Dear Regents,
I am writing to you on behalf of Iowa State University’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors to ask that you vote against the proposed revision to the Policy Manual on DEI and CRT Requirements.
The proposed change to the Board Policy Manual should be rejected for three reasons. First, it is inconsistent with the Board’s own policies on academic freedom and free expression. Second, it runs contrary to students’ right to a full and state-of-the-art education. Third, the Board’s existing policies already protect students’ rights to form their own judgments about politically contentious matters. Our students are capable thinkers who do not need to be protected from learning about controversial ideas.
The first reason to reject the proposed change comes directly from the Regents’ Policy Manual, which states that the Regents have a duty of loyalty to promote the best interests of the institutions “consistent with…academic freedom” (1.3). The Manual thus clearly affirms that “University teachers shall be entitled to academic freedom in discussing the teacher’s subject” (3.10.A). It further recognizes that faculty may require materials that “students find objectionable” because learning “involves students in free and open discussion of all content and issues relevant to a course” (3.20.e).
The proposed policy goes against the core of the Board’s responsibility to protect academic freedom because it interjects the Board into the minutiae of instruction and curricular management. Faculty at ISU take seriously the responsibilities that accompany academic freedom. They make curricular and instructional decisions about what students need to know based on extensive training in their fields. Their teaching is evaluated by applying the appropriate disciplinary and professional standards. Determining specific details related to curricula is beyond the scope of the Board’s role and expertise. Restricting the content of courses and programs would undermine students’ access to a high-quality education in precisely the way that academic freedom is meant to prevent.
Similarly, the proposal conflicts with Board policies on freedom of expression, which recognize that the institution’s mission to promote teaching, research, and scholarship requires the “campus community to engage in the free exchange of ideas” and that “debate or deliberation must not be suppressed merely because the viewpoints presented are considered by some or even most members of the campus community to be unwelcome, disagreeable, or offensive”(4.2). That the proposed policy applies only to courses required by a major, minor, or certificate is no defense. It still restricts the teaching of controversial ideas instead of ensuring the free exchange of ideas. Likewise, the fact that there is a process for approving exceptions to the policy does not make the policy consistent with academic freedom because the default still limits what can be taught. The determination of necessary American Association of University Professors Iowa State University Chapter content for a specific degree should be made by faculty in that discipline and reviewed through shared governance at each institution.
The second reason to reject the proposal is that students deserve the most complete and cutting-edge education we can provide. Some disciplines may require the study of contentious concepts to gain a full understanding of the current state of the field or as part of preparation for students’ professional lives. It’s thus notable that the proposal would prohibit faculty even from teaching objections to DEI or CRT in a required course because doing so would require conveying the content of those approaches. Students deserve better. They deserve the opportunity to study controversial ideas in a scholarly manner, learning about both the evidence and arguments that support them and the shortcomings and alternatives as understood by faculty experts.
The third reason to reject the proposed policy is that students’ right to form their own judgments about the concepts they study is already strongly protected by the Board’s policies on free expression and academic freedom. Students are never required to agree with any ideas. ISU policy reinforces this right, ensuring that students can learn about controversial ideas without being required to agree with them. The policy states, “Students will not be penalized for the content or viewpoints of their speech as long as student expression in a class context is germane to the subject matter of the class and conveyed in an appropriate manner.” It is the duty of our universities to prepare students to thoughtfully and respectfully engage in civic dialogue, skills that are gained through exposure to a variety of perspectives by experts in their field of study.
The ISU-AAUP is happy to work with the Board, along with university administrations and representative faculty bodies, to find ways to address concerns about the curriculum. Any new policy, if needed, should articulate clear academic principles rather than single out particular ideas and concepts, independent of disciplinary standards and scholarly methods. Any policy changes should be grounded in a firm understanding of the relevant facts, be consistent with academic freedom, and respect students’ capacities and their right to an excellent education. The Board should reject this proposal to micromanage the curriculum. It should not undermine its own policies and its responsibilities to students by inserting itself into the details of courses and programs. The Board should instead continue its history of respecting students and faculty in their joint scholarly and educational endeavor.
