Iowa Board of Regents Executive Director Mark Braun, left, and President Sherry Bates attend an Iowa Board of Regents meeting Feb. 27, 2025. (Photo by Brooklyn Draisey/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
Months after its introduction and amidst scrutiny into Iowa universities’ compliance with anti-diversity, equity and inclusion policies, the Iowa Board of Regents has revised its academic freedom policies to include caveats on how certain topics can be taught.
The Iowa Board of Regents approved changes Tuesday to its policies relating to academic freedom and treatment of syllabi to include sections about “controversial subjects” and how they should be treated by faculty and students.
Under the new policy, faculty are allowed to teach controversial topics as long as they are connected to course content and taught in a way that “fosters critical thinking and avoids indoctrination of one perspective.” Instruction must also reflect debate on the topic and different scholarly views.
Board President Sherry Bates said during Tuesday’s meeting the new policy demonstrates a more comprehensive approach to ensuring academic freedom and protection from indoctrination, something board members asked for when discussing previously proposed policy. However, if word comes that the policy is not being followed, Bates said, the board will conduct an audit into the incident and take action if necessary.
“If the board office audit determines the policy is not being followed, I will not be passive in addressing the problem. I will set up a task force of board members to correct the situation and ensure compliance with the policy,” Bates said. “Ensuring that our students can learn and think for themselves is paramount to our mission.”
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Another approved policy change added language to the board’s rules on syllabi posting that requires students’ grades be determined by their understanding and application of course content rather than their perspective on viewpoints expressed in the class.
Big differences between first, final policies
A first — and very different — draft of the policy changes was introduced at the board’s June meeting, where it was met with upset from students, staff, members of the public and lawmakers.
Universities would have been restricted from requiring students to take courses with “substantial content that conveys DEI or CRT” under the original policy draft, which critics called unlawful censorship of classroom instruction. Regent David Barker said during the June meeting he believed the policy was an “important first step” in eliminating distrust in higher education and ensuring students wouldn’t be taught opinions or controversial ideas as fact.
After deciding to slow down the process of approving the policy at its June meeting and once again delaying the decision in July, the board released a draft of the new policy proposal last week.
Barker said Tuesday he believes the policy proposal was improved by the removal of references to diversity, equity and inclusion and critical race theory, and that the latter subject is an academic area that has its place in certain classes.
“The point of this policy is to teach things in a balanced manner,” Barker said. “If some controversial policy is taught, students should be informed that this is controversial and they should have an understanding of both sides of it. But this policy is not about censoring. It’s not about saying there is anything that shouldn’t be taught.”
An amendment Barker introduced to include language stating “students shall have access to a clear, confidential and timely process to report concerns that instruction is not meeting these standards.” Also included in the amendment was the requirement that colleges investigate complaints, “promptly” report them to the board and “take corrective action when warranted.”
Barker brought up multiple videos that have surfaced in past weeks appearing to show officials at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University discussing anti-DEI laws and policies. Barker said while people are in disagreement about what these videos show, they are proof that, “at least until very recently,” campus culture was against state and federal law. This culture may have impacted students’ trust in current complaint processes, he said, and the board should create another.
Provosts at each state university said during the meeting they have complaint processes in place that are reviewed annually, and have students bring their concerns to the faculty in question before moving up the ladder.
Rachel Boon, chief academic officer with the board of regents, said the board office also has its own complaint process for those with First Amendment concerns that goes directly to Executive Director Mark Braun. Both Boon and Braun are also working to compile and review each of the universities’ avenues for filing a complaint to see whether they meet board standards and expectations, she said.
The amendment failed, with only Barker and Regent Christine Hensley voting in favor.
Regents express feelings on academic freedom
Regent Robert Cramer during the meeting said it is his “personal belief” that DEI and CRT topics shouldn’t be taught in classrooms because it is unhelpful to students who should be told their progress was due to their merit and not other reasons. Schools should look at individuals and “treat them all the same and give them that equal chance” to succeed, Cramer said, no matter their race or where they came from.
“My personal belief is that we don’t want, I wouldn’t — I don’t want any of the DEI, CRT, woke left stuff, you know, being taught in our classes,” Cramer said. “But I understand the difficulty of trying to, from the outside, trying to dictate what’s being taught, and I think we do believe in academic freedom, and, of course, freedom of speech. So I think addressing how things are taught is the right path.”
Regent Nancy Dunkel, the only board member to vote against approving the new policy, said with its passage, the “academic freedom” section of the board’s policy manual should be changed to “restrictions to academic freedom.”
The revisions suggested in the proposed policy are limitations on academic freedom rather than clarifications, Dunkel said, and include vague terms like “controversial” with no language saying how controversial content is deemed so, or who makes the decision. As one faculty member put in their email to Dunkel, she said, would this policy mean that professors must teach anti-capitalist theory in economics and anti-evolution arguments in biology, or even “present both sides of the Holocaust?”
“I want to uphold our present academic freedom policy, especially 3.10-F, which says, ‘Regent universities shall not be or become an instrument of partisan political action,’” Dunkel said. “The expression of partisan political opinions and viewpoints shall be those of individuals, not institutions, because the official adoption of any political position, whether favored by a majority or a minority, tends to substitute biased information that hinders the continuing search for truth.”
Comments