Texas Higher Ed Ombudsman: Few Investigations Despite Many Complaints

Hey, let's talk about something pretty interesting happening in Texas higher education. You know how state lawmakers passed new rules about what universities can and can't do with things like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)? Well, they also set up a new office last year to keep an eye on all that. It's called the Office of the Ombudsman, and its job is to investigate complaints about colleges breaking those new laws.

Guess what? In its first five months, this office got nearly 70 complaints. We're talking about everything from schools supposedly banning conservative speech to issues with academic freedom and complaints about DEI initiatives. But here's the kicker: out of all those complaints, the ombudsman only launched one single investigation. That's a pretty low batting average, wouldn't you say?

What's the Deal with This Office?

Governor Greg Abbott appointed Brandon Simmons, a former Texas Southern University regent, to lead this new office. It sits within the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. The Legislature created it specifically to look into complaints about two big new laws: Senate Bill 37, which gives the state more power over curriculum and faculty decisions, and Senate Bill 17, the one that bans DEI offices and programs at public colleges. Basically, if a school is found breaking these rules, the ombudsman could recommend that lawmakers cut off its state funding. That's a serious power.

Why So Few Investigations?

The records, which a news outlet had to fight the ombudsman's office to get released, show a lot of complaints just got tossed out. For example, 28 complaints were called things like 'harassing,' 'profane,' or 'obviously fake.' They said these didn't have legitimate names or emails. Okay, fair enough, some folks might send in junk.

But then you've got seven students complaining that colleges were reviewing and even restricting course content because of the new laws. That sounds pretty important, right? The ombudsman's office closed those, saying they didn't 'state a claim' or lacked enough specific facts. Another four students complained about what was being taught in class – one said a course included DEI, another about critical race theory. Those also got closed, with the office sometimes pointing out that course content is generally exempt from the DEI ban.

Faculty members had their own gripes, mostly about employment disputes and how grievances were handled. The ombudsman's office closed those too, often saying they either didn't state a claim or weren't within its authority. It makes you wonder what kind of complaint would trigger an investigation if these don't.

The Lone Investigation

The one investigation that did get opened is looking into an academic assistance program. The allegation is that it violated the DEI ban by squashing conservative speech while pushing liberal and antisemitic speech. A student who filed the complaint claims he got fired from his instructor role after raising these concerns. That investigation is still going on, as of early June.

It's worth noting that the ombudsman's office didn't really answer questions from the press about how it operates or gathers more info. The head of the office, Brandon Simmons, did release a statement generally saying they're partners with college leaders to remove 'divisive practices and unconstitutional discrimination.'

Why This Matters

When you think about it, this whole situation raises some really interesting questions about due process and public accountability. You have a state office, created with a significant budget (the ombudsman's salary alone is about $230,000, and the office's projected annual cost is nearly $800,000), supposedly to ensure compliance with new state laws and protect free speech on campuses. But if almost all complaints are shut down without a real look, what's its actual function? Is it truly acting as a watchdog, or more as a filter for concerns?

From a public policy standpoint, if the goal was to instill public trust and ensure laws like SB17 and SB37 are followed, then the process needs to feel robust and transparent. If people feel like their legitimate complaints aren't even getting a fair hearing, it could erode trust in both the state's oversight mechanisms and the universities themselves. It also brings up the First Amendment rights of students and faculty. If there are valid concerns about speech restrictions, shouldn't those be thoroughly explored? The fact that the office tried to keep these complaint records secret, only releasing them after the Attorney General intervened, doesn't exactly build confidence either. You have a right to know how your tax dollars are being used and if your government is truly investigating serious allegations.

This isn't just about administrative details; it's about the balance of power between the state, universities, and the individuals within them. It makes you ask if this office is effectively serving its purpose or if it's becoming a bottleneck for legitimate grievances. We'll have to see what Simmons says when he testifies to the Senate Higher Education Committee this summer, but for now, the numbers speak pretty loudly about the effectiveness of this new watchdog.