Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy Definition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board committee holds first read on DEICRT definition as legislators'linked proviso looms
Summary
Staff presented a first'read draft policy to define "DEICRT" under a 2026 House appropriation proviso. Regents and provosts debated whether the definition risked being overbroad and impairing academic study; staff said the draft will be revised after consultation with provosts, general counsels and stakeholders and returned for board action next month.
Staff introduced a draft board policy that would establish a definition for "DEICRT" to comply with language in the 2026 House appropriations bill. The presentation emphasized the item is a first read and that staff will refine language based on feedback before the board is asked to act. Staff noted certification to the Senate State Finance Council must occur in July under the proviso timeline.
Several Regents and campus leaders raised concerns the draft definition might be too broad and could unintentionally limit legitimate academic research or course content. "To me, and that's, you know, as a fellow lawyer, I look at that and I think it's very broad. It's very vague," one Regent said, urging narrowing. Other Regents said limiting language could protect scholarship in history and political science while still meeting legislative requirements.
Campus provosts and academic officers urged a definition that allows instruction on human diversity and discipline'based study without running afoul of the proviso. Speakers emphasized that bachelor's degrees are judged by learning outcomes rather than absolute credit counts and asked that any definition preserve faculty shared governance and curricular integrity.
Staff described the drafting process: an initial staff draft, review with provosts and chief academic officers, consultation with university general counsels and other system groups, and further revision before bringing a final policy to the board for action in June. No action was taken at the committee beyond receiving the first read and recording feedback.
