In February, Vanessa Angélica Villarreal gave a workshop and reading at the University of Houston’s Spanish program in creative writing. The University of Southern California Ph.D. candidate met students and promoted her first book at the event.

But she was surprised in April to hear that, in order to receive payment for her appearance, she needed to sign a clause retroactively pledging not to boycott Israel.

“This is an attack on free speech,” said Villarreal, who earned her bachelor’s degree at UH. “It’s a matter of integrity.”

A state law that went into effect in September prohibits state entities — including public colleges and universities — from contracting with or investing public money in companies that boycott Israel. A company, by Texas’ definition, includes for-profit sole proprietorships, associations, organizations and corporations.

Agencies across Texas are complying with the law, which Gov. Greg Abbott praised last year as a reaffirmation of support for the state’s “important ally” Israel. But the issue has particular significance on college campuses, because some lawmakers have considered whether free speech on college campuses requires additional protections.

Free-speech advocates say Texas’ no-boycott rule does not square with Republican lawmakers’ recent push to include all political viewpoints on college campuses, particularly because protests of Israel have largely been taken up by liberals.

“It’s not reconcilable,” said Brian Hauss, an American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney who was the lead lawyer in a lawsuit against similar legislation in Kansas. “The state legislatures are eager to protect speech they like. When it comes to speech they don’t like, they’re happy to legislate against it.”

Hauss confirmed that his organization is looking into reports of possible First Amendment violations by UH.

‘Following the law’

Campus free speech has become a point of tension at Texas public universities in recent years as conservative speakers, including at Texas Southern University, have faced pushback from student activists. Some Republicans have bristled at what they consider stifling policies on campus speech even as some backed a no-boycott rule that critics say essentially limits it. Lawmakers earlier this year considered at a hearing at Texas State University whether free speech needed additional protections on campus, but some wondered if any state legislation would be redundant to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

UH spokesman Mike Rosen said that in April, the state attorney general’s office told UH that it could exclude campus speakers from the law, though the Houston Chronicle could not confirm that guidance was issued. Villarreal learned that month that UH would not require her to sign the form. The university has a signed form on file, but Villarreal maintains she did not sign it.

Asked whether UH sees a contradiction between free-speech principles and the no-boycott Israel clause, Rosen said, “It’s the state legislature that should be responding to that. We are following the law.”

Rep. Phil King, a Weatherford Republican and the law’s lead sponsor, did not respond to requests for comment.

Rep. Carol Alvarado, a Houston Democrat who co-sponsored the measure, said she was not aware of any college or university raising concerns to lawmakers before the bill was passed.

Still, she pledged to re-evaluate the law next session.

“Certainly it was not the intent to limit (the) First Amendment in institutions of higher education,” she said.

The University of Texas at Austin has issued contracts with the no-boycott-Israel clause to for-profit vendors and contractors, including sole proprietors, spokesman J.B. Bird said.

Texas A&M University spokeswoman Kelly Brown said A&M also includes the no-boycott language now required by the law, House Bill 89, in its contracts, though she could not confirm which contracts required the clause.

Legal challenges elsewhere

Hauss said he did not see a “doctrinal difference” between state contractors speaking on campus or doing other work, like construction. But he said universities have a “special moral obligation” to uphold freedom of expression among speakers.

Texas isn’t the first state to grapple with no-boycott-Israel legislation. In January, a federal judge blocked Kansas’s no-boycott law after the ACLU’s lawsuit, saying it violated the First Amendment. In December, the ACLU filed a challenge in Arizona based on that state’s law.

High-profile controversies have played out in other Houston-area state agencies after Texas’ law was implemented in September.

After Hurricane Harvey, the city of Dickinson included in an application for aid a requirement that residents state they will not boycott Israel during the term of the agreement. The City Council later stripped that requirement in October after the ACLU called it an “egregious violation of the First Amendment.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a Philadelphia-based group that advocates for free speech in higher education, said state laws with no-boycott-Israel clauses can have detrimental effects on free speech on university campuses.

A no-boycott clause that includes public schools "limits the viewpoint that people can express in higher education," said Adam Steinbaugh, a senior program officer at the foundation.

“When there are pieces of legislation that might be read to impact college campuses, legislators…should pay attention to or be cognizant of how it might impact a campus,” he said.

Villarreal, the doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California, said she will no longer speak on Texas campuses, partially because of the policy.

Her work focuses on immigration politics and violence, making the Israeli-Palestinian conflict particularly moving, she said.

“It’s something I can’t be complicit in,” she said. “I cannot accept money from the state, in solidarity with Arab-American writers.”