By Brooklyn Draisey, Iowa Capital Dispatch
Members of the Iowa Board of Regents told the public Wednesday they are listening and slowing down the process of implementing new board policy relating to diversity, equity and inclusion in classroom instruction. Regents said whatever policy is eventually approved might look different than its current form.
Regent David Barker said a proposed policy barring universities from requiring students to take courses with “substantial content that conveys DEI or CRT (critical race theory)” to earn their credentials, with pathways to certain course exceptions, “will be an important first step” in preventing the teaching of controversial ideas as fact and raising confidence in higher education once again.
The board discussed the policy in its June 11 meeting, the first of two readings ahead of a vote for approval in July.
Under the proposed policy, students could not be required to take courses with “substantial content” covering areas “as primary principals” that include topics like antiracism, allyship, microaggressions, types of biases or privileges, social justice, critical race theory and systematic oppression, marginalization or gender theory, among others.
Mark Braun, executive director of the board of regents, acknowledged during discussion the vagueness behind the term “substantial,” but said board staff will work with the institutions to more clearly define it and demonstrate where it should apply as the policy is implemented. He emphasized that this policy would only apply to required courses and not electives.
“To a large extent, this will help highlight just how many academic programs do not require courses that meet the substantial standard,” Braun said.
Also included in the policy is an option for seeking exemption, Braun said, as the board understands some courses must include this content for different reasons. According to the policy draft, universities can submit which majors, minors and certificates should be exempted from the rules “each even-numbered year, no later than June 30.” The board must approve these requests.
Regent Christine Hensley and Barker said during the meeting they learned from the emails sent after the suggested policy was released by concerned parties, some of which Barker said were “a bit on the arrogant and pompous side” or “showed a misunderstanding of the policy.” However, what helpful information he said he received helped him determine that a better version of this first-draft policy could be developed.
The goal behind the policy is not to subdue a certain point of view, Barker said, but to prevent attempts on both sides of the political spectrum to present “contested, controversial ideas as settled fact.”
When the policy was first released, Hensley said the discussion this week was supposed to act as the first and second reading, which she said “lit a firestorm” in many people worried about the policy heading too quickly toward approval.
“I am a very, very strong proponent of when you have something that is controversial, and I would say that this has been controversial, it’s important that you take a pause — you push the pause button — you step back, and you take in information from the various groups out there,” Hensley said.
Concerns expressed from students, state officials
Critics of the proposed policy have done more than send emails to board members — some took to public comment Wednesday to express their concerns. Groups and individuals at the institutional and state level have called the revisions classroom censorship and a violation of the law.
While many of the students, faculty and citizens who spoke during public comment thanked the board for pushing the vote back, the consensus remained that the policy would harm campuses and their communities while claiming to protect student rights.
After the University of Northern Iowa faculty union published a statement opposing the policy last week, United Faculty President Christopher Martin took to public comment Wednesday to explain the three truths he sees about the proposal — first, that it was crafted from out-of-state recommendations instead of in response to major problems in Iowa, second, its implementation will act as censorship by the government, and third, it is against the law.
“There is no middle position, no position of slight appeasement,” Martin said. “Either you stand for free expression at Iowa’s universities or you don’t, and God help Iowa, its public universities and all the citizens of this state if you don’t.”
Ashley Maempa, a doctoral student studying history at the University of Iowa, said she was “deeply concerned” with both this policy, which she said was an example of over-compliance with the law, and other legislation impacting her institution and other state universities.
While the claim behind making these decisions has been that they are protecting students, Maempa said the policy would empower “a politically appointed government body to make a political decision about what concepts are merely opinions and what has legitimate scholarly basis.” The people who should be deciding what is taught in classes should be the people who are trained to do so, she said, rather than the board, whose members do not have as much experience in these matters.
“We are not political mouthpieces for whoever is in power,” Maempa said. “We are scholars, we are teachers, we are students. We ask that you vote no on this proposed policy in July, and we ask that you do your job and take a stand for academic freedom in our Legislature.”
State Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, released a memorandum ahead of the meeting going over past legislation and current Iowa Code relating to the duties of the board and education policy in Iowa, and concluded that the board has no statutory authority to limit academic instruction in this manner and would violate Iowa law by implementing the policy.
“No recent legislation has given the Board of Regents any authority over course content regarding diversity and race or sex discrimination,” Quirmbach said in a press release. “Moreover, existing Iowa law contains strong protections guarding the academic freedom of both faculty and students, protections that the Board’s proposed changes would violate.”
With the start date a year away, Quirmbach said in the memorandum there shouldn’t be any hurry to finalize it before campus community members have the time to fully review it, let alone form and share an opinion on what impacts they foresee. He suggested pushing the vote back to the fall to provide more time to campus constituents wishing to respond, and to the board in order to look more into the “possible legal and constitutional vulnerabilities and the risk of legal action against the Board.”
Regent Robert Cramer said during the meeting he’d like to hear from university faculty about what language they think would be best used to stop the indoctrination of students in the classroom while still ensuring they have the freedom to teach.
Hensley agreed that it was right to push the vote back, and with another reading planned before vote, Hensley said it would be all right if it doesn’t feel like the policy is ready for prime time even after seeing edits.
“This isn’t going into effect until next year, so we’ve got time to get this dealt with and dealt with correctly, and I think that should be our number one priority,” Hensley said.
Stay in the know with stories that matter — visit HolaAmericaNews.com for the latest news, culture, and community updates!
