Professor Leonard Bright was three days into teaching his graduate course, “Ethics and Public Policy,” when he learned it had been cancelled.
Bright, a professor at Texas A&M University’s Bush School of Government and Public Service, had already met with students and had initial discussions when administrators pulled the class in January.
University leaders said he failed to provide sufficient detail on how he planned to address race and gender under a new system policy. Bright disputes that claim, saying he had submitted his syllabus and explained that discussions of race and sexuality were woven throughout the course, as is typical in ethics instruction.
The abrupt cancellation marked a new phase in Texas A&M’s escalating course reviews.
The broader shift
At Texas A&M, system regents approved a policy in late 2025 requiring campus presidents to sign off on courses that could be seen as advocating “race or gender ideology” or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity.
The revised language barred most discussion of those topics in introductory-level courses, with narrow exemptions for certain non-core or graduate classes that must be reviewed and approved in writing by top officials.
Faculty were told that roughly 200 courses in the College of Arts and Sciences could be affected by the new restrictions. Emails obtained by The Texas Tribune showed courses being renumbered, removed from the core curriculum, or altered days before the semester began.
The changes came amid political backlash after a student’s secret recording of a professor, Melissa McCoul, discussing gender identity in a children’s literature class went viral, prompting conservative criticism and leadership upheaval.
McCoul was fired from TAMU, after which she filed a lawsuit against the university.
A cancelled course and a contested policy
Bright’s ethics course became one of the most high-profile flashpoints.
“When you are targeting ideas that are politically motivated, that you don’t want pieces of talk, that’s because your political tribe don’t want them mentioned to students,” Bright told the Defender. “The real damage has been across the entire university with faculty.”
In a schoolwide email explaining the cancellation, Bush School Dean John Sherman wrote that system policy required the move because Bright had declined repeated requests for more detailed information about his planned instruction.
Without that information, administrators said, they could not determine whether the course would advocate race or gender ideology under the new rules.
In December, Sherman emailed Bush School faculty outlining new guidance from the Provost requiring a review of Spring 2026 syllabi to ensure compliance. Faculty were told syllabi must align with official course descriptions and avoid advocacy.
Later that day, Bright responded, stating that he had concerns about the policies being “unconstitutional” and that he needed time to consult legal and professional advisors before submitting his syllabus.
In January, Sherman informed Bright that two of his courses were flagged by the vice provost for Academic Affairs:
- PSAA 601: A reading referencing gender identity and sexual orientation would require an exemption.
- PSAA 642: The syllabus references sexual orientation in the Academic Freedom statement, but it was unclear where or how the topic would be taught. Sherman asks Bright to specify when sexual orientation would be covered so an exemption request could be submitted.
Per the coursework, lessons would also include equity and social justice in public administration, including DEI, critical race theory, and John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice.”
Bright defended the syllabus language. He stated that race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation are integral to the course and may arise throughout discussions.
Following this, Sherman cancelled PSAA 642 and wrote an email to the Bush School team.
“I take no pleasure in making the decision to cancel this course, and it is not one that I took lightly. Put simply, as employees of the System, we are required to follow its policies,” he wrote in an email. “I share this information with you to underscore the fact that I want us to continue to teach hard topics and to engage with controversial issues. But I also expect us to follow the process laid out for the approval of syllabi and to ensure alignment between our syllabi and our course descriptions. Put simply, transparency does not equal censorship.”
From Plato to women’s and gender studies
Bright is not the only professor who has run afoul of the new policy.
Philosophy professor Martin Peterson said he was told he could no longer teach Plato’s “Symposium” in a course on contemporary moral issues because the text discusses same-sex relationships and gender plurality.
Peterson argued that no state law explicitly required the ban and described the move as a self-imposed interpretation by the university.
Peterson replaced the Plato module with one on free speech and academic freedom, turning the controversy itself into a subject of study.
In late January, Texas A&M also announced it would eliminate its women’s and gender studies degree program, citing low enrollment and cost.
University leaders said six courses were canceled and 48 exceptions were granted under the new rules on race and gender. The program, which offered bachelor’s degrees, a minor, and a graduate certificate, had dozens of students enrolled.
The scope of the review has been amplified by technology.
Records obtained by The Texas Tribune show Texas A&M officials using artificial intelligence tools to search syllabi and course descriptions for words that might raise concerns under the new restrictions.
Free speech groups push back
Civil liberties organizations say the changes threaten academic freedom.
On Feb. 10, 2026, PEN America and 36 partner organizations sent a letter to the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents urging them to rescind recent course revisions, arguing that the changes have led to censorship across the university.
“These policies limit students’ access to course content related to race, gender, and sexual orientation, and constrain professors’ ability to teach effectively by prohibiting instruction responsive to class discussions or current events,” the letter said. “The extent of the impact of these policies is still coming to light, but already, they are an unacceptable incursion on the principles of academic freedom that form the well-established bedrock of American universities. Censorship undermines the quality of education that faculty can offer students.”
PEN America has also raised alarms about what it views as a broader wave of censorship affecting higher education.
“We want a free and open exchange of ideas, and we believe that that’s true in public spaces and also in classrooms,” said Amy Reid, program director for PEN America’s Freedom to Read. “We want to make sure that students are able to access the information they need to become the well-educated citizens our country needs, and so that they can answer the questions that they have about the world that we live in and how they’re going to impact it.”
Reid described the situation in Texas as “quite critical,” pointing to Senate Bill 17’s rollback of DEI programming and what she called a new phase of censorship targeting classroom instruction.
“Now they’re actually moving to limit what teachers are able to discuss in classrooms, what students are able to discuss, what students are able to learn,” she said, calling it “an acceleration of their efforts to censor conversations on campus.”
She urged university leaders to uphold academic freedom, adding, “Students don’t want to be censored. Students don’t want to have a truncated education. Students deserve better.”
FIRE Faculty Legal Defense Fund Fellow Graham Piro said the organization is urging the Texas A&M Board of Regents to rescind recent policy changes because FIRE views them as “unconstitutional intrusions into the classroom” that interfere with faculty academic freedom.
He said FIRE is concerned reports indicate “hundreds of courses” have been altered, with professors “on edge” about job security and their ability to teach freely. Piro added that similar reports have surfaced at other Texas public universities, including Texas Tech University, and warned the situation could spread further.
