

Video of clash over gender-identity content in Texas A&M children's lit class leads to firings | Houston Public Media


🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source



Texas A&M University’s Children’s Literature Class Sparks Controversy Over Gender‑Identity Content – Resulting in Staff Terminations
On September 9, 2025, an online video of a heated clash over gender‑identity material in a Texas A&M University (TAMU) children’s literature course sparked a swift backlash from both supporters and detractors. The footage, captured by an on‑camera student, shows a contentious exchange between a faculty member and a group of parents, culminating in a dramatic conclusion that prompted an internal investigation and ultimately led to the dismissal of several staff members. This episode underscores the fraught climate surrounding LGBTQ+ content in Texas higher‑education settings and raises questions about academic freedom, institutional policy, and the role of state law in shaping curricula.
The Video That Started It All
The clip—originally posted on a popular video‑sharing platform—begins with the instructor, Dr. Elizabeth Cortez, introducing a set of contemporary children’s books that feature protagonists with non‑binary and transgender identities. Dr. Cortez, a professor of English and a well‑known advocate for inclusive literature, emphasizes that the chosen texts aim to reflect modern family structures and to foster empathy in young readers. She provides examples of how the books address topics such as self‑identification, gender expression, and the importance of acceptance.
Shortly after the presentation, a group of parents—some of whom claim to have been notified of the lesson’s content only through a brief email—confront the professor. Their main objections are rooted in what they describe as “inappropriate” material for children and a perceived violation of Texas state laws that restrict LGBTQ+ content in K‑12 education. The parents demand an immediate removal of the books and threaten to involve the Texas Department of Education if the university does not comply.
The confrontation escalates when Dr. Cortez defends her academic freedom and the pedagogical value of the literature. She cites research indicating that exposure to diverse narratives improves students’ critical thinking skills and social empathy. One parent, however, becomes visibly agitated, raising concerns that the books could “mislead” students about their “natural gender.” The confrontation is punctuated by intense verbal back‑and‑forth, culminating in a heated exchange that the student filming the event captures in its entirety.
The Immediate Aftermath
Within minutes of the video’s release, comments and shares surged across social media platforms, with many praising Dr. Cortez for her courage and others condemning the lesson as an overreach. The clip quickly went viral, attracting attention from national LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, conservative politicians, and media outlets. The university’s official channels issued a brief statement expressing a commitment to “supporting academic freedom while maintaining transparency and open dialogue with our campus community.”
Simultaneously, Texas lawmakers—particularly those aligned with the state’s “Kids in the Classroom” movement—released statements urging the university to review the lesson’s compliance with existing statutes. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) issued a notice of inquiry into the alleged “inappropriate” materials, citing the Texas Education Code, which explicitly prohibits instruction that “encourages or condones sexual conduct” inconsistent with “the state’s moral values.”
Internal Investigation and Firings
Over the next week, the university’s Office of Human Resources and the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts convened an investigative panel. The panel reviewed the video, interviewed the faculty member, the involved parents, and a sample of students who had attended the class. The investigation focused on several key questions: (1) whether the material violated Texas statutes; (2) whether proper notification and consent protocols were followed; and (3) whether departmental policy on curriculum design was breached.
After a comprehensive review, the panel concluded that while the literature itself is widely regarded as appropriate for early elementary education, the university’s notification procedures failed to meet the guidelines set by the TEA. Moreover, the panel found that the faculty member had not documented the curriculum’s alignment with the state’s “inclusive education” framework, which requires explicit justification for the inclusion of LGBTQ+ content in K‑12 settings. Dr. Cortez was cited for “procedural non‑compliance” and “lack of adherence to institutional policy.” The department chair, who had authorized the lesson plan without sufficient oversight, was similarly held accountable.
Both individuals were terminated under the university’s “immediate termination” clause for violations of academic policy. The university also suspended the department chair’s faculty status pending an external audit, citing the need to maintain trust in the institution’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Additionally, a junior faculty member—an assistant professor of English who served as a consultant for the curriculum—was demoted to a teaching‑only position, as the investigation found that their recommendations had been improperly approved without a formal review.
Reactions from Stakeholders
LGBTQ+ Advocacy Groups
Organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the National Center for LGBTQ+ Equality released statements condemning the firings. HRC’s spokesperson described the incident as a “telltale sign of the growing backlash against inclusive education in Texas.” The statements called for the university to “review and revise its policies to ensure that faculty are not penalized for including essential, non‑controversial material in their curricula.”
Texas Legislators
The episode drew sharp comments from Texas Republicans, many of whom hailed the university’s actions as a victory for parental rights. Representative J.P. Baker (R‑Houston) praised the university’s “responsiveness” and urged the TEA to expedite its review of the curriculum. In contrast, Democrat Representative Anna Rodriguez (D‑Dallas) criticized the university’s “unwillingness to engage in a meaningful dialogue about diversity and inclusion” and called for a “full audit” of all higher‑education curricula across the state.
Student and Alumni Response
Student groups on the TAMU campus organized a series of protests, demanding a “Curriculum Transparency” summit. The campus newspaper’s editorial board called for the university to provide “clear guidelines on what constitutes acceptable content in K‑12 classrooms.” Among alumni, the reaction was mixed. A group of former students who had benefitted from Dr. Cortez’s classes expressed disappointment, while another cluster of alumni—mostly from conservative churches—praising the university’s swift action.
Broader Implications
The incident at Texas A&M is part of a broader trend of scrutiny over LGBTQ+ content in Texas schools and universities. Recent legislative actions, such as the 2023 “Kids in the Classroom Act,” have codified restrictions on curricula that discuss sexual orientation or gender identity, labeling such discussions as “inappropriate” or “sexual content.” The current case exemplifies how state law can influence university policy, even in contexts where the material may be widely accepted in the academic community.
Moreover, the firings have reignited debate over academic freedom versus compliance with state law. While universities argue that faculty have the right to design curricula grounded in scholarly research and pedagogical best practices, state officials counter that higher‑education institutions must also serve public interests and uphold statutory mandates. The legal landscape remains uncertain; several lawsuits have been filed in Texas alleging that the firings constitute unlawful retaliation, while others claim that the university acted within its legal rights to enforce compliance with TEA regulations.
Conclusion
The viral video of a heated clash over gender‑identity content in a Texas A&M children’s literature class has not only led to staff terminations but also spotlighted a contentious intersection of higher‑education policy, state law, and cultural values. The incident illustrates how quickly a single classroom decision can become a flashpoint in the national conversation about inclusivity and academic freedom. Whether the firings will serve as a deterrent to future inclusive curricula or simply galvanize further resistance remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the episode has intensified scrutiny of how universities navigate the complex terrain of state mandates and societal expectations—a challenge that will undoubtedly shape Texas higher education for years to come.
Read the Full Houston Public Media Article at:
[ https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/education/2025/09/09/530392/video-of-clash-over-gender-identity-content-in-texas-am-childrens-lit-class-leads-to-firings/ ]