On Friday, Oct. 10, 2025, the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs at Texas State University in San Marcos issued a “Dear Colleagues” email to 2,424 faculty and 2,723 staff, advising them that authorities at the Texas State University System in Austin had “charged” its University campuses to “complete a curricular review and share a summary by January 20, 2026,” a timeline that would encompass about 60 business days.
The hasty curriculum review mandated by system authorities would have three purposes as set forth in the email from the University Provost:
- Verify that course descriptions accurately reflect content, learning outcomes, and intent, consistent with system policy requiring annual course review.
- Assess whether courses and programs meet evolving student needs, align with institutional mission and workforce/community needs, and promote effective teaching and learning.
- Reaffirm the academic value of each course or program, grounded in disciplinary expertise and established review processes.
In addition to the three system mandates, the University Provost proposed three further “opportunities” for review:
- Ensure all course descriptions are up to date.
- Confirm that the syllabus and course material for every class we offer each semester is aligned with the course curriculum that has been the subject of our approval process.
- Verify that all course material is delivered in a manner consistent with the principle of value-neutral instruction.
The sixth opportunity listed by the University Provost is brief, unexpected, and puzzling. University guidelines on the Conduct and Planning of Courses (AA/PPS No. 02.03.01), revised on July 21, 2025, and reviewed by the Vice Provost for Academic Innovation, begins with the more hearty declaration that “Texas State University encourages a supportive and inclusive learning environment that is conducive to the free exchange of ideas.” The term “value-neutral instruction” appears nowhere in the current University policy text. The email from the University Provost therefore charges campus professionals to welcome the opportunity to verify something about course material that is not stipulated in University policy or even the most recently updated Higher Education Statues of Texas.
We are not sure how to read the paragraph that follows these numbered objectives, so we share it in full:
The work of curricular review is ongoing, and faculty, department chairs/school directors and deans have the primary role and responsibility for ensuring curriculum and courses are appropriately approved, aligned, and meeting the goals of our institutional mission. Approval in CIM [the Curriculum Information Management system] is confirmation that all appropriate standards have been met.
On plain reading, as a stand-alone paragraph, the two sentences above appear to affirm the basic truth that curriculum review is the subject of standing processes by the academic components of the university and that our current method of approving courses is “confirmation that all appropriate standards have been met.”
However, when read in the context of the six numbered objectives for the hasty curriculum review, the two sentences quoted above present an abrupt dissonance. If courses have already been confirmed to meet appropriate standards, what is the purpose of the recently announced hasty curriculum-review objectives?
In the next section of the email, the University Provost addresses the need to place “Limits on Curricular Activity During Review.” This section begins with a declaration that “The Office of Academic Innovation is currently updating our curriculum policies to ensure more regular review of the curriculum to prevent the need for large-scale reviews in the future.” The email from the University Provost does not stipulate whether the Office of Academic Innovation is updating its curriculum policies under guidance of faculty, department chairs, or deans, leaving the impression that curriculum policies are being rapidly updated within a particular office.
Next the University Provost addresses the staggering issue of workload, informing the campus community that
Because of the increased workload of this review, we will pause the following actions:
- Processing non-priority course changes or new course proposals
- Processing non-priority program changes or new program proposals
- Consulting on new course or program proposals that are not yet in the queue
The “we” who will pause are defined by previous reference to The Office of Academic Innovation or subsequent reference to the signature of the University Provost. Furthermore, the University Provost advises us that the result of the overload caused by the System charge will prevent the University Office from even talking about new course or program proposals that are “not yet in the queue.”
The University Provost’s communication helps to establish a key fact of the matter, that regular processes of course and program review are being disrupted by the System-charged hasty course review, to the point that there can be no question of even discussing new ideas. For anyone expecting the University to keep up with the pace of teaching and learning in today’s rapidly changing economy, the evidence of disruption should be concerning.
Some of the mystery for how priority items will be separated from non-priority ones is cleared up in the following paragraph on Deans:
Deans have been asked to prioritize the changes currently in process and identify those that are high priority to move forward. Because we are not yet aware of the volume of CIM/PIM [Curriculum/Program] Proposals that will be identified as high or low priority, we will determine a schedule for additional curriculum review once this information is known.
The two sentences quoted above indicate that Deans have yet to choose quickly between courses and programs already waiting for final approval so that the University Provost can find the time to move them forward under the extreme workload of the System-mandated 60-day University-wide curriculum review.
In the final section of the email, the University Provost indicates “Next Steps”
We will be sharing additional information about the new proposed process to review the curriculum soon for input. We have also prioritized reviewing our Spring 2026 course offerings and our “Special Topics” courses. Currently, Academic Innovation is reviewing courses in the Spring 2026 schedule of classes and identifying those that need further review by the department or school. Department chairs and directors will receive additional information about the Spring 2026 course review and tools to support meeting the goals of the review.
With a 60-day clock ticking down on the System-imposed deadline for the university-wide curriculum review, we are alerted above that the Office of Academic Innovation is looking most carefully at “Special Topics” courses scheduled for the Spring semester. The Office will direct departments to those courses that deserve closer scrutiny (not the other way around) and the Office will provide the Departments further information and “tools to support meeting the goals of the review.” The University Provost then concludes with a thank you “for your support in ensuring a successful review and consistently updated and aligned curriculum.”
Why We Dissent
Having carefully reviewed the University Provost’s announcement of a hasty course review that will be targeting a subset of Spring courses using guidelines and tools that have not been developed by faculty, the Texas State University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP-TXST) notes with concern that the “charge” issued to our University campus by leadership of the Texas State University System is an affront to academic freedom and professional standards.
A 60-working-day review of university-wide curriculum is a review that is designed to disrespect a cornerstone principle of AAUP professional standards, that the primary responsibility for university curriculum falls upon faculty shoulders.
The AAUP makes four reasonable demands of our academic leadership based in a deep respect for longstanding professional principles that place primary responsibility for curriculum in the hands of University Faculty. These principles were broadly established in 1915 and have been reaffirmed on a continual basis, including the “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities” that was jointly formulated in 1966 by AAUP, along with the American Council of Education (ACE), and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB), which states:
The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process. On these matters the power of review or final decision lodged in the governing board or delegated by it to the president should be exercised adversely only in exceptional circumstances and for reasons communicated to the faculty. It is desirable that the faculty should, following such communication, have opportunity for further consideration and further transmittal of its views to the president or board (AAUP Policy Documents 12th 122).
In light of these time-honored professional principles, we call upon the Texas State University System administration to:
- Revoke the hasty charge for course review that is placing undue and unprofessional burdens upon University officers across Texas.
- State in writing the core educational concerns that compel rushed revisions in University course reviews.
- Direct University offices to delegate “primary responsibility” to faculty for the development of any drafts of proposed new guidelines for course reviews.
- And direct University offices to delegate “primary responsibility” to faculty for the development of tools to implement any revised reviews.
Prior to any hastily ordered curriculum review that is conducted outside of regular order, the leadership of our System and our University should come forward with clear communication regarding the educational need for rushed course review and delegate “primary responsibility” to faculty for drafting proposed changes in policies as well as developing proposed tools for implementing the policies. In the absence of well-articulated educational reasons, the scurry to dispatch from the Provost’s Office a hasty selection of targeted courses for Departmental Review is a contradiction of professional standards and academic freedom alike.
Texas State University Chapter of AAUP 
Leave a comment