A recent op ed in the Austin American-Statesman voiced substantial objections to Texas Senate Bill 37. It contends that the bill imposes redundant bureaucracy via the Office of Excellence in Higher Education, diminishes faculty governance by restricting faculty senates to tenured members and requiring half to be elected, curtails student academic options by eliminating low-enrollment minors and certificates, and risks state censorship through curriculum reviews barring endorsement of ideologies. It asserts that SB 37 devalues faculty expertise, favors bureaucratic control over professional autonomy, and restricts students’ educational freedom, undermining Texas public higher education.
However, a broader analysis reveals that SB 37 addresses pressing challenges within both Texas public higher education and nationwide, offering solutions that should resonate across political divides. From 1990 to 2016, inflation-adjusted tuition and fees at Texas public universities rose over 300%. Regarding administrative budgets, although the UT System reduced its administrative budget by 16% in 2019, it did so only after quadrupling it between 2011 and 2018. The result? Student debt now exceeds $1.7 trillion nationwide, with 40% of borrowers struggling to repay ((Federal Reserve, 2024).
To remedy this dilemma, SB 37 proposes a measured approach: improving student outcomes, enhancing resource efficiency, and maintaining educational relevance without partisan slant.
This legislation bridges ideological gaps by addressing shared priorities. The Higher Education Act of 1965 sought to expand educational access, yet federal aid has driven cost increases of over 100% since the 1980s, according to the Government Accountability Office’s latest (2018) report. The General Education Review Committees, established under SB 37, require annual curriculum assessments to ensure alignment with workforce needs and civic preparation, explicitly avoiding endorsement of specific ideologies. Programs with fewer than five undergraduate enrollees are subject to review for potential consolidation or elimination, promoting fiscal efficiency. Progressives generally highlight graduates prepared for diverse societal roles, while conservatives tend to emphasize responsible use of public funds—SB 37 supports both objectives.
Responding to the AAS op ed’s concerns, the Office of Excellence in Higher Education (Chapter 454) does not replicate the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board’s role, which centers on policy formulation. Rather, it functions as an enforcement entity, investigating noncompliance.
The AAS piece argues that limiting faculty senates to tenured members and mandating half be elected weakens democratic governance. However, requiring tenure ensures experienced representation, and the inclusion of industry partners enriches perspectives beyond academia. The bill’s transparency measures, such as public access to meeting agendas and live broadcasts, aim to mitigate risks of undue administrative influence.
The AAS op ed suggests that eliminating low-enrollment minors restricts student options. While academic choice is valuable, maintaining programs with minimal participation consumes resources—faculty time and administrative support—that could benefit broader offerings. Vocational training provides a counterpoint: a $5,000 welding certificate yields a 90% employment rate, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2024 data. SB 37 prioritizes effective academic pathways while preserving major fields of study.
The AAS essay fears that curriculum reviews prohibiting endorsement of ideologies may enable censorship. However, this provision aims for neutrality, ensuring courses focus on foundational knowledge—e.g., mathematics or history—rather than advocacy. Under the bill, faculty retain primary curriculum development authority, subject to board approval, balancing oversight with academic input. The federal government’s $1.73 trillion student loan portfolio in 2024 underscores the consequences of unchecked expansion—SB 37 provides much-needed guidance.
The AAS piece accurately highlights administrative growth as a concern—for example, New York University’s 1.3 administrators per student ratio persists into 2023—but SB 37 counters this by empowering governing boards to approve senior hires, limiting unnecessary expansion. Faculty expertise is upheld, with tenured professors leading curriculum reviews, and students remain the central focus. Excellence emerges from coordinated effort, not external domination.
In sum, SB 37 enhances educational liberty through structured accountability. Transparency requirements, resource optimization, and compliance oversight address inefficiencies without partisan bias. SB 37 constitutes a constructive reform—strengthening Texas higher education’s ability to serve students and taxpayers effectively, emphasizing intellectual clarity and workforce preparation over conformity.