Governing Framework
Section summaryHigher-education faculty discipline draws from institutional bylaws, board-of-regents policies, faculty handbooks, AAUP norms (where adopted), and overlapping federal frameworks. There is no single statewide procedure.
Unlike K-12 educators, Texas higher-education faculty are not regulated by a single state board. The discipline framework includes:
- Institutional bylaws and handbooks. Each institution maintains its own faculty handbook and disciplinary procedures.
- System-level policies. University-system policies (UT System, Texas A&M System, UH System, Texas Tech System, Texas State System) apply across member institutions.
- Texas Education Code Chapter 51. Chapter 51 provides general higher-education institutional authority including some specific provisions on faculty matters.
- AAUP procedural norms. The American Association of University Professors statements on academic freedom and tenure are widely adopted as institutional policy.
- Federal frameworks. Title IX, ADA, Title VII, Rehabilitation Act Section 504, and federal research-integrity rules all apply to faculty employment.
Tenure and Due Process
Section summaryTenure creates a contractual and (at public institutions) constitutional property interest in continued employment. Termination of a tenured appointment requires demonstrated cause, formal procedure, and faculty-committee review.
Tenure is more than a job-security label. At public institutions, tenure creates a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, anchored in Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) and Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972). The institution must provide notice and meaningful pre-deprivation procedure before terminating tenure.
The procedure typically includes:
- Written notice of charges with factual specificity.
- Opportunity for response.
- Hearing before a faculty committee.
- Evidentiary presentation, witnesses, and counsel involvement.
- Written committee recommendation.
- Administrative review and final institutional decision.
- Internal appeal mechanisms.
Title IX Faculty Cases
Section summaryTitle IX cases involving faculty as respondents follow the institution's Title IX procedures under 34 C.F.R. Part 106. The procedures include investigation, written notice, live hearing with cross-examination at higher-education institutions, and appeal.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in education programs receiving federal funding. Faculty can be respondents in Title IX matters involving allegations of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or other sex-based misconduct.
The procedural framework under 34 C.F.R. Part 106 includes:
- Written notice of allegations to the respondent.
- Right to advisor (who may be an attorney).
- Investigation and written investigative report.
- Live hearing with cross-examination through advisors at higher-education institutions.
- Written determination by a decision-maker who is not the investigator.
- Appeal mechanism.
Title IX procedures operate in parallel with — and frequently produce — faculty employment-discipline proceedings. A Title IX finding can serve as the factual predicate for tenure-revocation or non-renewal action.
Research Misconduct
Section summaryResearch misconduct — fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in research — is governed by federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI) rules where federal funding is involved, and by institutional procedures otherwise.
Federally funded research is subject to 42 C.F.R. Part 93 (PHS research-misconduct rules) and parallel NSF rules. The procedural sequence includes inquiry, investigation, institutional decision, and ORI oversight.
Institutional research-misconduct procedures generally follow:
- Inquiry phase. Initial review of allegations; determination whether to proceed to investigation.
- Investigation phase. Formal investigation by a committee, with respondent participation and right to respond.
- Institutional determination. Written findings and decision on whether misconduct occurred.
- Sanctions. Range from correction of the scientific record through retraction, termination of employment, and federal debarment from grant funding.
- ORI review. For federally funded research, ORI conducts its own oversight and can impose additional federal sanctions.
Plagiarism and Academic Integrity
Section summaryPlagiarism allegations against faculty are handled under institutional academic-integrity policies. The procedure varies but typically includes investigation, hearing, and a graduated sanction range.
Plagiarism by a faculty member can implicate research-misconduct procedures (where research is involved), classroom-conduct review (where the issue is teaching), or general professional-misconduct procedures.
The institutional response typically includes:
- Investigation by an academic-integrity committee or department-level review.
- Notice to the faculty member and opportunity to respond.
- Hearing if disputed.
- Written findings.
- Sanctions ranging from reprimand through termination depending on severity, repeat conduct, and the nature of the plagiarized work.
Typical Procedure
Section summaryA typical higher-education faculty disciplinary matter progresses through complaint, investigation, notice of charges, hearing, written decision, and internal appeal. Institutional procedures govern timing and specific procedural rights.
While procedures vary, a typical sequence:
- Complaint or referral. Source can be student, colleague, administrator, or external (e.g., journal editor on research misconduct).
- Initial review. Department chair, dean, or designated officer reviews whether to open formal investigation.
- Investigation. Fact-finding by appointed investigator or committee. Faculty member typically can submit response and identify witnesses.
- Notice of charges. Written notice of the specific allegations and proposed action.
- Hearing. Formal hearing before faculty committee (for tenured faculty) or administrative process (for non-tenured faculty).
- Written decision. Committee or decision-maker issues written findings and sanction.
- Internal appeal. Most institutions provide one or two levels of internal appeal.
- External review. Some matters are subject to external judicial review or federal-agency review (Title IX, ORI).
Need defense counsel?
L&L Law Group, PLLC handles Teacher License Defense cases throughout DFW. Initial consultations are free.
Call (972) 370-5060 →Reporting Coordination
Higher Education Faculty Misconduct matters often arise after a school district has reported the educator to SBEC under Texas Education Code §21.006. The district report sets the agency's starting frame and often includes the district's interpretation of the underlying events. For a faculty-misconduct allegation at a Texas public institution, counsel must understand what the district reported, what evidence the district has compiled, and how the district's narrative differs from the educator's account.
The educator's own employment situation typically runs in parallel. A district that has reported may also be moving to terminate, suspend, or reassign the educator. The contractual rights under the educator's contract, the procedural protections in Texas Education Code Chapter 21, and any collective-bargaining or association protections all come into play simultaneously with the SBEC matter.
Counsel should coordinate the SBEC defense with the employment defense from day one. A favorable result in one forum often supports the other. A settlement with the district that includes specific language about the underlying events can affect what SBEC believes happened. The strategic choices must be made in light of both forums, not just one at a time.
SOAH Preparation
Where a faculty-misconduct allegation at a Texas public institution cannot resolve informally, the case proceeds to a contested-case hearing at the State Office of Administrative Hearings. The procedure follows the Texas Administrative Procedure Act supplemented by SBEC rules at 19 TAC Chapter 249.
Discovery includes interrogatories, requests for production, and depositions in some cases. The hearing involves opening statements, the State's case (presented by TEA staff attorneys), the educator's defense, and closing arguments. The Administrative Law Judge issues a Proposal for Decision that the SBEC board then accepts or modifies in a final order.
Cross-examination of the State's witnesses is the central trial skill. Investigators, district administrators, students (where direct witnesses), and any expert witnesses must be tested against the documents and against each other. The hearings can run multiple days; preparation must be commensurate.
The higher education faculty discipline framework
Faculty discipline in Texas public higher education operates outside the SBEC framework, which applies to PreK-12 educators. Higher education faculty are subject to institution-level discipline through university Faculty Senate frameworks, peer review processes, and administrative procedures established under Texas Education Code Chapter 51 and related provisions. The specific procedures vary by institution but generally include both academic freedom protections and disciplinary procedures for faculty misconduct.
The academic freedom framework protects faculty in the exercise of academic functions including teaching, research, and scholarship. The protections derive from constitutional academic freedom principles, contractual provisions in faculty handbooks, and statutory provisions specific to public higher education. The academic freedom analysis affects which faculty conduct can be the subject of institutional discipline and which conduct is protected from discipline.
The discipline framework reaches conduct that falls outside the academic freedom protections including violations of institutional policies, breaches of professional ethics, criminal conduct, and various other categories of faculty misconduct. The discipline framework includes both academic personnel processes that address faculty employment status and disciplinary processes that address specific conduct. The defense in faculty discipline cases must understand both frameworks and their interaction.
The Title IX framework and the federal compliance overlay
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 applies to higher education institutions receiving federal financial assistance and addresses sex-based discrimination including sexual harassment, sexual assault, and gender-based misconduct. The 2024 Title IX regulations at 34 C.F.R. Part 106 establish specific procedural requirements for higher education Title IX proceedings that apply to faculty respondents in cases involving sex-based misconduct.
The Title IX framework provides specific procedural protections for faculty respondents including written notice of allegations, an opportunity to respond, access to evidence, the right to advisor representation, and various other procedural elements. The procedural framework is comparable to the framework for student respondents but with modifications appropriate to faculty employment relationships.
The Title IX framework intersects with the institutional academic personnel processes in complex ways. Faculty respondents may face both Title IX proceedings and institutional employment proceedings, with the proceedings potentially producing different outcomes on the same underlying allegations. The defense should understand both proceedings and should coordinate the response to ensure consistent positions across the parallel matters.
The tenure framework and the dismissal procedures
The tenure framework provides substantial procedural protections for tenured faculty including peer review of dismissal proceedings, specific cause requirements for dismissal, and various due process protections. Tenured faculty can typically be dismissed only for cause, which is defined to include specific categories of misconduct, incompetence, or other serious issues. The cause requirement provides substantial protection against arbitrary dismissal.
The dismissal procedures for tenured faculty typically involve formal charges, peer review by faculty committees, hearings with procedural protections, and final decision by university administration. The procedures can extend over many months and produce substantial evidence and analysis. The defense in tenure dismissal cases requires familiarity with the specific institutional procedures and the substantive cause framework.
The non-tenure track faculty have substantially fewer procedural protections. Non-tenure track faculty including lecturers, clinical faculty, and other categories typically work under contract terms that provide limited protection against non-renewal or termination. The defense in non-tenure cases focuses on contract-based protections and any statutory or constitutional protections that may apply in the specific institutional context.
The defense framework and the strategic considerations
The defense framework in higher education faculty misconduct cases requires comprehensive analysis of the institutional procedures, the substantive standards, and the parallel proceedings that may apply. Each institution has its own procedural framework, and the defense must develop familiarity with the specific procedures applicable to the faculty respondent.
The strategic considerations include the comparative implications of various potential outcomes. A negotiated resignation may produce a cleaner record than a contested termination but may also affect the faculty member ability to obtain comparable positions at other institutions. A contested defense that produces vindication preserves the faculty member position but at substantial cost in time, resources, and emotional toll. The strategic decisions should be made based on comprehensive analysis of all relevant factors.
The interstate implications of faculty discipline cases include the effect on future employment at other higher education institutions. The American Association of University Professors maintains a list of censured institutions, and faculty discipline cases that involve substantial procedural irregularities can become matters of national academic attention. The defense should consider the broader institutional and disciplinary implications when developing strategy. The cumulative analysis can substantially affect the strategic choices and the longer-term career planning for faculty facing serious disciplinary allegations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does SBEC have jurisdiction over college and university faculty?
Can a public university terminate tenure?
How do Title IX proceedings against faculty work?
What is research misconduct?
Can a faculty member appeal a tenure revocation to court?
Read the full Texas Teacher License Defense Guide
This article is one section of our comprehensive Texas Teacher License Defense Guide. The pillar guide covers recent developments, official resources, and the complete framework with deeper analysis.
Read the Pillar Guide →Next Steps
If you are facing a situation described here, consult counsel promptly. Many issues in this area run on strict deadlines.
- Call (972) 370-5060
- Email info@landllawgroup.com
Cite this guide
Bluebook: Reggie London & Njeri London, Texas Higher Education Faculty Misconduct Discipline, L&L Law Group (May 30, 2026), https://landllawgroup.com/insights/texas-higher-education-faculty-misconduct/.
APA: London, R., & London, N. (2026, May 30). Texas Higher Education Faculty Misconduct Discipline. L&L Law Group.