July 2025

Dear President Livingstone, Provost Brickhouse, and the Baylor University Board of Regents:

​

We write as members of the Baylor University family—faculty, staff, alumni, students, pastors, faith leaders, partners, donors, and friends—to express our principled opposition to the University’s decision to return research grant funding it had accepted in support of research to understand the experiences of LGBTQIA+ people and women in church settings. The project, which the University has discontinued, was titled Courage from the Margins. The University's handling of this matter raises grave concerns regarding the University's commitment to academic freedom, rigorous inquiry, and publication–concerns that drive at the heart of the very character and nature of what it means to be a university, in general, and what it means to be Baylor University, in particular.

​

The research that has been discontinued, which was being conducted by a professor who holds the University’s most coveted awards and chairs and previously served on the Baylor Board of Regents(1), had already yielded results. The focus of the research – the experience LGBTQIA+ people and women in congregations - is of paramount concern to churches across the theological spectrum, including those churches that object to LGBTQIA+ people participating in congregational life and those that oppose women in ministry, as well as to churches that have adopted welcoming and/or affirming approaches. Unlike some philanthropic institutions that the University accepts financial support from that solicit proposals from faculty in order to support research that conforms to the donor’s particular world view(2), the Eula Mae and John Baugh Foundation, which had granted funds in this instance, does not solicit grants of any kind.(3) It has long supported projects proposed by the University across a range of fields of study from the restoration of the Tidwell Bible Building, to the John Baugh Center for Entrepreneurship and Free Enterprise in the Hankamer School of Business, to the Baugh-Reynolds campus at Truett Seminary, and many more.

 

We do not write to engage in an investigation of internal and external pressure or influences that may have driven the University’s decision making. Nor do we focus — as has been the focus of prior letters signed by thousands upon thousands of members of the Baylor family over the course of the last five years — on the University’s policies regarding the treatment of LGBTQIA+ faculty members and students. Some signers of this letter may have different views on those policies.

​

Instead, we are writing to express our opposition to the University's decision to apply an ideological litmus test to the types of inquiry, ideas, teaching, research, and publication that Baylor University and its faculty pursue. We believe the University’s handling of this matter is contrary to the University’s long-held policy on academic freedom and, if not corrected promptly, represents a dangerous development for the present and future of Baylor University. We request that:

​

• The University make a public statement re-affirming its commitment to the unfettered study, research, inquiry, and publication of results regarding of ideas, topics, and subject matters without regard to ideological bent, including specifically affirming that freedom regarding subjects that address the experiences of women and LGBTQIA+ people in various social settings, including churches and houses of worship.
   

• The University make a public commitment that no faculty or administrator will be prohibited from conducting research, inquiry, teaching, or publication on any subject, including subjects regarding the experiences of women and LBGTQIA+ people in church settings.
   

According to Baylor University policy, universities, as institutions of higher education, “are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of the individual teacher or the institution as a whole.” (4)  The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition. Modern universities are built on the foundation of academic freedom. President Livingstone’s letter on July 9, 2025 announcing the discontinuation of research acknowledged that this is a “challenging time” for higher education.(5) This is especially true in Texas where lawmakers have targeted the ability of faculty to teach, research, publish, and fully explore a full scope of ideas without political interference. The American Association of University Professors (“AAUP”) recently noted the existence of a “coordinated attack” against universities that threatens to “undermine academic freedom, chill classroom speech and impose partisan agendas” on higher education.(6)

​

Threats of political or cultural interference or intimidation meant to undermine the freedom of teaching, publication, inquiry, and the pursuit of truth in higher education are not new. From Socrates being persecuted for his teachings in ancient Greece to professors in Europe being targeted by fascist regimes leading up to and during World War II to academics in the US being investigated and terminated for views that were perceived to not be in line with US economic or  foreign policy interests in the twentieth century, the freedom to teach, research, and publish is all too often threatened in times of political polarization.

​

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Baylor University itself was under intense pressure and threats from a faction of the Baptist faith and other cultural influences to restrict academic freedom. At that time, there was an external pressure campaign to require that Baylor faculty sign statements stating that the “the Bible must be taken literally,” a statement that was inconsistent with research, inquiry, and beliefs of many of the University’s professors, including its most distinguished religious scholars. In 1990 and in response to these threats to free thought and inquiry, the University’s charter and governing structure were intentionally changed to ensure that Baylor was self-governed to prevent external influences from restricting the University’s ability to be a world class higher education institution and operate with academic integrity and freedom. Under the leadership of Baylor President Dr. Herbert H. Reynolds, this move paved the way for the adoption of an expansive academic freedom policy thereafter.

​

Baylor University’s Academic Freedom Policy Unequivocally Prohibits Ideological Litmus Tests — Including Religious Litmus Tests — for Research, Teaching, and Publication
 

In 1992, Baylor University adopted a Policy on Academic Freedom (“Academic Freedom Policy”) that expressly adopts and endorses the policy set forth by Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors in 1941 (7) as well as the policy set forth by the University's accrediting institution, which requires the “preserv[ation] and “protect[ion]” of academic freedom.” Baylor University’s Academic Freedom Policy is attached to this letter. As set forth in the 1941 Statements adopted by the University, the Baylor University Academic Freedom Policy clearly and unequivocally states:
 

Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition. Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it duties correlative with rights.
 

(emphasis added). Baylor’s Academic Freedom Policy provides that the teacher is entitled to “full freedom in research and publication of the results.” Because of Baylor University’s Baptist heritage and tradition, the Academic Freedom Policy has additional language not found in the national sector standards. Baylor’s Academic Freedom Policy provides further that:

 

Freedom to inquire and freedom to report the conclusions resulting from inquiry constitute the élan vital of a university. The quest for truth should be unhampered and conducted in an atmosphere that is free. “Liberty may sometimes lead to folly; yet it is better that some should be tolerated than that all should think and speak under the deadening influence of repression.” The right of dissent is a correlative of the right of assent. Any undue restriction upon an instructor in the exercise of this function would foster a suspicion of intolerance, degrade the University, and set the supporting denomination in a false light before the world.

​

(emphasis added). Baylor University’s Academic Freedom Policy prevents ideological – and even religious – litmus tests for the research, teaching and inquiry undertaken by faculty. While the Academic Freedom Policy requires “sympathy with the University's primary objective – to educate its students within the framework of a Christian culture,”(8) it is unequivocal in its affirmation that spiritual commitments and religious beliefs should not impede free research and inquiry.(9) Not only has Baylor University declined invitations to restrict academic freedom under its policies, it also has expressed public support for academic freedom even in the current challenging political environment.(10)

​

Baylor University’s approach to academic freedom and its simultaneous commitment to a Baptist and Christian worldview has been a feature of the institution for many years. Baylor Professor Emeritus Dr. Robert M. Baird recently observed that during his 47 years as a faculty member (of which 18 years were spent as a Department Chair) he never once “felt a moment’s pressure to alter what [he or his] colleagues were teaching or the books we were using or publishing,” including during times of great social or cultural turmoil.(11)

 

Baylor University’s Recission of a Research Grant and Research Activities Violates the Spirit and Letter of the University’s Academic Freedom Policy

​

Baylor University's response to pressure from external groups and certain internal factions criticizing the University for a research project – Courage at the Margins – is at odds with the University’s stated commitment to academic freedom, including Baylor’s Academic Freedom Policy that affirms the value of liberty and dissenting perspectives.

 

In response to an online pressure campaign by activists (many of whom have no connection by Baylor), certain pastors (many of whom also have no connection to Baylor), and a particular vocal faction of the Baylor family, the University announced in a July 9 email to the Baylor family that the Principal Investigator and researcher had voluntarily offered to return grant funding and discontinue the Courage at the Margins research. The message stated that President Livingstone and the Provost agreed that discontinuing the research and returning the grant “is the appropriate course of action and in the best interest of Baylor University.”

​

The July 9 email the University sent to explain why its decision to discontinue research was not an affront to academic freedom, as carefully worded and workshopped it no doubt was, raises a number of concerns regarding the erosion of academic freedom at Baylor University.

 

The University’s July 9 Response Undermines the Freedom to Publish. The July 9 email states that the administration’s concern “did not center on the research itself, but rather on the activities that followed” the research, suggesting that such activities “extended into advocacy for perspectives on human sexuality that are inconsistent with Baylor’s institutional policies” including the University's Statement on Human Sexuality. Baylor University’s policy on academic freedom unequivocally supports the “full freedom in research and publication of the results.” The University administration stating in its message to the Baylor family that it does not have a problem with “the research itself” is not a statement of support of full academic freedom, as required by the spirit and letter of Baylor policy. On the contrary, it appears that University administrators do have concerns about the research being published to the world – the so-called "activities" that follow the research. The University’s Academic Freedom Policy makes no exceptions for when the publication of a professor’s research might concern or be followed by activities of concern to the University’s administration—in a university, research is not to be conducted under a bushel but to be published to enlighten the world. What the world does with it is not in the hands of the author or publisher. Likewise, Baylor University's Academic Freedom Policy is not limited to the freedom “to research,” as the University’s July 9 message to the Baylor community implies, but also requires the full “freedom” to “publish the results.” “Freedom to inquire and freedom to report the conclusions resulting from inquiry constitute the élan vital of a university,” Baylor’s Academic Freedom Policy states.(12)

 

The University’s July 9 Response Appears to Create an Improper Litmus Test for Publication.

The University’s position in the July 9 email that the activities that might follow the publication of research could “advocate for” perspectives that are contrary to the University's stated policy on Human Sexuality and therefore the research project was, in the University’s view, “concern[ing]” is at odds with the University’s Academic Freedom Policy, which provides no exception to the freedom to research and publish for topics that may be contrary to the institutional views of Baylor University. Indeed, Baylor has expressly rejected prior administrative proposals to condition research projects on their consistency with the University’s stated religious views.(13) Baylor University does not have a policy that only protects research and publication if such research “align[ed]” with the University’s institutional values and beliefs. Such a policy was proposed and rejected by the Faculty Senate 31-0 two decades ago. So the University's message to the Baylor family on July 9 affirming its "institutional beliefs and policies” regarding Human Sexuality and seeking to assure the University community that it will “continue to support our faculty and researchers in pursuing meaningful scholarship, while ensuring that such work aligns with our institutional processes” is not only far from reassuring, but it also raises independent concerns regarding the University’s commitment to academic freedom. The fact that the University's message to the Baylor community suggests that research and publication activities at Baylor University must “align” with the institution’s views and beliefs, if true, would be a stark new restriction on academic freedom prohibited by existing University policy and protections for academic freedom. 

​

The Baugh Foundation, which had funded the research, has stated publicly that its grant funded only research and publication and that the grant did not fund “advocacy.”(14) Baylor’s Academic Freedom Policy, including with reference to the Baptist faith, provides in no uncertain terms:

 

Liberty may sometimes lead to folly; yet it is better that some should be tolerated than that all should think and speak under the deadening influence of repression.” The right of dissent is a correlative of the right of assent. Any undue restriction upon an instructor in the exercise of this function would foster a suspicion of intolerance, degrade the University, and set the supporting denomination in a false light before the world.

​

(emphasis added). Suggesting, as the July 9 email did, that there are limits on faculty speech and research if it contravenes the University’s policy statements “foster[s],” in the words of Baylor’s own Academic Freedom Policy “a suspicion of intolerance, [that] degrade[s] the University, and set[s] the supporting denomination in a false light before the world.”(15)

 

The University’s Response Undermines the Pursuit of the Common Good. It is, of course, the focus on the world that is important to remember and where the heart of our concerns lie. Pro Ecclesia, Pro Texana, Pro Mundo–for the Church, for Texas, and for the World, the University’s motto reads. This is consistent with Baylor’s Academic Freedom Policy that acknowledges that “Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole.” The assurance in the July 9 message to the Baylor family that the decision to return granted research funds and discontinue important research on matters concerning women and LGBTQIA+ people in congregational life was in “the best interests of Baylor University” sidesteps the fundamental purpose of Baylor University. As the University's Policy expressly provides, Baylor University, as a university, is conducted for the promotion of the “common good,” which “depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition,” the University does note exist focus solely on the interests of either individual faculty members or Baylor University as an institution. While it may be that the decision to discontinue research furthers the interests of certain members of the Baylor family or, as the July 9 email suggests, even the institutional interests of Baylor, the decision does not further the “common good,” which is the purpose of a university.

 

The Decision to Discontinue Research Creates a Dangerous Slippery Slope That Requires Correction by the University

We understand that the University was under great internal and external pressure to discontinue this research project. But, a university environment that proves itself to be less than resilient in the face of external pressures and attacks on faculty members’ research chills the activities that universities are intended to engage in – the heart of why they exist. What may be outrage over research regarding women and LGBTQIA+ people in religious communities could easily morph into outrage over a number of research projects other University professors are currently engaged in– from projects that seek to understand the meaning of Biblical text through historical and contextual lenses, to scientific exploration of evolution, to the study of political and economic systems or belief structures that may offend a segment of society or a faction of the Baylor family.

 

Pressuring faculty to stay away from certain topics of study or expression, encouraging the discontinuation of research and return of research funds, and creating false distinctions between “the research itself” and the “publication and results” is reactionary. This is incredibly concerning not just for the particular research that was discontinued but for the overall enterprise of academic research and publication more generally.

​

“Courage is standing up to those who would coerce you into being something you know, in your heart, you ought not to be.”(16) We do not ask that Baylor University have courage that it has never had to muster before – but we ask that it find the courage it has often exemplified as a University committed to both free inquiry and religious heritage. As a University that has been willing to stand up to religious or cultural pressures that would stifle academic freedom, while also resisting secular urges to depart from the University’s faith-based identity. As a University that takes “the road less traveled, to sacrifice neither spiritual heritage nor open inquiry.”(17)

 

Courage also requires, at times. that we admit that we are wrong. We do believe that the University was wrong in its abrupt response to an incredibly concerning and no doubt taxing external pressure campaign. We, as members of the Baylor family, will support the University in correcting course and making this right. We look forward to your response and, again, urge the University to publicly re-affirm its commitment to full academic freedom, including the teaching, research, study, and publication regarding issues that concern women and LGBTQIA+ people.

​​

 

​