Regents pause decision on controversial policy allowing students to opt out of DEI, CRT coursework

The Iowa Board of Regents are revisiting a policy that would excuse students from taking required courses that have “substantial” diversity, equity and inclusion or critical race theory content.

The Regents’ June 11 meeting was the first of two readings for the proposed policy change, which would allow certain exceptions contingent on board approval.

Board documents defined DEI content as instruction that conveys the principles of “unconscious or implicit bias, cultural appropriation, allyship, transgender ideology, microaggressions, group marginalization, antiracism, systemic oppression, social justice, heteronormativity, gender theory, racial privilege or sexual privilege.”

CRT was defined as “an academic and legal framework that denotes that systemic racism is part of American society and is embedded in laws, policies and institutions.”

Originally, the reading was to be the board’s “first and final” on the policy change; however, the announcement was met with significant feedback from the public, inspiring the board to revise the agenda item as the “first of two” readings, with the second reading scheduled for July.

“This policy will have the benefit of the additional time to obtain feedback and have discussions on what it does and does not do,” said Mark Braun, Iowa Board of Regents executive director.

Recognizing that the policy will require universities to spend a significant amount of time reviewing and evaluating required courses, implementation will not occur until next summer, he added.

Mr. Braun noted that the term “substantial” is vague and said the board will work with the universities to define the term and provide guidance on how it should be applied in the policy.

‘A crisis in confidence in higher education’

“We’ve received dozens of emails about this policy, and some of the emails were helpful, but to be frank, I found some of the emails to be on the arrogant and pompous side. But even some of those emails were helpful,” regent David Barker said. “Others, I think, showed a misunderstanding of the policy. The helpful emails convinced me that we can improve on this first draft of the policy. Our goal is not to shut down a point of view. Our goal is to prevent instructors from presenting contested controversial ideas as settled fact.”

There are many examples of ideologies being taught as “settled fact” from the political right and left, he continued, adding that he regularly receives emails from parents and students with complaints concerning this issue at Iowa institutions.

“I regularly hear these complaints and public opinion polling shows a crisis in confidence in higher education, and the belief that colleges indoctrinate students with fringe ideologies is one reason for that loss of confidence. The belief that that happens is a reason for that loss of confidence,” said. “We need to do something about that, and some version of this policy will be an important first step.”

Regent Robert Cramer said most university faculty and staff probably aren't engaging in indoctrination and may struggle to believe it's occurring. He emphasized that neither the board nor educators want to infringe on First Amendment rights or promote a specific agenda, but said most faculty and staff would agree that instructors shouldn’t indoctrinate students.

“This (policy) is trying to address that more extreme case where students are being put into an uncomfortable, not just uncomfortable, but a pressure situation that they shouldn't be in. I think it's trying to find that balance,” he said. “We certainly don't want to start dictating from here about curriculum. We're trying to be more student focused and not force students into something for graduation that they don't agree with and that we, as the board, probably don’t agree with.”

Regent Christine Hensley emphasized the need to step back and gather input from various groups whenever a controversial issue arises.

“As regent Barker indicated, he's learned some things. I've learned some things from some of the emails that have come in,” she said. “We've got time to get this dealt with and dealt with correctly and I think that should be our No. 1 priority.”

“I would be very interested in hearing the feedback from faculty and staff at the universities and maybe their faculty groups or unions – if they have language that they would propose again to catch these more extreme cases and protect students, but also give freedom to our teachers,” Mr. Cramer said.

“As you can see, we've listened,” Board President Sherry Bates said. “As regent Hensley said, we were going to do a reading and vote. We heard people, we put it on pause so that we have the time to do the work that hopefully will make the best policy. So thank you all for your comments, and the proposed changes will be reviewed and discussed at a future meeting.”

Public commentators decry censorship

During the board’s public comment period, several students, faculty, and members of the public weighed in on the proposed policy.

Chris Martin, United Faculty president and professor of communication media at University of Northern Iowa, said the proposal is based on generic recommendations from New York City think tanks and “not in response to any major problem voiced by more than 70,000 students of Iowa regents universities.”

The end result will be censorship by the government, he continued.

“One might argue it's not censorship, because the board can approve exceptions, but then there we are right back again with the governmental body – the board – choosing what we can and cannot say in a classroom, undermining academic freedom and freedom of speech,” he said, to applause from protestors gathered in the back of the meeting room.

Mr. Martin quoted a memo penned by Iowa State Senator Herman Quirmbach ahead of the meeting, who claimed “this proposal is literally against the law.” The senator pointed to two key excerpts from Iowa Code 261H.2: one stating that institutions must “strive to ensure the fullest degree of intellectual freedom and free expression allowed under the First Amendment,” and another noting that it is not the role of a college to shield individuals from protected speech – even if it is “unwelcome, disagreeable, or even offensive.”

“Right now, this proposal goes to the very core of the university and critical inquiry. There is no middle position, no position of slight appeasement. Either you stand for free expression at Iowa's universities or you don't,” Mr. Martin said.