San Marcos, TX (Oct. 21, 2025) — The Board of Regents of the Texas State University System (TSUS) is hearing the appeal of Dr. Thomas Alter, a tenured Associate Professor of History at Texas State University (TXST), who was summarily dismissed on Sept. 10, 2025, reappointed by court order, and then summarily dismissed again on Oct. 13.
TSUS Rules and Regulations set forth an orderly process for Summary Dismissal which includes the following steps:
- To begin the process of Summary Dismissal, a faculty member should be “provided with written notice of the allegations” along with “an explanation of the evidence” (TSUS Rules 4.531). Then the President designates an administrator to hold a hearing with the faculty member and submit a written determination (4.532).
- Faculty are then afforded the right to a Hearing Tribunal composed of faculty peers appointed by the President “from members of the faculty whose academic rank is equal to or higher than that of the accused faculty member” (4.54). But no member of the Tribunal may be an accuser of the faculty member. The faculty member may challenge “the alleged lack of fairness or objectivity” of Tribunal members, who can then decide whether to step aside. If a Tribunal member does step aside “the President shall appoint a substitute” [4.54 (1)].
- At the hearing conducted by the Tribunal, the faculty member “shall have a right to attend the hearing; confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; present relevant evidence on his or her own behalf; testify or choose not to testify; and, be assisted or represented by counsel” [4.54 (2)].
- The Tribunal is then charged to “make written findings on the material facts and a recommendation” regarding the disposition of the case, with a complete record of the hearing “delivered to the President” and the faculty member [4.54 (4)].
- Following these steps, the System policy charges the President to “review the record, plus any additional written briefs the parties wish to submit, and render a decision” in writing. The President’s decision may include recommitting the case to the Tribunal “to hear additional evidence and/or to reconsider its findings.” After all these steps are completed, System policies call for a comprehensive file of the proceedings to be “delivered to the Board” (4.55)
- Furthermore, upon receiving the President’s decision, the faculty member has thirty days to file a written request with the System, specifically addressing “any defects in procedure or substance which require reversal of the President’s decision” to which the President may reply in writing (4.56).
According to System policy, only after all these steps have been completed does the Board majority decide what to do with the matter (4.56).
***
The Texas State University chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP-TXST) notes the above System policy only to point out that none of it has been followed in the case of Dr. Alter.
Beginning at the end of the timeline, the Oct. 13 letter of summary dismissal from the President of TXST includes a Right to Appeal that gives Dr. Alter no more than three business days to submit a notice of appeal along with “a written explanation of the basis” of the appeal.
And yet, as noted above, the appeals policy approved by the Board at the meeting of Aug. 8, 2025, gives any faculty member facing summary dismissal thirty calendar days to submit a request for review to the Board that will “specifically address any deficits in procedure or substance which require reversal of the President’s decision” (TSUS Rules and Regulations 4.56, p. V-23, pdf 117).
On its own, the misleading timeline that the President’s letter dictated to Dr. Alter should be grounds enough for the Board to reject the summary dismissal since it demonstrates a prejudice of unfairness in the application of System rules to Dr. Alter’s case. The disparity between the three days given to Dr. Alter by the President and the thirty days that are allowed to him under System rules is a warning clear enough to all faculty. The Board can demonstrate its commitment to fair process to all faculty by refusing to affirm a summary dismissal in Dr. Alter’s case, because the appellant has not been afforded full rights to prepare an appeal under System rules.
***
Other irregularities stand out when System rules are read in relation to the case of Dr. Alter; for example, he was initially removed from his position “effective immediately” on Sept. 10 with only an email advisory from the Provost that “a complaint was made against you” and that the “resulting investigation conducted by the university has determined that grounds exist for your summary dismissal.” There was no explanation of evidence, no opportunity for Dr. Alter to respond, and no administrative hearing.
***
After Dr. Alter was reinstated by court order, the initial administrative hearing was conducted by the President, which turned out to be the first and final hearing, skipping over the Hearing Tribunal stage which System rules afford to “all cases where the faculty member disputes the good cause grounds for termination.”
AAUP-TXST asks whether ignoring the Hearing Tribunal stage is a result of the recent change in Texas law that precludes anyone but the President, CEO, Provost, or one of their administrative designees from participating in such a tribunal. In the example of Dr. Alter’s case, we see that when faculty are precluded by law from appointing faculty grievance committees, the committees may simply not be appointed at all.
***
Turning to the arguments presented to support the summary dismissal of Dr. Alter, a tenured Associate Professor of History at Texas State University, we note that the arguments condemn his speech. The arguments against Dr. Alter condemn what he said and believed as a private citizen when he was assembled with other people at a virtual conference. Yet the First Amendment of the US Constitution gives a very wide latitude of protection for people to assemble and speak to each other.
Moreover, the evidence for Dr. Alter’s summary dismissal was drawn from an incomplete record of what he said. The complaint against Dr. Alter finds fault with the fact that he did not divulge a copy of his prepared text, but again, we refer to the US Constitution, where the Fourth and Fifth Amendments require Dr. Alter’s accusers to bear the full burden of proof, which they admit they do not yet have. Standards of justice established by the US Constitution require that Dr. Alter have an opportunity to meet his accusers, but instead his accusers are working from a video product that was surreptitiously recorded, then edited, to effect an impression that would apparently suit the purposes of a self-described fascist. Dr. Alter’s accusers do not know what the unedited presentation would have looked like. To declare a summary dismissal for speech on such grounds is unwarranted and unsupportable.
The Texas State University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP-TXST) is concerned that the summary dismissal of Dr. Alter disrespects US Constitutional principles involving free speech, assembly, due process, and protection against self-incrimination as set forth in the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution, but these principles concern us only as fellow citizens, not in our primary interest in this case as fellow academic professionals.
***
Professional principles and norms of the AAUP share common roots with the US Constitution in our respect for free speech and due process, but we also recognize the special responsibilities that come with our professional roles. As professionals who shoulder “primary responsibility” for “faculty status,” the AAUP cautions fellow academics to behave in a manner that is mindful of their professional standing.
The AAUP 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure reads:
When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution. (AAUP 12th 14)
The above statement of principles serves as the template for System policy 4.74, which very nearly matches the AAUP 1940 statement word for word.
Subsequent to publication of the above advisory, the AAUP interpreted the 1940 admonition to mean that it would be appropriate for an administration to “file charges” against a faculty member who “has failed to observe the above admonitions and believes that the professor’s extramural utterances raise grave doubts concerning the professor’s fitness for continuing service” (AAUP 12th 34).
However, as members of a profession that takes “primary responsibility” for “faculty status,” AAUP requires that the administration’s charges should be referred to “an appropriate—preferably elected—faculty committee.” AAUP guidelines go on to advise that:
The controlling principle is that a faculty member’s expression of opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty member’s unfitness to serve. Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty member’s fitness for continuing service. Moreover, a final decision should take into account the faculty member’s entire record as a teacher and scholar. In the absence of weighty evidence of unfitness, the administration should not prefer charges; and if it is not clearly proved in the hearing that the faculty member is unfit to continue, the faculty committee should make a finding in favor of the faculty member concerned. (AAUP 12th 34)
Such are the guiding principles of our profession as they have been deliberated and codified for at least the past 85 years. And we ask the Board’s respect for our revered heritage of professional responsibility. As our trustees, Board members are bound to take responsibility for helping us to sustain our professional standards.
***
Dr. Alter’s speech was made public without his consent. He did not know that his remarks would be widely shared when he introduced himself to the conference as a union member, nor did he realize that a public audience would be observing when he chatted with another conference participant about students at our university. On Dr. Alter’s account of the matter, that part of the conversation occurred after the formal presentation had concluded, and the conference was enjoying intermission between sessions. Those later remarks were the equivalent of a hallway chat at a conference, except that it was a virtual hallway, and it was being surreptitiously recorded. How unfair is that? Does the Board intend to signal to the world that the University and its System will, without question, respect anyone who pulls off this kind of tactic against one of its faculty members?
According to AAUP professional standards, the President of the university had cause to look into the matter of Dr. Alter’s speech, to gather more evidence about the speech, and to explore the question of his fitness to serve as a faculty member. Then, if evidence and cause were found, the president had every right to refer the matter to a “preferably elected” grievance committee of faculty peers.
The Board of Regents of Texas State University has been drafted into an auspicious position of responsibility with respect to professional standards of the faculty they serve, because their institution has been recently made subject to Texas laws that preclude faculty from appointing—or preferably electing—their own representatives to serve on the kind of grievance tribunal that System policy requires. Furthermore, no faculty grievance committee at a Texas public university can, as best practice demands, consult with the AAUP’s conception of a Faculty Committee on Academic Freedom, because faculty governance structures have been debilitated by state law. Under Texas law such faculty committees will now be formed under supervision of a faculty council that is half appointed by the President, who in turn appoints the council leadership. Academic governance in Texas has been unduly consolidated under the power of the President, and we are seeing the effect that it has on faculty ability to carry out our primary responsibilities according to best practices that are set forth under AAUP policies.
New laws in Texas outlaw the appointment of faculty by faculty to the kinds of committee that our professional standards invoke, leaving the Board of Regents standing in the gap. Instead of regular order under AAUP principles, whereby the case would have been referred to faculty peers appointed by faculty, the new law in Texas allows the President to overstep the faculty’s “primary responsibility” for “faculty status” and bring the case directly to your feet. The AAUP has no choice but to call on the Board of Regents of Texas State University to see whether the President’s charge includes any evidence of Dr. Alter’s unfitness beyond the incomplete record of speech that was recorded and publicized without his consent.
***
Plain reading of the President’s charge shows that the inquiry was solely focused on the parts of Dr. Alter’s speech that were surreptitiously recorded, edited, and publicized to embarrass him. The president’s charge alleges that the speech itself constitutes cause for immediate dismissal, but our professional standards ask for something more. If the Board of Regents is upholding the professional standards of AAUP, as those standards have been deliberated and codified over the years—and as they are quoted nearly verbatim in System policy approved by the Board—then you must decide that the President’s immediate dismissal of Dr. Tom Alter cannot be upheld.
Professional standards of the AAUP are intended to be carried out by us in regulation of our own profession. They compel us to conclude that “if it is not clearly proved in the hearing that the faculty member is unfit to continue, the faculty committee should make a finding in favor of the faculty member concerned.” Since the application of Texas law and the disregard of System policy has precluded our profession from acting in its professional capacity, we must substitute a word or two: “if it is not clearly proved in the hearing that the faculty member is unfit to continue, the Board of Regents should make a finding in favor of the faculty member concerned.” But the President’s hearing only draws conclusions from an incomplete record of an hour or two of speech. There is no other evidence, certainly no proof, that Dr. Alter is unfit to serve.
If the evidence of this case demonstrates anything beyond a doubt, it is that the laws of Texas have robbed our profession of its “primary responsibility” over “faculty status.” We ask the Board to step in where we have been forbidden to stand and make a finding in favor of Dr. Alter.
— # # # —
Texas State University Chapter of AAUP 
Leave a comment