Oct 15, 2024 Story by: Editor
Students across Texas are experiencing the effects of Texas Senate Bill 17. Maurice Cruz, the former president of the Black Student Union at a university in North Texas, has voiced his concerns about the impact of SB 17 on his student organization, saying, “I just want to be a student again.” He has expressed his desire to restore a sense of normalcy and academic focus despite the changes brought about by this legislation. Cruz has spent many nights worrying about the implications of Texas Senate Bill 17 (SB 17), which prohibits diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices and initiatives at state colleges and universities, on his student organization.
His concerns are valid. Although SB 17 is not specifically aimed at student organizations—purportedly exempting those registered or recognized by higher education institutions—it has significantly weakened support for many of them. Since the law took effect on January 1, 2024, various offices, programs, and positions that directly assisted student groups have been eliminated. Black student unions are particularly vulnerable, as they often depend on university staff and funding typically provided through DEI offices to sustain and grow their organizations.
To understand the law’s impact, I spoke with four student leaders. They shared that the ambiguity surrounding SB 17 leads to varying effects at different universities. Some institutions are seeking ways to support student groups while remaining compliant, while others are overly cautious due to fears of breaching the new law. Several student leaders noted that the legislation has already created a chilling effect on their organizations, which are vital for fostering support and community for underrepresented students historically excluded from college campuses.
Aaliyah Barlow, former president of the Black Student Alliance at the University of Texas at Austin, stated that their mission is to create “a place of community for Black students to come together to talk about our experiences and work through them together.” She expressed that the “funding we used to receive from DEI offices that are now closed is completely gone, and funding from other non-DEI departments has been reduced as well,” which has negatively impacted their programming and limited members’ participation in student conferences.
Maurice Cruz, from the Black Student Union at the University of North Texas, aims to “promote Black joy and excellence while promoting activism in the community.” He shared that, although they managed to secure some funding for essential events, they faced “brutal and intense questioning from university staff that brought some student leaders to tears.” These obstacles delayed event planning, and when they sought clarification from university officials about how their groups would be affected, they received vague responses. After meeting with university leaders, Maurice was told his group wouldn’t be impacted. However, upon returning from winter break, he was shocked to discover that faculty advisers had been reassigned and funding had been restricted.
Other student leaders, like Joshua Martin, former president of a Black Student Union at another Texas university, commended administrators and faculty for their efforts to support students despite the challenges posed by the law. “Although the law did affect us in ways, the staff and faculty on campus still did everything they could to support us while following the law,” he noted.
Brianna Scott, the current president of the Black Student Association, mentioned that administrators at her university sought student input before implementing some mandatory changes. “When the Black Cultural Center had to get renamed, they invited students into the conversation about what the new name should be,” she said. This demonstrated to Brianna and her organization that the university is committed to supporting them, for which she is grateful. “I know some campuses have been through a lot, and every campus is different. We are grateful that our administration is trying to help us.”
All the student leaders I interviewed remain dedicated to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education—values that emerged from the civil rights movement and aim to eliminate discrimination in education and the workplace. When asked how policymakers could improve the situation, Joshua suggested, “If policymakers began listening to student[s], they might feel differently about DEI.” He emphasized that DEI has become a politicized term often misunderstood; at its core, it focuses on embracing differences, providing resources, and creating safe spaces for underrepresented students facing the unique challenges of college life. Maurice echoed the need to amplify these students’ voices in the decision-making process, stating, “We are OK with change; we just want to be a part of it.”
As universities navigate compliance with SB 17 while safeguarding student groups, it’s essential to recognize that these objectives are not mutually exclusive. Despite the current political climate, which is often driven by fear and legal disputes, institutions have a responsibility to ensure that students and student organizations can thrive under SB 17.
However, the lack of clarity in SB 17 imposes an unnecessary burden on those whom leaders claim to protect: the students. Policymakers must elucidate the rights that student organizations have under SB 17. The student leaders I spoke with hope that policymakers, advocates, and institutions will take into account the needs of all students, particularly students of color, who merely seek a safe and welcoming environment on their campuses and now find themselves collateral damage in the ongoing political culture war. Picture a group of ten students meeting in a room for their club; what harm can there be in that? Source: edtrust
