DEI is history in Iowa — just not yet

In an effort to combat ideological bias in higher education, the Iowa Board of Regents had planned to consider a policy at its upcoming meeting that would prohibit courses to satisfy degree or certificate requirements if those courses include “substantial content that conveys” concepts under the controversial umbrella of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or critical race theory (CRT.)

The idea behind the policy has been to push back on learning focused more on identity than on reality or context — and sometimes even accuracy.

There’s been some pushback to the pushback. On Tuesday, regents president Sherry Bates said in a statement that the board will not consider the policy during its July 30 meeting as originally planned after hearing feedback from various members of the public including university students, faculty and staff at Iowa’s three public universities who had expressed concerns about the effect on academic freedom.

The pushback to the pushback was met with more pushback. That same Tuesday, State Rep. Taylor Collins, R-Mediapolis, chair of the House Committee on Higher Education, said on social media site X that if the regents do not adopt the proposed DEI/CRT policy, his committee “stands ready to act.” Rep. Austin Harris, R-Moulton, who serves on the Appropriations committee and chairs the Education Appropriations Subcommittee, expressed the same.

If this policy is not adopted, the House Committee on Higher Education stands ready to act. https://t.co/hXHK2KZY9u

— Rep. Taylor Collins (@TaylorCollinsIA) July 22, 2025

DEI is inherently negative

Words like “diversity,” “equity” and “inclusion” generally convey a positive inference, yet refer to negative concepts. The proposed policy defines the three as instruction that includes “the following concepts as primary principles: unconscious or implicit bias, cultural appropriation, allyship, transgender ideology, microaggressions, group marginalization, anti-racism, systemic oppression, social justice, heteronormativity, gender theory, racial privilege or sexual privilege.”

The proposed policy defines critical race theory as “ … an academic and legal framework that denotes that systemic racism is part of American society and is embedded in laws, policies and institutions.” In other words, learning infused with seeing only the worst in American history, which tends to come at the expense of seeing the best.

Policy as a solution is complicated

No, the process of prohibiting DEI and CRT by policy is not as simple as it seems. Such is the burden of solving problems by rulemaking — rules are, by nature, not something that can be implemented with surgical precision. Whether overly broad or overly precise, people seeking a way around policies can find one if they aren’t perfectly worded.

For instance, if a policy merely required that any reference to diversity, equity or inclusion be removed from all university practices and procedures, it could be completely sidestepped simply by changing the words around. A title such as “Chief Diversity Officer” could be amended to “Executive Vice President for Engaging Underserved Populations” while the actual role remained unchanged and the position remained filled by ivory tower lifers who collect its six-figure taxpayer-funded salary and stick around only until a loftier position opens up elsewhere. The University of Iowa has some experience with that.

On the other hand, a policy with more teeth to it risks violating its people’s rights if and when enforced. The Linn-Mar Community School District in Marion dropped its controversial gender identity inclusion policies long before gender identity was eliminated as a protected class under Iowa civil rights laws. This was because a federal appeals court ruling that found the policy requiring that students “respect a student’s gender identity” was too vague and enforcing it could interfere with other students’ rights to free speech.

Those who have spent years now pushing DEI policies in university settings have done so, ironically, for the same reasons GOP legislators are now seeking to halt them: fixing what they see as problems by changing the culture through policymaking — often taking cues and following trends from other sources around the country or the world.

Critics of Iowa GOP legislators say their efforts to dismantle DEI and CRT are primarily motivated by a desire to mimic their brethren in other Republican-controlled states that put the smackdown on DEI before doing so was cool. Critics on the other side suggest that DEI proliferated on campus because radical leftists chronically enamored with oppression relentlessly — and successfully — pursued stupid woke policies trending among their smarmy leftist friends.

Define ‘woke’

Wokeness is viewing of society through a lens that sees every person as either oppressed or an oppressor, in which the oppressed are morally superior to the oppressors. That’s how terms such as “microaggressions” and “unconscious bias” and “marginalition” enter the chat, not to mention “allyship,” ostensibly to allow those oppressors who covet the struggle a pathway to joining their oppressed superiors.

Wokeness is not an exact science. Your friendly neighborhood opinion columnist, for example, is (naturally) blonde with blue eyes, which might start me off in the “oppressor” category as I am whiter than a boiled potato. Mobility impairment from severe rheumatoid arthritis ideally allows me to hobble over to the “oppressed” side. Weeee! Until, that is, they learn that I’m a conservative Republican and I get drop-kicked back to the “oppressor” group with all the other fascists.

One of the woke practices of DEI and CRT is land acknowledgments, or “formal statements recognizing Indigenous communities' rights to territories seized by colonial powers.” (I lifted that definition from an article on NPR.)

In places where DEI and CRT are tolerated, many mainstream events “from soccer games and performing arts productions to city council meetings and corporate conferences” begin with a land acknowledgment either read aloud or prominently displayed in writing. The Academy Awards in early March even featured one read on the air by couture-clad Julianne Hough. Airtime must not be that expensive anymore.

What is a ‘land acknowledgement?’

If you’re unfamiliar with land acknowledgments, here’s one you can read aloud yourself:

The University of Iowa is located on the homelands of the Ojibwe/Anishinaabe (Chippewa), Báxoǰ e (Iowa), Kikapú (Kickapoo), Omāē qnomenē wak (Menominee), Myaamiaki (Miami), Nutachi (Missouri), Umoⁿ hoⁿ (Omaha), Wahzhazhe (Osage), Jiwere (Otoe), Odawaa (Ottawa), Páⁿ ka (Ponca), Bodé wadmi/Neshnabé (Potawatomi), Meskwaki/Nemahahaki/Sakiwaki (Sac and Fox), Dakota/Lakota/Nakoda, Sahnish/Nuxbaaga/Nuweta (Three Affiliated Tribes) and Ho-Chunk (Winnebago) Nations. The following tribal nations, Umoⁿ hoⁿ (Omaha Tribe of Nebraska and Iowa), Páⁿka (Ponca Tribe of Nebraska), Meskwaki (Sac and Fox of the Mississippi in Iowa), and Ho-Chunk (Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska) Nations continue to thrive in the State of Iowa and we continue to acknowledge them. As an academic institution, it is our responsibility to acknowledge the sovereignty and the traditional territories of these tribal nations, and the treaties that were used to remove these tribal nations, and the histories of dispossession that have allowed for the growth of this institution since 1847. Consistent with the University's commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, understanding the historical and current experiences of Native peoples will help inform the work we do; collectively as a university to engage in building relationships through academic scholarship, collaborative partnerships, community service, enrollment and retention efforts acknowledging our past, our present and future Native Nations.

That text was available online from the Native American Council at the University of Iowa, which as of February is no longer a recognized organization. Imagine it being read at the beginning of every Hawkeye game.

The information itself isn’t a problem. When sought organically, it’s interesting — important, even, which is how DEI activists justify land acknowledgments. But when it’s not relevant to the subject at hand, shoving it down people’s throats only serves to satisfy the pink-haired wokescolds who demand it. Most go along simply because doing so often seems tolerable compared to the headache that awaits them if they dare say, “this is so damn stupid.” It’s why DEI is so polarizing, and why politicians get involved whenever and wherever they can.

What does DEI actually accomplish?

On paper, DEI is about doing good. In practice, it’s about feeling good. But most don’t. History exists to enlighten us, not consume us.

Of course, neither opponents nor proponents of DEI intend to compromise over the proposed policy. And in the absence of compromise, the greater force prevails.

That greater force is government. And in 2024, voters put Republicans back in charge.

Change will continue to happen. It’s just a matter of when — and who moves it along.

Comments: 319-398-8266; althea.cole@thegazette.com