At Liberty Live! Feat. Olivia Wilde and Katie Silberman on “Booksmart”

HOUSTON – A group of professors filed suit Monday night challenging the Texas A&M University System’s new censorship policy that prohibits faculty from discussing certain topics and viewpoints related to race, sexual orientation, and gender. “My ethics course — the only one of its kind available to graduate students — was canceled for noncompliance with a draconian censorship policy,” said Leonard Bright (he/him), lead plaintiff, professor of Public Service and Administration, and president of the Texas A&M College Station chapter of the AAUP. “This policy has impacted my ability to do my job, my students’ ability to learn, and my colleagues’ ability to teach without fear of reprisal. The chilling effect of this policy is vast and immeasurable, and it poisons the very soul of what a university should be: a place where ideas are free to roam, and debate is uninhibited by the political winds.” The policy, which was implemented in late 2025 and requires extensive, bureaucratic syllabi review, has resulted in prohibitions on everything from the Oscar-winning film “Moonlight” to Plato’s writings on gender. The faculty impacted by this policy work throughout the Texas A&M System, which includes 12 universities, and across departments, from the Bush School of Government and Public Service to the English department. “The First Amendment plainly prohibits this egregious attack on academic freedom at a public university,” said Emerson Sykes (he/him), senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “This broad policy and the university’s opaque enforcement process makes it impossible to teach or to learn freely and endangers course content about everything from the history of slavery to Shakespeare to the hard sciences. Universities are sites of inquiry, debate, and discovery — banning entire categories of ideas is a betrayal of both their mission and the First Amendment.” The censorship policy was implemented in November 2025 amid a sustained campaign to limit speech on certain topics in the college classroom. As a result of the policy change, numerous classes have been cancelled or forced to remove content. The women’s and gender studies program has been shuttered altogether because the program could not be reconciled with the new censorship policy. “This policy directly harms Black, Brown, LGBTQIA+, and all other Texans who have historically been discriminated against by subjecting discussion of their rights, identities, and indeed very existence to heavy-handed censorship.” said Chloe Kempf (she/her), staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas. “What’s more, it undermines all Texans’ First Amendment rights. If public officials can abuse their power to ban these topics and perspectives today, there’s nothing stopping them from targeting other subjects and points of view, including your own, down the line.” Cancelled courses include Religions of the World; Introduction to Race and Ethnicity; Ethics in Public Policy; and a course focused on LGBTQ+ literature. Professors have been forced to edit their syllabi to comply with the policy, removing works like Plato’s “Myth of Androgyne;” Kevin Kruse’s “White Flight;” and even the Academy Award-winning film “Moonlight.” One history professor was allowed to teach Phyllis Schlafly’s campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment, but not about how the Fourteenth Amendment expanded to protect women and LGBTQ+ people. “By embarking on a campaign of censorship, Texas A&M has abdicated its responsibility to support students’ right to learn and faculty’s right to teach,” said Todd Wolfson (he/him), president of the AAUP. “A university that censors Plato — as well as other significant texts — abandons its obligation to truth, free inquiry, and the public trust.” The suit was filed on behalf of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and Professors Leonard Bright, Vanita Reddy, Landon Sadler, and Aaron George in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint argues that the censorship policy governing Texas A&M is unconstitutionally vague and violates the First Amendment by discriminating against certain viewpoints. “We’re proud to represent these professors challenging a censorship policy that betrays Texas A&M’s established legacy as an institution that supports free and open inquiry,” said Jamie A. Aycock (he/him), attorney at Yetter Coleman LLP. “At stake in this lawsuit is the bedrock First Amendment principle that America is strengthened by and depends upon open public debate, even on the most controversial topics. Nowhere is this more important than in our public academic institutions, which are charged with developing and teaching our future leaders to think critically and broadly about pressing issues affecting society.” You can read the complaint here.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit in 2022 on behalf of professors forced to censor race and gender in their instruction.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Four free speech groups filed a joint comment with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) asking it to stop retaliating against ABC for the network’s editorial choices. Earlier this spring, the FCC called for 8 Disney-owned ABC stations throughout the country to undergo license renewal, all years earlier than required, in apparent retaliation for Jimmy Kimmel’s jokes about the Trump administration. The comment argues that the early license renewal is unconstitutional jawboning: “When the chairman of a government entity with complete power over the stations’ very existence wields that power to jawbone disfavored speakers, it cuts against the very core of what the First Amendment protects. If the government can keep disfavored media off the air, it can deprive the entire American public of a free media landscape – a landscape that is an essential pillar of not just our Constitution, but also our liberty and democracy.” “The FCC’s treatment of ABC is a clear and alarming abuse of power,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. “The administration cannot pressure networks to censor reporters, comedians, and critics simply because it doesn’t like what they have to say. That goes against the very core of the First Amendment and poses an existential threat to our democracy. The FCC must drop this proceeding now.” Tens of thousands of people have flooded the public comment docket in defense of ABC, Jimmy Kimmel, and the First Amendment. By law, the commission is required to review all comments that are posted during the public comment period. “Government officials cannot use their regulatory authority to coerce broadcasters into censoring or distorting protected speech. Yet that’s exactly what’s happening here,” said Ryan Morgan, policy fellow at the Knight First Amendment Institute. “These proceedings turn the FCC’s licensing authority into a tool for dictating which voices and viewpoints broadcasters carry. That’s precisely the kind of government coercion the First Amendment forbids.” Last year, the FCC pressured ABC to take Jimmy Kimmel’s show off the air after President Trump criticized the show and Kimmel’s jokes about his administration. After an intense public pressure campaign, including an open letter signed by nearly 500 high-profile artists and over 40,000 people, the show was returned to air. “This is yet another example of the FCC crusade to bludgeon broadcasters into submission,” said Erika Sanders, counsel at the National Coalition Against Censorship. “There is zero doubt that Chairman Carr believes the mandate of the FCC is to serve as the chief enforcer of the President’s propaganda — a belief that is as wrong as it is dangerous to the freedom of expression.” The comment was submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), the Future of Free Speech, and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Earlier this week, the ACLU, NCAC, and 20 other advocacy organizations sent a letter to Disney thanking them for defending the First Amendment and encouraging them to continue fighting the FCC’s unconstitutional attacks. “When a license can be threatened over a joke or a newsroom’s editorial judgment, broadcasters stop waiting to be censored and start self censoring,” said Ashkhen Kazaryan, senior legal fellow at The Future of Free Speech. That is the chilling effect the First Amendment exists to prevent.”