Iowa House passes bill seeking to ban 'divisive' school, university, government diversity trainings
Ian RichardsonHouse Republicans and Democrats tangled on topics of racism, sexism and freedom of speech for more than three hours as they debated a bill that would keep Iowa's state and local governments from allowing certain "divisive concepts" to be part of their diversity and sensitivity trainings.
Republicans said the bill would specifically prohibit concepts that stem from critical race theory, which they criticized as racist in its own way, but Democrats said it will have a chilling effect on needed discussions about issues like structural racism and implicit bias.
"I reject absolutely and with great enthusiasm the idea that we must adopt racist ideology — and scapegoat races of people, marking each individual as either 'oppressor' or 'oppressed' — in order to stop racism and foster inclusiveness," said Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, the floor manager of the bill, during the Tuesday debate.
Holt and other Republicans quoted Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech from the floor multiple times as they worked to pass the bill, House File 802, on a 59-38 party-line vote, saying they believe trainings should encourage people to judge one another on their character, not preconceived notions based on their skin color.
But Democrat after Democrat on Tuesday stood to speak in opposition the bill, with many saying the bill lacks clarity and goes against Republicans' push for other "free speech" issues this session.
More:Ames school leaders defend Black Lives Matter week; one Iowa lawmaker called it an 'abuse of power'
"We can't say on one hand we want freedom of speech, on another hand ... say we want to hear both sides — then stifle those sides," said Rep. Ako Abdul-Samad, D-Des Moines, one of six Black lawmakers in the House.
Iowa House Republicans' proposal, which includes many of the same elements as a proposal the Senate passed last week, initially only covered trainings at public schools and colleges. House Republicans expanded it Tuesday to also include trainings offered for state, city and county governments.
Abdul-Samad and other lawmakers of color, from both parties, spoke passionately from the floor Tuesday about some of their own personal experiences with racism.
Rep. Henry Stone, R-Forest City, who became Iowa's first Asian American legislator earlier this year, said he has been called a number of racial slurs while growing up in the United States.
"It sickens me that we have to deal with those issues, and this is 2021. I completely support diversity, and diversity training, but my problem is, how are we teaching diversity? How are we conducting diversity training?" he said.
Rep. Phyllis Thede, D-Bettendorf, said issues like systematic racism and implicit bias need to be discussed openly.
"I understand all of these terms because I have experienced them," said Thede, who is Black. "We must talk about these terms in order for us to learn and grow."
Bill resembles blocked Trump executive order
The effort by state legislators echoes a now-reversed executive order that former President Donald Trump signed last year to oppose diversity trainings that use critical race theory, which teaches that racism is interwoven into America's government and other institutions. A federal judge later blocked the order, and President Joe Biden rescinded it after he took office in January.
Following the signing of the Trump order, groups around the country began reviewing and at times suspending their diversity and inclusion training programs. The University of Iowa was among those temporarily suspending diversity training.
The Iowa bill includes a lengthy definition of concepts considered divisive, many of them similar to Trump's order. Among those banned concepts are:
- "that the state of Iowa is fundamentally racist or sexist'"
- "that an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;"
- that anyone should "feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress" because of their race or sex.
The full impact that the bill would have on trainings across Iowa's cities, counties and educational institutions remains unclear. Many Democrats said that the bill, like Trump's order, could have a chilling effect on current sensitivity trainings. But Republicans argued that the bill doesn't outlaw diversity trainings and also doesn't fully limit conversations on sensitive topics.
More:Bill advances to ban use of 1619 Project in Iowa schools to teach about slavery
Rep. Ras Smith, D-Waterloo, specifically asked Holt during debate if terms like white privilege, unconscious bias or systemic racism, sexism or inequality would be considered "divisive."
Holt answered that the bill allows trainers to respond to questions about divisive concepts or teach them as part of a larger course of academic instruction. He said, for example, a diversity training instructor couldn't teach that America or Iowa is systematically racist but could discuss "areas and elements of our society where there is still systemic racism."
He said the intent is not to stifle robust discussions on race and later said that the bill is not meant not stop implicit bias training, including among police departments.
"You can't teach that everybody is X, Y, Z automatically — that the entire white race is this or that the entire United States of America is this — but you can certainly have discussions about all, I believe, of these issues," he said.
Rep. Ross Wilburn, D-Ames, who has worked as a diversity educator, said having intentional discussions about those concepts is important, and he believes the bill would create confusion about what schools can teach and could dissuade opportunities.
"Many have acknowledged that racism, sexism, etc., does exist, and the tool to combat that is not to give it the Voldemort treatment," he said. "It's to be able to have focused, intentional discussions."
More:Can Iowa legally penalize social media companies for 'censorship'? Here are the issues at play
Rep. Christina Bohannan, D-Iowa City, said she believes the bill undermines the Legislature's credibility on free speech issues, making it look like the Legislature only cares about one side. Bohannan, a law professor at the University of Iowa, pointed to the First Amendment issues the Trump order raised.
"In fact, one federal court held that the executive order on which this bill was based did violate the First Amendment," she said.
Republicans say critical race theory goes too far; some call it 'Marxist,' 'racist'
Other Republicans who spoke about the bill Tuesday said the measure is necessary to prevent diversity training that goes too far.
Stone, the Forest City Republican, said he was born in Korea and experienced racism after moving to the U.S. He said he supports the bill because he doesn't believe that people Iowans are fundamentally racist.
"To say that we teach diversity by talking about that the United States and Iowa are fundamentally — which means at its root — and systemically racist or sexist, I don't believe that," he said. "I do not believe that fundamentally, that everyone in here that's sitting in here is a racist. I can't believe that."
Rep. Skyler Wheeler, R-Orange City, said that critical race theory amounts to "cultural Marxism" and is in itself racist.
"It means one group of people, due to something they can't control, such as their skin or their gender, (are) oppressors, and other groups of people, due to something they can't control such as their skin or their gender, (are) the oppressed," he said. "There's no room or opportunity for looking at the content of people's characters or other factors, just skin color or gender."
Other Republicans shared similar concerns. Rep. Jeff Shipley, R-Fairfield, said he also believes the term "white privilege" is "racist on its face" because it judges people based on their skin color, "just as Dr. Martin Luther King advised people not to do."
House, Senate take different approaches to 'divisive concepts' bill
Last week, the Senate passed its own version of the legislation, Senate File 478, by a 33-14 vote, with four Democrats joining Republicans in support. The Senate bill as passed does not include as expansive a definition of "divisive concepts" nor put state, city and county governments under the requirements, meaning the two chambers have yet to come to an agreement on the language.
In the Senate, some Democrats supported the measures, saying they would not affect the way Iowa's institutions currently operate.
During debate, Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, said he supported the Senate bill because he has confirmed it would not affect the existing trainings at Iowa's universities, colleges and schools. He said the bill still gives trainers the opportunity to respond to questions about concepts, and the bill also does not affect academic instruction on those concepts as part of coursework.
University of Northern Iowa spokesman Steve Schmadeke confirmed to the Des Moines Register that the university does not believe any of its mandatory trainings would go against the restrictions in either the House or Senate's version of the bill. The University of Iowa and Iowa State University did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Senate bill also includes a mandate for First Amendment rights training at educational institutions and discipline for faculty members who restrict protected speech. Republicans in the House on Tuesday passed a bill with similar provisions, House File 744, on a 97-1 vote. Democratic Rep. Dave Jacoby, D-Coralville, cast the sole dissenting vote.
Ian Richardson covers the Iowa Statehouse for the Des Moines Register. Reach him at irichardson@registermedia.com, at 515-284-8254, or on Twitter at @DMRIanR.