A Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) member has suggested banning people connected to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from participating in workgroups that review and rework Texas curriculum standards.
During the regular meeting of the SBOE in Austin, the board took substantial time on April 12 to examine potential procedural changes that could be made to how Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) review workgroups are selected.
Member Julie Pickren (R-Pearland) raised the prospect of instituting regulations that would prohibit members of certain groups or organizations from participating in said workgroups.
“Has an SBOE board ever had a blackout list on who couldn’t participate, such as, maybe, the Confucius Institute or members of the Confucius Institute?” Pickren asked.
The Confucius Institutes are a series of educational programs in America and other countries funded by China’s Ministry of Education. They have generated substantial controversy, and the National Association of Scholars recommended that all institutes at American schools be closed, claiming that they are propaganda arms of the Chinese government.
The Chinese government has admitted that the Confucius Institutes are a part of the foreign policy strategy, and the national propaganda chief, Li Changchun, suggested the programs were “an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up,” per Politico.
Member Keven Ellis (R-Lufkin), the chairman of the SBOE, answered Pickren by noting that the board had never done such a thing.
“Is that something we could consider?” Pickren continued.
“We can consider it, but I would really have to understand the purpose. I think if you excluded a certain group, there might be some discrimination that could be alleged,” Ellis said, turning to look at Chris Maska, a lawyer with the Texas Education Agency.
“We could certainly take a look at that if that’s the way you are thinking of going,” Maska said.
Pickren’s proposal prompted Member Aicha Davis (D-Dallas) to express significant concern.
“I do want to kind of dig into that because now I have a fear that we’re going to start discriminating against people for whatever reasons,” said Davis. “So I do kind of want to hear more on your thoughts on that because, I mean, I have a true concern about discriminating against potential people to serve on those workgroups.”
“Well, it wouldn’t be discriminating against a particular person or people, it would be discriminating against the Chinese Communist Party. … It would be preventing communism in our Texas public education,” Pickren responded. “Because the Confucius Institute is very active nationwide, including in Texas, on education recommendations.”
“So are you suggesting that we have a box on [the applications] that says, ‘If you’re a Communist, check here,’ so we don’t choose them?” Davis asked.
“That is for this board to decide,” Pickren said. “That’s up for us to discuss and decide.”
At this point, Davis turned to Maska, asking, “Are there federal guardrails that would prevent us from just discriminating against a group because we want to? Are there some federal guidance, guidelines, or something that should be involved in that kind of conversation if we’re now talking about discrimination?”
Ellis interjected, “The question to legal staff is if there would be any discriminatory challenges that we would run up against. Obviously, this was just something that was just thrown out in conceptual and just one group that was mentioned.”
“I think if we wanted to seriously take a look at that, we would have to probably do a much deeper legal dive into what discriminatory concerns we might have if we did that before we took any further action on that,” he explained.
Member L.J. Francis (R-Corpus Christi) raised a point of information and suggested that Pickren’s proposal was more akin to banning TikTok from government phones due to the concern that the program is connected to the Chinese government.
“Would it still fall under discrimination, or would it fall under a different definition?” Francis asked legal counsel.
Maska replied, “We could not say, ‘If you’re a Communist, you cannot make a comment here.’ If you’re an American citizen and you’re a Communist, you can make a comment here.”
“The issue here is corporations that are controlled by a foreign entity, in this case, the Communist Party of China,” Maska said. “I think it may well be possible to exclude them.
“I know the governor has done that, but I’d certainly have to do the research before I told you that’s something y’all could do,” he concluded.
Ellis intervened, saying, “I think we’re getting down a pretty deep rabbit hole. I think if we want to take a serious consideration of that, then we can request legal to guide us further.”
“I’m not sure that it’s the will of the board that we start discriminating against certain groups,” he added. “If that’s not the case and it is the will of the board, maybe let me know, but I don’t want to get down a rabbit trail that’s probably not a trail we need to go down.”
“So if there is a will to start listing groups, let’s talk about that and get some more legal guidance, but if it’s just a little bit of a hypothetical question or just a statement, I don’t want to spend a whole lot of time on something that’s not the will of the body,” Ellis said.
Member Aaron Kinsey (R-Midland) asked if it would be appropriate to ask people to list affiliated groups on workgroup applications. Ellis suggested that doing so was a possibility.
Maska confirmed this, saying, “That’s certainly reasonable information that could help you.”
The conversation then moved on to a motion made by Member Will Hickman (R-Houston) to take a vote on suggestions he had made to improve the process of selecting workgroup members.
