The Board of Regents of the state of Iowa, which oversees the state-run universities Iowa State University, Northern Iowa University, and the University of Iowa, recently passed a number of recommendations to be followed by the schools under their control. Their report was required by Senate Bill 560, which as part of the appropriation process, required the Board of Regents “to conduct a study and prepare a report related to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and programs.” The recommendations from their report:

  1. 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.
  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.
  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.
  4. Take reasonable steps to assure the following:
    1. 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.
    2. No employee, student, applicant or campus visitor is compelled to disclose their pronouns.
  5. Develop a board policy prohibiting the consideration of race and other protected class characteristics in admissions that is consistent with the law.
  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.
  7. Standardize issuance of annual employee guidance regarding the separation of personal political advocacy from university business and employment activities.
  8. Explore potential recruitment strategies for advancing diversity of intellectual and philosophical perspective in faculty and staff applicant pools.
  9. Develop a proposal, including cost, to establish a widespread initiative that includes opportunities for education and research on free speech and civic education.
  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.

Of particular note, these recommendations appear to be an attempt to cut back on the proliferation and scope of DEI-related jobs (points 1 and 2), make DEI jobs less about particular classes of people and more answerable to all (point 3), put a stop to the idea that everything requires a DEI component (point 4), curtail the pronoun wars (point 4), eliminate race- or class-based hiring (point 5), and promote diversity that goes beyond only race or ethnicity (point 8).

While some might label this mere window-dressing, I think the report represents a clear departure from the usual DEI statements at most universities. After all, the law that required the report was passed by the Iowa legislature, which is Republican-controlled and one of the more conservative law-making bodies in the country. Republican legislators have called out the state universities for the cost of their DEI programs. A bill that would have required the universities to disband their DEI programs was also discussed, but ultimately did not pass.

Of course there were some dissents. Two Regents questioned the necessity of the eighth recommendation, one saying that she felt that it was” a redundant aspect to put in there, because if everybody’s following the above policies and with affirmative action, I just question whether that’s needed.” [Like affirmative action assured intellectual diversity.] She also said “I just don’t believe that I can support [recommendation 1]  because it goes against a lot of the student comments and [what] a lot of people have come [to] me talking about.” A UNI student said that the elimination of DEI services would worsen the “brain drain” from the state.

In any event, at least in this part of flyover country, there is some push-back to the DEI juggernaut.

A meme I made to emphasize that the standard woke DEI is not really diverse if they all think the same: