In mid-July 2025, the Texas Education Agency sent a "State Law/Prohibition Attestation" form to all 119 Educator Preparation Programs in Texas. The form requires program leaders to sign under penalty of perjury by September 1, pledging compliance with K-12 anti-DEI and anti-CRT laws. The attestation extends K-12 instructional restrictions to higher education teacher preparation programs by requiring EPPs to comply as if the program were a school district.
The attestation form
The form's "Prohibitions Regarding Instruction" section bars EPPs from teaching or making part of a course a list of concepts. These include that an individual, by virtue of race or sex, bears responsibility for actions by others of the same race or sex; that meritocracy or a hard work ethic are racist or sexist; that the advent of slavery constituted the true founding of the United States; and that slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from authentic founding principles including liberty and equality. The attestation also bars requiring an understanding of the 1619 Project, a New York Times Magazine series on the 400th anniversary of the beginning of slavery in America.
The form cites Texas Education Code §21.0443(b)(3) and Texas Administrative Code §228.31(e) as the statutory authority. Those provisions prohibit instructors from discussing a widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs and bar awarding course credit for lobbying, social policy advocacy, or public policy advocacy.
Extension of K-12 restrictions to higher education
TEA's certification authority over EPPs gives the agency oversight even over programs at private institutions. A Trinity University staff member confirmed to Texas Public Radio, and The Trinitonian reported, that their private-university EPP received and was required to sign the form despite not receiving state funding for teacher certification.
SB 12, enacted by the 89th Texas Legislature in 2025, prohibits school districts from assigning DEI duties and requires districts to certify compliance with DEI and CRT bans at a public meeting. The TEA attestation now mirrors that compliance model for higher education programs.
Legal and academic freedom concerns
The UTSA chapter of the American Association of University Professors issued a position statement opposing the attestation, arguing that it threatens academic freedom, imposes vague and unworkable standards, and extends a K-12-oriented statute into graduate and professional educator preparation. The chapter asked the dean not to require faculty to sign and to engage TEA in conversation about the distinction between K-12 and higher education.
At UTSA, although only the dean is required by TEA to sign the form, the university gave all EPP faculty a version of the form to sign as well, making each signee legally bound under penalty of perjury. The UTSA AAUP chapter called this an example of institutional over-compliance.
Comparative precedent
Florida's Stop WOKE Act of 2022 similarly attempted to extend restrictions on how race and racism can be discussed from K-12 into higher education. A federal district court partially blocked the law's higher education provisions in 2022, finding them likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment, while the K-12 provisions were allowed to proceed. The case illustrated the legal friction of importing K-12 instructional restrictions into higher education settings.
Research evidence
The UTSA AAUP position statement argues that the attestation's objectivity standard is impermissibly vague. Neither the statute nor the attestation defines what counts as objective or free from political bias, the chapter said. The statement warns this vagueness produces a chilling effect where faculty avoid controversial but pedagogically important topics rather than risk violating an undefined standard, and argues that extending the K-12 statute to adult graduate students disregards long-standing distinctions between K-12 instruction and postsecondary academic inquiry.
The Texas Tribune reported that critics of SB 12 warned the bill's broad and vague language creates a high risk of over-application and could lead schools to censor themselves out of fear of violating unclear rules. Opponents argued the ban would disproportionately harm marginalized students, particularly LGBTQ+ students. These arguments remain contested.