By Lois Cox, Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee A chairperson; AAUP UI chapter member
Note: I speak for myself and not as a representative of the University of Iowa.
Sometimes changing with changing times is a mistake. At a meeting on June 11, the Board of Regents (BOR) of Iowa’s public universities gave first reading to proposed policy 3.23, a policy that would prohibit faculty members from covering certain subject areas in their courses, regardless of how crucial those areas may be to particular disciplines. If enacted, this policy would mark a sharp retreat from several important BOR policies and from existing BOR practice, which has been to acknowledge and support the academic freedom of faculty members.
Since the content of the proposed policy bears a strong resemblance to two bills put forward by the Republican majority in the legislature this year, but not enacted into law, it would be hard to see the BOR’s adoption of the policy as anything other than a move to bring the BOR in line with current political trends in Iowa. Not surprisingly, the forbidden subject matters are diversity, equity and inclusion (as defined by the BOR) and Critical Race Theory.
Since its founding 110 years ago, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has regarded the protection of academic freedom as its core mission. Its policies explain academic freedom’s meaning and importance for students, faculty and society as a whole; its work to protect the integrity of teaching and research is recognized nationally and internationally. AAUP, an organization that is conservative in the best sense of that much-misused word, most certainly does not change with the times when it comes to academic freedom.
AAUP defines academic freedom as “the freedom of a teacher or researcher in higher education to investigate and discuss the issues in his or her academic field, and to teach and publish findings without interference from administrators, boards of trustees, political figures, donors, or other entities.” (AAUP.org, Academic Freedom FAQ) Clearly, the proposed policy runs afoul of that definition. It would prohibit the faculty from speaking the truth on certain topics germane to many fields of study, and it would require that students working in those fields receive pre-digested, bureaucratically approved content or none at all.
So, why would the BOR want to dictate to highly credentialed faculty and inquiring students what they can teach and learn? The answer lies in prevailing political ideology and the mistaken belief that students need to be shielded from certain subject matter lest it — infect them? Persuade them? Discomfit them?
AAUP rejects all those rationales for infringing academic freedom, believing instead that learning and the growth of knowledge thrive only in an atmosphere of free inquiry. Up until the present, that has been the BOR’s belief, too. It is the strongly held view of the faculty at the University of Iowa. On May 6, 2019, the Faculty Senate adopted a “Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom.” The final paragraph of that Statement provides: “It would be naïve not to anticipate that some ideas expressed on this campus and even in some academic settings, such as classrooms and laboratories, will be seen as loathsome by many members of our community and the public more generally. Yet permitting the expression of such ideas is the predictable price of the freedoms we cherish. Our task is to create a space where free expression inside and outside the classroom may occur among all members of our diverse community.”
One would hope that a similar commitment motivated the legislature and the governor this year in directing the BOR to establish a Center for Intellectual Freedom at the University of Iowa. Yet it now appears that the BOR is contemplating curtailing intellectual freedom for certain faculty members on certain topics. That’s not the way academic freedom works according to AAUP, its guardian for more than a century.
AAUP welcomes the BOR’s decision to think again before adopting proposed policy 3.23, and always stands ready to assist the BOR in protecting academic freedom. But as it stands, the proposed policy and the approach to education it represents should be rejected before the new Center for Intellectual Freedom commands the same respect accorded The Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984.
This letter was originally published in Little Village’s June 2025 issue.
