Author: Sherry Sylvester

Senate Education Chairman Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, has alerted Texas universities that he will be calling them to the Capitol in May to provide an update on their progress in ridding Texas campuses of DEI, as required by Senate Bill 17. With the support of Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Creighton wrote the strongest anti-DEI legislation in the nation and his letter reminds university leaders that failure to comply with the law could ultimately affect their funding.

To be clear on what Sen. Creighton is talking about, DEI is the acronym for “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion,” a deceptively named race-based ideology that divides people into two groups—oppressors, who are mostly white people, although increasingly Jews and Asians are included in the oppressor group, and victims, who are African American, Hispanic or gay. Sometimes women are included in the victim group, though rarely white women. Victims also include those who are suffering from gender dysphoria.

DEI advocates have been working for over a decade to re-segregate university campuses in Texas and across the country so “victims” aren’t required to interact with “oppressors” in classes and activities. Many Texas universities have segregated graduations for Black students and Hispanic students. “Lavender graduations” are held for gay students.

Arguing in favor of DEI programs, a student at the University of Texas at Austin, where only 5.5 percent of students are African-American despite two decades of DEI programs, said, “I don’t feel like I go to a (predominately white institution) because I’m always around my Black friends.”

Imagine if a white student boasted, “I don’t feel like I go to a racially integrated university because I only hang out with my white friends.”

There has been massive blowback on Texas campuses following the passage of Senate Bill 17. The Austin-American Statesman reported that both students and faculty are rattled, exhausted and confused. DEI has infiltrated every aspect of university life because it seems administrators have put forward almost anything in the name of DEI without assessing the impact on students and its relevance to the educational mission of the academic institution.

For example, in a move that harkens back to the “Whites Only” signs before the Civil Rights Act, in the name of DEI, at least one flagship university established separate study rooms in the library for only LGBTQ students. When the library was crowded, other students were required to sit on the floor whether the separate study rooms had people in them or not.

Students at Texas A&M lamented that when the so-called “Pride Center” closed down there would be no place for women students to get binders to smash down their breasts so they looked like men. But administrators at the University of Texas at Dallas bragged that they were able to keep their “transition closet” open to provide cross-dressing outfits and supplies for students who believe they are the other gender. The officials insist they are now using “transition” as a broader term.

When the University of Texas announced that it would change the name of the Gender and Sexuality Center to the “Women’s Community Center,” it stated its mission was to provide “a place for Longhorns of all genders to connect, find resources, and get support around experiences of intersectionality, community, and gender solidarity.”

“Longhorns of all genders?” The wacky notion that there are Longhorns who are some gender other than male or female, like the evil idea that it is good for black students to only hang out with other black students, are two of the prime directives of DEI that permeate campus culture. Instilling these beliefs and others rooted in critical race and gender theory is the mission of DEI at every level.

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently published a survey of a number of Texas universities and found some leaders were taking comprehensive steps to adhere to Senate Bill 17. But change will not be quick.

An official at Texas A&M was caught on tape saying that DEI programs were simply being “rebranded.” At the University of Texas at Tyler, an administrator said they were getting around SB 17 by “being creative.” At Texas Tech, an administrator said DEI programs were now all operating under the Campus Access and Engagement program.

Sen. Creighton made clear in his letter to university leaders that none of this is permissible under the law.

These frantic administrators who are clinging to DEI seem unaware that the biggest indictment against it is that it doesn’t work. A British study is the latest to reveal what we have seen in Texas—DEI makes no difference in increasing the recruitment of minority and marginalized students or improving their academic outcomes or career opportunities. Sen. Creighton is right to remind university leaders across the state that the mandate of SB 17 to shut down these racially divisive and ineffective DEI policies isn’t a suggestion—it is Texas law, and could cost them their funding.

Sherry Sylvester is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the former Senior Advisor to Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.

Wokeness won’t go away quietly, especially in the war against history. In April, a new Texas history organization, created in the aftermath of a critical race showdown within the Texas State Historical Association (TSHA), announced it will meet for its first symposium, titled “Texas History in the 21st Century: Looking Back, Moving Forward.”

At this event, to be held at Texas Christian University, college professors can learn about “Writing Against the Master Narrative,” as well as pay tribute to former TSHA Chief Historian, Walter Buenger.

One doesn’t have to read too closely between the lines to get the impression that these historians, almost exclusively academics, apparently believe that there’s some kind of “master narrative” that needs to be challenged.

You may recall that their honoree, Buenger, has dismissed the Alamo as “insignificant,” while insisting that the shrine of Texas liberty has been misused to “commemorate whiteness.”

Is that the “master narrative?”

From commentary in the media, it is clear that this new group believes they are up against the Texas Legislature, which rightly banned the teaching of the 1619 Project—after it had been debunked by seemingly every reputable historian in the country.

Perhaps they also believe it is important to put the book “Forget the Alamo”—written by two partisan reporters and a political consultant, which was also debunked by any historian that matters—in Texas classrooms?

Because they are professors, they may also be fighting against the Texas Legislature’s passage of a ban on diversity, equity and inclusion offices and programs in Texas public colleges and universities. The Texas DEI bill has nothing to do with teaching history, but it does prohibit classifying every student by the color of their skin, ethnicity, or gender.

DEI ideology on campus permeates every aspect of campus life, especially the teaching of history. It is built on a flawed and racially divisive view of history that allows for only one lens—race and oppression. It’s a worldview that encourages people to make ridiculous statements, such as claiming the story of the Alamo “commemorates whiteness.”

DEI is a simplistic attempt to reduce Texas history, American history—the history of all Western civilization—into a war between villains and heroes. Using their analysis, every hero (in the so-called “master narrative”) is a villain and consequently, every villain must be made into a hero.

(To see how this works in contemporary times, just look at how campuses—students and faculty alike—made heroes out of the terrorists who attacked Israel.)

Real historians cannot be driven by a political ideology. They know that no figure from the past, not one as saintly as Francis of Assisi nor one as despicable as Benedict Arnold, can be portrayed as either fully hero or villain. Human beings are complicated, and so must their historical reckoning be. The shameful institution of slavery did exist in Texas, and no teacher of history can shy away from that. That’s why Texas teachers are required to teach about slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow and the Civil Rights era.

Texans, like all Americans, have not always lived up to the ideals established at Washington on the Brazos. But we have never lost sight of them either.

Here at TPPF, our award-winning “Forging Texas” film series tells the story of the Texas Revolution—but it also tells the story of the first woman to lead a cattle drive across the Chisolm Trail, the Vietnamese migration to Texas in the 1970s and, most recently, investigates the birth of the African American film industry in Texas with our film, “The Making of a Classic.”

The 1836 Advisory Project was established by the Texas Legislature in 2021 and has produced a Texas history summary that is available to everyone at State DMV offices. It covers all of Texas history—the good, the bad and the ugly. Even one of the authors of “Forget the Alamo,” called it “surprisingly accurate.”

Focus groups conducted by TPPF found that most residents of the Lone Star State, whether native-born or recently arrived, African American or Hispanic, are proud to call themselves Texans. They consider the Texas story to be their own story—a story of courage and struggle, striving and success. They certainly do not view it as a white-washed “master narrative.”

We can hope that the Texas Alliance for History doesn’t become just another group of grumbling, left-leaning professors trying to convince Texans that their great state that grew out of nothing to become the seventh largest economy in the world and the job creator for the nation is somehow an evil place.

Over a million people visit the Alamo every year, a site where 200 men courageously fought to the death to ensure that Texas would be independent and free. Some African Americans and abolitionists fought beside Travis and Crockett. Everyone who was there during the siege has a story, and true historians want to learn about all of them. No one who knows the story would describe the sacrifice at the Alamo as “insignificant.”

The New York Post reports that on Super Tuesday, MSNBC’s progressive women’s roundtable got a big laugh out of exit polls showing that illegal immigration was the top priority for GOP voters in Virginia.

Former Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki laughingly insisted that she lives in Virginia and there’s no problem. Joy Reid called the poll proof that Republicans are racist.

Rachel Maddow mockingly quipped, “I guess Virginia does have a border with West Virginia.”

Maddow’s snarky comment will no doubt overtake the 50 year-old legend of a similar clueless remark on the media elite by New Yorker writer Pauline Kael who reportedly said in 1972, “I don’t understand how Nixon won the election. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”

Nixon won 49 states.

Maddow and her friends clearly missed the latest data from Gallup in February which found that immigration is now at the top of the list of critical problems cited by Americans. Or perhaps the MSNBC girls are just getting their information on what is going on at the border from the Texas media.

The Texas press has pretended for years that concerns about the border are simply a trumped up talking point for Republicans designed to incite fear into voters and demonize people who are looking for a better life. The culprits they target most frequently are Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

For the Texas press, describing 5,000 to 10,000 people crossing the border every day as an “invasion” is a crime against humanity. Actual crimes against humanity on the Texas border, including rape trees displaying the underwear of sexual assault victims and sex trafficking of minors, don’t get as much play.

Although it’s big national news, I don’t recall seeing many Texas media reports about the hundreds of terrorists who have been detained at the border or the thousands of Chinese who are coming over now. The Texas media has also ignored thousands of criminal illegal aliens who have been entering Texas though the southern border for years. The press treats them as a figment of former President Donald Trump’s imagination.

After the primary election on Tuesday, the Texas media was as stunned as the women on MSNBC when nearly a dozen House GOP incumbents they thought were too big a deal to fail fell to Republicans who were backed by Gov. Abbott. All over the state, candidates backed by Abbott and Patrick defeated longtime incumbents.

Abbott asked voters to elect representatives who would not give an inch to Democrats, and voters listened to him—because they know the Democrats are responsible for the tragedy that has been happening at the border since President Joe Biden’s inauguration.

The Texas media belittled then-candidate Trump in 2016 when he brought the issue of the border into the national conversation. They stepped up attacks on Abbott for beefing up security at the border and establishing Operation Lone Star. They also attacked Patrick who stood by his election promise to appropriate millions—and ultimately billions—to substantially increase the manpower of the Department of Public Safety at the border.

Of course, if some border politician criticized Abbott, the Texas media was all over that. But even when Trump flipped several solid blue counties to red in South Texas, the Texas media failed to connect the dots.

When Abbott sent illegal migrants to the big blue cities, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post finally reported what the Texas press refused to investigate—what happens to a city or a state when it is overrun with a constant influx of new immigrants in need of virtually everything. What happens when crime skyrockets? What happens when people’s land and homes become migrant stopovers? How do hospitals, schools and other public services keep up?

The Texas press remains mostly silent on the border. Still, not only has immigration become the top issue for Americans, but polls show for the first time that a majority of Americans now support building a border wall.

Of course, school choice was also a critical issue in Texas’ Super Tuesday, but a strong majority of Texans have supported a parent’s right to choose the best school for their child for at least a decade. The Texas media refused to cover that story too. They opted for helping the teachers unions block reforms, rather than writing about parents whose children are trapped in failing public schools.

Abbott’s firm stand on school choice will be transformational for the future of the state, but he was able to win that battle because he bused migrants north and called the bluff of sanctuary cities. He exposed them as simply sanctimonious cities and showed America the truth about what is going on at the southern border.    

He got no help from the people who are supposed to tell these stories—the Texas media—but most Americans get it now… except those women at MSNBC.