Public universities across Texas have slashed hundreds of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) jobs and freed up tens of millions of dollars, university administrators told state lawmakers.
Since the law took effect Jan. 1, the University of Texas (UT) system’s nine academic universities and six health institutions have closed 21 DEI offices, dissolved 311 full- and part-time positions, and canceled a total of 681 DEI-related “contracts, programs and trainings.”
“To date, based on the institutional responses, we estimate that over $25 million will be saved or reallocated to other university-mission-related purposes,” UT System Chancellor James Milliken said in his testimony before the committee.
Other university leaders also reported that defunding DEI initiatives means more money at their disposal. The Texas State University System saved $3 million after eliminating their DEI programs and positions, while the University of Houston System freed up about $750,000.
The law, known as SB 17 before it was signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in June 2023, prohibits public colleges and universities from establishing or maintaining a DEI office. It defines a DEI office as any unit established for the purpose of “influencing hiring or employment practice at the institution with respect to race, sex, color, or ethnicity” and “conducting trainings, programs, or activities designed or implemented in reference to race, color, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation,” among other aims.
The legislation further states that institutions cannot require students or faculty members to “endorse an ideology that promotes the differential treatment of an individual or group of individuals based on race, color, or ethnicity.”
It also prohibits considering race, sex, color, or ethnicity in hiring decisions or requiring prospective employees to state their commitment to the DEI cause.
In order to ensure compliance, UT faculty members who previously had administrative DEI duties have also been relieved from such responsibilities.
“Those tasks were completely eliminated,” Mr. Milliken said at the hearing.
New Recruiting Push
Also among those who spoke at the hearing was Texas A&M University Chancellor John Sharp, a critic of DEI. He told the committee that there were a total of nine DEI offices across Texas A&M system’s 11 universities. All have since been closed in compliance with SB 17.As a result of this systemwide compliance effort, 27 full-time positions were purged with eight full-time employees being “separated,” Mr. Sharp said, adding that the resources once dedicated to DEI programs were being spent on recruiting prospective students.
“We devoted that money that we saved and some more, for instance at Texas A&M, to recruiting,” the chancellor said. “We act like a football coach, to go in there and find the best [students] that are going to Stanford, that are going somewhere else, to make sure they know what the best opportunities are.”
The recruiting strategy of raising awareness of Texas A&M among high schoolers outside its traditional sphere of influence has been effective, Mr. Sharp said.
“The result so far has been a double-digit increase in those kids that are applying to Texas A&M,” he said. “The problem is, a lot of kids out there don’t know [about Texas A&M] and a lot of high schools don’t know what’s available in places like UT and A&M. We’re frankly spending a lot of time, a lot of effort beefing up those efforts around the state.”
SB 17 passed Texas’ Republican-dominated state Legislature largely along party lines, challenged by Democrats every step of its way to the governor’s desk. While SB 17’s supporters argued that DEI efforts promote unfair treatment of individuals based on perceived disparities among identity groups, the bill’s opponents worried that it would undermine universities’ goals to create a diverse student body.
“We need to look at pre-SB 17 and post-SB 17 to see exactly where we are as institutions,” said state Sen. Royce West, a Democrat representing Dallas. “That will help us with writing history as it related to the impact of this particular bill.”
