University professors across the political spectrum in Texas are preemptively self-censoring themselves for fear of damaging their reputations or losing their jobs, according to a new survey from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a First Amendment advocacy group.

More than 6,200 professors from across the country responded to the survey on the climate of free speech and academic freedom on their campuses, one of the largest surveys of its kind, according to FIRE. Respondents included more than 200 professors at the University of Texas at Austin, nearly 50 at the University of Texas at Dallas and more than 165 at Texas A&M University in College Station.

According to survey results, 35% of all respondents said they recently toned down their writing for fear of controversy and 27% felt unable to speak freely for fear of how students or administrators might respond. Nearly a quarter of faculty worry about losing their jobs over a misunderstanding.

The worries were higher among faculty at Texas universities. At UT-Austin, more than half of the faculty respondents said they occasionally or often do not share their opinions because they worry how others might respond. Nearly half of faculty respondents at UT-Dallas said they had toned down their writing to avoid pushback.

“Faculty are not conflating self-censorship with being polite or professional — that would be categorically different,” the report stated. “Rather, consistent proportions of faculty report that they are likely to refrain from sharing their views in various professional and conversational contexts for fear of social, professional, legal, or violent consequences.”

FIRE said this climate is unsustainable for higher education.

“The academy needs courageous faculty who are not afraid to research, write about, or teach topics that some may shy away from because they are labeled as controversial — to ask and investigate unasked and unanswered questions,” the report concludes. “And the academy needs more faculty who are not afraid to support colleagues who themselves are afraid, or who have been targeted and have come under fire for their speech or academic endeavors. Consistent support from institutional administrations would not hurt either.”

According to the report, one faculty member at Texas A&M said they are actively avoiding aspects of the job due to the climate on campus.

“I am starting (for the first time in my career) to censor myself out of a desire for self-preservation,” the faculty member told FIRE. “I say nothing at all in faculty meetings now, if I attend at all.”

A UT-Austin professor said they feel pressure to conceal certain opinions.

“The atmosphere in certain academic units can be cult-like and fascistic and I really feel I have to pick my battles,” the professor said.

The report highlighted an incident at Texas A&M last year in which the school watered down a job offer to Kathleen McElroy, a Black journalism professor, after the Board of Regents and alumni groups criticized her previous employers, her diversity, equity and inclusion work and her research on race.

McElroy decided to decline the offer and stay at her current job at UT-Austin after an A&M administrator told her he could not protect her if the regents wanted to terminate her. The Texas A&M System paid her a $1 million settlement after acknowledging mistakes were made during the hiring process.

FIRE’s survey found self-censorship was more prevalent among conservative faculty. Around 55% of faculty who identified themselves as conservative reported they self-censor, compared to 17% of faculty who said they were liberal. The survey also found that faculty are more likely to be skeptical of conservative peers, indicating in the survey that a conservative faculty member would be a poor fit in their department.

Two-thirds of respondents said universities should not take positions on political and social issues. That number was higher in Texas. Around 70% of the faculty respondents at Texas A&M, UT-Austin and UT-Dallas supported institutional neutrality.

Earlier this year, the University of Texas System Board of Regents adopted an institutional neutrality policy after UT-Austin became ground zero in Texas for clashes over the Israel-Hamas war. Around 70% of survey respondents said the conflict was the most difficult issue to discuss on the flagship campus, along with racial inequality and transgender rights. At Texas A&M, the three more difficult issues for faculty to discuss on campus were racial inequality, trans rights and abortion.

Overall, half of the faculty who responded to the survey said it is rarely or never justified to require job candidates to submit diversity statements, written statements in which job seekers explain how they might support diversity, equity and inclusion efforts if hired. Last legislative session, Texas lawmakers banned diversity statements at public colleges and universities as part of Senate Bill 17, the law that eliminated diversity, equity and inclusion offices on campuses.

Many survey respondents said they don’t believe administrators at their universities will push back against governing boards or politicians to protect free speech on campus.

At Texas A&M, 45% of respondents felt academic freedom — the longstanding principle that protects faculty’s ability to pursue teaching and research activities without political interference — was somewhat secure on campus. More than a third of respondents said they’re not sure A&M administrators would protect free speech on campus.

Last year, Texas A&M University System leaders directed the school to put a professor on paid administrative leave after a well-connected student complained that the professor allegedly criticized Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick during a lecture. Text messages showed Texas A&M System Chancellor John Sharp directed the system’s flagship university to put the professor on paid administrative leave while school officials investigated the complaint. He also updated the lieutenant governor on the status of the investigation, which eventually found that the complaint was unsubstantiated. Faculty said the incident created a chilling effect on campus.

FIRE’s survey comes as Texas faculty are gearing up for another legislative session in which they expect Republican lawmakers to try and curtail their power on campus. Patrick has asked lawmakers to limit the influence on campuses of faculty senates, which provide input on their universities’ curriculum and hiring decisions.

The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage.

AUSTIN, Texas — Austin continues to attract workers, especially remote workers, with a new study finding that the area saw the largest increase of any U.S. metro in remote workers. 

An analysis published by The New York Times’ The Upshot–a section of the paper that uses data to analyze everyday life–found that Austin experienced more growth in remote workers than any other U.S. city during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The Upshot looked at data from the American Community Survey the year right before the pandemic and during the pandemic to see migration data for America’s metros. 

While many California cities—including San Francisco, San Jose and Los Angeles—experienced a huge swing in remote workers moving out of their metros, Austin and Dallas saw a net increase in remote migration. 

According to the New York Times, Austin added a net 28,000 remote workers and about 32% of people who moved into the city worked remotely. The next closest city was Denver, with a net increase of 23,000 remote workers. 

The Upshot also found that Austin had a net increase of 34,000 in-person workers during the pandemic, which was up from the pre-pandemic time that saw a 31,000 net increase. 

The Upshot’s analysis found that one of the main reasons Austin saw such an increase in remote workers was because there were more remote-friendly jobs available. 

Austin has long been a hub for the technology industry. According to the U.S. News & World Report, the top employers in Austin are Apple and IBM, and the city ranks as the ninth-best place to live in the U.S.

Dallas saw a 10,000 net increase in remote workers, with 26% of people who moved to the area working remotely, but the city saw a drastic decline in the amount of in-person workers moving there. 

From 2018 to 2019, Dallas had a net increase of 55,000 in-person workers moving to the city, but from 2020 to 2021, the city only saw a net increase of 4,000 in-person workers. 

But Dallas has also been a part of a recent phenomenon spurred by the pandemic: people moving to exurbs—communities on the outer margins of metro areas. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Anna, Texas—45 miles north of Dallas—was the fourth-fastest growing city in the U.S. last year. 

The state agency responsible for making sure Texas political candidates, state officers, lobbyists and others comply with campaign finance law could use some help from the Legislature in the upcoming session to do its job more effectively.

That’s the main takeaway from a lengthy review of the Texas Ethics Commission by the state’s Sunset Advisory Commission staff, who issued a report on the agency last month.

Specifically, lawmakers should clean up the “numerous requirements and layers upon layers of exemptions” that make “compliance challenging for the regulated community and enforcement difficult” for the TEC, the staff report states.

We urge the Sunset commission to approve the recommendations made by the staff in the report, and send them on to the Legislature for action. The work of the ethics agency, established through a constitutional amendment in 1991, is vital to ensure transparency behind the millions of dollars donated to campaigns every year, and lawmakers must champion it.

Far from calling for widespread ethics reform, which the Legislature has failed to pass in more than a decade, the Sunset staff is simply recommending commonsense tweaks to the agency’s enabling statute to allow for a more efficient process.

Doing so would amend the “complicated, outdated, and unclear statute” that “hinders meaningful disclosure, strains TEC’s limited resources, and burdens filers,” according to the staff report.

For example, innocent filing errors or submitting required forms even minutes after deadlines are minor violations that nonetheless trigger a confusing administrative process and often result in civil penalties. Another example is that the statute still requires the TEC to send late notices and other documents via mail, sometimes registered or certified, when email would make better sense.

“Receiving a notice by first-class mail can take up to five days, during which time the penalty could have increased by up to $500″ for a late filing, the staff report noted. Another recommendation: the Legislature should allow the TEC to redirect unspent funds in its budget for other purposes to its on-going technology needs.

J.R. Johnson, executive director of the TEC, applauded the Sunset staff’s “thorough and thoughtful” work in a Dec. 2 letter. He said he welcomed the proposed clean-up of the agency’s regulations so that it can “accomplish its mission” more successfully. The Sunset commission and lawmakers should take note that the agency leadership stands ready to implement changes.

The admirable mission of the TEC is needed now more than ever. There are “historic levels of money pouring into elections and few limits on campaign contributions and expenditures,” the Sunset staff noted. The public deserves a TEC unencumbered by chasing after minor filing mistakes and outdated processes so that it can focus on the more ethically questionable activities of political candidates, office holders, lobbyists and others.

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at letters@dallasnews.com