The killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University, and the public’s reaction to his death, prompted Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Speaker Dustin Burrows to create Committees on Civil Discourse & Freedom of Speech in Higher Education.
Given the committee’s formation and the broader political climate, free speech on college campuses is poised to become a high-profile issue for the 90th Legislature. If recent history is any indication, state leadership will be walking a tightrope, working to prevent the censorship of right-wing ideology while simultaneously cracking down on opposing viewpoints.
This report aims to provide background on free speech issues in Texas, including recent legislation and observations from the free speech committees’ first joint hearing.
The Purpose of the Free Speech Protections
The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees free speech, or the right to express opinions without government restraint. The guiding principle is that limiting governmental power enables citizens to fully engage in public matters affecting their community, government, and society at large.
Defining Free Speech
While the U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech, it does not explicitly define it. Over time, court precedents have established two clear categories of free speech: protected and not protected. Generally speaking, the government has very little power to control protected speech, while unprotected speech can be regulated much more easily without violating the Constitution.
It’s important to note that the meaning and application of free speech protections is a moving target and subject to change as cases are decided.
Protected Speech
Speech — which includes verbal, written, and symbolic communication (e.g., nonverbal acts such as burning a flag) — is generally protected, except when the courts determine otherwise. Of note, the Supreme Court generally deems content-based regulations, rules that restrict the subject matter or message of expression, as unconstitutional. Protected speech also includes the right to remain silent; the government cannot compel someone to express beliefs they do not hold, such as forcing them to salute a flag.
Unprotected Speech
Unprotected speech generally includes obscenity, child pornography, fraud, fighting words, true threats, incitement (encouraging unlawful behavior), and speech integral to criminal conduct. Additionally, defamation is historically afforded less constitutional protection than other forms of speech.
“Fighting words” are defined as words intended to incite violence. The Supreme Court has defined this category across several key cases:
- Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942): words which “by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace”
- Terminiello v. Chicago (1949): words which “produce a clear and present danger”
- Texas v. Johnson (1989): words that are “’a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs”
Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions on Free Speech
While protected speech is a right, the government may place restrictions on when, where, and how speech is expressed. These restrictions, known as “time, place, and manner restrictions,” are generally allowed so long as they apply to everyone equally.
Place restrictions in Texas include funerals, pipelines, critical infrastructure, and highways and sidewalks. Manner restrictions in Texas include disorderly conduct, riots, and disrupting a lawful meeting.
Additionally, the government can regulate speech to advance a “compelling interest,” such as national security, so long as it does so by the “least restrictive means.”
A Note on Hate Speech and Hate Crimes
Hate speech is, generally, protected under the First Amendment, while hate crimes are legally punishable.
The government has historically been unable to suppress speech legally simply because it is hateful, offensive, unpopular, or controversial. Although there is no singular legal definition for “hate speech,” the United Nations offers a useful framework. It defines hate speech as speech that “attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language” about a person or group based on their “religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.” Even then, the definition remains inherently subjective and ever-evolving.
However, when the outcome of speech amounts to incitement of violence against individuals or groups, it is generally prohibited and punishable — a distinction that remains a complex legal and policy determination.
Legally punishable hate crimes involve an underlying criminal act driven partly or entirely by an offender’s bias against race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity. These acts are subject to enhanced penalties.
States’ Role in Free Speech Protections
States are responsible for ensuring that their laws and public institutions do not infringe on individuals’ free speech rights, as established by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Texas has also enshrined free speech in the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.
Although state agencies and local governments are arms of the state, it is universities that are often at the center of free-speech debates for several reasons. While protests are not exclusive to college campuses, they have been the epicenter of activity on a wide range of social and political issues —most recently, the Israel-Palestine conflict. Additionally, educators’ academic freedom, which is often mistakenly conflated with free speech, is sometimes viewed as overly ideological or offensive, leading to efforts to limit or regulate it. This report’s discussion on free speech on college campuses refers only to public university systems, which are publicly funded and governed institutions that fall under the authority of the state.
Free Speech Controversies at Texas Institutions
Recent events at universities have sparked criticism and raised concerns about students and faculty facing disciplinary action for expressing views that differ from those of the state’s current leadership. Additionally, there is growing concern about the erosion of institutional autonomy, which is essential for education guided by research and expertise rather than by state power and politics. While the list is not exhaustive, some recent events include:
2023
- Texas A&M University effectively walked back its decision to offer a tenure facility to journalist Kathleen McElroy after facing pressure from its regents, prompted by Texas Scorecard’s focus on her previous work in diversity, equity, and inclusion. A&M’s board of regents later approved a $1 million settlement with McElroy admitting “mistakes” in the “hiring process.”
2024
- University of Texas at Austin issued disciplinary actions against students arrested during pro-Palestinian demonstrations for student conduct violations (criminal trespassing charges were eventually dismissed). Although exact numbers are unknown, it was reported that students were prevented from registering for classes or offered year-long deferred suspensions, in lieu of outright expulsion. One student was suspended for two years for damaging property.
- University of Texas at Dallas administration took a more active role in overseeing the official student newspaper — shuffling staff advisors, exerting greater scrutiny over the paper’s content, and removing newspaper stands from campus — following its coverage of the Palestinian protest. In response, student journalists launched an independent publication outside administrative control, which the university’s student government later recognized as the official student newspaper.
2025
- Texas A&M University fired Professor Melissa McCoul after a viral video showed a student challenging her course content on gender identity, citing a Presidential Executive Order that recognized only two unchangeable sexes. Then-President Mark A. Welsh III, who initially defended McCoul, fired her, demoted other administrators, and eventually resigned. A review committee within A&M later ruled that the university didn’t follow proper procedures and didn’t prove there was good cause to fire McCoul.
- Texas State University fired history Professor Thomas Alter after a clip of him at a socialism conference went viral on social media. The clip featured Atler discussing anarchist movements working to end capitalism, in which he stated a hypothetical “Without organization, how can anyone expect to overthrow the most bloodthirsty, profit-driven-mad organization in the history of the world, that of the US government?” University President Kelly Damphousse determined his comments amounted to “advocat[ing] for inciting violence.” Critics argued that Alter was speaking at an unsponsored, off-campus event and that the university’s actions were simply partisan pressure.
- Texas Tech University expelled a student after a viral video showed her making derogatory statements toward a group mourning Kirk’s death. The student was also arrested and charged with assault following the incident. Gov. Abbott later taunted the student on social media.
- Texas State University condemned a student after a video circulated showing him mocking Kirk at a campus memorial event. Gov. Abbott rescharted the video and demanded that the University take action. The student is no longer enrolled, although it’s unclear whether he was expelled or resigned.
- University of Texas at Austin is reportedly considering changing its guidelines on the use of race and sex in admissions and hiring, a request from the current administration in exchange for preferential access to federal funding.
If recent events weren’t clear enough, Gov. Abbott posted on X that “Texas is targeting professors who are more focused on pushing leftist ideologies rather than preparing students to lead our nation.” It’s no surprise that a 2024 survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a First Amendment advocacy group, found that many faculty reported self-censorship, fear of retaliation for discussing controversial topics, and uncertainty about whether their institution would defend free speech.
Legislation Impacting Free Speech and Institutional Autonomy
Recent legislation reflects a trend toward government regulation of expressive activities on university campuses and an erosion of institutional autonomy. Some key laws are highlighted below.
HB 2504, 81(R), by Kolkhorst — Increased Monitoring of Course Content
HB 2504 requires institutions to post online course information, faculty credentials, work-study opportunities, and cost of attendance. At face value, increased transparency seems positive; however, dialogue during the bill’s hearing revealed political motives. Critics argued that the online database would serve as a tool to link taxpayer funding to specific course content, namely a “liberal” or “woke” agenda. A hypothetical example offered by the American Association of University Professors involves searching for “Karl Marx” and then, without academic context, asserting that public dollars are being used to advance Marxist ideas in public institutions.
SB 18, 86(R), Huffman — A Response to Perceived Alt-Right Censorship
SB 18 was a response to concerns in 2017 that alt-right speakers were being hindered from addressing audiences on college campuses. It reaffirmed free speech protections already in place by requiring public higher education institutions to ensure that any person may exercise lawful free speech activities in common outdoor areas on campus. It also prevents institutions from taking disciplinary or other adverse action against a student or organization solely because of the political, religious, philosophical, ideological, or academic viewpoints expressed through their activities.
As he was signing the bill, Governor Abbott stated that he shouldn’t have to, because the “First Amendment guarantees it [free speech].” Yet, today we are seeing conservative lawmakers calling for the punishment of students and educators whose speech does not align with their values.
HB 9, 87(R), by Klick — A Response to Protests against Police Brutality
In response to a wave of nationwide protests against police brutality in 2020, Texas enacted HB 9. This law makes it a state jail felony to block a roadway if it obstructs emergency vehicles or blocks access to a hospital entrance. The penalty for this offense can be up to two years in jail. Previously, blocking a roadway was classified as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail. HB 9 also requires those convicted to spend at least 10 days in jail, even if they are sentenced to probation.
Although protecting access to emergency services is vital, the severity of the punishment raises concerns when weighed against the lawful right to protest. Additionally, mandating confinement without exception, even probation, runs contrary to normal criminal justice practices.
Lastly, it is important to note the impetus of the bill; while there have been incidents of individuals harassing women entering Planned Parenthood — which could arguably fall under “obstructing” an emergency-services provider — the bill emerged in response to protests over police brutality and racial injustice, suggesting the law would be applied unevenly.
SB 17, 88(R) by Creighton — Banning DEI on College Campuses
SB 17 banned university offices, departments, staff positions, hiring practices, and training programs centered on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). WFAA reporting on the Senate’s Higher Education Subcommittee Interim Report found that more than 35 physical offices or centers were shut down, and more than 350 part-time and full-time jobs with a DEI focus were eliminated.
The principles of DEI originated from the Civil Rights Movement and were established to mitigate inequalities in schools and workplaces. This law is another example of state leadership banning perceived “leftist” practices.
SB 18, 88(R) by Creighton — State Standards for Tenure
In 2021, Lt. Gov Dan Patrick announced he wanted to ban tenure and revoke tenure for faculty who teach critical race theory.
Instead, SB 18 formalized and codified the process for granting tenure in state law. Under the law, only an institution’s governing board, on the recommendation of the institution’s chief executive officer and the university system’s chancellor, may grant tenure.
The law is another example of espousing more power to political appointees in lieu of “leftist” faculty members. The result is limitations on research conducted in universities.
SB 37, 89(R), by Creighton — Shifting Curriculum Control from Faculty to State-Appointed Board Members
SB 37 is expected to limit faculty governance in favor of governor-appointed board members.
SB 37 mandates five-year comprehensive reviews of the general education curriculum by the governing boards of each institution (e.g. boards of directors, regents, or trustees). The evaluation would include a review of low-enrollment degree programs for potential elimination. It also removes faculty from meaningful participation in employment, disciplinary, and grievance procedures in exchange for establishing the Office of the Ombudsman within the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB).
SB 37 grants the state and political appointees greater power to determine appropriate course content, undermining the breadth of perspectives students are exposed to. The law also mandates that universities assess low-enrollment degree programs, potentially risking the loss of liberal arts and ethnic studies programs and undermining universities’ autonomy to determine educational standards.
SB 326, 89(R), by King — Additional Considerations for Student Discipline
SB 326 aims to address the troubling rise in antisemitic incidents by ensuring that antisemitism is explicitly considered when disciplining students for conduct violations.
The bill requires public school districts and public institutions of higher education to consider whether a student’s actions may reasonably be determined to have been motivated by antisemitism, as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) “Working Definition of Antisemitism,” when taking disciplinary action against a student for a conduct violation.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism has drawn criticism for its conflation of antisemitism with criticism of Israel. HB 2391 reinforces the IHRA definition and introduces consequences that could, in some cases, provide further justification for targeting certain universities and their students for exercising their right to freedom of speech or peaceful protest.
By adopting this broad, criticized definition, the bill creates a dangerous precedent where individuals could potentially face prosecution simply for speaking out against Israel’s policies. Additionally, the bill does not include other forms of ethnic and racial discrimination.
SB 2972, 89(R), by Creighton — Restrictions on Free Speech
SB 2972 was widely viewed as a response to pro-Palestinian campus protests and is one of the clearest attempts by conservative lawmakers to exert control over free speech in higher education.
SB 2972 grants university governing boards the authority to designate only specific, limited areas as public forums. It also restricts who may peacefully assemble on a college campus to only enrolled students and employees, effectively reversing SB 18, which designated all outdoor spaces at public universities as traditional public forums open to everyone, not just students.
Additionally, the bill prohibits:
- All expressive activity between 10:00 PM and 8:00 AM;
- Using devices like electronic megaphones during class hours;
- Camping on campus;
- Wearing a “disguise” with the intent to avoid identification or intimidate others; and
- Lower the campus’s flag to raise another one.
There are additional restrictions during the last two weeks of a semester, mainly around the prohibition of speakers on campus.
In September 2025, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed a lawsuit on behalf of several student groups against the University of Texas System to stop the enforcement of SB 2972, arguing the law is unconstitutional, asserting that the bill is too broad and fails to meet the narrow scope required for laws regulating disruptive expression. A month later, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the University of Texas System from enforcing SB 2972.
The judge stated that the court “cannot trust the universities to enforce their policies in a constitutional way while Plaintiffs are left in a state of uncertainty, chilling their speech for fear that their expressive conduct may violate the law or university policies.”
Growing Political Influence in Higher Education
Senator Brandon Creighton, author of SB 2972 and co-author of SB 18, resigned from the Senate to become the new Chancellor of Texas Tech University, highlighting a shift toward selecting leaders based on political alignment rather than educational experience.
The Texas Tribune reports that out of the State’s seven public university systems, only two chancellors have a background in teaching. Lt. Governor Patrck publicly celebrated this shift and highlighted two other conservatives in leadership positions: Glenn Hegar (Texas A&M) and former Representative John Zerwas (UT); he stated, “You don’t just have to have nine letters behind your name and some education degree to run a university when it really takes more than just that.” These recent appointments underscore the growing influence of politics in higher education, even as universities are meant to serve as independent pillars of learning and truth.
Precedents regarding Free Speech Rules on College Campuses
The ability of individual campuses to regulate speech is an evolving landscape. It is important to note, however, that some precedent has been set:
- Public institutions may not deny a speaker access to campus solely because of the anticipated content of their speech (Healy v. James). Similarly, the allocation of facilities and resources that are normally available to campus groups may not be withheld based on the speaker’s potential message or viewpoint (Wisconsin v. Southworth and Rosenberger v. University of Virginia);
- Speech zones cannot be placed in remote locations or restricted in a way that effectively prevents students from hearing speakers (Tinker v. Des Moines); and
- Public universities may impose rules to limit expression that causes harm or substantial disruption to education (e.g., creating safety hazards, vandalizing property, etc.) (Tinker v. Des Moines).
Courts are currently divided on the extent of administrators’ authority to discipline students for their expressive activities on social media. There is also no precedent that guides the extent to which institutions can regulate student-led publications.
Takeaways from the Free Speech Joint Hearing
The Select House and Senate Committees on Civil Discourse & Freedom of Speech in Higher Education jointly convened on November 13, 2025. Some key themes emerged during the hearing that may highlight what is to come in the next legislative session:
State Enforcement to Prevent Censorship
Committee members repeatedly emphasized that existing laws to protect speech are ineffective without meaningful enforcement mechanisms. Withholding state funds emerged as the most prominent punitive tool under consideration.
Legislators also pressed the new Office of the Ombudsman within the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board on whether they will be empowered to investigate censorship claims. Although the question remained unanswered, it suggests that legislators will explore additional enforcement mechanisms to further control university processes related to free speech.
Addressing Complaints against Faculty
The committee’s interest in how universities handle complaints against faculty reflects growing attention to politically motivated staffing decisions. Recent high-profile firings were cited as examples. While the discussion could suggest that the Legislature will empower universities to insulate their faculty from political influence, it more likely indicates the state will further attempt to meddle in course content and in investigations of faculty wrongdoing.
Unaffiliated Individuals at Campus Protests
Lawmakers also focused on campus responses to the Israel-Palestine conflict, highlighting that nearly half of those arrested at UT-Austin were unaffiliated with the university. This framing reinforces a narrative that campus unrest may be driven by outside actors — an argument likely to influence future policymaking on protest regulation.
Handling of Incidents Involving Conservative Figures
As in recent history, free speech discussions focused on silencing or disparaging conservative figures rather than discriminatory speech that could make students feel unsafe, such as those that arose during COVID. For example, the case at UNT where students allegedly mocked Charlie Kirk’s death was discussed.
Committee members also highlighted alleged instances where conservative student organizations faced obstacles in securing space for meetings or events. They raised concerns about the process universities use to approve or deny outside speakers, especially when events are sponsored by registered student organizations.
Uniform Standards Across Campus
Across all topics, the committee returned to a single overarching expectation: universities must apply free-speech-related policies consistently for all individuals and groups. Uneven or selective enforcement — whether perceived or real — will likely remain a major point of inquiry. Although, as pointed out, enforcement may end up weighing attacks against conservatives more.
Final Thoughts: Free Speech, Fairness, and Accountability
Free speech protects expression that may be offensive — for better or for worse. Regardless of people’s personal beliefs, not all hateful, ignorant, or controversial speech is subject to government intervention under the First Amendment.
State policy should strengthen First Amendment rights — a fundamental democratic pillar — especially for those who are disproportionately silenced. Communities of color often face disproportionate retaliation when speaking out, and any reforms must acknowledge and address this imbalance.
Lastly, restricting on-campus speech carries serious risks. A limit imposed on a university today can set a precedent that paves the way for broader constraints on free expression throughout society.