Overlaying a vast ocean of oil-rich prosperity, 2.1 million acres in West Texas generates billions of dollars for the exclusive benefit of only a select few public universities. Over a century ago, Texas constitutionally dedicated these lands to the Permanent University Fund--currently the nation's largest public education endowment--to establish a first-class university. However, despite falling behind in national education rankings and an apparent need for more equitable funding, the state continues to favor these select universities to the detriment of the public good. Accordingly, the state's favoritism and the fund's exclusivity must change. Unfortunately, however, practical issues surrounding the traditional methods of altering the inequitable funding prevent such change. The constitutional amendment process is inherently flawed due to political influence and citizen bias. Similarly, the mechanics of education-based claims of inequality under the Equal Protection Clause prevent successful judicial intervention because of the simplicity in passing rational basis review. However, a remedy may exist under the theory of intrastate economic protectionism, which holds mere economic protectionist regulations-- favoritism of a few to protect them from the competition--as illegitimate government interests. Similarly, Texas's inequitable funding is, in essence, a form of favoritism towards a discrete group of universities. Despite an apparent need for change, such favoritism has negatively impacted students, universities, and local economies. Thus, without more, the Permanent University Fund's exclusivity violates both federal and state equal protection rights and, if properly framed, fails rational basis review because it furthers an illegitimate government interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]