FEATURED
Campus legal group says university is misinterpreting DEI ban, but Texas policy leader disagrees
The University of North Texas’s recent denial of journalism professors’ request to pay for their membership to an academic association is stirring up conflict about the specific requirements of state DEI legislation and the impact on public universities.
Tracy Everbach is the professor at the center of the case. For years, she and her colleagues have been members of the Association of Education in Journalism and Mass Communication and have attended the annual conference to present their research —something that is necessary to obtain tenure— on the public university’s dime.
“If you’re a tenure track professor … you need to do research and go and present it at these conferences,” Everbach said in a recent phone interview with The College Fix. “Back when I was in grad school, 25 years ago, that’s what my advisor told me; … if you’re gonna be a journalism professor, you need to go and present your research at this conference.”
This year, Everbach and her colleagues again submitted their yearly request to fund their memberships, as well as their conference registration and travel expenses.
But this time the response was different. “First our dean told us that they wouldn’t pay for the registration or the membership. And then they came back and they said, ‘No, we’ll pay the registration but not the membership,’” she said.
An active membership with the AEJMC is required to attend the conference.
Everbach said that in the rejection letter from UNT, the professors were told that their funding for membership renewal would violate the state DEI ban.
Texas Senate Bill 17 prohibits public universities from funding any diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, including hiring based on race, sex, ethnicity, or funding DEI offices or programs that provide mandatory DEI training for faculty and staff. It also prohibits funding for “third-party” contracts for DEI.
The law, which went into effect at the start of 2024, requires public universities to verify their compliance with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board in order to continue to receive state funding.
Everbach said that in denying to pay for the memberships, the university’s “argument is that [the AEJMC] is performing the duties of a DE and I office.”
The university’s claim is based on the journalism association’s support for DEI in its Code of Ethics. “AEJMC members work to ensure that racial, gender, and cultural inclusiveness are included in curricula, considered during hiring decisions, and taken seriously by media organizations with which we collaborate,” the code states.
Responding to this, Everbach told The Fix, “There’s no DEI training that goes on at this conference; it’s people presenting their research and teaching … I’ve been going to this conference for more than 20 years and I’ve never seen any kind of training of DE and I stuff going on there.”
On July 21, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sent a letter to the UNT president’s office, demanding that the decision be reversed and the funding be provided for the memberships of the university’s faculty.
Marie McMullan, student press counsel at FIRE, told The Fix that UNT’s application of SB17 was incorrect. The campus legal organization is dedicated to defending the right of Americans to exercise free speech.
“Everbach’s membership of AEJMC … does not require her to perform any duties of a DEI office,” McMullan said in a recent email. “That membership allows Everbach to attend an academic conference and be a part of a prestigious research organization; it doesn’t require her to carry out the duties of a DEI office.”
Neither university media relations office nor the president’s office responded to recent emails from The Fix asking about Everbach’s request and FIRE’s letter.
However, Sherry Sylvester, a distinguished senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, disagrees with FIRE.
“In terms of FIRE, there is no violation of Freedom of Speech in SB 17,” she told The Fix.
Sylvester, whose organization opposes DEI, said the university was right to deny the funding.
“The AEJMC is a pro-DEI, left-leaning organization and that has been actively involved in lobbying against Texas higher education reforms.,” she said. “Taxpayers should not be underwriting the participation of any state employee (which Dr. Everbach is) in the organization. If Dr. Everbach wants to go, she should pay for it herself.”
In regard to FIRE’s request for UNT to go back on its initial decision, Sylvester said: “UNT is correctly interpreting Senate Bill 17, legislation that is closely monitored by the Texas Legislature as well as the Higher Education Coordinating Board.”
Because of this “close monitoring,” Sylvester believes it is “unlikely they will reverse their decision,” and that she “certainly hope[s] that they don’t.”
Everbach said she finds it particularly odd that UNT cited SB17 as the reason for denying her request this year, despite approving her request for the last two years when SB17 was also in effect.
However, the sudden crackdown on this law does not seem to be an isolated incident. This year many public universities in Texas have been cutting funding in any area that could potentially raise red flags where SB17 is concerned.
Some believe this to be due to the 2025 enactment of Texas Senate Bill 37, which changes who influences a university’s curriculum. The law says that while elected faculty senates may still advise, their role is now explicitly defined as advisory only. The law reaffirms that final authority over decisions of curricula as well as certain hiring decisions belong to the institution’s board of regents.
Members of the board of regents are appointed by the governor of Texas and confirmed by the Texas Senate.
Faculty senates were previously elected by fellow faculty members. The bill’s supporters argue that this is what allowed courses that GOP lawmakers viewed as “indoctrination” to continue to be a part of the curriculum. Under SB37, it is now the board of regents that selects the members on the faculty senate, meaning not only does the faculty senate have less sway, but it is no longer an independent body.
Many public universities across Texas have had major changes in their administration —including at UNT— in order to comply with SB37. The new boards at schools such as the University of Houston and Texas Tech have cut classes — many of which were once core degree requirements — due to their focus on topics like race, gender, and sexuality.
The American Association of University Professors expressed its vehement disapproval of SB37 in a June 9, 2025 blog post, saying that it is an “omnibus bill overhauling faculty roles in governance at public community colleges, universities, and health institutions” and puts too much in the control of politicians.
While a nonpartisan organization, the majority of AAUP’s members are left leaning. The association also recently endorsed a Democratic U.S. senate candidate in Michigan, its first official endorsement of a political candidate, Inside Higher Ed reports.
On the other side of the debate, conservatives have expressed their support for the changes. In an article at Minding the Campus, Adam Kissel of the Heritage Foundation wrote that SB37 will “empower governing boards to reform the general education curriculum and ensure that senior administrators are aligned with the board’s agenda of education instead of indoctrination.”
Kissel also made note of the fact that SB37 requires schools to “reveal their records to the ombudsman,” which he believes will make it much harder than before to get away with any violations of the DEI ban.
As for Everbach and her colleagues, they still await UNT’s final decision.
McMullan of FIRE told The Fix: “We hope UNT does what it has in the past, including since SB 17 was enacted, up until this year: Fund AEJMC memberships for its professors.”
MORE: Gov. Abbott signs law abolishing DEI offices at Texas colleges, universities
