The University of Houston is considering removing about 100 courses from its undergraduate core curriculum as it implements Texas Senate Bill 37, raising concerns about academic freedom, student choice, registration capacity and the growing authority of university regents.
Editorial Note
This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice.
The University of Houston has not finalized the proposed curriculum changes discussed below. A university working group prepared draft recommendations that were circulated for faculty feedback, but the UH System Board of Regents holds the authority to approve the final core curriculum.
Courses recommended for removal from the core would not automatically be prohibited or erased from the university’s catalog. Departments could continue offering them, and some degree programs could require them separately. Losing core status would mean that students generally could no longer use those courses to satisfy the university’s statewide general-education requirements.
The debate also should not be reduced to a claim that Texas law expressly bans courses involving climate change, race, gender or sexuality. Senate Bill 37 does not list prohibited course titles. It requires governing boards to review general-education courses using broad criteria involving foundational knowledge, civic and professional preparation, workforce participation, societal improvement and accreditation requirements.
The University of Houston is considering one of the largest reductions to its undergraduate core curriculum in recent memory as Texas public universities implement a controversial law expanding governing-board authority over academic programs.
A university working group reportedly recommended removing approximately 100 courses while retaining close to 160. If adopted, the proposal would eliminate nearly 40 percent of the current core-course options available to students.
Courses under consideration for removal include Intro to Global Climate Change, Black Liberation Theology, Introduction to Women’s Studies, Introduction to LGBT Studies, Sexuality and Society, Latino Leadership Activism and Organizing, and Social Class and Mobility in America.
The list also includes courses that do not fit neatly into current political debates, such as Advanced Laboratory I in physics and a creative-writing course titled Creation and the Performance of Literature.
University officials say the recommendations remain preliminary and represent only one stage of a broader review. Faculty members, however, argue that the process could dramatically reshape general education while giving professors too little meaningful influence over the outcome.
The controversy is about more than individual course titles.
It concerns who should decide what every university graduate ought to study, how much authority elected or appointed governing boards should exercise over academic content and whether a law designed to improve accountability could also narrow intellectual opportunity.
What the University of Houston Is Considering
The University of Houston requires undergraduate students to complete a 42-credit-hour core curriculum.
Those requirements generally cover areas such as communication, mathematics, life and physical sciences, language and culture, creative arts, American history, government, social and behavioral sciences, and additional component areas.
Students do not ordinarily take every course listed in the core. They choose from approved options within the required categories.
The proposed review would substantially reduce those options.
According to documents reported by the Houston Chronicle, the university working group recommended removing about 100 courses and retaining almost 160. That amounts to a reduction approaching 40 percent, although the exact percentage could change before the regents vote.
The proposed change would not reduce the number of core credit hours each student must complete.
Instead, it would reduce the number of courses students may select to satisfy those hours.
That distinction is central to understanding the controversy.
The Proposal Is Not Yet Final
The reported list contains draft recommendations rather than final university policy.
University officials said the Core Curriculum Working Group evaluated courses using a consistent framework and provided its recommendations to faculty for feedback.
The administration will review the proposal before it reaches the UH System Board of Regents, which is expected to consider the matter as part of the university’s compliance process.
The Board of Regents may approve, reject or modify the recommendations.
Students should therefore not assume that every course appearing on the preliminary removal list will lose core status.
Departments may still defend particular courses, revise descriptions or syllabi, demonstrate how the courses satisfy the statutory criteria or propose a different classification.
The final decision will depend on the regents and the process UH uses before presenting the proposal to them.
What Senate Bill 37 Requires
Texas enacted Senate Bill 37 in 2025 as part of a broader restructuring of public higher-education governance.
The law requires each public university governing board to conduct a comprehensive review of its general-education curriculum at least once every five years.
During the review, the board must ensure that courses are foundational and fundamental to a sound postsecondary education, necessary for civic and professional life, useful for workforce participation and the betterment of society, and broad enough to satisfy applicable accreditation requirements.
The board must also consider whether the curriculum imposes unnecessary tuition, fees or delays on students.
The law gives governing boards significant continuing authority.
Universities must submit annual curriculum changes to their boards, and a board may reserve the right to overturn decisions involving the general-education curriculum.
The initial review must be completed and certified by January 1, 2027. Texas adopted implementing rules in early 2026 reflecting that deadline.
The Law Does Not Name Specific Courses
Senate Bill 37 does not say that universities must eliminate women’s studies, climate science, ethnic studies, religious studies or LGBTQ-related courses.
It does not provide a statewide list of approved or forbidden course titles.
Instead, it establishes broad evaluative standards.
That creates both flexibility and uncertainty.
Supporters say universities need room to determine which courses satisfy their missions. Critics say vague concepts such as “foundational,” “fundamental” and “necessary” can be interpreted according to political preferences rather than consistent academic standards.
Two review committees could examine the same course and reach different conclusions.
A climate-change course could be described as essential scientific literacy in a changing economy. Another reviewer could decide that it is too specialized for general education.
A women’s-studies course could be viewed as foundational to understanding law, history and civic participation. Another reviewer might classify it as an elective better suited to a major or minor.
The law does not fully resolve those disagreements.
Why the University Began Reviewing Its Curriculum
University of Houston President Renu Khator announced a structured review process after Senate Bill 37 took effect.
The university said the Provost’s Office and Office of General Counsel would initially assess core courses against the law’s conditions.
The process was designed to separate courses into categories based on whether they appeared to satisfy, partially satisfy or fail to satisfy the statutory standards.
The university also said faculty representatives would provide advice before the analysis reached the Board of Regents.
The reported working group consisted of nine professors from different academic colleges.
It met several times before producing the draft recommendations now under debate.
University officials describe that process as a consistent and necessary response to state law.
Faculty critics argue that a small working group cannot replace broad departmental review and that insufficient information was shared before the recommendations were circulated.
Why Faculty Members Say the Process Lacked Transparency
The University of Houston chapter of the American Association of University Professors has urged administrators to stop or reconsider the review.
The faculty group alleges that the process violated principles of transparency, meaningful faculty participation and shared governance.
Critics say most faculty members did not know how individual courses were being evaluated until draft recommendations had already been prepared.
They also object to the reported confidentiality surrounding the working group’s discussions and the involvement of university legal counsel.
From the faculty perspective, professors and academic departments possess the subject-matter expertise needed to determine whether a course is foundational, rigorous and connected to broader learning outcomes.
A compressed administrative process, they argue, may favor simple course titles and descriptions over the substance of what students actually study.
University officials can reasonably respond that they face a statutory deadline and must create a manageable review structure.
The unresolved question is whether the need for efficiency justified limiting broader faculty participation during the earliest stages.
The Meaning of Shared Governance Has Changed
Universities traditionally rely on shared governance.
Under that model, governing boards oversee institutional policy and finances, administrators manage daily operations and faculty members exercise substantial authority over curriculum and academic standards.
Senate Bill 37 changes that balance.
The law states that final authority over degree programs and curricula belongs to the institution but must be exercised under the direction of the governing board.
It also allows boards to overturn institutional decisions involving general education.
Supporters argue that public universities answer to taxpayers and should not allow faculty bodies to exercise unchecked control over mandatory academic requirements.
Critics argue that governing boards are generally not selected for disciplinary expertise and may make curriculum decisions based on political expectations.
The University of Houston review is one of the first major tests of what this new balance will look like in practice.
Removing a Course From the Core Is Not the Same as Banning It
Much of the public debate has described the proposal as a plan to “cut” courses.
That description is understandable but incomplete.
A course removed from the core may continue to exist.
Students could still take it as an elective, and departments could potentially require it for a major, minor or certificate.
The practical consequences could nevertheless be substantial.
Core status makes a course available to a much larger group of students because it satisfies a graduation requirement.
Without that designation, enrollment may decline. Departments may offer fewer sections. Some courses may eventually become financially difficult to maintain.
Losing core status can therefore weaken a course even when it remains technically available.
The distinction is between direct prohibition and reduced institutional access.
Why Core Status Matters to Students
Core curricula shape much of a student’s early university experience.
Students frequently discover new majors, minors and career interests through courses they initially select to satisfy general requirements.
A student studying engineering may take a cultural-studies course and develop an interest in public policy.
A business student may use a climate-science course to understand environmental risk.
A humanities student may take a laboratory course that strengthens scientific reasoning.
When the approved list becomes smaller, students may have fewer opportunities to connect general-education requirements with their personal interests.
Supporters of a smaller core may argue that too many specialized options weaken the concept of a common education.
Critics respond that variety allows universities to serve students with different backgrounds, goals and learning needs.
Could Fewer Courses Delay Graduation?
Faculty members have warned that removing about 100 options could create registration bottlenecks.
Students would still need to complete 42 core credit hours, but more of them could be competing for seats in a smaller number of approved courses.
That could create problems when popular classes fill quickly or when students require a specific time, campus location or online format.
A shortage of available sections could force students to delay a requirement, take a less suitable course or pay for an additional semester.
The law itself instructs governing boards to consider whether curriculum requirements increase students’ tuition, fees or time to graduation.
That means capacity should be part of the final decision.
The university should not evaluate only whether each course satisfies an abstract academic standard. It should also determine whether the remaining schedule can serve the actual student population.
Not Every Proposed Removal Involves a Politically Controversial Subject
Several highly visible courses involve climate, gender, sexuality, race or social activism.
That has encouraged claims that the review primarily targets subjects associated with political progressivism.
The complete list is more complicated.
Courses involving African American studies and Latino cultural studies were reportedly recommended for retention, while some other race- and identity-related offerings were recommended for removal.
History and government courses were largely spared.
At the same time, technical and specialized courses outside current culture-war debates also appeared on the removal list.
Advanced Laboratory I in physics was one example. Its professor argued that the class helps physics students communicate complex scientific ideas and prepares them for graduate school and professional work.
That course’s inclusion suggests that the working group applied criteria beyond whether a subject was politically controversial.
It does not eliminate concerns about unequal effects on liberal arts departments.
Liberal Arts Programs Could Be Affected Most
Departments in the humanities and social sciences often depend heavily on students taking their courses to satisfy core requirements.
Many of those departments have fewer majors than large professional programs.
Core enrollment helps sustain faculty positions, course sections and opportunities for students outside the major.
If multiple courses lose core status, a department may experience lower enrollment even when the university does not formally eliminate the classes.
That could eventually influence staffing, budgets and whether a major or minor remains viable.
Senate Bill 37 separately requires universities to review low-enrollment minor and certificate programs and identify those that may need consolidation or elimination.
Those provisions could interact.
Removing courses from the core may lower enrollment. Lower enrollment may then make an academic program more vulnerable during a later review.
Supporters Say the Core Should Be Truly Foundational
Supporters of Senate Bill 37 argue that mandatory general education should focus on knowledge every graduate needs.
They contend that a core curriculum can become too broad when highly specialized courses are allowed to satisfy general requirements.
Under that view, students should complete widely applicable courses in writing, mathematics, science, history, government, communication and civic knowledge before moving into narrower subjects.
A governing-board review may also identify overlapping courses, outdated offerings and classes that are rarely taught.
Reducing the number of approved options could make the curriculum easier to understand and administer.
Supporters further argue that faculty members should not have exclusive control over requirements that affect public funding, tuition costs and the statewide value of university degrees.
For them, the review represents accountability rather than censorship.
Critics Say the Standard May Favor Job Training Over Education
Critics object to interpreting workforce preparation too narrowly.
A university education has traditionally served several purposes.
It prepares students for employment, but it also develops writing, analysis, ethical reasoning, historical understanding and the ability to evaluate unfamiliar ideas.
Courses involving culture, religion, identity, social movements and environmental change may contribute to professional preparation even when their titles do not name a specific occupation.
Employers regularly seek graduates who can communicate, analyze evidence, work across differences and understand the social context of business and government.
A course does not need to function like technical job training to produce workforce value.
The law itself refers to civic life and the betterment of society, not only employment.
The dispute is therefore partly about how broadly those goals should be interpreted.
Academic Freedom Is Part of the Legal Framework
Senate Bill 37 gives governing boards greater control, but it also states that public institutions have a responsibility to protect intellectual exploration and academic freedom.
That language matters.
A university cannot reasonably claim to comply with the law by focusing only on accountability while ignoring the statute’s protection of academic inquiry.
Academic freedom does not mean that every course must remain in the core permanently.
Universities regularly revise curricula for academic, financial and accreditation reasons.
The concern arises when faculty believe courses are being judged according to political sensitivity rather than educational quality.
The strongest review process would document how each recommendation serves both accountability and academic freedom.
The Board of Regents Will Carry the Final Responsibility
The UH System Board of Regents will not merely be approving an administrative housekeeping change.
It will be exercising authority deliberately expanded by the Legislature.
The board should require evidence that the proposed curriculum can serve students without creating capacity shortages.
It should examine why comparable courses received different recommendations.
It should also determine whether departments had a fair opportunity to correct inaccurate assumptions or explain how a course satisfies the law.
Regents should be especially cautious when removing courses associated with politically disputed subjects.
Those courses are not automatically entitled to core status, but decisions affecting them should rest on clear academic standards rather than pressure from elected officials or public campaigns.
Greater authority creates greater responsibility for transparency.
The University Should Publish Its Evaluation Method
The university reportedly provided faculty with guiding questions used by the working group.
A complete public explanation would improve confidence in the process.
UH should disclose the evaluation criteria, scoring method, working-group membership, opportunities for departmental response and the rationale for each final recommendation.
It should also explain whether every course was required to satisfy all four statutory factors individually.
Faculty critics argue that Senate Bill 37 requires the general-education curriculum as a whole to satisfy the criteria, rather than requiring every individual course to independently fulfill every purpose.
That is an important legal and interpretive question.
A mathematics course may not directly address every aspect of civic life. A history course may not provide immediate technical job training. Together, however, they may form a broad and balanced curriculum.
The university should explain why it selected its interpretation.
Students Need Advance Notice
Curriculum changes can create confusion for students already working toward degrees.
The university should clearly state which catalog year and student groups would be affected.
Students who selected courses under an existing degree plan should know whether those credits will continue satisfying their requirements.
Academic advisers will need accurate information before registration begins.
Transfer students may face additional complications because Texas public institutions generally use a statewide core framework and must recognize completed core requirements under specified conditions.
A poorly communicated transition could result in students repeating coursework or making unnecessary schedule changes.
The university should publish detailed grandfathering and transfer guidance before any new list takes effect.
Transferability Must Be Carefully Protected
Texas created its core-curriculum system partly to make transferring between public colleges and universities more predictable.
A student who completes the core at one Texas public institution generally expects that accomplishment to carry into another.
Individual courses can still create complexity when one university removes an option that another institution retains.
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and university systems will need to ensure that Senate Bill 37 reviews do not undermine statewide transfer protections.
Students should not be punished because institutions apply the same broad statutory standards differently.
A course accepted as foundational at one public university should not become academically worthless when the student transfers.
The Review Could Influence Universities Across Texas
The University of Houston is not the only institution reviewing its curriculum.
Every Texas public university governing board must complete the initial process by the beginning of 2027.
Administrators across the state will be watching how UH defines foundational learning and how its regents respond to faculty objections.
A major reduction at one large institution could encourage other systems to pursue similarly aggressive changes.
A more limited final decision could signal that compliance does not require eliminating large portions of existing cores.
The consequences therefore extend beyond Houston.
Senate Bill 37 establishes common legal standards, but individual governing boards will determine how disruptive those standards become.
Could the Law Face a Legal Challenge?
Controversial curriculum regulation often produces litigation involving academic freedom, free speech, vagueness or viewpoint discrimination.
Senate Bill 37 does not expressly prohibit professors from teaching named political ideas within ordinary courses.
Its curriculum-review provisions are also framed as institutional governance requirements rather than direct restrictions on individual speech.
Those features may make a constitutional challenge more difficult than a challenge to a law explicitly banning particular concepts.
Legal risk could increase if a university applies the law selectively.
For example, removing courses because administrators oppose their political viewpoints while retaining academically comparable courses reflecting favored viewpoints could raise stronger constitutional concerns.
The legal analysis will depend heavily on implementation, evidence of motive and whether affected faculty or students can establish a concrete injury.
What Faculty Members Can Do During the Review
Faculty members should provide specific evidence rather than relying only on general arguments about academic freedom.
Departments can explain how courses satisfy statewide learning objectives, professional competencies, accreditation standards and workforce needs.
They can provide enrollment data, student outcomes, employer feedback and evidence showing how the course supports degree completion.
Faculty should also document inconsistencies in the evaluation process.
If similar courses received different treatment, the university should be asked to explain why.
Professors may disagree with the law while still building the strongest possible record under its requirements.
That record could influence the regents and become important if disputes later move into administrative or judicial proceedings.
What Students Should Do
Current students should not change schedules based only on a preliminary list.
They should consult academic advisers and wait for formal university guidance.
Students who believe a course has been wrongly targeted can participate in public-comment opportunities, contact student-government representatives and submit written concerns to university leaders and regents.
Their arguments will be strongest when focused on concrete consequences.
Students can explain whether eliminating a course would reduce available sections, interfere with a degree plan, weaken preparation for a profession or limit access to subjects relevant to their communities.
Core curriculum exists for students.
Their experiences should be part of the decision.
What Texas Lawmakers Should Watch
Lawmakers should monitor whether the new review process reduces costs or unintentionally creates them.
If smaller course lists produce registration bottlenecks, delayed graduation or crowded classrooms, the law may conflict with its own affordability goals.
They should also examine whether universities are applying the criteria consistently.
A statute using broad terms can lead institutions to overcomply because administrators fear political or legal consequences.
The Legislature may eventually need to clarify whether each course must independently satisfy every statutory factor or whether the curriculum should be judged as a complete educational program.
Clearer guidance could reduce politically driven variation among institutions.
How New To Education Supports Higher-Education Awareness
New To Education publishes accessible reporting on educational law, university governance, curriculum policy, academic freedom and decisions affecting students and educators.
Higher-education disputes often become framed as a simple conflict between accountability and freedom.
The reality is more complicated.
Public university boards have legitimate authority to evaluate academic requirements and control costs.
Faculty members have legitimate expertise in course design, disciplinary knowledge and student learning.
Students have a legitimate interest in affordable degrees, sufficient course availability and access to a broad education.
Strong policy requires all three perspectives.
Learn more about New To Education:
Key Takeaways
The University of Houston is considering removing approximately 100 courses from its undergraduate core while retaining close to 160.
The proposed reduction approaches 40 percent of the university’s current core-course offerings.
The recommendations remain preliminary and must ultimately be approved by the UH System Board of Regents.
Courses removed from the core would not automatically be banned. They could remain available as electives or degree requirements, but they might experience lower enrollment.
Senate Bill 37 requires Texas public university governing boards to review general-education curricula at least once every five years.
The law says core courses should be foundational, useful for civic and professional life, connected to workforce participation and broad enough to satisfy accreditation requirements.
Faculty critics argue that the UH review lacked transparency and meaningful shared governance.
Supporters of the law say public universities need stronger accountability and a more focused definition of general education.
Potential student consequences include fewer choices, crowded remaining classes, registration bottlenecks and possible delays in completing requirements.
The final outcome could influence how other Texas public universities implement Senate Bill 37.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the University of Houston eliminating 40 percent of all courses?
No. The proposal concerns nearly 40 percent of courses approved for the undergraduate core curriculum, not 40 percent of every course offered by the university.
How many courses could lose core status?
The working group reportedly recommended removing about 100 courses and retaining almost 160.
Have the changes been approved?
No. The recommendations remain part of an ongoing review and require final approval from the UH System Board of Regents.
Would the affected courses be banned?
Not automatically. A removed course could still be offered as an elective or required within a particular degree program.
What is Senate Bill 37?
It is a Texas higher-education governance law requiring public university boards to conduct recurring reviews of general-education curricula and giving governing boards greater authority over academic decisions.
Does Senate Bill 37 ban courses about race, gender or climate change?
No. The law does not name prohibited subjects or course titles. It establishes broad criteria that governing boards must use when reviewing core curricula.
Which courses are reportedly under review for removal?
Examples include Intro to Global Climate Change, Black Liberation Theology, Introduction to Women’s Studies, Introduction to LGBT Studies, Sexuality and Society, and several other humanities, social-science and technical courses.
Why are faculty members objecting?
Critics say the process lacked transparency, relied on too small a group and did not provide sufficient faculty participation before the recommendations were drafted.
Could students take longer to graduate?
Possibly. Faculty members warn that fewer approved core courses could create registration bottlenecks, although the university has not concluded that delays will occur.
When must Texas universities complete their initial reviews?
Governing boards must complete and certify their initial Senate Bill 37 reviews by January 1, 2027.
Final Thoughts
The University of Houston’s core-curriculum review represents an early and consequential test of Texas’ new approach to higher-education governance.
The university has a legal obligation to review its general-education curriculum.
That obligation does not predetermine the removal of 100 courses.
The Board of Regents must still decide whether the working group’s recommendations reflect careful academic judgment, excessive caution or an interpretation of Senate Bill 37 that goes beyond what the law requires.
A university core should not become an unlimited collection of specialized electives.
It also should not be reduced to the smallest list of courses that appears politically safe.
General education is intended to introduce students to forms of knowledge beyond their majors and prepare them for employment, citizenship and lifelong learning.
Those goals require scientific, historical, cultural, mathematical and ethical understanding.
The most credible outcome will come from a transparent process that explains why each course belongs or does not belong in the core, measures capacity before reducing options and gives faculty and students meaningful opportunities to respond.
Texas has given governing boards more power over curriculum.
The University of Houston’s decision will show whether that power is used to strengthen education or narrow it.
Support New To Education
New To Education publishes independent reporting and analysis on educational law, university governance, academic freedom and curriculum policy.
Readers can support this work by sharing our reporting, exploring our educational and professional services or using the support options available through our website.
Related Articles
Texas Finds Federal Special Education Violations in Houston ISD Overhaul
Why Education Should Feel More Human Again
https://newtoeducation.com/view-blog/why-education-should-feel-more-human-again-6a0a4ab28fec9
Sources
Texas Legislature — Senate Bill 37 Enrolled Text
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB00037F.HTM
Texas Legislature — Senate Bill 37 Enrolled Bill Summary
https://capitol.texas.gov/billlookup/BillSummary.aspx?Bill=SB37&LegSess=89R
University of Houston — Curriculum and Senate Bill 37
https://www.uh.edu/president/communications/communicae/2025-11-21-curriculum-and-sb37/
Texas Secretary of State — Senate Bill 37 Implementing Rules
https://www.sos.texas.gov/texreg/archive/February62026/Adopted%20Rules/19.EDUCATION.html
Houston Chronicle — University of Houston May Cut 40 Percent of Core Requirement Classes
Chron — University of Houston May Cut Nearly 40 Percent of Core Classes
https://www.chron.com/culture/article/houston-classes-cut-lgbtq-22355483.php
