This bill requires the Iowa State Board of Regents to review undergraduate general education requirements and core curricula at regents institutions to identify required courses or course requirements that include diversity, equity, inclusion, or critical race theory–related content, and authorizes the board, at its discretion, to direct institutions to eliminate those courses or requirements. The measure instructs the board to put in place any policies needed to carry out the review.
For university administrators, faculty leaders, registrars, and compliance officers, the bill replaces the normal shared governance and curricular-review processes with a statutory mandate that elevates a single statewide body’s discretion over whether specific required courses remain part of degree pathways. That shifts decision-making that typically occurs at departments and faculty senates to a board-level review with potential curricular removals across multiple institutions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the State Board of Regents to have each regents institution review undergraduate general education and core curricula to find required courses or requirements that include diversity, equity, inclusion, or critical race theory–related content, and empowers the board to order elimination of such courses or requirements.
Who It Affects
Applies to institutions governed by the Iowa Board of Regents (the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, and the University of Northern Iowa), their undergraduate students, academic departments, faculty governance bodies, registrars, and curriculum committees.
Why It Matters
It centralizes curricular authority at the board level for a defined content area, potentially changing degree requirements, transfer and articulation rules, and the role of faculty in shaping general education. Institutions will need to map required courses, defend curricular learning outcomes, and adapt degree audits if removals occur.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a single-target review: undergraduate general education requirements and core curricula at regents institutions must be examined for any required course or requirement that "includes diversity, equity, inclusion, and critical race theory–related content." The statutory instruction is not advisory: it asks institutions to identify such courses so the board can decide whether they should remain required. The text gives the board discretionary authority to direct elimination, rather than mandating automatic removal when a match is found.
Because the statute requires policy-making by the board, the immediate practical task will be defining the review's scope and procedures. The board’s policies will likely need to answer operational questions the bill leaves open: how to define a course as "including" the listed content, whether an elective with some DEI readings counts if it is not required, how to treat multi‑section general education sequences, and what evidence institutions must submit.
Institutions will need to produce inventories of required courses, syllabi or learning outcomes, and documentation showing where content appears.On implementation, expect a pipeline of administrative work that touches faculty governance, registrars, and curriculum offices. Departments will be asked to justify required courses and, if directed to eliminate a requirement, rework degree maps and advising materials.
Registrars will need to update catalogs, audits, and transfer rules. Accreditation bodies and professional programs that depend on specific curricular elements may raise compliance questions if core requirements are removed.The bill gives the board discretion rather than prescribing a process for appeals or faculty involvement, so institutions face uncertainty about review standards and timelines.
That uncertainty can produce immediate operational costs—staff time, possible reapproval of revised requirements through faculty and shared-governance channels, and communication to students about changed degree pathways.Because the bill targets required courses rather than degree electives, its practical effect will be concentrated where general‑education or core curricula are tightly specified. Programs that already leave general-education choices open to students will be less affected than programs that mandate particular courses for all majors.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The board must establish all policies required by the Act by December 31, 2026—those policies will govern how institutions conduct the review.
By the semester beginning fall 2028, the State Board of Regents must have conducted a review of undergraduate general education requirements and core curricula at regents institutions.
Institutions must review and identify any required courses or course requirements that include "diversity, equity, inclusion, and critical race theory–related content.", The State Board of Regents, in its discretion, may direct an institution to eliminate any identified required course or course requirement.
The mandate applies only to undergraduate general education requirements and core curricula at institutions governed by the Iowa Board of Regents (University of Iowa, Iowa State University, University of Northern Iowa).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandated review of undergraduate general education and core curricula
This section requires the board to have regents institutions review their undergraduate general education and core curricula to locate required courses or requirements tied to diversity, equity, inclusion, or critical race theory–related content. Practically, the clause forces an institutional inventory of required courses and curricular maps; it does not itself define metrics or standards for identification, creating a gap the board's policies must fill. The section also moves decision-making authority to the board by giving it discretion to order eliminations rather than prescribing an institutional process or appeal right.
Unspecified definitions and evidentiary thresholds
The bill hinges on the phrase "include diversity, equity, inclusion, and critical race theory-related content," but it provides no definition or threshold for what "includes" means—percentage of course time, listed learning outcomes, required readings, or isolated class sessions could all be argued differently. That lack of definition means the forthcoming board policies will determine whether, for example, a single lecture, a dedicated unit, or an outcomes statement triggers elimination, and whether interdisciplinary or team‑taught courses are treated differently.
Board-directed removals, not faculty-led adjustments
Granting the board unilateral discretion to direct elimination bypasses traditional faculty-governance mechanisms for revising degree requirements. Departments and curriculum committees may still be asked to execute changes, but the authority to compel removal rests with the board. The section does not establish remedial steps, transitional measures for current students, or processes for replacing removed requirements with alternative learning experiences.
Deadline to establish implementing policies
This section imposes a firm deadline—December 31, 2026—for the board to adopt the necessary policies to administer the review. Those policies will need to cover procedural matters the statute leaves open (definitions, evidence to be submitted, review timelines within institutions, roles for faculty governance, recordkeeping, and any appeals or notice requirements). The compressed timeline for policy creation could force the board to decide substantial procedural questions before institutions have developed inventories or had a chance to consult faculty.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State Board of Regents — gains centralized authority to alter required undergraduate curricula and implement board-level priorities across all regents institutions.
- Students who object to required DEI/CRT-related courses — may see certain mandatory courses or requirements removed, increasing choice in their undergraduate course selections.
- State policymakers or advocacy groups focused on curricular oversight — obtain a statutory mechanism to influence or eliminate required coursework statewide instead of negotiating institution-by-institution.
Who Bears the Cost
- Faculty and academic departments — face reviews of course content, potential loss of required-course placements, and pressure to revise syllabi or defend curricular choices; their shared-governance role may be diminished.
- University administrations and registrars — must inventory required courses, support documentation collection, update catalogs and degree audits, and manage communications and transition plans for affected students.
- Students relying on removed requirements for competencies or preparation (including majors and professional programs) — may confront gaps in curricular preparation or abrupt changes to degree pathways and advising.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is a clash between a state-level desire to control the content of required undergraduate courses in the name of curriculum oversight, and the academic autonomy and shared-governance norms that assign curricular decisions to faculty and campus bodies; resolving that tension requires choosing between uniform state direction and institution-specific academic judgment, each of which protects different legitimate interests.
The bill creates substantial implementation ambiguity. The key operative phrase—courses that "include diversity, equity, inclusion, and critical race theory-related content"—is undefined.
That invites widely divergent interpretations: a course could be flagged because its syllabus lists a single reading on race, because an instructor includes one lecture on systemic inequity, or because program learning outcomes reference inclusive practices. The board's forthcoming policies will therefore be determinative; they could be narrow (requiring sustained CRT focus) or broad (flagging any course with incidental DEI material).
The choice will materially change the bill’s reach.
Another tension is between centralized oversight and institutional accreditation and academic norms. Accreditation agencies expect coherent learning outcomes, stable curricula, and faculty-driven governance processes; board-mandated removals risk disrupting accredited program content or creating inconsistencies between degree requirements and professional standards.
Operationally, universities will incur staff time and potentially legal costs to document content, revise requirements, and manage student transitions. The bill also does not specify notice, grandfathering, or appeal procedures, leaving institutions to design equitable transitions for students partway through degree programs.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.