Introduction: An Aggie’s Perspective
I am a student at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, where I am pursuing the Executive Master of Public Service and Administration (EMPSA) with a concentration in Nonprofit Management. By training, I am a chaplain. For the past decade, I have served as a Disaster Relief Chaplain, leading teams that have helped thousands of survivors’ families who had lost homes, children who had lost parents, and communities reeling from natural disasters. In those moments of suffering, no one ever asked what someone’s race was, or gender, or beliefs, or ideology. We showed up, we served, and we loved people in their hour of need.
That background shapes how I approach this conversation. Because before I am a writer, or a student, or a chaplain, I am an Aggie. I love this university. I love the traditions that make Aggieland unique: the quiet reverence of Silver Taps, the roar of the 12th Man, the simple pride of the Aggie Ring. I love the faculty I have studied under and the network of alumni that binds us together across generations. The Aggie Spirit is something real and tangible, and it has always been about integrity, loyalty, and service.
So let me be clear at the outset: my intent in writing this article is not to harm Texas A&M University. I am not here to pile on with critics who take every opportunity to attack higher education. No, my purpose is the opposite. All Aggies are bearers of the Aggie Spirit, and with that Spirit comes responsibility. We cannot ignore issues that strike at the heart of our values. We must look at them honestly, critically, and with a clear head.
That’s why when I first saw this story come across The Daily Wire, my gut reaction was almost defensive: Oh no, why are they attacking us? My first instinct was to protect my university. But as I dug deeper, as I looked at the facts, and as I reviewed the actual classroom materials, I realized this was not an attack from the outside. This was a failure from within a failure that we, as Aggies, must confront if we want our traditions and values to mean something more than slogans on a wall.
This incident in a children’s literature course is not about one professor, one student, or one news cycle. It is about whether Texas A&M will remain faithful to its own standards, its own rules, and its own spirit. It is about whether we will choose clarity over confusion, truth over ideology, and integrity over expedience. And it is about whether we, as Christians and as Aggies, will have the courage to call things what they are with conviction and with love.
The Incident: What Happened
The story begins in a summer session of ENGL 360, Children’s Literature. On the surface, that’s a course title that suggests what most of us would expect: analyzing fairy tales, picture books, and young adult novels, learning how stories shape children’s imagination, and preparing future educators or scholars to engage with those texts responsibly.
But in this particular class, the material went far beyond children’s stories. Students were introduced to slides on the Gender Unicorn, a widely used graphic that separates sex, gender identity, expression, and attraction into fluid categories. They were asked to engage in readings like My Gay Agenda and explore questions framed by queer theory: Why talk about queerness at all in children’s literature? Isn’t that way too “adult” for little kids? The professor’s answer, presented in the materials, was “No.” One slide went further, claiming: “Childhood is the time for figuring out how to be a boy, girl, man, woman, or another gender.”
For one student, this crossed a line. She objected, not with anger or hostility, but with conviction. She said plainly that she could not affirm this ideology, and she voiced her concerns. Rather than engaging the objection in discussion, the professor told her to leave. Not only to leave the room, but also that she was not welcome to return.
The exchange was recorded and quickly circulated. Within days, the incident reached the press, with The Daily Wire running the story under the headline: “Texas A&M Student Booted From Lecture After Objecting to Professor Pushing Radical Gender Theory.”
At that moment, what could have remained an internal classroom conflict became a flashpoint in the wider cultural debate. On one side, critics charged the university with indoctrination and silencing dissent. On the other hand, defenders argued it was a matter of academic freedom. And caught in the middle was Texas A&M itself, scrambling to explain how a course in children’s literature had drifted so far from its stated purpose.
The university’s own statement admitted the content was “misaligned with the course curriculum.” That phrase is more important than many realize. It is not simply a way of saying “the student disagreed.” It is an acknowledgment that proper academic procedures had not been followed, that the course content strayed outside its approved boundaries.
In other words, this incident was not only about ideology. It was about integrity about whether Texas A&M would uphold its own standards of transparency, order, and fairness in the classroom. And that is where the heart of the matter lies.
Aggie Values: Why This Matters
Every Aggie knows the power of our values. They’re not just etched on banners or printed in admissions brochures; they’re lived out in classrooms, on the drill field, in the stands at Kyle Field, and in the quiet reverence of Silver Taps. They are what distinguish Aggieland from every other campus in the country.
Those six values, Excellence, Integrity, Leadership, Loyalty, Respect, and Selfless Service, are not optional extras. They define who we are. They are the DNA of the Aggie Spirit.
And that’s why this incident cuts deeper than an academic disagreement. It isn’t just about a student, a professor, or even a syllabus. It’s about whether the university we love will remain faithful to its own core commitments.
- Excellence demands that our courses are rigorous, relevant, and faithful to their descriptions. When a children’s literature class becomes a seminar in queer theory, that standard is compromised.
- Integrity requires honesty in how courses are presented and taught. Students must be able to trust that what they sign up for is what they will receive. The moment hidden agendas or unlisted materials slip in, integrity is lost.
- Leadership calls us to model courage, even in difficult conversations. For a professor, that means engaging respectfully with dissenting voices, not silencing them. For a student, it means speaking up with conviction, as this young woman did.
- Loyalty binds us together as Aggies. My loyalty to Texas A&M means I cannot look the other way when our values are undermined. Loving this university means holding it accountable to its own spirit.
- Respect must flow both ways: professors respecting students, and students respecting professors. The classroom should be a place of dialogue, not dismissal.
- Selfless Service means remembering that education is not for ideology, but for the good of the students, the state, and the society we serve.
This isn’t about picking sides in a culture war. It’s about whether Texas A&M will honor the Aggie Spirit it proclaims. To shrug at a misaligned curriculum, or to excuse dismissing a student for her convictions, would be to betray those values in practice even as we celebrate them in tradition.
As an Aggie, I can say with confidence: we are better than that. The Spirit of Aggieland calls us higher. It calls us to truth, to integrity, and to courage. And if we will not demand that of ourselves, then all the Muster roll calls, all the Yells at Kyle Field, and all the Silver Taps in Academic Plaza will become hollow echoes.
This is why the issue matters. Because it’s not just a syllabus problem. It’s a Spirit problem.
The Professor’s Responsibility
In fairness, professors do not step into classrooms in a vacuum. They bring their training, their research interests, and their professional commitments. In this case, the professor, Dr. Melissa McCoul, has a clear academic focus: her curriculum vitae highlights scholarship in queer fantasy, intersectionality, Pride mentoring, and gender studies. Those emphases explain why materials like the Gender Unicorn and queer theory frameworks appeared in her class.
But here is the problem: context matters. A seminar in gender studies may rightly explore Judith Butler, queer theory, or intersectionality as subjects of analysis. A course in children’s literature is a different matter. Students signed up to study fairy tales, picture books, and the development of children’s literature, not to be immersed in a graduate-level ideological framework.
The materials used in this class went well beyond the scope of its description. Students were introduced to:
- The Gender Unicorn, a chart that breaks identity into fluid categories of sex, gender, expression, and attraction.
- A slide titled “Why talk about queerness at all?” claimed that calling homosexuality “adult” is a heteronormative bias.
- A bold assertion that “Childhood is the time for figuring out how to be a boy, girl, man, woman, or another gender.”
- Assigned readings like “My Gay Agenda: Embodying Intersectionality in Children’s Literature Scholarship.”
Again, it is not that Dr. McCoul invented this out of thin air this is the direction of her field. But what she did was take that specialization and insert it into the wrong classroom, without transparency, and without curricular approval. That is not academic freedom. That is academic misalignment.
Professors have a responsibility not only to their research but also to their students. Their role is to instruct with clarity, engage dissent with respect, and keep the course within its defined scope. When a student raised an objection, the professor’s duty was to listen and foster dialogue. Instead, the response was dismissal not just of the objection, but of the student herself.
That choice is what turned a classroom debate into a national controversy. Because when professors silence dissent rather than engage it, they do not model scholarship, they model indoctrination. And when they substitute ideology for course integrity, they do not reflect academic freedom, they undermine it.
Scripture reminds us: “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). Academic policies exist precisely to protect that order. When they are ignored, the result is confusion, mistrust, and ultimately harm not only to the students in the room but to the reputation of the entire university.
As Aggies, we can acknowledge Dr. McCoul’s scholarship while also insisting: this material did not belong in ENGL 360. That is her responsibility.
Breaking Their Own Rules
The heart of this issue is not just what was taught, but how it was taught. Texas A&M has clear policies that govern course syllabi, curricular scope, and faculty responsibility. These rules are not window dressing. They exist to ensure that education is transparent, ordered, and faithful to its purpose. In this case, those rules were broken.
Texas A&M Policy
According to University Rule 11.99.99.M0.01 – University Curriculum Processes, all courses must be reviewed through formal procedures, and faculty are required to teach within the approved description of the class. In addition, the Faculty Senate’s Minimum Syllabus Requirements state that syllabi must clearly identify course objectives, required readings, grading policies, and major topics. Students have the right to know what they are signing up for.
In the case of ENGL 360, the administration itself admitted that the classroom content was “misaligned with the course curriculum.” That phrase matters. It is not a euphemism. It is a formal acknowledgment that curricular safeguards were ignored. Students who enrolled expecting children’s literature found themselves immersed in advanced queer theory instead. That is not academic freedom; it is a breach of trust.
State Law – SB 17
Texas Senate Bill 17 (effective January 2024) banned public universities from maintaining Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices, from mandating DEI training, and from requiring DEI statements in hiring. The law specifically exempts student organizations and academic courses. This means LGBTQ issues can be addressed in a classroom but only within the proper curricular framework. SB 17 does not excuse professors from the obligation to follow syllabus integrity and curricular alignment.
Federal Directives
At the federal level, President Trump’s 2020 Executive Order reaffirmed through subsequent 2025 guidance, declared it is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes: male and female. Federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have been instructed to enforce this policy in education and funding compliance. While universities retain freedom of inquiry, they are also recipients of federal funds. Allowing unapproved content that contradicts federal directives without proper curricular safeguards opens Texas A&M to federal scrutiny, exactly what Rep. Brian Harrison pursued in referring the matter to HHS.
Professional Standards
Beyond state and federal policy, professional academic standards matter. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) insists that academic freedom is balanced by academic responsibility. Faculty should not introduce “persistently irrelevant material” into courses. That is precisely what happened here. A class in children’s literature became a platform for queer theory. Students did not enroll in a gender studies seminar; they enrolled in a course meant to study the literary tradition of children’s stories.
Biblical Perspective
The deeper issue is one of order and integrity. “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). Syllabus policies exist to preserve order. Ignoring them creates confusion. Jesus Himself warned: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck”(Matt. 18:6). To bring confusion into a course on children’s literature especially by teaching that childhood is the time to question gender is not simply poor practice. It is spiritually destructive.
Paul cautions believers: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). That is exactly what happened here. Critical theory and gender ideology slipped into a classroom where it did not belong, displacing order, clarity, and truth.
This is more than a culture war talking point. By its own admission, Texas A&M failed to follow its own procedures. That failure is the ground on which all the other controversies now stand. It is a matter not only of ideology but of integrity.
Political Firestorm: Harrison vs. Welsh
What began as a classroom dispute quickly became a statewide and even national controversy. Once the video surfaced, politicians, media outlets, and university leaders were drawn into a very public conflict.
Representative Brian Harrison’s Response
State Representative Brian Harrison wasted no time in making this incident a rallying point. He framed the event as “taxpayer-funded indoctrination” and called for a federal investigation. In letters to agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, Harrison accused Texas A&M of violating both state law and federal directives by introducing transgender ideology into the classroom. His language was sharp, even inflammatory, at one point suggesting the content amounted to “criminal grooming.”
Harrison’s rhetoric resonated with many who see higher education as hostile to conservative students and values. But while his instincts for accountability may have been justified, his framing risked turning a legitimate procedural and academic failure into a political weapon. That approach can undermine credibility by reducing serious issues to soundbites.
President Mark Welsh’s Defense
In response, Texas A&M President General (Ret.) Mark Welsh issued a public letter defending the university. He dismissed Harrison’s accusations as “routinely inaccurate and misleading” and affirmed that Texas A&M is in compliance with Texas Senate Bill 17. Welsh pointed out that SB 17 exempts academic courses, and he insisted that the university remains within the law while continuing to provide professional preparation for students.
In a conversation with a student, Welsh elaborated:
“There are LGBTQ studies here there have been for a long time. We have people who go into professional track courses here… 34 or 35 of them are going to be psychiatrists or clinical counselors, some want to be school superintendents, some want to work in nonprofits… Those people don’t get to pick who their clients are or what citizens they serve. They won’t understand the issues affecting the people they’re going to treat. So there is a professional reason to teach some of these courses.”
This is a pragmatic defense. Welsh’s point was simple: professionals in education, healthcare, and nonprofit leadership must be prepared to serve all citizens, including LGBTQ individuals. From a training standpoint, that seems reasonable.
The Disconnect
But here is the problem: the course materials we’ve already examined slides on the Gender Unicorn, queer theory readings, and assertions about childhood as a time to explore gender go well beyond “understanding clients.” They do not merely inform; they form. They push students to affirm and adopt a worldview that contradicts both biological reality and biblical truth.
This is the disconnect between rhetoric and reality. Welsh defended the courses as professional preparation. But the actual material represented ideological indoctrination. One could imagine a professional ethics module that taught counselors how to listen respectfully, to meet clients where they are, and to uphold confidentiality without compromising personal convictions. That would be preparation. What happened in ENGL 360 was something else entirely.
Biblical Reflection
Scripture calls us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Mark 12:31). Professionals, whether counselors, teachers, or administrators,must serve people with dignity and compassion. But love does not mean affirming what is false. Paul asked the Galatians: “So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16). True compassion speaks truth, even when it is unwelcome.
Welsh’s defense rests on a half-truth: that understanding requires agreement. But biblically, we are commanded to both serve all and stand firm in truth. We cannot sacrifice one for the other.
This is why the debate between Harrison and Welsh felt so unsatisfying. Harrison spoke with fire but little precision. Welsh spoke with calm but ignored the reality of curricular failure. Between them, the real heart of the matter was missed: a university broke its own rules, a professor misused her classroom, and students were caught in the middle.
Biblical and Theological Analysis
At this point, it is tempting to reduce everything to politics or procedures. But as Christians, we know the battle goes deeper. What happened in ENGL 360 is not only a failure of curriculum integrity; it is a manifestation of spiritual warfare and the influence of false philosophy.
1. Spiritual Warfare
Paul reminds us in Ephesians 6:12: “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
The push to normalize fluid gender identity, especially in the minds of children, is not neutral. It reflects the age-old strategy of the enemy: to corrupt innocence, to confuse identity, and to distort the good design of God. From the serpent’s lies in Genesis 3 to the tower of Babel in Genesis 11, Satan’s scheme has always been to blur God’s truth and replace it with human autonomy.
That is exactly what the Gender Unicorn and queer theory materials represent. They are not harmless charts or abstract discussions. They are tools that reframe identity apart from the Creator, offering children the false promise that they can remake themselves in their own image.
2. Critical Theory as a False Gospel
Colossians 2:8 warns: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”
Critical Theory, including queer theory and intersectionality, presents a counterfeit gospel:
- Problem: Oppression by social norms (like binary gender).
- Savior: The activist or theorist who “deconstructs” those norms.
- Salvation: Liberation into self-defined identity and sexuality.
- Heaven: A world free from categories, where individuals define their own truth.
This framework is seductive because it mimics the Christian story: bondage, liberation, hope. But it is hollow. It replaces sin with power structures, replaces Christ with activism, and replaces holiness with self-expression. It offers freedom but delivers only deeper bondage.
3. The Biblical View of Gender
Against this counterfeit gospel, Scripture speaks with clarity:
- Genesis 1:27: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Gender is not fluid; it is fixed by God’s design.
- Matthew 19:4–6: Jesus affirms creation’s order, linking male and female with the covenant of marriage. Far from outdated, these words of Christ are authoritative for every generation.
- Romans 1:18–32: When cultures suppress the truth, God gives them over to dishonor and confusion. The normalization of sexual distortion is not progress it is judgment.
Biblically, gender is not something to be “figured out” in childhood. It is a gift to be received with gratitude, rooted in creation, and redeemed in Christ.
4. Children and Innocence
Perhaps the most troubling slide in the course claimed: “Childhood is the time for figuring out how to be a boy, girl, man, woman, or another gender.”
This is not only academically questionable; it is spiritually dangerous. Jesus said in Matthew 18:6: “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
Childhood is not the time for sexual or gender experimentation. It is the time for innocence, for growth, and for learning the foundations of wisdom. To impose adult categories of sexuality and gender on children is to burden them with confusion they were never meant to carry.
In light of Scripture, this controversy is not simply a debate over academic freedom. It is a collision of gospels, the true gospel of Christ, who restores creation and identity, versus the false gospel of Critical Theory, which deconstructs creation and leaves people lost in themselves.
The Larger Pattern at Texas A&M
This incident in ENGL 360 did not happen in a vacuum. In recent years, Texas A&M has found itself repeatedly caught in cultural crossfire, sometimes because of external political pressure, other times because of internal missteps. Each controversy has chipped away at public trust, raising questions about whether the university can balance its traditions with the ideological and political battles of our day.
1. The McElroy Hiring Controversy (2023)
In 2023, Texas A&M made national headlines when it announced the hiring of Dr. Kathleen McElroy, a Black journalism professor, to revive the university’s journalism program. Initial promises of tenure were later downgraded amid political and donor pressure, with regents expressing concern that she might not be “conservative enough.” The fallout led to a $1 million settlement and the resignation of A&M’s then-president, M. Katherine Banks. The episode became a cautionary tale of how political interference and poor governance can erode both academic freedom and institutional credibility.
2. SB 17 and the Elimination of the LGBTQ Studies Minor (2024)
In response to Texas Senate Bill 17, A&M announced the elimination of its LGBTQ Studies minor in 2024. The law banned DEI offices, training, and statements, though it allowed student groups and academic courses to continue. By cutting the minor entirely, the university signaled compliance with the new law, but also drew criticism for limiting academic exploration. This revealed how A&M often chooses to preemptively overcorrect, creating suspicion on both sides of the political divide.
3. The Drag Show Ban and Federal Court Reversal (2025)
In 2025, the Texas A&M System imposed a sweeping ban on drag shows across all its campuses, citing concerns about appropriateness and institutional values. But in May of that year, a federal judge struck down the policy as “unconstitutionally vague” and a violation of First Amendment rights. The ruling not only overturned the ban but also cast A&M in the national spotlight as a test case in the tension between institutional control and student free speech.
4. Suppression of Student and Faculty Speech
From attempts to end the Battalion’s print edition (2022) to placing a faculty member on leave after she criticized Lt. Governor Dan Patrick in class (2023), A&M has too often appeared reactive to political winds rather than anchored in consistent principles.
The Common Thread
What do these episodes share in common with the ENGL 360 controversy? They all highlight an institution caught between political oversight and activist pressures, often failing to chart a steady course guided by its own values and rules.
- In the McElroy case, A&M overstepped in rescinding a faculty hire.
- With SB 17, it overcorrected in eliminating a minor.
- In the drag show ban, it overreached and lost in federal court.
- In ENGL 360, it failed to enforce its own curricular integrity.
Each time, Aggie traditions and values were overshadowed by reactive decision-making. And each time, students, faculty, and the Aggie reputation bore the cost.
Texas A&M is one of the great universities of this nation. Its legacy of service, sacrifice, and scholarship is unmatched. But that legacy will not endure if the university continues stumbling between extremes, ignoring its own rules on one hand, or bending to political expedience on the other.
The Aggie Spirit demands better.
Path Forward: Clarity, Courage, Conviction
As Aggies, we cannot afford to leave this controversy in the realm of culture war headlines or social media outrage. If the Aggie Spirit means anything, it must mean that we are willing to face our failures honestly and chart a better way forward. That requires clarity about what went wrong, courage to confront it, and conviction to stand on what is true.
1. For the University
Texas A&M must first hold itself accountable.
- Enforce syllabus integrity. Every course must follow the policies already in place. If professors want to introduce controversial frameworks, they must disclose them transparently in the syllabus. Students deserve to know what they are signing up for.
- Tighten curricular oversight. Departments must ensure that course descriptions match classroom practice. Misalignment cannot be brushed aside as an oversight.
- Train faculty to respect dissent. Students should never be dismissed for raising objections. Academic freedom must include the freedom to disagree.
By following its own rules, Texas A&M can avoid unnecessary scandals and regain trust not only from the public but from its own students.
2. For Lawmakers
Elected officials also have a role to play.
- Hold universities accountable with precision. Broad accusations or inflammatory language may score political points but do little to fix problems.
- Respect legitimate academic freedom. Not every course that mentions gender or diversity is indoctrination. Oversight must distinguish between abuse and inquiry.
True accountability demands both firmness and fairness.
3. For Students
This controversy began with one student who had the courage to speak up. Her example is a reminder to all Aggies.
- Stand firm in conviction. Do not be intimidated into silence when truth is at stake.
- Engage with grace. Disagreement need not become disrespect. Speak truth with humility, not hostility.
- Know your rights. University policies protect your ability to dissent. Use those protections wisely.
2 Timothy 2:24 reminds us: “The Lord’s slave must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged.” That is the model for Christian students in the classroom.
4. For the Church
Finally, this controversy highlights the role of the body of Christ.
- Equip believers to discern. Pastors and teachers must prepare Christians to recognize Critical Theory and gender ideology as false philosophies.
- Ground identity in Christ. Remind the next generation that their worth is not self-defined but God-given: male and female, created in His image (Gen. 1:27).
- Engage culture with both courage and compassion. Truth without love hardens; love without truth deceives. We need both.
The church must not retreat from these issues, nor mirror the world’s outrage. We must disciple believers to walk faithfully in a confused age.
The Way Forward
The path forward is not easy. It will require administrators to enforce rules, lawmakers to speak with wisdom, students to live with courage, and the church to teach with clarity. But it is possible because Aggies and Christians have always been at our best when we combine conviction with humility.
If Texas A&M is to remain the university we love, it must not only celebrate its values it must live them.
Conclusion: Standing Firm in Truth and Love
I write these words not as an outsider throwing stones, but as an Aggie who loves this university. My heart is tied to the Spirit of Aggieland, to the values of loyalty and integrity, to the faculty who have shaped me, and to the classmates who will one day lead across Texas and beyond. That love compels me to be honest.
The incident in ENGL 360 was not simply a clash of personalities. It was not just a student with convictions and a professor with ideology. It was a moment that exposed something deeper: when rules are ignored, when integrity is compromised, when ideology is allowed to eclipse order, the Aggie Spirit itself is diminished.
This should never have happened. Not at Texas A&M. Not at a university that prides itself on traditions of honor and values forged in loyalty, respect, and service. The tragedy is not only that one student was dismissed from a classroom, but that the institution broke its own procedures, failed to uphold its own standards, and left the Aggie family divided in the aftermath.
Yet as serious as this failure is, it is also a reminder of our calling. For Christians, this is more than an academic scandal; it is spiritual warfare. Gender ideology and Critical Theory are not harmless frameworks. They are counterfeit gospels, false philosophies that confuse identity, corrupt innocence, and distort God’s design. The answer is not outrage or withdrawal, but clarity and courage. We must stand firm in the truth, even as we extend love to those who disagree.
For Aggies, this is more than a culture war debate it is about the Spirit of Aggieland. If our values mean anything, they must mean that we will not look away from failure, but confront it with honesty, loyalty, and resolve. The same Aggie Spirit that binds us in joy at Kyle Field must also bind us in accountability when we stumble.
So where do we go from here? We stand. We stand with truth because Christ is truth. We stand with love because truth without love becomes harsh, and love without truth becomes hollow. We stand with clarity because confusion never serves students or honors God. And we stand as Aggies, because our traditions and our values demand that we hold each other accountable, even when it is uncomfortable.
“Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth” (Eph. 6:14).
That is the calling. That is the hope. And that is the only way forward for Aggieland, for the church, and for every one of us who longs to walk in both truth and love.
Gig’em
Chris Reighley
