Iowa regents tell campuses to ‘refrain’ from political and policy posts

The day after the November 2024 election, staff with the Iowa Board of Regents announced plans to expand the board’s “freedom of expression” policy to address social media and to align with a new state law barring diversity, equity and inclusion work and spending.

“The proposed revisions clarify expectations regarding university management and oversight of institutional social media accounts,” according to a summary of the changes, which went before the board for approval in February. “The universities are generally expected to refrain from issuing statements on political, social, or public policy matters.”

The policy’s existing language — which staff didn’t change with their revisions and additions — affirms the universities’ duty to support and encourage freedom of inquiry by fostering “expression of differing views regarding many issues in multiple areas of study, research, and debate, including current political, social, and public policy issues.”

Although university leadership shouldn’t do anything to require or pressure members of their campus community to express or adopt a particular political, social or public policy view at a personal level, according to the untouched language, the universities “may speak, as an institution, on political, social, or public policy matters when such matters are central to the mission or critical operations of the university.”

A new section immediately following, however, now states: “The universities should refrain from making statements on political, social or public policy matters.”

Although the public universities in recent years have steered clear of issuing politically-charged statements, the campuses and their administrators have done so in the past.

UI College of Dentistry Dean David Johnson in fall 2020 sent a mass email “strongly” condemning an executive order during the first Trump administration banning entities that get federal funds from providing diversity-related training involving race and sex “stereotyping” and “scapegoating.”

The email, signed by more than 30 college leaders, said, "We are concerned about the effects the order may have on College of Dentistry students, residents, postdoctoral fellows, faculty, staff, and patients, and especially individuals from minority and diverse backgrounds.”

A week earlier, then-UI President Bruce Harreld, Provost Kevin Kregel and diversity head Liz Tovar sent a message about the order's “chilling effect.”

“We are deeply disappointed in both the intention behind and the language used in the executive order, which carries the force of law,” Harreld wrote.

Under the new policy language, the state’s three public universities now must meet three conditions if one were to issue a statement on political, social or public policy matters:

“Any question as to whether a proposed statement or position conflicts with board position, policy, or the law will be resolved by the Executive Director of the Board of Regents (Mark Braun),” according to the new policy.

The board’s new social media policy — which affirms employees’ individual First Amendment rights to express personal opinions on personal social media accounts — comes amid a legislative session involving heightened scrutiny of Iowa’s higher education system among Republican lawmakers.

Proposed legislation still alive this session includes a bill to create a new University of Iowa School of Intellectual Freedom; one requiring students complete certain American history and civil government courses to graduate; one preventing the campuses from using accrediting body requirements to skirt last year’s DEI mandates; and another that imposing more DEI restrictions — this time on what is required in the classroom.

“A regents institution or any employee, appointee, or committee acting on its behalf, shall not require, solicit, or incentivize faculty of the institution to apply or participate in (DEI) and critical race theory practices or include (DEI) and critical race theory-related content … in any course as a condition of approval,” according to the House File 269.

Rebuke over personal opinion

According to the new social media-specific freedom of expression policy, each public university must designate the institutional offices, positions and social media accounts that have authority to issue official university statements or positions on political, social or public policy matters.

“No one except approved individuals through official institutional social media accounts or other communication channels are authorized to speak on behalf of the institutions,” according to the policy, which acknowledges that “employees are free to express personal opinions on their personal social media accounts, consistent with the First Amendment.”

“When doing so, it is the employee’s responsibility to make clear that they are speaking in their private capacity and not on behalf of the university or the Board of Regents,” according to the policy.

Following the election of President Donald Trump in November, several individual UI faculty members or staffers aired political preferences and partisan grievances on social media.

For example, a UI assistant professor in Gender, Women’s and Sexuality Studies posted on X, “He bet on misogyny and racism to win. And he was right.”

And a UI Health Care fellow in early November responded to an election-day post on X with, “Well I hope you lose your kid in a school shooting, already you have nothing to lose, it won’t matter to you anyway! Prepare for your kids funeral.”

That post drew sharp and vocal rebuke from Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Carter Nordman, R-Adel, who called for the fellow’s termination.

“For him to be this unsettled by a presidential election and to, in response, direct anger toward and wish death upon another person, severely worries me about his ability to maintain the proper mental capacity to work with Iowa children, learn from Iowa doctors, or be paid by Iowa taxpayers,” Nordman wrote.

Under certain circumstances, according to the new policy language, a university might need to “act to prevent harm to the university, our campus community, and its mission.”

“For instance, when an employee’s personal expression violates university policy — such as engaging in threatening or intimidating speech toward a co-worker — the university may be compelled to intervene to maintain a safe or efficient work environment,” per the policy. “Any failure to comply with this policy may be grounds for employee discipline, up to and including termination.”

Vanessa Miller covers higher education for The Gazette.

Comments: (319) 339-3158; vanessa.miller@thegazette.com