Full Interview: State Senator Brandon Creighton talks DEI ban

AUSTIN (Nexstar) — Texas’ ban on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in state colleges and universities went into effect on the first of the year.

State Sen. Brandon Creighton is warning institutions that there are consequences for failing to comply. In a letter last week, Creighton requested that university leaders report their compliance efforts at a May hearing of the Senate Committee on Education.

Nexstar Capitol reporter Ryan Chandler sat down with Creighton to discuss the inadvertent effects of the ban, the penalties universities could face for trying to get around it and school choice.

Ryan Chandler: I first want to ask why you felt the need to remind these chancellor’s and regents about their obligations. Did you see a lack of compliance so far? I know we’ve only been in this law for three months, but survey the land for us around the state?

Creighton: “Great question. Yes, we’re working towards interim hearings. As the election cycle closes out, and the run-offs are coming to sort of finality at the May 28 deadline, for election night, we’re going to quickly proceed into interim hearings. As Senate Education [Committee] has plans to advance charges for the rest of the interim, we felt it necessary to make sure that university leadership understands that the committee has very strong intentions to make sure that our new DEI ban is enforced.

So yes, we sent what you phrased as a ‘stern’ letter. I take it as certainly respectful rhetoric that we sent in their direction, but we want them to know that they’ll be coming into hearing soon to talk about compliance.”

Chandler: You said simply renaming offices of diversity, equity inclusion is not sufficient. Do you get the sense that universities are trying to preserve some of the integrity of these DEI offices while still trying to comply on the margin? 

Creighton: “We have feedback from campuses all over the state on either progress with implementing the laws as intended, or, you know, continuing efforts to, in some cases subvert the intentions and the spirit of the law. So that’s what the hearings are for, is just to get reports from university leadership and general counsel to make sure that those campuses are in compliance. There may be some things that we’re learning about that they don’t yet know about.

I mean, these universities are huge, right? In their budgets and in their bureaucracy and in their efforts. So communication is the key. And I think that they’re well intentioned and following the law. But at the end of the day, we just have to make sure that they are.”

Chandler: When you’re working with these university leaders, are you getting the sense that some of these changes are welcome? Or are you getting more pushback?

Creighton: “We have great relationships with leadership at each of our university campuses, our chancellors, our regents, the presidents of the university themselves. I get the sense that they want to follow the law and the spirit and intent of the law. But there are always differences of opinion on campus and different goals, depending on the school, depending on the institution itself. That’s the case with this DEI ban, it’s the case without it. We’ve got a much bigger and broader reform agenda than just DEI.

We’re listening to the public, we’re making sure that our flagship universities and our taxpayer-funded public universities across the state stay strong. And that’s our goal. For the Senate Education Committee, we’re in the oversight position, it’s our obligation.”

Chandler: You wrote in this letter, elaborating on your intention behind Senate Bill 17, that SB 17, ‘which returns universities to a merit-based framework, ensuring every student and staff member is afforded equal opportunities and not silenced by DEI’. In your estimation, who and what were being ‘silenced’ by DEI?

Creighton: “We went through eight hours of debate on the Senate floor on those examples and 100 steps through the legislative process of almost a full year in regular sessions and special sessions to illustrate quite a bit of that. But in a nutshell, to just summarize, we had Asian American students that were being excluded from DEI strategies on public university campuses. We had political loyalty oaths required of university faculty, applicants that were applying for jobs. We had examples like that, in and of themselves was a chilling effect on free speech, right? If you don’t have free speech, you don’t have inclusion, if you don’t have inclusion DEI falls.

So it’s our obligation and intent to make sure that as we’re seeking diverse outcomes, that we don’t bring the results that DEI offices were bringing. Which is [in] over 10 years of DEI, across our public university landscape, university faculty hiring, diverse university faculty hiring and minority faculty recruitment and hiring had gone backwards, had diminished over that 10 years. That’s not what the offices were intended to be, and so we’re moving that aside and starting over with new plans.”

Chandler: Is the main intent of this bill more directed at the hiring and the admission side of inclusion and race neutral policies? Or is it broader than that? 

I want to give you an example. I think there is a sense among some students that this bill may have forced a bit of an overcorrection. I was on campus a couple months ago talking with students about how they’re seeing this bill play out on campus, and I met a young Indian woman who participates in an Indian dance group. They, you know, host fundraisers to showcase their culture, and they compete with other Indian dance groups. And she said that because of this bill, the university wasn’t sure if they could fund that group anymore. And they were out of funding. Does that sound like the intention of this bill? Do you think that the university properly applied it in that sense?

Creighton: “I think that university general counsel, depending on who they are, and how narrow of a focus they have on interpreting certain provisions, they’re going to be very cautious on how they advise these campuses to comply. For certain affinity groups within the legislation, like you mentioned, they’re protected under the bill. The bill certainly is from a much broader sense about faculty hiring. But there are provisions in the bill that make sure that mandatory pronoun training and some other things that were going on within these DEI units and strategies, that those can no longer be carried out. No matter what it’s called.

The nomenclature itself is focused on diversity, equity and inclusion. But at the end of the day, the bill prevents the relaunching and renaming and reauthorizing of those same efforts under a different umbrella. And I think the attorneys for these universities are being cautious in exactly what those provisions require, because funding for universities can be frozen if they’re out of compliance.”

Chandler: So specific cultural groups for students that students may have formed themselves and then request university funding for those would not fall under the purview of this ban. Is that your understanding?

Creighton: “I mentioned groups, affinity groups. When you go into requesting university funding, then there’s going to be some strict guidance from the general counsel of those universities on how and what ways university funding public taxpayer dollars can be used. That’s going to be up to the general counsel for those institutions to advise.”

Chandler: Do you get the sense that universities maybe just don’t quite understand how to enforce this yet? Is that something that you may address in these May hearings?

Creighton: “That may be the case. I think that’s why there are differing opinions on what counsel for one institution may offer forward as advice and what counsel for another institution may offer forward. But that’s what our interim hearings are for not just a compliance checklist, but also to give guidance, if there are questions along those lines.”

Chandler: Critics of this bill have argued that students and faculty have been playing on an uneven field for decades, right? I mean, the University of Texas didn’t even accept a Black student until the 1950s. And some people see diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as a way to kind of level the playing field and include more of those historically disadvantaged groups. Do you worry about that criticism at all? What’s your response to that?

Creighton: “Well, you can look at the breakdown of representation on our Texas public university campuses as it is today and see the incredible diverse student body across all of these campuses now. So no, I’m not as much worried about that. But what I am concerned about is hiring based on anything but merit. If we’re not looking at merit, confidence, work experience, prior education. If we’re not looking at how that particular professor, as an applicant is published, has brought research dollars to the university, and has a return on investment that we can count on.

If those aren’t the things that we’re looking at first, merit-based hiring, then our higher education institutions are not going to be what the Texas taxpayer and what the public overall expects. It’s not going to be a learning environment that we expect for our future workforce, and we’re going to be at a disadvantage. So I think there’s a misunderstanding that removing DEI units is somehow something other than a goal to advance forward with more diverse outcomes. Those are not linked together.

We’re going to continue to pursue diverse outcomes with student body applications and with professors that apply. But those were not being delivered as outcomes under DEI units, DEI units had absolutely failed in that regard, and had weaponized in certain circumstances themselves against other minority student populations and applicants.

So leftist political loyalty oaths, that is just not something that we can allow to be a requirement for new professors applying, where essentially, we had a neon sign above the door of every HR department of every public university in the state that said, if you are a moderate to conservative you need not apply here. And that is not what DEI units were launched to accomplish.”

Chandler: I want to make sure to touch on one more issue that you championed in the last session, the issue of school choice and education savings accounts, quite the primary cycle for supporters of that. Are you more optimistic that you may be able to get that issue across to the governor’s desk this next session?

Creighton: “Well, we passed it several times off the Senate floor and so much in your chamber, and don’t mistake the Senate passing it several times as an indication that we didn’t have our own, you know, sort of heartfelt conversations about the best way to tailor the bill and in the details and provisions. I don’t want to say we made it look easy. But at the end of the day, Texas should be a state that offers moms and dads a choice for their kids and their specific education needs.

We certainly shouldn’t be following any state in America as we would be the 32nd state in America to expand school choice, and the eighth or ninth to offer education savings accounts. We should be out front on all education opportunities for our future workforce.”

Chandler: Your bill, correct me if I’m wrong here, but in my memory, it offered $8,000 to families based on the income level and need, disabilities, things like that. Do you anticipate if the house is friendlier to ESA next session that you may file a bill that is even more expansive? 

Creighton: “Well, we had a universal education savings account bill as it passed off the Senate floor. But you’re right, it was weighted towards a preference for the use of the dollars, 90% of the weighted formula benefited special needs kids and free and reduced lunch-eligible students.

Will the framework change based on faces in the legislature changing? I’m not so sure of that.

I think that we were very proud of the bill that we had in place and there may be variables or details that evolve as we negotiate with members of our chamber or with the House. We’ll just have to see.”

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to KXAN Austin.