Iowa Board of Regents members expect more campus DEI changes

Regents Sherry Bates, left, and Greta Rouse at the April 24, 2024 Iowa Board of Regents meeting. (Photo by Brooklyn Draisey/Iowa Capital Dispatch)

Members of the Iowa Board of Regents praised the state universities for the efforts that have brought them nearly in compliance with legislation restricting diversity, equity and inclusion offices on campus, but said the work is not yet done.

The board members, meeting Thursday at the University of Northern Iowa, discussed efforts made by state universities to comply with Senate File 2435. The law bars state universities from starting, maintaining or funding DEI offices unless required by law or for accreditation.

State universities started reviewing and changing their DEI offices and programs after Gov. Kim Reynolds directed the regents to develop recommendations relating to these activities more than a year ago. The board implemented DEI directives in November 2023, and Reynolds signed SF 2435 into law this spring.

While the bill doesn’t go into effect until July 2025, Board President Sherry Bates said in the board’s September meeting that the goal is to be fully compliant with the law by the end of the year.

Bates said Thursday that the board’s review is complete, as is and most of the universities’ work to follow the law. While some efforts are still underway, Bates said they will be finished as soon as possible.

“As a board, our role is governance of this process, which we take seriously,” Bates said. “We will continue to ensure that the universities are monitoring and evaluating their activities and programming to ensure ongoing compliance with 261J. Let me be clear — this statute has been adopted by the state, and we will follow the law.”

Board staff, universities juggle laws, accreditors in review

In addition to reviewing university positions and programs themselves, board and university staff also took a deep dive into the laws and standards that govern state university activities.

Board Counsel Aimee Claeys said board staff analyzed the new Iowa code referring to DEI offices, and applied the restrictions and exceptions laid out within it to specific offices, departments and more in the colleges. From there, they determined whether changes needed to be made, or if the unit needed to be shut down.

The group also compiled a list of all relevant laws and accreditation requirements that could impact the universities’ practices, listed in a DEI report released by the board of regents last week.

Board Chief Academic Officer Rachel Boon said there are more than 50 program-level accreditations held across the three state universities, in addition to the institution-level accreditation provided by the Higher Learning Commission.

“These are all critical to monitoring compliance issues, quality assurance, continuous improvement efforts, as well as licensure eligibility for graduates of many of our programs,” Boon said.

Much of the staff’s work focused on program-level accreditation standards, Boon said. State law requires that students earn their degree in a licensed program in many areas that overlap with these units, and accreditation is needed to meet that requirement.

While several accreditors don’t list any connection to DEI in their standards, Boon said those that do provide a wide range of requirements and expectations. The development of councils or committees was one example, she said, and the universities are working on processes to review those program-level groups and ensure they are following accreditation standards. Any more review or changes needed will be completed by or shortly after the Dec. 31 deadline.

According to the DEI report, the three universities have reallocated a combined amount of more than $2 million from eliminated DEI positions and programs to other areas of campus. They have restructured offices and changed initiatives, and also identified which units do not need to change, or cannot.

Throughout the roughly yearlong process, from board recommendations to directives to working with the new law, students at Iowa’s public universities have voiced their opposition to changes in DEI programming, through surveys and public comment.

Iowa State University students protested the legislation and rallied in support of programs they rely on in October, calling for the university to keep spaces like the LGBTQ+ Student Success Center, Margaret Sloss Center for Women and Gender Equity and more. They’ve also started multiple petitions to try and mitigate the legislation’s impact on their campus.

More work to be done

While the bulk of the work to follow SF 2435 and board directives is done, members of the board said this report is just the beginning.

Bates said the board is working with the universities to develop internal processes to routinely review programs and activities to ensure they remain compliant with the legislation. Boon said she is confident that if and when laws or accreditation standards change in a way that impacts DEI programming, the universities will have the processes in place to adapt without too much issue.

“As issues arise … and as requirements, either through law or accreditation or other areas, evolve, we do believe that each university will have the mechanisms in place to review them and identify appropriate responses to them,” Boon said.

Echoing her comments made in September, Bates said this effort will not be static and the board and its institutions will follow the law.

Claeys said board staff expects to develop new changes to board policy on social media and university statements on matters of public concern, which they will bring to the board for review in February. The board will provide a report on this subject to the General Assembly each year, Boon said.

“All of us need to examine what we are doing to ensure that we are compliant with the law in everything we do,” Bates said.

Regent David Barker said during the meeting that the law is “designed to keep university administration out of politics,” and that nowhere in the laws or accreditation standards listed in the report are there requirements for maintaining DEI offices, nor mention of them at all.

They do require that universities practice fairness and nondiscrimination, Barker said, but Iowa’s public institutions have been doing that long before they housed DEI offices.

“There is no justification for the continued existence of any DEI office at our universities,” he said.

The report suggests that all remaining offices on university campuses do not engage in DEI activities, and this is where Barker said more work needs to be done. Without providing examples, Barker said that “just this semester, there were several examples of university administrative offices that are not being eliminated or restructured that promoted DEI.”

No one wants to divide students or put them into silos, he said, but to make support available to all.

Beyond offices and activities, Barker said the universities will need to change their strategic plans and emphasize to their communities that the spirit of the law needs to be followed, not worked around. If not, he warned that more restrictive legislation could come about in the next session.

Regent Christine Hensley said she was pleased to hear from students the board met with earlier in the morning about their excitement with the changes and how they felt like campus services are now open to all.

“I thought that was extremely positive,” she said.

Jumping off of Hensley’s comments, Regent Nancy Dunkel said the board needs to put its effort into finding a student regent to replace Regent Abby Crow, who served in her last board meeting in June, in order to hear student perspectives on subjects like this more regularly.

Regent Jim Lindenmayer reiterated appreciation felt by many on the board toward board staff and university officials for their work over these past months. He said he believes nobody is against the tenets of diversity, equity and inclusion, but those ideas have been institutionalized — put into too narrow boxes — and that is what the anti-DEI political movement is responding to, in his opinion.

“I don’t think we want to lose the qualitative piece of DEI,” Lindenmayer said. “Maybe the institutionalization of it, but I hope that we don’t lose the qualitative piece of the ideas of DEI individually.”