contributed by COL Terry Wilson, US Army (Retired), TX Representative District 20
This article is the second installment of a three-part series on higher education reform in Texas that began in last month’s issue. In the last article, an outline of SB 37 established a comprehensive framework for transparency and accountability in our public institutions of higher education. That law strengthened governing boards, clarified faculty roles, and created an independent ombudsman to ensure students, faculty, and administrators all have a fair and lawful channel for resolving disputes. However, transparency alone will not be enough. A university can be well-governed on paper yet still fail its fundamental mission if civil discourse collapses on campus.
On September 10, 2025, the assassination of Charlie Kirk shook the country. What followed was just as troubling: the public celebration of political violence by many individuals operating within or around college campuses, amid heightened anti-Israel protests related to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. That moment stripped away any remaining illusion that our campuses were immune to the broader breakdown in civil discourse gripping the nation. When violence is justified as political expression, the rule of law is no longer guiding behavior.
Why the Legislature Acted
These concerns did not emerge overnight. Senate bill 2972 was passed earlier this year in response to a wave of disruptive campus protests, many involving non-students and conduct that interfered with core academic operations. The bill represents the state’s direct effort to restore lawful order while fully protecting the expressive rights of students and faculty on campus. Following the events of September, Speaker Dustin Burrows and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick jointly established The Select Committees on Civil Discourse and Freedom of Speech in Higher Education. As Chairman of the House Committee, I am committed to using the interim to examine how campuses across Texas are implementing these reforms and whether further action is needed to preserve both liberty and safety.
From Transparency to Conduct
The bill makes clear that students and employees of public institutions of higher education have the right to engage in expressive activities and observe the expressive activities of others. Universities are instructed to treat these freedoms not as privileges, but as core institutional obligations.
SB 2972 codifies those principles in state law. Universities may adopt time, place, and manner restrictions only if clearly published pursuant to institutional policy, applied equally regardless of viewpoint, and allow ample alternative means of expression. The bill also prohibits institutions from requiring prior permits or permissions before individuals may assemble or distribute written material in designated public forums.
Governing boards are now explicitly required to designate the public forum areas on their campuses consistent with constitutional standards. This prevents institutions from moving the goalposts when controversy arises and ensures expressive rights remain stable no matter which administration is in place.
Under the law, students and employees are prohibited from using amplified sound during class hours if it intimidates others, interferes with campus operations, or obstructs the lawful duties of employees or law enforcement. During the final two weeks of a semester, when academic pressure is at its highest, disruptive expressive activities face additional restrictions to protect instructional continuity and student performance.
Order Is Not Optional
Camping and encampments are expressly prohibited. Universities exist to educate, not to serve as permanent protest encampments where sanitation, safety, and access quickly deteriorate. The law also prohibits wearing disguises to obstruct enforcement, intimidate others, or interfere with law enforcement activity. Accountability requires visibility.
Expressive activity is prohibited between 10pm and 8am, recognizing free speech must coexist with the right of students to rest, study, and live without constant disturbance.
The lowering of the United States or Texas flag for the purpose of raising another nation’s or organization’s flag is also prohibited. Public institutions are required to uphold the symbols of the constitutional order under which they operate.
SB 2972 does not merely announce expectations. It requires each institution to adopt a formal policy outlining rights and responsibilities regarding expressive activities. Those policies must establish disciplinary sanctions for those who unduly interfere with the expressive activities of others or violate institutional rules or state law. They must include a grievance procedure for addressing complaints. And they must require individuals to present proof of identity and status when asked by an institution official engaged in lawful duty.
Oversight Continues
The Legislature does not pass laws and walk away. Following the September assassination and the unrest that followed, Speaker Burrows and Lieutenant Governor Patrick formed select committees in both chambers to examine civil discourse and freedom of speech in higher education. I was honored to be asked to serve as Chairman of the House committee.
Over the next year, our committee will hear testimony from students, faculty, administrators, law enforcement, and constitutional scholars. We will evaluate how institutions are implementing SB 2972. We will examine whether public safety is adequately protected. And we will assess whether outside political organizations are exploiting campus unrest to destabilize learning environments.
This work is not about punishing institutions—it’s about ensuring laws passed by the Legislature are implemented faithfully and consistently across all systems. Uniform law is meaningless without uniform application.
SB 37 created the structure for transparency and accountability in governance. It strengthened Boards of Regents, clarified the advisory role of faculty senates, mandated leadership evaluations, and created the Office of the Ombudsman within the Higher Education Coordinating Board. That office will serve as an external channel for resolving disputes involving governance, curriculum, and employment practices.
SB 2972 supplies the behavioral framework that complements that governance structure, the statutory system through which Texas public universities are overseen by Boards of Regents, presidents selected by those boards and statewide oversight established by the Legislature. One law governs how decisions are made. The other governs how conduct is regulated.
Civil Discourse Is a Civic Skill
Civil discourse is not a political luxury. It is the foundation of self-government.
The First Amendment protects unpopular speech not because it is comfortable, but because it is necessary.
Still, no constitutional tradition has ever equated free speech with the right to disrupt, intimidate, or threaten.
A university should be a place where students learn how to argue without fear, how to disagree without dehumanizing, and how to engage in conflict without resorting to coercion. That is how leaders are formed. That is how citizens are prepared.
SB 2972 does not silence speech. It protects it by re-anchoring expression to the rule of law. It affirms that campuses belong to learning, not lawlessness; to dialogue, not disorder.
Texas is proving that it is possible to defend liberty without surrendering order. It is possible to protect speech without tolerating chaos. And it is possible to restore public trust without sacrificing constitutional rights.