Kate Rogers, the Alamo Trust CEO, was forced to resign last Fall by Lt-Gov. Dan Patrick. Lt-Gov. Patrick publicly criticized Ms. Rogers’ discussion in a dissertation regarding Critical Race Theory, “reproductive rights of women” and the like. Her dissertation also stated she did not believe politicians should decide what professional educators should teach in the classroom. The dissertation was part of her doctoral program at the University of Southern California.

Ms. Rogers’ immediate supervisor, Dawn Buckingham, the state Land Commissioner, also criticized an online post by the Alamo regarding Indigenous People’s Day in October. The Land Commissioner’s office owns the Alamo. The Alamo Trust is the entity that runs the Alamo. Ms. Rogers has filed suit based on the First Amendment. See San Antonio Express-News report here.

First Amendment

Of course, the actions of Mr. Patrick and Ms. Buckingham violate the First Amendment. It is not even a close call. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to state and local governments. Citizens have a right to speak about public events. It is odd that the Lt-Governor would object to comments made in a private dissertation paper that was completed two years ago. The paper would be filed in a library somewhere, but typically only researchers ever see dissertations. If the Lt-Governor had not made those comments public, who would know about them? Indeed, if what Rogers said in her dissertation was important enough to fire her, why did no one ask about it two years ago? In any event, I expect Lt-Gov Patrick’s concerns were more political than legal.

The only real issue will be the extent to which the actions of two state officials actually “forced” Ms. Rogers to resign. The caselaw actually sets a pretty high bar for what amounts to constructive termination, or being forced to quit. According to Ms. Rogers’ lawsuit, she was told to resign or be fired in a phone call. See Rogers v. Alamo Trust, No. 25-CV-01500 (W.D. Tex.). If so, then that action certainly amounts to a termination. The only issue will be if Alamo Trust denies that phone call. Otherwise, Ms. Rogers has a strong lawsuit. …. All this just to score some political points. Indeed, as her lawsuit points out, Ms. Rogers had just been promoted. She received favorable job reviews. Will the state have any defense? Perhaps not.

As a native of San Antonio and a long-time Alamo fan, I have to also add that the statements of which Ms. Rogers is accused are rather benign. They are the same thing the Alamo has been saying for years. The Alamo, now and when it was still controlled by the Daughters of the Republic of Texas, has been under a great deal of political pressure to acknowledge its mission roots. The battle is central to the story. But, the battle and heroism is not at all diminished by also telling the mission story. Any mainstream historian would have said the same.