Who decides
what happens
in the classroom?
Faculty Academic Freedom
Keyishian · Axson-Flynn · Texas
On a phone or laptop?
https://acadfreedom.dchang.net/
01
A student refuses
A professor assigns students to argue a position they personally oppose.
A student refuses. Completing the assignment is necessary to pass.
Should the professor be able to require this?
02
Your first decision
YES
NO
With a partner: What assumption are you making?
1 minute
Your first decision
No answers yet
One tap per device. Live bars — the class result appears as people answer. No names.
03
Academic freedom involves competing claims
STATE
Laws governing public institutions
FACULTY
Professional judgment in teaching
UNIVERSITY
Authority over curriculum
STUDENT
Expression and religious exercise
04
The questions we will keep asking
01 Who imposes the requirement?
02 What does it actually require?
03 What supports the justification?
A way to organize the dispute, rather than a single legal test
05
1967
Keyishian v.
Board of Regents
State loyalty requirements
and university employment
U.S. Supreme Court · 385 U.S. 589
06
Employment depended on loyalty rules
The requirements
Certifications involving Communist affiliation
Rules addressing “subversive” activity and association
The constitutional problem
Unclear boundaries
Restrictions reaching protected expression and association
The Court invalidated challenged provisions.
07
Vagueness
“What exactly could get me fired?”
Overbreadth
“How much protected expression
does this rule reach?”
08
Before anyone faces discipline
Your employment depends on avoiding
“subversive” teaching.
What might you stop assigning or discussing?
Partner discussion · 1 minute
One answer per pair.
09
2004
10
The dispute in the rehearsal room
The student
Objected on religious grounds to particular words in scripts.
The instructors
Defended script adherence as part of professional acting training.
She left the program and challenged the requirements.
11
Educational judgment and pretext
What could justify requiring
the original words?
What evidence would cast doubt
on that explanation?
Pretext: a stated reason that conceals the actual reason
Discuss both questions with a partner.
1.
2.
Discuss both questions with a partner, then post one answer per question.
12
What the court decided
Legitimate educational requirements
receive room for professional judgment.
Disputed evidence about discrimination
and pretext required further proceedings.
Reversal and remand. No final finding that discrimination occurred.
13
The Texas
classroom
SB 17 and SB 37
Statutory scope
and curriculum authority
14
SB 17
DEI offices and specified institutional practices
The law restricts specified DEI activities
at public institutions.
Academic course instruction and scholarly research
or creative work are expressly excluded from
subsection (b)(1)’s prohibitions.
2023 · Texas Education Code §51.3525(d)
15
SB 37
Curriculum oversight and shared governance
Governing boards review general education
curricula at least every five years.
Curriculum decisions occur under board direction.
Faculty input is advisory within the statutory
shared governance framework.
2025 · Texas Education Code §§51.315, 51.354, 51.3523
16
A course can involve both laws
Could academic instruction fall outside
SB 17’s specified prohibitions and still
undergo curriculum review under SB 37?
What does each law govern?
Partner discussion · 1 minute
17
Oklahoma
Fulnecky and the grading dispute
A psychology student received zero on a reaction paper that used religious arguments about gender.
The student alleged religious discrimination.
The instructor said the paper failed the assignment criteria.
November–December 2025 · University of Oklahoma
18
The institutional response
OU removed the assignment from
the student’s final grade calculation.
OU described the grading as arbitrary
and ended the instructor’s teaching duties.
The instructor disputed that conclusion.
An administrative conclusion does not establish a judicial finding.
19
Texas A&M
McCoul and the course content dispute
A recording of a children’s literature class
showing discussion of gender identity
circulated publicly.
Political criticism followed.
A&M dismissed senior lecturer Melissa McCoul.
September 2025 · Classroom content and institutional authority
20
The disagreement over the rationale
A&M’s explanation
Course content did not align
with the approved description.
The instructor had not followed
directions to change it.
The challenge
McCoul disputed the rationale.
A faculty review later found
the firing violated
academic freedom.
The faculty review was an internal determination, rather than a court judgment.
Separate the decisions
Oklahoma — the instructor grades the reaction paper a zero.
An instructor's own academic judgment under the assignment criteria. The later dispute does not change what this decision was.
Oklahoma — the student alleges the grading was religious discrimination.
An allegation is a claim by a participant. It is not a finding, and it does not itself establish what happened.
Oklahoma — OU removes the assignment from the final grade calculation.
An institutional response. It changed the student's grade and decided nothing about the discrimination claim.
Oklahoma — OU describes the grading as arbitrary and ends the instructor's teaching duties.
An employment response by the institution. The instructor disputed it, and it is not a judicial ruling.
Texas A&M — the university dismisses the senior lecturer.
An institutional action, taken under the university's own explanation of misaligned course content.
Texas A&M — the dismissed instructor disputes the rationale.
A contest by a participant. Disputing an explanation is not the same as a finding that the explanation was false.
Texas A&M — a faculty review finds the firing violated academic freedom.
An internal institutional determination. The lesson is explicit: an internal finding is not a court judgment.
Nothing in either dispute is a judicial decision — neither controversy has reached one. An allegation, an internal review, and an administrative response are separate decisions, and none of them is a court ruling.
Sort each event before the class compares the two responses. Tap a category to place the card; tap it again to change your mind.
21
Which intervention is more defensible?
A Oklahoma’s response to the grade
B A&M’s response to the course content
Choose A or B. Defend your choice with a legal principle
and one piece of evidence you would examine.
Partner discussion · 2–3 minutes
Which intervention is more defensible?
No answers yet
Choose A or B, then defend it with a legal principle and one record you would examine.
22
What would the records show?
Oklahoma
Assignment and grading rubric
Feedback on the paper
Consistency across submissions
Texas A&M
Course description and syllabus
Directions to the instructor
Timing and basis of dismissal
Texas laws provide context. SB 17 does not govern OU. SB 37’s general application began in 2026.
23
Before the dispute escalated
What could the instructor have done earlier?
What could the university have done differently?
Choose one realistic action for each.
Explain how it protects academic standards and fair treatment.
1.
2.
Choose one realistic action for each, then explain how it protects academic standards and fair treatment.
24
Earlier choices worth considering
Oklahoma
State the evidence requirements.
Explain deductions through
the grading rubric.
Use a second academic review
when a grade is contested.
Texas A&M
Clarify curriculum expectations
before the course begins.
Review the full academic record.
Hear the instructor’s response
before employment action.
These steps can support a fair process. They cannot guarantee that controversy will not occur.
25
The cases help us ask better questions
Keyishian
How can state restrictions
pressure faculty toward
ideological conformity?
Axson-Flynn
What justifies the requirement?
What could undermine
that explanation?
26
Your decision, revisited
Can a professor require students to argue
a position they personally oppose?
“The most important distinction
I would make is…”
One sentence — a distinction, not a verdict.
27
Cases and statutory text
Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/589/
Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 356 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2004). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/356/1277/539809/
Tex. S.B. 17, 88th Leg., R.S. (2023) (codified at Tex. Educ. Code § 51.3525). https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/SB00017F.htm
Tex. S.B. 37, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025) (codified at Tex. Educ. Code §§ 51.315, 51.354, 51.3523). https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB00037F.HTM
28
Contemporary examples: sources
Oklahoma
McClour, A. (2025, December 22). OU concludes Bible-based essay investigation, graduate instructor to no longer have instructional duties. OU Daily. https://www.oudaily.com/news/ou-bible-essay-graduate-instructor-samantha-fulnecky/article_4d684bc2-160a-4720-9701-9fcdc6858f44.html
Hay, A. (2025, December 23). Oklahoma university graduate student barred from teaching over gender essay grading dispute. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/oklahoma-university-graduate-student-barred-teaching-over-gender-essay-grading-2025-12-23/
Texas A&M
Nguyen, A., & Priest, J. (2025, September 15). Faculty, advocacy groups fear Texas A&M firing threatens academic freedom. The Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/15/texas-am-professor-firing-melissa-mccoul-academic-freedom/
Priest, J. (2025, November 10). Texas A&M panel: Firing violated professor’s academic freedom. The Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/11/10/texas-am-mccoul-firing-academic-freedom-council/
29
Evaluation
This page is anonymous and takes under a minute. Your words go only to the instructor.
Anonymous. No name, email, or address is stored — the instructor receives only your words.