I am speculating here, and one would need far more information than I have to decide. However, the US Supreme Court had this to say in interpreting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution in Epperson v. Arkansas
Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.
It does not matter whether you consider philosophical naturalism to be a kind of religion, a kind of non-religion, the opposite of religion, or the "militant opposite of religion." It seems clear that philosophical naturalism is, at the least, a competitor of religion in the marketplace of metaphysical ideas. It also seems clear that the founders and the the Supreme Court in Epperson intended the Establishment Clause to avoid the establishment of any metaphysical beliefs as the official beliefs of the government.
It seems that there has been a lot of activity by the administration and faculty to promote, endorse and/or establish philosophical naturalism and/or philosophical materialism on campus. Is it enough to constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution?
A very large number of the faculty seem to have confused
methodological naturalism (which is arguably neutral as to metaphysics) with philosophical naturalism (which is definitely not neutral as to metaphysics). Has the administration done the same thing?
It seems that Hector Avalos has actively and openly spoken out and written
with a goal of converting people from a theistic worldview to atheism or some other worldview. He seems to have promoted open hostility to traditional religions. Has he done this in class?
Has Iowa State been neutral towards the use of science to support inferences to debunk
religion, as opposed to the use of science to support inferences
favorable to theistic worldviews?