Iowa House Bill HF2327

Iowa 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/24
• Refer: 2/5/24

Caption

A bill for an act relating to higher education, including diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, tuition, and administrator hiring at state universities, membership of the state board of regents, and student-employer work and tuition programs at state universities and community colleges.(See HF 2558.)

Impact

One significant change includes a cap on tuition increases, restricting institutions from raising tuition and mandatory fees by more than three percent from the previous academic year. This aims to provide a predictable financial framework for students and parents, reducing the unpredictability associated with rising college costs. Additionally, state universities are directed to adopt policies that restrict the hiring of new administrative staff unless approved by the state board, a move intended to streamline university operations and cut costs but which may also lead to reduced diversity in administrative roles as existing staff are favored.

Summary

House File 2327 addresses several key aspects of higher education in Iowa, particularly focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, tuition fees, and the organizational structure around hiring administrators at state universities. The bill modifies the existing framework by adding two nonvoting members from the general assembly to the state board of regents, potentially increasing legislative oversight on higher education governance. Moreover, it mandates that institutions utilize a presidential selection committee when hiring university presidents, limiting the board's autonomy in these crucial decisions by prohibiting them from acting against the committee's recommendations.

Contention

The amendments regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion have raised concerns among various stakeholders. For instance, the bill enforces policies that theoretically prohibit the consideration of race or other protected classes in admissions processes, consistent with current federal and state law. Critics argue that this could undermine efforts to foster diverse educational environments. Moreover, provisions that direct institutions to remove additional diversity functions not required by law have been viewed as a reduction in support for inclusivity initiatives, sparking debates about their necessity in fostering a supportive and equitable educational landscape.