"The nonprofit Common Sense Institute reported student interest and enrollment was low — with just eight students in one class. The report said enrollment is unlikely to grow unless the state mandated students take the classes, which is exactly what Republican lawmakers passed."
But despite the overtly Orwellian effort, the Democrats responded in typical ineffectual, tone-deaf fashion:
"Democratic Sen. Janet Petersen slammed that idea, arguing it will drive up costs for Iowa college students and their families."
Costs. Yeah. That's the problem.
rafram 1 days ago [-]
Cost of living is the only message that seems to work in the Trump era. I understand why they’re using it.
enoint 13 hours ago [-]
Iowa produces 1 in 8 eggs, and the 2024 election was about egg margins. It’s more honest to concentrate on relating egg margins to Iowans prosperity, than to try promoting intellectual freedom in a country which already has a first amendment.
karmakurtisaani 1 days ago [-]
"Common Sense Institute"? Life imitates satire once again, it seems.
cratermoon 1 days ago [-]
Things to know that the article doesn't mention:
Christopher Rufo was the invited speaker for the opening event,
and the interim director is UI economics professor Luciano I. de Castro[1].
In 2025 de Castro cited extreme bias in advocating for the creation of the center[2].
The sponsor of the bill to create the center, Rep. Taylor Collins, R-Mediapolis also said while working to advance an earlier bill to ban DEI spending at public universities, "the bill is needed because the three universities are spending too much on DEI officers and programs. He said the salaries for the top four DEI professionals across the regents universities add up to about $750,000 per year."[3]
> Iowa lawmakers move to mandate students take Center for Intellectual Freedom classes amid low enrollment
rasz 1 days ago [-]
Likely Homelander's Freedom Camps.
doublerabbit 1 days ago [-]
What is "center" in this context?
kibwen 1 days ago [-]
"Center for Intellectual Freedom" is the doublespeak for the reeducation camp.
pstuart 1 days ago [-]
I checked out their website -- it was carefully clean of leaking any agendas or biases out.
I'm all for challenging assumptions and what not, but that should come with a willingness to change one's mind when confronted with compelling evidence. I see a paucity of that from the people who push this kind of stuff.
cyanydeez 24 hours ago [-]
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea has requested a 15 minute job interview regarding your skepticism.
pstuart 19 hours ago [-]
Personal insults don't move the conversation forward.
My point is simple: the opaque nature of the site is suspicious, and the wording about "debating" CEOs, etc is an interesting choice as well: rather than "engaging", "learning from", "hearing from" etc.
I'm all for what they ostensibly represent: social/poltical science and the constitution. Both subjects all citizens should be able to have critical reasoning skills about.
The fact that the current regime is flagrantly ignoring the constitution, that it's adherents don't mind at all, and that they are likely aligned with this org is worthy of scrutiny.
dfansteel 16 hours ago [-]
The University of Iowa has a Social Sciences department that has professors in for Political Science, Anthropology, Public Policy, and other fields. It’s an accredited institution.
pstuart 3 hours ago [-]
But this isn't about the University of Iowa, it's about the "Center for Intellectual Freedom", which was created specifically to promote conservative values.
I'm all for challenging assumptions and learning about differing viewpoints, but this smells of indoctrination.
Conservatives hate colleges because they are "liberal hotbeds", but "reality has a liberal bias" and a lot of education on reality runs counter to their ideology. Case in point: studies on Critical Race Theory are considered to be blasphemous by the right but those studies are based upon the fact that the United States was built on systemic racism and is still deeply ingrained is a depressingly significant portion of the population.
Bud 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
cdrnsf 23 hours ago [-]
The Republican Party is a big proponent of the freedom to force their speech on everyone — willing audience or not.
sieabahlpark 22 hours ago [-]
[dead]
SwellJoe 1 days ago [-]
Nothing says freedom like being forced to go to a re-education camp.
trhway 21 hours ago [-]
War is Peace, Government Mandated is Intellectual Freedom. Somehow it surfaced in my memory how in USSR they were explaining that the elections with only 1 candidate, put on the ballot by the Party, were the pinnacle of democracy.
0xbadcafebee 23 hours ago [-]
You mean the Ministry of Truth?
TylerJaacks 23 hours ago [-]
I went to Iowa State, and I am so glad I missed this shit, cause this is insane.
rcbdev 7 hours ago [-]
I share this sentiment. Go, Cyclones!
bilbo0s 21 hours ago [-]
Not to be that guy, but you know this is gonna hit Iowa and Iowa State in the recruiting department. Athletics was part of the way some of these schools thought they’d make up for cuts in research and declining revenue elsewhere given increasing costs. “We’ll just get rich off football and basketball!!!”
realistically though, the rest of the B1G is definitely going to negatively recruit against this. Just like they are being told to negatively recruit southern states around the voting rights act stuff. Not that Iowa State cares about the B1G but they are generally going after the same guys. Now the B1G schools have wayyy more money, and the recruiting high ground.
It’s gonna get ugly in college sports.
BigTTYGothGF 8 hours ago [-]
> but you know this is gonna hit Iowa and Iowa State in the recruiting department
I don't see why, it'll just be one more class the kids don't bother with.
Henchman21 3 hours ago [-]
Not often I get to quote the greatest cartoon of all time, the Venture Bros, on HN, but hey it's appropriate:
> Catclops: Tourism has skyrocketed at the Well of Bitter Sorrows and Ünderbheit Birth Crevasse since you enacted the mandatory attendance edict.
> Baron Ünderbheit: Told you.
So, we've reached the point where, convservatives, generally speaking, are a direct analogy to a cartoon super villian. We are a stupid, stupid species.
akramachamarei 23 hours ago [-]
You can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink. The students might not even be that thirsty anyway.
pseudohadamard 5 hours ago [-]
Even if it doesn't affect the students, it'll allow other countries to say that their Center for Uighur Freedom is no different to the US' Center for Intellectual Freedom.
akramachamarei 3 hours ago [-]
Uhh so this is an Iowa thing, and China has already been running reeducation camps without feeling a need to justify itself by comparison. Also it's confusing why you think some other country would say this given that there's nothing in common between the two things, except being "mandatory", but not really. Like, who would be the target audience of such a statement?
Simulacra 1 days ago [-]
This is really light on details. What exactly is this? Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I think intellectual freedom is a cornerstone of democracy and freedom. We should want people to have freedom of thought. The headline makes it seem like some crazy right wing nut job, indoctrination camp, but don't we want people to have free intellectualism?
futuraperdita 10 hours ago [-]
I found a syllabus for each of the two current classes that they teach:
Aw yeah, can’t wait for the lecture on “Why Capitalism Rocks!”
summermusic 24 hours ago [-]
It was almost named after Charlie Kirk. It is, in fact, an indoctrination camp.
metalman 7 hours ago [-]
perhaps they will provide usefull training in how to read the room, and when to duck
as I think those are generaly usefull skills no matter what you are talking about.
akramachamarei 23 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
array_key_first 14 hours ago [-]
Charlie Kirk was killed by someone because he had an apathy for gun violence in education which, inevitably, then happened to him. In a way, the death of Charlie Kirk is an almost perfect encapsulation of his own beliefs.
If we are to listen to Charlie Kirk, then we must acknowledge that his death was merely a freak accident, and the price of freedom in this country. We should do what Charlie would want us to do, and move on.
akramachamarei 3 hours ago [-]
Watch out, you're going to get hay fever from building all these strawmen.
array_key_first 54 minutes ago [-]
How is this a strawman? To quote Charlie Kirk, "I think it’s worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. It is rational”
Maybe you should better understand the beliefs of people you willfully support? Is it not a bit embarrassing for you that strangers understand your proponents better than you yourself?
Regardless, there's something me and Charlie can agree on. His death was worth it.
amanaplanacanal 22 hours ago [-]
I missed something. Did Charlie Kirk promote civil debate and intellectual curiosity?
akramachamarei 19 hours ago [-]
Uh, yeah. That was like, one of the major things he was known for, earning the epithet of a "debate-me bro".
amanaplanacanal 5 hours ago [-]
He only debated kids. He was afraid to debate adults.
krapp 4 hours ago [-]
"debate bros" are known for their bad faith arguments and lack of any real intellectual curiosity. They make a mockery of honest discourse. It isn't a compliment.
akramachamarei 3 hours ago [-]
They shouldn't be killed for it. The allergy to even bad faith debate which apparently so incensed his shooter is a problem. Again, this is why I think it wasn't unreasonable he might be this center's namesake.
krapp 2 hours ago [-]
I disagree that someone unwilling to engage in good faith debate should be made the namesake of a "Center for Intellectual Freedom" because at the very least such a person is a bad example what such a center should stand for and represent.
Also, Charlie Kirk was a white supremacist and a bigot. His bad faith debate shtick was a vehicle for accelerating his racist views, which he was very successful at, and the only reason anyone wants to name this center after him is to glorify him as a martyr to that cause, in other words, for the sake of white supremacist propaganda. The party very much wants Charlie Kirk to be their Horst Wessel. That's what this is about, it's a grift.
Negative reaction to this isn't due to anyone having an "allergy to even bad faith debate" (which, itself, and ironically, is exactly the kind of bad faith debate we're discussing) but because reasonable people don't want to see buildings named after neo-Nazi shitposters.
0xy 22 hours ago [-]
What about Charlie Kirk's conduct was not civil? Did he advocate or perpetuate violence?
BrokenCogs 22 hours ago [-]
Yes
akramachamarei 19 hours ago [-]
Source?
BrokenCogs 18 hours ago [-]
He called for the military to use "lethal force" against migrants at the southern border. He also repeatedly demanded "Nuremberg-style trials" for medical providers who offer gender-affirming care.
Well, being that gender "care" has been pretty much debunked, that seems fine.
array_key_first 14 hours ago [-]
Debunked in what sense?
In the sense that it doesn't work? Well it definitely works, gender affirming care like TRT helps men all the time. Breast implants help women after breast cancer related mastectomies. Vaginoplasty also commonly helps traumatic rape victims, too.
Or, do you mean debunked as in debunked in helping people with gender dysphoria? Because that's wrong too, we know that gender affirming care leads to less suicide in that population.
matchbok3 7 hours ago [-]
Even the ACLU had to admit your last line is false (U.S. v. Skrmetti). After multiple rounds of obfuscation.
UncleMeat 5 hours ago [-]
This is a misunderstanding.
Because suicide is so rare and the number of people receiving gender affirming care is so low it is nearly impossible to get population sizes to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in suicide.
We can instead show a statistically significant reduction in depression, anxiety, and suicidal thinking. In every other medical context this is used as a strong shorthand for "reduces suicides." It is completely reasonable here as well.
matchbok3 4 hours ago [-]
Well, you said it directly reduces suicides. Now you are saying it doesn't. Which is it?
At some point you need to understand this is why 95% of the population disagrees with your side.
Good luck! I will stop responding here because you seem ill-equipped to form a substantive argument.
array_key_first 3 hours ago [-]
He's not me, but from our understanding it reduces suicide as he explained.
Also, you pulled the 95% number directly out of your asshole. Most people don't give a shit if someone gets hormones prescribed by a doctor. You care for reasons that are unclear and you have failed to explain. I'm guessing because they're stupid reasons, and you know it, and you don't want to embarrass yourself so you figure you can just not say anything and hope nobody notices.
It is so incredibly rich to be talking about a "substantitive argument" when you haven't even brought AN argument. You just said "uh it don't work" and "durr people don't like this" and then refused to elaborate further.
Yes, you should stop responding because obviously you are far out of your depth and liable to humiliate yourself.
enoint 14 hours ago [-]
Having “some gun deaths every single year” was a cost worth paying. The alternative, under gun control laws preventing school shootings, is not “rational”.
amanaplanacanal 3 hours ago [-]
People who says that, never think it will happen to them. I wonder if his widow thinks that was a price worth paying?
amanaplanacanal 5 hours ago [-]
Didn't he call for the death penalty for Joe Biden?
1qaboutecs 23 hours ago [-]
generally when you want people to have free intellectualism you don't force them to take your courses
rchaud 20 hours ago [-]
> intellectual freedom is a cornerstone of democracy and freedom.
Indeed. And what better way to prove it than by mandating six credit hours worth of tuition fees on the topic?
UncleMeat 5 hours ago [-]
State legislators in Iowa are mad that faculty lean left. So they created this institute that expressly hires conservatives and has conservative leaning curricula. But students would rather take a history class from a historian than some reactionary weirdo who thinks that all historians are communists. So the university is mandating students to take courses from this program.
This is the opposite of free intellectualism. It is faculty hired for their political beliefs and curricula created for political ends and mandatory enrollment so students must be exposed to these ideas whether they like it or not.
Symbiote 24 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Rendered at 19:50:30 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
"The nonprofit Common Sense Institute reported student interest and enrollment was low — with just eight students in one class. The report said enrollment is unlikely to grow unless the state mandated students take the classes, which is exactly what Republican lawmakers passed."
But despite the overtly Orwellian effort, the Democrats responded in typical ineffectual, tone-deaf fashion:
"Democratic Sen. Janet Petersen slammed that idea, arguing it will drive up costs for Iowa college students and their families."
Costs. Yeah. That's the problem.
1 https://www.thegazette.com/news/gop-invited-to-center-for-in...
2 https://www.thegazette.com/news/education/university-of-iowa...
3 https://www.iowapublicradio.org/state-government-news/2023-0...
> Iowa lawmakers move to mandate students take Center for Intellectual Freedom classes amid low enrollment
I'm all for challenging assumptions and what not, but that should come with a willingness to change one's mind when confronted with compelling evidence. I see a paucity of that from the people who push this kind of stuff.
My point is simple: the opaque nature of the site is suspicious, and the wording about "debating" CEOs, etc is an interesting choice as well: rather than "engaging", "learning from", "hearing from" etc.
I'm all for what they ostensibly represent: social/poltical science and the constitution. Both subjects all citizens should be able to have critical reasoning skills about.
The fact that the current regime is flagrantly ignoring the constitution, that it's adherents don't mind at all, and that they are likely aligned with this org is worthy of scrutiny.
I'm all for challenging assumptions and learning about differing viewpoints, but this smells of indoctrination.
Conservatives hate colleges because they are "liberal hotbeds", but "reality has a liberal bias" and a lot of education on reality runs counter to their ideology. Case in point: studies on Critical Race Theory are considered to be blasphemous by the right but those studies are based upon the fact that the United States was built on systemic racism and is still deeply ingrained is a depressingly significant portion of the population.
realistically though, the rest of the B1G is definitely going to negatively recruit against this. Just like they are being told to negatively recruit southern states around the voting rights act stuff. Not that Iowa State cares about the B1G but they are generally going after the same guys. Now the B1G schools have wayyy more money, and the recruiting high ground.
It’s gonna get ugly in college sports.
I don't see why, it'll just be one more class the kids don't bother with.
> Catclops: Tourism has skyrocketed at the Well of Bitter Sorrows and Ünderbheit Birth Crevasse since you enacted the mandatory attendance edict.
> Baron Ünderbheit: Told you.
So, we've reached the point where, convservatives, generally speaking, are a direct analogy to a cartoon super villian. We are a stupid, stupid species.
https://cif.uiowa.edu/sites/cif.uiowa.edu/files/2026-03/syll...
https://cif.uiowa.edu/sites/cif.uiowa.edu/files/2026-03/syll...
If we are to listen to Charlie Kirk, then we must acknowledge that his death was merely a freak accident, and the price of freedom in this country. We should do what Charlie would want us to do, and move on.
Maybe you should better understand the beliefs of people you willfully support? Is it not a bit embarrassing for you that strangers understand your proponents better than you yourself?
Regardless, there's something me and Charlie can agree on. His death was worth it.
Also, Charlie Kirk was a white supremacist and a bigot. His bad faith debate shtick was a vehicle for accelerating his racist views, which he was very successful at, and the only reason anyone wants to name this center after him is to glorify him as a martyr to that cause, in other words, for the sake of white supremacist propaganda. The party very much wants Charlie Kirk to be their Horst Wessel. That's what this is about, it's a grift.
Negative reaction to this isn't due to anyone having an "allergy to even bad faith debate" (which, itself, and ironically, is exactly the kind of bad faith debate we're discussing) but because reasonable people don't want to see buildings named after neo-Nazi shitposters.
Also there's this: https://www.imdb.com/news/ni63814717/
In the sense that it doesn't work? Well it definitely works, gender affirming care like TRT helps men all the time. Breast implants help women after breast cancer related mastectomies. Vaginoplasty also commonly helps traumatic rape victims, too.
Or, do you mean debunked as in debunked in helping people with gender dysphoria? Because that's wrong too, we know that gender affirming care leads to less suicide in that population.
Because suicide is so rare and the number of people receiving gender affirming care is so low it is nearly impossible to get population sizes to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in suicide.
We can instead show a statistically significant reduction in depression, anxiety, and suicidal thinking. In every other medical context this is used as a strong shorthand for "reduces suicides." It is completely reasonable here as well.
At some point you need to understand this is why 95% of the population disagrees with your side.
Good luck! I will stop responding here because you seem ill-equipped to form a substantive argument.
Also, you pulled the 95% number directly out of your asshole. Most people don't give a shit if someone gets hormones prescribed by a doctor. You care for reasons that are unclear and you have failed to explain. I'm guessing because they're stupid reasons, and you know it, and you don't want to embarrass yourself so you figure you can just not say anything and hope nobody notices.
It is so incredibly rich to be talking about a "substantitive argument" when you haven't even brought AN argument. You just said "uh it don't work" and "durr people don't like this" and then refused to elaborate further.
Yes, you should stop responding because obviously you are far out of your depth and liable to humiliate yourself.
Indeed. And what better way to prove it than by mandating six credit hours worth of tuition fees on the topic?
This is the opposite of free intellectualism. It is faculty hired for their political beliefs and curricula created for political ends and mandatory enrollment so students must be exposed to these ideas whether they like it or not.