Regent study urges DEI revisions, reviews, cuts

IOWA CITY — An Iowa Board of Regents study group — having spent six months reviewing diversity, equity and inclusion efforts across Iowa’s public universities following legislative criticism — has pitched 10 recommendations of new policies and actions the campuses can take, including one ensuring no student, employee, applicant or campus visitor is compelled to disclose preferred pronouns.

“The study group received survey feedback and heard examples of situations when students, employees or visitors on campuses were asked to provide information regarding their personal use of pronouns in ways that made them uncomfortable,” according to a 65-page report the three-member group will present to the regents next week. “Societal norms on pronoun usage have evolved in recent years and the issue is one that is now seen to intersect with political viewpoints.”

In fact, the broader “diversity, equity and inclusion” umbrella term has found itself at the same political crossroads — or in the crosshairs, depending on who you ask — with media outlets like Forbes, Vox and The Chronicle of Higher Education publishing recent pieces on the growing backlash.

“More than a dozen state legislatures have introduced or passed bills reining in DEI programs in colleges and universities, claiming the offices eat up valuable financial resources with little impact,” CNN reported in June.

Iowa lawmakers last session are among those who addressed the program’s role in higher education, with a measure restricting new DEI-related spending at the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa. The Iowa Legislature also mandated a comprehensive study and review of university DEI programming.

In its review made public Tuesday, the regent study group acknowledged walking the line between assuring equal opportunity in a non-discriminatory fashion while embracing free speech in an ideological-neutral learning environment has become increasingly tricky, and yet imperative for public universities.

“There is a prominent national debate right now on the commitment of resources toward DEI efforts by institutions of higher education,” according to the report. In light of that debate, the study group said it focused on three central questions:

The review assessed four elements from each campus:

As part of the analysis, regents solicited feedback from their campuses and received responses from over 8,400 people — including 7,400 current students, faculty or staff.

Recommendations

The first recommendation relates to the structure and composition of DEI-related offices and executives, which varies by campus — although all three maintain a central DEI office. The UI Division of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, for example, is comprised of three offices. And, within the UI Division of Student Life, there is a “Belonging and Inclusion” department.

“The study group is unable to conclude that all the programming, training and services provided by these units are necessary for one of these purposes.”

The group recommended restructuring the central, universitywide DEI offices to “eliminate any DEI functions that are not necessary for compliance or accreditation.”

The second recommendation relates to the reality that staff in decentralized units and multicultural centers offer additional services supporting student success.

“Better efforts could be made to assure that students understand that all are welcome,” according to the group, recommending the universities “review all college, department, or unit-level DEI positions to determine whether DEI-specific job responsibilities are necessary for compliance, accreditation or student and employee support services” and to adjust or eliminate positions that aren’t.

The third recommendation adds to the first two, advising a review of services provided by DEI-related offices or divisions “to ensure they are available to all students.”

The fourth recommendation relates to hiring and human resources and DEI statements some employers nationally require.

“The study group found no evidence of any official university policies requiring applicants or employees to submit a written DEI statement,” according to the report. “However, in practice some individual departments were occasionally imposing such a requirement as part of the hiring process.”

The UI, according to the report, requires “candidates for all positions above a certain paygrade demonstrate experience with or a commitment to diversity in the work and academic environment.”

While not standard across the campuses, the group found instances where “employee performance is evaluated based on a commitment to advancing DEI.”

The fourth recommendation suggests a prohibition against compelling employees, students, applicants or visitors to submit a DEI statement; be evaluated based on DEI efforts; or share their preferred pronouns.

The fifth recommendation relates to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that consideration of race in admissions is unconstitutional. Iowa’s public universities don’t do that — although ISU and UNI have not removed the fields of race and ethnicity from application and review materials.

“To provide clarity and assure full compliance with the law, the study group proposes a recommendation for a new board policy” that explicitly prohibits “consideration of race and other protected class characteristics in admissions.”

The sixth recommendation relates to DEI-related general education requirements, noting options are broad and include “courses not related to DEI” — although students don’t always know that.

“To assure that students have a clear understanding of the purpose of this portion of the general education requirements as well as the range of ways to meet that requirement, the study group proposes a recommendation to review and update the name of this category of courses.”

The final four recommendations relate to free speech, given a “perception by some that the regent universities are dominated by individuals who share a singular political perspective on current matters of societal concern and use the university as a vehicle for advocacy.”

The seventh recommendation would standardize annual employee guidance on “the separation of personal political advocacy from university business and employment activities.” The eighth recommendation urges “recruitment strategies for advancing diversity of intellectual and philosophical perspective in faculty and staff applicant pools.” The ninth recommendation suggests developing a widespread initiative for educational and research opportunities around free speech and civic education.

And the 10th addresses mission statements on existing university websites.

“In some instances, websites contain statements that could be perceived as the official position of the university on a political, social or public policy matter,” according to the report, citing as one example “the publication of land acknowledgment or similar statements that describe the history of inhabitants of the land the campuses encompass.”

“The study group agrees that the board office should review central university statements like these to assure that their purpose and content aligns with board policy.”

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