House Higher Education Committee to consider bills on academic offerings, DEI changes
Higher education bills slated for subcommittee meetings touch on reviewing and changing public university courses and course requirements. (Photo by Brooklyn Draisey/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
The Iowa House of Representatives' new higher education committee is considering various bills aimed at diversity, equity and inclusion at public, private and community colleges, as well as legislation to review and change academic programs and requirements.
Legislation would review academic offerings, make changes in courses or propose new ones, as well as further limit diversity, equity and inclusion programming in higher education. Many introduced bills have subcommittee meetings scheduled for this and next week.
House Study Bill 50 would require the Iowa Board of Regents review every undergraduate and graduate academic program at each of the three state universities to 'determine whether and to what extent each academic program aligns with current and future workforce needs in Iowa,' according to the legislation.
The review, done with the aid of the Iowa Department of Education and Iowa Workforce Development, must be completed by the board's November meeting this year. The board must make recommendations in the report for whether or how each reviewed program should be changed or if it should be eliminated.
The legislation stated the report and its recommendations would need to go to Gov. Kim Reynolds and the General Assembly by Nov. 30. A subcommittee meeting for the bill is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. Jan. 29.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
House Study Bill 52 would create and set staffing and programming standards for a 'school of intellectual freedom' at the University of Iowa. The legislation would place this new school in the UI College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and require at least five faculty members be hired to teach within it.
Teaching and research through the school would focus on 'the historical ideas, traditions and texts that have shaped the American constitutional order and society,' according to the legislation. The school would also develop campus-wide programming on free speech and civil discourse, foster intellectual diversity and encourage civic engagement.
An academic council formed by the Iowa Board of Regents would assist in selecting a dean, who would be required to submit an annual report on the school to the governor and the Legislature. A subcommittee meeting on the bill will take place at 2:30 p.m. Jan. 28.
Labeled the 'Core Curriculum Act,' House Study Bill 63 would require the board of regents to develop a policy for general education requirements and provide the board with the contents of that policy. It would also stop universities from implementing any general education requirements not listed in the bill.
In addition to the requirements of English and composition, math and statistics, natural and social sciences, the policy would also include courses in a world language, the humanities, Western heritage and American heritage. Exceptions to these course requirements would include those enrolled in a program lasting three years or less and students determined by the board to be in a 'complex field' or in need of additional focus on their main courses.
According to the bill, these general education courses cannot 'distort significant historical events or include any curriculum or other material that teaches identity politics or is based on theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, or privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States of America or the state of Iowa.' The legislation states teachers' academic freedoms will not be limited by these policies.
A subcommittee meeting has been scheduled for the bill at 8 a.m. Jan. 28.
A separate new course would be created and required for graduation through House Study Bill 56.
Students earning their bachelor's degree at a state university would need to take a course in American history and civil government, according to the bill, which would include instruction on the United States Constitution and other founding documents, the development and principles of the U.S. government, how the U.S. government compares to others and 'the study of and devotion to American institutions and ideals.'
A subcommittee will discuss the bill at 4 p.m. on Jan. 28.
House Study Bill 60 would bar private universities from starting or maintaining DEI offices, with the risk of becoming ineligible for the Iowa Tuition Grant program if they do not comply.
Like the legislation that prohibits state universities from keeping their own DEI offices, exemptions to the new bill include departments and programs required for accreditation or to comply with state or federal law. House Study Bill 61, which will be brought up in subcommittee at 12:30 p.m. on Jan. 29, would add community colleges to the legislation passed last year on DEI offices for public universities.
Perceived violations of the law would be directed to the Iowa attorney general, according to the bill. If the university hasn't either corrected itself or proven there was no violation within 30 days of receiving notice, it would stop qualifying for the Iowa Tuition Grant program starting the next school year. Eligibility would be restored the next school year as well if a correction is made.
A subcommittee will discuss the bill at 12:15 p.m. Feb. 4.
House Study Bill 62 would require that at least half of funding for the Iowa Tuition Grant program go to students enrolling in degree programs relating to 'high-wage and high-demand jobs.'
The Workforce Development Board would work with the Iowa Association of Independent Colleges and Universities to form a list of eligible job fields, according to the bill. A subcommittee will discuss the legislation at noon on Jan. 30.
Iowa private higher education officials have previously expressed concerns about how changes to the Iowa Tuition Grant program could affect their institutions and students, but have indicated that they're willing to work with the higher education committee and provide them with the information and answers they require.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
25 minutes ago
- Forbes
U.S.-China Trade Deal ‘Done,' Trump Says
President Donald Trump on Wednesday said a trade agreement was reached between the U.S. and China, pending final approval from him and Chinese President Xi Jinping, following weeks of escalated tensions between both countries as trade negotiations were carried out. The trade agreement includes full magnets and 'any necessary rare earths' from China as the U.S. ... More makes concessions on student visas. Trump, in a post on Truth Social, said a deal was 'done' between the U.S. and China, which will supply 'any necessary rare earths' and full magnets as the U.S. makes concessions on allowing Chinese students to attend American universities. This is a developing story.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mass. governor's race intensifies as GOP candidates seize on LA protests
If you're a member of the Bay State's political and chattering class, and you needed a reminder that Massachusetts is officially in the thick of a gubernatorial campaign season, then you didn't have to look much further than your email inbox on Monday. There, you would have found dueling press releases from Mike Kennealy and Brian Shortsleeve, the two former Baker administration officials dueling for the GOP nomination for the Corner Office in 2026. The target, inevitably, was Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, who'd signed onto a statement with her fellow Democratic governors criticizing the Trump administration's decision to federalize National Guard forces in response to immigration protests in Los Angeles. The statement, issued through the Democratic Governors Association, took the Republican White House to task for its unusual decision to sidestep Golden State Gov. Gavin Newsom when it called in the National Guard — which 700 U.S. Marines have since supplemented. The White House's end-run was 'an alarming abuse of power. Governors are the commanders-in-chief of their National Guard, and activating them within their own borders without consulting or working with a state's governor is ineffective and dangerous,' the DGA's statement asserted. Kennealy, who served as Baker's housing and economic development czar, was first out of the gate at little after 4 p.m., arguing that, by opposing the federal response, the Democratic incumbent was 'legitimizing criminal behavior under the guise of protest.' Shortsleeve, who ran the MBTA under Baker, followed up around 6:30 p.m. He got in a similar shot, condemning Healey for appearing to side with 'rioting protesters waving foreign flags' who were 'violently attacking American law enforcement officers.' Shortsleeve also slammed Healey for her management of the state's hugely expensive migrant crisis and, by implication, her criticism of the aggressive tactics of federal immigration agents as they've rounded up undocumented people across the state. 'If cooperation between the federal and state governments is what she wants, you wouldn't know it by her refusal to work in an orderly way to ensure criminal illegal immigrants in our state were delivered to federal law enforcement for deportation instead of released onto our streets,' Shortsleeve said. Kennealy, who didn't explicitly mention the migrant crisis, but who has been publicly critical, observed that 'when the federal government offers help to restore order and protect citizens, we take it — because doing the right thing for our people should always come before scoring partisan points.' Read More: Rümeysa Öztürk chose grace over bitterness. What we can learn | John L. Micek Taken together, the broadsides from the two Republican hopefuls were a reminder that the migrant crisis, which has subsided in its intensity, remains a potent line of attack, and that the Democratic incumbent remains vulnerable on the issue. More than half of respondents (52%) to a UMass Amherst/WCVB-TV poll in February, for instance, said they disapproved of the Arlington Democrat's management of the shelter crisis. Their mood was reflective of national trends. A broader UMass poll in April found Americans to be of 'two minds' on the issue, supporting a path to citizenship, even as they supported the White House's moves against migrants with criminal records. A CBS News poll completed before Saturday's unrest in Los Angeles, however, provided a reminder that public patience for the White House's tactics extends only so far. That's because support for enforcement against non-criminals drops off precipitously, the poll found. While 55% of respondents approved of Trump's deportation goals, only 44% approved of his approach to the deportation effort. Healey, in public appearances, repeatedly has drawn that line. She's stressed that she supports taking criminals off the streets, even as she's decried the apparent shroud of secrecy that's enveloped the apprehension of such noncriminal migrants as Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk and Milford High School student-athlete Marcelo Gomes da Silva. Read More: Gov. Healey demands answers after ICE arrests Mass. high school student 'This is part of the problem that we're seeing with ICE across the country. And certainly here in Massachusetts, people are being picked up. We have no information about their circumstances,' Healey said after an unrelated news conference at the State House last month. 'There have been real questions raised about due process and whether or not ICE and immigration officials are ... complying with due process here and in other states. And we need answers.' It's not clear, however, if the Massachusetts voters were grasping the subtlety of that policy fine line. An internal poll by Kennealy's campaign pointed to a similar vulnerability for Healey on immigration issues, The Boston Herald reported last month. And 49% of respondents to a University of New Hampshire poll last week said they approved of her job performance, compared to 45% who said they disapproved. With the poll's 3.3% margin of error, that's a statistical dead heat. Even still, Healey's loyalists pounced on the UNH canvass, dismissing it as an outlier, as they pointed to other public polling that showed her more broadly popular overall. 'Governor Healey is going to earn reelection because she understands Massachusetts people need someone who's going to fight to lower costs for them, going to fight to increase housing opportunities for them, going to fight back against Donald Trump,' state Democratic Party Chairperson Steve Kerrigan said during an interview on WBZ-TV's 'Keller @ Large' program that aired last weekend. 'And frankly, neither Mike Kennealy nor Brian Shortsleeve are willing to do any of that.' The lingering question is what happens if Massachusetts, which already has been targeted by the White House, finds itself facing a Los Angeles-style protest that results in Trump doing a gubernatorial end-run by federalizing the state National Guard or, at its extreme end, dispatching U.S. troops to Boston or some other city. If elected, would Kennealy or Shortsleeve acquiesce in the face of such an action? Or would they protest a usurpation of their executive authority? At that point, the question moves from political to practical. Healey staked out her territory with that DGA statement. The responses from Shortsleeve and Kennealy would speak volumes about how they intend to lead during what presumably would be the final two years of Trump's term. That's something that Massachusetts voters would have to decide for themselves. Which makes their answers bear watching. Can the Mass. GOP flip this Taunton state House seat? | Bay State Briefing Mass. lawmakers get bad grades on industry report card. But who's failing whom? | John L. Micek Math is hard. Midterm math is harder. The lessons Mass. needs to learn for 2026 | John L. Micek Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I fought for the Constitution. Using Marines against protests disgraces it.
I am a Marine combat veteran. I wore the uniform with pride. Not for glory or politics, but to serve something greater than myself: the Constitution of the United States. I saw war up close. I lost brothers. I lived with the weight of what it means to take a life in the name of liberty. But I never imagined I'd live to see the same Marine Corps deployed on American soil — not to protect life or respond to disaster, but to stand guard against the very people we swore to protect. That is not leadership. That is not patriotism. That is cowardice. And it's a disgrace. Let me be clear: the U.S. military is not a private security force for any president or politician. Our loyalty is not to the office of power, but to the American people and the Constitution we swore to defend. That oath doesn't end when we hang up our uniform. It lives on, and it binds us to speak out when power is abused — even when it's our own. Especially when it's our own. Throughout our history, the military has been a symbol of honor and restraint. We've always drawn a sacred line: we do not turn our force inward against civilians. To cross that line is not only a constitutional crisis — it's a moral collapse. But now, we see uniformed Marines stationed around government buildings — not to serve, but to suppress. We see military force used to intimidate protesters, stifle dissent, and project strength where there should be humility. We see our brothers and sisters in arms being told, directly or indirectly, that their duty is to silence fellow Americans. That's not defense. That's not order. That's not justice. That is repression. Some Americans cheer this on. They call it 'law and order,' as if safety is more valuable than freedom. But order without justice is not peace — it is submission. Security without liberty is not safety — it is fear. We don't salute uniforms because they exist — we salute the principles they're supposed to uphold. The founders of this country understood the danger of turning soldiers into political tools. That's why we have the Posse Comitatus Act. That's why our system separates civilian and military power. Because when the military becomes a weapon of domestic politics, democracy dies with a boot on its neck. To the commandant of the Marine Corps: you are failing your Marines. Allowing this misuse of the Corps is not a neutral act. It's complicity. You dishonor the memory of those who died believing we were fighting for something nobler. I say this not out of bitterness, but out of love for what the Corps meant to me — what it's supposed to mean to all of us. To every American: this moment is not just about troops on streets. It's about the soul of our republic. It's about whether we still believe that power must answer to the people, not the other way around. Because if we stay silent now, if we normalize this erosion of liberty, we will wake up in a country where democracy exists in name only, guarded by soldiers who forgot what they were fighting for. I fought for the Constitution. I still would. But I will never stand by while it's trampled by the very institution I once called family. We are better than this. And if we still believe in America, we must demand better — before it's too late. Robert Rolls Highland Park This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: LA ICE protests don't need US Marines. It's a disgrace | Opinion
