Texas Tech tells faculty to revise instruction, recognize only two sexes in classrooms

Texas Tech University System Chancellor Tedd L. Mitchell directed university presidents on Thursday to recognize only two genders in classroom settings—male and female—and said that all employees must follow the law regardless of personal views. The memo frames compliance as a core obligation for public higher education, tying it to both state and federal statutes, as well as executive directives from figures including President Donald Trump and Texas Governor Greg Abbott. It also cites explicit language in current law that recognizes two sexes, referring to Texas House Bill 229, a letter from the governor, and an executive order as the basis for the policy. Texas Tech University, a public research university in Lubbock, Tex., is among the system’s campuses affected by the directive.

Mitchell acknowledged that staff may hold differing personal views on gender matters, but stressed that in their professional roles as state employees they must comply with the law while instructing students. The memo directs administrations to review course materials, curricula, syllabi, and other instructional documents to ensure alignment with the law and to make adjustments as needed. It also notes that the area of gender policy and law is evolving and that changes may come as new guidance is issued at both the state and federal levels.

The chancellor said that faculty may hold personal opinions but that compliance with the law is mandatory and that he trusts in the professionalism of university staff to uphold their responsibilities. He added that institutions should remain attentive to developments in this area, including updates from accrediting bodies and other official guidance. Mitchell further indicated that accreditors and professional associations have begun recognizing these shifts and are working with programs to balance educational commitments with legal requirements. Accrediting organizations such as the American Psychological Association and the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs have signaled alignment with the changes, he noted, while programs and campuses adapt their curricula accordingly. Faculty are urged to bring questions to their deans and provosts as changes roll out.

While the memo does not reference any specific incident, Mitchell framed recent developments across Texas universities as underscoring the importance of understanding compliance obligations. He stressed that these are not matters of opinion but legal obligations that shape how courses are designed, taught, and assessed. The directive also underscores the ongoing role of state leaders in shaping higher education policies and the need for campuses to monitor evolving guidance at the state and federal levels. The memo reiterates that current law recognizes only two sexes and that institutions must reflect that in instruction and materials, with adjustments made where necessary.

The policy drew attention in part because it echoes public debates over gender identity in education and has intersected with actions at other Texas campuses. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Expression has criticized similar measures elsewhere, including a policy at Angelo State University that restricted faculty discussions of transgender topics or the notion of more than two genders. FIRE argued in a letter to Angelo State that the policy infringed on First Amendment rights and urged withdrawal. Texas Tech and FIRE did not respond to requests for comment regarding the system-wide directive.

State leaders have repeatedly tied the issue to a broader legal landscape. Abbott’s January 30 letter instructed state agency heads to adhere to both state and federal law when addressing gender issues and to reject ideologies deemed radical by the administration. In that context, Mitchell’s memo positions the Texas Tech system as an institution implementing those directives across its campuses. Administrators at member universities are expected to review and adjust courses to ensure compliance, and the system has signaled that the policy will be applied broadly, not just in a single department or program.

The developments come as higher education institutions confront evolving guidance from state authorities and national accrediting bodies. Some advocates and scholars warn that these shifts could have broad implications for curricular autonomy and academic inquiry, while supporters argue that public universities have a duty to implement policies consistent with applicable laws and official directives. The memo also notes that staff may have questions about how to interpret or apply the guidance in diverse classroom settings, directing them to consult with their deans and provosts as needed.

As the policy takes hold, observers will be watching for how campuses operationalize course changes, how students respond, and whether further clarifications from state or federal authorities alter the interpretation of what constitutes acceptable course content. In the interim, the Texas Tech directive serves as a concrete example of how state-level policy aims are translated into classroom-level requirements within public universities.

For Abbott, Mitchell, and other state leaders, the issue remains a live test of how laws and executive directives interact with campus governance and academic freedom. As guidance continues to develop, universities will likely continue to adjust syllabi, reading lists, and classroom policies to reflect the evolving landscape, even as they navigate the potential tensions between compliance and scholarly debate.

The situation at Texas Tech mirrors a broader pattern in Texas higher education, where state officials have signaled that public universities must implement policies in line with the letter and spirit of state law and executive guidance. As new guidance emerges, university leaders will brief faculty and staff on how to apply the rules in classrooms, laboratories, and advising spaces, while continuing to balance academic freedom with legal compliance. The ongoing dialogue between lawmakers, regulators, accrediting bodies, and campus administrators will shape how gender-related topics are taught and discussed in the state’s public universities in the months ahead.