Who does the new core really benefit?

On Aug. 13, UT announced a new core curriculum, the first in over 20 years. The curriculum task force, which began meeting in fall 2025, outlined three pillars — arts and humanities, social sciences and STEM. UT will introduce new courses in fall 2027 with full implementation set for fall 2028. More than 100 classes may lose core designation — all Women’s, Gender and Sexuality classes have been officially removed.

As SB 37 redefines “robust” education across the state, UT should prioritize students’ views for feedback. The most fundamental voices in reconstructing a curriculum are those who compose it. 

Per the Core Curriculum Task Force’s report, the recommended system designates significant power to the Provost’s Office. While the report suggests numerous beneficial changes — like encouraging students to take courses in-house by offering tuition discounts — it lacks meaningful student input and guidance.

“By taking a student-focused approach, we didn’t primarily have in mind that we were guided by the students but more by the thought of what’s in the best interest of the students,” said Devin Stauffer, government professor and task force chair.

While the report boasts the task force met with Student Government, Stauffer mentioned this meeting only occurred in the early stages of planning. 

The task force advises establishing standing review committees for the major sections of the core, composed of relevant faculty experts who will report to the senior vice provost for academic affairs, Michael Drew. However, the report includes no enforcement mechanism to ensure the core is actually supervised by relevant professionals and leaves open the possibility for staff to be designated by the provost for political or bureaucratic reasons.

Not only does the task force’s recommendation delegate unbalanced power to the Provost’s Office — it suggests (1) incentivizing colleges with credit-hour-based funding for teaching core courses, course development grants, course reductions or research funds, and (2) creating special faculty positions primarily for the core.

While this may initially seem beneficial, it creates the ideal conditions to exploit professors’ need for funding to ensure compliance with the provost, even at the expense of students. Moreover, it guarantees the Provost’s Office has direct input on who teaches courses for all undergraduates while maintaining leverage through research funding and grants.

The proposed core disproportionately focuses on the U.S. and the West. The task force’s report requires U.S. History, Western Civilization and Principles of American Politics. Books discussed in courses for the Masterworks of Literature requirement draw from a restrictive list of 40 authors divided into three categories: British, American and the rest of the world. Other requirements may follow a similar direction, depending on which courses the provost’s office approves. Only one requirement deliberately thinks beyond the West, in the form of a relatively broad category on World Politics and Cultures.

“I certainly thought it was quite Western-focused. I hope the books list includes some different ideas, some books from different parts of the world,” said Renita Coleman, journalism and media professor and task force member. “I know I saw one list (where) Confucius was on there. … It’s not perfect. When … we’re working with 36 hours, you have to decide what to leave out.”

What is left out, ultimately, are historically marginalized groups.

This is made clear not just in the proposed new core but the courses being stripped of core status. Proposed cuts follow a concerning pattern — most center on minorities. Courses on the chopping block include Slavery and its Legacies, Building America and Displacement and Resistance, which provide a lens into broader topics of American history. Cutting courses that introduce students to complex issues undermines our education, even when they have seemingly lighthearted titles like History of College Football, which still discusses themes of race and war.

The University is set to consolidate African and African Diaspora Studies, American studies, Mexican American and Latina/o studies and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality studies into a singular major and department — Social and Cultural Analysis.

Yesterday, the Austin American-Statesman confirmed that all Women’s, Gender and Sexuality courses will no longer count toward core credit. Out of the 49 courses the Department of Social and Cultural Analysis asked to review, only 16 were approved. The office also said all Social and Cultural Analysis courses will be removed from core credit starting in the spring, unless they obtain special approval. This marks an early and concerning trend in the devaluing of minority-focused courses.

Core designation carries immense symbolic meaning. Removing courses that challenge the infallibility of the West, more than anything, showcases the University’s intellectual and ideological priorities. The task force report repeatedly asserts the new core will center on “fundamental themes and questions,” but whose contributions to art, culture and science are considered mastery? The University has seemingly answered with the political skew of the new core and its laughable attempts at diversity.

“I think it is such a disservice to students, and it’s so distrusting of students, that they can’t make choices for themselves about how to select courses for their degree plan that align with their interests,” said Julie Minich, English and social and cultural analysis professor and AAUP at UT secretary. “It really, to my mind, infantilizes students.”   

UT is renowned for our faculty’s expertise. Confining core class professors to a standardized and restricted text list dismisses their abilities.

“Some of the students who are here feel like their degree is losing value by the minute,” said Karma Chávez, social and cultural analysis professor and AAUP at UT president. “The gamble that Will Imboden is making right now … if he can completely take it over and implement his entire ideological vision, then it’ll become a model for other public universities around the country.”

A modernized educational foundation is a worthwhile goal. As the world changes, UT’s Core ought to evolve too. But at what point does broadening one’s education begin to limit it?

The problem lies not in modernizing the Core but removing the diversity of courses that allow for exploration. UT argues students can still pursue specialization through majors and electives, but that assumes students already know what they want to pursue. A broad education should allow students to discover unexpected interests.

Currently, the proposed core curriculum is unfeasible, as it doesn’t fulfill Texas’ 42-hour requirement. Until SB 37 successfully overhauls the Texas Core Curriculum, UT could introduce a list of courses currently being considered for removal, allowing students to choose two to take as electives — maintaining an element of choice and retaining a variety of courses. Additionally, the Provost’s Office should have transparent restrictions to ensure its authority over reviewing core designations is not mismanaged.

If UT wishes “to lead the way and become a model for other universities,” the University should heed student opinion and reevaluate its new curriculum proposal.

The Editorial Board is composed of associate editors Caris Gray, Abigail Tuscano, Maria Vazquez, Belle Xu and editor-in-chief Tiffany Lam.

​