Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Academic Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regents pause vote on proposed policy limiting "substantial" content of required courses after months of public comment
Summary
The governance committee and board leaders said they would delay final action on a contentious draft policy that would restrict "substantial" instruction of certain concepts (including diversity, equity and inclusion and critical race theory) in required courses, citing pushback and a need for further review.
The Board of Regents' governance, evaluation and human resources committee discussed a proposed policy on June 25 that would constrain "substantial" presentation of certain topics in required courses and provide a process for exceptions. After weeks of public comment and dozens of emails to the board, regents said they would pause the vote to gather more input and refine the draft.
Background and policy text
The draft policy would apply to required courses and use the term "substantial" as a threshold for content that could not be presented as settled fact if the topic matched a list of contested concepts. The administration said the policy is intended to ensure required curricula do not present contested ideological positions as settled, while also creating a pathway for exceptions when disciplinary or licensure requirements make the material essential.
Regent comments and concerns
Members of the governance committee acknowledged the volume of public concern. Regent David Barker said some emails were helpful and urged staff to refine the draft. "Our goal is not to shut down a point of view," Barker said, adding that the aim is to guard against instructors presenting contested ideas as settled fact. Regent Kramer and Regent Hensley both said they supported pausing the vote to collect more feedback and suggested that university faculty input should be sought and circulated among regents.
Public reaction
The committeeand the boardreceived written public comments and heard dozens of speakers during public-comment sessions later in the meeting who urged the regents to either kill the policy or to clarify that it would not curtail academic freedom. Presenters included faculty, graduate students, union representatives and community members, many of whom urged the board to protect academic freedom and to avoid subjecting curricular decisions to political review.
Next steps
Board staff said the draft will be revised in response to feedback and that the draft policy is now on pause to allow more time for university review and for regents to consider proposed changes. The proposed effective date was moved to summer 2026 to allow institutions time to develop implementation procedures if the policy is finalized.
Speakers quoted were present at the committee or subsequent public comment sessions and are attributed accordingly.
