Identity of Speakers
-
Texas Joint Select Committee on Civil Discourse and Freedom of Speech in Higher Education was created by Texas lawmakers to examine how public universities handle controversial speech and promote civil discourse on campus.
Unaffiliated
OtherCreated by Texas lawmakers to examine how public universities handle controversial speech and promote civil discourse on campus.
Additional Information
-
Incident Nature:
Other
-
Incident Political Orientation:
Not Clear -
Incident Responses:
State Campus Free Speech Act
Other
-
Incident Status:
No litigation
- Was Speech Code incident
Summary
In the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination in September 2025, Texas lawmakers held the first hearing of a joint Select Committee on Civil Discourse and Freedom of Speech in Higher Education on Thursday, November 13, 2025, to examine how public universities handle controversial or disruptive speech. The hearing focused on how campuses balance protecting free expression with maintaining civility. Lawmakers condemned celebrations of political violence but emphasized that free expression should remain protected, noting concerns over universities’ inconsistent application of disciplinary rules, particularly regarding politically sensitive speech.
The committee discussed two recently passed Texas laws: Senate Bill 37, which increased state oversight of university curricula and faculty hiring, and Senate Bill 2972, which restricted when, where, and how demonstrations could take place on campus. Witnesses included university officials, student leaders, and representatives from conservative organizations. Lawmakers repeatedly raised concerns that universities lacked transparency and accountability in enforcing speech policies and called for stronger reporting and review mechanisms.
At the hearing, University of Texas at Austin President Jim Davis defended the university’s approach, saying the campus had to carefully distinguish between legally protected speech and behavior that disrupted educational operations or intimidated others. He emphasized the institution’s commitment to both free expression and civil discourse and said that while the university welcomed some reforms under SB 37, including a restructured faculty advisory body, these changes represented a major shift in shared governance.
Lawmakers generally agreed on opposing political violence but diverged on defining and policing “unacceptable” expression. Some expressed concern that symbolic speech or clothing that mocked others could be treated inconsistently across campuses, raising questions about enforcement, fairness, and the role of higher education institutions in fostering debate while maintaining civility.
