ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs) from the 2023 legislative session. The ombudsman has the power to submit any recommendations based on the findings of their investigation, including withholding all university appropriations for a year.
Our Position: Strongly oppose. While the House made significant changes to the bill, it remains repressive. Faculty are still stripped of their due process rights, and control over curriculum, hiring, and investigation should not be in the hands of politically appointed bureaucrats.
Status: SB 37 was sent to conference committee yesterday, where the House and the Senate agreed on one change: to completely remove the language mandating that faculty “do not advocate or promote the idea that any race, sex, or ethnicity or any religious belief is inherently superior to any other race, sex, or ethnicity or any other religious belief.” This language would have censored critical conversations in core classes, especially in teaching American and Texas government and history. It is still a bad bill, but this is a small win that will protect against course censorship and preserve First Amendment rights.
Next Steps: SB 37 will need to be voted out of both the House and the Senate by Sunday, June 1.
Senate Bill 2972: Limiting Campus Free Speech & ‘Expressive Activities’
What It Does: SB 2972 is a direct reversal of SB 18 (2019), a bipartisan law passed to protect free expression on public institutions of higher education across Texas.
- Restricts expressive activity on public institutions of higher education to enrolled students and employees only, excluding alumni, community members, and guests.
- Removes protections for outdoor campus spaces as traditional public forums.
- Allows institution’s governing boards to designate and limit where speech can happen.
- Removes the constitutional language of “time, place, and manner,” a well-established legal framework meant to protect speech from vague or discriminatory enforcement and replaces with vaguer “reasonable in light of the purpose of the area” standard.
- Prohibits all expressive activity between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., which would prevent long-standing events like vigils or remembrance ceremonies.
Our Position: Strongly opposed. Public college and university campuses should be public forums for free speech, even if the activities are disagreeable or uncomfortable. Free speech should protect expression for all, not just a few.
Status: SB 2972 is in conference committee. Only the Senate has appointed its conferees:
- Sen. Brandon Creighton (chair)
- Sen. Adam Hinojosa
- Sen. Phil King
- Sen. Lois Kolkhorst
- Sen. Mayes Middleton
Next Steps: Reach out to the conference committee and tell members to support these asks.
House Bill 5294: DEI & Grading Policies in Medical Schools
What It Does: HB 5294 requires all medical schools to grade on an A-F scale and prohibit the use of pass/fail grading. Currently, several medical schools in Texas grade coursework on a “Pass/Fail” system, where numerical or letter grades are not recorded. This is often used in the first year of medical school, a time when students are adjusting to the rigor and demands of the program. It also prohibits “granting preference on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to an applicant for admission.”
Our Position: Opposed. Changing grading policies is counterproductive to addressing the mental health crisis medical students are facing. The National Institute of Health (NIH) has identified medical student burnout as a major issue and found that students graded on a numerical or letter scale faced significantly higher levels of stress, emotional exhaustion, and were more likely to burn out or drop out. Further, a Supreme Court case in 2023 already invalidated affirmative action admissions, including those for medical schools.
Status: It was passed to third reading on May 28. If the House concurs on the amendments from the Senate, it gets sent to the governor’s desk to be signed into law.
If the House does not concur, the bill will be sent to a conference committee. The Senate made good changes, however, and will allow 50% of courses to be graded on a pass/fail basis.
Next Steps: Encourage your state representative to vote to concur with the Senate’s changes.
House Bill 232 & Senate Bill 1798: Bills to Repeal the Texas DREAM Act
What It Does: HB 232 and SB 1798 are both bills that would have imposed restrictions on Dreamers’ ability to qualify for in-state tuition. SB 1798 would have removed all pathways for Dreamers to qualify for in-state tuition, while HB 232 albeit narrowly, maintains certain pathways.
The existing process for undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition requires them to sign an affidavit stating they will apply for permanent residency “as soon as they are eligible.”
HB 232 would have required students who have not yet applied for permanent residency to submit an application or require students below the age of 17 to apply for residency when they turn 18.
However, undocumented students may be lawfully present in the US, but not yet eligible to apply for a green card due to marital status, family status, and more. If a DACA student – one who benefits from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy – applies for residency, but is not yet eligible to do so, this will trigger their deportation.
Further, an application fee can cost upwards of $4,000, and 18-year-old college students would be expected to pay this, just for the possibility of qualifying for in-state tuition.
Our Position: Strongly opposed. All students have the right to an affordable, quality education — regardless of immigration status.
Status: Both bills are dead! HB 232 was left pending in the House Higher Education Committee, and SB 1798 was not placed on the Senate intent calendar in time for it to be voted out.
Next Steps: There have been attempts to repeal the Texas DREAM Act every legislative session, and each time those attempts fail. Regardless, we must remain vigilant through the interim period and in the 2027 legislative session for the next attempt.
House Bill 3326: PSLF Eligibility for Adjunct Faculty
What It Does: HB 3326 would recalculate adjunct faculty work hours to ensure that adjuncts working a certain number of hours qualify for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, aligning with regulations put in place by the Biden Administration.
This bill would require colleges to credit their adjunct and contingent faculty at least 3.35 hours of work for each credit hour taught. The bill defines full-time employment as 30 or more hours per week at one or more jobs. This means that teaching a total of nine credit hours per semester at any number of institutions equates to PSLF eligibility.
Our Position: This was our first Educator’s Bill of Rights bill to pass the House! Much like pre-K-12 educators, the work follows adjunct faculty outside of the classroom, whether it be grading, communicating with students outside of class or office hours, or prepping for the next instruction day. However, these hours are not considered during work hour calculations. This bill would have been a crucial step towards acknowledging and compensating our adjunct faculty members!
Status: Unfortunately, HB 3326 was never heard in the Senate Education K-16 Committee.
Next Steps: This bill has been filed for the past four sessions, and this is the first time it received a hearing and made it out of the House! We’re confident that in the next legislative session, we can push for this bill again and take it even further.