Confusion & Hypocrisy - Just Another Day In the Iowa Statehouse

Lawmakers Are Injecting Incoherence and Incongruity into University Courses

Rep. Skylar Wheeler (R) speaking at the Iowa Statehouse

Note to readers: if this column appears to be sarcastic or satirical in nature, please know that it is completely intended by the author. Please proceed.

Iowa Republicans are on a right-wing, witch hunting rampage again. It wasn’t enough that last year they forced the three Iowa universities to end their DEI programs. Now, the MAGA-GOP posse is saddling up again, and riding out to purge any hint or last trace of anything having to do with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the content of general education courses in Iowa universities.

My initial reaction is: when did diversity, equity and inclusion become un-American values? My understanding of the American ideal is that it embraces pluralism, seeks equality for everyone, and leaves no one out. Anyway, that’s what I was told once.

This current legislative effort is so full of confusion and hypocrisy that it is almost impossible to believe that reasonable and intelligent lawmakers would try and pass this new law (see below). It contradicts itself and is so vague that it could never stand up to a lawsuit.

Of course, Substack writers like me thrive on such confusion and hypocrisy. It is the stuff that keeps me pecking out these articles on my computer. Thank you MAGA Republicans!

Here is the text of the House Study Bill 63, which would add to the Iowa code, Chapter 262C, otherwise known as the “Core Curriculum Act.” A similar bill is being considered that would impact Community Colleges in the same way. That is where my personal interest enters this discussion. As an instructor of United States History in an Iowa Community College, this law, if it were to be enacted, would directly impact my students and me. So, I have some major questions I’d like to get answered.

Give this section of the bill a read and see if you can spot the incoherence, vagueness, incongruity and contradictions that are rife within it:

Section 4 NEW SECTION 262C.3 Standards for course content

The board shall adopt a policy to ensure that courses that satisfy the general education requirements established pursuant to section 262C.2 do not distort significant historical events or include identity politics or is based on theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, or privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States of America or the state of Iowa. The policy shall not limit the academic freedom of any course instructor to direct the instruction within the instructor’s course or limit the free discussion of ideas in a classroom setting.

As a college instructor, who may have to walk a tightrope one day to stay within the bounds of this vague language, I have some serious questions I’d like to ask the Republican lawmakers about this law…

(OMG….Where do I start???)

Given the opportunity, here is how I would ask the Republican MAGA-representatives some pointed questions:

---

Honorable MAGA Representatives, beginning with the biggest elephant in the room of Section 4, let me point out to you a major problem. I’ll get into the particulars after gaining some clarity from you on what you intend to do about the glaring contradictions within this paragraph. I’m sure you’ll be able to clear this up.

Am I to understand that my “academic freedom” as a college instructor, is not limited by this act? If that is true what if I include discussions of theories that include the historical context of systematic racism in American or Iowa institutions? Then that wouldn’t be allowed, right? Or would it?

(Maga lawmakers: “well, uh, maybe, but uhm…it might be that…well….”)

So, my “academic freedom” isn’t really unlimited, is it? Bear with me, I’m trying to understand your law so that I don’t run afoul.

So please explain to me how I can be granted unlimited academic freedom yet not be allowed to discuss with students the historical manifestations of racist laws, institutions, actions and policies that disadvantaged people of color or women. These laws and practices are not a matter of opinion or “identity politics,” they are simply part of the historical record. You can’t be suggesting that the historical record be supressed! Are you?

So….please explain…I’m all ears.

What is that Representative Wheeler? (Rep. Skyler Wheeler, R-Hull) You say that organizations pushing such “divisive concepts” has the opposite effect of promoting inclusion?

Please Rep. Wheeler, explain to me how excluding or hiding some important historical facts and evidence such as the race-based enslavement system which existed in this country for 250 years, Jim Crow laws which dominated the country for another 100 years and redlining policies and other discriminatory practices of recent times produces inclusion? I’m not following your “logic.”

So what you are saying is that by ignoring or supressing some historical facts and the people affected, it is more inclusionary?

That’s interesting.

Rep. Wheeler, by ignoring inconvenient historical events or realities as if they are invisible, it only further marginalizes those groups who you say we can’t talk about. How does saying that there is “unlimited academic freedom” in the classroom, except for “those ideas,” equal academic freedom? Rep. Wheeler, this is double-speak. You are trying to have it both ways, and that is, well, hypocritical.

I see you don’t really have an answer so, let me move on.

---

Okay, I’m still confused because your law says there should be no limit on the “free discussion of ideas in the classroom setting.” Yet, the law says we shouldn’t have a “free discussion” about sexism.

So, please tell me how I am supposed to teach my students about the women’s suffrage movement? I hope you have some ideas, because I can think of no other way to explain why women were marginalized and not given citizenship rights for the first 140 years of United States history other than gender bias. There is also no way to have a free discussion about why women were not given equality in marriage laws, divorce laws, and in economic practices such as being able to apply for a credit card without their husband’s signature until the 1970s, without referring to gender bias. Can you?

Do you want me to teach history that isn’t true? Or should I just leave out those facts?

I hope you can help me with this because I am not sure how to teach true and accurate history without dealing with the underlying racism and sexism that has dominated much of our history.

The contradiction and incoherence of this law is mindboggling.

Danny Carroll, a former Iowa GOP chairman representing the Family Leader, enthusiastically jumps in and says: “DEI, CRT and all of the baggage associated with that and the assumptions built into it are offensive to the Iowans who are nice and respectful because it takes that and tries to force it upon them… They have finally said, ‘We’ve had enough.’”

Danny, I can assure you that DEI and CRT, as scary as you have tried to make them sound, are not part of my curriculum. I don’t teach DEI and I don’t teach CRT…I teach history. Those frightening code words do not appear in my lessons and I do not have a political agenda.

But I’m still left with the inherent contradiction of how I am supposed to teach real history and not include discussions of racial discrimination such as the Iowa laws that the early territorial legislature required of Black people to pay a $500 bond to enter the state and restricted them from attending public schools. Or the Iowa Constitutional provisions that barred them from voting, holding office, and serving in the state militia.

Are you saying you’d like me to hide these facts?

(Silence….crickets….")

This doesn’t sound like a true education to me, but propaganda to hide embarrassing and inconvenient truths. I’m sorry Danny, but as nice as Iowans are, they have a right to know real history; not a white-washed, ideologically driven, propagandistic view of our state.

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say you were trying to legislate an ideologically driven education system. (wink)

---

Moving on I have a few other specific questions for you about this new law. Your law says that courses should not “distort significant historical events.” Can you give me examples of what you mean? The process of doing history is not a clear-cut process where interpretations are ever finished without further investigation and reinterpretation. It resembles a scientific process.

What was at one time considered “settled history” is in another time a “distorted view” because of new evidence, new lenses to examine those events, and new interpretations. Without some specific examples or illustrations of which “distortions” you are talking about, how would I, as an instructor, know which events you think are distortions? The law isn’t clear.

I wouldn’t want to be in a position as an instructor of violating a law unknowingly because it was vague. Would you?

Maybe you are suggesting that history can be written in a final “authorized” version never to be examined, questioned, or rewritten….like your view of the Bible. I’m afraid that isn’t what history is all about…again, it sounds to me like you want me to teach from a MAGA script written from your ideological perspective that dismisses any other perspectives.

Who is doing the distortion now? Who is dictating ideological education?

Never mind, I see that you are struggling to tell me which interpretations of history are the distortions…let me go to the next question.

---

Your new law says that courses should not include “identity politics.” I hope you can enlighten me as to what you mean. You see identities in history are, and always have been, important for understanding events and the context surrounding those events.

Additionally, history and politics are two different things. So, if you are criticizing “identity politics” as a tool for political campaigning, which both sides engage in all the time, I can understand your concern. But in history, understanding identities is key for gaining a full understanding of events.

Representative Steven Holt (R) from Denison retorts: “Identity politics is teaching principles contrary to the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., teaching to judge by skin color instead of character. There's a lot of that going on these days.”

I hate to tell you this, Mr. MAGA Holt, but history is not a dream. It is reality. I think we all share Dr. King’s dream of not judging people by the color of their skin. But, please be sure to let me know when we have arrived. I’ll wait.

In history, we cannot understand events without learning about identities including ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, denomination, gender, sexual orientation, social background, caste, age, disability, and social class.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t talk about slavery in the United States in reference to enslaved Black people? Or should we not mention that it was Hispanic people who were forced into peonage? Or that the Chinese were deliberately excluded from the US in 1882? Your suggestion would reduce history to learning not very much about nothing and about no one.

Oh, I’m sorry, you all are starting to look annoyed.

---

Okay, here is my last question for you. Your new law mentions that we shouldn’t teach about “privilege.” Would it be too much to ask whose privilege you are talking about? And exactly what do you mean by the word “privilege?” It is such a vague term.

Historically, there has never been a society or culture that didn’t have a “privileged class.” There have always been upper classes who had privileges that lower classes had no access to. Are we allowed to teach about the caste system of India? Your law also suggests focusing on European Heritage…however, does that mean we shouldn’t talk about the Medieval feudal system of Kings, Nobles, Priests, and Serfs? There was a lot of privilege in that culture.

How about the class system within the United States? It would be historical malpractice to suggest that people with white skin haven’t had more privileges in this country than those who do not. This is demonstrably true. To suggest that skin color didn’t create privileges or that it doesn’t exist would be to deny reality, the historical record, and primary resources.

I’m sure you don’t want to deny reality, historical facts or primary resources….do you?

I’m sorry Mr. and Mrs. Maga Republicans. With your law as it is written, there is no way to reasonably implement it without examples and definitions. But I understand your reluctance to provide definitions and examples. To do so would be to reveal your true agenda…an extreme right-wing ideology that hopes to censor free speech.

But here is the news flash ….everyone already knows what you are up to…so stop pretending. Your goal is clear…you want to replace what you believe to be an ideologically driven educational program with your own ideologically driven educational program.

I have an idea…how about an educational program that is free from political meddling, based on true inquiry, real academic freedom, critical thinking, evidence, research, and a commitment to the truth.

What is that Rep. Wheeler? It isn’t MAGA enough?

---

---

I am a proud member of the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative. Click here to see our updated roster of writers.