One of the simultaneous perks and pitfalls of this job has been the ability to gather information about the University from a new perspective. As editor-in-chief of the Texan, I’ve had the privilege of connecting with the UT community and the many student organizers dedicated to improving the campus. At the same time, I’ve seen that there are too many issues at this University, and the work of fixing them too often falls on student advocacy.

There are countless ways that UT administration could create a more safe, inclusive and equitable environment, but one of the most impactful ways is money. Initiatives to improve campus life almost always require funding, and we need to dedicate more money to the Counseling and Mental Health Center, UT Outpost, ethnic studies departments, raising student wages, ensuring affordable housing — the list is endless.

Instead, University officials are pouring $6 million into adding a conservatively-minded institute on campus.

It’s much more than alarming. This decision, and the support it garnered from donors, the lieutenant governor and UT President Jay Hartzell, is a signal of the University’s priorities. Though the University tries to operate under a progressive guise, it’s these underlying priorities that we, the students, can’t afford to forget.

There’s little to no information from the University itself regarding this institute. Initially coined “The Liberty Institute,” the center now has no set name and is in its early stages of being designed. After inquiring about the institute, I received an emailed statement through UT communications from William Inboden, associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and chair of the search committee for the new institute’s executive director.

“As part of UT’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, we are continually seeking to expand the diversity of backgrounds and views among our faculty and students, and to create an open and intellectually inclusive environment in which a broad range of ideas can be expressed and debated in our shared search for truth,” Inboden said in the email. “We hope this institute will attract world-renowned scholars and offer unique educational opportunities and experiences for all our students who choose to participate.”

Diversity and inclusion aren’t buzzwords to veil potentially harmful sentiments.

It’s interesting that UT’s commitment to “diversity and inclusion” often seems to fall short of supporting students of color, yet is quickly used to justify the addition of conservative values to campus. Expanding viewpoints can’t be classified as diversity and inclusion if they’re harmful towards marginalized groups, which conservative ideals tend to be. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who is working to launch the center, recently denounced critical race theory. It’s difficult to believe that an institution under his support would be committed to inclusive thinking, or what kind of “world-renowned scholars” it would attract.

Inboden’s statement went on to tout a “need to expand curricular offerings in interdisciplinary programs, prepare our students for the competitive employment market and promote more viewpoint diversity on campus.” No part of the statement addressed my question about the center’s propensity to propagate harm.

The sentiments behind this institute are detrimental; they have no place on this campus and shouldn’t be supported by the University merely to add opposing viewpoints. It’s incredibly irresponsible to classify conservative values as adding to diversity — the ideas in this system are built to support cisgender white males. The notion that we need to foster debate over ideas that have historically contributed to oppression is a damaging rhetoric that the University has consciously chosen to adopt.

The Senate of College Councils, along with other student entities like Student Government, released their response to the proposed institute last May. Here, they asked Hartzell to rescind his support for the project and instead dedicate funding to other, more impactful initiatives.

Suseth Muñoz, the 2021-22 Senate of College Councils vice president, explained that Senate felt that the purpose of this institute allowed for the spread of a state political agenda, while other departments remained underserved.

“We were one of the first groups that (opposed) it,” Muñoz said. “And since then, nothing good has come out of this (institute). It just tells me that we were on the right side of history there.”

If the University wants to expand curricular offerings, they should fund the ethnic studies departments. To promote interdisciplinary thinking, require students to take more cultural diversity courses. To prove commitment to diversity and inclusion, remove The Eyes of Texas as the school song. There’s many campus issues that need funding, detailed in our columns, the community response document and the work of student organizers. But this is nothing new. The UT administration already knows where time, money and energy could be spent — and they’re ignoring it. Instead, according to Inboden’s statement, the University is grateful for the funding the center is receiving, and for all of the state support.

They’re grateful because this is an academic intuition that treasures conservative thinking. A university that doesn’t listen to marginalized voices. UT is considered a “liberal” hub in a “liberal” city, but it’s the same University whose donors and alumni expressed racist and bigoted rhetoric over a school song. Though Hartzell may have condemned their sentiments on paper, The Eyes of Texas is played at almost every University event. Hardly any of Black students’ demands have been fulfilled. UT consistently enjoys playing the same game of pretend, and the stakes are always much higher than what we’re led to believe.

“As a student, I am very worried because … the Capitol already has a big overreach on our education (here), and this is just a donor passion project,” Muñoz said. “They want to move the University in a certain way that it’s already (exemplifying). I know that people like to call UT a liberal haven — (but) it’s not. If you are a student of color, you know that.”

Muñoz also pointed out that UT already has a version of this institute on campus: the Salem Center for Policy, “dedicated to helping students and business leaders better understand the costs, benefits and consequences of policy decisions.” The informally named “Liberty Institute” isn’t bringing forth new ideas — it’s simply reinforcing those that already exist and empowering conservative students in beliefs that directly contribute to the marginalization of minority students. UT shouldn’t add this new center to campus, but they will. As students, it’s crucial that we stay vigilant about the University’s true priorities.

“Somebody once told me that students are the moral compass of the University,” Muñoz said. “It’s our duty as faculty, staff or students to come together and really ask those hard questions and push back against any further marginalization at this institution.”

As editor-in-chief, I’ve gotten closer to both the issues and the activism surrounding them. Students are trying hard to organize and advocate for themselves, and in truth, they’re doing what should be the administration’s job. It’s exhausting to continually have to demand better, but the sad reality is that we can’t afford to stop. Initiatives like this new conservative center prove that we always need to be paying attention. We must investigate, insist on transparency and know where money is being spent — and where it’s being withheld. We deserve to understand the ideals and values the University truly prioritizes.

It shouldn’t fall on us, but somehow, it always does.

Nayak is a speech, language, and hearing sciences senior from Austin, Texas. She is the editor-in-chief.