Analyzing the work of the Board of Regents
It’s a good time to be retired from higher education. It’s nice to be spared the up close and personal view of the dismantling of progress in making higher education accessible and welcoming to everyone. But, still, it’s disheartening to watch some university administrators and Regents rush to eviscerate the core of academic work even before the majority in the state legislature tells them they have to. No doubt the legislators will catch up; they’ve just been out of session for a while. Two recent developments – one from the Regents and one from a legislator − are particularly troubling.
First, the Board of Regents is in the process of editing its strategic plan to remove references to “inclusion.” Really? Are we really to the point where we don’t even aspire to include everyone in the educational endeavor? Isn’t inclusion the underlying principle of public education? How did we get here?
Second, Rep Taylor Collins (R – Mediapolis), newly appointed chair of a new House Higher Education Committee bent on “reform,” recently wrote a letter to the Board of Regents stating in part that “Iowans expect [public universities] to be focused on providing for the workforce needs of the state….” Of course, Iowa needs well qualified graduates in its workforce, and it is a core function of Iowa public universities to supply them. But surely the overriding goal of higher education is the creation of new knowledge and its dissemination, a goal much more expansive than that of simply training workers in marketable job skills. Is it possible that Rep. Collins isn’t aware that the major advances in knowledge that drive our business, financial, health care, and arts communities (think the internet, emerging cancer treatments, musical innovation) were brought about by persons inspired by education to read widely, question everything, and imagine creatively? Doesn’t he want that sort of education for Iowa’s citizens?
I’m aware that these concerns will be seen as too “woke” by many. And that worries me too. Why have we turned a word that basically means “alert” into a term of abuse?
Lois Cox
Iowa City
Vows and faithfulness
Weddings typically include vows by the groom and bride, vows promising faithfulness. These vows are taken voluntarily before assembled guests, congregations, perhaps even their God, who assume both parties will be bound by their promises.
Nominated to be Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth has made such vows three times. It is a matter of public record that he has broken faithfulness at least twice, perhaps several times, to vows made with his former wives.
How should Iowa Senator Ernst construe Mr. Hegseth’s record of ignoring wedding vows in the light of taking yet another vow, if confirmed, to “faithfully” discharge the duties of office and support and defend the US Constitution? Can we be surprised should Mr. Hegseth yet again ignore a solemn pledge or is this just D.C. business as usual?
Iowa voters should pay attention, when her next election rolls around, to the understanding of faithfulness that Senator Ernst demonstrates; Senator Grassley also.
John Menninger
Iowa City
This article originally appeared on Iowa City Press-Citizen: Analyzing the work of the Board of Regents | Letters