Iowa Lawmakers Advance Bills Reshaping University Leadership Searches and Core Curriculum Requirements

Iowa lawmakers gave initial approval Thursday to a pair of bills that would fundamentally reshape how public universities select their presidents and what courses students must take to graduate, advancing legislation that has sparked debate over legislative authority versus academic autonomy.

The Iowa House Higher Education Committee's subcommittees recommended passage for both House Study Bill 538, addressing presidential searches, and House Study Bill 543, mandating specific general education requirements. The full Higher Education Committee will now consider the legislation as it moves through the legislative process.

Presidential Search Process Under Scrutiny

House Study Bill 538 would require the Iowa Board of Regents to form a presidential search committee whenever a new university president must be selected, making what was previously an optional committee mandatory. More significantly, the bill stipulates that only regents can serve on such committees, effectively excluding faculty, students, and alumni who have traditionally participated in presidential searches.

Under the proposed legislation, the search committee must recommend the most well-qualified candidates to the full board, which can only elect a president from those recommended candidates. The committee would be permitted to contract with executive search firms engaged in placing highly qualified candidates in leadership positions.

A particularly controversial provision would shield candidate identities from public disclosure throughout the search process. Candidates considered by the committee would not be subject to public disclosure unless they sign a written agreement making their identity public. This represents a significant departure from recent practice at Iowa State University, where candidate names were made public before campus tours and public forums during the presidential search process.

Concerns Over Diminished Faculty Voice

State Representative Heather Matson, a Democrat from Ankeny, expressed serious reservations about excluding traditional stakeholders from the search process. "I do have a lot of concerns about this bill because to me I don't understand why its actually necessary," Matson said during committee proceedings. "To me pushing out the faculty, Senate and other critical partners diminishes the power and value of partnerships and civic engagement in our universities."

Representative Jeff Shipley offered a contrasting perspective, suggesting that faculty senates at some universities have taken actions degrading institutional reputation and prestige, though he declined to elaborate when pressed by Matson for specifics.

Committee Chair Representative Taylor Collins, a Republican from Mediapolis who championed the legislation, indicated this represents just the beginning of changes to the presidential selection process. "I'm going to save most of my comments for committee, but we will be looking at the presidential selection process again this year, obviously, and this is just a start," Collins said.

The only public comment on the presidential search bill came from Foundation for Government Accountability lobbyist Andy Conlin, who voiced support for measures improving transparency, intellectual freedom, and efficiency while strengthening universities' ability to produce a productive workforce.

Mandating History and Government Courses

The second bill, titled the "Increasing Civic Proficiency in Higher Education Act," would require Iowa's public universities to add introductory courses in American history and American government to their general education requirements, with each course valued at a minimum of three credit hours.

The legislation includes specific restrictions on course content. A course required by this section shall not be exclusively or primarily devoted to the study of subgroups of Americans or other nationalities, the bill states. These courses would fulfill social sciences or humanities general education requirements, and the requirements would not apply to students in degree programs lasting three years or less.

The Center for Intellectual Freedom at the University of Iowa, Center for Cyclone Civics at Iowa State University, and Center for Civic Education at the University of Northern Iowa would designate courses fitting the requirements.

Additional provisions would require these centers to host lecture series that promote civil dialogue and debate on issues important to the American public. The Board of Regents would also be required to review all undergraduate core curricula and general education requirements and submit a comprehensive report to the General Assembly by year's end.

"Embarrassing" State of Liberal Arts Education

Collins delivered pointed criticism of current general education requirements at Iowa's public universities during the subcommittee hearing. He noted that the University of Iowa requires students to take courses under the umbrella of "understanding cultural perspectives," while Iowa State has a "U.S. cultures and communities" requirement.

Courses currently fulfilling these requirements include "Printmaking and the Politics of Protest," "Music and Social Change," "Introduction to the Politics of Race," "The Science Behind Prejudice," "The Economics of Discrimination," and "Identity, Diversity and the Media".

"We are going to be prioritizing history and civics education in the state of Iowa again, and quite frankly, I'm embarrassed by the state of our current liberal arts," Collins declared. "We're going to return our core curriculum to the true liberal arts education it is meant to be, and the fact that the General Assembly even has to address this is embarrassing."

Collins has previously indicated his intention to scrutinize spending on programs related to social justice and gender studies, with an eye toward redeploying funding to high-demand fields like nursing and teaching.

Opposition Voices Concerns Over Overreach

Connie Ryan, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa and lobbyist for the organization's action fund, testified in opposition to the curriculum mandate. Ryan called the legislation an overreach of the Legislature to determine what specific classes students should and shouldn't take, arguing those decisions should be left to educators, especially as higher education costs continue rising.

"It's not the role of the legislature to decide specific classes or curriculum," Ryan emphasized. "We believe you should let the professional educators determine what is best, in the best interest for their program and for the students."

The debate over legislative versus academic authority in determining curriculum echoes broader national conversations about the role of state governments in shaping higher education content and priorities.

Board of Regents Remains Neutral With Concerns

Iowa Board of Regents State Relations Officer Jason Chapman testified that the board maintains a neutral position on the legislation. However, Chapman expressed concern about language in the bill relating to transfer credits, indicating uncertainty about whether provisions include high school students or students transferring from other colleges or universities.

Collins responded that the board was welcome to propose clarifying language as the bill advances through the legislative process, suggesting openness to technical refinements while maintaining the core policy objectives.

The board's neutral stance, despite apparent concerns, may reflect the complex political dynamics between Iowa's public universities and the Republican-controlled legislature that appropriates their funding.

Broader Context of Higher Education Reform

These bills emerge within a larger effort by Iowa Republicans to reshape public higher education in the state. Collins has previously characterized Iowa's core curriculum as "a disaster right now" and committed to returning it to what he describes as a "true liberal arts education."

Last legislative session saw similar proposals that did not advance to become law, including legislation that would have codified general education requirements with mandatory Western and American Heritage course requirements.

The current push also follows legislative action on diversity, equity, and inclusion activities at Iowa colleges and universities. Collins has indicated that ensuring compliance with existing laws regarding DEI activities remains a priority, warning that the Legislature stands ready to take further corrective action if institutions fail to follow established guidelines.

What's Next for the Legislation

With subcommittee approval secured, both bills now advance to the full Iowa House Higher Education Committee for consideration. If approved there, the legislation would move to the full House for debate and potential passage before heading to the Iowa Senate.

The timeline for final action remains uncertain, though Collins's role as committee chair and his stated priorities suggest these bills will receive serious consideration during the current legislative session. The Iowa Senate, which lacks a dedicated higher education committee, would handle the legislation through its Education Committee if it passes the House.

For Iowa's three regent universities—the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, and the University of Northern Iowa—the potential passage of these bills would mark significant changes to both governance structures and academic requirements. Institutions would need to adjust presidential search procedures, develop or designate appropriate American history and government courses, and navigate the political implications of legislative involvement in areas traditionally considered matters of academic policy.

State Representative Heather Matson noted her surprise that more stakeholders did not attend the subcommittee meeting to comment on the legislation, suggesting the full impact and controversy surrounding these bills may only become apparent as they advance through the legislative process.

As Iowa joins other states in asserting greater legislative control over public higher education content and governance, the outcome of these bills could influence similar efforts nationwide while testing the boundaries between political oversight and academic autonomy.