BY Brooklyn Draisey, Iowa Capital Dispatch
Despite calls from students and
alumni to protect diversity, equity and inclusion programs at public
universities, the Iowa Board of Regents on Thursday approved recommendations to
do away with any such efforts that are unnecessary for accreditation or
compliance.
The board discussed the report and recommendations of the DEI Study Group,
created by regents and study group members David Barker, Jim Lindenmayer and
Greta Rouse after an investigation into the universities’ initiatives and
programs relating to diversity, equity and inclusion. The board approved
10 recommendations touching on centralized and decentralized
DEI programs, human resources and expanding the diversity of viewpoints on
campus.
Each of the study group members
thanked the campus leaders and board staff for their work these past months and
commended the universities for being welcoming institutions for all. Barker
said college DEI programs have grown rapidly over the past several years, and
like any program that expands quickly, they need to be reviewed by governing
boards from time to time to see what works well and what doesn’t.
The board has given the universities
a lot of latitude to interpret and implement the recommendations, Lindenmayer
said, and Barker concurred.
“I learned from this review that our
universities are welcoming places,” Barker said. “They do not withhold benefits
or opportunities from anyone because they are members of minority racial
groups, or because of their nationality, sex, gender or sexual preference,
university faculty staff and administrators are committed to providing equal
opportunity for all students…
“Our universities will continue to
be welcoming institutions. They will not discriminate on the basis of any of
these categories whether we retain or eliminate DEI programs we reviewed.”
Those efforts were reviewed,
according to the report, to determine the extent to which they sustain the
institutions’ mission of delivering a high-quality education that is accessible
to all Iowans; whether they are required to meet legal or compliance
obligations; and whether they should be reduced or eliminated. Students, staff,
faculty and members of the public also responded to a feedback survey about DEI
programming on campus, of which the majority called optional DEI training
“critically important.”
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds in June
signed Senate File 560 into law, directing the board to
review the state’s public universities and conduct a comprehensive DEI study.
Regent Nancy Dunkel urged the board
to be careful and use their good judgment in reviewing the recommendations in
order to weed out those that would run counter to their loyalty to the
universities’ missions. She spoke out against the study group’s comparisons to
Florida and Texas and said they need to listen to the voices of those who
aren’t on the board and therefore can’t vote on the issue.
“Our decisions should be what’s best
for our schools in cooperation with their leaders,” Dunkel said. “Instead,
we’re micromanaging their decisions and imposing new political intrusions on
freedom. Professors and leaders in our schools encourage critical thinking,
discussion and questioning to improve learning. External intrusions do not
improve learning, but are trying to undermine and control the universities.”
Six of the recommendations were
passed as a group, including: reviewing services to confirm they’re available
to all students; ensuring that no one has to submit DEI statements or is
compelled to provide their preferred pronouns; updating course category names;
and consistently issuing guidance to employees and universities on political
statements.
As written in the report, the six
recommendations are:
— Recommendation 3: Review
the services provided by offices currently supporting diversity or
multicultural affairs in other divisions of the university to ensure they are
available to all students, subject to applicable state or federal eligibility
requirements. Program promotional and informational materials and websites
shall be updated to clarify that the mission of these offices is to support
success broadly.
— Recommendation 4: Take
reasonable steps to assure the following: a. No employee, student, applicant,
or campus visitor is required to submit a DEI statement or be evaluated based
on participation in DEI initiatives, unless the position is required for
DEI-related compliance or accreditation. b. No employee, student, applicant, or
campus visitor is compelled to disclose their pronouns.
— Recommendation 5: Develop
a board policy prohibiting the consideration of race and other protected class
characteristics in admissions that is consistent with the law.
— Recommendation 6: Initiate
a review of DEI-related general education categories and update category names
to accurately reflect the array of options students may select from to satisfy
these requirements and ensure a breadth of offerings.
— Recommendation 7: Standardize
issuance of annual employee guidance regarding the separation of personal
political advocacy from university business and employment activities.
— Recommendation 10: Annually,
the board office shall issue a reminder to the universities on the requirements
of 4.2.I, which governs university websites and other university
communications.
The other four recommendations were
passed individually after board discussion.
Regent Abby Crow had concerns about
the group’s first two recommendations, which require universities to eliminate
central DEI office functions that are unnecessary for accreditation or
compliance and to review other DEI responsibilities under the same criteria.
Crow said those seem to run counter to another recommendation that calls for
institutions to look into recruitment of varying philosophical perspectives.
Three of the remaining four
recommendations are described in the report as follows:
— Recommendation 1: Restructure
the central, university-wide DEI offices to eliminate any DEI functions that
are not necessary for compliance or accreditation. Support services in these
offices must be broadly available to all students and/or employees, subject to
applicable state or federal eligibility requirements.
— Recommendation 2: 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. Any position responsibilities that
are not necessary for these purposes shall be adjusted or eliminated. Position
and/or working titles shall be reviewed to ensure they appropriately reflect
position responsibilities.
— Recommendation 8: Explore
potential recruitment strategies for advancing diversity of intellectual and
philosophical perspective in faculty and staff applicant pools.
Crow and Dunkel voted against
passing those three recommendations — Crow with the reasoning that after
hearing concerns from students she couldn’t in good conscience go against her
constituency.
Crow said she didn’t see how telling
the regent universities to eliminate DEI programming in certain areas if not
required isn’t contrary to asking them to explore ways to increase diverse
perspectives in hiring. Dunkel also brought up the conflicting nature of some
of the goals, noting that there were recommendations to dispose of DEI efforts
in one area, while increasing those efforts in another.
“I don’t think we can pick and
choose which aspects of diversity that we want to encourage more at the universities,”
Crow said of the opposing nature of some of the recommendations. “I think that
if we want these programs or hiring practices to be broadly universal, equal, I
don’t understand how uplifting one and reducing others is fair.”
Barker disagreed, saying they can,
in fact, recognize that the universities have made enough progress in certain
areas with DEI to now turn those efforts toward making progress in other areas.
As for Recommendation 9, the
language was changed about educating on free speech and civic education, so
that it calls for universities to explore, rather than to develop, the
establishment of a “widespread initiative that includes opportunities for
education and research on free speech and civic education.”
Now that the recommendations have
been approved, each of the universities will form task forces to respond to the recommendations and bring
progress reports to the board at its April 2024 meeting.
“I know no one enjoys the scrutiny
of having a study committee examine their life’s work, and I’m sure that this
has created a bit of worry and consternation among students, and staff,”
Lindenmayer said. “I’m confident that we will all learn a lot about this
important topic and will be better for it.”
Students from the University of
Northern Iowa and Iowa State University stood before the board Wednesday to
speak on their experiences with DEI programs and their importance to university
communities. They each urged regents to see how programs for people of color,
members of the LGBTQ+ community and more are an asset to both the students and
administration.
UNI fourth-year student Sam
Zimmerman said having access to DEI services was a life-saving opportunity.
“Through diversity, equity and
inclusion services, I’ve not only found myself, but my family. To be able to
see other people who look like me and share similar experiences reminds me that
I’m not alone,” Zimmerman said. “The support has immensely improved my mental
health and quality of life, allowing me to more passionately contribute to the
campus community and make a difference. Without programs like diversity,
inclusion and social justice at UNI. I may not be standing here before you
today.”
No comments:
Post a Comment