ADDENDUM
(THIRTY-EIGHTH DAY — Wednesday, April 19, 2023)

The following remarks regarding CSSB 17 on second and third reading were ordered reduced to writing and printed in the Senate Journal.

(Remarks on second reading)

President:  Senator Creighton, you're recognized on Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 17 to suspend the regular order of business.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Mr. President. Members, in the discussions I've had with my colleagues and committee hearings as we move forward with Senate Bill 17, I have rarely engaged in a debate or the type of discussions we have with Members in which so many of my fellow Senators, including opponents of the bill, are in agreement. Texas is one of the most diverse states in the country. And we all agree that diversity contributes to our strength and our resiliency as a state. We all agree that our institutions of higher education must harness that diversity, and everyone in this Chamber agrees that we have no higher priority than ensuring that every Texan, regardless of race or ethnicity, is given the tools they need to succeed. We agree that equality of access to higher education, as well as equality of treatment in education, is our main goal. And we agree that we must continue to work toward that goal with success and with the data to show that we're making progress. I believe if you look closely at Senate Bill 17 and what it actually does, we will agree on that, too. DEI programs have been shown to be exclusive, they have been shown to be ineffective, and they have shown to be politically charged. And many of these programs have been weaponized to compel speech instead of protecting free speech. Diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are present in some form on almost every Texas campus. And 26 of the 37 taxpayer-funded universities in Texas have a central DEI administrative office. Fifty-one of the 64 colleges within our top five universities have dedicated DEI committees for hiring and for strategic plans. The University of Texas alone has 14 people in their division of diversity, 11 of the 14 are ranked as vice presidents. Almost 50 people at UT have DEI in their titles. There are 379 employees within the Department of DEI and Community Engagement. Texas A&M's Office of Diversity is headed by a vice president and associate provost. Forty-six DEI officers are on staff throughout the A&M system who, among other things, oversee two major committees of 30 members each that handle university climate and hiring. Texas universities are spending millions on these even though a nationwide study at Baylor University from 2018 found that bringing in a chief diversity officer, which on a large campus is accompanied by a huge staffing increase, has had no effect on minority-based hiring. At Texas A&M last year, the university's DEI leadership, with the support of the faculty senate, announced that they would no longer include Asian American applicants for certain faculty positions. After English and Spanish, Vietnamese is the most spoken language in Texas, next is Chinese, next is Tagalog. But those Asian groups are not included in A&M's list of underrepresented minorities. Under the diversity, equity, and inclusion departments at Texas A&M, those Asian groups are excluded. When Texas Tech was looking for a biology professor, interviewers downgraded candidates for saying that his required diversity statement centered around the point that that applicant was making that he treated all of his students equally. That application was downgraded at Texas Tech's biology department, a biology professor, a scientist. In science, merit has to be the bottom line. Regardless of other work that we're doing to increase outcomes for students, merit, skills, and ability has to be the bottom line, particularly in science. We're training people to compete in the race to end cancer. But at Texas Tech this scientist was downgraded because he would not parrot DEI talking points while other applicants got a better score because those applicants included a land acknowledgement to native tribes in his particular diversity statement, for a position as a biology professor, as a scientist. The University of Texas strategic plan for faculty diversity, equity, and inclusion urges that every applicant for a job at UT be required to provide a diversity statement. We don't know how close they've come to reaching this goal before Governor Abbott required that diversity statements be discontinued, but at Texas A&M 56 percent of all applications submitted by applicants were required to submit a diversity statement to be considered. To avoid the fate of the unsuccessful candidate at Texas Tech, the applicant must state that they will not treat students equally. They must affirm their belief that some students deserve to be treated differently because of their race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference. And that, Members, is equity, not equality. That is leveling up, regardless of merit, and hiring based on life experiences, upbringing, or social justice concerns. Ironically, a 2018 study of a similar equal opportunity statement in the federal system found that the requirement discourages some minorities' willingness to even apply for jobs tied to these statements. In Texas, candidates who didn't supply a diversity statement were excluded. At the University of Cal Berkeley, 76 percent of applicants were excluded if they did not participate in a diversity statement. And research and publication and teaching ability and references were never considered. Before any staff member can be included in a faculty search committee, they must participate in DEI training. Anyone who does not participate in the training is excluded. And because we all agree that diversity is our strength, of course, and equality is our guiding principle, absolutely, we cannot support policies that exclude other Texans or, quite frankly, some of the best and brightest applicants to our universities from all over the world. Senate Bill 17 affirms the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the protections within the Civil Rights Act, specifically tied to Title VII and Title IX, and the equal protection clause. Senate Bill 17 also does three things. The bill will close down DEI offices on the campuses of state-funded colleges and universities and end all activities that could potentially discriminate against students on the basis of race, ethnicity, or origin. Senate Bill 17 will prohibit diversity statements for job applicants at Texas universities, loyalty oaths. And in prohibiting those diversity statements, we will end the practice of compelling speech rather than fostering an environment of supporting free speech. Senate Bill 17 will return the focus on Texas campuses to harnessing the strength of our diversity and ensuring that everyone is treated equally, that no one is excluded. And this legislation will ensure that free speech and open inquiry, and I believe, Senators, if you look clearly at the bill, you'll agree that we need to pass it. Members, we're all united to strive for diversity, and I would contend that hiring should always be colorblind and gender-neutral. We all agree on the cornerstones of state and federal law to protect against discrimination. Those are reaffirmed, of course, in this legislation. You'll hear impassioned arguments today that this bill takes us backwards. Members, this bill moves us forward to hire the best and the brightest, the most competent, and to consider all in the hiring process with equal dignity. With that, Mr. President, I move suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 17.

President:  Thank you, Senator. Senator West, what purpose?

Senator West:  Questions of the author.

President:  Do you yield, Senator?

Senator Creighton:  Yes, I yield.

Senator West:  Senator Creighton, first of all, you and I have had numerous discussions about Senate Bill 17. Would you not agree with me that because of past discrimination, there have been past discrimination right here in the State of Texas—I'm going to focus on employment—that we now have in place mechanisms to try to make certain that we have diverse, a diverse workforce in our institutions of higher education? Would you not agree with that?

Senator Creighton:  That's correct. We've had many discussions on this.

Senator West:  The fact is that the, as we talked, let's just talk about faculty. Texas' two flagship universities, A&M and Texas, have extremely low diversity. At UT only 10 percent of the faculty are Hispanic, with only 5 percent being Black. At A&M only 5 percent are Hispanic and 4 percent are Black. Given that the goal of DEI is to increase diversity, why are we getting rid of a program that frankly has only made meager gains? Why are we trying to get rid of that particular program?

Senator Creighton:  Well, as I talked about in my layout, Senator West, you know, we'll have a good discussion about it today. The diversity, equity, and inclusion departments continue to trend towards data and performance that you and I, I would think united together, would feel is just not good enough to advance—

Senator West:  Right.

Senator Creighton:  —true diversity at the university level. And the data shows that whether you look at the Baylor study that was commissioned recently that is being, you know, lauded nationwide that universities that have hired chief diversity officers and implemented these DEI programs have either stayed stagnant or gone backwards in the data, in the progress of what you and I would expect for them to take those steps forward as a system, not—

Senator West:  Okay.

Senator Creighton:  —as a unit or a department.

Senator West:  But you would agree that if our flagship institutions only have 10 percent Hispanics and only 5 percent being Black at UT, and only 5 and 4 percent, respectively, being at A&M, diversity is still a problem as it relates to hiring in the State of Texas at our institutions. It's still a problem. Would you not agree?

Senator Creighton:  It's exactly what I was saying in my layout, Senator West, that where we may not agree on the bill, we agree on the ultimate goal, which is to increase the progress related to diversity—

Senator West:  Okay.

Senator Creighton:  —but DEI units have been shown—

Senator West:  Well, let's—

Senator Creighton:  —to take us backwards.

Senator West:  —well, I mean, have been shown here in the State of Texas to take us backwards? Now, help me, you're a lawyer, and let's go to where the testimony of people in the State of Texas that work in DEI offices was before our committee. Right? We had persons, and you invited them from Texas, and I think A&M also, to come testify before our committee, and they testified in terms of what happens in DEI offices. Now, we have persons from out of state talking about it also, but they are not from Texas, they don't work in DEI offices. And so, if we really wanted to figure out what these DEI programs are all about, it would seem as though that we would get people from the respective universities who work in those offices to kind of tell us what specific activities they engage in. Wouldn't you agree with me?

Senator Creighton:  Senator West, we had, if you're talking about our invited witnesses, we had—

Senator West:  I am.

Senator Creighton:  —yeah, we had invited witnesses that talked from a national outlook, which is very relevant to our conversation today, based on trends. We had witnesses that talked about Texas-specific, and I think as far as the value add for the hearing, it was an incredible value add. And then, we let every citizen that wanted to testify have their say. We also followed up with a hearing that brought in diversity, equity, and inclusion department personnel to answer questions to the full committee—

Senator West:  That's right.

Senator Creighton:  —so that we were not limited to the Higher Education subcommittee only for that discussion. So, I think we vetted things extremely well in the committee. And I think a national outlook with testimony and a Texas-specific, you know, lens that we were looking through was about as good as it gets for—

Senator West:  Okay, alright—

Senator Creighton:  —how we're able to vet a bill.

Senator West:  —and I understand your perspective. But the reality is the only people on the ground, and when I say on the ground, that actually worked in DEI offices, were the persons that were invited to testify at the committee level. Correct? Correct?

Senator Creighton:  The only people on the ground that were invited to testify?

Senator West:  That, no, that worked in DEI offices, were the ones that we invited at the committee of the whole. Right?

Senator Creighton:  We extended invitations and then we were able to ask questions of those that chose to show.

Senator West:  Okay. And those that, let me just say this, alright, because I want to make sure it's absolutely clear that we invited persons who currently work in DEI offices at major universities, and the only ones that actually attended were from Texas, and I believe A&M. Am I correct?

Senator Creighton:  Just UT.

Senator West:  Just UT. Okay. Just UT, that's right, one from the engineering department.

Senator Creighton:  That's right.

Senator West:  Alright. And so, based on that, invitations were given, Members, to make certain we knew what activities DEI offices were engaged in. And correct me if I'm wrong, what we were told, the record is there as it relates to the testimony, was that these DEI offices, and I think it was in pursuant to a question by Senator King, in terms of wanting to know exactly what these offices did. And this is what we were told, and it may not influence your vote one way or the other on this, but I want to make certain the record is, whatever we call the record, is clear that these offices work with other departments that are trying to get a mix as it relates to employment. I'm limited it right now to employment. They end up helping other departments put in place a mixed pool of individuals that may very well be considered for employment. That's what we were told. If an office, if a department reaches out to them and asks for assistance, that office then helps them to try to locate persons of different backgrounds to be considered by that office for employment. That's what happens, that's the testimony. That office also helps with issues concerning recruitment of low economic students, that office works with veterans, that office works with disabled persons. That's what the office does. And so, when we start talking about the issue that this is all about DEI and race and all of that stuff, I think it misses the target. And again, once again, we find ourselves talking about this issue, and we spend, frankly, entirely too much time on this issue as opposed to what I think issues that are more relevant. Senator, let me ask you a couple of questions about the bill itself. I'm on page 1 of the bill, page 2, I'm sorry, at the top of the page in Section 51.3525, on line 2-1, influence, influencing and hiring. What do you mean when you say, when you say influencing and hiring or employment practices? Influencing, help me understand that and give me an example.

Senator Creighton:  Well, we talked about the loyalty oaths. Correct? We talked about the diversity statements. We talked about The University of Texas strategic plan for faculty diversity, equity, and inclusion urges every applicant for a job at UT to be required to provide a diversity statement. And so, when you're talking about influence, you're talking about what nationally has become a discussion that centers around through all of these DEI efforts, loyalty oaths. And you and I talk quite a bit about chilling effects and what does and does not cause a chilling effect, what is and is not tied to free speech versus compelled speech. But when you have a loyalty oath that is required, and these are growing not just nationally but in our flagships, you have compelled speech. And when you have compelled speech, you do not have free speech. When you have compelled speech, you have exclusive requirements. And when you have exclusivity, you have no diversity and you have no inclusion.

Senator West:  And so, that's your definition of influencing? Influencing a hiring or employment practices at the institution with respect to race, sex, and all of the other categories contained in there. Is that correct?

Senator Creighton:  I would say that's an example under influencing.

Senator West:  Okay. In Section 2, line 2-6, 2-7, special benefits, what do you mean by that? Promoting differential treatment of or providing special benefits to individuals on the base of the categories that you have there.

Senator Creighton:  I think the plain language is clear, Senator West, what a reasonable person would assume that within hiring practices, differential treatment on the job, providing special benefits to certain individuals. Look, we all have workplaces and we all know if there are pay benefits or leave benefits, scheduling benefits, hiring benefits, perks tied to the job that are different than what others are afforded.

Senator West:  Give us an example of the—

Senator Creighton:  Those are my examples.

Senator West:  And so, does that happen in the State of Texas? Have you seen that? Did you have, can you give us any examples of, quote, unquote, institutions providing special benefits based on the color of one's skin, sex, color, ethnicity? Can you give me examples of any universities that have been doing that?

Senator Creighton:  Well, I gave you my examples, but some of these provisions in the legislation, Senator West, I'm not waiting on an infraction to cover what is right and what is just. We are in session 141 days in the odd year every other year and then we leave.

Senator West:  So, there is no example that you have? You're just trying to do things prospectively, is that what you're saying?

Senator Creighton:  So, the examples are more comprehensive that I mentioned. If you want any particulars, I think that better stated without those remaining in the bill, we would, our legislation would be lacking for what has been happening around the state. Specific to Texas Tech as an example, we had a candidate for a faculty job and the biology sciences department flagged by the department search committee for not knowing certain requirements within diversity statements, and because they were flagged within the department—

Senator West:  When you say they were flagged, what do you mean?

Senator Creighton:  They were called to the mat, they were called out for not knowing what expectations were required in some of the hiring practices that are required within the department.

Senator West:  Okay. And so, that's a special benefit?

Senator Creighton:  Special benefits, I already mentioned. Right? I mean, special benefits would be perks tied to the job—

Senator West:  Right, and, and—

Senator Creighton:  —that would be, that would be specific to—

Senator West:  —and that's why I was asking, do you—

Senator Creighton:  —someone on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity if, if—

Senator West:  —and I was asking did you have any specific examples of that, and I hadn't heard that you do.

Senator Creighton:  Asked and answered.

Senator West:  So, and I'm sorry, maybe it was my hearing, what did you say the answer was?

Senator Creighton:  My answer, I gave different examples of benefits in the workplace, and you said you wanted an answer that was even more specific.

Senator West:  No, no, no, no, you misunderstood me. I may have said it clumsily. I'm saying do you know of that happening in the State of Texas?

Senator Creighton:  And then my answer was, I'm not waiting on a specific infraction to have as comprehensive of a bill as I can bring to the floor.

Senator West:  I do recall you saying that. Let me move on. Let me ask you this. If you notice, in the first section of this bill, you list various categories influencing the hiring or employment practices at an institution with respect to race, sex, color, ethnicity, et cetera. Now, ironically, when you go to the section dealing with promoting differential treatment, you don't mention sex. Why is that?

Senator Creighton:  There are actual, there are many provisions of the bill that cover different categories.

Senator West:  No, I understand that, I understand that, I'm just asking why—

Senator Creighton:  Those—

Senator West:  —in section, I'm, no, let me, let me finish. When you say promoting differential treatment, you don't list sex as one of the categories, and I'm asking you why. You listed in the first section in terms of influence and hiring, but when you get down to promoting differential treatment, you don't list it and I'm asking you why.

Senator Creighton:  I think your line of questioning is geared more towards protected class, but there's an "or" in those provisions. And so, when—

Senator West:  Right.

Senator Creighton:  —when provisions are separate, there's, there's different categories for promoting policies or procedures designed to be implemented. Those provisions are different than the next provisions that are tied to conducting trainings. Trainings could be tied specific to the pronouns someone might use. For instance, at Dell Seton there is, at medical, there are specific trainings tied to the pronouns that you must use, and within those trainings it's not only about pronouns, but the training is tied to sex and orientation. The training is tied specifically to race. And within the training just down the street at Dell Medical, employees are advised to where if they write the word black it should be capitalized, if they write the word white it should always be written—

Senator West:  Sir, I'm talking about sex right now, I'm not talking about race.

Senator Creighton:  This is, Senator West, this is the point to where you would say, let me finish.

Senator West:  Okay. And I, and you're right about that, too. Okay. Go ahead. Touché.

Senator Creighton:  So, in the training that's tied to pronouns, which ties specifically to sex within that provision, it covers race, it covers sex, it covers gender identity in those trainings. And within those trainings, as you're instructed to seek out and make no mistakes on preferred pronouns, it also instructs all employees at Dell Seton Medical when they write the word black it must always be capitalized, when they write the word white, with reference to race, it must always be lowercase.

Senator West:  Are you finished?

Senator Creighton:  I can pause there, go ahead.

Senator West:  Okay. Now let me go back to the question I asked. Why is it, why is it that in the second section with promoting differential treatment you don't mention sex? I mean, in the first section you mention in terms of influencing hiring or employment practices, you have several categories. Correct? One of those categories is sex, but promoting differential treatment, in the second section, you don't mention sex. And I'm just trying to figure out why take sex out if indeed we're trying to do all of this stuff with DEI. And you listed in the first section in terms of influencing hiring, but you don't list it in the second section dealing with promoting differential treatment. I'm just trying to figure out why.

Senator Creighton:  Senator West, I believe you're asking me on the fifth iteration to make sure I'm consistent and I respect that. So, I'm going to try to be consistent. I think that what we're talking about in one provision is leaning more towards protected class. I think in the provision you're referencing related to training that mentions sex, we may have just some references to innate differences between men and women such as pregnant women that may need special benefits.

Senator West:  Well, you talk about protected classes on both paragraphs. Don't both paragraphs have protected class language in them?

Senator Creighton:  One provision is talking about hiring, the other is talking about training.

Senator West:  But—

Senator Creighton:  And so—

Senator West:  —so both of them still have protected classes in it. Correct?

Senator Creighton:  They have protected classes in them.

Senator West:  Okay, but you would agree that sex is not in the other one. And we—

Senator Creighton:  The bill as written, whether you're interpreting or as a reasonable person would interpret it, the plain language of the bill speaks for itself.

Senator West:  Okay. And the plain language is, is that sex has been omitted from the second section. That's the plain language of it. But let me go on, let me go on because I think that we have, in terms of conducting training, do you have any problems with a university providing voluntary training as opposed to mandatory training for their staff, faculty, and students?

Senator Creighton:  The bill specifically restricts against mandatory training. As long as there are or is no mandatory training—

Senator West:  Okay.

Senator Creighton:  —then you're in compliance with the bill. Now, of course, if any of us on this floor were applying for a position and the interviewer suggested that there was voluntary training tied to this position—

Senator West:  We'd like for you to take that voluntary training.

Senator Creighton:  —on application—

Senator West:  Yeah, okay, I got you.

Senator Creighton:  —that in of itself would essentially be coercion towards participating in that voluntary training, so.

Senator West:  Okay. As long as it's in the spirit of the definition of voluntary, then it's okay. But if it's kind of a coercive voluntarism, then that's, therein lies the problem. Correct?

Senator Creighton:  I didn't say that. What I did say was a hypothetical based on your suggestion. But the bill itself restricts against mandatory training because in the end of the day, the mandatory training, the equitable outcomes that are the strategic goals within these DEI related units, all conflict with inclusivity. And when you conflict with inclusivity, you, and you exclude some on behalf of others, you do not have equal opportunity for all.

Senator West:  Alright. Let's stop there. Again, I think I understand that as long as it's voluntary it's okay, but if it's mandatory, then it's not. But I want to go back to what you just said. If a person believes that a university runs afoul and they've been disenfranchised because of the use of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or sex, how would they, how should they respond? Should they file a complaint with the university's president, with the board of regents, how, how should they respond?

Senator Creighton:  There's a grievance process in every university, Senator West, and universities have counsel to handle those grievance processes.

Senator West:  Okay. So, if they use the formal grievance process. Right?

Senator Creighton:  That would be one avenue.

Senator West:  So, if an African American or a Latino believes they've been discriminated against, they need to go through that process. Right?

Senator Creighton:  There would be nothing wrong with that for sure. I mean, we've talked about reaffirming the Civil Rights Act of 1964, equal opportunity employment. We've talked about federal and state law being reaffirmed in this legislation. That's by implication anyway, that does not have to be stated in the bill. But just to have the intent from the author, that those laws do and will continue to govern and as we all seek a more diverse outcome, yes, if someone seeks redress through the legal system, if in some way they've been harmed, just as they would have prior to the uptick of these DEI departments being added to universities. They haven't always existed, most of them have come in from 2016 on. They ramped up in 2020, and they continue to sort of bloat and expand in bureaucracy and in cost.

Senator West:  Out of all due respect, Sir, we have, we, there's no testimony in our record here in the State of Texas from any testimony that that's the case. The testimony that we've had before our committee is in terms of what they do in order to help students, number one, recruit students, number one, number two, help departments that are dealing with issues of diversity that they're required to do. In some instances, in terms of grants that they're trying to receive from different, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, they get help from the DEI department in order to help them prepare statements that will be compliant with the proposal that's been put out by those agencies in order to get grants, some, like $4 billion were for grants that we've talked about. And I know and I appreciate you having an amendment that we're going to be considering that will deal with that particular issue. But I just want to make certain it's real clear that these offices are not just out there just on the wild, Wild West trying to discriminate against people. Yes, there are some issues that need to be resolved, but we don't take a sledgehammer, just like we don't take a sledgehammer to everything that we do. Whether it's in health and human services, education, finance, whatever the case may be, we try to identify the problem and fix the problem. And what we're doing here is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You've got the votes to do it, I understand it's a political priority, but the reality is I don't think it's a good idea for us to throw the baby out, the bathwater, especially when it's this department, Members, that other departments in the universities are going to in order to get assistance with diversity, equity, and inclusion. And it's foolhearted of us to think, Senator, that our, that an education for our students could not include diversity, equity, and inclusion. Everyone in this country is moving that direction, everyone in this world is moving in that direction. And for not to have a department that's focused on that in order to benefit our students, I think it's foolhearted. Now, are there some things that shouldn't be done? Correct. And we need to correct those things. But I know the votes are here in order to do it, so it is what it is. What I do appreciate, and let's just talk about this for a few minutes. In terms of, in NCAA Division I, are you aware that the NCAA Division I requires diversity, equity, and inclusion compliance? Are you aware of that?

Senator Creighton:  I don't have the same information on the NCAA, Senator West.

Senator West:  Okay. Well, based on the research that I've done, it says failure to complete an equity, diversity, and inclusion review at least once every four years shall subject an institution to a penalty pursuant to a penalty structure and timeline maintained by the Strategic Vision and Planning Committee. So, they talk about diversity, equity, and inclusion, but we're talking about doing away with our diversity, equity, and inclusion office. So just, Members, as you vote on this recognize that we put this type of program in jeopardy also because we no longer want to use the words diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Senator Creighton:  And I do not agree with that statement, Senator West.

Senator West:  Okay. Why don't you agree with it?

Senator Creighton:  I think, as always on this floor with legislation that we're considering, I think details matter. And the NCAA does not require a diversity, equity, and inclusion office at member institutions. The NCAA requires members to submit a diversity review every four years, but the NCAA states plainly on its website, this review is not subject to formal NCAA assessment or approval, and it is not required that a member use any specific format to complete a review.

Senator West:  Well, you know, I guess the, there's a difference in opinion, based on my research it uses diversity, equity, and inclusion. Okay. And, I mean, it is what it is and Members can make up their own mind based on that. I'll just leave it at that. But we do, we do understand that young students, young athletes that are going to Texas, A&M, and these other schools are looking at us right now as it relates to whether or not they are going to be going into a hostile or friendly environment. Both A&M and Texas have had problems with their images. They want to make certain they have the best athletic programs, but when we do things like this, Senator, what we do is give them pause for concern, and just like many other students, they decide to go out of state where they feel more inviting. And it's the perception that we're doing right now. Because you can be assured this is going to be a front page story, it'll be probably on every station. And students, I know in my senatorial district, are looking at us. And so, the question is how do we tell those students that we invite you to Texas, A&M, Texas Tech, when we send signals out like this, diversity, equity, and inclusion is not something that we want to have, at least as part of an institutional structure. How do we do that?

Senator Creighton:  I think with the passage of this legislation, Senator West, that we will invite, not deter, more students and more faculty, especially, to consider our flagship institutions to be on a path seeking more diversity. So, let me tell you why.

Senator West:  Please do.

Senator Creighton:  For the Asian American student athlete that you mentioned, for the DEI department at Texas A&M University to exclude Asian Americans.

Senator West:  Which is a mistake. We don't, but we make certain that they don't do that, not take down the whole program, Senator.

Senator Creighton:  Senator West, I mean, yes, there's a concession on the fact that that was a mistake, but you just asked about a signal and what does that signal to our Asian American potential applicants for professor positions. And also, the bill doesn't cover student athletes, but you mentioned student athletes. What does it signal to Asian American athletes that one of our flagship institutions completely excluded them as what would be a Category 4, a historically marginalized minority group from the DEI efforts and strategic plan? How in the world could—

Senator West:  Can I respond?

Senator Creighton:  —that be possible?

Senator West:  Can I respond? I think it sends the wrong signal, just as what we're doing today is sending the wrong signal. I think that what we fix it, just like anything else we do, we use surgery in order to deal with specific issues. Whether it be taxes and all of those other things that we've been dealing with this session, health and human services, we go in and we fix the problem as opposed to throwing out the whole baby with the bathwater, if I can use that. Because that's what we're doing. And so, we're sending the wrong signal, we send the right signal to Asian students if they know that we're committed to fixing that problem. We're sending the wrong signal to all other students when we say the very department responsible for these issues, we're now saying we're going to do away with them. And then we end up with the same system we've had over these many years, different departments trying to figure out what's going on as opposed to having one central location with a defined purpose, goal, where all departments within that institution would be able to go to. And to the extent that there's a problem with that department, we fix that problem, not throw the entire department out. And that's what you're doing here, Sir.

Senator Creighton:  Senator West, our success is not tied to these DEI units. And, Members, I know that many Members today will make impassioned pleas based on the nomenclature. Right? Diversity, equity, and inclusion, we all share a united goal to strive for more diversity. But what we are not seeing through these DEI units and departments is, number one, that they are operating in an inclusive manner, and number two, that they are showing results. If we do not have DEI departments anymore, it doesn't take us backwards on pursuing diversity. Members, one of the most diverse universities in the State of Texas, Texas Woman's University, doesn't have a DEI department. So, these arguments, these impassioned pleas, these arguments tied to nomenclature, with the implications that it's either incompetent or misguided, or even hateful to talk about something that once tainted needs to be changed—

Senator West:  Okay—

Senator Creighton:  —it's not accurate.

Senator West:  —alright, now, Mr. Chairman, have you as the Chair of Higher Education, of Education, Higher Education, brought us any, quote, unquote, quantitative, qualitative results of what DEI programs are doing in the State of Texas? And if so, what were those results?

Senator Creighton:  Senator West and Members, I hope you'll hear me out on this answer. The University of Texas at Austin, under the last 10 years of efforts tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion, saw African American faculty only increase by 1.5 percent, Hispanics by 2 percent, and Asians by 1.96 percent. At Texas State University, African American faculty increased 2.5 percent, Hispanic faculty increased 1.76 percent, Asian faculty increased almost 6 percent. At Texas Tech University, African American faculty increased .28 percent, Hispanic faculty increased 1.9 percent, Asian faculty hirings increased .77 percent, at U of H, consistent, at UNT, consistent, and at A&M, less in every category. Loyalty oaths, diversity statements required, mandatory trainings, all things wrapped up in the Baylor University nationally revered study that was published in 2018, in every category, universities that have hired a chief diversity officer have lost ground with hiring faculty from minority communities.

Senator West:  So, Senator—

Senator Creighton:  In the, just, and I'll wrap up, in the Harvard study that was published just two years before that and, Members, what are we doing with these faculty members as we hire in seeking more diversity? We're sending them into the classroom to teach. And when we send them into the classroom to teach and they teach microaggressions and they teach victimhood and they teach ways to protest and petition, when they teach these things and then they send those students out into the corporate workforce, we end up with a Harvard study that was just published that says in the corporate world that mandatory diversity trainings have caused a decline in diversity in corporate C suite and upper level hiring practices. And then, that same Harvard study, which was backed up by the university of Tel Aviv, that went through every single one of the metrics used in the Harvard study to dispute it, confirmed every single one of the metrics and its findings. The university of Tel Aviv produced results that does increase hiring in the corporate sector and a more diverse outcome. So, there's not just complaints, there are solutions. And for one, I would like to pursue solution-oriented objectives.

Senator West:  May I go back to the question I asked you now? The question was—

Senator Creighton:  Absolutely. Which is—

Senator West:  —the question was, the question, the question was, no, no, no—

Senator Creighton:  —you asked me about findings as the Chair of Senate Education—

Senator West:  —no, with all due respect, with of all due respect, I asked you a quantitative and qualitative results—

Senator Creighton:  —these are quantitative.

Senator West:  —here in the State of Texas.

Senator Creighton:  Yes.

Senator West:  Here in the State of Texas.

President:  Members, please don't talk, you both have been doing an excellent job of presenting your views. Don't talk over each other so we can hear each of you, thank you.

Senator West:  Okay. I asked you for qualitative and quantitative results here in the State of Texas. You came out with Tel Aviv and Harvard and Baylor. I'm saying, quantitative results. And then here, here's the piece, it never ceases to amaze me that when you start talking about the results as it relates to faculty members and things like that, there are now universities that are making a, it looks like an honest effort to bring in more faculty members and they're using their DEI offices as a part of the solution in order to do that. And now you want to, with this particular bill say, no, you can't use that office in order to increase the very statistics that you just quoted as it relates to the lack of, the lack of, Senator, minority faculty members here on our various university staff. I wish I could have wrote down every statistic that you talked about because you're right. And I've been here 30 years and we've had the same problem. But it appears that though using DEI and having a central location in order to deal with these issues, correcting the problems of the office, may very well be a logical solution in order to deal with these issues, so those persons standing on this floor 10 years from now won't have to have the same discussions, and we'll have a diverse faculties at our universities and diverse student bodies. And when you start talking about microaggression and things like that, are you saying that faculty members teach that to college students? Is that what you were saying? Surely, you're not saying that.

Senator Creighton:  I'm saying that, and I'm saying professors in Texas have been terminated for speaking against the teaching and the propaganda related to exactly those categories. Yes.

Senator West:  Alright. That's, that's a new one for me. I know that there's been some issues or at least some statements about it happening in schools, not universities. Okay. I know—

Senator Creighton:  And, Senator West, I used the qualitative and quantitative statistical answers related to Texas universities before I went into the studies that back them up. That was your question. I've tried to give a well-rounded answer, qualitative, quantitative, and study-based.

Senator West:  You almost got there. Okay.

Senator Creighton:  Almost.

Senator West:  Not quite. Okay? Because the, when I said qualitative, what you did is talk about the lack of, the lack of diversity. Am I correct?

Senator Creighton:  I'm talking in the lack of diversity and you're correct. I'm talking about the lack of performance with DEI units and offices. We haven't always had these. Right? So, if before DEI units and offices, we are no better off now; yet we have stigma-based negatives, I'm saying you and I together can find solutions. And the media will never report this, that I'm saying, but I'm saying you and I together can find better. We can find better progress, better structures, better strategies. We can use the $7 million in University of Texas personnel-based DEI salaries for outreach, into the—

Senator West:  Seven, seven billion dollars?

Senator Creighton:  —communities for the students we need to bring in the most.

Senator West:  Seven billion dollars?

Senator Creighton:  Seven million.

Senator West:  A million, I thought you said billion.

Senator Creighton:  There's lots of billions flying around this session, I may have said that.

Senator West:  I know they are. You know, so let me ask you this, would you consider this deal as opposed to doing away with these offices? Let me back up. Here's my predicate to you, I don't know how long these offices have been a part of the universities that they're currently located in. I don't know how they've been staffed. If you have a DEI office with one person as opposed to an adequate staff, it's altogether different. You would agree with that. What about a transition period as opposed to, at this point if this bill passed, we just do away with them altogether? A transition period that would measure the effectiveness with a sunset based on the effectiveness of the program as opposed to just saying we should shut them down. What about making certain that we use this surplus to make certain that these offices are adequately staffed, number one. Number two, that the issues that we need to address, we address at number two, and then measure the qualitative and the qualitative performance, as we do in many instances with other institutions. What do you think about that idea?

Senator Creighton:  Senator West, you know, to that end, if you and I had a company together and that company had 14 positions in management, and 11 of those 14 were vice presidents, and just one of those vice presidents had 18 upper level managers and officers under his or her discretion, and we were putting $7 million a year into payroll for a total of 379 employees all with the task of accomplishing the same goal and the statistics year after year after year on performance were stagnant or going backwards, I would say that that company was just not cutting it. So, how would we revise, how would we reform, how would we rename? But would it be successful as opposed to going a different direction? And I think that's what we're talking about here today.

Senator West:  So, you don't like my idea, is that what you're saying?

Senator Creighton:  I think your ideas are promising and with so much more merit than you might be, give credit for acknowledging.

Senator West:  But, no, it's been great working with you, not only on this but other issues also. But what I'm saying to you, why don't we do a, why don't we do a sunset of it? And then put in performance measurements like we do all the time, Senators. We put in place performance measures when we do sunset, we put in place what we want to see these agencies do. Why don't we do the same thing here? I, and I, you know, you talk about the, the staffing over there at UT, I can't dispute that because I just don't know. But the question is, what are their charge, what are their responsibilities, and whether or not they're carrying it out. We use sunset in order to measure that. That's what we do. So, I'm thinking that most of us would probably agree that we can put a sunset provision in for DEI-related activities or offices, as long as we charge them with the responsibilities to carry out different things and give them the resources in order to do it. I think that's an excellent compromise to make certain that your goals and my goals and probably most of our goals are met. I'm just trying to get your response to what you think about that.

Senator Creighton:  Senator, with the data that we have before us on performance, with the test questions that we've had made available to us just this week, I don't know how we can wait another week, another month, another year. I don't know how we can wait any longer when the brand of our flagship universities is at stake and the entire world is watching. We have to pursue a different route on our aligned goal to achieve diversity. We have to pursue a different route on our aligned goal for equal dignity to all. But we have to go a different route than diversity, equity, and inclusion units and the damage and destruction that they are doing to our universities in Texas.

Senator West:  The damage and destruction. You know—

Senator Creighton:  The brand.

Senator West:  —I think, I really believe, I believe you really believe that. By the way, TW, Texas Woman's University does have a DEI office, by the way. Sir, this strategy is not included, in terms of coming up with this idea about closing down DEI offices, and you're professing to want to make this great change, and the whole world is looking. You're right, they are looking. That's why we're on the floor right now with this issue. And I hate being on the floor with this issue once again. Once again. But you, Sir, and those of you who want to do away with the DEI office, you've not asked this African American man or any Latino in here what we think the solution is. You've not incorporated any of our input into your decision-making process, but you've come up with the perfect solution for diversity and inclusion, equity and inclusion, in the state. But we haven't had any input into the process. How does that make any sense? And you as a very experienced, seasoned attorney, how does that make any sense at all not saying, listen, I think this is a problem, what do you think about it, and us coming up with a joint bill to address the issue as opposed to having this vitriol on this particular issue once again? How does that make any sense?

Senator Creighton:  Senator West, when you say that I have not included you in the solution, we've had public hearings in the Higher Education subcommittee. We've had public hearings in the at large Senate Education committee where you and I sit right next to each other. And isn't it correct, as you've mentioned before, that you and I both have had many conversations about the merit or the concept of review, reform, revise, or remove?

Senator West:  Sir—

Senator Creighton:  You and I both have talked about solutions and working on solutions going forward. That is irrefutable.

Senator West:  Sir, let me refute it then. Okay? The issue concerning doing away with DEI was already cast before we got in session. Okay? All of us knew that that was going to be an issue this session. And what I'm saying to you is, as opposed to sitting down prior to session, and saying this is a problem and then making certain that with Members with specificity, we look at the problems and figured out how to solve them. We didn't have input into this process in terms of what the solution would be. And frankly, you know, no, I'm not going to say that. It's disingenuous, Sir, to think we should be on the floor supporting something where we haven't had any input into deciding what the solution should be. It was already cast, Senator. You already knew we were going to have a DEI bill and do away with DEI offices. Correct? Wasn't this already cast? Tell me whether or not it was already a forgone conclusion that DEI would be on the chopping block?

Senator Creighton:  Senator West, I'm back again as Education Chair on subjects like tenure and top 10 percent and so many other issues that I did not successfully achieve in advancing the policy to the Governor's desk this session. This is my first session to advance policies related to DEI. We don't know or we are not guaranteed of any outcome in the hundred steps it takes to pass a bill.

Senator West:  Are you serious?

Senator Creighton:  And I'm, so as I advance something that's important to me, what I really would like is to refocus and reevaluate why we're on the floor with this subject today, look at the data, the lack of progress, our united goals for diversity going forward. And I would sincerely ask you and many others to consider, right now, reevaluating your opposition and changing to support. And when you change to support, I will commit to you, on tomorrow, to sit down at the table that you mentioned and that you suggest, to work on solutions going forward. And I know that you trust that I in a genuine manner on that commitment will be very dedicated to working together with you on the solutions that we need. But these programs are tainted, they are not producing, they are somewhat exclusive in many categories. They are leading to litigation right now against six different Texas medical schools. They are going to be extremely expensive and they are not producing results for diversity. I will commit to you for solutions.

Senator West:  Senator, I think that you're very honest in your, what you just said. But being here for as many years as I've been here, I would be more comfortable with you laying this on the table and for us sitting down and seeing whether we could work out something that involves the input of Senators that are going to, whose, frankly, their ethnicities are going to be impacted by this deal. Because again, out of all due respect, you're sitting up here saying that we had, we have a lack of progress. I agree with you. But the question is, is that the result of DEI offices? Is that the result of DEI offices being properly funded? The fact is that, and I'm not going to go over this, over this again, but the reality is that it appears that some of the DEI offices are starting to work in the right direction. Yes, there are problems that need to be dealt with. But again, I hadn't had any input. Has Senator Zaffirini had any input into this? Has any of the Members that normally deal with educational issues, did any of us have any input in deciding what's the best way to tackle increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in this state? No, we hadn't, Sir. But if you're honest, in which I think you are, then I'd ask you to put this on the table. Let's sit down. I'll spend as much time as you want, I know others would do the same thing, to spend as much time as necessary to get to the point where we need to get on this particular bill. Would you agree to do that?

Senator Creighton:  Senator West, you know, I'm not going to set the bill aside. You and I both know I've worked with you on perfecting amendments and, I think, some very good additions to clarify intention in the bill. But setting the bill aside, that is not something as the author that I'm willing to do today.

Senator West:  And my closing questions to you, Sir. And I understand the point, but again, if indeed this is an honest effort to increase diversity and inclusion in the State of Texas, then we should be at the table trying to make certain that again, 10 years from now, legislators that are sitting on this floor don't have to have the same debate. And so, I appreciate your response to my questions. And in terms of the perfecting amendments, yes, Members, we've worked on some amendments that I think address some of the issues and maybe not all of them, but they do address some of the issues. And as a result of that, I pulled down several of the amendments that I had planned to talk, you about and see whether I get your support.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Senator West, I'm committed to continuing to work with you, always appreciate your expertise, your experience in this body. And we sit side by side on the Education committee, and I'm very thankful for that. I'll certainly continue to work with you on reforms in our universities as we go forward.

Senator West:  And I'm hoping that this doesn't be a 19 to 12 partisan vote.

Senator Creighton:  I'm hoping that I swayed your consideration and turned your vote to support, Senator West.

President:  Thank you, Senator West. Very respectful, robust discussion. Thank both of you. I do want to remind everyone, and I'm going to give everyone all the leeway you need, but we spent a little over an hour. I have eight more people who wish to speak, so if we cannot repeat questions would be, would be helpful, but I'll stay as long as it takes. But I just want each of you to know there are a lot of people, and if we do an hour apiece, some Members won't be speaking until about nine tonight or 10 tonight. But that's okay, if we're here all night, that's fine, too. But I'm going to give you all the leeway you want. Senator Hancock, what purpose?

Senator Hancock:  To ask the author a few questions.

President:  Do you yield?

Senator Creighton:  I yield.

Senator Hancock:  Yes, thank you, Senator Creighton. Thank you for your research, the work you've done. And are you aware that your information regarding Texas Woman's University, TWU, was accurate when it comes to the staff, the university not having a DEI program?

Senator Creighton:  Senator Hancock, I felt like that was accurate, I'm glad that you're mentioning. I think that as far as the DEI office on Texas Woman's University, there's not anything faculty or administrative supported.

Senator Hancock:  Correct. Are you aware that Senator West is also correct that there is a student-funded, a student-run DEI program on the university that is separate and apart from the staff or the university itself?

Senator Creighton:  I was not aware of that. I'm really tied specifically to public tax dollars and how they're used for these different departments.

Senator Hancock:  Right. And, Senator Creighton, that actually brings me to my next point, is they do not have a DEI program sponsored by the university for the staff as we see in some of the other campuses. Are you aware that they still receive federal funding?

Senator Creighton:  They absolutely receive federal funding and they're, they may be the most diverse university in the State of Texas as far as faculty and student body.

Senator Hancock:  And my history working with higher education, excellent leadership there, obviously very diverse, and I would guess probably the most diverse from a staffing and obviously a student standpoint. And so, there was some confusion in the discussion between Senator West and yourself, you know, talking about the billions of dollars we have from the federal government and kind of alluding to the fact that if we didn't have these on-campus DEI programs, we might lose that federal funding. I just want to point out that TWU and the history we have with them shows that you do not have to have this type of, you know, setup on campus—

Senator Creighton:  Right.

Senator Hancock:  —in order to improve and lead in diversity and receive federal funding, because I think there was some confusion in your discussion. So, are you aware that you can have, you cannot have one and still have the other regarding federal funding, and that's proven through the history of TWU.

Senator Creighton:  Absolutely, as well as that ties into the federal anti-discrimination laws and other things that make sure that that is actually accurate in the case. And as we see even in states like California that have constitutional bans against affirmative action, there is no disruption in their federal grant funding, there's no disruption in their accreditation. And so, I think some of these arguments are based on fear, and I appreciate you clarifying.

Senator Hancock:  Thank you, Senator Creighton.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Senator Hancock.

President:  Thank you, Senator. Senator Miles, you're recognized. For what purpose?

Senator Miles:  Thank you, Mr. President. Quite a few questions to the author, Mr. President.

President:  Do you yield? Senator Creighton, do you yield?

Senator Creighton:  I yield, yes.

Senator Miles:  Thank you. Senator Creighton, you and I have had some extensive conversation on SB 17. I want to thank you for allowing myself and Senator Menéndez to be a part of the hearing that went on, Mr. President, until two in the morning, and felt like I was part of the committee. So, I want to thank you for that.

Senator Creighton:  It was a better hearing because you were there.

Senator Miles:  Thank you. Thank you. And I appreciate and was very tuned in to your opening statement, your layout, Senator Creighton. You mentioned in your layout that hiring should be colorblind. Am I correct? And not based on race, sex, et cetera, those were your exact words in your layout. Do you recall?

Senator Creighton:  That's exactly right, that's consistent with Supreme Court holdings.

Senator Miles:  Senator Creighton, reality is—and it seems like I'm always talking about reality when I get on the mic—the reality of it is, that's why we had to have the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because it was not equal. Affirmative action and other policies had to be put in place because it has not been colorblind and it has not been equal. And, you know, I can't understand how any one of us or anybody in this Chamber can expect for us to have the same, you know, run by the same set of rules and expect us, Senator West, to consider everything equal when we didn't start at the same place. And I worry about how this bill is going to be interpreted and implemented by colleges and university, other universities. You know, I think Senator West said the exact thing and I've been saying it to you and been saying it to my colleagues, perception is everything. And we don't live in a perfect world. We'd like to think that, but we don't. The penalty of being ineligible to receive state funds if found in violation of this bill is very, very steep. The bill also prohibits the entity of the university from developing DEI practices that influence hiring, but I'm concerned universities will go beyond that, Senator Creighton, when implementing this bill. It's already started. You know, I think you and I had this conversation when DEI first came out several months ago. We had some schools in the Texas A&M system take the Juneteenth holiday off of their, off their websites after they were introduced and told about DEI. So, yes, I'm concerned, Senator Creighton. I'm concerned about how far SB 17 will allow some of the universities to go, some of the systems to go. And I'm concerned about the perception of Senate Bill 17 as it relates to Hispanic, African American, Asian, little kids that want to go to these big universities or even want to teach at some of these universities. So, for the next few minutes that you and I get this time together, Senator Creighton, let's just break down SB 17. Is that okay?

Senator Creighton:  That's okay.

Senator Miles:  Okay. First and most simple question, most glaring question is, what specific issue do you think SB 17 is going to actually address and solve?

Senator Creighton:  Well, as I mentioned a little bit earlier, Senator Miles, and I'm glad you asked, I think it's worth mentioning again. I think that what we're seeing on, as an example, through these DEI units across the country, when you compare what's happening in California, but yet that's not good enough. Right? I mean, we need to look at what's happening right here in Texas. The requirements that are growing and growing for loyalty oaths are creating a chilling effect on free speech. And we all share in our goal for increasing diversity, we all share in an aligned goal for equal opportunity, we all share in an aligned goal for dignity for all. But at the same time, if loyalty oaths, if diversity statements are forced upon applicants that are considering working for our Texas universities, some of the best universities in the world, and they just see the sign that's indicated by those diversity statements being required. The sign says, if you have a dissenting opinion, there is no need to apply here. And we cannot have an environment on our Texas public university campuses where that is the case. That is the last place that should be tolerated, especially by legislators that are appropriating public tax dollars to those universities because at the end of the day that is by its very nature exclusive. And if you compel speech rather than fostering free speech, you cannot have equal opportunity. If your opinion is that we have to have equity and it's okay to discriminate if we achieve equity, then ultimately that is de facto racism, which none of us will tolerate. Right? Together as we stand against it. So, as Senator West and I had a very good exchange, I think we all want greater results. I think that the evaluation of this bill and the strategy that we're taking is a disagreement on how to reach those results.

Senator Miles:  So, in hearing that, Senator Creighton, could you provide an example of the types of diversity and inclusion expenditures that would be permissible if this bill was enacted into law? Could you, you understand my question?

Senator Creighton:  Yeah, so—

Senator Miles:  So, what should we expect if this bill is passed into law?

Senator Creighton:  Well, Senator West, I don't have a lot of examples—

Senator Miles:  I'm Senator Miles, that's the other Black guy.

Senator Creighton:  —Senator Miles, excuse me. I've got Royce on my mind because he just put me through the wringer. Senator Miles, I don't have a lot of examples, but just this chart alone that shows 379 employees in the diversity and community engagement departments at The University of Texas at an aggregate salary of $7 million a year. If that alone could be channeled, Senator Miles, into outreach for 3,000 African American and Latino top 10 percent or better high school students from last year that did not seek a path towards higher education, I think that would be a victory for you and I together to share as we marshaled and redeployed those very scarce resources on behalf of who needs it the most. Because right now, Senator Miles, we have a two to one, a three to one, a sometimes five to one ratio on DEI employees compared to employees on our Texas university campuses that are specifically charged to take care of students with special needs. And that is egregious because the results of one are not there, and the resources for the other are not adequate. So, your question is, how would we marshal some of those resources and use for them for a better result, that's an example that I would offer to you today in asking you to consider changing your vote to support.

Senator Miles:  Okay, Senator Creighton. Senator Creighton, can you try to walk with me here?

Senator Creighton:  Yes.

Senator Miles:  Can you, can you understand why I'm worried and why I have concern about SB 17 intimidating colleges and universities to possibly go beyond the four corners of this bill? I mean, it's already started with the removal of Juneteenth on its website, and we haven't even passed the bill. So, can you, can you understand my concerns of once this bill is passed, where does it stop? What's the possibilities? What could possibly be the nightmares that we'll be faced with, with universities taking matters into their own hands once SB 17 is passed? Can you, can you fathom it a little bit? Can you understand where I'm from on that one?

Senator Creighton:  Senator Miles, I think the best thing that we could do in our districts and on the campuses of these universities is for you and I to visit together, in both, at the same time, and explain exactly what this bill does and does not do. And together we have the opportunity to fan the flames of fear, or we have the opportunity to calm, suggest reform, bring solutions, explain alternatives, and achieve diversity.

Senator Miles:  And my simple comment in response to that, Senator Creighton, once again, in a perfect world. Senator Creighton, what's preventing a university from applying the DEI ban to their admission policies much like what Texas A&M did? Is there anything in Senate Bill 17 that'll prevent that from happening? Yes or no.

Senator Creighton:  Senate Bill 17 is about hiring practices for faculty, Senator Miles, it's not about admissions. We have, obviously, Supreme Court decisions that are pending related to affirmative action and admissions that we are all eager to see exactly how those rulings are handed down, what those holdings explain. But this bill, as consistent with 8,000 other bills before us this session, has four corners on each page, and these corners of each page are limited to hiring practices, not to expanding into admission policies. The bill, by provision, it specifically exempts admissions from consideration.

Senator Miles:  I'm going to take that as, I know you're familiar with what happened at Texas A&M once this bill, this issue came up. So, I know you're familiar with it, and by your answer I'm just going to take that as a no. There's nothing in SB 17 to prevent it from taking place as it took place at Texas A&M. So, a university—

Senator Creighton:  Senator Miles, the bill has the federal antidiscrimination protections and state. So, if there's anything out of bounds related to discrimination, the bill most certainly speaks to it by reaffirming our obligations to follow federal and state law.

Senator Miles:  Well, thank you. So, now the answer's, your answer's a yes for SB 17 having something in it to prevent that from happening.

Senator Creighton:  In several categories, we exempt admissions and we also—

Senator Miles:  Senator Creighton, I just asked a yes or no. I'll accept your yes. I'll accept your yes—

Senator Creighton:  Did I get your yes vote on the bill? Or you're just saying my yes to—

Senator Miles:  —that SB 17 has something preventing what happened at A&M from happening at other universities.

Senator Creighton:  The bill—

Senator Miles:  And stretching this all the way to admissions.

Senator Creighton:  —the bill is comprehensive. It actually prevents a few things from happening at A&M. Right? When the Asian Americans faculty applicants were excluded from the DEI process, the bill prevents that as well. The bill prevents a lot of transgressions against those that otherwise would receive equal dignity—

Senator Miles:  And simply—

Senator Creighton:  —by removing DEI departments.

Senator Miles:  —simply put, Senator Creighton, when this came out, they took it upon themselves at Texas A&M to interpret this, to interpret this to include admissions. And that's what I was speaking out earlier, is there anything in here to prevent university systems from going beyond the four corners of the page, as I said, and I'm just simply looking for a yes or a no.

Senator Creighton:  Asked and answered.

Senator Miles:  Both ways, I got it. Senator Creighton, what is your definition of influencing, as used in Section 2 of this bill?

Senator Creighton:  Senator Miles, Senator West and I had an exchange related—

Senator Miles:  I'm not Senator West, I'm Senator Miles. I'm ask, I just wanted to know the answer to the question.

Senator Creighton:  I said, Senator Miles, Senator West and I had—

Senator Miles:  I know you, but I'm asking the same question because I got somewhere to go with that.

Senator Creighton:  It was a really good answer if you'll let me lead in the way I choose as you lead in the way you choose.

Senator Miles:  Duly noted.

Senator Creighton:  So, the definition related to influence is tied to, as an example, the loyalty oaths or the diversity statements that are required by a growing number of DEI departments and units when considering the application of a professor that would like to teach at that particular university. Those loyalty oaths or those diversity statements are politically charged, and they have a chilling effect on free speech. So, influence means that through that hiring process that is out of bounds and outside the scope of what the bill would allow once codified.

Senator Miles:  So, can you give me an example of influencing that took place in any one of the universities that, can you speak of any examples?

Senator Creighton:  Senator Miles, I've got some examples that we can cover.

Senator Miles:  I just want one or two, Senator Creighton. I'm not asking for too much, I hope.

Senator Creighton:  For these particular loyalty oaths, DEI is using them as a political agenda, not as a program to follow civil rights law. There is an example at Texas Tech of the same. Applicants can be eliminated for saying "treat all students equally." Applicants can be eliminated for saying "meritocracy," "hiring based on merit." Applicants can be excluded for saying "colorblind." Applicants can be excluded for saying "best qualified."

Senator Miles:  And all of that took place at the university, at Texas Tech. Is that correct?

Senator Creighton:  It's an example through an investigation at Texas Tech University. Look, Senator Miles, we're using examples of our public universities in Texas, that's not my favorite thing to do. Right? We're having a tough conversation on this floor, we've mentioned several universities, all of these universities are some of the best in the world, and we will continue to bolster them, support them, and enjoy the fact that they have built a brand with their incredible faculty, administrators, and leadership, and their regents that are second to none. But at the end of the day, the painful part of our oversight is that we have to continue to look at things within those universities because public dollars are used. We have to continue to look at practices that may not be working for all. And so, we have a balance, we have a balance to protect the brand of the institution by talking about some of the tough days. And we talk a lot on this floor about history, the good, the bad, and the ugly. We talk quite a bit about the present. In our state budget, it's incredible to work on Senate Finance because it gives us a snapshot into the Texas we have today. And on the Education Committee, it gives us an incredible view into the Texas we all expect for tomorrow. But talking about some of these things that require change is very necessary even though it's not our favorite thing to do. So, yes, that's an example of a Texas Tech investigation.

Senator Miles:  Texas Tech investigation. So, is it safe for me to say, Senator Creighton, that through DEI it's your belief that some races have received advantages? Is that, is that a safe statement to say? Do you, is that something you believe, that through DEI, that some races have received advantages?

Senator Creighton:  I think through the faculty hiring statistics that I offered that we saw some in the positive category over the last 10 years. In the .28 percent category, in the 1.16 percent new hires category, in the 2.58 percent category, those are technically positives. They are extremely underwhelming in what we would all expect for increasing the diversity in our faculty hiring efforts because those numbers are so low. And in some universities we went backwards under DEI units and lost ground with our minority faculty hiring. So, has it helped some and not others? Because there are positives, I would have to say, yes, that has to be the case.

Senator Miles:  And—

Senator Creighton:  Because some of those people got hired.

Senator Miles:  —just so, I'm just, so I understand, you're stating that going backwards is a positive thing in some instances. Did I understand that correct?

Senator Creighton:  No.

Senator Miles:  Okay. So, you're saying that those low numbers are positive things?

Senator Creighton:  They have to be considered a positive because they're in the growth category, and some of the numbers are in the decline category. It's a reach to even say those numbers of faculty hiring in specific categories are still defined as positive because they are such low positives. That's my point.

Senator Miles:  And I still haven't gotten an answer to my question, do you think that any race has been, has taken, has been shown an advantage through DEI?

Senator Creighton:  The way I attempted to answer your question is that for those that were hired in those low increase categories, it was a positive for them. They left a lot of, a lot of other people behind.

Senator Miles:  So, have you given any thought, Senator Creighton, to what's going to happen to those positive backward numbers without DEI?

Senator Creighton:  I think the chilling effect in the increase in required diversity statements and loyalty oaths, I think the removal of those through the DEI departments, I think the demand that those that apply sign up under the ideology that they agree with equity instead of equality for all. In other words, they agree with equal outcomes leveling up. I think some are uncomfortable with signing up for some of those concepts. And because of that chilling effect, just like we saw at the University of California, Berkeley, 76 percent of the applicants chose not to advance. So, there can be a negative from continuing DEI, there can be a serious negative that we're already seeing and quantifying through the practices of diversity statements required. And some of the mandatory trainings in universities and in the corporate world, based on the studies I have, is driving diversity outcomes down.

Senator Miles:  And that's a great place to close this section out with this question. Senator Creighton, what's going to happen when there's a significant drop in women, people of color, and other minority positions of power at universities due to SB 17? What happens then? So, when the numbers really start to decline, what do we do then?

Senator Creighton:  Well, this bill is about hiring professors. And what we see from the Baylor study is that DEI equals no significant results for minority-based hiring for universities. So, if we remove the DEI units, that study and its findings will reverse, and we will see an uptick because of the chilling effect of those professors that may not agree politically with the loyalty oath of what they're expected to sign up for. They will, in turn, reapproach and apply for the job that the study says they are otherwise chilled from approaching. And separate from that, the Harvard study says the same thing about the corporate world.

Senator Miles:  And, Senator Creighton, when that doesn't happen, then what?

Senator Creighton:  That's what you and I are tasked with in this Chamber, to work together for solutions that are working because this example of DEI units in Texas today is not working. So, the only way we could fail the public even more miserably is to continue to fund them and continue to keep something that is not working for all, to keep something that is under the nomenclature of diversity and inclusion, yet it is working in an exclusive way. That is how you and I together fail the public.

Senator Miles:  Senator Creighton, you and I have said this to each other many a times, so take it in the spirit that I'm giving it, we're going to agree to disagree, respectfully. Let's move on to some threat, some funding issues. Senator Creighton, I'm also worried about how this bill could affect the cost of college tuition in the State of Texas. Let's take, for example, two universities in Texas, example, UT, where I think you earned your degree, and the University of Houston that sits in my district. Senator Creighton, do you know what portion of UT Austin's total budget state funds account for?

Senator Creighton:  Not offhand, Senator Miles.

Senator Miles:  It's roughly 10 percent or $33 million. In the University of Houston's operating budget, source funds, roughly 19 percent from the state, 53.7 million. So, if a university is found to be in violation of the provisions in SB 17 and they lose state funding, are you okay with defunding a public university like your alma mater UT?

Senator Creighton:  Well, Senator Miles, we talked about how Texas Woman's University is the most diverse in the state, we talked about how they only have a student-run DEI office. If they are not by administration or faculty or state dollar funding a DEI office, then they are still receiving dollars without penalty. If you go to the federal level and you expand to just all universities in the state, it would be a, certainly a conflict with state and federal law to punish our universities for—Go ahead and let me know what you're holding up.

Senator Miles:  No, I want you to finish, Senator Creighton.

Senator Creighton:  It would certainly be a violation of the law that I would expect many on our behalf would litigate, if there were some sort of reprisal through grants or through accreditation. What particular funding are you talking about losing?

Senator Miles:  I'm talking about research funding. I'm talking about, you know, and just a clarification, Senator Hancock was absolutely correct, they have a student council diverse, equity, inclusion council, that's correct, that's run by students, which is absolutely correct. And they don't have an official DEI, but they have something called a diversity, inclusion outreach which is run by the university. So, they actually have something which is very similar, and they refer to it as, basically, it's not a DEI but it's a DIO. And they're charged with promoting diversity, which is expressed in many forms, including race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and language. And that's, that is run by the university, but it's not considered a DEI. It's considered a DIO. How are these universities going to make up for the shortfall in research when a lot of their research grants specifically say they have to have a DEI program in place to receive these federal fundings?

Senator Creighton:  Senator Miles, as we've discussed, the bill maintains requirements already enshrined in federal law. Whatever information universities collect would still be consistent with what the feds require. Texas is and will remain one of the top states for research in cutting edge advancements. Our ability to recruit top researchers and federal grants to support that research will be consistent. Faculty research is completely exempt from the bill, so research grants are unaffected in that category. I think, all in all, we will be covered as far as grants and research-oriented efforts are concerned.

Senator Miles:  Senator Creighton, I want to thank you again for allowing me to take part in the hearing, which went on until two in the morning. I hope that you recall one witness that came from The University of Texas that stated to us in that hearing that over 70 percent of the research dollars that University of Texas was receiving was coming from federal dollars, that they would have to do without, without DEI. Do you remember that testimony?

Senator Creighton:  I think that was speculation.

Senator Miles:  Okay, speculation. So, let me, let me close this section out with this question. And I hate to put you on the spot like this. Are you okay with public universities possibly having to raise their tuition to cover the shortfalls that may come from Senate Bill 17?

Senator Creighton:  Senator Miles, we put 14 to 16 to 18 billion dollars a biennium into our public universities. With regard to all the conversations that we've talked about today, tied to our flagships, I don't think that any of us need a reminder on how they benefit from the PUF and the funds that are coming in to that fund. Separate from that, with Chairman Huffman's landmark legislation related to creating a new fund to help our emerging and Tier 1 universities continue to climb with additional funding with that endowment, all in all, no, I'm not concerned with state or federal funding that's coming in to our universities at the levels that those dollars are being deployed.

Senator Miles:  Okay. You know, Senator West and y'all's lively back and forth conversation, debate, mentioned that The University of Texas and Texas A&M had some perception issues or some problems with their imaging. And the question I have is, you know, why should Texas prohibit DEI initiatives when there have been decades of evidence that demonstrate that DEI policies and programs help to facilitate compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws? I mean, it would seem to me, Senator Creighton, that in Texas, The University of Texas and Texas A&M, that we would be doing everything to assist them with the perception and the imaging issues that they suffered with over the years as it relates to minority students, as it relates to minority students and hiring. So, you don't see the question there?

Senator Creighton:  Restate, please.

Senator Miles:  Why wouldn't we want to use everything in our toolbox to show the true Texas?

Senator Creighton:  I think that what you and I are saying as a potential solution going forward if this bill passes, it would be much closer than you think. Marshaling the resources that we're currently investing for the outcomes that are not producing diversity and inclusion, and using those resources in better practices that would achieve diversity and inclusion is something that we agree on, and something that we will work together to continue to strive for. And we will be successful.

Senator Miles:  Okay. And let me, let me start wrapping this up because I'm sure there's other people, as the Lieutenant Governor said. And I just want to know if I'm, my staff brought this to my attention, thought I'd bring it to you for a point of clarification. On page 2 of SB 17, line 39, the bill states that the university cannot require any person to participate in diversity, equity, and inclusion training. It says if they do require training, it must be developed by an attorney and approved by the university's general counsel or the Attorney General's office. It must be for the purpose of complying with the court orders, state, and federal laws. Roughly, and then I start thinking, well, roughly 75 percent of general counsels in the U.S. are White and 61.5 are men. African Americans only comprise less than 6 percent of general counsels. This nationwide data is consistent with Texas colleges and universities for general counsels, Senator Creighton. Is it not important to ensure a group of individuals with diverse perspectives participate in the development and implementation of training programs or activities seeking to improve diversity? I mean, how are you going to tell me, a Black man that lives in the State of Texas, more about diversity than you think that I already know? That's basically what that question is saying. Because only 6.5, less than 6 percent of African Americans that are general counsel, I can't imagine what the Hispanic number looks like, but I'm going to have to rely on a majority of African American, White men to tell me and to help write the statutes and the training programs for diversities at what should be considered inclusive of our universities in the State of Texas.

Senator Creighton:  The provisions, Senator Miles, requires the development of training in those categories to be accomplished by an attorney and approved by general counsel of the university. I would be the last person to assume that those individuals would not be qualified. But the bill does not preclude the attorney drafting the trainings process or the general counsel for the university, the bill does not preclude those individuals from seeking advice, from seeking expertise, from leaning on others while they put those training regimens together. The bill does not preclude that, but I also would not preclude, I also would not assume that those individuals are not competent because of the color, potentially, the color of their skin. Again, this bill on hiring practices is colorblind and gender neutral and based on merit. I would assume the university is hiring the brightest minds in the world to accomplish these goals.

Senator Miles:  Well, I heard you said it does not preclude, but it also doesn't include. Agree?

Senator Creighton:  They'll have to be held accountable by their superiors.

Senator Miles:  The bill does not preclude but it also does not include. Do we agree?

Senator Creighton:  I don't see a problem with the draft of the bill.

Senator Miles:  Okay. I think you, I think you've answered my question.

Senator Creighton:  The bill does not preclude or—

Senator Miles:  Let me, let me close out—

Senator Creighton:  —yeah.

Senator Miles:  —you and, you and Senator West, I think, covered the NCAA issues pretty in depth. But as I go to the website for NCAA, I pull out several issues, several things that I find alarming based on your statements in your debate with Senator West. I think the most bright one, the most shining one, and it says, finally NCAA acknowledges that some states and local laws may create barriers for schools to engage in specific DEI work. Ultimately, the NCAA constitution requires members to commit to promoting DEI in athletic activities and events, hiring practices, professional and coaching relationships, leadership, and the advancement opportunities. That's on the website. It makes clear that they understand that some states will put up barriers. It also goes on to say that the NCAA is committed to fostering diversity, equitable, inclusive culture in colleges and athletes and athletics. It says athletes and athletics, and supporting DEI efforts of member schools, conferences, and the national office. That's what I read when I go to the NCAA website. So, I'm going to skip over the entire NCAA section I have here for the sake of time. But let's talk about the DEI offices and employees for a second. The legislation prohibits Texas colleges and universities from establishing and maintaining DEI offices. It also prohibits any employee of a third party from performing duties of that office, and that's on page 3, line 11 through 16. Did you know that the UT Center for Equity and Inclusion provides resources for students with disability?

Senator Creighton:  Yes.

Senator Miles:  Who will take over the role if the DEI office is abolished under this legislation? Who will take over that role?

Senator Creighton:  Right now, right now, Senator Miles, with the upended ratio of the number of DEI employees on our campuses, compared to the employees that take care of students with special needs, maybe they could lend a hand to those students—

Senator Miles:  Maybe.

Senator Creighton:  —with special needs. Maybe, maybe so.

Senator Miles:  Maybe.

Senator Creighton:  But separate from that, it depends on what's done with the resources tied specifically to student services. So, there's, we have human resources departments, obviously, on every university campus, that as part of the solution for reconfiguring these goals on behalf of students with disabilities, they take care of students with disabilities now. What you're talking about through DEI is an assist. And so, I guess the question is with all of the dollars tied to the DEI employees, and through DEI and community engagement alone there's 379 mentioned in the UT framework, some of those resources could bolster the existing disabilities framework for student services on campus.

Senator Miles:  And I'm assuming that you're going to apply that same answer to the international students that the DEI office helps at UT. You're going to apply that same answer to those international students and researchers?

Senator Creighton:  Senator Miles, yes, it would be consistent, but they also have academic advisors, counselors, student support mechanisms, so many different ways to support them on campus separate from the DEI framework.

Senator Miles:  Okay. Well, let's go to something that I know is meaningful to everybody's heart in here, the nearly one million veterans enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities. Campus offices for diversity and inclusion often provide the necessary mental health services to address PTSD, suicide, or depression. Diversity offices host military appreciation month and other celebrations for their service. UT Arlington has been nationally recognized at the top of universities in the nation for veteran and military connecting students. Who is going to take over those roles when DEI is removed?

Senator Creighton:  Senator Miles, the legislation doesn't, it doesn't do anything to affect the availability of student support services that help the students that need help the most, whether that be academically through tutoring and writing centers, whether it be for health and mental healthcare services, mentorship programs, internship, employment support services, extracurricular programming, library services, academic counseling, none of that is affected in any way.

Senator Miles:  The reality of it is the DEI offices on most of these campuses assist, assist with international students with all their issues and assist with veteran students and all their needs. As you discussed with Senator West, DEI is not just for African Americans, it helps throughout the entire university for minority students, disabled students, veterans. And I'm just trying to figure out, Senator Creighton, who's going to take over those hard jobs and that heavy lifting when DEI is removed.

Senator Creighton:  The rubric and the framework, Senator Miles, would be very consistent with the exact framework that existed on these campuses prior to 2016, when the uptick took place to include and add all of these DEI units and offices all across the state. The bloated, bureaucratic side of these DEI offices, the funds that support those, could be marshaled and redeployed into a framework that was even better before they existed. So, many of these offices, and I know the one at UT has been around a little bit longer, maybe back to 2003, but the uptick of the units being created and grown and expanded from 2016 to now, there was life prior to that, there was student support in all those categories prior to that. And all of this additional funding that supports the DEI offices could be used to help all instead of some.

Senator Miles:  I'm going to move on for the respect of my colleagues. Senator Creighton, do you believe that Texas has some of the best faculty and staff at our colleges and universities?

Senator Creighton:  I couldn't hear you, Senator Miles.

Senator Miles:  Do you believe that Texas has some of the best faculty and staff at our colleges and universities?

Senator Creighton:  Yes, I even stated that just a few minutes ago. I absolutely believe that.

Senator Miles:  And are you convinced that what makes us some of the best is the diversity, the small diversity that we have in some of our, at our colleges and universities and staff. And I did say small diversity.

Senator Creighton:  Senator Miles, without a doubt our shared goal is diversity and the strength of our state is tied to diversity. The Latino professors on the campus of University of Texas at El Paso, I think they represent over 30 percent of the professors on faculty, maybe more. We've got some incredible examples, not just of faculty but of diversity accomplished. We can do much more.

Senator Miles:  Senator Creighton, do you think students benefit from seeing professors and faculty and university administrators who have similarities to them in their race, gender, ethnicity, and religion?

Senator Creighton:  I think not only do those students benefit from those professors that align with them and their backgrounds, but I can say, personally, that even though I looked different than some of my professors, I benefited from them, too.

Senator Miles:  Senator Creighton, do you believe that this bill is going to help improve the diversity amongst our student, amongst our faculty and staff?

Senator Creighton:  I do because I believe we will light a grass fire across this nation to remove these rubrics that are exclusive, and I believe in replacement a Texas model, a Texas solution that will be aligned towards our shared goals to achieve true diversity year after year after year in these hiring practices will be a model for the rest of the nation. And you and I will work together to design it.

Senator Miles:  In closing, Senator Creighton, DEI policies and offices across the state stem from efforts by colleges to correct years, years of historical discrimination against underrepresented minorities, and this mission is still important today. Would you agree? Would you agree, Senator Creighton?

Senator Creighton:  Senator Miles, I thought you were in your closing. Repeat for me.

Senator Miles:  You going to coach him, Senator Bettencourt, or can I, can we finish having this lively debate we're having? The question was the DEI policies and offices stem from efforts by colleges to correct years of historical discrimination against underrepresented minorities, and this mission is still important today. Would you agree?

Senator Creighton:  I do agree.

Senator Miles:  Well, then how, tell me, Senator Creighton, how does this bill support those decades of work and the little bit of bitty, bitty bit of progress we've had?

Senator Creighton:  I think we should expect more from the progress that we've seen, which is very, very small, if not in many categories going backwards in the performance that we all would like to see from the resources being invested into these efforts. Second, I think that we all deserve, and that everyone applying at a Texas university certainly deserves, a framework in that application and hiring process that includes all rather than excluding some.

Senator Miles:  Senator Creighton, this is a question, so stay with me. You know, we stand in this building, the time that we're supposed to be here every other year as a legislative body, and we say in one breath we have some of the best public universities in the nation. And then in the next breath we pass legislation, or we're attempting to pass legislation, or we probably will pass this legislation, that will cause us to lose talented faculty and tie the hands of universities from recruiting new talented faculty to the state. And we call that progress, Senator Creighton?

Senator Creighton:  I believe the passage of this legislation, Senator Miles, will attract applicants, not deter them.

Senator Miles:  Senator Creighton, you know, for the eight years that I have been here now, going on eight, I always try to bring all of our issues on this floor, Members, close to home and close to my district so that not just I can understand it, I try to assist you in understanding the effects that these issues will have on communities like mine. And I said this earlier, you know, I don't understand and have any idea how you all can understand, Senator Creighton, what it's like for me and others to be minorities and particularly for me, a Black man, not just in this state but also in this country. And I often wonder when a minority issue hits this floor, Senator Creighton, you and my fellow Senators, you tell us that a piece of legislation will affect minorities, we tell you that a piece of legislation will affect minorities in an adverse way. But it seems like when we tell that to you, we're always ignored. And it's never taken into account what it's like, what it's going to be like on some of these college campuses when SB 17 goes into effect. I mean, you go as far as to tell us you know about some of the experiences that we experienced and that we live out and that our children live out on some of these college campuses. You know, somewhere I read in one of my history books in public education, the public education I received, that historically, Republicans were promoting, Senator Whitmire, that we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, Senator West, that we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. But the problem we're facing today, Senator Creighton, is when we try to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, you file bills like SB 17 and you take our boots from us. We've made many advances with DEI, maybe not the kind that we wanted to see and we expect, but God knows what is it going to look like when we don't have DEI? If we made small advancements with DEI, can you imagine what it's going to look like without DEI? Think about it. Thank you, Senator Creighton.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Senator Miles.

Presiding Officer:  Senator Huffman, for what purpose?

Senator Huffman:  Permission to question the author of the legislation.

Presiding Officer:  Do you yield, Senator Creighton?

Senator Creighton:  Yes, I yield.

Presiding Officer:  You're recognized, Senator Huffman.

Senator Huffman:  Senator Creighton, been listening carefully to the debate that I guess been going on for more than a couple of hours now. And listening to Senator Miles just now, I think some of the questions that I have, it's a good segue, I think. So, let's stop and think about what you're doing here. I'm looking at your legislation, reading it carefully, and it's really about, am I correct, hiring practices in higher education in the State of Texas. Is that correct?

Senator Creighton:  Yes. Hiring practices that would be inclusive to all.

Senator Huffman:  Exactly. As you crafted this legislation, and I know you worked, and I want to publicly commend you for how hard you and your staff have been working on this because I've been watching, and I know you've gone through several versions of the bill. Is that correct?

Senator Creighton:  That's correct.

Senator Huffman:  And as I read it, it's a very, I think, a very thoughtful piece of legislation, and I notice that it's very, very clear in the legislation that you respect and you set aside, make it very clear that all federal law, all applicable federal law, is to be respected and followed and that your legislation is not stepping at all on federal law. Is that, am I reading that correctly?

Senator Creighton:  That's correct. A reaffirmation of our commitment to state and federal law, antidiscrimination laws is a cornerstone of the bill, and as we all are aligned in building forward towards better diverse outcomes on our campuses for faculty hiring, I think the bill absolutely has to have that in it reaffirmed.

Senator Huffman:  And so, some of the debate that if someone was just listening from afar and wasn't, didn't have the legislation in front of them, I could see how they might think, wow, what about the Civil Rights Act? What about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, or does the State of Texas think that they can just pass legislation that overrules that? Do you, could you see how some people might think that if they're just listening to this debate?

Senator Creighton:  It's incredible how often we are trying to outrun a narrative. My dad used to tell me you're behind when you're explaining.

Senator Huffman:  Well, that is true. That is correct.

Senator Creighton:  And I think that the best that we can do all together, as I committed to Senator Miles, if I could come into anyone's district upon invitation and just take questions from any constituents on exactly what we're doing here, the nomenclature alone, without reference to state and federal antidiscrimination law reaffirmation, of course, as you mentioned, might be jarring, diversity, equity, and inclusion, but actually it's the underperformance and the exclusivity, and by example, litigation examples, on and on, in this state and out of state, where we have to take action if we really want to achieve results for everyone with a pursuing equal dignity.

Senator Huffman:  Exactly. And as you state, I'm looking at page two of your legislation, line one and two, and this on the committee sub, you say, you know, talking about influencing hiring or employment practices at the institution with respect to race, sex, color, or ethnicity other than through the use of colorblind and sex-neutral hiring process in accordance with any applicable state and federal antidiscrimination law. So, again, federal law must apply. And then again, when you make some rules about the governing board of an institution of higher education shall ensure that each academic or administrative unit of the institution does not, and then again, except as required by federal law. So, again, you're making it very clear that federal law still applies. Is that correct?

Senator Creighton:  That's absolutely correct.

Senator Huffman:  Okay. So, let's look at, a little bit, and I'm, just take a minute because I think this is extremely important to the discussion. Well, let's look at Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and, of 1964, is of course federal law, and it talks specifically that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer, which would be one of the, under your bill, one of the institutions of higher education. They would be the employer in this situation that is unlawful to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That'll still be the, in hiring practice of our higher ed, institutions of higher education under your legislation. Is that correct?

Senator Creighton:  Absolutely correct. And the bill reaffirms that, yes.

Senator Huffman:  Okay. Also, under civil right, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it also prohibits an employer, higher ed, to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Is that correct?

Senator Creighton:  That's correct.

Senator Huffman:  Alright. And then, interestingly, if you kind of dig deeper into the Civil Rights Act, there is a section and it talks about the effect on state laws. And I think that's interesting because, and this is kind of a lot, a mouthful of legalese here. But it is important, I think, to get it on the record that says, nothing in this subchapter shall be deemed to exempt or relieve any person from any liability, duty, penalty, or punishment provided by any present or future law of any state or political subdivision of a state other than any such law which proports to require or permit the doing of any act which would be an unlawful employment practice under this subchapter. So, that's specifically telling us that we can't enforce, make, write laws that would, you know, change what's here in the Civil Rights Act. So, though your bill goes to the issue of hiring practices and so forth, Civil Rights Acts tells you that you can't, you know, be superior to what they have told you could do. Correct?

Senator Creighton:  Absolutely. This bill is consistent with the Texas Labor Code, antidiscrimination statutes, and it is absolutely consistent in doing nothing to preempt federal law but actually complements and reaffirms our commitment to antidiscrimination laws like the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Title VII.

Senator Huffman:  Okay. And I just felt it was important to get that on the record. I think this is an excellent piece of legislation. I feel that once it's in place that the universities, I believe, will follow the law, and so you won't have to worry about the section about how they're going to be penalized because I believe they will implement the law and move forward and it will be, it will be better for all. So, thank you for your work on this, Senator Creighton.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Senator Huffman, for those clarifications. And as we've seen from universities by indication of their letters that they've published recently on their DEI policies being suspended pending state legislative action, I believe this is the next step, be consistent to reach critical mass on exactly what gives direction our universities need going forward.

Senator Huffman:  Thank you, Senator Creighton.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you.

Presiding Officer:  Senator Whitmire, for what purpose?

Senator Whitmire:  Will the Senator yield?

Presiding Officer:  Do you yield, Senator Creighton?

Senator Creighton:  Yes, I yield.

Presiding Officer:  You're recognized, Dean.

Senator Whitmire:  Senator Creighton, to get right to the bottom of this, can you let us know when you first heard of DEI? When did the concept and the term diversity, equity, and inclusion come into your being?

Senator Creighton:  I first read about it online, Dean, a few years ago, you know, when I was asked to take over the chairmanship of Higher Education, a few sessions back. I think it was just after that first session.

Senator Whitmire:  Well, I was wondering were you familiar with it last session?

Senator Creighton:  Yes.

Senator Whitmire:  And you were Chair of Higher Ed at that—

Senator Creighton:  Yes.

Senator Whitmire:  —time.

Senator Creighton:  Yes.

Senator Whitmire:  Were you not compelled to address it at that time as strongly as you are today?

Senator Creighton:  You know, as is the case with every time we study and follow a particular topic, session by session, there's always a first time to advance a bill.

Senator Whitmire:  True.

Senator Creighton:  Sometimes it takes us several sessions to pass that exact bill but, yes, you're right. I've been following it without a doubt, and that specifically the studies that were passed over the past few years relating to the data. And so, you have to continue to watch the data on performance—

Senator Whitmire:  Sure.

Senator Creighton:  —before sometimes you graduate to advancing policy.

Senator Whitmire:  But it, would it surprise you to know I've talked to numerous Members that, who was really kind of before we came into session, in fact there were some discussion, I think, some working groups preparing for this session. But it's a relatively new concept and conversation for legislators to have. Would you not agree? I mean it's, it just kind of almost came out of nowhere as part of our legislative discussions. Would you not agree? I mean it wasn't last session for sure. You're telling me that you were familiar with it, but apparently it hadn't risen to the priority list. I think last session it'd be fair to say critical race theory was kind of the boutique issue for some Members to discuss. Certainly, we addressed it and debated it. But where was this last session if it is such a broken and a such a disturbing matter for you?

Senator Creighton:  It was wrapped up in the data of a lack of performance that just never got anything but worse.

Senator Whitmire:  From last session.

Senator Creighton:  Yes. Last session. I've got data, year after year after year, on these DEI departments—

Senator Whitmire:  I know, but you just dropped it in the legislative hopper this session. And I'm just sitting here listening for the last couple of hours. If the sky is falling, as you describe it, because the DEI is taking money from special needs children, where were you last session addressing such a critical issue that you are, made it, that you're making it out to be today? It's just, it just bothers me that if you were aware of it two years ago, we weren't having this discussion two years ago.

Senator Creighton:  Well, Dean, some of that is just like state funding, right, it's tied to capacity. So, as my office would probably tell you, I have a lot of other great ideas in the hopper.

Senator Whitmire:  Well, let me tell you—

Senator Creighton:  A lot—

Senator Whitmire:  —not, not—

Senator Creighton:  —no, I'm, I'm not finished with my answer yet so hold, give me a second, give me a second.

Senator Whitmire:  —yeah.

Senator Creighton:  I brought forward the bills that I could commit to, that I had the data and the research to feel part and mind like I could advance the bill in a genuine way and explain it to the Members, back it up. I felt like the timing was right, but capacity-wise I think our office carries maybe the third most bills on the Senate floor, sometimes fourth. I'm not sure. I'm always—

Senator Whitmire:  Sure.

Senator Creighton:  —following Senator Zaffirini on that. And it's, from a capacity issue, we just have a certain bandwidth, but now I'm in a combined chairmanship of bringing higher ed and K through 12 together. And I'm very much minded towards reforms so that we don't exit here in June and have something that as a Chair over that subject matter I failed to address.

Senator Whitmire:  Well, honestly, it got ranking, like number 17, so obviously the leadership and you decided it was that high a priority. Let me, let me ask you something. Not you, but do you believe some Texans are concerned that DEI might actually work if given a longer life span? Not you, but do you think there's Texans out there that are watching us that said, thank goodness because that DEI might change the complexion of the State of Texas and give people opportunity that have been left out? Because, you see, I think if, would you not agree with me that some folks, some Texans are actually afraid of inclusion and where this state's demographics are going and the opportunities that are ahead. Do you think that that could be encouraging this discussion from certain political groups or, certainly, regular Texans?

Senator Creighton:  As I've been very consistent during this conversation about my intentions on all of us sharing alignment on advancing diversity and inclusion, belonging, what, however you want to define it, I hope that those that are watching feel a little bit different than when they first tuned in because so many of my references and my exchanges, so far, have been tied to a commitment to solutions.

Senator Whitmire:  Well, the concern, would you not share, agree with me, we're all looking for solutions, it's who's the architect of those solutions that ought to concern us. And that leads me to when you first became concerned about DEI, and you've mentioned the Asian Americans that have been left out. I think you cited A&M. Did you ever pick up the phone and call Chancellor Sharp and address that? It could've probably been fixed with a good conversation months ago. I'm always amazed, Members, how we have a controversy or a concern, and the next thing you know, it's in the form of a piece of legislation. Did you ever have a conversation with our chancellors about is this DEI really working? Is it following its intention? Is it cost-effective? Have you ever had serious conversations with anyone in higher ed about your conversation we're hearing today? You know, it might have worked. You might have, could've even modified it and saved you a lot of time and debate on this Senate floor, and the good news would, you might have really made a difference without frightening some communities. Did you ever make that phone call?

Senator Creighton:  Dean, do you really feel like I haven't reached out and had conversations related to DEI with our university leadership?

Senator Whitmire:  I'm certain you have as you prepared for this debate and to pass this legislation. I'm talking about when you first became concerned and on your radar that the DEI might not be following the best pathway to accomplish what we're all looking for, diversity, inclusion.

Senator Creighton:  Let's just say I've had conversations before, as a legislator asking for assurances without codifying the policy or dedicating the dollar. And I've been let down on those promises waiting on me to pack and leave in June.

Senator Whitmire:  Are you ever concerned, and I'm concerned, do you share my concern how history will look back at this legislative discussion? Maybe not 10 years from now, maybe not 20, but let's say 30 years from now. Maybe some of you'll still be Members of the Senate. Does it concern you how in 2023 we're having a spirited debate about the concept and the practice in the offices of diversity, equity, and inclusion? Can you imagine what Texans are going to think 20 or 30 years from now?

Senator Creighton:  What are Texans going to think 20 or 30 years from now?

Senator Whitmire:  Yes, Sir.

Senator Creighton:  Dean, I guess they would—

Senator Whitmire:  Does that concern you that—

Senator Creighton:  —I guess they—

Senator Whitmire:  —that 30 years from when we'll have a majority-minority state, they're going to look back and say in 2023 they were actually discussing our opportunities and addressing the fact that we've been left behind, but now we've caught up, and they may make up a majority of Members on this Senate floor.

Senator Creighton:  Dean, while we're talking about the future, we can talk about the past, 30 years at a time. I guess there are some Texans still wondering why when Republicans joined together in Congress to break the Democrat filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act to make sure that it would pass, that we're talking about decades and decades later how a Republican might not be doing the right thing to advance diversity. So, of course—

Senator Whitmire:  Well, let me tell you—

Senator Creighton:  —of course we're going to look at history, and 30 years from now I will have already been part of the solution for what we're talking about today because of what I committed to with Senator West and Senator Miles, solutions.

Senator Whitmire:  Let me just tell you why I ask that question. In my career, you know, one of the most controversial issues that I've seen and participated in, in my legislative tenure, looking back at history and how ridiculous it seems today, the debate in 1978 whether to make Martin Luther King's birthday a state holiday. It was a knock-down, drag-out. It passed but barely, and now for us to sit here and think, what was the dispute? The discussion about Juneteenth being a state holiday was so controversial, now it's recognized. Bilingual education, are you familiar with how controversial that was in the '70s, and now it's a fundamental accepted practice in public education. I can go on and on with emotional issues, controversial issues that were discussed 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago since I've been here, and now it looks silly and outrageous that we argued about whether to make Martin Luther King's birthday a state holiday. I will submit to you 20, 30, 40 years from now they're going to look back and say we argued about equity, we argued about inclusion and diversity? Does that concern you at all how history will review your proposal and your sponsorship?

Senator Creighton:  Well, in your terms, a ridiculous reference to Juneteenth and Martin Luther King's birthday, which neither have anything to do with this legislation, but I would tell you what is ridiculous to me is that in MLK's speech, his "I Have a Dream" speech where he said that he hopes that his four kids will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Senator Whitmire:  And he's probably—

Senator Creighton:  And so—

Senator Whitmire:  —turning over—

Senator Creighton:  —I'm not—

Senator Whitmire:  —in his—

Senator Creighton:  —finished yet.

Senator Whitmire:  —grave—

Senator Creighton:  But if you'll let me finish—

Senator Whitmire:  —that you're quoting him while you're proposing there.

Senator Creighton:  —I will let you finish. So, today the ridiculous reference—

Senator Whitmire:  I'm sorry.

Presiding Officer:  Whoops, I'm sorry. Dean, out of respect for you, Senator Creighton, out of respect for you, Members. Dean, you've been here long enough. You're recognized to ask your question, or if the question's already been asked, you're recognized to answer the question. But please, let's keep our debate—

Senator Creighton:  I withdraw the answer.

Senator Whitmire:  I apologize, I think I drowned out his answer.

Presiding Officer:  Thank you, Dean.

Senator Creighton:  My reference was that in Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech about his four kids being not judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character. I'm offering a bill today to solve diversity, lack of progress in diversity in hiring in our Texas universities, and the bill specifically says colorblind and gender neutral. Very consistent with MLK's teachings yet you're saying, would I be judged for that 30 years from now? I think that we are making significant progress to build upon the lack of progress in these departments. Look, I understand that the nomenclature, the name of the departments could be taken in a way that if we remove them, we are taking some kind of a step away from those goals. And I have repeated over and over for hours how we can't outrun the nomenclature, but we can redesign the effort, redeploy the funds, and make sure that as our goals align with diversity, we will be successful.

Senator Whitmire:  Do you believe that DEI is to allow groups to catch up the great opportunities that our country provides some individuals and not others? Is it, do you understand it was designed in being carried out to let folks catch up? And it's not just race. It's religion. You know, the Muslim students have been discriminated against, left out of the process for years and years. I mean, it makes news that we have two Muslim House members. There are groups, Senator, are you familiar, that have completely been left out of the American dream and that's what the DEI concept and offices are about correcting? Not just race, it's religion, sexual orientation, disabilities, it's for any group that have not enjoyed the opportunities that perhaps you and I have had. Are you familiar with that concept and that ideal that is to allow people to catch up?

Senator Creighton:  Dean, you're exactly right. And in every one of those categories, we have faculty applicants that are not comfortable with the loyalty oath diversity statements required by these DEI departments that are mandatory and that are excluding them even though they provide merit, even though they're some of the best teachers, even though they're some of the best performers in research, they're being excluded and they're in those categories of religion and age and disability, yes. And we—

Senator Whitmire:  And, and—

Senator Creighton:  —share alignment in that goal.

Senator Whitmire:  —and I agree not that, it's, nothing perfect. It can be improved. But I just really think that you could have not gone quite so far to do away with it. You could've modified it. You could've sunsetted it. You could've had working groups going forward. And I hope that it's not as bad as some of us believe it's going to be. I think, perhaps, we haven't heard the last of this. I think you'll be addressing it next session because I do believe, in closing, and I will ask you if concur with me, is going to impact the business community of Texas, it's going to impact our universities for certain. And my worst fears are you're taking Texas a step back because I'm, there's been discussion about the NCAA. I'm not worried about the sports concepts. I'm talking about attracting people to this state. I've been on a recruiting team for a major law firm. And when you go up to Yale or other areas of the country and talk to their best and brightest, they look at the values and the practices and the equality of your state. Green students that you're trying to move to Texas, join your law firm, they want to know about DEI. And this is a national issue. You're making national news, no doubt. And my worst fear is, and do you share with me that it's going to be interpreted as Texas going back in time instead of forward? Thank you.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you—

Presiding Officer:  Thank you—

Senator Creighton:  —Senator Whitmire.

Presiding Officer:  —thank you, Dean. Senator Kolkhorst, for what purpose?

Senator Kolkhorst:  Thank you, Mr. President, to ask questions.

Presiding Officer:  Do you yield, Senator Creighton?

Senator Creighton:  I yield.

Presiding Officer:  You're recognized, Senator Kolkhorst.

Senator Kolkhorst:  Thank you so much. I know we are on the suspension of regular order of business and asking questions before we take that vote, and I appreciate my colleagues and the input and the passion by which they speak. It was really interesting, I have a folder on, you always know a pretty big bill when you're not carrying the bill, but you have a folder that says Senate Bill 17. And right on the top it said Title IX will not be impacted by Senate Bill 17. And that's because my staff knows how much I care about Title IX. Now Senator Huffman talked about Title VII, from 1964, I believe it was. Title IX being 1972, impacted my life greatly. I was a college athlete because of Title IX and that, what the United States Congress then. So, I'm going to ask a few questions just around that because we've talked a lot about race and ethnicity, and I just want to kind of go, make sure that, you know, in Title IX that nothing in Senate Bill 17 in any way harms Title IX as we know it today.

Senator Creighton:  That's correct. It actually reaffirms it.

Senator Kolkhorst:  So, Senator West and, Senator West and I share this brotherhood and sisterhood of being college athletes. I think, Senator West, you are, you and I are the only two former student athletes on the floor. By his size you would not guess that he played center, I believe it was, in basketball, number five, position number five. I was a golfer. I did play high school basketball. You'd guess I'd be a point guard out there with my size. But I just, I want to build off of what he said because I think it's pretty important that, you know, we talk about, as the Dean says, the long-term impacts of a law like this. And so, I spent some time, Senator West, after your question because I'm, I do care about sports, I really, I do. It's an opportunity for young people today to compete. Now, with NIL they're able to make really good money. They get free education and it leads them potentially to another part of their life. But I was looking up DEI and so, just for point of clarification with the NCAA, it looks like that the NCAA, and we talk about how new is DEI, it's so new that they are going to the conferences, must complete their first reviews by November 1st, 2024. The deadline for schools to complete their initial review is November 3rd, 2023. And this is about the responsibility of each Division I member school or conference to conduct a DEI review for every four years as outlined by the NCAA bylaws. Just for point of clarification, as I read it, the NCAA does not require an office of DEI. Is that correct?

Senator Creighton:  That's correct.

Senator Kolkhorst:  And so, what I want to make sure is that our universities, obviously, are working. You gave some stats. We are making some improvement in diversity and inclusion but not enough. Right?

Senator Creighton:  That's correct.

Senator Kolkhorst:  So, the NCAA and what they have purview on, going to review every four years. Right?

Senator Creighton:  That's right.

Senator Kolkhorst:  So, you feel like Senate Bill 7 doesn't harm us in any way of competing in the NCAA athletics Division I.

Senator Creighton:  Under that review, reaffirmation and commitment to the requirements in state and federal law would satisfy the NCAA.

Senator Kolkhorst:  And just out of point of clarification because I do care about Division II and Division III schools, which we have some. But Division II and Division III schools do not have legislative requirements for conducting DEI reviews. So, this is, you know, fairly new if the NCAA's just starting this whole concept. So, I also want to ask a question about an area that I've spent some time, and I work in Health and Human Services and something we worked to create more programs to train doctors and healthcare professional in the state. And I want to make sure that this bill will not create any problems with accreditation of those programs. So, do you feel like it's going to cause any problem with SACS accreditation, anything else?

Senator Creighton:  I don't. Senator Kolkhorst, we've looked into SACS, we've also got a separate piece of legislation that Senator Middleton is advancing that deals specifically with accreditation and some changes there, but the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges specifically affirms that it does not require DEI programs.

Senator Kolkhorst:  So, in your opening statement, you gave quite a few facts and figures. You actually called out a number of our state universities on some of their practices, but I just wrote down some key words, and one thing that stuck with me was loyalty oaths. Loyalty oaths. One more time, try to tell me what a loyalty oath is because I know you spoke of a biology teacher and obviously, I mean, we do believe in merit. I mean, that's, you know, I, we've been taught to be competitive, capitalism, all that great stuff. I'm an athlete. The harder I work the better I am. I might not be the fastest. I wasn't the best. My short game wasn't great. That's why I didn't play on the LPGA. You know, and so, I failed a little bit at the very end, by not being great because I just didn't quite have the talent. But, you know, like when you talk about a loyalty oath, sometimes you don't get the job because you're not talented enough or you don't have the master's or, you know, a master's or a Ph.D., but what is a loyalty oath?

Senator Creighton:  Loyalty oaths, diversity statements that are required for applicants. And you mentioned the biology example that I gave. There was a Texas Tech reference as well. Those diversity statements require a political litmus test, if you will. And if the applicant, no matter if they are superior in merit and accomplished as far as a research professor or a teaching professor or in many other categories that you and I would consider under hiring based on the best and the brightest, those that have the most merit that are applying, the loyalty oath would be more of a political test, would be more of a litmus test related to diversity, equity, and inclusion but, specifically, equity and equal outcome rather than equal opportunity. And if you don't give the right answers related to your commitment as an applicant for that job, to commit to equal outcome for all rather than equal opportunity for all, then you could be excluded as 76 percent of the applicants were last year at Cal Berkeley for failing that diversity loyalty oath requirement, even though it had nothing to do, in most cases, with the job they were applying for. It's a chilling effect on free speech, it's illegal compelled speech, and it's filtering from our faculty into curriculum.

Senator Kolkhorst:  And that's, that's one last thing that I'll kind of want to hit on is the free speech question. You know, college is sometimes the first time students meet with people from all different backgrounds. It's a great experience. I remember it. In my experience, I've gotten to live it through my children, most recently, but can you let me know if DEI encourages free speech or stifles free speech in how it's taught if people are having to sign loyalty oaths? I mean, free exchange of ideas. And so—

Senator Creighton:  It does exactly the opposite, which is why it's triggering litigation from professors that either don't get the job when they clearly can show under a rubric that they are the most qualified or professors that have been terminated because they've spoken out against it. But either way, those loyalty oaths, those diversity statements, and many, many of our universities are growing more and more towards mandating them, not just offering them but mandating them. That's a chilling effect on a free exchange of ideas, their free speech. It is compelled speech to answer the question the right way even though you may not have those particular beliefs. In order to get the job, you're expected to answer it the right way and make that commitment, leveraging your privilege in order to level up or bring equity to others. And you've got to sign in blood for that particular oath to qualify to get through the gateway of the diversity statement so that you and I can have a conversation from there on if you're qualified for the job.

Senator Kolkhorst:  Well, thank you for that explanation. I join my colleagues in, you know, the questions that have been asked, and I certainly respect them in what will the future look like. And I think the goal is having diversity in education and that's through professors and our students, and I look forward to working with you on this issue. And as you've made that commitment if changes needed to be made, you'd be the first in line to do it. And I note that that is very true of you. Thank you.

Senator Creighton:  I appreciate the exchange, Senator Kolkhorst. Certainly, your feedback and input working through the provisions of the bill, which I feel like has come a long way based on stakeholder input and visiting with all the Members. And look, at the end of the day we want equal dignity and equal opportunity for all. We want to increase diversity in every category possible in our hiring processes for our universities. But we don't want to narrow in on a certain outcome that is exclusive of others which is the way that these DEI units have been working because once exclusive DEI falls as a concept. And that just can't happen. That can't be the stigma that Texas universities hold. We have the finest universities in the world. You mentioned some of the tough things that I had to mention about different practices going on. Those are separate, obviously, from all of the incredible accolades our universities deserve and the people standing behind them. But in the committee process, I focused mainly on examples out of California. And many, many Members immediately countered that with, well, what about Texas? So, it has caused me to talk about, a little bit of the laundry here within our state because the California examples just weren't compelling enough.

Senator Kolkhorst:  Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.

Presiding Officer:  Thank you, Senator Kolkhorst. Senator Menéndez, for what purpose?

Senator Menéndez:  Ask questions of the author, Mr. President.

Presiding Officer:  Senator Creighton, do you yield?

Senator Creighton:  I yield.

Presiding Officer:  You're recognized, Senator Menéndez.

Senator Menéndez:  Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Creighton, do you need a little time to, you've been up for about three hours.

Senator Creighton:  Okay. Go ahead. And all—

Senator Menéndez:  You're good?

Senator Creighton:  —all good, thank you.

Senator Menéndez:  Alright.

Senator Creighton:  Appreciate it.

Senator Menéndez:  Senator Creighton, I'm going to try to be brief. We've heard a lot of questions. I want to get to the bottom of why we're having this debate today. And I appreciate what you and so many on this floor have said, their commitment to diversity.

Senator Creighton:  Yes.

Senator Menéndez:  What I don't understand is what in this legislation does anything to help improve diversity. Because what I have heard over and over, and I, and this is where I think you've mentioned your, the last exchange between you and Senator Kolkhorst was about loyalty oaths and free speech. And you said that people had to sign these loyalty oaths in blood, sign in blood in order just to be considered. And then, what you were saying is that the DEI was actually doing the opposite, it was excluding. And how can we have both this lack of diversity access, you know, we've talked about how DEI's not working. We're not seeing an increase in the diversity, but yet DEI's also excluding others. How is it that we can have both? I mean, either DEI is excluding the, some to the, those who don't sign these loyalty oaths, and we are seeing an increase in diversity, or it's not. I don't understand. How is it that, I, how can we argue both sides of that?

Senator Creighton:  Well, a couple of different examples, and it's a great question. I appreciate the question. You know, we have diversity of ideas as well. Right?

Senator Menéndez:  Okay.

Senator Creighton:  I mean that is one of the most powerful things about what brings us all together here and the over 30 million Texans we represent, our diversity of ideas and also our backgrounds and our makeup. Right? All the different things that you and I would define together as diversity. So, there's a chilling effect through those loyalty oaths and mandatory diversity statements with regard to diversity of ideas if a particular applicant may not agree wholeheartedly with equity. Right? With, an effort, if they agree, if they agree with diversity, if they agree with inclusion but they don't agree necessarily with what they may perceive equity or equal outcomes to require, then it may have a chilling effect as it did in Cal Berkeley of preventing applicants from even approaching those particular job openings. Separate, I'll give a second example, is we mentioned, unfortunately, the A&M DEI example where Asian Americans were excluded from some of the programs and not brought in as a category, a minority group, a marginalized community that would otherwise have received or expected to have received under an all are included and all have equal dignity structure or culture, and that exclusion is just something I know you and I under hearing the terms the nomenclature, diversity, equity, inclusion, that would never be tolerated.

Senator Menéndez:  Sure. So, my concerns and I, and I'm glad that you've said it over and over that this bill's about hiring. So, at the beginning of your bill on page 2, you talk about the influencing of hiring and that's where you talk about the loyalty oaths, employment practices. What I'm curious, on line 6 you talk about promoting, differential treatment or providing special benefits to individuals. What do you mean by that?

Senator Creighton:  Well, if once hired, the DEI framework—

Senator Menéndez:  Right.

Senator Creighton:  —afforded those that were hired different benefits, special benefits associated with the job that otherwise, under equal opportunity, all would appreciate having those benefits extended to them, but if those benefits were limited only for some, then it would be outside the bounds of the bill.

Senator Menéndez:  And that's interesting because that's the section where Senator West asked you why did you take out, the only thing you took out of there was sex. So, basically you limit the promotion of different treatment for providing special benefits to individuals on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity, but you excluded sex. And then in the next sentence you say, promoting policies or procedures designed or implemented in reference to race, color, ethnicity, or other policies, once again, excluding sex. Okay. So, that's all about hiring and promotions. Right? So, the hiring practices, but we get down to line 22 of your bill, on page 2, and then you say that the governing board of the institution, and on line 25 it says, does not, except as required by law, establish or maintain a diversity, equity, and inclusion office. So, if this bill is about hiring, why do you have a concern with having an office of DEI if you've already said you can't influence, you can't do promotion, you can't do, so why do you have to have that second section, which is the area where many of us feel that it's more than just about hiring? So, I'm not sure, tell us why you have that second part of your bill.

Senator Creighton:  Well, they're our reference to the DEI units and offices and language associated with that that reads something along the lines of or other programs, and I think that it is redundant in some ways as you imply, Senator Menéndez, but it's just important as some of these definitions are vague to make sure that there is not a renaming, there is not a continued effort under the guise of diversity, equity, and inclusion. That it's very clear in the bill that those units are removed so that we can move forward with the solutions you and I might want to put together on what is next.

Senator Menéndez:  Sure. So, thank you. So, the concern that I have is at UTSA they have an office, what they call an Office of Inclusion Excellence. In this office, what it does, it provides supports to students with disabilities, first generation students, veterans, athletes, and many other students from underprivileged backgrounds. My concern, my fear is that your legislation will do so much more than just affect hiring practices. What you've said, people shouldn't sign loyalty oaths. Fine, let's not, I agree. No loyalty oaths. People should be able to have free speech. People should be hired, the best and brightest. My concern about the hiring practices part is that so many times we have not achieved any level of diversity or very little diversity in hiring practices because we say, well, only these people applied and we hired the best of those people, but we haven't made a very strong effort to look for a bigger pool of applicants who are equally as qualified. Do you see my point, my concern?

Senator Creighton:  Yes.

Senator Menéndez:  And so, now, my big concern is that if your bill is passed and lots of the universities and their fear of going counter to your legislation, they will close these offices, even though this one's called an Office of Inclusion Excellence, then the services for these folks won't be there. And that's a concern for me. I mean, I'm sure you share that concern, don't you?

Senator Creighton:  Yes, I do. And I reaffirmed my commitment with my exchange with Senator Miles that for mentoring, for academic support, for mental health support, for just, support services overall for disabilities, there is no intention in this bill to do anything other than bolster those efforts by—

Senator Menéndez:  Okay.

Senator Creighton:  —marshaling and redeploying the funding that's being used currently, in my opinion ineffectively, under the DEI framework to help the very subsets that you are saying might be disenfranchised.

Senator Menéndez:  Okay. So, we've established that you're focused on making sure that universities hire only those who are the most qualified and that they don't force them to have any loyalty oaths, they allow for free speech, diversity of thought. That's what, we're in agreement at this point. The other concern, though, that we have is that do you recall, oh, I'm not sure if you were there for the second portion when we invited the people from UT Austin, the, I guess, let me pull up the name. One of them was the VP for DEI and the other one, here it is, Darren Kelly, Associate Vice President for DDCE Academic Diversity Initiatives, and Christine Julien, Professor and Associate Dean of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion in the school of engineering. Do you remember them?

Senator Creighton:  Yes, I was present for their testimony.

Senator Menéndez:  Very good. So, then do you remember where the lady, Ms. Julien, the professor for DEI in the school of engineering, she talked about all of the department heads that were writing research grants that would come to them to ask them about how they make DEI a part of their grants and that I think it was 80 percent of these grants that they were applying for had a DEI component. Do you remember that?

Senator Creighton:  I remember her talking about grants. I mean, I would like to see specific grants and requirements for those grants. I understand in grant writing that it is a very popular trend to include those provisions. I understand that it's absolutely no disadvantage to include those provisions. Are those provisions absolutely necessary for grant approval? I need to see the grant specifically for that.

Senator Menéndez:  Well, the good news is that we're, this is still a Senate bill and then we're in April, the middle of April, because we have to have that debate because, as you know, the National Institute of Health, it awards, it awarded $26 billion in competitive grants in 2022, and the data that I have is that it reviews and includes as part of its grants DEI initiatives. It has DEI requirements that are built in to nearly all federal grant mechanisms in STEM. And so, there is a very real concern that we could be impacting the research dollars that we get at the State of Texas. In let's say, FY 2020, Texas public universities and health related institutions had $5.4 billion in external research with 4.1 billion being from non-state sources. So, I'm concerned that we affect that and so I'm sure you share that concern.

Senator Creighton:  Senator Menéndez, we've looked into that carefully, and it just, it, just like the conversation Senator Kolkhorst mentioned with the NCAA, I mean, a commitment to holding up the antidiscrimination policies in state and federal law is enough for the NCAA to consider that box checked. And for, you look at the State of California, you look at the State of Washington, you look at the State of Michigan that has it in their state constitutions a ban on affirmative action, yet their grant process is never disrupted or that example as they continue to comply with state and federal law for hiring practices. I just don't see the evidence that shows we might have a disruption there and if the, think about it, if there was that would be grant writing that compels certain speech that makes sure that DEI departments and certain agendas are carried out for the purposes of approving the grant. I'm just, I'm not seeing those examples.

Senator Menéndez:  I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing in terms of compelling people to do these. I understand what you're saying about these diversity deals. I'm going to pull up the Diversity Equity Inclusion Council from Texas Woman's University. I mean, they talk about having DEI programming strategies, tactics, fair and equitable treatment of employees, promising practices before recruitment. I think, and I'm going to close with this, because what I, the concern that I think that why we're, many of us are unified in our concern is because you're absolutely right in one thing that you've mentioned or the theme that you've mentioned. Our universities, overall, statewide, have not done a good enough job of diversifying their workplace. They have not. They have not. They have a dismal record of diversity in their leadership. They have a dismal record. And you're right about that. But I have not seen anything this session, anywhere, in any piece of legislation that is focused on improving that. All I have seen is, go ahead.

Senator Creighton:  This legislation.

Senator Menéndez:  How does this legislation change that?

Senator Creighton:  Because if we continue to put incredible state resources into programs that exclusive, how in the world would we ever achieve inclusivity? How in the world would we ever achieve true diversity? How would we show in these dismal hiring statistics that we're going to continue to climb when we're already acknowledging, among us, that it's broken?

Senator Menéndez:  Senator Creighton, the diversity, equity, inclusion offices, the fact that, currently they do exhaustive searches for people so that they can have a vast pool of potential applicants. You know, this is something that's not just exclusive to higher education, it's in corporate Americans, it's all these, it is with the purpose of having a wide pool of applicants. By taking this, the only thing that I potentially can agree with is that, yes, no one should be making anybody sign some loyalty oath. That's ridiculous. But your bill on its sheer merit is taking away offices of diversity, equity, and inclusion. What it's done already, in fact, not anecdotally, we've had people who, people of color, professors who were highly qualified, who've been recruited, have taken the job, have seen the legislation that we're doing here, that we're talking about, and have said, you know what, Texas does not seem like it's a welcoming place for me. Because what I'm talking about is not just diversity of ideas, I'm talking about diversity of people, so diversity that matches the diversity of our state. We don't have that in higher education. We don't have that in this room. We need more diversity, but it's not going to be achieved by saying that we don't believe in diversity. And, you know what, we get hung up on the equity part. Fine. Diversity and inclusion. If you want to, to Senator West's point, if you want to fix this problem, let's get surgical about it. Let's not take a sledgehammer to something we can fix with a scalpel. And this is not the, I believe this is not the way to send the message that Texas is open for business for everyone. I think that your main concern, because this has been a theme throughout the session, is that we have to have, we need to limit and be careful that, make sure that everybody can say whatever they want and that's fine. I'm in agreement. No loyalty oaths, free speech, let's do it. But to close down an office of diversity, equity, inclusion, which we heard the testimony from the lady, the lady from the engineering school, that after seeing that engineering, the level of engineers in this state, and if you recall, let me ask the question. The level of engineers, the diversity of engineers was so low that she said that they did, what did they do, they went out into varying parts of the State of Texas to recruit, to fill the pipeline, to make sure that kids in eighth grade knew that they had to take algebra. Do you remember that?

Senator Creighton:  I remember it and—

Senator Menéndez:  Okay.

Senator Creighton:  —and I understand why the application pool may be low.

Senator Menéndez:  Right. Because we don't have kids that are getting the right education.

Senator Creighton:  That's not the only reason, Senator Menéndez. The application pool and the net could be cast so much more with so much more width if the implication and the stigma tied to the loyalty oaths and the diversity statements of, you must agree with me, to have a chance at getting this job. I hope you would concede that there are those of various ethnicities that might have a diversity of beliefs—

Senator Menéndez:  Without a doubt.

Senator Creighton:  —that don't agree with those loyalty oaths—

Senator Menéndez:  Without a—

Senator Creighton:  —therefore they have been excluded and the door had closed forever on the option of gaining a more diverse faculty.

Senator Menéndez:  So, why don't we just amend your bill to exclude loyalty oaths and to talk about free speech, and then we fix the problem without having, get rid of the diversity, offices of diversity and inclusion? Even get rid of the equity word if you'd like. But I think that this bill is so much more and it's a part of a larger national, it seems to be a part. It seems that they're in other legislatures also. Did you model your legislation on other states because it appears that other states were also trying to get rid of these offices of diversity, equity, and inclusion?

Senator Creighton:  Senator Menéndez, we are the first legislature. There has been one other that has talked about it, but I don't know of other bills that have been advanced. If they're happening, they're happening as we speak.

Senator Menéndez:  Okay.

Senator Creighton:  But if we have anything before us, it is a first-to-market on the passage of a bill, and I would hope that other legislatures will see not that Texas is doing something because of a national trend but that we are trying to lead on a framework that will actually accomplish diversity and include all with equal dignity.

Senator Menéndez:  I appreciate your taking my questions. I just, we need to follow up and make sure because in fiscal year 2021, UT received $115 million in research funding from the National Science Foundation. I'm concerned that this legislation puts at risk some of those research dollars, number one. It does nothing to help say we'd like to increase diversity. All it says is that you must do away with an office of diversity and inclusion. And some sort of way, roundabout way, you're saying that means that we want more people to apply, but it sends a message to a lot of us that that's not important to Texas anymore. And I know that's not what's in your heart, and that's what concerns me about this legislation.

Senator Creighton:  It's not what's in my heart, Senator Menéndez, and I really value, as always, and I appreciate your comments and your input, and I will just say that I would trade $115 million on any day for First Amendment free speech protections.

Senator Menéndez:  We have those. Thank you.

Presiding Officer:  Senator Flores, for what purpose?

Senator Flores:  To ask the author some questions, Mr. President.

Presiding Officer:  Do you yield, Senator Creighton?

Senator Creighton:  Yes, I yield.

Presiding Officer:  You're recognized, Senator Flores.

Senator Flores:  Thank you. Thank you, Senator Creighton. And so, I'm following up questions from Senator Huffman. So, Senator Creighton, does this bill have any impacts whatsoever on the Equal Opportunity Act?

Senator Creighton:  It does not. It actually reaffirms state and federal antidiscrimination laws.

Senator Flores:  It reaffirms. Thank you. So, Senator, are we open up the door to discrimination with any of the laws that are enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission?

Senator Creighton:  We are not. We are actually correcting some wrongs that have been discovered in hiring practices that are currently going on and currently involved in litigation with this legislation.

Senator Flores:  Thank you, and I appreciate your comments of, with Senator Menéndez, especially on casting the wider net and not casting a narrow net. And I think that a lot of these organizations that have these recruiting and offices that are out there to help can help better, going, casting a general net to be able to get those, as you said, that meet the, that the requirements of Martin Luther King's great statement. Thank you.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Senator Flores.

Presiding Officer:  Senator Alvarado, for what purpose?

Senator Alvarado:  Sorry, I had to get out of my blanket, it's cold in here. To ask the author a few questions.

Presiding Officer:  Do you yield, Senator Creighton?

Senator Creighton:  Of course, I yield.

Presiding Officer:  You're recognized, Senator Alvarado.

Senator Alvarado:  Senator Creighton, the Texas Woman's University's been brought up a couple of times in debate here, and I think Senator Menéndez talked about the office. Y'all, a few of you mentioned that they do not have a diversity, a DEI office, it's called something else. Do you recognize that they do have something, maybe it's not exactly named DEI, but it is something that focuses on diversification? It's called the, it's the Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Outreach.

Senator Creighton:  There was discussion about Texas Woman's earlier and whether or not it was university sanctioned or student led, yes.

Senator Alvarado:  Okay. It's funded by student fees but they do have, in fact, staff, plenty of staff. They have an executive director and about six or seven staff people. Their budget is the, fiscal year '22 budget was a little over 300, $378,000 and is, and they have a council, like a board of council. So, were you aware that, that their budget was that size and that they have a full-time staff?

Senator Creighton:  I wasn't aware. I mean, I, the reference to Texas Woman's University is a fraction of a fraction of today's point and discussion related to the bill, but I appreciate the clarification.

Senator Alvarado:  Okay, because I want to make sure that we're, when we point out examples here that we are accurate in our statements.

Senator Creighton:  Well, what the accuracy was tied more or less towards whether or not it was administrator and faculty run. And so, I understand your point that I made earlier which is that it's student led.

Senator Alvarado:  Well, it's funded by student fees, which is tacked onto their tuition, but it is run by faculty. It's, they have an executive director, they're whole, everybody that's part of their staff right here. And one of their goals, their missions, is promising practices for the recruitment and retention of underrepresented faculty and staff. So, they basically do have a DEI office, they're just calling it something else. Under your bill would this office go away?

Senator Creighton:  Yes.

Senator Alvarado:  It would. Okay.

Senator Creighton:  If it is run by faculty and if it receives funding, public funding, state fund, state dollars funding, so.

Senator Alvarado:  Oh, well, I don't think your bill specifies state, I don't, I don't know if it's a student run, well, it's no, I shouldn't say student run because it's not student run, but it is funded by student fees.

Senator Creighton:  Would you like to clarify that they're included in the bill, Senator Alvarado?

Senator Alvarado:  Sure, sure. We can talk later about that but for—

Senator Creighton:  —I'm not sure that you want to make sure they're included in the bill, but if you do that's okay.

Senator Alvarado:  Well, I think if it's going to apply to a majority of our universities that maybe, you know, maybe it's unfair that somebody's left out. I don't know. We can continue talking about that later, but I just wanted to raise the issue. And then the bill requires the Attorney General's office to approve all diversity trainings and policies, which that could be problematic because sometimes that could take days or weeks to get an answer and a reply from the AG's office. Do you think that would be an issue?

Senator Creighton:  Well, it's in the bill so I'm comfortable with it as the author, but I, what the bill requires is that an attorney design the training programs that general counsel for the university sign off on those recommended training programs or the Attorney General be involved in the same. So, it's not, it doesn't, the bill doesn't require the AG to be involved, but it allows it.

Senator Alvarado:  Okay. Well, maybe I'm misinterpreting that, but the way I read it it says it requires the Attorney General's office to approve all diversity training and policies. So, if we can get some clarification on that while we finish this.

Senator Creighton:  The intention is definitely for the general counsel of the university and the Attorney General to be included in the effort because that, that's obviously why, through the hearings process and here to the floor, why they're both included in the bill.

Senator Alvarado:  Okay. Moving on this, following up on this issue, it's estimated that 75.6 percent of general counsels, now this is nationwide, I don't have the Texas number, are White and 61.5 percent are men, which could have an impact on them weighing in on these training and policy. So, you're talking about a diverse, a very, a group that's not very diverse weighing in on these issues, so it could have an impact. Would you agree with that?

Senator Creighton:  The bill doesn't say they have to work in a vacuum. So, if you're saying that because of their skin color, they're not qualified to design the training program. I think recommending that they work with others would certainly be a good recommendation, but the legislation itself for hiring practices is colorblind and gender neutral. And so, consistent with that, I would not assume no matter what someone's skin color is that they could not handle promulgating a training process including relying on other bright minds in the university to weigh in.

Senator Alvarado:  Switching gears now, so I think this could be problematic in terms of a researcher applying to a grant question about the universities' DEI initiatives when they are banned. And I have here, from the Department of Energy, a couple of examples where, let's see, one is the, it's a DOE, it's a, it's called the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, clean hydrogen, manufacturing, recycling. And it's part of the criteria, diversity, equity, and inclusion and accountability where it's flat out asking for a description of what they are doing in terms of diversity. That's one. And then another is the Energy Innovation Hub program, which also, right here, talks about promoting inclusive and equitability research. It's called their PIER Plan. So, I mean, we've talked about research and the risk of losing dollars, so that is real. That could happen. You're, you're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. We don't know what that number would be, but is that a concern of yours that, I mean, we've got two examples here in black and white?

Senator Creighton:  I think that consistent with Senator Menéndez and I and our exchange, we've talked through the day about effects that legislation might have on grants, which is total speculation, but there are not many DEI requirements tied, specifically, into grant writing approvals when you are consistent with your commitment to state and federal antidiscrimination laws. Just as we talked about in the affirmative action process in California, Washington, and Michigan, it's in their state constitutions a ban on affirmative action yet their grants continue to roll in from all of these entities you're mentioning to the State of California. It's just speculation.

Senator Alvarado:  Well, I appreciate you taking the time to answer the questions. I just have, you know, these concerns but just what this is saying to people that want to come here. We've heard examples already of professors who have decided not to come here. I think it sends a bad message because we pride ourselves on recruiting businesses, recruiting employers and employees to come here, but thank you for your time.

Senator Creighton:  And we will continue to do so, and I believe other professors will choose to come here because of this effort. Thank you, Senator Alvarado.

President:  Senator Springer, for what purpose?

Senator Springer:  Thank you, Mr. President, to ask the author a couple of questions. Clarification.

President:  Do you yield?

Senator Creighton:  Yes, I yield.

President:  And you know, you may sit, it's not a filibuster; you know, if you wish. It's been three and a half hours, so you may.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you.

Senator Springer:  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate serving with you on higher ed, and I want to clarify some because I am glad that my district is being so featured tonight with TWU, one of my outstanding universities that I have the pleasure of representing but—

Senator Creighton:  Texas Woman's does excellent work.

Senator Springer:  They absolutely do, and so I know when we are talking about the DIO office that they have, you know, what they have specifically told me is that the three employees that they have are not for just that office, but they are for the entire student life. All the social groups, all the organizations that the folks, the students at TWU belong to, those three people serve all organizations. It's not just this one. So, your bill in no way would remove them from being able to do that.

Senator Creighton:  The DEI departments would be removed—

Senator Springer:  But—

Senator Creighton:  —but student organizations and other associations on campus—

Senator Springer:  Right.

Senator Creighton:  —they can certainly continue to be active and to consider through any civil discourse they choose, any discussion, relevant to their purpose.

Senator Springer:  And I know, let me help educate everybody, and I know the press has been taking a lot of questions and texting me on it but. So, when we look at the diversity, inclusion, and outreach, this is really when your layout came out, what you were talking about what our goal is. You know they provide programs and services that are student led promoting the diversity education, cultural awareness, and leadership development among students through various progressive and technology outlets. Diversity, we promote diversity, which expresses in many forms, including race, ethnicity, gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, learning culture, religion, national origin, age, political affiliation, disabilities status, and provides foundation for understanding and accepting everybody. And we are happy with everybody. Students talking to students that are working and discussing diversity. Inclusion, we commit to having a campus where differences are welcomed, different perspectives are respected, and individuals feel a sense of belonging in fair inclusive environment. Again, students making sure they have safe places to talk. Outreach, we want to reach out to our student education campus partnerships aiming to increase student access and valuable resources for services. They talk about their two big things. They say DIO signature programs here, signature programs. G-Force, G-Force is a collegiate G-Force organization in a peer, and I say peer, not faculty driven, peer mentoring program to enable and encourage high school students to realize their full potential and ability in pursuing higher education. Sounds like a good program to me. Their ADELANTE program is leadership through the Office of DIO is designed for student leaders who want to cultivate their leadership development, strengthen culture pride among their local communities, build mentor relationships, increase civic engagement. The four-year scholarship program is designed intentionally to provide a comprehensive support for 40 students per cohort and continue, develop mentoring cohorts through the degree completion. And so, then the last one they have is their Social Change Peer Educators. And so, you sit there and go, they are educators, nope, this is students. The purpose of Social Change Peer Educators is to heighten awareness and sensitivity regarding social issues within TWU community through education, programs, and training. These are the things we want people to be able to talk about. This is not what this bill takes away from. In nowhere in any of theirs do they talk about hiring practices, who they can hire, who they can bring in to educate these kids. This is a student organization that we are allowing to discuss and feel comfortable in their diversity and grow throughout their program. And in fact the one page that talks about their LGBT deals, almost half of that page is listing LGB-friendly churches in Denton and Houston. And I think pointing people to faith in places they feel safe is a good thing to do. And so, do you see anything in their organizations that they are doing that would be in violation of this bill?

Senator Creighton:  Senator Springer, we have clarifying amendments related to student organizations. I think you will be pleased with that but, no, I do not and especially upon clarification with amendments coming.

Senator Springer:  And that is my understanding that you had that, and I appreciate it because I know they do a great job up there. And talking with the leadership yesterday, specifically asking them about this, DEI, they said, we don't have a DEI office, we don't run our faculty through that, we don't, those. And so, we have no problem with that bill whatsoever.

Senator Creighton:  Texas Woman's University?

Senator Springer:  Texas Woman's University.

Senator Creighton:  Told you that they do not have a DEI office?

Senator Springer:  That is correct.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Senator Springer.

Senator Springer:  Thank you, Chairman, for your great work on this bill.

President:  Senator Eckhardt, what purpose?

Senator Eckhardt:  To ask questions of the author.

President:  Do you yield? Do you yield? Of course, you yield.

Senator Creighton:  Yield.

Senator Eckhardt:  Do you want to sit for this?

Senator Creighton:  I am okay, thank you. I appreciate the—

Senator Eckhardt:  Okay. Because, we could—

Senator Creighton:  I appreciate the offer.

Senator Eckhardt:  —both sit.

Senator Creighton:  No, great.

Senator Eckhardt:  You had mentioned in the questioning earlier for which you have really been a stand-up guy, this has been going on for some time. You had said, you had said the brand of our flagship universities is at stake and the world is watching. And you have also said that you believe that your bill improves diversity, equity, and inclusion at our flagship universities.

Senator Creighton:  Diversity.

Senator Eckhardt:  Diversity, and that is by eradicating DEI offices.

Senator Creighton:  Yes, removing the current negative trends associated with the DEI offices from the lackluster increases in minority faculty hiring over a decade to the loyalty oaths that have a chilling effect, arguably compelled speech versus free speech, that have a chilling effect on applicants looking at that particular university as a place where they may be wanted or needed or just considered equally important. And overall, just making sure that our combined united effort to achieve diversity would be in inclusive, not exclusive.

Senator Eckhardt:  So, by eradicating the DEI offices, prohibiting DEI statements from applicants, and prohibiting preferential hiring for assignment based on race, ethnicity, or sex, and also prohibiting any DEI training, you believe this will increase diversity?

Senator Creighton:  Yes, not limiting to those categories but including those categories consistent with state and federal law and expanding to all others, I believe it will.

Senator Eckhardt:  But those are the only acts other than the auditing that this bill actually requires. The eradication of the office, the prohibition on a diversity statement, the prohibition on preferential hiring or assignment, and the prohibition on training. Those are the only things the bill does, aside from the audit. Correct?

Senator Creighton:  That is correct. Along with the removal of the offices. Right?

Senator Eckhardt:  So, there is a loophole of sorts in that you can have one of these things if it is written by general counsel and approved by the Attorney General pursuant to a court order or a federal regulation. Correct?

Senator Creighton:  You can have a training designed if those categories are met. Correct. That way there is more rhyme and reason from leadership associated with the university related to charting a path forward solution oriented, right, to make sure that diversity continues to climb and that inclusivity continues to be a goal, making sure that general counsel, consistent with the bill, can say, you know, if this training is going to be established and promulgated and administered, I feel like state and federal law is being complied with on antidiscrimination policies.

Senator Eckhardt:  So, how will you moving forward measure the increased diversity due to the acts in your bill?

Senator Creighton:  Yes, well so, we have a lot of different pieces of legislation that are exclusive from this effort but hopefully after we get out of session, we move through the interim into hearings, right, interim hearings based on our interim charges. We'll continue to follow with the oversight that we're tasked with to make sure that we were doing what we are doing even prior to this legislation, which is tracking the progress, understanding how the dollars are spent, understanding how if we're truly pursuing diversity and hiring, that we have programs in place and best practices in place that aren't exclusive but that do provide equal dignity to everyone.

Senator Eckhardt:  So, that's how we might measure it in the future. How have you measured the progress to date to inform this bill?

Senator Creighton:  Well, we've also got provisions in the bill that require the regents and university leadership, again, to report to us. We've got audit requirements in the bill. But to achieve what I think you were talking about is the bigger goal of a diversity overall. You know, I am hearing you say, what happens next? How do we take the steps forward not to remove something? How do we build? How do we dedicate and solve problems consistent with, yes it's jarring that nomenclature that has the words diversity, equity, and inclusion might be removed, but where are we headed from here to show true intentions and true progress? We're going to have to work together on that. Again, we have bills in the legislature that are tied to that still will be heard. And it's up to us, as we talk Member to Member throughout this floor today on solutions.

Senator Eckhardt:  So, I'm going to quote Senator Bettencourt, What gets measured gets fixed.

Senator Creighton:  Yes.

Senator Eckhardt:  And what gets measured and doesn't need to be fixed, doesn't need to get that much attention. Right?

Senator Creighton:  Well, we've been measuring, and we've been measuring a lot, and what we've measured we determined that it does need to be fixed because we have many, many examples of exclusivity. And you and I both would not tolerate that.

Senator Eckhardt:  Well, and I am not asking for examples of exclusivity. I am talking about metrics of diversity. So, what's your metric for diversity? What's the average diversity among faculty at universities currently?

Senator Creighton:  Well, the metric for diversity would be, you know, what you and I would define it as, which would be all. Right? It would be different characteristics that define everyone differently coming together and have an equal opportunity under the law. The metrics within our universities, we can pull any data point that you would like to pull. It's hard to do that on the floor for charting out solutions going forward, but I can guarantee you that through coordinating board and through the particular institutions that we can garner any metric or data point we need to make decisions.

Senator Eckhardt:  Have you looked at all at the National Center for Education Statistics and how they define diversity among faculty?

Senator Creighton:  I've looked at so many different sources, I can't even wait to share them with you, but go ahead and let me know.

Senator Eckhardt:  Or the U.S. Department of Education data and their definition of diversity among faculty?

Senator Creighton:  One thing that is consistent when you look across these different sources including the U.S. Department of Education, is that there is a variance on the definition of diversity, almost every one of them.

Senator Eckhardt:  Would you agree with me, though, that most common diversity analysis is to take two random professors and look at the probabilities that those two randomly selected professors are different in either race, ethnicity, or gender?

Senator Creighton:  Most of the diversity definitions have one common theme, the differences among all of us. And so, no, I would complete, expect that as you just laid out, I am thinking that's from the Department of Ed. Right?

Senator Eckhardt:  Actually, both of those organizations use that metric, and it has a name of some, it has a person's name associated with it. But that is the common analysis of diversity. The randomized selection would produce a higher or lower probability of the two people being a different gender, sex, or ethnicity.

Senator Creighton:  That's why it's been so jarring to me the examples we've used about Texas universities today, excluding Asian Americans from DEI offices on campus, even though their overall mission was to be inclusive. Right? Or to exclude a professor from an application process in a hiring effort because he simply said, I would treat all of my students equally. So, it's very jarring to me when we talk about definitions of diversity, how the DEI offices have applied those definitions in an exclusive manner.

Senator Eckhardt:  That's understandable. What I am trying to get at is what is our metric of success for diversity? And would it surprise you to find that on average, university faculty run about, approximately 75 percent White?

Senator Creighton:  I have all those charts right here, if we'd like to look at them. But that's consistent, Senator Eckhardt, with my variables I offered to the floor earlier on exactly how far behind the progress these DEI offices in general, how far behind—

Senator Eckhardt:  And I want to drill down.

Senator Creighton:  —they are—

Senator Eckhardt:  Sorry, go ahead, finish.

Senator Creighton:   How far behind they are over the last 10 years of just showing any significant progress, and I think it is tied to the three or four examples that I have been giving, not on just on national trends but on Texas trends that have shown exclusivity. And when you, when you promote exclusivity under the guise of DEI, you're going to not be surprised if your results are lackluster.

Senator Eckhardt:  And specific examples are not necessarily statistical trends. Would you agree with me?

Senator Creighton:  Yes, I was, you know, reading about a leading speaker on DEI, he is the vice president of global DEI for Richemont in Geneva, Switzerland. His name is Doug Melville. And he was explaining just this week that DEI is really not to be gauged by data. It is, and he is a leading spokesperson on DEI in the world. DEI is not to be gauged by data. DEI is really more of a science but more than that, it's art.

Senator Eckhardt:  That's intriguing to me—

Senator Creighton:  And so—

Senator Eckhardt:  —coming from a statistical background—

Senator Creighton:  Yeah.

Senator Eckhardt:  —that we would not look at data. May I ask you about some data?

Senator Creighton:  You, you can. I'm just, if data matters to you.

Senator Eckhardt:  It does.

Senator Creighton:  Okay. Good, good, good. I appreciate that. Yes, ask me about some data.

Senator Eckhardt:  So, according to, I want to make sure that I am citing the right thing. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, currently, approximately 75 percent of university faculty is White, but in the late '90s, the average was 85 percent. So, would you say we have made some progress?

Senator Creighton:  I guess, if we are looking at skin color, which this bill is colorblind and gender neutral, but the data that I show on the national trends for university professors being White at a 75th percentile. University professors at UT Austin that are White are the 28 percent category. So, because they're almost 50 percent under the national average, I would say that specific to Texas universities, the data is a little different.

Senator Eckhardt:  It is. In fact, the statistic I have from the UT faculty is that it's 68 percent White. So, it is under that national average. It is much higher than the statistic you quoted, but it is under the national average.

Senator Creighton:  The statistic I am quoting is new hires in the last 10 years.

Senator Eckhardt:  Ah, new hires.

Senator Creighton:  It, it—

Senator Eckhardt:  Yes, that would explain the discrepancy. This is the overall faculty.

Senator Creighton:  Got it.

Senator Eckhardt:  And also would it surprise you to find that based on that analysis that I had mentioned, the probabilities of two randomly chosen professors being of a different gender, ethnicity, or race, actually, and again, I want to get the cite right, according to the U.S. Department of Education, six of the top 25 most diverse faculties are Texas schools.

Senator Creighton:  Excellent.

Senator Eckhardt:  Isn't it?

Senator Creighton:  Sure.

Senator Eckhardt:  I mean it would be nice if we were doing better, but still, six. And also three of the top 25 most diverse management positions in universities are Texas schools. That's good news, isn't it?

Senator Creighton:  It's great news. Yeah, diversity is obviously a positive. Right? The ways that you achieve the diversity and what diversity components you are talking about is that ethnic diversity, or is it diversity of viewpoint, or is it both? I think what we talked about so much today is a chilling effect, without a doubt, on diversity of viewpoint when you have the mandatory training, when you have the litmus test, loyalty oath, diversity statements required, when you have the things that are, excluding others, when you're promoting the overall goal of everyone's important, everyone has an opportunity here.

Senator Eckhardt:  Well, I want to go back to something that Senator Menéndez asked because it is a bit of a conundrum. And again, I am a data person. I think it would be mutually exclusive to say that DEI is not working and these loyalty oaths are running White applicants out of the running, because then it would make us more, at least, ethnically and racially diverse. But you are saying we are not achieving that.

Senator Creighton:  Yeah, I, nobody mentioned running White applicants away, we're talking about diversity of viewpoints, right, those who would not be comfortable with the belief system that equal outcome should govern over equal opportunity and equal dignity. So, along those lines we differ there, but it is irrefutable that the examples I have given tied directly to Texas DEI units have been exclusive.

Senator Eckhardt:  So, what I am struggling with here is we have made some progress on diversity if you define it as two professors randomly selected being of different, a different gender, ethnicity, or race. But that's not how you define diversity, is it?

Senator Creighton:  I don't think it's limited there. No, I think there's immutable characteristics, and I think there is much, much more of a holistic review of a person's being and what they have to offer, especially competence that's directly tied to the job like merit, the way their teaching background is illustrated, the way their research accomplishments are verified. All of the different things you and I would probably look for if we were on a committee that was hiring a new faculty for one of the best universities in the world, which is what we have here in Texas in so many different categories.

Senator Eckhardt:  I agree. UT and A&M are among of the top 100 universities in the nation. Do you think we will stay among the top 100 universities in the nation after we get rid of all DEI and tenure and also this new provision about not compelling students to a political, social, or gender belief?

Senator Creighton:  I think we will continue to open up wide nets on the number of applicants that would choose to work for our universities with this legislation. I think that we would certainly have students on campus that are much more comfortable than they poll to be now that if they provide differing viewpoints their grades might be at risk. And that polling is consistent at UT, it is consistent at A&M, and it is consistent with the existence of DEI units.

Senator Eckhardt:  Well, I am very, very proud that we have six of the top 25 most diverse universities based on the randomly selected professors being of diverse gender, race, and ethnicity. I, we've made some progress, not enough. I think that's what your bill is really concerned about. I don't think it's that we haven't made progress. I don't think that's what your bill is concerned with. I think your bill is concerned that we've made too much progress. Because if we get rid of these programs, it's probable that that progress will stop. But thank you for answering my questions.

Senator Creighton:  Yeah, there are many Members on the floor that feel like our discussion today does not show progress for diversity, but thank you, Senator Eckhardt. Thank you for the exchange and also working with me and my office.

President:  Senator Zaffirini, for what purpose?

Senator Zaffirini:  To ask the author a few questions.

President:  Do you yield?

Senator Creighton:  I yield.

Senator Zaffirini:  And I mean a very few questions, Senator Creighton, because really all my questions have either been asked or you answered them in response to other questions that weren't asked. So, you have done a very thorough job, but I do have just a very few questions for you. First is, I was looking at the committee report and I was looking at the registration of witnesses. And one of the things I noticed is that only five people registered and testified for the bill, and they included two out of state witnesses, one TPPF, and only two other witnesses for a total of six witnesses for the bill, including one who registered only. But of those who were against the bill, 43 testified, 110 registered only, and 15 submitted written testimony for a total of 168. And a total of four people either testified, registered, or submitted written testimony on the bill. So, let's say 168 against and six for. And my question to you, Senator Creighton, I know that you are a very good listener, but in listening to these witnesses, especially those who testified against, what is in this bill that will make them feel that were heard? Did they have any impact on the legislation at all?

Senator Creighton:  Senator Zaffirini, I think it's a great question and certainly first and foremost, what would make them feel heard, that we stayed into the late hours of the night, unlike the federal government, and we made sure that every Texan has a voice in committee hearings whereas we know in Washington the regular John and Mary Smith has to now be invited to testify on a bill. So, everyone was heard. All of those that traveled this very short distance from the campus of The University of Texas at Austin to testify in opposition could not have made it, as they were waiting to testify on behalf of their DEI unit, could not get through the second witness before they stood up and turned their back to the entire committee dais for almost 30 minutes because they did not agree on the second witness of the entire hearing with what was being said. Right? Free speech is just not important. So, we made sure, whether they turned their back to us or not, that we heard every single witness whether they were in opposition or in support. It was a late night and we also hear through emails and letters, and calls, we hear from our constituents from the district to our Capitol offices into our district offices and we hear sentiment all during the interim. And we just have to weigh those different viewpoints and make a decision on progress.

Senator Zaffirini:  Thank you, and I know you are a good listener as I said, but is there anything in terms of the content of this bill that reflects their testimony? Anything at all that they might have impacted?

Senator Creighton:  There will be related to amendments.

Senator Zaffirini:  Oh, to the floor amendment that—

Senator Creighton:  Yes.

Senator Zaffirini:  —that you have today?

Senator Creighton:  Specific to student organizations.

Senator Zaffirini:  Well, that is excellent and I am sure that they will appreciate that, thank you. A lesson that I learned long ago, Senator Creighton, is whenever I am involved in a controversy, I typically ask the question, what if they are right and I am wrong? Have you asked yourself that question? There is so much disagreement today. What if you're wrong? What could be the impact on accreditation, on athletics, on financial aid? Is there a plan B? Is there any possibility in your mind that you could be wrong?

Senator Creighton:  Senator Zaffirini, it's just another excellent question. I think every Member on this floor struggles with that daily as we vote on legislation that we're not exactly sure about the consequences and as we author legislation and we're not completely, absolutely certain on the consequences. But I feel strongly enough about this to put my name on it. I feel strongly enough about this to put the time into it, to have the facts and the data to support the presentation that I have made before you today. And I hope with what I have provided on DEI offices working in an exclusive manner, that I might have compelled you to consider changing your vote to support.

Senator Zaffirini:  Don't hold your breath.

Senator Creighton:  I had to ask.

Senator Zaffirini:  Thank you, Senator. You're a very good friend. And finally my question is, you've talked with such great confidence about how diversity will be improved. And I must say you really were very, very confident and almost convincing, but we didn't quite get us there. How in the world without a DEI office, how in the world would you go about implementing a program to achieve diversity, and what metrics would you use to measure your success?

Senator Creighton:  You know, I think that that right there, that is the intersection between the difference that we have before us today on support versus oppose. And many of us are often in that category as we go home and we explain, many of our constituents think, well you voted yes on that bill you must have been 99 percent sure and 1 percent maybe not. And some of our votes are 52, 48, but on this, I believe that if we keep the current structure in place, that it will actually be an obstacle to achieve our aligned goal for true diversity. We will not get to the solution while we have a rubric and a framework in place that could be labeled exclusive. And, unfortunately, I feel like we have to start again, and I have some very capable Members that have been, on both sides of the aisle, that have committed to working with me to make sure that we launch that effort.

Senator Zaffirini:  Thank you. Thank you for your answers, Senator, and thank you for your hard work. Even though we disagree, I certainly respect your perspective. Thank you.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you.

Senator Zaffirini:  Thank you, Mr. President.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Senator Zaffirini.

President:  Thank you, Senator. The motion is to suspend the regular order of business. Secretary will call the roll.

(Roll call)

President:  Nineteen ayes, 12 nays, rules are suspended. Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 17.

Secretary of the Senate:  Committee Substitute Senate Bill 17 relating to the power and duties of the governing boards of public institutions of higher education.

President:  Secretary, I'm sorry, following amendment. Secretary read the amendment.

(Remarks on Floor Amendment No. 1)

Secretary of the Senate:  Floor Amendment No. 1 by Creighton.

President:  You're recognized on your amendment.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this amendment removes any doubt about the intentions of the core prohibitions on DEI offices and practices in the bill. The amendment makes clear that prohibitions do not apply to academic course instruction; scholarly research; activities of registered student organization, Senator Springer; guest speakers and performers; programs to enhance academic achievement that are implemented without regard to race, color, sex, gender, or ethnicity; data collection, Senator Eckhardt, as we continue to collect data and to understand the mission forward and the student admissions process. Additionally this amendment makes two small changes. It makes clear that the prohibition on DEI offices or programs applies to any unit of the institution, not just those classified as academic or administrative but all units. And it makes clear the university cannot require any person, not just a person performing a university function to participate in a DEI training. Thank you, Mr. President.

President:  Thank you. Senator West, what purpose?

Senator West:  Questions of the author.

President:  Do you yield?

Senator Creighton:  I yield.

Senator West:  In terms of the DEI training, what is this amendment do for, to DEI training?

Senator Creighton:  Well, it's consistent with the bill, Senator West. The bill covers university employees, but there also could be a contract person. There could be some sort of arm's length relationship performing a university function. And in that respect they would also fall under the expectations of the same that are listed in the bill itself.

Senator West:  And that's mandatory training. Right?

Senator Creighton:  That's correct.

Senator West:  Okay, mandatory.

Senator Creighton:  Yes, that's correct.

Senator West:  Alright, thank you.

President:  Members, the motion is on adoption of the amendment. Any objections? Hearing none, amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the following amendment. Secretary will read the amendment.

(Remarks on Floor Amendment No. 2)

Secretary of the Senate:  Floor Amendment No. 2 by Creighton.

President:  Senator Creighton, you've got a wastebasket full of paper there. You're recognized on your amendment.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this is a simple severability amendment which makes it clear that if any part of the chapter is held to be invalid for a particular person or, yeah, particular person or particular circumstance, that the rest of the provisions still apply to other people and circumstances.

President:  Any objection to the amendment? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, Secretary call the roll. Secretary will call the roll. Yes, Ma'am. You know I didn't come back. No, that's it, he was an objection and she can call the roll. Go ahead.

(Roll call)

President:  Nineteen ayes, 12 nays, the amendment passes. Members, the following amendment.

(Remarks on Floor Amendment No. 3)

Secretary of the Senate:  Floor Amendment No. 3 by Creighton.

President:  Senator Creighton, you're recognized on your amendment.

Senator Creighton:  Mr. President, can I consult with staff on this real quick?

President:  Yes, you may.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this just strikes a date specific where a subsection was to expire. We just took that specific date out where there is no expiration.

President:  Any questions? Any questions? Okay. Are there objections? Okay, Secretary will call the roll.

(Roll call)

President:  Nineteen ayes, 12 nays, the amendment passes. Following amendment. Secretary will read the amendment.

(Remarks on Floor Amendment No. 4)

Secretary of the Senate:  Floor Amendment No. 4 by West.

President:  Senator West, you're recognized.

Senator West:  This, thank you very much, Mr. President. This may or may not be necessary after I have a conversation hopefully with the author of the bill. The biggest issue is making certain that voluntary training will in fact be, will not be barred by this particular bill. And I think based on conversation with Senator Creighton it will not be barred.

President:  Senator Creighton, do you need for him to repeat what he said?

Senator Creighton:  I don't need him to—

President:  Okay.

Senator Creighton:  —repeat it, no, Mr. President.

President:  On the amendment? He laid out his amendment.

Senator Creighton:  Yes.

President:  You're recognized on the amendment.

Senator Creighton:  Okay, yes. No, I'm, we had a, Senator West and I had an exchange earlier about, though, the fact that the bill opposes or prohibits mandatory training. Senator West, I know you would like to add specific language regard, regarding voluntary language out—

Senator West:  Well—

Senator Creighton:  I just want the bill to stand as it's drafted. So, I would oppose the amendment.

Senator West:  So—

President:  Senator West.

Senator West:  —it's my understanding that only mandatory, so for the legislative intent if there was voluntary, then institutions could do that. Correct?

Senator Creighton:  The bill doesn't speak to that. You and I had that exchange, the bill just specifically prohibits mandatory training, and it stops there.

Senator West:  Okay. So, mandatory training, that's what it prohibits. Right?

Senator Creighton:  That's right.

Senator West:  So, I'll pull down my, I'll pull it down.

Senator Creighton:  Alright.

President:  Members, the amendment is pulled down. Following amendment. Secretary will read the amendment.

(Remarks on Floor Amendment No. 5)

Secretary of the Senate:  Floor Amendment No. 5 by Miles.

President:  Senator Miles, you're recognized.

Senator Miles:  Thank you, Mr. President. This, in my statement earlier, my questioning, one of the elements in the room was NCAA and still remains to be undetermined. NCA requires DEI training once every four years as requirement for its membership. If we don't play by their rules, then all of our Texas teams, our 25 Texas teams that belong to NCAA, could be in jeopardy. This amendment would keep the spirit of the bill but require these DEI prohibitions to work in conjunction with the federal laws and the rules. This is made basically to make sure, and I hope that we can adopt it and it could be acceptable by the author as safety blanket so that we could continue our good Texas spirit in sports, because as we all know football rules Texas. We'd hate to see it gone.

President:  Senator Creighton, on the amendment.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Mr. President and Members, Senator Miles and I had an exchange about concerns related to the NCAA and college athletics. I feel comfortable, again, in the way the bill's drafted and also the current NCAA requirements that we would not need this amendment added to the bill. So, I would oppose the amendment.

President:  Secretary will call the roll.

(Roll call)

President:  There being 12 yes votes, 19, the amendment fails. Members, the following amendment. Secretary will read the amendment.

(Remarks on Floor Amendment No. 6)

Secretary of the Senate:  Floor Amendment No. 6 by Menéndez.

President:  Excuse me, Senator, my allergies are getting to me. You're recognized on your amendment.

Senator Menéndez:  Not a problem, Mr. President. I understand completely. So, Members, I've asked for research on what the potential losses for university research funding across the state would be. We had some witnesses that talked about and testified that a lot of the test, the grants they put into the National Science Foundation and the National Health Institutes required DEI provisions in their grants. And so, first of all, let me give you just some numbers that are pretty impressive and something that we need to think about. Fiscal year 2020 Texas public universities and health related institutions have $5.44 billion in external research expenditures with 4.1 billion, from nonstate sources. So, in year 2020, 2020-2021, UT Austin's budget was $3.37 billion. Of that, 22 percent, 740 million, was from research awards. Members, it is my opinion that we cannot risk, just because we want to fix a problem with a sledgehammer, we cannot risk this research funding. So, with this amendment, is very simple, it would ensure that if a university is disqualified from funding because of provisions of this bill, the bill will be repealed. This will ensure that our future, the future of our universities are secure access to appropriate and available funding to continue Texas growth and competitive abilities and research. And so, Mr. President, Members, I move adoption of Amendment No. 6.

President:  Senator Creighton.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Mr. President, Members. Senator Menéndez and I had quite an exchange related to whether or not the speculation behind this legislation affecting grant funding was with merit. I think we made it very clear that within the grant writing process if it is very clear that the university itself has a diversity goal and strategy that ties together with affirming state and federal antidiscrimination laws, there would be no punitive aspect to those grant awards. And for that I would oppose the amendment.

President:  Secretary will call the roll.

(Roll call)

President:  Twelve yes notes, noes and 12 yes, 19 noes, the amendment fails. Following amendment.

(Remarks on Floor Amendment No. 7)

Secretary of the Senate:  Floor Amendment No. 7 by Miles.

President:  Senator Miles, you're recognized.

Senator Miles:  Thank you, Mr. President, and I ask that you give me a few minutes for my colleagues to take a look at this particular amendment.

President:  Alright.

Senator Miles:  It's kind of lengthy.

President:  Sure.

Senator Miles:  If you don't mind?

President:  Sure. We'll give them time. I'll watch their facial expressions when they're looking up.

Senator Miles:  Mr. President and Members, my colleague Senator Creighton has included an audit provision in the bill. That audit is only required to be conducted once every four years. This proposed amendment will provide an annual reporting requirement for institutions of higher education and will provide oversight measures over the implementation of this bill. Mr. President, Members, I think it's very imperative that we take a closer look at the effects of this bill and the data so that we can better be informed about the number of violations of this act, which would allow us to better react in, with future legislation. Because in a perfect world this may be the answer. But as I've said it on this floor many a times, we don't live in a perfect world. So, Senator Creighton, I'd ask that you consider this particular amendment so that we can keep a better accountability of what SB 17 may look like, so that we can fix something if there's a problem. And if we don't, like my colleague said, if we don't measure it, we can't fix it. So, I'd ask for your favorable consideration—

President:  Senator Creighton—

Senator Miles:  —on this particular amendment.

President:  Senator Creighton.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Mr. President. Members, great respect for the effort and the intention behind Senator Miles' amendment. There are provisions in the bill that require that universities' board of regents to designate a specific designee to report to the Senate Education Committee in the hearing, in the interim hearings, information tied to the audit language and also compliance and also other consequences. So, I'm comfortable with that required language and the reporting that's already in the bill, and for that I would oppose the amendment.

President:  Secretary will call the roll.

(Roll call)

President:  Twelve ayes, and 19 nays, the amendment fails. Members, the following amendment. Secretary will read the amendment. This is the last amendment.

(Remarks on Floor Amendment No. 8)

Secretary of the Senate:  Floor Amendment No. 8 by Middleton and Creighton.

President:  Senator Middleton, you're recognized on your amendment.

Senator Middleton:  Thank you, Mr. President. Members, what this amendment does is if a crediting agency attempts to take adverse action or actually does take adverse action against a institute of higher education because of the institutes' compliance with this bill, under state law it allows the Attorney General, the institution, employee of an institution to bring an action for declaratory or injunctive relief against that accreditation agency.

President:  Senator Creighton on the amendment.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Mr. President. Members, Senator Middleton and I and our offices have been working together on this amendment, and it is acceptable to the author.

President:  Secretary will call the roll.

(Roll call)

President:  Nineteen ayes, 12 nays, the amendment is passed. Senator Creighton, you're recognized on passage to engrossment.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Mr. President, I move passage to engrossment for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 17.

President:  Secretary will call the roll.

(Roll call)

President:  Nineteen ayes, 12 nays, the bill passes to engrossment. And you get a chance to sit down and we'll hold right there.

(Remarks on third reading)

President:  Senator Creighton, you're recognized to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 17. This is third reading.

Senator Creighton:  Thank you, Mr. President. Move suspension.

President:  Secretary will call the roll.

(Roll call)

President:  Nineteen ayes, 12 nays. The rules are suspended. Chair now lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 17. Secretary, read the caption.

Secretary of the Senate:  Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 17, relating to the power and duties of the governing boards of public institutions of higher education.

President:  The Chair recognizes Senator Zaffirini to speak on the bill.

Senator Zaffirini:  Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and Members, as a descendant of Don Tomás Sánchez, who founded Laredo in 1755, almost 100 years before Texas became our country's 28th state, and as a Texan of Mexican, Spanish, Sephardic Jew, and Greek descent, with an Italian married surname whose blood runs burnt orange, I rise today in strong opposition to Senate Bill 17. Members, this bill in my opinion dramatically restricts the abilities of universities to enrich their offerings, their faculty and administration, by prohibiting their ability to promote and to strive for true diversity, equity, and inclusion by closing DEI offices. Texas comprises a rich tapestry of cultures, ethnicities, and identities, making diversity one of our greatest strengths, and our universities should reflect our aspirational goal of equal opportunity for all. More specifically, DEI offices on campus create an academic equalizer in society by attracting a diverse academic team to empower through higher education students of all backgrounds. By creating an environment that welcomes and respects faculty and staff reflecting these elements of diversity, our universities and colleges are better equipped to foster academic and intellectual skills such as critical thinking, creativity and innovation, and social and emotional skills such as tolerance, understanding, and cross-cultural sophistication. We are a majority-minority state, and our faculty and other professionals need to reflect our population if we are going to keep the Texas miracle alive. Unfortunately, Senate Bill 1, in effect, Senate Bill 17 rather, in effect, would stifle efforts to promote the worthy goals of racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus, and eventually in the workforce and in society. By prohibiting universities from establishing or maintaining offices, divisions, or units that influence hiring practices with respect to race, color, or ethnicity that conduct trainings, programs, or activities designed or implemented in reference to race, color, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, this bill effectively would eliminate college and universities' ability to recruit faculty who better reflect Texas' population and to provide support and resources to underrepresented students. In essence, Senate Bill 17 would prevent universities from taking proactive steps to address demographic disparities by recruiting faculty from specific populations with whom diverse students would identify. What's more, it would ban universities from requiring anyone to undergo trainings related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, unless approved in writing by the institutions' general counsel and the Attorney General. It is unclear to what extent, if any, these trainings currently are required, but this arbitrary restriction could prevent universities from providing crucial education to faculty and staff about issues such as implicit bias, cultural understanding, and systemic racism when and if necessary. Clearly leaving no stone unturned to prohibit DEI, Senate Bill 17 goes so far as to require extensive compliance reports to the Legislature and to the coordinating board before expending any appropriated funds for a fiscal year, mandate compliance audits by the state auditor, and withholding of all state appropriations during the next fiscal year to universities that don't comply, and allow a student or employee required to participate in diversity training to sue the institution for injunctive relief. The consequences of passing this bill range from the unknown to the dire. What is unclear to many of us includes how our national academic standings will be impacted, particularly as the very scholars we hope to attract may shun what they perceive to be our unwelcoming environment. How this bill would affect institutions' accreditation, and our students' ability to receive financial aid or to participate in national athletic competitions, and how our ability to recruit and retain the best athletes would be impacted. What I believe is definitely clear is that the passage of Senate Bill 17 will be a giant step backward in our quest for equal opportunity and equal worth for all. Because I believe that bias, chauvinism, discrimination, and prejudice are based on ignorance, lack of exposure, and lack of intellectual sophistication, I worry that stifling diversity, equity, and inclusion on our academic campuses, simultaneously through their absence, will breed the negative attitudes and behaviors typically attributed to ignoramuses while stifling the development of tolerant, enlightened communities. Accordingly, based on what I believe is in the best interests of our great and diverse state and of the diverse groups that comprise it, I will respectfully vote no on Senate Bill 17, and thank everyone who also will vote against it and those who support our efforts. Thank you, Mr. President and Members.

President:  Senator Campbell, what purpose?

Senator Campbell:  To speak on final passage.

President:  You're recognized.

Senator Campbell:  Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Members. I want to thank Chair Creighton for your work on SB 17 and your work in not only public ed but higher ed also. Members, this bill speaks to DEI in our institutions of higher learning. And, for me, in attempting to grasp the inner workings of DEI, I ask if an individual was attempting to be hired in one of our state-owned institutions and they were the most qualified applicant because they had each of the educational credentials required, had achieved great success in their field, had years of experience, and would bring remarkable knowledge and reputation to the position, would that individual be rejected for the job because too many people working in the state-owned institution look like the applicant? They had the same skin color, nationality, gender, sex orientation, and another individual with lesser qualification who has different color, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation, would they be given the job so that DEI benchmarks could be reached? I have to ask, maybe just ponder, does hiring or promoting a candidate based on DEI preferences, does that mean that other candidates are intentionally discriminated against based on that same criteria? I mean, isn't that illegal? Would hiring or promoting based on DEI preferences create a tremendous division inside our educational system? Are individuals told that they are not hired or promoted because they're just not the right color or gender? Is this expected to happen secretively because of preferences that are established in DEI initiatives? We recently heard in committee testimony from two faculty hired by UT specifically for outreach and expansion of DEI initiatives. But I'm not sure how their success is actually measured in their position. I wonder, just wonder, is it correct to say that DEI program creates a quota system? I don't know. If a DEI quota system were allowed to be put in place inside of our institutions, how far would the quotas go? Who would be involved? Who would manage the quotas? Would each people group, each race, each subgroup, each Native Tribe in Texas be included in the quota group? It begs the question when any institution utilizes DEI preferences in hiring or admittance to a university or promotions or even continued employment based on the physical attributes rather than on merit, envy and disdain are sure to occur. Causing what? Infighting, unnecessary distractions, and ultimately division in that organization. Now, would that be any way we are to run Texas' institutions of higher education? This bill aims to stop policies that promote division in our state institutions of learning. It seems as though DEI is at odds with the clear civil rights legislation that demands equality regardless of race. The intent of this bill is to restore equal opportunity for people in our state educational institutions. As a member of public ed committee, I have found that DEI is an ideology that is permeating state education policies that could be doing harm to students as well as employees by limiting opportunities available to them and yet at the same time, expanding opportunities based on aspects of human differences, trading out meritocracy for mediocracy. The intent of this bill is to recreate equal opportunity for all people involved in our public ed and higher ed institutions, regardless of race or human differences. I can only imagine the confusion if this is used in hiring process for faculty and other employees. For example, what if, what if two competing applicants are of the same diversity? Same diversity, two applicants, meaning race, ethnicity, creed, color, sex, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic status, language, culture, national origin, religion, spirituality, age, disability, political perspective, all listed according to Google. How is the applicant, how are they chosen? How is the applicant, if they're, if they're just alike, how is the applicant selected? Does the person that's doing the hiring just keep on going until they find a difference that they prefer? Is there is a prioritization of diversity? Is there a prioritization of just specific diversity characteristics? Are diversity characteristics weighted, some more important than the other? It seems reasonable to me to reject selection practices that can be so subjective and replace them with with a formula that is not riddled with variables of subjectivity. We should change the D of diversity to defined, the E of equality to equal opportunity, and the I of inclusion to be important for all. Defined equal opportunity is important for all. We need to restore selection practices that are measurable and can bring in the desired scale, skill set that is needed for job solutions. This bill seeks to get rid of policies that benefit some and burden others. This bill seeks to restore hiring practices through merit. Members, in this hallowed Chamber we have heard speak of Dr. Martin Luther King and his great contribution to our country, and it was a great, it's a contribution that keeps on contributing. He has been quoted in this Chamber from his "I Have a Dream" speech where he said, I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. If Texas is prepared to hire on the basis of skin color, if Texas is prepared to grant promotions on the basis of gender, if Texas is prepared to give positions of authority on the basis of sexual orientation, I ask you, does that not do violence to Martin Luther King? Thank you. I am voting for this bill proudly. Thank you.

President:  Senator Menéndez, you're recognized.

Senator Menéndez:  Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Members, diversity, equity, inclusion is a critical policy for this state and its continued development and growth. It has taken years and millions of dollars to build diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and that was only after many long, hard pushes to acknowledge the need for DEI in our institutions of higher education for both our faculty and our students. You know, and we just heard from my colleague, who I respect very much, but if the quotas were there, they are doing a terrible job because there is not enough diversity. And diversity, equity, and inclusion is imperative to the health of this state because it fosters opportunity, creativity, fresh perspectives, and understanding. It makes it to where people of all walks of life, different races, abilities, ages, socioeconomic statuses, religion, and diverse backgrounds can be made comfortable in the workplace and in their educational setting. As a significant tool for social mobility, this is especially imperative in higher education as many students fail to see a representative makeup of peers and faculty in the classroom. Some students may find it harder to participate, attend, or contribute to the class where there lacks diversity in their school. The fact of the matter is that DEI is deeply entrenched in the foundations of our institutions since we started making advancements towards equality in the '60s, and any encroachment on that effort, whether it be to limit hiring and recruiting practices, the teaching of research or certain subjects or any other piece has far-reaching consequences on the health of our institutions as a whole. Even if you can't support the momentum and the history behind the need for DEI, you should think about this, this is not a conservative policy move, banning DEI is, it's not only going to impact hiring and recruitment, it may mean a loss to access to more than $450 million annual in STEM research grants offered by the National Science Foundation. Many of those research grants, we heard testimony, required DEI policies to qualify. Banning DEI means not only less healthy and diverse institutions of higher education, but also less competitive ones. If we're not able to access research grants or to have the academic freedom to research issues, we cannot lead this nation in research. This bill is slated to make hiring and recruitment in these institutions, quote, more fair, citing student and professor discomfort. However, I have a petition of over 500 professors of color who stand against, not just tenure ban but citing the protections and the fairness you seek in this bill. Fair chances at merit-based hiring decisions, that is where the discussion belongs. I agree, we can ban these loyalty oaths. There also is something to say about the peoples who stayed behind that night on that long, late night in committee, so many students, graduates, and young professionals. Some of them shared their experience of the struggle it took for them because of their background, because of the fact that no one in their family had been in college, the access to higher education, the access to the resources. Others shared the deleterious impacts this would have on their own research and still others, the chilling nature of this legislation. I am committed to having a real discussion about how we can improve our strategy to better include all voices in this discussion and make DEI more effective. I, however, believe this is not the right bill for that. I believe this bill simply attempts to turn back the clock in the face of all those who dedicated their life to equity and worked through less safe and less inclusive environments to get to where we are today. This bill is letting, is telling those people, like Rosalind Franklin, who was not included in the Nobel Prize awarded to Watson and Crick for discovering the shape of the DNA double helix, thanks to her Xray picture of DNA, that it was simply merit that contributed to her exclusion from history. This bill is telling Gladys West, who created the foundations of GPS in the 1930s, where she explicitly stated that she felt education was her only escape from her small, rural community in Virginia, that she had the same chances as a White, upperclass man from the suburbs at getting that education. Members, it's not just a kid, you know, from San Antonio whose parents are immigrants who had, one had a fourth grade education, was, my mom was a nurse. It's so many, without our education, without our access to higher education, we wouldn't be here. So, this is why I plead with you. Let's make this an interim conversation, before we make this law. Let's have a conversation without the threat of universities' funding be on the line because we know that will limit our institutions and their professors' ability to advocate for a policy that is working for them. I ask that we consider the process that we followed for the bill, so many who stayed long enough to have their conversations heard no matter how late it was. Members, we can ban these loyalty oaths and we can express freedom of speech without passing this damaging bill. And so, this is why I stand today and respectfully say that I will be voting against Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 17 because I believe it is too blunt a solution for a specific problem. Thank you, Mr. President and Members.

President:  Thank you, Senator. Senator Johnson, you're recognized.

Senator Johnson:  Thank you, Mr. President, to speak on the bill. Very briefly, Senator Creighton has acknowledged, I think everybody in the Chamber's acknowledged that diversity is a shared goal, specifically, diversity in academic hiring. Yet after a couple of years of analyzing the problem, what we've concluded is that the best way that we can advance the common shared goal of diversity in higher education is to eliminate the only thing we've ever done to try to advance the cause of diversity in higher education. It strikes me as not just ironic or disappointing, but somewhat lazy and remarkably unimaginative. And if we're going to approach sincerely that shared goal, diversity, and we know the reason it's a shared goal, among the noble qualities of having that shared goal, we know it works better. It works better to have diversities of experience and perspectives in everything, corporate boards, academic institutions, senates, everywhere. If we're going to take that shared goal seriously, I think we should, before we remove the one thing that's working, or maybe it's only working a little bit. I know, Senator Creighton, you're not impressed with the numbers, and I think we all acknowledge that we could do better, but that's where we've put our efforts so far. Before we pull that back we ought to have a backup plan. And the idea that we could look to Texas Woman's University, whether or not it has a DEI program, and say, maybe there's solutions there. It's called Texas Woman's University, folks. It's going to be different than other institutions. I don't think I can look to Israel and draw lessons. And I bring those examples up not to suggest that anybody's being flippant, but I just don't think we've taken sufficiently seriously this question of how we're going to do better than we're already doing. And I think we have an obligation to take that question more seriously than we have been before we take a bunch of steps backwards and retract what we've already done. I agree with my colleagues, Senator West, in particular, talked about doing things over time, about having metrics. There've been lots of discussion about ways we might reform, advance, improve DEI efforts. And then there's another question of just patience. Things do take time. We are fighting against the currents of history, and the solution we seem to have is we're not moving fast enough, so stop rowing. And I'm afraid those currents aren't going to stop, and they will take us backwards if we don't keep rowing. We can improve the stroke, but I think we've got to keep rowing. So, I recognize that a great deal of effort has been put into this, that it's sincere in that the hopes are genuine. But I don't think we've done our job and I don't think that we can say that we've done something by choosing to do nothing. And that's what we're doing with this bill. Thank you.

President:  Senator Blanco, what purpose? Speak on the bill? You're recognized.

Senator Blanco:  Thank you, Mr. President. Members, today I rise to speak against Senate Bill 17 and its aim to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and practices in higher education. Members, we have heard time and again that diversity is our strength. And that strength should be uniting us. It should not be dividing us. The fact is institutions of higher education have a long documented history of discrimination against people of color and of women. And we've heard the discussion about, yes, things have improved a bit. But our institutions are still failing. They're failing to ensure opportunities within higher education are open to everyone. And that progress has been painfully slow, painfully slow. And we've got to push for progress. We've got to push against the tide of history. We've got to push against the implicit biases that still exist. Members, we've heard a lot today of the term colorblind. And doing away with DEI, the practices and the policies that we've discussed, and simply relying on colorblind or sex blind processes, it leaves minorities behind. This is not an opinion. This is not an anecdote. This is documented. In The University of Texas at Austin's Hispanic Equity Report, it states, and I quote, We at UT Austin demonstrate that seemingly neutral policies, rules and practices, and systems of management have produced disparate impacts on Hispanic faculty. Well, Members, those disparate impacts, they're documented in the lack of faculty representation where only 7 percent of faculty are Latinos. And only 5.1 percent of faculty are Black. Despite Latinos and African Americans making up 41 percent and 13 percent of Texas population respectively. And then there's inequities in compensation, where you see Latinos and Latina professors are paid, on the average, $25,000 less than their White peers in similar positions. And then the lack of representation in all of our universities, when you look at university leadership across the board, where only 10 Latinos hold leadership roles. But not one of those was a Latina, since 2019. Conversely, Latinos and African Americans have the lowest rate of promotion. When you look at UT, more than 1,700 tenure and tenure-track faculty, there are more than 1,700 tenure and tenure faculty, but only 7 percent of those were Latino. And for African Americans there's only 8 percent. And Latinos also lag in the promotion of tenure by 22 percent compared to their White professors, while Black professors lag by 9 percent. Members, that report also documents and states, and I quote, The holistic process which ostensibly aims to increase diversity actually serves to enroll fewer Hispanics and fewer Black students while admitting more White students. Very few people know this. It's disturbing. It's problematic. And it's unacceptable. Now, our colleague, Senator Creighton, mentioned UTEP and he had mentioned that there's a lot of progress, and there is, it's my home university in El Paso. But I've got to tell you, it's not immune to these disparate impacts on Hispanic faculty. When you look at my university that I graduated from, despite being located in a predominately Hispanic region, despite 40 percent of UTEP's faculty being Latino, only 27 percent of the faculty that are Latino are tenured. These disparities for minority faculty exist throughout our state. And this bill, I'm afraid, will send a message that the status quo is okay. It's not okay. We have to do more. We need higher education to do better. They are not doing better. They are failing. So, Members, I treasure the diversity of this body. I love the fact that we can go to the Members' lounge and talk about all kinds of things and do a lot of great work together. I think that diversity in this Chamber is what makes us stronger. But not embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education will not only hurt minority faculty, but, in my opinion, it's going to hurt minority students. It's going to hurt all students. And I think, ultimately, it's going to hurt our entire state. So, Members, I respectfully will be voting no on Senate Bill 17. Thank you, Mr. President.

President:   Thank you, Senator Blanco. Senator Hinojosa, you're recognized.

Senator Hinojosa:  Thank you, Mr. President. I'll speak on the bill. And I was not planning to speak this evening, but I must tell you that as I heard the great debate by Senator Creighton and those that were asking questions, I had to speak up, because in many ways I do think that this bill is going backwards in time, Senator Creighton. I would tell you that, yes, we've made a lot of improvements. But if I recall, we didn't have DEI when I graduated from college after I came back from Vietnam. So, in 1970 out of Pan American College, and I had about 3.7 plus GPA, yet I was rejected by UT Law School. I was rejected by University of Houston, but I was accepted at George Washington D.C., at Georgetown D.C., and other law schools, national law schools. They were same the caliber as UT. My point is I do hope as was quoted from Martin Luther King, Senator Campbell, that at some point in our life, we will be able to see and look at the point in our country's history where men and women will be judged by their character and not by the color of their skin or by their name, by their last name. And that's important because I know we're all created equal, but unfortunately, some are more equal than others. If DEI had been in place back when I first applied to law school here in Texas, I think I would probably would have been accepted. But at that time the policy was different. There was a handful of Hispanics at UT Law School at that time. There were more Hispanics at Georgetown Law School in Washington D.C. than UT Austin. Can you imagine that? So, this is why I feel that this really is a step backwards. I know there are some abuses in the higher education system, yes. Some of the requirements are made in DEI are really somewhat crazy, they're adopted from the university from California, the West Coast, and other parts of the United States, but we can fix this problem by being more focused and targeting those parts of DEI where they are really being misused, and just focus and targeting those, but keeping making progress forward. So, at this point, I would respectfully vote no. Thank you, Mr. President.

President:  Senator Bettencourt, what purpose?

Senator Bettencourt:  To speak on final passage.

President:  You're recognized.

Senator Bettencourt:  I, too, listened to the debate tonight and importantly because for the first time in a long time when we heard testimony, I think starting in the Finance Committee that Senator Creighton referred to tonight, I was shocked. I was shocked when at Tech, one of our great institutions, they were not going to treat students equally. That's directly from your opening. I was shocked that the biology department was hiring someone, not based on what they can do for ATP and ADP and everything else that you want biologists to do, but the test, a loyalty of, and a loyalty of to what? To an acronym called DEI. So, I thought about what do I stand for. What do I think's important? We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Because these are words that speak out through the centuries. They're words that shook the world in 1776. But it continued because four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now, we're engaged in a great civil war testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. So, what are we discussing tonight? Can a nation long endure that has a loyalty oath to the DEI, or can a nation long endure that has an oath to the Constitution? Respect for the Bill of Rights, knowledge of the Texas Constitution, that's what Senator Creighton's bill is about. It's about what we believe in, that all men are created equal. And it's shocking to see that we've had to pass a bill to remind ourselves that all men are created equal. Because that's what the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 17 is about, Members. It's about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights. It's about what we are as a people, that we believe that we can all be equal and that we believe that that's where our oath lies and not in an oath to something called DEI and an oath to the U.S. Constitution and an oath to the Texas Constitution and an oath that we believe all men are created equal.

President:  Thank you, Senator. Senator Miles, speak on the bill.

Senator Miles:  Thank you, Mr. President, Members. I was not planning on speaking on the close of this bill but after sitting here, Mr. President and Members, and listening to some of the closings, I felt obligated to stand up and correct some of the wrong. Senator Bettencourt, when the Declaration of Independence was written, African Americans were considered property, not men, just for the record. You know, tonight many Members quoted MLK "I Have a Dream" speech, Mr. President, as if that was only speech that Dr. King ever wrote. He wrote hundreds of speeches. To name a few, "The Three Evils of Society," "The Other America," and "Why America May Go to Hell," was just a few of his speeches. But he also wrote one from the Birmingham jail and I'm quoting him as I say, Often the oppressor goes along unaware of the evils involved in his oppression so long as the oppressed accepts it. Members, I will not accept it. There is no logic in the belief that you can increase diversity by removing policies and offices that work to promote diversity. And that is why I will be, I will not be supporting SB 17. There is no way that you can remove policies that have helped move the needle and accept or expect for you to increase diversity. I ask some of my colleagues, including the author of this bill, this evening all I ask that when you write policy, think about how it may affect those who was, the policy was written for. Get their input first. Let's be on the front side instead of the backside. And as you quote some of our great leaders of this country, please make sure you're quoting them properly. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Members.

President:  Thank you, Senator Miles. Senator West, you're recognized.

Senator West:  Thank you very much, Mr. President and Members. Standing behind me the member of the Confederate. Standing in front of me are my colleagues. I know each and every one of you, some better than the others. I appreciate your perspectives on the various issues that we have to deal with. Too many times we find ourselves at this juncture, talking about differences, race being the most predominant issue that we debate. I think it's disingenuous to think by removing DEI departments that we're going to solve the issue, Senator Creighton, of diversity and inclusion. And I know in your heart you really believe that. But without a commitment from Lieutenant Governor Patrick, the Governor of the State of Texas to allow a group of people, reasonable persons to come together in order to do that, put in place a mechanism in order to have it done, I join my colleague, Borris Miles. Yes, Senator Campbell has quoted Martin Luther King and many of us kind of favor going to Martin Luther King in these times. Martin is perceived, Senator Bettencourt, as the moderate African American. Let me, let me make sure you hear these words. Many of the ugly pages of American history and I'll say Texas history have been obscured and forgotten. Recall when we had debates on this floor and I had to quote to you what happened in 1861. When there was a secession from the Union by Texas, statements made then that the reason they, that Texas wanted to secede is because the Black man was inferior. Those are some of the ugly words from in this very Chamber depicted the plight of African Americans. And society is always eager to cover up its misdeeds with a cloak of forgetfulness, let's not forget that. But no society can fully repress an ugly past when the ravages persist into the present. And the ravages, my friends, still persist today, you know it as well as I. America owes a debt of justice which has only been, it has begun to pay. Let me say that again. America, Texas owes a debt of justice, which it has only begun to pay. And use of a DEI program is part of that debt, of the mechanism in order to pay that debt. Yes, it has some imperfections but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. But, yes, I know each of you have your own politics, I have my politics, too, and I understand that and appreciate that. If it loses the will, if Texas loses the will to finish or slackens in its determination, history will recall its crimes and the country or the state, though it be great, will lack the most indispensable element of greatness. My friends, that's justice, not just us but justice. If indeed this is a big issue, and it will be because I know it's going to be on the front page of every paper in Texas, and it, it'll be on the news tonight. There'll be talk about it on the political campaign, look what we did, we'll beat ourselves on the chest. But if we're doing this in order to increase diversity, why not bring us into the tent in order to get it done, up front, not behind but up front? That wasn't done. All of your colleagues that have, are evident minorities in this Chamber, are saying the same thing to you. It's wrong, but you're not listening. It's wrong, but you're not listening. It's wrong, but you're not listening. Say you want to make change, but you won't allow us to participate in ideas that will effectuate the change. There'll be some of the younger Senators in here that just got here that will be here probably 20 years from now. And the question that I ask you, will the debt have been paid where we can truly measure a person by the content of their character not by any other category? My female counterparts, you always say we want to see more women in places of power. I agree with you, we do. We want to see more African Americans in places of power, Latinos, you name it, Asians. We want to see that. And we can do that. If, in fact, we want a model in the State of Texas that can be replicated across the country, we have the ability to do it if we work together. I'm not going to prolong this. Fact of the matter is, I've been here before, almost making the same speech. I would just hope that you would listen.

President:  Thank you, Senator West. Senator Creighton, motion on final passage. Do you wish to speak? You may or may not. You can just make a motion to pass the bill. Your call.

Senator Creighton:  I did wish to speak.

President:  You're recognized.

Senator Creighton:  Members, we've got, had a lot of discussion today on this subject but we have data and specific facts that show that the policies we have in place today, if it is all of our goal for true diversity and true equal opportunity for all, equal dignity for all, that the rubric, the policies, the strategies, the structure that we have in place with DEI today is not working. We have a study from the university of Baylor that's been revered all over the country that shows from 2018 to '20 that DEI does not equal any significant results for university hiring of minority applicants. We have a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research that shows that chief diversity officers and DEI frameworks do not result in diverse hiring. We have a study from the Harvard, from Harvard University backed up with every metric questioned and tested by the university of Tel Aviv that shows that there are no results in the business and corporate world related to mandatory diversity training. We have results from 2022, university results that show that 76 percent of applicants for faculty positions at particular universities were not ever even considered for their academic record or merit due to diversity screening and loyalty oath requirements. Diversity statements are not designed to ensure that potential faculty members follow civil rights laws. Instead, they're designed to sort job candidates by ideology. They reshape the culture on campus to ensure that faculty members conduct themselves in a manner that advances a certain political agenda. And requiring diversity statements as part of the employment process acts as a gatekeeper for prospective faculty and staff and it dissuades those with dissenting viewpoints from applying. By eliminating personal autonomy, this amounts to nothing short of viewpoint discrimination and compelled speech. If you could hang a sign above this bill, the sign would say dissenting viewpoints need not apply. Is that the Texas university campus we all strive for? Where some are excluded under the guise of very important nomenclature, diversity, inclusion, very important words. DEI has become a political agenda not a program to follow civil rights law. In eliminating personal autonomy, whether you call it viewpoint discrimination or compelled speech, it is not free speech. And with, without free speech, without equal opportunity for all, without equal dignity for all, diversity, equity, and inclusion falls. And if it falls, what are we're supporting? If the facts show that the results have not brought more diversity in faculty hiring, what are we fighting for? Mediocrity? Is that what people send us here for, to fight for mediocrity? I've taken criticism for carrying a bill under this subject matter because, of course, it's odd at first glance, when you read a caption to remove a unit or an office from a university, under the name diversity, equity, and inclusion, but we have to strive for better than what we are getting. I hope we build something better. I hope that proves, that something proves to be more inclusive for all viewpoints. I hope it, that something includes true diversity. I hope that our goal together, shared together in alignment, is equal opportunity not equity arguments that are designed to be equal outcome that excludes some or many or sometimes all that don't share in that mindset or that strategy. Loyalty oaths, political litmus tests, mandatory training related to gender and pronoun usage, is it really okay with us to keep DEI units when just down the street, at Dell Seton, you are instructed if you work there to capitalize all references to the word Black, you are instructed through published literature and guidance that if you refer to anyone that is White you use a lower case. Is that okay? Is it okay that Asian Americans were excluded from A&M's diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and goals? It's not to me. It's not to any of you. What we do know is that hundreds of people are working to implement DEI programs on Texas campuses costing millions and millions of dollars that are implementing these controversial strategies and it's exclusionary. If some think it can be saved that's interesting because to many of us that's not worth saving under the guise of true inclusivity and equal dignity for all. Minority college admissions across our state have failed to reach goals and, again, the Baylor study showed that in 2018 to 2020 having a DEI office was not only ineffective increasing the number of minority hires within the faculty, but they declined. In hiring new faculty, a growing number of mandatory diversity statements has resulted in compelled speech and chilled free speech. Those are not just one-offs. We did not cover all of the examples I have today because only if asked I went through a specific Texas university example. You know why? Because there are many, many examples across this state and across this country. Examples taking us in the wrong direction. If Texas is going to continue to lead the nation and the world, we can't let that continue, especially in science and research. This is particularly critical. We must recruit the best people in every field regardless of race or gender as we all keep diversity and inclusion as a top priority, we must hire based on merit the best and the brightest, the most competent. We cannot afford to screen out anyone who might have the key to curing cancer or Alzheimer's. We need the best minds and we need to recognize that all of those minds won't think alike. They won't clear the hurdles of a narrow loyalty oath tied to a DEI unit. In fact, that's the point of creativity, of innovation, of progress. That's the kind of diversity we also must consider. So, what I appreciate so much about this debate, as difficult as some of the conversation has been, certainly in the committee process as well, over the past several days and here today, is that it has been an honest conversation. We talked about race, we've talked about civil rights, about what has been done, what is not working, what we have done that is right, and what we have left to accomplish. And isn't that a positive? I'm proud we've had this conversation. I want to make sure we continue to have it. One of the things we agree on is that there is more work to be done but we know when it comes to civil rights, to equality, to freedom of speech, and the issues that are on the table today, we solve problems by ensuring that the barriers of the past have been removed and that we all work together. We just may have a different viewpoint on how to make that progress. Not all of it has to be offensive. It may just be a different viewpoint on how to achieve a very, very similar outcome. But we have to make sure that we aren't creating new barriers to equality, inclusion, and, certainly, for freedom of speech for everyone, which we have well documented examples where that has been specifically infringed, time after time, under these rubrics. Members, if affirmative action falls at the Supreme Court level, I'm carrying the bill to allow The University of Texas to make decisions based on admissions outside of the top 10 percentile. I obviously have the right intentions. And many of us have other bills that are outside the scope of this legislation, but also, carry out our goals that we have all shared together today on this floor. Senate Bill 17 wherein will ensure that every job applicant at a Texas college or university is hired based on merit. This legislation will ensure that employees at Texas academic institutions are free to speak their minds. They will not be required to attend mandatory trainings that they don't believe are effective, but that they are certainly welcome to advance their own cause to achieve very similar goals based on a different strategy. This debate is not only about The University of Texas or A&M or other universities across the state. We have the best universities in the world in Texas and the best people working at them but we have to have tough conversations. We have to share in the oversight of how the dollars are used. And if we are all sharing in the goal of striving for more diverse outcomes, we have to scrutinize whether or not things are working. And if the majority party is pursuing those goals, there doesn't have to be some sinister, ulterior motive. It can just be that we all seek more diverse outcomes together. This debate has extended across this nation. Texas is leading on this issue, as we should. Earlier this month, debates at MIT, they were deciding what to do about DEI, the lack of progress, and even in that deep blue state, advocates on all sides admitted that DEI was not effective and had, quote, gone off the rails. More and more states and campuses are recognizing that these programs need another look and that they are carrying out results that are divisive, fostering turmoil and distrust, and hampering freedom of speech, destroying open inquiry and expression, and those are the bedrock of our universities, those principles. DEI is costing taxpayers millions of dollars in many examples but that's not the most important point. We have to advance diversity and protect free speech. That is what Texans deserve. All Texans. All Texans. I appreciate those that support it, Senate Bill 17. And I appreciate those that offer dissenting viewpoints during this discussion today. I'm committed to continuing to work with you to achieve these goals. Mr. President, I move final passage of Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 17.

President:  Secretary will call the roll.

(Roll call)

President:  There are 19 ayes and 12 nays. The bill is finally passed. Senator West?

Senator West:  Mr. President, I'd ask that the entire debate on Senate Bill 17 be reduced to writing and placed in the Journal.