College Station at Center Stage: A&M University Board takes Controversial Step
College Station, Texas — In a significant move that has stirred up quite the conversation, the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents made a unanimous decision this past Thursday to dismantle the ongoing LGBTQ Studies minor at the flagship university. Tension has been bubbling for months, largely fueled by some conservative lawmakers and websites that accused the program of fostering “liberal indoctrination” on campus.
The LGBTQ Studies minor was among a total of 14 minors and 38 certificate programs flagged by administrators as “low-producing.” This categorization came from a new method put into place to pinpoint and cut programs with low enrollment. However, faculty members were quick to raise their voices, claiming that the process relied on ＜b>inaccurate information
Faculty Members Stand Up
Angie Hill Price, a professor and president of A&M’s Faculty Senate, expressed disbelief, saying, “This has never happened before. We have no precedent for a board to decide [to end academic programs] over the wishes of faculty and the president, which they deemed low-performing.” On Thursday, a strong turnout of faculty members gathered at the board meeting to voice their opposition to the regents’ decision.
This contentious topic comes just days before a Texas Senate subcommittee meeting where lawmakers examined the role faculty senates play in public universities. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has made it a point to amplify this review, pushing for recommendations regarding the authority of these faculty bodies in upcoming legislative sessions.
A Dismissed Request
In the board’s resolution to eliminate the LGBTQ minor, they seemingly overlooked a request made by Texas A&M University President Mark Welsh III. He had proposed pausing the review process to allow for more input from the faculty senates across the A&M system. However, the board felt there was already enough faculty review and proceeded with their plan. Welsh testified that he believes the provost, who led the assessment of the programs, did not sufficiently involve the faculty in this important process.
During the subcommittee hearing, he mentioned, “I don’t think he had evil intent, but he did not include the faculty sufficiently, in my view.” The Board of Regents maintained that the decision to eliminate these minors is based purely on the fact that they do not meet the newly established enrollment standards.
The Fallout
During the board meeting, Board Member Robert Albritton pushed back against criticisms that the elimination of the LGBTQ Studies minor was politically driven. He emphasized the board’s fiduciary responsibility to cut programs with inadequate enrollment. But many faculty members argue that the rationale lacks a fundamental understanding of how marginalized departments negotiate and manage enrollment in such sensitive areas.
The LGBTQ Studies minor was launched only in the fall of 2022, celebrated as a significant step by many at the university. Professor Theresa Morris, a key figure in developing the minor, noted its potential to equip students with essential cultural competencies for their future workplaces. “It’s like a formal recognition by the university that this is important,” she said, highlighting the minor’s impact on students within the LGBTQ+ community.
Conservative Pushback
However, within weeks of the minor’s launch, a conservative website began highlighting the program, casting it under scrutiny. Following increased inquiries about the minor, university administrators began a review, leading to the identification of 70 certificates and minors with very low graduate or enrollment rates. In January, one Texas state representative took to social media, expressing shock and asserting a commitment to challenge the financing of such programs.
By September, the agenda had swung in a direction many faculty members find concerning. As the Texas A&M System Board of Regents moves forward, their guiding light is formalizing a new approach not just for the LGBTQ Studies minor but for other similar programs they deem low-producing.
Conclusion
This decision has already had extensive implications, prompting discussions around the role of politics in education and leading many to question how such choices are made within academic institutions. The board’s determination signals ongoing changes in the landscape of higher education at Texas A&M and could initiate broader reforms in public universities statewide. As discussions surrounding tuition, funding, and academic integrity continue, one thing is clear: this story is far from over.
