Texas A&M ERUPTS Over Gender Studies Cut

Texas A&M’s move to shut down its Women’s and Gender Studies degrees signals a turning point in the fight over whether public universities serve taxpayers—or ideological activists.

Quick Take

Texas A&M announced it will eliminate Women’s and Gender Studies degree pathways, citing low enrollment, program costs, and system policy compliance.
No new students can enter the program, but current majors and minors are set to finish through a six-semester teach-out.
The decision follows a system-wide policy restricting advocacy or instruction tied to “race or gender ideology,” paired with a large syllabus audit.
Administrators say the changes protect academic integrity and stewardship; faculty groups argue the process chills academic freedom.

Texas A&M Winds Down a Low-Enrolled Program After Policy Pressure

Texas A&M University announced on January 30, 2026 that it is eliminating its Women’s and Gender Studies (WGS) degree offerings, including BA and BS degrees, along with a graduate certificate and minor. University leadership pointed to low enrollment—reported as 25 majors and 31 minors—along with the costs of maintaining the program and the need to align with new Texas A&M University System restrictions on certain race and gender-related ideological content.

Texas A&M said current students will not be stranded. The university’s plan allows students already enrolled to complete their requirements over six semesters, while halting new enrollments immediately. That “teach-out” approach matters because it reduces claims of immediate harm to students who planned their coursework around the credential. Even so, the practical effect is clear: the credential pipeline is closing, and the institution is redirecting resources away from this niche track.

The Syllabus Review: 5,400 Courses Checked, Six Canceled

Texas A&M’s decision arrived alongside the results of a large course and syllabus review. Reports describe a campuswide review of roughly 5,400 syllabi, with hundreds of adjustments and six course cancellations. Administrators emphasized that the cancellations represent a tiny portion of overall offerings, framing the outcome as limited in scope. Critics dispute whether counting cancellations alone captures the full effect of widespread edits and the compliance incentives created by the review process.

The review was not merely an internal academic housekeeping exercise. The system’s policy restricts certain “race or gender ideology” discussions and reportedly requires exceptions for some instruction related to sexual orientation and gender identity topics, with presidential discretion involved. The policy language has drawn attention because “necessary educational purpose” is not consistently defined in public reporting, leaving observers to question how boundaries will be applied across departments and over time.

A Viral Classroom Flashpoint Helped Put the Issue on the Rails

The timeline includes a high-profile cultural catalyst: a viral video from fall 2025 showing a student confronting a professor over gender-identity content in a children’s literature course. The student questioned whether the material was legal and referenced Trump-era executive orders, and the confrontation escalated to the student being asked to leave. That moment fed public suspicion that taxpayers were funding activism disguised as education, and it also increased pressure for oversight.

Separately, the Texas A&M System had already moved in prior years to cut low-producing programs. Reporting describes a November 2024 action eliminating dozens of programs, including an LGBTQ Studies minor associated with WGS. Seen together, these steps show a clear institutional direction: leadership is pairing enrollment-based program reviews with policy guardrails over what can be taught and how. Supporters view that as accountability; opponents call it political interference.

Academic Integrity vs. Academic Freedom: What the Record Actually Shows

University leadership defended the changes in terms conservatives will recognize: stewardship of public funds, restoring public trust, and protecting the value of a Texas A&M degree. Faculty critics and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) chapter countered with warnings about academic freedom and shared governance. The record supports one point from each side: enrollment numbers were small, and the oversight tools—audits, exception requests, and course edits—are unusually direct.

Winning: Texas A&M Axes ‘Gender Studies’ Programhttps://t.co/BoUkGXtYPT

— PJ Media (@PJMedia_com) January 31, 2026

For taxpayers, the core question is whether public universities prioritize broad education and workforce preparation or niche ideological projects that attract more political drama than students. Texas A&M’s data-driven justification—low majors and minors, paired with cost concerns—makes the case that the credential was not serving many students. But the open concern is process: when policy terms are unclear, risk-averse departments may preemptively sanitize curricula beyond what is required.