Looking forward, looking back: journalism must hold institutions accountable on every level – The Daily Texan

Report on University Governance and Political Challenges with Emphasis on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

In recent years, increased legislative and administrative controls have impacted the University, prompting critical editorial responses. This semester, the Editorial Board produced three editorials and one forum project addressing these evolving issues, with a focus on aligning university governance and student rights with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Mid-Decade Redistricting and Voting Rights

1. The Texas legislature adopted new electoral maps mid-decade, resulting in partisan-driven dilution of Texans’ voting rights.
2. The Editorial Board highlighted this suppression of citizen voices and encouraged students and community members to reclaim political power.
3. This advocacy aligns with SDG 16, promoting inclusive decision-making and strong institutions.

Federal Influence on Academic Freedom

• On October 1, President Trump sent a letter to nine colleges, including the University of Texas (UT), proposing a “compact for excellence in higher education.”
• The Editorial Board critically analyzed the compact’s terms, identifying threats to First Amendment rights of students and faculty.
• They discouraged the University from compromising academic freedom for financial incentives, urging a public rejection of federal overreach.
• This stance supports SDG 4 by safeguarding quality education and SDG 16 by defending freedom of expression.

Political Polarization on Campus

In response to increasing political polarization in higher education, exemplified by conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s campus assassination attempt, the Editorial Board:

• Solicited editorials from eight students representing diverse beliefs, ages, and backgrounds.
• Explored the impact of polarization on campus life and discourse.
• This initiative promotes SDG 10 by fostering inclusive dialogue and reducing inequalities in political participation.

University Restructuring and Transparency

1. UT announced vague plans to restructure the College of Liberal Arts, causing uncertainty among students and faculty.
2. The Editorial Board demanded transparency regarding departmental budget allocations and institutional decisions.
3. Concerns were raised about precedents set by the federal compact and missing funding details.
4. Ongoing accountability efforts by the Editorial Board align with SDG 16’s goal of transparent and accountable institutions.

Governance and Academic Priorities

• UT’s governance is closely tied to state government, which appoints the Board of Regents and President and influences academic priorities through legislation such as Senate Bills 17 and 37.
• Recent federal attempts to control academic affairs, including the compact and partisan gerrymandering, further threaten academic freedom.
• The Editorial Board emphasizes the importance of protecting free speech and resisting academic overreach from all political sides.
• This advocacy supports SDG 16 by promoting peaceful, just, and inclusive institutions.

Conclusion and Editorial Board Composition

As the University navigates political and administrative challenges, the Editorial Board commits to ongoing advocacy for student rights, academic freedom, and institutional transparency, in alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals.

The Editorial Board is composed of associate editors Tenley Jackson, Tiffany Lam, Tanya Narwekar, Belle Xu, and editor-in-chief Ava Saunders.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The article discusses issues related to academic freedom, higher education policies, and university governance.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Concerns about political polarization and fair representation relate to reducing inequalities in political participation.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article highlights voting rights dilution, political suppression, and the importance of free speech and academic freedom.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • Target 4.7: Ensure that all learners acquire knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including human rights and global citizenship (implied through advocacy for academic freedom and free speech).
   • Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are inclusive and promote safe, non-violent, and inclusive learning environments (implied through calls for transparency and accountability in university governance).
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of political beliefs or background (related to fighting political suppression and encouraging fair representation).
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels (linked to calls for university transparency and accountability).
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making (connected to issues of voting rights and political representation).
   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms (related to free speech and academic freedom).

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. SDG 4 Indicators
   • Indicator 4.a.1: Proportion of schools with access to safe and inclusive learning environments (implied by concerns over academic freedom and university governance).
   • Indicator 4.7.1: Extent to which education for sustainable development is integrated into curricula (implied through emphasis on free speech and academic freedom).
2. SDG 10 Indicators
   • Indicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50% of median income, by age, sex and persons with disabilities (implied through political inclusion concerns, though not directly mentioned).
   • Indicator 10.2.2: Proportion of people who feel included in political decisions (implied by discussion on voting rights and political participation).
3. SDG 16 Indicators
   • Indicator 16.6.1: Primary government expenditures as a proportion of original approved budget, by sector (implied by mention of missing departmental budget funding).
   • Indicator 16.7.2: Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive (implied through calls for transparency and fair representation).
   • Indicator 16.10.1: Number of verified cases of killing, kidnapping, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture of journalists, associated media personnel, trade unionists and human rights advocates (implied by reference to political polarization and threats).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: thedailytexan.com