Against my better judgment to not put sensitive information in writing — the greatest, yet-to-be-censored lesson the regents still ought to learn — I’m confessing my feelings: I’m exhausted.
The regents have officially graduated from demoting deans, botching a professor hiring and firing lecturers to eliminating our Women’s and Gender Studies program. Care to guess why?
As of late, attempting to indict those responsible for gutting academic freedom — the confiscation of its intended purposes and the appropriation of definitions like “race and gender ideology” that exist to perform apologetics for a handful of conservative pundits refusing to accept that trans people do exist — takes serious endurance that I no longer possess.
Unlike the freshly severed body of a snake, I no longer twitch and thrash around when provoked; worse than being treaded on, I now lie limp dangling from my torso. I can only watch as our university takes a hard look in the mirror and turns itself into stone.
At a Feb. 5 Board of Regents meeting, Chancellor Glenn Hegar stated, “the Women’s and Gender Studies program is being wound down due to sustained low enrollment and academic considerations.”
His vague “academic considerations” reference actually has a specific goal but doesn’t want to reveal its anti-gender ideology intentions. In hindsight, this is exactly what a former Texas politician with no prior experience working higher education would say in a meeting about higher education.
Instead of overexplaining myself, I want to brief this university on how we’ve forfeited our integrity in favor of arrested development.
We’ve consciously chosen to discourage students from thinking beyond the acceptable threshold of ideas Texas A&M now authorizes. We’re all bearing witness to the institutionalization of intellectual violence at a university that should be free from aggressive political interference.
So, what kind of ideas were not worth investing in and thus taken off the list?
Does an introductory race and ethnicity course inherently offend white students? Is religious studies, by covering belief systems beyond Christianity, actually anti-Christian indoctrination? Is women’s and gender studies emasculating the university such that Aggie men need their mom and dad — the regents — ending our education to “save” their own?
Or is that the rhetoric the regents wants to feed us in hopes that we regurgitate it?
As minors and degrees disappear, the issues of gender discrimination still persist. Students just won’t have classes to talk about it which reads as censorship directed at students, not just faculty. Remember, A&M has only one person, the governor, to convince that they’ve taken care of the “gender” issue. Just imagine how they’d write that up.
What follows from this dogma of appeasement?
Purging the university of “gender ideology” went swiftly because of the new revisions ironically housed under “Civil Rights Protections and Compliances” and the Women’s and Gender Studies program went quicker.
Now their claim of “low enrollment” apparently doesn’t apply to any other major with a low enrollment, for that matter. So why single out the Women’s and Gender Studies program and force its department professors out? Why risk current students being unable to finish their degree in the six semesters allotted to them? Why risk their thousands of dollars in tuition?
A&M’s official statement from Jan. 30 attempts to justify this risk by claiming that the decision to eliminate the Women’s and Gender Studies program was solidified due to “limited student interest.” What’s obviously missing from this one-dimensional portrait of an Aggie is the fact that nothing ever happens in a vacuum, but rather festers in group chats and thank-you notes.
Each scandalous letter and every disgraceful piece of correspondence that comes out indicating the members of the A&M University System Board of Regents were appointed to functionally kill DEI efforts at A&M are appalling. Compiled, they present a clear motive.
Given this latest letter brought to light from 2023, David Baggett wrote to Gov. Greg Abbott stating that he desired to “turn the tide on wokeness,” implying that if he was appointed as a regent, he’d likely shoot anything that walks or talks like an alleged DEI initiative.
Surfaced correspondence disguised as sincere wishes read more like Fox News soundbites congealed into barely legible sentences, gravely disappointing many Aggies — daughter, mother and grandmother if she was allowed to attend A&M when it went officially co-ed in 1969. This public embarrassment transcends generations.
Interestingly enough, Interim President Tommy Williams ‘78 gave The New York Times a more honest answer: He directed the closure because of low enrollment and “the difficulty of bringing the program in compliance with the new system policies.”
So, what’s eating Williams and the regents’ grapes? Is it the sudden lack of student interest, or is it this wretched “gender ideology,” which had manifested itself as a phantasmic seed in the minds of our leadership dating back at least three years?
The bright-eyed high school graduates of 2023 who took a leap of faith by signing up for a humanities degree were set up for failure by the Board of Regents evidenced by the politically charged epithets they’ve hurled at the liberal arts and its well-irritated professors.
What shocks me is how, given their anti-woke crusade, no one is investigating the way by which our university selects its next batch of students. Baggett said that he wanted to “reestablish TAMU as the nation’s most conservative public university.”
However he meant it — admitting more conservative students or hiring more conservative professors — it’s shameful that he’d dilute our wonderful university and everything it has to offer and reduce it to a partisan hive. This is chronically worse than the imaginary professors committing “indoctrination,” since he and other regents may not see partisanship as a private matter.
This means that according to the regents, testing for merit should only matter when they perceive your political identity as inherently less than or an inconvenience, while those who make up the conservative demographic at this university should be welcomed based on their identity. Of course, this is in high hopes that they pledge allegiance to a censorious cause.
Best believe that if this university can reject an Aggie alumna professor based on mere gossip about her personal politics, they can exclude anyone according to any unprincipled impulse they feel. If they so badly desire that this university becomes a country club, why not?
Students and faculty only asked that they be treated with respect to their academic intentions, but were instead used as examples of a baseless policy. The regents decided that they’d be willing to sacrifice vital research, faculty’s financial stability and students’ education long before they even let us through that door. When push came to shove last semester, our grief was their insurance.
The decision to uproot the program so beloved by students of many different backgrounds short circuits our ability to be open to learning. It’s an entirely unreasonable decision motivated by a deepening prejudice against not just ideas or viewpoints, but real students who have been made a national spectacle by our own board.
As a result of this clunky, opportunistic show of power, women and queer Aggies will be carved out of academic life. Unfortunately, the university doesn’t think we deserve to even think along the lines of gender, though it is precisely our gender that politicians won’t shut up about.
I’ll let American abolitionist Sarah Moore Grimké — echoed by the late United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who pioneered legal advocacy for gender equality in education and employment practices — speak for me, as I, a gendered student, cannot, and apparently should not, think for myself:
“But I ask no favors for my sex. … All I ask of our brethren is, that they will take their feet from off our necks.”
Sidney Uy is a philosophy junior and opinion columnist for The Battalion.
Sarge • Mar 3, 2026 at 8:59 am
You could just transfer to a University that offers this degree. Please- everyone will be better off with that/
Greg • Mar 2, 2026 at 12:43 pm
This article fails to mention the lack of enrollment in the Gender Studies Program, the budget figures, and the cost per student. Universities should not just burn money, but should function as businesses. You repeatedly claim that the closure was politically driven, yet the reason is low enrollment and failure to comply with school policy. This is extremely dishonest.
You then commit straw man framing, implying that critics believe that race courses “offend white students”, gender studies emasculate men, and state that religious studies are anti-Christian. You make these claims but fail to cite actual statements of critics or regents making voiceing these statements.
Then you use overdramatic language, undermining any seriousness or credibility that you have. Writing, “Institutionalization of intellectual violence”, “Take your feet off our necks”, “Shoot anything that walks or talks like DEI.” These are rhetorically intense comparisons, framing things as oppression and violence and escalating things with no evidence.
You then argue, “The university is discouraging critical thinking.” Course materials like The Gendered Society by Michael S. Kimmel make strong claims, such as: “Only white people have the luxury not to think about race” and “Only men have the luxury to pretend gender does not matter.” This is not a neutral inquiry. This is not critical thinking and clearly shows a particular ideological lens. This article never quite states what critical thinking the university is attacking or discouraging, and never addresses whether the program had ideological tilt. Instead, it wants you to assume that simply closure of an academic department equals an attack on knowledge.
Additionally, the article states that the enrollment closure was politically motivated and one-dimensional, but it doesn’t address the lack of enrollment. 25 majors, 31 minors. That is a shockingly low number for any school, let alone Texas A&M, which has nearly 75,000 students. That’s a whopping 0.00074666666% of students who are enrolled in this program. The school reviewed over 5,400 syllabi. Only six courses were canceled (~0.11%). If these numbers are accurate, critics could argue: This was not a politically driven purge but a targeted restructuring.
Universities frequently close low-enrollment departments. Curriculum review is normal for any school. Removing a department does not ban ideas. Many of these courses can still exist under other departments in the school.
This biased rhetoric and tone, such as calling this “intellectual violence,” may generate applause and praise from all of your friends with aligned viewpoints, but it does little to persuade those seeking the truth. Also, the heading image is incredibly dishonest and misleading, as you are not a black woman and are trying to silence black women and speak for black ladies.
Justino Russell • Mar 2, 2026 at 1:46 pm
Great response!
Mariposa Gonzales • Mar 4, 2026 at 3:17 pm
You took the words right out of my mouth. I applaud A&M for this decision. Moreover, I noted how the author neglected to whip out his list benefits classes like these offer those willing to voluntarily take these classes even if offered? “We need to hire a Gender Studies Major quick!!! Its our only chance…!!!” said no CEO EVER. We have had these majors for long enough to see that they are utterly worthless in the real world and the VAST majority are working outside the field of study they spent years and thousands of dollars on. It may not seem like it while the wound is still so fresh and the tears still shining on Sidney’s face… but this is exactly the medicine needed by ANY person still trying to make their ENTIRE LIFE about something so inconsequential as how you like your sex. Step outside Sidney…take a walk in the beautiful sunshine. Reject nihilism, stop demanding pity, pick up some responsibility for ANYTHING besides yourself. Get your hands dirty. You will be much better off without any degree than with one in Gender Studies… as hiring managers see that and know exactly what they are in for if they were to hire you… lawsuits, more HR staff, hurt feelers, and an overall less cohesive team.
I hope things get better for xer/xim.
Greg • Mar 2, 2026 at 12:40 pm
This article fails to mention the lack of enrollment in the Gender Studies Program, the budget figures, and the cost per student. Universities should not just burn money, but should function as businesses. You repeatedly claim that the closure was politically driven, yet the reason is low enrollment and failure to comply with school policy. This is extremely dishonest.
You then commit straw man framing, implying that critics believe that race courses “offend white students”, gender studies emasculate men, and state that religious studies are anti-Christian. You make these claims but fail to cite actual statements of critics or regents making voiceing these statements.
Then you use overdramatic language, undermining any seriousness or credibility that you have. Writing, “Institutionalization of intellectual violence”, “Take your feet off our necks”, “Shoot anything that walks or talks like DEI.” These are rhetorically intense comparisons, framing things as oppression and violence and escalating things with no evidence.
You then argue, “The university is discouraging critical thinking.” Course materials like The Gendered Society by Michael S. Kimmel make strong claims, such as: “Only white people have the luxury not to think about race” and “Only men have the luxury to pretend gender does not matter.” This is not a neutral inquiry. This is not critical thinking and clearly shows a particular ideological lens. This article never quite states what critical thinking the university is attacking or discouraging, and never addresses whether the program had ideological tilt. Instead, it wants you to assume that simply closure of an academic department equals an attack on knowledge.
Additionally, the article states that the enrollment closure was politically motivated and one-dimensional, but it doesn’t address the lack of enrollment. 25 majors, 31 minors. That is a shockingly low number for any school, let alone Texas A&M, which has nearly 75,000 students. That’s a whopping 0.00074666666% of students who are enrolled in this program. The school reviewed over 5,400 syllabi. Only six courses were canceled (~0.11%). If these numbers are accurate, critics could argue: This was not a politically driven purge but a targeted restructuring.
Universities frequently close low-enrollment departments. Curriculum review is normal for any school. Removing a department does not ban ideas. Many of these courses can still exist under other departments in the school.
This biased rhetoric and tone, such as calling this “intellectual violence,” may generate applause and praise from all of your friends with aligned viewpoints, but it does little to persuade those seeking the truth. Also, the heading image is incredibly dishonest and racist, as you are not a black woman and are trying to silence black women and speak for them.
Isabella Garcia • Mar 2, 2026 at 11:34 am
really powerful stuff sidney<3
Greg • Mar 2, 2026 at 12:42 pm
Not powerful at all. Full of rhetorical fallacies, strawmans etc. This article fails to mention the lack of enrollment in the Gender Studies Program. Very dishonest framing, implying that critics believe that race courses “offend white students”, gender studies emasculate men, and state that religious studies are anti-Christian. You make these claims but fail to cite actual statements of critics or regents making voiceing these statements.
Also full of overdramatic language, undermining any seriousness or credibility that you have. Writing, “Institutionalization of intellectual violence”, “Take your feet off our necks”, “Shoot anything that walks or talks like DEI.” These are rhetorically intense comparisons, framing things as oppression and violence and escalating things with no evidence.
Sonya Wilson • Mar 2, 2026 at 4:21 pm
Give it up, dude. This was an opinion, and labeled clearly as such
You aren’t even sharp enough to realize that you posted your own opinion in rebuttal twice.
Greg • Mar 4, 2026 at 10:01 am
So you are insinuating that opinion pieces are void of criticism? The author penned an opinion piece, and I wrote a rebuttal. That’s how it works. Instead of personally attacking me, you should prove why my claims are false and wrong. But you can’t do that beacause its correct.