The Case Could Influence Similar Debates in Iowa

A federal lawsuit filed against the Texas Tech University System is challenging new restrictions on classroom instruction involving race, gender identity, and sexual orientation, raising constitutional questions that could influence higher education policy far beyond Texas – including in Iowa.

The lawsuit, filed by the Texas chapter of the American Association of University Professors-American Federation of Teachers (AAUP-AFT) and the national AAUP, asks a federal judge to block directives issued by Texas Tech Chancellor Brandon Creighton, arguing they violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments by restricting constitutionally protected classroom speech and leaving faculty uncertain about what they may legally teach.

The lawsuit also alleges the policies disproportionately affect Black faculty by targeting instruction on Black history, racial inequality, and efforts to address those inequities.

New restrictions follow state higher education reforms

The lawsuit centers on two directives issued after Creighton became chancellor in late 2025.

The first required faculty members to submit instructional materials involving race, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation for review and approval before they could be used in many courses. It also prohibited promoting certain concepts related to race and gender.

A second directive expanded those restrictions by ordering the phase-out of academic programs centered on sexual orientation and gender identity and requiring instructors in many undergraduate courses to substitute alternative materials if lessons addressed those topics.

The lawsuit argues those directives go beyond authority granted by the Texas Legislature. According to the complaint, lawmakers considered, but ultimately removed, language from Senate Bill 37 that would have prohibited instruction involving concepts such as systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege. The plaintiffs argue Chancellor Creighton later implemented similar restrictions administratively despite those provisions not becoming law.

That allegation raises an additional legal question: whether a university administrator may impose restrictions that the Legislature itself chose not to enact.

Professors cite impacts on medical education and history

The lawsuit includes several examples illustrating how faculty members say the policies have affected classroom instruction.

According to the complaint:

• A medical professor was initially instructed to remove instruction involving transgender and intersex patients from coursework, even though the material was considered important for medical licensing examinations and patient care.
• A Holocaust course was allegedly told it could not remain in the university’s core curriculum if it discussed the persecution of gay and bisexual victims under Nazi Germany.
• Faculty members were reportedly prohibited from assigning Ta-Nehisi Coates’ award-winning book Between the World and Me and portions of Plato’s Republic.
• One instructor teaching future healthcare professionals in El Paso was reportedly instructed not to use the word “disparity” while discussing documented differences in diabetes, asthma, and maternal mortality affecting border communities and Black Texans.

The plaintiffs argue that these examples demonstrate that professors have begun censoring themselves because they cannot determine what topics may violate university policy.

Texas Tech disputes allegations

Texas Tech officials reject the lawsuit’s claims. In a statement, university system spokeswoman Erin Wilson said the policies are constitutional and that the university remains committed to both academic integrity and the First Amendment rights of students and faculty.

She also disputed several factual allegations contained in the complaint, stating that instructors remain free to teach civil rights history, Nazi crimes, and other historically significant subjects, and that the Board of Regents has not removed or rejected courses at the university’s health sciences campuses.

The federal court will ultimately determine whether the university’s directives comply with constitutional protections.

Why It Matters in Iowa

Although the lawsuit arises in Texas, many of the underlying issues mirror debates occurring in Iowa.

In recent years, Iowa lawmakers and the Board of Regents have enacted reforms affecting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, revised general education requirements, increased oversight of university curricula, and established new centers and initiatives intended to reshape higher education.

Supporters argue those reforms improve accountability, broaden intellectual diversity, and ensure universities remain focused on preparing students for successful careers.

Critics contend they risk increasing political influence over academic decisions and discouraging open inquiry on controversial subjects.

The Texas lawsuit could help define where courts believe the constitutional line exists between legitimate public oversight of taxpayer-funded universities and unconstitutional restrictions on academic freedom.

Our Take

Universities occupy a unique place in American democracy. They exist not to promote one viewpoint over another, but to examine ideas through evidence, scholarship, and critical inquiry.

That does not mean professors have unlimited freedom to teach whatever they wish. Public universities are accountable to governing boards, legislatures, accreditation standards, and the public they serve.

But neither should oversight become so broad or so unclear that instructors avoid teaching well-established historical facts, medical information, or scholarly research simply because they fear violating government directives.

The First Amendment protects more than individual speech. It protects the free exchange of ideas that allows knowledge to advance.

As Iowa continues its own discussions about higher education, curriculum, and academic freedom, perhaps the most important question is not whether government should oversee public universities. The question is where legitimate oversight ends and unconstitutional censorship begin?

That question extends beyond Texas. It reaches every public university where elected officials, governing boards, faculty, and students continue to debate who ultimately decides what may be taught, studied, and learned.