Emails show broad criticism of regent DEI, CRT policy

IOWA CITY — Of nearly 100 emails that — in the span of a week — flooded the Board of Regents following the release of its proposal to ban required courses involving “substantial” DEI or CRT content, just one supported the proposal.

“Thank you for addressing DEI and CRT in the policy proposal coming before you,” University of Northern Iowa associate adjunct geography professor Kirk A. Stufflebeam wrote to the board June 4 — the day after its proposal went public. “I wholeheartedly agree that our students should not be required to take a course that has substantial content that conveys DEI or CRT to satisfy the requirements of a major, minor or certificate at our universities.

“I would add that these topics should not be a part of the curriculum for any reason. Thank you for taking this strong stand on this important issue.”

The rest of the nearly 100 emails criticized the proposal that — in its initial iteration — would have prohibited Iowa’s public universities from requiring students to take courses involving “substantial content that conveys DEI or CRT” to satisfy the requirements of a major, minor, or certificate.

Critical emailers included faculty, staff, students, and alumni from across the regent system and beyond. They accused the board of violating its own academic freedom and free speech policies; breaking the law; harming academia as a whole; and repelling future students and employees.

‘Not be a vote’

Many slammed the proposal’s lack of specificity, like University of Iowa associate professor of photography and program head Rachel Cox.

“The phrase ‘substantial DEI and CRT content’ is quite vague, and will no doubt have immense administrative and curricular challenges around the confusion if specific classes are deemed to have ‘substantial’ amounts,” she wrote June 7. “What dictates ‘substantial’?”

University of Northern Iowa history professor Barbara Cutter called the proposal unnecessary.

“It is a solution for a problem that does not exist,” she wrote in her email to board President Sherry Bates on June 7. “I can’t help but think that if the (Board of Regents) had closer contact with more faculty, they would see this too and would trust faculty to follow the professional standards of their disciplines to give Iowa’s students the highest quality education possible.”

In response to the flood of criticism, the board — before even beginning their three-day meeting June 10-12 — made the backroom decision to turn what had been a first-and-final reading of the proposal into a first of two readings, according to emails obtained by The Gazette.

“There will be two readings and no vote today,” Board of Regents President Sherry Bates told Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, in a 5:34 a.m. email June 10, clarifying in a follow-up email that morning, “There will not be a vote this week.”

During the meeting — with a crowd lined up to speak on the topic during public comment — board Executive Director Mark Braun said regents would delay the vote and take the extra time and feedback to review and evaluate the policy, with plans to bring back an updated version in July.

“The helpful emails convince me that we can improve on this first draft of the policy,” Regent David Barker said at that meeting. “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. We shouldn't be doing that, particularly in required courses.”

With the July meeting approaching Wednesday, board officials last week said they’re not yet ready to vote on a revised policy.

“We will continue reviewing the feedback, and the board will identify a future meeting to consider this issue,” Bates said in a statement.

‘Deeply troubled’

The feedback has ranged from short and succinct to long and expository. Some made jabs at the board and others kept it civil.

“I am respectfully urging you to stand for academic freedom and vote against the proposed changes to our cherished American academic institutions,” UI associate history professor Meriam N. Belli wrote June 10. “I am astounded by this unilateral action.”

“The vague language of this proposed policy would pull in every course I teach at the University of Iowa,” UI anthropology professor Meena Khandelwal told Bates in an June 8 email — pointing, for example, to her general education course on “environmental politics in India.”

“The course fulfills a gen ed requirement for International and Global Issues,” she said, adding that it’s “impossible to teach about environmental movements in India without addressing power conflicts across rural-urban, geopolitical, class, and caste divides … a ‘social justice’ issue.”

In describing why she was “deeply troubled” by the proposal she said would cause “grave” harm to the universities, UI professor Cutter pointed to the policy’s definitions of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and “critical race theory” — which list concepts like “implicit bias, allyship, transgender ideology, group marginalization, anti-racism, systemic oppression, social justice, and racial privilege.”

They have “no meaning in an academic sense,” according to Cutter.

“As a U.S. historian, how can I discuss the causes of the Civil War without referring to racism that was embedded in U.S. law, such as the 1857 Dred Scott decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared Black people could not be citizens of the U. S.?” she wrote. “Would a discussion of this topic be considered conveying the concept of ‘systematic oppression’ or ‘racial privilege?’”

And what about the women’s suffrage movement, Cutter asked.

“This would necessarily lead to a discussion of common beliefs about differences between women and men in U.S. society at that time: for example, the notion that women were more emotional than men and thus, ill-suited for voting, because it required rational decision making,” she said. “This would be a discussion of ideas about gender. Is it ‘gender theory’?”

The complexity involved in answering those questions, Cutter and other faculty said, exemplifies the import of academic freedom and the risk that such a policy “would create confusion and fear, lower the quality of teaching dramatically, and thus cause great harm to students.”

“None of this needs to happen,” she wrote.

Vanessa Miller covers higher education for The Gazette.

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