This Week at the Statehouse – Week 10

The state's Revenue Estimating Conference met today and set the revenue estimates that are used when determining state appropriations. Their March estimates are higher than their December estimates so the Legislature will continue to use the December estimates for their upcoming budget work. This link shows the December estimates that will be used by the Legislature when crafting their budget bills. Hopefully I'll have budget bill targets soon so we'll get a better sense on how much state appropriations will be allocated for education.

House passes their two free speech bills this week

HF 744 Regents Univerisites and Community Colleges Free Speech – The House amended and passed their bill, HF 744, which pertains to free speech for the Regents universities and community colleges. The bill is now in the Senate Education Committee, which has scheduled a subcommittee meeting on Tuesday, March 23. The bill as amended does the following:

• Regents universities must develop materials, programs and procedures to ensure that those who are responsible for discipline, instruction, or administration of the campus community, or who have oversight of student government organizations, or distribute activity fee funds, understand the policies, regulations, and duties of the institution regarding free expression on campus.
• Regents universities and community colleges must protect the first amendment rights of the institution’s students, staff, and faculty and establish and publicize policies that prohibit institutional restrictions and penalties based on protected speech, including political speech. An institution cannot retaliate against a member of the campus community who files a complaint.
• If it is determined, after exhaustion of all available administrative and judicial appeals, that a faculty member knowingly and intentionally restricts the protected speech or otherwise penalizes a student, the faculty member will be subject to discipline by the institution through the normal disciplinary processes of the institution, and such discipline may include termination depending on the totality of the facts. If the faculty member is licensed by the board of educational examiners, the BOEE will conduct a hearing and the faculty member may be subject to disciplinary action by the BOEE.
• Regents universities and community colleges must provide training on free speech under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States to all students, faculty, and staff on an annual basis, which elected officials and staff shall be permitted to attend.
• Similar first amendment provisions provided for K-12 school districts.

HF 802 Divisive Concepts – The House amended and passed their bill, HF 802, which prohibits mandatory training on divisive concepts. They amended their bill to apply to all governmental entities in Iowa not just Regents universities. The bill is now in the Senate Education Committee, which has scheduled a subcommittee meeting on Tuesday, March 23. The bill as amended does the following:

• The judicial branch and all state and local government entities may continue training that fosters a workplace and learning environment that is respectful of all employees and students. However, the governmental entity must ensure that any mandatory staff training provided by an employee or by a hired contractor does not teach, advocate, act upon or promote divisive concepts. This does not preclude them from responding to questions regarding divisive concepts raised by participants in the training.
• “Divisive concepts” is defined in the bill to include all of the following.

1. That one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.
2. That the United State and the state of Iowa is fundamentally racist or sexist.
3. That an individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
4. That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual’s race or sex.
5. That members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex.
6. That an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by the individual’s race or sex.
7. That an individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
8. That any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of that individual’s race or sex.
9. That meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.
10. Any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating.

(a)    “Race or sex stereotyping” means a scribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual’s race or sex.

(b)    “Race or sex scapegoating” means assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex, or claiming that, consciously or unconsciously, and by virtue of persons’ race or sex, members of any race are inherently racist or are inherently inclined to oppress others, or that members of a sex are inherently sexist or inclined to oppress others.

• Employees are prohibited from discriminating against students or employees, and institution diversity and inclusion efforts shall discourage employees and students of the institution from discriminating against another, by color, race, ethnicity, sex, gender, political ideology or any other characteristic protected under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and applicable state law.
• These provisions shall not be construed to do any of the following:
  • Inhibit or violate the First Amendment rights of students or faculty, or undermine a public university’s duty to protect to the fullest degree intellectual freedom and free expression. The intellectual vitality of students and faculty shall not be infringed.
  • Prevent a public university from promoting racial, cultural, ethnic, or academic diversity or inclusiveness, provided such efforts are consistent with the provisions of the Iowa Civil Rights Act and other applicable state law.
  • Prohibit discussing divisive concepts as part of a larger course of academic instruction.
  • Create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or inequity by any party against the state of Iowa, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
  • Prohibit a state or federal court or agency of competent jurisdiction from ordering a training or remedial action containing discussions of divisive concepts as a remedial action due to a finding of discrimination, including discrimination based on race or sex.

• Similar divisive concepts provisions provided for K-12 school districts.

If you have any questions, please email me at mary.braun@uni.edu.