果冻传媒app官方

Table of Contents

After FIREturns up the heat, Iowa State revises unconstitutional guidance for instructors to self-censor

Iowa State campanile in the fall.

(Harris Dzulkarnain / Shutterstock)

  • Public university warned instructors to censor class discussions on race and gender in response to legislation challenging critical race theory
  • Iowa State revises policy after letter from 果冻传媒app官方, removing warning that law restricts pedagogically relevant class discussions
  • But: Iowa State suggests faculty members鈥 academic freedom is not protected by the First Amendment, clings to dubious interpretation of new state law

AMES, Iowa, Aug. 11, 2021 鈥 Following a letter from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Iowa State University is walking back its to faculty members that new legislation requires them to self-censor pedagogically relevant class discussions on race or gender. 

After FIREchallenged Iowa State鈥檚 misinterpretation of on July 27, the university revised its guidance concerning the law鈥檚 application to the classroom. ISU threatened its faculty members鈥 First Amendment rights by warning 鈥 incorrectly 鈥 that the law designed to combat critical race theory requires administrators and faculty to censor class discussions. (A before-and-after look at what changed in the policy is here.) That interpretation, as 果冻传媒app官方鈥檚 letter noted, was inconsistent both with the law鈥檚 text 鈥 which broadly exempts in-class discussion 鈥 and with the University of Iowa鈥檚 correct interpretation, which to faculty that the law would have 鈥渮ero impact within the classroom as academic instruction is specifically exempted from the legislation.鈥

In a letter responding to 果冻传媒app官方, Iowa State defended its interpretation of the law and suggested that the question of whether faculty members have First Amendment rights in teaching is unresolved. 

Iowa State鈥檚 doubt that its faculty members鈥 academic freedom is protected by the First Amendment is disappointing 鈥 courts across the country have recognized that the First Amendment treats faculty members鈥 speech differently than other public employees鈥 on-the-job speech 鈥 and reflects administrators鈥 reluctance to defend its faculty members鈥 expressive rights. 

Nevertheless, the university invokes its academic freedom policy in revising its FAQ, which now notes that 鈥渁cademic instruction of the defined concepts where those concepts are germane to [the] subject matter of the course, pose little or no risk of drawing scrutiny under HF-802.鈥 That walkback 鈥 coupled with the revisions to the FAQ, including removal of a troubling that a violation of the law was 鈥渓ikely . . . even though discussion of the concepts may be considered germane鈥 鈥 suggests that the university realized changes were necessary to bring itself into compliance with its First Amendment obligations.

鈥淚owa State鈥檚 response is imperfect, but does a better job of reassuring faculty members that the law does not require them to censor relevant class discussions, even if they touch on 鈥榗oncepts鈥 viewed dimly by the state legislature,鈥 said FIREattorney Adam Steinbaugh. 鈥淭he law does not prohibit those conversations 鈥 nor could it, since the First Amendment protects discussion relevant to the subject matter of a class.鈥

The statute that mandatory trainings for faculty or students do not include prohibited 鈥渄ivisive concepts,鈥 such as any belief or theory that ascribes 鈥渃haracter traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual鈥檚 race or sex.鈥 The statute also makes clear that while it is intended to regulate teaching and classes in K-12 institutions, it only applies to administrative 鈥渢raining鈥 鈥 not instruction 鈥 in higher education. 

ISU ignored the law鈥檚 focus on 鈥渢raining鈥 sessions and faculty that the law requires the university to police not just trainings, but regular class instruction, including discussions, course materials, and invited speakers. The university鈥檚 guidance to faculty asserted that even pedagogically relevant material is subject to the law鈥檚 restrictions if presented in a class that might somehow be required 鈥 or simply hard to avoid 鈥 for any single student.

By declaring that the statute reaches the classroom, and advising that certain ways faculty might teach and discuss difficult topics could violate state law, ISU essentially told its faculty hoping to teach about race or gender to self-censor. 

While pleased that ISU updated its FAQ and took out the most egregious example of self-censorship, FIREremains concerned that ISU鈥檚 interpretation of the legislation has already produced a chilling effect on faculty speech. Further, its insistence that the law applies to classroom discussions at all 鈥 presumably reaching even passing references to prohibited 鈥渃oncepts鈥 if they are not germane to the class 鈥 inappropriately invades classroom discussion, which the law does not require. As 果冻传媒app官方鈥檚 letter explained, if the law were applied to the classroom, it would limit a large range of protected speech. 

鈥淎s long as Iowa State insists that this law can be applied to the classroom in any capacity 鈥 and insists that the First Amendment does not protect academic freedom 鈥 faculty will have reason to be concerned that administrators might use the statute to improperly scrutinize their teaching methods,鈥 said Steinbaugh. 鈥淔IREwill be watching to make sure that ISU not only follows their updated guidelines, but refuses to chill any germane classroom discussion of race or gender.鈥 

Faculty members at ISU 鈥 or in any state that has adopted similar legislation 鈥 are encouraged to contact 果冻传媒app官方 if they鈥檙e required to change their teaching because of these laws or their institution鈥檚 implementation of them.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of students and faculty members at America鈥檚 colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience 鈥 the essential qualities of liberty.

CONTACT:

Katie Kortepeter, Media Relations Associate, 果冻传媒app官方: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

Recent Articles

FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Share