Background on the Policy Shift
The Iowa Board of Regents has approved a new policy requiring regular reviews of undergraduate general education courses at the state's three public universities. The reviews will focus on identifying courses that contain substantial diversity, equity and inclusion or critical race theory content. This process begins with the 2026-27 academic year and occurs every two years thereafter.
The three institutions affected are the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa. General education requirements form the foundation of undergraduate degrees, ensuring students gain broad knowledge across disciplines before specializing in their majors.
Details of the Review Process
Under the revised Academic Program Review policy, board staff will examine all courses that fulfill general education requirements. The goal is to flag those with substantial DEI or critical race theory elements while confirming that core learning objectives remain met. The policy does not mandate removal of courses but provides the board with ongoing visibility into curriculum content.
Reviews will cover areas such as arts and humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and any designated diversity or perspectives requirements. Faculty retain primary responsibility for course design, consistent with shared governance principles and accreditation standards.
Legislative and Historical Context
The policy follows months of discussion and earlier legislative proposals aimed at limiting certain ideological content in required courses. Lawmakers have expressed concerns that some general education offerings may emphasize specific viewpoints over balanced inquiry. A 2023 DEI study group report by the board had already examined related programming across the universities and recommended clearer category names for diversity-related requirements.
This latest step represents a measured approach to oversight rather than an outright prohibition. It aligns with broader national conversations about the role of general education in fostering critical thinking and intellectual diversity.
Perspectives from Board Members and Administrators
Regents described the policy as a tool for transparency and accountability. One member noted that understanding the content of required courses helps ensure students receive a well-rounded education. University administrators have indicated cooperation with the process, emphasizing that academic freedom remains protected and that courses will continue to meet disciplinary standards.
Staff at the board level will conduct the initial analyses, drawing on course syllabi, descriptions and learning outcomes. Results will inform future policy discussions without immediate changes to degree requirements.
Photo by Joel Drzycimski on Unsplash
Faculty and Student Reactions
Faculty groups have stressed the importance of preserving academic freedom and the ability to explore complex social topics. Many professors view general education as an opportunity to introduce students to diverse ideas and methods of analysis. Student organizations have called for continued access to courses that address contemporary issues of equity and identity.
At the same time, some stakeholders welcome the review as a check against potential overemphasis on any single framework. The policy explicitly requires presentation of multiple viewpoints when controversial topics arise, a principle already embedded in existing board guidelines.
Impact on the Three Public Universities
At Iowa State University, general education includes categories such as arts and humanities, social sciences and U.S. diversity requirements. Similar structures exist at the University of Iowa and University of Northern Iowa. The reviews will catalog courses across these areas to determine which contain substantial DEI or critical race theory elements.
University leaders expect minimal disruption to degree completion timelines. Students will retain flexibility in choosing from approved lists, and any flagged courses will undergo further discussion rather than automatic removal.
Broader National Trends in Higher Education Oversight
Iowa's action reflects a growing number of states examining the content of required courses at public institutions. Similar reviews or restrictions have appeared in other legislatures, often centered on balancing academic freedom with taxpayer accountability. National organizations representing both faculty and governing boards continue to debate best practices for general education in an era of polarized public discourse.
Accrediting bodies maintain standards that emphasize breadth of knowledge and exposure to varied perspectives, providing a framework within which state-level policies operate.
Implications for Curriculum Design and Academic Freedom
The policy underscores the tension between institutional oversight and faculty autonomy. Proponents argue that periodic reviews strengthen public trust without dictating content. Critics worry that heightened scrutiny could lead to self-censorship or narrower course offerings over time.
Board documents emphasize that the reviews will respect established processes for curriculum approval, which involve departmental and college-level committees. Any recommendations stemming from the reviews will follow normal governance channels.
Photo by Yann Stenson on Unsplash
Future Outlook and Next Steps
The first full cycle of reviews will occur during the 2026-27 academic year, with results reported to the board. Subsequent cycles will allow comparison over time and identification of trends in course content. The policy includes provisions for updating review criteria as needed.
University administrators and faculty are expected to engage constructively, providing data and context during the process. Ongoing dialogue between the board, campuses and lawmakers will shape how the policy evolves.
Considerations for Higher Education Professionals
Administrators at public universities nationwide are monitoring developments like Iowa's policy for potential ripple effects on hiring, curriculum committees and accreditation preparation. Faculty job seekers may encounter increased emphasis on demonstrating balanced approaches to sensitive topics in teaching statements and course proposals.
Professional development opportunities focused on curriculum design, viewpoint diversity and compliance with evolving state policies are likely to grow in demand. Institutions may also invest in clearer documentation of learning outcomes to facilitate future reviews.
