The National Association of Scholars is disappointed that the Iowa Board of Regents has weakened a proposal to bar “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and Critical Race Theory (CRT) from courses required for a major, minor, or certificate at Iowa’s public universities. Did we say disappointed? We are tempted to say something stronger. Disheartened? Chagrined? The Board of Regents owes the people of Iowa something much better.
The Board substituted a much weaker injunction that “Instruction should be presented in a manner that fosters critical thinking and avoids indoctrination of one perspective.” While Iowans benefit from having this expectation set down, so vaguely worded an injunction will have no practical effect on instruction at Iowa’s universities. Every college and university in the state will nod and say, “Of course. We already do that.”
State Representative Taylor Collins, who has been spearheading higher education reform in Iowa’s legislature, stated on X that, “If this policy [the original proposal] is not adopted, the House Committee on Higher Education stands ready to act.” Since Iowa’s Board of Regents indeed has dropped the ball and failed to adopt the stronger original policy, we strongly encourage the Committee—and the Legislature, and Governor Kim Reynolds—to act as Representative Collins has suggested. Since the Board will not enact proper higher education reform itself, Iowans will recognize that higher education reform by statute clearly has become necessary and proper. Whether the do-nothing Board has any future role remains to be seen.
The public discussion about the original proposal suggests several important points for the substance and the public justification of Iowa statutory reform.
- The Public and Its Representatives have the Right to Determine University Requirements. The education establishment, captive to the radicals, resisted the original policy by a spurious claim of “academic freedom.” Let us set aside for a moment whether DEI and CRT, which at their core subordinate all free discussion to forwarding radical policy, can co-exist with academic freedom. What was at issue was not whether professors could teach subjects related to DEI, but whether such content could appear in “courses required as part of a major, minor or certificate.” The public and its representatives have the right to determine the nature of general education requirements, and all requirements imposed on public university students. Iowa legislators should make this distinction clear both in the substance of any bill they introduce and in their public justifications for such a bill.
- Statutes Should Define DEI and CRT Carefully. DEI and CRT should be defined carefully, at length, and with reference to the underlying concepts rather than to the names DEI and CRT. Our own model language emphasizes that it seeks to prohibit discriminatory concepts, however named, and specifies their nature in considerable detail. We urge that any Iowa bill to ban DEI and CRT follow these principles. In the absence of such specificity, the establishment will just rename its old DEI programs and carry on as before. Legislatures should anticipate and expect bad faith on the part of the education establishment leadership.
- Prevent Abuse of Academic Freedom. Academic freedom is a cherished principle—and one which can be abused by professors to restrict their students’ freedom. Iowa education reformers should continue to protect academic freedom—but with an eye to prevent its misuse. Ohio’s SB 1, for example, includes the stipulation, “Divisions (B)(2) to (5) of this section do not apply to the exercise of professional judgment about how to accomplish intellectual diversity within an academic discipline, unless that exercise is misused to constrict intellectual diversity.” Iowa statute should make similarly well-tailored account of how radical activists claim “academic freedom” as camouflage for classroom tyranny.
- Use Ohio SB 1 As A Model to Prohibit DEI. Ohio’s SB 1, itself informed by our model legislation, provides a great many restrictions on DEI—focusing on administrative policies rather than on the classroom. We suggest that Iowa legislators consider whether to use Ohio SB 1 to inform their own statutes to restrict the discriminatory, illiberal ideology of DEI—to increase academic freedom—at Iowa’s public universities. We suggest that Iowa legislators make clear that that this language applies to accreditation requirements.
- Expand Accreditation Reform. Members of higher education’s radical establishment argued that DEI should not be barred at Iowa’s public universities because “Students in certain fields—such as social work and nursing—would have been at a special disadvantage, since those professions’ standards require graduates to show competency in various topics banned under the policy.” It is not clear if the Board was swayed by these arguments, but they should be addressed. If these professional accreditation standards do require DEI discrimination, then they are presumptively illegal. Iowa’s legislators might take these actions:
- Iowa House File 295 (2025) now states that “An accrediting agency shall not take any adverse action against a public institution of higher education for complying with a state law or refusing to violate a state law.” Iowa should consider expanding this law to apply to all professional and disciplinary accreditors, including but not limited to those recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, as well as the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association.
- Iowa legislators should consider requiring universities to catalogue annually all accreditation requirements that affect any component within them, catalogue annually every accreditation requirement that requires discriminatory concepts such as DEI, and require them to post this catalogue publicly, as well as provide it directly to the state legislature.
- General Education Requirements. The initial proposal applied “to courses required as part of a major, minor or certificate.” As a complement to this initiative, we suggest that Iowa legislators also pass reform of General Education Requirements for Iowa’s universities, along the lines of our model General Education Act or our Core Curriculum Act. Although we prefer the General Education Act, which establishes a core curriculum, either of these acts will make it easier for legislators and Board members to establish accountability over general education courses in Iowa. This would be a good first step toward reforming all required courses in Iowa’s public universities.
- Enforceability. Neither Iowa’s universities nor Iowa’s Board of Regents have demonstrated that Iowa policymakers should trust them to enforce reforms that will remove DEI and CRT from the universities. Iowa legislators should ensure enforceability of restrictions on DEI and CRT by:
- establishing set and significant financial penalties for violating these laws;
- making personnel of universities who violate these laws individually liable to these penalties;
- requiring certification by Board members and university presidents that the universities are following these laws, such that they may be prosecuted for perjury if they certify falsely;
- granting the state attorney general the right to bring action against universities and their representatives for violating these laws; and
- authorizing private rights of action by individuals against universities and their representatives for violating these laws.
Iowans rightly want DEI and CRT removed from their universities, since DEI and CRT are discriminatory ideologies incompatible with freedom of inquiry, freedom of speech, and just plain freedom. We deeply regret that Iowa’s Board of Regents has failed to comply with the public’s clearly stated desire to restore liberty to their universities. In their default, we urge Iowa’s legislature to step up to the challenge and, as is necessary and proper, to use carefully tailored statutes to re-institute freedom in Iowa’s public universities.
Photo by Andrey Popov on Adobe Stock
