A video from a 2025 Dallas City Council Parks, Trails, and the Environment Committee meeting has resurfaced, showing then-Councilmember Carolyn King Arnold questioning State Fair of Texas officials about changing the skin tone of the iconic Big Tex statue.
In the exchange, Arnold asked whether Big Tex could receive “a more diverse reflection of the melatonin” (a reference to melanin) to appear more inclusive, including the possibility of an African American or light brown face.
The video, posted on X on July 23, 2026, by accounts including @amuse, has drawn significant online attention.
RACISM? Dallas leaders want Big Tex to become black or at least light brown. Would they change his voice and diction too? Why not make him gay or even trans? pic.twitter.com/LGJIYIg8LG
— @amuse (@amuse) July 24, 2026
No changes to Big Tex’s skin tone have been made, and the State Fair has continued with the statue’s traditional design.
The meeting occurred on January 6, 2025, according to the official City of Dallas video archive. Arnold, who represented District 4 and left office in June 2025 due to term limits, directed her comments to State Fair of Texas representatives, including President Mitchell Glieber.
“Can he be tanned?” Arnold asked, adding, “We need to know if we can get a more diverse reflection of the melatonin of Big Tex. Is it a problem with him looking like he’s perhaps an African American face? You know what I’m saying? It’s a tanning process. How do y’all get to that decision so we can look like we’re more inclusive and diverse?”
Arnold also referenced a “light brown” version and invoked Beyoncé in the discussion. State Fair officials noted that Big Tex was rebuilt after a 2012 fire to match historical specifications and indicated they would look into the decision-making process.
Big Tex, the 55-foot cowboy statue that has greeted State Fair of Texas visitors since 1952, has undergone multiple updates over the decades, including a full rebuild after the 2012 fire. Its traditional light-skinned appearance has remained consistent.
The State Fair announced on July 22, 2026, new wardrobe partnerships with Cavender’s Boot City and Resistol for 2026 but no alterations to facial features or skin tone.
Broader Context of Race-Based Policies
During the Biden administration, the federal government expanded diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across agencies, contractors, and education. Executive orders and agency guidance encouraged race-conscious approaches in hiring, contracting, and program design. When Donald Trump became President of the United States for his second term in 2025, many of these race-based preferences were scaled back or placed under heightened legal scrutiny.
For example, in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and a companion case that race-based affirmative action in college admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court held that such programs discriminated on the basis of race.
In June 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The Court rejected a heightened evidentiary standard that some lower courts had applied to “reverse discrimination” claims brought by members of majority groups under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion, stating that Title VII does not impose a different burden on majority-group plaintiffs.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurrence joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, noted that DEI initiatives “have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority.”
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has stated that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race and that DEI initiatives can violate the law if they involve race-based decision-making, such as limiting opportunities or using race as a selection criterion.
In one recent federal investigation, announced on July 20, 2026, the Justice Department examined practices at a medical school involving race-based adjustments in admissions reviews.
The Justice Department found that UC San Diego School of Medicine favored Black and Hispanic applicants (labeled “underrepresented minorities in medicine”) through manipulated processes and proxies, while discriminating against white and Asian applicants by denying them admission in favor of lower-credentialed candidates from the preferred groups.
“Rather than rely on MCAT scores or GPA, San Diego Med’s shadow application process unlawfully judged applicants for admission based on their race,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, per the press release. “San Diego Med’s blatant efforts to prioritize race are illegal, and we will end these practices.”
Provided by Dallas Express
