Charlie Kirk’s death thrust campus censorship back into the national conversation. In Texas, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) found a substantial number of incidents, many tied to right-leaning actors and viewpoints.
Gregorio Olivares Gutierrez served as an editor for The Mercury, the student newspaper at the University of Texas at Dallas, before being placed on a two-year deferred suspension after campus administrators determined that some of his editorial decisions amounted to “discriminatory harassment.” This sequence began when UT Dallas Hillel president Jade Steinberg sent The Mercury a letter addressing antisemitism on campus and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Gutierrez judged the letter to lack credible sourcing, so he published a disclaimer noting that it “does not meet the journalistic standards of The Mercury” and that it should be treated as opinion rather than news. A day after the piece appeared, Steinberg complained, resulting in Gutierrez’s suspension. Gutierrez filed a lawsuit last week, asserting a violation of his First Amendment rights.
Gutierrez’s case is one example among a broader set of free-speech controversies at Texas universities. FIRE’s annual college free-speech rankings gave Texas schools an overall failing grade. The report cataloged 25 free-speech controversies across the state’s universities, and it found that 42 percent of students reported self-censoring at least once a month.
The poor grades stand in stark contrast to the state government’s recent effort to defend free speech on campus in the wake of the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Last year, Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R–Lubbock) and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick created the House and Senate Select Committees on Civil Discourse & Freedom of Speech in Higher Education. The committee’s formation came two days after Kirk’s death, with the aim of studying bias, discourse, and free expression at universities. In the committee’s announcement, Patrick stated, “The attack on Charlie was an attack on the First Amendment. Those who cheered his murder are also cheering for the death of America. We cannot tolerate either at our institutions of higher learning.”
Yet FIRE highlighted a steady stream of free-speech disputes over the past few years. Examples include Devion Canty Jr., who was compelled to withdraw from Texas State University after a video of him mocking Kirk circulated widely enough to prompt Gov. Greg Abbott and Rudy Giuliani to call for his expulsion. Melissa McCoul, a lecturer in the English department at Texas A&M, was fired after a video of a dispute with a student over teaching “illegal” gender identity material went viral; two of her superiors were removed for approving the course. Brooklyn-based street artist Victor Quiñonez had his exhibition shut down by the University of North Texas following an anonymous tip about anti-ICE artwork. Khalid el-Hakim was invited to bring his Black History 101 Mobile Museum to Texas State University—only for the school to cancel the event by email, citing “Senate Bill 17 (88R), the climate of our State, and certain topics covered as part of the museum.”
Texas A&M faced FIRE’s scrutiny for its drag-show ban, a policy FIRE is contesting in court. In February 2025, the board of regents voted unanimously to implement the policy, claiming it was “inconsistent with the System’s mission and core values.” Consequently, Draggieland, the annual student drag pageant, was canceled. A federal judge blocked the ban in March 2025, allowing the event to proceed, and the university system appealed. The full Fifth Circuit heard arguments on September 23, along with a separate challenge to West Texas A&M’s drag show ban.
Texas’s chief deputy solicitor general, William “Billy” Cole, argued that the ban targeted conduct rather than viewpoints and that drag performances could discriminate against women. J.T. Morris, FIRE’s supervising senior attorney, contended that the First Amendment imposes a mandate of viewpoint neutrality and that rules aimed at suppressing expression because it is deemed demeaning grant administrators too much discretion. The court has yet to issue a ruling.
Morris told Reason, “We remain hopeful that the court will uphold the Constitution’s strong protections against viewpoint discrimination and prior restraints that are essential to maintaining public universities as beacons for free expression.”
Free-speech protections matter most when the speech is unpopular or offensive. Whether it involves a Kirk-related event at the University of California, Berkeley, or a drag show at Texas A&M, the same First Amendment protections should apply.
