Today's trip gast is brought to you by Texas Association of Community Colleges. Texas Community Colleges are the state's economic engine for recovery. Our colleges provide credentials that meet regional and local workforce demands. Is it tacc dot org and Texas BioMed pioneers and shares scientific breakthroughs that protect our communities. Health starts with science. Health starts at Texas BioMed. Visit tx BioMed dot org. From more patriocast
listeners, We have a favor to ask. Would you go to Texas Tribune dot org slash tribcast survey to take a five minute listener survey. Texas Tribune journalists want to know what you think of our podcasts. Again. That survey is at Texas Tribune dot org slash trib cast survey all one word. We appreciate your feedback. Hello, and welcome to the Texas Tribune trip Cast for
August fourth, twenty twenty three. My name is Matthew Watkins, Managing editor of News for the Tribune, and this week we were going to talk about Texas A and M University. The school has been thrown into turmoil the past month due to two cases in which questions were raised about academic freedom and the
influenced politics and personnel decisions at the school. The first one kind of broke out into the news on June lie eleventh, when Kathleen McElroy, a former editor of The New York Time at the New York Times and former director of the UT Austin Journalism Program, who had been announced, you know, weeks earlier too much celebration to be leading the revived journalism program at A and M, told one of our guests today, Kate McGee, that she would no
longer be joining her all in the matter. The reason was that A and M had essentially walked back her offer of a tenured position because of, as she was told d EI hysteria. It seemed that some people in power had raised concerns about Nacole Roy, a black woman, leading the program, due to her association with the New York Times and her work to support students and journalists of color. You know. News of this development sparked outrage. The
president at A and M eventually resigned Kathy Banks. But two weeks after that story came out, Kate and her colleague James Brian reported on the case of Joy Alonzo, another A and M professor, this one in the School of Health, who had been placed on paid administrative leave after she was accused of criticizing Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick in a lecture at the University of Texas Medical Branch
in Galveston. She was censured by UTMB, but later allowed to return to her job at A and M, but only after a warning about, you know what, to be careful about what she said in lectures. Before we announced the guests, I should probably make my own little disclosure here, which is that I am a two thousand and eight graduate of Texas A and M.
Some would say I'm an obnoxiously loud aggie football fan. I'm not sure if that's a fair classification, though I also served on the committee that explored bringing back journalism to Texas A and M. I've met Kathleen mackerel mackel relay several times through you know, the small aggie journalism circles, including one time sixteen years ago when she gave twenty two year old me a tour of the New York Times building. But let's introduce our guests. First of all.
Kate McGee, Hey, Kate did you know that I went to Adam and I had an inkling, but I had not I wasn't really completely sure. Yeah, okay, very good. And Kate of course covers higher education for the Tribune, and James Barragan, who covers politics. Hey James, Hey Matthew. All right, so let's talk about what happened in the developed these
two stories this week. This has been in the news for a couple of weeks, but yesterday on Thursday, in and put out kind of reports detailing what they found when they investigated these cases, both the Alonso case and the maclroy case. Kate, you had a story on this. Can you kind of tell us the top lines of what they found in that investigation? Sure? So it was a huge report. I mean, it was a five page kind of summary bulleting exactly what they determined to have happened based on interviews
with everyone involved. And then along with that report came about five hundred pages plus of emails and text messages internally from Boards of Region met Board of Regents members and between former A and M president Kathy Banks and some of the other kind of department level employees discussing all this higher and kind of detailing the behind the scenes negotiations of what had happened to ultimately lead Macilroy to decide not to
come and take this position. The report confirmed that the regents, multiple regents had voice concerns about macilroy's kind of perceived left leaning credentials, that she came from The New York Times, that she had come from UT Austin, and that their idea or their perception was that this new journalism program was supposed to be bringing more conservative voices into journalism and that this higher was going to make
it more difficult to do that. The text messages also confirmed that President Banks or former President Banks, was very heavily involved in these negotiations, even though she had told the Faculty Senate that she had no idea that the offer letters and the kind of negotiations with macilroy had been watered down since the original letter was signed by macilroy in mid June, the text messages show that she was, you know, having lots of back and forth about the different changes that
A and M was proposing to macilroy, and there was some really kind of ugly comments about McElroy between her and the interim Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences who also resigned from that post, jose Bermudez. And then ultimately the other big news was that the school settled with macilroy over all of this, and she walked away with a million dollars from the university and is now going to be able to stay in Austin and she will be, you know,
still teaching at ut Austin this fall, James. They also looked into the Joy Alonzo case. Do you want to give us a recap of what happened there? Yeah, Well, essentially it's a case of political interference in an academic work and what they can or can't say while giving a lecture on their own topic of expertise. What happened with Professor Joey Alonzo, or respected opioids expert in the state, is that in March she gave a guest lecture
at UTMB in Galveston where she talked about the opioid epidemic. You know, we were not at the lecture obviously, and there's no recording of it, but Kate got slides of her PowerPoint presentation, so we saw that it was about the opioid epidemic, how to administer in a lock zone to save lives and policies that may help in the opioid epidemic, and everything seemed to be going gravy. She'd done this talk several years in a row at UTMB.
She's given this talk, she said, thousands of times. But then to her surprise, when she got home back to college station, she had phone calls and emails saying, hey, we need to get in touch with you. There's been a problem, there's been an issue, and she was put on administrative leave. Now, our reporting found that the Land Commissioner Don Buckingham's daughter is the first year medical student at UTMB, and that she attended the
lecture. After that, Don Buckingham called ut I'm sorry, A and M University System and Chancellor John Sharpe as well as I'm sorry Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and the university system's government relations people. And then Dan Patrick gout in touch with John Sharp about this comment, and you know, just a few hours
later, Joey Alonzo was placed on administrative leaves. A whole fiasco because nobody would tell us exactly what the comment was, but it eventually came out or Don Buckingham eventually confirmed all our reporting saying basically that the alleged comment was that, you know, the lieutenant governor that Professor Alonzo had said something the lieutenant governor saying that, you know, kids deserve to die who die in opioid
overdoses. The investigation into Alonzo, she was cleared. There's been a review now of the investigation after our reporting, and again she was cleared. There's no basis, there's no substantiation that she made a comment like that, but it was concerning just coming off, you know, the revelations that we made in our story were concerning just on top of the previous story that Kate had
also reported on Kathleen McElroy. And it's been I don't know, it's been a full month of turmoil I think over there and difficult times, and I think difficult times still to continue because the faculty Senate is still looking into Joey Alonzo's case and whether protocol and policies were followed about how to play someone an
administrative leave. Yeah, I mean, Kate, it seems like the reaction to both of those stories among faculty on UT has been a lot of concern about, you know, the political influence on who has hired at A and
M, and what the people at M are allowed to say. Is interesting to see the university come out yesterday and essentially apologize and acknowledge that they, you know, the quote unquote mistakes were made statement related to Kathleen mceloy, but be much more I think defensive and try to argue that they didn't do
anything wrong in the Alonso case. What's the distinction they're making there? I think that I mean the way that especially and you know today John Sharp put out a an op ed in a couple of newspapers kind of also defending the way in which this was handled and really putting the the blame on this UTMB censure email that was put out saying like, you know, when you get when you see an email like that, and when you get you know,
as he characterized, is it like a non threatening call from the Lieutenant governor. Of course you need to check out exactly you know, what went down here. I think the concern from the faculty has been the speed in which this all happened and the way in which it was a little bit as if Alonso was really put on the defensive to prove her innocence rather than trying to
confirm if there was any basis for the allegation to begin with. I think the McElroy situation, you know, it could be a matter of there were just very I mean that the text messages were so blatantly like clear that there had been some and that banks had lied, and to the faculty Senate that
it was harder to a harder situation to potentially defend. But I think it's a matter of perspective of where you maybe sit in the Alonso case and how much you know, a phone call from the lieutenant governor might appear to be m like influencing, influencing someone's decisions, and the kind of chilling effect that you know, an innocuous call from the lieutenant governor to Sharp has much more meaning to a faculty member who is hearing that the lieutenant governor is concerned about
what they're saying, Yeah, and I mean, this is this is their spin on it. Obviously they're saying, well, it's just just you know, we get these calls all the time. We had to check it out. But I mean I trust our readers to to, you know, look at the story and make sense of it and look at the timeline and just
figure out that their timeline does not make sense. They're trying to say that, you know, they did this because of the UTMB censor, But if you look at our original story, you know the Lieutenant Governor and his team were talking to Chance or Sharp in the system like two hours after the lecture and two hours at least two hours before the UTMB sensor came out. Like they are trying to spin it every which way they can to say, well, what else did you want us to do? This was? This was
you know, there's the UTMB is making a serious allegation. But if you look at the timeline that we've clearly laid out, and then they repeated in
their memos of the review that timeline that it doesn't add up. It doesn't add up that the censor is what set this thing off, and it's it's clear that there was a chain of phone calls and text messages that began with Don Buckingham UM and that you know, maybe it was a minute phone long phone call with Dan Patrick UM, but that doesn't matter if my boss that pays me my salary and funds my programs is calling me and complaining that somebody
is saying something mean about him. UM. And then and then you're in the middle of negotiations and the legislature over how much money you're going to get from that boss to fund your programs and like debating different legislation that you know is going to have a direct impact on your faculty and how your universities work. Right, and then you turn around, you turn around and and say,
hey, let's look into this. Um. You know, I think that's pretty clear, you know, political interference and they spend which whichever way they want. But I think we should talk about what Kate is talking about, which is that you know, sharp in the system are dealing with massive amounts of pressure at that point in March when when when this all goes down, there's the d EI push, there's tenure push, which they ultimately just adopt what what A and M does. So we can talk about that.
But I think like our readers are smart enough, and any reader really just look at the story like they are going to try to spend it every which way they can. But the timeline is pretty clear. And you know, I think the fact that the way the complaint went down, I mean, one of our issues as reporting this story is like we can even figure out what the complaint was or who made a complaint like there to our knowledge,
there isn't like an official like paper complaint. Like what sets this thing off is the Dan Patrick phone call to Sharpe, who then you know, now he's talking about you know not then the staffer went to But there's a clear connection here between Sharpe in that phone call and then Sharpe telling his team to go to Banks and then Banks now is what they're saying. Then they start the investigation like it's it's pretty clear here, and I don't I don't know
what kind of yarn they're trying to spin over there. Well. Also, I mean in one more little connection there that you mentioned in your original story is the text message from Sharpe to Dan Patrick the you know, the day of this, saying, essentially, the professor has been put on administrative leave pending her possible firing should be done at the end of the week. She was, of course not fired, and you have a and MS essentially saying here, yeah, we looked into it. She didn't say anything bad,
and she you know, was allowed to return to her job. There's nothing to see here, you know. One question that I would ask of them is what if they had found that she had directly criticized Dan Patrick, what
do you do then? I mean, the fact that you're investigating would suggest that there's some reason to believe that, you know, there there is some kind of possible fireable offense of saying something bad about the Lieutenant governor in a lecture, and that in and of itself raises questions of academic freedom and the ability to kind of speak your mind and give your opinion as a as a
as a professor or someone who studies this issue well. And the fact that the way they that the chance awarded that text message, like that last part too, like about regarding firing her, Like why you know that it just seems to like just jump the gun all the way? You know, perhaps they had you know that he says it's an innocuous short phone call, but then we're talking about firing her in this text message. So was that something that that was implied in the phone call or why is he bringing it up
like it does seem to like jump the gun. And if if I'm the faculty, I would be very upset, and I understand why they are concerned. I mean, it just seems to be jumping the gun. And I don't I'm no HR expert, but it just seems to not the appropriate way to handle that or to message that, even even if the complaint was a legitimate complaint, know, you want to have due process here, and if you're already talking about firing her, you know, just bright does bring up
a lot of other questions. Yeah, And I think that's why the Faculty Senate has been so adamant that they want the school to spell out what exactly the policy is around administrative leave, What would warrant putting someone on that on administrative leave, and how do you ensure that that person received due process? Which I think, you know, the faculty Senate and from faculty we spoke to. The concern was the perception from these text messages that she was guilty.
I needed to prove her innocence rather than the other way around, right, And I think there is a similar question of like specificity to be asked about the Machelroy case as well, because John Sharp comes out here and says, you know, mistakes were made, he apologizes to Macilroy. They're not being very specific about what those mistakes they think were actually made where there was
it a mistake in the vetting process? Was it a mistake in allowing you know, conservative forces that are to raise concerned about this and to influence the offer that was made. I think there are a lot of questions now about you know, hiring a journalist and professor, or you know, maybe even a future history professor or a future you know, communication professor or any other kind of job. About what kind of scrutiny is this higher going to get?
Am I going to face heat from the university president or the regions for making this higher? Or even you know, if I'm a professor giving a lecture? Am I going to be get paid on it? Put on paid administrative leave? Is my job going to be at risk if the lieutenant governor
or someone else comes and complains about this. It's not just the outcome that matters, it's the process that you went through, in the message that that sends, in the possible chilling effect it might have the next time someone wants to to share their professional opinion on something or make a hire of someone you know from a background that certain people of political stripes might object to. Well, I think that's happening now right, I mean that that is the concern.
I mean, we've seen we've seen people talking about professors who now are scared to, you know, talk about issues in which they have expertise. I mean, I saw a comment from someone, a fellow reporter, saying they try to interview someone over there about the topic of immigration, and that professor said, you know, I think I'd rather not. I don't want to get in trouble. And that's what you don't want to see. That's
the whole point of academic freedom. And listen, I mean, let's let's just say that perhaps Professor Alonso did say something objectionable, but it is clear from the investigations that there is no substantiation that she said these things that she's alleged to have said. But if she said something, you know, that is opposite of Lieutenant in our Patrick's policies because of her expertise and in her expert opinion, that is harming the fight against opioid overdoses, should she not
be allowed to say that? Or in the case of Kathleen McElroy, whom you know, focuses on diversity initiatives in newsrooms and how to cover diverse communities, perhaps some people in the legislature is clear they don't like that and they don't like focusing on that, but should they be punished for that? Like that is their expertise, and I think that is what we're talking about here. That is the chilling effect that you're referring to, and we I think
we're already seeing. All right, let's pause for a minute and hear from our sponsors. Find affordable healthcare coverage through Texas Farm Bureau Health Plans. For more information or to get a quote, go to www dot TFB health Plans dot com or call eight seven seven five zero zero zero one four zero and at BNSF. Our commitment to community doesn't stop at the tracks. In twenty twenty two, the BNSF Railway Foundation contributed one point nine million to support Texas
communities BNSF dot com. Okay, Kate, I want to talk a little bit more about the climate that this happened and because what we saw from these this reaction to Kathleen McElroy was a lot of conversation. You know, a m released text messages, but among regions, they released text messages and other kind of messages and emails among top administrators some of whom Kathy Banks that the interim dean of Liberal Arts of Arts and Sciences, who have both resigned from
those posts posts since then. But you saw in some of those conversations a lot of concern, particularly around the idea of d EI right, and of course, we had this legislative session in which the legislature passed a measure kind of banning d EI practices d EI departments within universities, and there was some kind of alarm being raised that you know, Kathleen McElroy had been asked or had had spent some time, you know, on some committees doing some work
for the university around diversity initiatives. She was not hired to do that. She was hired to lead a journalism program. And she clearly has a lot of you know, credible experience within journalism, working not just at The New York Times, but at papers, you know, all across the country.
And it seemed to me that there was a fear that just her past association or advocacy for you know, supporting journalists of color or students of color was viewed by some potentially disqualifying and you know, or a reason that this could create a problem you know, among you know, the politicians in this state or the the you know, politically appointed board of regents in this state.
It seems to me like what we see here is some fear and concern going beyond, far beyond even what the official policy in laws of this state's say.
Yeah, I mean, I think that was some of the concern that we heard throughout you know, the legislative session when these bills around d EI were being considered, that this was kind of creating like a scarlet letter of sorts of people who were working in this um, in this area of d EI and has you know, which has now been oversimplified and mischaracterised as being kind of this area of proposed like pushing a certain ideology onto students rather than
maybe some of the work they're doing in other ways to you know, build a more diverse and you know, inclusive campus where student all students might be able to be successful. You know. Obviously where you fall in the political
spectrum kind of depends on how you view what DI is these days. But I think, you know, the text messages among the regions made it very clear that many of them kind of saw the work that was being done either with the journalism program, and with kind of the changes that Banks was trying to make an A and M overall as kind of a pushback to that and kind of to create a climate within higher ed or within A and M that
was more accepting and open to like conservative voices on campus. You know, one of the regions mentioned that you know that they want on it that the whole point of the journalism program was to bring these high quality aggie journalists with
conservative values into the market. And you know that even saying that some of the changes to combine arts and sciences with um, you know, geosciences and the other schools was to kind of tamp down on some of the liberal perspectives that some of these other professors had at A and M. So I think that is kind of the tension that we're we're kind of seeing right now, is this push to kind of correct this perception of like a left leaning university
and higher education system. And this was kind of an attempt to redirect this and with you know, which is also you know, di has also been included in that. Okay, James, let me play the kind of advocate for the other side on this topic. Right. It is not an unreasonable thing to say that universities in Texas and elsewhere are very liberal climates. Right, Um, it's not unreasonable to say that faculties seem to be liberal leaning.
Obviously, you can't paint with a broad brush and say every single person.
But but I think it's fair to say that that that most university faculties, at least in the flagship schools in Texas are are are likely more liberal leaning, and that universities could benefit from more kind of diversity of thought and perspectives, and that there is a concern among you know, conservative students and even conservative president professors of being shouted down or you know, silenced, or or having you know, certain views held against them, um, in higher
education. So why is this not a defendable position for the Board of Regents to be to be to be, you know, advocating for some of these things. Well, I think you're right. I mean, I think Academis certainly would benefit from more conservative voices. Um. And that's I think that's a pretty well documented thing that most most academics are probably more liberal leaning. UM. But the problem with that is, like, there's nothing wrong with
what you just said, and there's nothing wrong with pursuing that goal. Um what what what is wrong here is that that's not what they did. They hired Kathleen McElroy, they offered her the position, they gave her a ten year position, and then because there was uproar from conservatives who didn't like her previous work, thought she was too liberal whatever the case may may be, thought she was a you know, and rightly thought that she was, you
know, a person who was invested in diversity. They pulled the rogue out from under her. Like that is what happened. There's nothing wrong with the you know, the pursuit that they were trying to do, except that they that's not what the person they hired was not that person. Um. So then the problem comes when you get this uproar from outside forces, from small but very loud voices. Um. And then you've got to and then you
basically rescind the contract. I think that's where the issue is, Like, that's that's the problem, and the reasons for why they why they did those things. So that is the issue. It's not so much the pursuit of you know, you know, getting more conservative voices and journalism like that's that's fine. I think you know, but the issue is what happened with after
after the uproar. Yeah, And I would also question whether regents and other folks had enough information about Kathleen mackelrey to make the determination that she couldn't be supportive of a conservative young journalist, right, Like, could she not um, you know, because of her background, because of her race. Is there anything to suggest that she couldn't be a great mentor to a journalist who
might be conservative wants to do that? I would argue no. I mean, basically what was being done to make the judgment on her was her resume and you know, one or two quotes she gave that were pretty vague, quotes about you know, the idea of diversity and the idea of kind of what perspectives get represented in journalism and things like that. Right, I mean, the people who opposed are prejudged her and said she can't do the job
based on a little information and like a Google search literally, Right. But the issue is too like whatever, people are going to complain about everything, you know, when you're when you guys get to eventually get a new football coach, you know, people are going to be mad about that football coach
or whatever right. But when people are always going to yell, it's the system and the university's job to defend their position and to um to make sure that you know the offer that they've made and they shake that they've done and that is intact, and that people feel like that will be intact and won't be affected by criticism. The issue is that the criticism led them to, you know, go back on their word and sully their handshake like that is
the issue. And I would even say that that relates to the Alonso situation, like when you're running a university and with that claims to uphold academic freedom. The whole point of academic freedom is that a professor is able to talk about their research, their expertise, what they're learning in the field, policies that are happening at a state or federal level, with a freedom that they are not going to be that political leaders are not going to intervene in what
they are saying or researching. And a leader of a university or a system like John Sharp should know that and when he gets a call from Dan Patrick be able to explain that, you know, yes you might not like what she said, but she has a first Amendment right to say it and a right to say it within academic freedom, which our university upholds, and in some ways allowing this kind of investigation to happen also rescinded on the kind of
handshake of academic freedom that this whole entire university system is working under. So I think they both kind of relate in the way in which they walked back
the promises that these schools are working under. And one more point to make off piggybacking of Kate's thought, there is that like and we covered this in the initial story on Alonzo, but the stakes are so much higher for professors who work in public health, like they are going to take positions inevitably that will not be aligned with where Texas and that doesn't just it's not just Texas or where other states are. You know, other states also don't allow servingex
change programs. Other states also don't allow fentonel test strips. They're criminalized. Their position is these tools actually help people not die of overdose and not die when using drugs, so that we can get them to help. And just one like you know, very good example, Joy Alonso is a leader in the state of providing the lock zone, narcan to communities, to police departments, to schools training people on how to use narcan and the locksone. I've
interviewed her before for a story about that. And because of her and people like her, the state has finally budged and devoted eighteen million dollars to providing the locks zone two communities that need it. And that is a position where experts were saying the state is not right on this, the state needs to provide these things. Joy Alonzo was one of those voices that led to the
change that happened this session. And this is a situation in which she's saying something like, the policies are wrong, the policies are not helping us, the policies need to change. There are people who are opposing these policies. And because she did that, she got in trouble. Like that is and so there were real life consequences to this. Okay, what do you what about the consequences to the university. How do you see this playing out?
What are you hearing from professors about? You know, is this going to have a long term impact on you know, not just academic freedom, but the reputation of the school, the ability to recruit faculty, the the things that you know, universities are are always kind of worried about. Yeah,
I mean, I think it's going to have a huge impact. Like, you know, we heard a lot about these concerns in this legislative session when d EI and tenure were on the chopping block, and m professors were kind of making noise about the you know, ability to recruit and retain talented faculty who would want to stay here if they're you know, they weren't able to get tenure or if they weren't able to um, you know, or if you know, diversity was not going to be a priority, and student as
well. And I think that these two situations are kind of that concern come to life, you know, and in also kind of more less concrete ways that with the Alonso case in particular, you know, it creates this chilling effect that goes beyond you know, whether or not you can have tenure or
not. It's about your speech and what you say and how it's how it might be misconstrued and how you might be forced on the defensive to try and prove that a maybe you didn't say that at all, or that's not what you meant, And why would someone who is working in a different state where they have the backing of their university that supports academic freedom, why would they come here or why would they stay if they could go somewhere else where they
could feel more protected. You know, I think that the faculty in particular, and the reason the Faculty Senate has been so vocal, is that there is a real concern about the reputation hit that AM has taken, and there is you know, a lot of damage control to kind of do, to prove to future aggies and future faculty who might want to come here that this is a place where, you know, the tenets of what American higher education
is all about are still supported and can kind of thrive. And I'll add one more thing, Matthew, because I know you guys are both higher ed and former hired reporters, But we're talking about A and M here because both of these stories happen at A and M. But the reality is that the
issue is a broader issue. Two, Kate's point about every school in Texas, like because we you know, I've covered the harm reduction you know, harm reduction experts and the opioid epidemics in conversation with a lot of people who deal in these spaces, and they've told us that there are other professors who are scared to talk about these policies because of this reaction and are trying to
get advice on how they can discuss these policies without getting in trouble. So we're talking about an M, but it just so happened to be at an M. It could have been at ut It could have been at the university in our Texas, could have been at UTEP, it could have been anywhere.
And that's the real issue. Are we creating this climate not just at A and M, but in every Texas public university where if someone says something that is unflattering towards one of our top state officials, those state officials can hop on the phone and call the university president or chancellor and launching investigation. Well, and I mean UTNB is an example of that right that is part
of the University of Texas system. And they censured Alonzo for something that she gave without really any indication that there is much of an investigation in terms of what was said, I think, and they did not repeat the claim. Yet they also didn't didn't say what the claim was, were quiet about the whole situation, and even I mean the UT system as well. We know that Kevin L Type, the chair of the UT board, also got a
call from Dan Patrick. So this was, yes, not just isolated to A and M. But you know, also we're talking about the A and M Board of Regents. They oversee eleven universities public universities in this state, and so I think professors at all of those universities are reading these text messages and getting the message of the kind of you know, positions that the people who essentially you know, control their university are taking as well. James,
are you surprised that this has prompted such a reaction. I mean, when when we these stories were in the works and we knew they were coming, I don't think I ever imagined that it would result in the resignation, you know, perhaps under pressure of the A and M university president, that there would be these you know, big document dumps and investigations by the A and M system. I mean Dan Patrick felt then to respond to this. He
wrote an op ed in the Houston Chronicle sort of defending his decision. In this Don Buckingham you know, has has had you know, felt the need to speak out to this. It does feel like this has resonated in a way. I wonder what the impact of that will be and if there might be some more hesitation on on the other side of this to push some of these things. I don't know. I don't know. I didn't have anything to do with Kathleen McElroy, so I so that's all Kate, and I
don't know she expected all that has happened. But obviously it was a very big story UM about outside influences in the university. I think with the reaction that the Joy Alonzo story has gotten, UM, you know, Dan Patrick and Don Buckingham's have sort of extended the you know, the legs of the story by responding. And am I surprised. I think so, because we gave them, I mean, we gave them weeks noticed we were working on this, to be upfront with us and send us a statement tell things.
From their perspective, they could have done that and they chose not to. UM. Once the story hit, I think it speaks to how much it's resonnated and how I mean, how bad everyone looks here except Professor Alonzo honestly that you know, Chancellor Sharp doesn't look well. He looks like he's sort of rolled over to this political interference from Dan Patrick. Don Buckingham doesn't look well. Lieutenant Governor Patrick doesn't look well. I mean, everyone just looks
looks bad. I mean it could have just ended. It could have just said I didn't like that comment, and chance Sharp could have said, hey, you know too bad, like that's you know, that's how these things go. But it didn't. That it's snowballed, and so I do think that it's resonnated with the public, and even even an average person understands.
Maybe they're not talking about it in an academic freedom terms quote unquote, but they understand that a professor should be able to say things in a lecture that may be controversial but that they have expert authority on. And so I think that that's why it's resignated. But I have been surprised at, you know, Lieutenant Governor Patrick and Land Commissioner Buckingham, how much they've commented on it afterwards. And I think it also speaks to maybe there's some pressure on them.
I did see some comments from people saying, you know, I voted for I voted for you guys. I'm a Republican, but I don't like this, and so I think they are geting pressure even from Republican voters. All right, I had that on the McElroy story. I think I was
did not expect a resignation to come out of this. But I think you know, the statement and not to place all of it on this the decision of the heart Plant and the Department chair to release that statement after the fact saying, you know, basically accusing Banks of lying to the faculty Senate. I think that and the documents that he you know, apparently handed over to the Office of General Counsel. I think that changed the game a little bit.
That there were documents out there that were clearly countering U the claim she had made publicly was a factor in that, I would all, yes, correct. So I think that statement really escalated things. And you know, someone like which goes back to you know something that sharp h Sorry didn't mean to call you sharp, James. Something changed about you know, the high
stakes. You know, Alonso did not have tenure, and that was one of the kind of characterists or issues with that about how easily it could have
been to terminate her um. Someone like Hart Blanton does have tenure and does have those protections to be able to speak up and say something, and I think that might have not been, you know, the final straw, but it did make a difference in terms of how the university started and the Office of General Counsel started to respond to you know, how that situation was unfolding. All right, Well, Kate, you've done some fantastic reporting on this,
as have you James. Thank you both for that reporting and thank you for joining us on this. Thank you also to our producer Todd, and thank you to our sponsors Texas Association of Community Colleges, Texas BioMed, the Texas Farm Bureau and bat NSF Railway. We'll talk to you next week.