H.B. 204 Higher Education Student Belief Accommodation

What this bill does

H.B. 204 would bar Utah public colleges and universities from compelling students to say things or take part in activities that conflict with their sincerely held beliefs of conscience. Students could instead receive accommodations such as excused participation or alternative deadlines or assignments, with disputes decided by a neutral arbiter.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 9 yes, 0 no, 6 absentHouse Education Committee: vote to change the bill · Feb 4, 2026Who voted how
• 8 yes, 1 no, 6 absentHouse Education Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 4, 2026Who voted how
• 54 yes, 14 no, 7 absentFinal House vote · Feb 17, 2026Who voted how
• 4 yes, 0 no, 3 absentSenate Education Committee: Amendment Recommendation · Feb 25, 2026Who voted how
• 2 yes, 1 no, 4 absentSenate Education Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 25, 2026Who voted how
• 17 yes, 5 no, 7 absentFinal Senate vote · Mar 6, 2026Who voted how
• 57 yes, 14 no, 4 absentHouse vote to accept the other chamber's changes · Mar 6, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Feb 4, 2026 House Education Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (67 turns)

  1. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)53:06

     We'll now move to, uh, house Bill 2 0 4, higher education, student belief accommodations, Representative Peterson and, uh, Representative Peterson. Do you have somebody that's assisting you today? I do.

  2. Rep. Michael J. Petersen53:21

     Professor Robin Wilson. She's, uh, Online. Online? Mm-hmm. Okay.

  3. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)53:25

     We'll work on that if you wouldn't mind. And, um, I'll just note, uh, uh, thank you for, um, being here today. Thank you to, uh, Ms. Peterson. And we've got a, we do have a full agenda, so look forward to hearing your presentation.

  4. Rep. Michael J. Petersen53:40

     Thank you. Uh, and, and, and I'll, if it's all right, we'll let, uh, professor Wilson, uh, introduce herself in just a minute.

  5. Rep. Michael J. Petersen53:47

     Um, last year, my, I have a daughter who's just finishing her, her, uh, master's in Social work degree at a school outside of our state. And she, as she typically does, she calls me about some of the assignments that are going well or not going so well. And this one, she called and said, dad, I, I'm supposed to write a letter to a, to a legislator, uh, advocating for L-G-B-T-Q policy. And she asked if I could Helper. Uh, she was a little thrown off by that. And so, uh, we walked her through it. But, uh, as I've been holding town halls, I've had several people come and tell me they've had similar kind of situations where they've been given, uh, assignments that violated their conscience. And some of you might remember last year. Um, well, other things that, that students sometimes, uh, get tasked with that, that violate their conscience. Maybe, uh, animal dissection or, um, drawing or depicting human figures in, in art classes, uh, sometimes viewing, uh, media that, that violates their conscience. In fact, my intern was telling me that he was once given a, an assignment to watch a film that, uh, was filled with explicit content and violated his conscience. Well, playing off of LA last year, some of you might remember, we passed, um, we passed a bill to, for conscious protection for our state employees, that if they were given some assignment, some task, there's a way for that task to, to, to be staffed around. Because in most cases, there's, there's, there's ways we, there are things we could do to avoid having to do things that, that violate Our religious beliefs are our conscience. Um, you see students often, if not typically see themself as beholden to their professors, and professors often view themselves as sort of the, so the sort of the ultimate source. And so these students are often as put in a difficult situation. And with that, if it's okay, I'd like to, I'm, I'd like to turn some time to, uh, my friend and my, my, my colleague and my, uh, really my right arm when I have ideas for, for legislation. She's a law professor, and so she helps me figure out how to, how to say it in a way that works legalistically.

  6. Rep. Michael J. Petersen56:17

     So, uh, Robin, if you wanna introduce yourself and, and, and share your thoughts about this for a minute. Yeah.

  7. Robin Footwell Wilson56:22

     Thank you. Rep Peterson. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you.

  8. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)56:27

     Ms. Wilson, if you'll just introduce yourself and state who you represent, if any.

  9. Robin Footwell Wilson56:32

     Uh, absolutely. I'm Robin Footwell Wilson. I'm here in my personal capacity as a law professor. I also happen to be a consultant to the Utah Senate, but I don't speak for the University of Illinois, the Senate, or anyone else. So, um, rep Peterson. I'm highlighted. I delighted to highlight a few key points about the protections for religious belief and conscience, and maybe outline a little bit of the process for the objections. So first I wanna talk about compelled speech, the sort of thing your daughter was asked to do, uh, assignments, to write one's lawmaker or a newspaper, otherwise, take a public position, which is shown on line 79 to 83. These are classic instances of compelled speech by the state. HB 2 0 4 governs only state schools because it amends 53 A to the Utah code, which lists state schools as institutions, faculty at state schools, um, instructors or state employees. So when they enlist students willing or not to advance public positions on contested questions like support, as an example, for same-sex marriage, they are acting as a state, and the state has to be viewpoint neutral on its citizens', uh, speech. But being told what position to take is not viewpoint neutral. As you know, coercing students in any course to do this as a part of their grade would violate the first amendment to the US Constitution. Namely, its protection for free speech. Now that said, the first amendment is not self-executing. Students would have to secure counsel to fight an assignment like the one your daughter was given for encroaching on her speech rights. So provision four B in your bill aligns utah's code with the protection intended by the founders. After HB 2 0 4, a faculty member could no longer corral an army of students to advance positions preferred by that faculty member. Now, as a teacher, I know students often don't feel like they can challenge a faculty member. That's a tall order. Moreover, students often don't learn about an assignment, um, in the collision with their own conscience or belief until after the ad drop period ends. And it's too late to get out of a class. Now, I'll talk about a second set of things which are highlighted in your handout. And those are general assignments

  10. Robin Footwell Wilson58:51

      that violate conscience, Mr. The second protection. Mr, would it be all right if I have a handout? Would it be all right if my intern passes those out to, To folks? Yeah, that'd be Juab. That'd be just fine. Thank

  11. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)59:00

      You. Okay, go, Go ahead. Why don't you bring it up here and hand it to, uh, our policy analyst.

  12. Robin Footwell Wilson59:05

      Yeah. And that handout is really focusing on the second point about general assignments, and that's highlighted in the bill in line 60 to 63. This protection extends only to classes mandated for graduation or one's major. It permits students to request an alternative assignment when the student cannot do what's assigned for reasons of religious belief or conscience. Now that second ground conscience is important because religious reasons don't cover all objections. For example, a student might not wanna write a paper arguing for a clean needle exchange for addicts as a form of harm reduction, something that could be asked for in a public health course, either because they object as a matter of conscience to facilitating drug use, or because perhaps a family member died from an overdose and they can't bring themselves to argue for that. Notice in line 60 to 63 that a student can object and be accommodated with another assignment. So long as the, as being given another assignment is not a fundamental alteration. Lines 34 to 42 define a fundamental alteration to mean a change so significant that it alters the essential nature of the degree or the course. And it either one, impacts the student's ability negatively to master the class's essential learning objections, or it negatively impacts the acquiring of the knowledge or skills necessary to pass. Now that's determined by the institution's designated neutral arbiter, which is in lines 1 0 4 to 1 0 6, with guidance from ushi rather than the instructor. As you can imagine, many instructors would see any change to their class as a fundamental alteration. So you need a neutral arbiter. This fundamental alteration guide guardrail allows students, or it actually keeps students from enrolling, let's say, in a climate science major and objecting to every single assignment as a climate, a climate objector. Finally, process protections and institutional flexibility. Institutions oversee this process with guidance from ushi, specifically about, let's say, reasonable notice by students of their objector objection in line 97 or reasonable notice from the faculty of the decision that's made. Line 98 instructors follow the process set by the institution, but they still have to give quote notice as soon as practicable in line 74, because teaching is fluid and sometimes assignments are created as a semester on unfolds. I've done that. The response time would be given that that would be given would be different for assignments that are given to students on day one versus those that are just sort of done on the fly, which is what happened to Rep Peterson's intern. Now these common sense mechanisms come out of extended discussions with Ushi and they should give institutions that needed flexibility. Thank you.

  13. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:02:05

      Thanks Robin. Alright, that, uh, that concludes our presentation, Mr. Chair.

  14. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:02:11

      Alright, thank you. I do have questions, so we'll go to clarifying questions from the committee members. I've got, uh, Representative Peck.

  15. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck1:02:18

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. Um, I appreciate this. I just wanted to be sure. So last year, my first year as a legislator, I actually got multiple emails from students saying that their teacher had assigned them to do certain things to reach out to me, just like what you're talking about. Um, and one of them said that she had to take a position on a racial issue and she was like, don't, you don't have to contact me back and whatever. This is just what I have to send you. And her wording was just so very forced and awkward and I felt really bad for her and I wrote her a big thing back. So your bill, um, speaker, i, i, or not speaker, but everyone's doing that to you today, Mr. Chair. Um, what I want to know is that your, on a thing, like maybe a racial issue or something that would be a right of conscious. Correct. And so that would also classify Correct. Thank you.

  16. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:03:21

      Okay, thank you. I see no more lights. We'll go to the public for public comment. Uh, how many members of the public are here to speak to this issue? Um, I'm gonna set the timer. It looks like we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I'm gonna set the timer for one minute. Um, if you'll come, introduce yourself, please, uh, state your name, who you represent, if any, please make sure you sign in and, uh, we'll move as quickly as we can. Thank you for your patience and thank you for your participation.

  17. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:03:46

      Alright, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh, lemme get your, there you go. Should be good now.

  18. Stan Rasmussen, Sutherland Institute1:03:50

      Thanks Mr. Chair and good afternoon representatives. Stan Rasmussen with Sutherland Institute. Earlier today, we emailed to you our message in support of this bill and for the public record. We'll share a part of that statement from my colleague, bill Duncan Sutherland, constitutional Law Fellow. The Utah legislature has a good track record of protecting religious freedom and individual conscience by adopting accommodations that can be applied when belief or conscience are infringed without requiring costly and time consuming litigation to vindicate the constitutional rights of religious organizations, people's people of faith, or individuals with conscientious objections to a government mandate. And, uh, I'll just conclude with that, indicate that we support the bill and include, encourage you to do so.

  19. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:04:37

      Thank you. Appreciate that. Uh, Representative Peterson, would you mind sliding over into one of the chairs here so we can use both chairs? I'm sorry. Comments? Yeah. Thank you.

  20. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:04:49

      Go ahead.

  21. Katie Mazzie, Utah System of Higher Education1:04:50

      Hello, committee, Katie Azzie from the Utah System of Higher Education. Uh, I wanna say at the outset that our board, the Utah Board of Higher Education has not taken a formal position on the bill, but I do want to make the committee aware that we appreciate that the sponsor brought his ideas and his concerns to us early in the process. And that Representative Peterson has listened receptively to the feedback from our board, our office, and our institutions. He's recognized the nuances, um, behind the issue and he has been, um, working with us collaboratively, uh, to produce the sub language today. So we do appreciate his openness to that. Thank you.

  22. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:05:24

      Thank you. Please introduce yourself and tell us who you represent.

  23. Rick McDonald, Utah Valley University professor1:05:29

      My name is Rick McDonald. I'm a resident of Salt Lake, uh, county, and I work at in Utah County. I'm a professor at Utah Valley University, though I am here speaking as a private citizen. I'm here in opposition to two thou, uh, HB two thou 204. As it's currently written, HB 2 0 4 relies heavily on a stable and definable interpretation of words such as conscience, belief, and sincerity. The bill directs us to Utah Code 67 27 1 0 6, reasonable accommodations for government employees where they define conscience as a a means a conscience means a sincerely held belief as to the rightness or wrongness of an action or inaction. All three of these words, conscience, belief and sincerity, um, have various de definitions and they all, and it turns out that conscience is tied up with sincerity, which sincerely and beliefs, excuse me. Um, beliefs are important, but the mission of higher ed is to expose our students to the best available knowledge in the courses field of study. Then we are, uh, then we invariably, uh, go, are going to have students in classes with their beliefs and current knowledge that do not align with the information about which they're in the process of learning. Thank

  24. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:06:46

      You. If you conclude your remarks, please. Uh, Thanks. Thank you. Well done. Alright. Thank you. Go ahead.

  25. Gayle Ruzicka, Utah Eagle Forum1:06:55

      Gail Ika with Utah Eagle Forum, and I'm here to speak in favor of this bill. Uh, I one time had a situation with my daughter, uh, who was in her debate classes, and, and she was given the subject to argue the side side of, uh, abortion being legal and why it should remain legal. It was very, it was a, it was a pretty devastating time for our family and her because of what we had to go through to change that. I don't think that that should ever happen. Nobody, not, not, not even any of us in this room, whether were in school or whether, uh, what we are doing in our life, in our society should ever have to do anything like that, that would violate our conscience and our religious beliefs. And so, please vote yes on this bill.

  26. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:07:42

      Alright, thank you. Please go ahead, introduce yourself.

  27. Phyllis Kimpel1:07:45

      Yes, I'm Phyllis Kimel. I'm representing myself this time. Um, I recognize myself, uh, going through this. When I was attending the University of Wisconsin in the early 1970s, I was given assignments that were totally against my, uh, religious values and beliefs. And, uh, I had to write papers to support those things, and it really did bother me. I agree with, uh, Robin Wilson, that, um, it does violate your First Amendment rights and your conscience. So I ask you to please vote yes for this bill. Thank you.

  28. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:08:22

      Thank you. Brett.

  29. Brad Asay, AFT Utah1:08:25

      AC President, A FT Utah, and, uh, speaking to our, uh, professors and staff and also, uh, a FT Utah College Council, which is the union that represents faculty and staff throughout the state in higher education. We were opposing this bill. Uh, many concerns. There may be some online if you allow them, uh, to speak briefly about this. So I don't want to take away from the professionals in the classroom, but, uh, we do have some concerns how this may affect accreditation, how this may affect core courses and, and those things that are required for certifications, uh, such as medical, medical certifications, other kind of certifications that have to be, uh, taken care of through curriculum. So we ask you to please oppose this bill. Thanks.

  30. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:09:12

      Thank you, Ms. Tracy. We're gonna go online. We have, we have, uh, a number of people that are online. We're gonna take three online public comments. We'll start with Gabe. Gabe, if you'll please introduce yourself and, uh, make sure your video camera is on.

  31. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:09:36speaker not certain

      Hello? Can you hear me? We can. Thank you. Go ahead, Gabe.

  32. Gabe Byers, Salt Lake Community College faculty1:09:39

      All right. Thank you. My name is Gabe Byers. I'm a faculty member at Salt Lake Community College, but I'm speaking for myself as a private citizen. I would like to speak about this bill in opposition, mostly around the idea of viewpoint diversity. We've had a lot of great conversation about academic freedom and viewpoint diversity. We all have, we all are encouraged to express that and share that. Uh, but with this exempting students or providing accommodations around assignments that violate their conscious or kind of objectable actually decreases the viewpoint diversity and actually doesn't expose students to these challenging views. Uh, we speak a lot about the marketplace of ideas. Ideas should have the ability to be debated and discussed, and the right idea comes to the surface that would actually squash the marketplace of ideas. Uh, many of the ideas in this bill are already prevented by Utah law. We have institutional neutrality, we have our syllabus database in advance. I encourage you to vote in opposition to this bill. Thank you very much.

  33. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:10:43

      Thank you Mr. Byers. Going outta Brianne, if you'll please, uh, turn your camera on and make sure you introduce yourself, who you represent, if any.

  34. Brianne Kramer, AFT Utah College Council1:11:01

      Hi, my name is Brianne Kramer and I'm representing a FT Utah College Council. I am opposed to this bill. Many programs across our universities prepare students for fields that require state licensure and national accreditation, like healthcare and behavioral health, education, finance and accounting legal professions. These programs are not free to decide what to teach. We are required by accrediting bodies to ensure that every student demonstrates specific mandatory competencies. Faculty are required to teach them. Students are required to learn them. If a student can opt out of required material based on a conscience objective objection, that student may not be able to meet licensure requirements. Even more concerning the program itself may be found out of compliance with accreditation standards for failing to ensure that all students are trained and required competencies. It also raises real practical questions. For example, could a student in a mental health counseling program object to learning how to counsel married couples because they do not believe in marriage? For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to vote no on this bill.

  35. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:12:02

      Thank you. And our final, uh, public comment will come from Joe. Please, uh, turn your camera on Joe, and please, uh, introduce yourself and who you represent, if any.

  36. Joe LaSure, resident of Logan1:12:26

      Here we're good afternoon, everyone. My name's Joe Ur, and I'm speaking today as a resident of Logan, Utah. Though I'm incidentally a faculty member at USU HB two oh fours, content optout will compound chilling effects Utah has already experienced, where institutions overcorrect to avoid penalties with measures like censoring course conduct, canceling events, and telling invited speakers to avoid forbidden words. Educators cannot deliver rigorous education and a climate affair. To give a concrete example of this, we saw this play out in Utah in the wake of HB 2 61 when an indigenous author canceled a con, a campus target waiver state, after receiving a list of prohibited words and concepts. Censorship like this, even when self opposed, is upfront to the freedom of speech. Therefore, I'm asking the committee to amend HB 2 0 4 to limit allowable accommodations to time, place, manner religious observances logistics, and add a non impairment clause if for bids, accommodations from altering core learning. Thanks for your time and service.

  37. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:13:36

      Thank you Mr. Lasher. Alright, uh, that concludes our public comments. I will now go back to the committee for action items.

  38. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:13:46

      Alright, thank you. We have a light on Representative Libe.

  39. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:13:51speaker not certain

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that, do we have an amendment? A sub? A sub, A sub. I move that we adopt the sub for HB 2 0 4.

  40. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:14:00

      Alright, thank you. The motion is order in order. We are, uh, the motion is to adopt the first substitute to house bill 2 0 4. Would you like to speak to that?

  41. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:14:09

      Um, I'll be brief, but yes, this is a good bill. It does not, uh, enact any censorship. The comments against the bill were interesting, um, and a lot of them were very inaccurate, um, as far as what is happening on higher ed campuses now, and what would under this bill happened, and so appreciate the sponsor's work on this.

  42. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:14:33

      Thank you. Um, I don't have any additional lights, uh, with regard to the subs. So to the sponsor, would you like to speak to the first substitute, the adoption of the motion to adopt the first substitute?

  43. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:14:44

      Yes. I, I appreciate that. And, uh, and, and we, we need the first substitute, so I, I appreciate your support on that.

  44. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:14:49

      Okay. Thank you. Back to the maker of the motion. I wait. Thank you. Alright, the motion before us is to adopt the first substitute to house bill 2 0 4, higher education student belief accommodations. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

  45. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:15:04

      That carries unanimously. So, uh, the bill is substituted and before us back to the committee for action, would you go ahead,

  46. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:15:14

      Move that we favorably recommend for substitute HB 2 0 4.

  47. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:15:18

      Alright, I have a motion to recommend house bill 2 0 4, higher education student belief accommodations. The first as substituted. Would you like to speak to that motion?

  48. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:15:26

      I'll waive. Thank you. Okay.

  49. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:15:28

      Um, to the, uh, committee for, uh, discussion, we'll go to Representative Moss.

  50. Rep. Sandra Hollins1:15:35speaker not certain

      Thank you. I'd just like to speak to my vote. Um, at this point I'm opposed to this Bill and I, um, mention to this sponsor that I would talk, be happy to talk to him more about this bill and, and, and my concerns. Um, I recall when I was in, in college a class I took, um, it was an elective and existentialism and I never heard of, I mean, I'd heard of it, I had no idea what it was, but the professor was very adamant in his, um, in his objection to organized religion. He said a lot of things that were kind of shocking to me and countered my views. But I thought, well, that's why I'm here in the university, you know, to learn about other ideas and you don't have to accept them. Maybe my conscience said, but, you know, I, I didn't wanna walk out of the class or not do the assignments because I was kind of fascinated with this different viewpoint that people, many people hold. So I'd just like to get more clarification with, um, the good representative before I vote in favor of this bill.

  51. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:16:39

      Alright, thank you. We're gonna go to, um, rep, uh, I'm sorry. Are you asking a question? A clarifying question? No, I,

  52. Rep. Carol S. Moss1:16:48

      You just wanna, okay. I'm just, uh, explaining my vote. Thank you. Because if we vote and we don't do a roll call vote, I might not get that opportunity.

  53. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:16:55

      Thank you, Representative Moss. We'll go to Representative MacPherson.

  54. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:17:00

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate you, uh, bringing this, and I apologize that I missed the entire, uh, discussion and question session. I'm not going to take up any committee time on that, but just to say I appreciate the substitute, I've only had a chance to kind of review it since you and I spoke, uh, about it. Um, I, I still think that I may have some concerns as far as, uh, buttoning up a few pieces, but generally I think this is a, a broad improvement. So thank you. Thank You.

  55. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:17:27

      Alright, thank you Representative MacPherson. We'll go to Representative Thompson.

  56. Rep. Jason E. Thompson1:17:32

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, you know, I, I came in, um, I came into this committee meeting, um, fully, you know, fully sort of supportive of the, the, the principles and, and the ideas and just wondering, you know, looking through state code, wondering, okay, um, is this already covered somewhere in state code? And, and looking through it's, it's not the, the language, the broadening of the language, um, I think provides some valuable protections. Um, I I will say that the comments that I've heard, um, some of the comments that I've heard today, um, um, were a little bit alarming. Um, uh, something in effect of universities or faculty should not be forced to receive, uh, to, to, to give a rigorous education in a climate of fear. Um, that, that was almost an exact quote. Um, and I immediately wrote down, students should not be forced to receive a rigorous education in a climate of fear. And, um, uh, so I think that this, this bill is, is good. I I support this bill. Um, I heard quite a bit about accreditation and licensing, and if our arguments are that we're worried about accreditation, we're worried about licensing, then I think we need to have this conversation at the next level and the next level and say, Hey, how do we watch out for the religious freedom of our students? We can still watch out for the religious freedom of our students as well as receive a rigorous liberal arts education. And, um, you know, so, so those are just some of my thoughts that, that I've had. But it's very clear to me, um, that, that we have to watch out, um, uh, for our students. And, uh, I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

  57. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:19:41

      Alright, thank you. Signal further comments, uh, to the sponsor, to some,

  58. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:19:47

      Um, I, I, I worry that some of the folks, some of the comments were had not, some of the commenters hadn't read the substitute. So I wanna just, I just wanna reiterate this idea of fundamental alteration that, that we don't, we recognize the need to master essential learning outcomes of the course. I'm just reading from the, from the, from the bill, the master learning essential learning outcomes of the course of the program or the degree, and to acquire the knowledge, the skills and competencies. We're not looking to, uh, say that folks don't need to learn what they need to learn. And, and if it's all right, Mr. Speaker, uh, or Mr. Chair, holy cow, you guys got me in the, um, it happens that, that Professor Wilson and I've, and I've asked her to do it, talk really briefly. This is something that she deals with this very issue that we're having right here. So if it's all right, I'm, I, I'd like to have her can, can she make a comment about this?

  59. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:20:51

      Uh, briefly, we'd like to wrap up. Okay. We've got a full agenda today. Robin, if you're still there, go briefly, would you?

  60. Robin Footwell Wilson1:20:57

      Yeah, I am. I mean, I think you had it handled. Rep Peterson. Um, there's a guardrail around the, uh, impact to accreditation or even to a student's learning. And that is this idea of a fundamental ar uh, alteration that's done at the institutional level. So the faculty member has a, uh, an outlet for the concern that they would like to continue to do these kinds of assignments. Um, and then that neutral arbitrator with guidance from Ushi will decide that question and that rectifies the power imbalance that Representative Thompson and others talked about, um, in their comments. Thank you.

  61. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:21:39

      Thank you. Alright.

  62. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:21:41

      So, so with that, um, I, I would, I would urge your support. I think this is, uh, it plays off again the bill from last year. That's where we got the definition of, of, of, uh, of conscience. And, and I, and I, and I truly believe this is going to be a blessing. This is, this is not a, this is not an issue for the right or for the left. This is just, this will protect all of our students. So thank you. I appreciate your support.

  63. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:22:05

      Thank you to the maker of the motion.

  64. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:22:08speaker not certain

      I'll waive. Thank you. Alright.

  65. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:22:09

      The motion before us is to recommend favorably house Bill 2 0 4, higher education student belief accommodations as substituted. We'll do a roll call vote. Is that all right? All right. Go ahead. Uh, sorry. Go ahead. Tisha.

  66. Unknown speaker1:22:24speaker not certain

      Representatives. Er Yes, Liz and me. Aye. McPherson? Yes. Millard, yes. Moss Peck. Yes. Thompson? Yes. Welton? Yes. Chair Walter?

  67. Rep. R. Neil Walter (committee chair)1:22:41

      Yes. That passes, uh, eight to one with, uh, Representative Moss. No. So thank you. Appreciate that. Uh, thank you, Representative Peterson.

• Feb 17, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (19 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker1:06:50speaker not certain

     Third reading calendar Per substitute house bill 2 0 4, higher education student belief accommodation by representative Mike Peterson. This bill was heard in education with the vote of 8 1 6 Representative Mike Peterson.

  2. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:07:07

     Good morning and thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, motion to adopt an, uh, amendment house. Amendment one.

  3. Speaker (presiding)1:07:36

     Uh, sorry. Thank, thank you Representative Peterson. The motion is you adopt amendment one under your name. Would you like to speak to that?

  4. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:07:43

     Yes. Thank you. It, uh, it just includes two quick, uh, tweaks that we made with, uh, uh, the request of our, uh, government operations division Department Peterson.

  5. Speaker (presiding)1:07:55

     Discussion to the motion to adopt amendment number one. If your light is on to speak to the motion to adopt amendment number one. See none. We'll go ahead and place that motion. Motion before us the house adopt amendment number one under representative, uh, uh, Peterson's name All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Roll. That motion passes. The bill's been amended and before the body for further or back to Europe San Peterson for presentation. Thank You. Speaker Soltz.

  6. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:08:26

     Um, this is a sort of a companion Bill hb, uh, to HB four 60 that we passed in 2024 that protected state employees, uh, gave them conscious protection. And this is for our higher ed students. Um, my, my daughter is finishing a social work degree out of state, and, uh, she called me and told me that she was, she required by her teacher to write a letter of advocacy on a, on a, on a topic that was aligned with her professor, but not with her. And she was, uh, to, to write this letter. And she wrote, uh, she, when she told me about it, I was a little alarmed that this seemed like a compelled speech that she should have to advocate for the case, for the cause of the professor, uh, that the, that was important to, to a professor. I Uintah a couple of town halls, not, not long after. And I, and I mentioned that this had come up and I, I discovered that other people had had a similar kind of experience where their, where they themselves or their, their, their, their, uh, children had been compelled to do something for a university that, that violated their conscience. You, you might be, uh, aware Mr. Speaker, that our state constitution contains the phrase, the rights of conscience shall never be infringed. And sometimes our students are compelled to do things that, that, uh, do violate their rights of conscience. I recognize that this is a rare exception. In fact, I've had people, many people ask me, how is this gonna change how things are done in higher education? And I actually believe it. It's not gonna do much at all because I think most of our professors, uh, are cognizant of their, of the needs of their students, and they are not, uh, most, most are aware of the, of the legal issues that are arise when they compel speech and other things. So I don't think it's gonna do, uh, I don't think it's going to be a a, I don't think it's gonna make many changes, but I think for the, for the students who have been put into places that are uncomfortable, I think it will help. It will help them. And as we all know, the, the law is a teacher. There's really two main pieces of the bill. One is that we, uh, prohibit compelled speech clearly. Uh, I think, I think Mr. Speaker, you, you, you and our body would agree that, that we ought not mandate to students what they say out in public. Uh, but, and then the second part that is that it, uh, prevents students from having to participate in activities that, that don't align with their conscience. And we, I would remind you that from the earlier Bill I mentioned, we define conscience as a sincerely held belief as to the rightness or wrongness of a, of an action or an inaction. Now, now I have people that sometimes can come to me and say, well, this means that students are just gonna opt outta things. Well, actually, if you read the bill, you'll, you'll see that we have a definition in there for fundamental alteration, meaning, uh, that you change something so significantly that the students no longer going to master the essential learning outcomes of the course, the programmer degree there. In other words, they're gonna, they're gonna miss the skills and knowledge that, that are required. It, it would make no sense that you want to be a, a climatologist, but you don't want to take the climate, the climate class. It would make no sense that you want to be a physician and you say, I don't wanna learn anything about immunizations. Uh, obviously that, that, that wouldn't work. And so, and so, uh, the bill contemplates the idea that the student must master the essential learning outcomes of the course, program, or degree. Um, Thank you representative. I think, I think that wraps up my, uh, my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  7. Speaker (presiding)1:12:16

     Okay. Uh, thank you, Representative Peterson. Discussion to the bill Representative Daley Provo.

  8. Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost1:12:23

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Yes.

  9. Speaker (presiding)1:12:25

     Representative Peterson will yield to a question. Yes, of course. Yes. Representative Daley Provo.

  10. Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost1:12:29

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a university professor, if I grade for participation in my course, does that give students the ability to opt out of class discussions?

  11. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:12:42

      So, first of all, class discussion. Uh, first of all, I, I would, uh, I would remind us of line 45 through 47 that says, you can excuse participation. You can offer an alternative deadline or schedule, or you can offer an alternative examination assignment or activity. So, so there are, there are already written in, we, we, we know what the reasonable accommodations are. Now, as, as to the can, can the student get out of the discussion? Again, the student, especially because of what we just passed about that first amendment, the student is required to write to the teacher. 'cause we need to have some sort of, um, uh, record Mr. Um, Dr. So andSo, uh, this, uh, the, the, the presentation violates my conscience. If the, if the professor says, well, that's, uh, uh, that's, that's necessary for your degree or for this course, then it's a, then it's a done deal. The student needs to stay. They, they can appeal to the, what we call the neutral arbiter. Um, but it's likely that, uh, you know, it is likely, again, professors are, professors know what they're doing. This is a very, uh, this doesn't happen a lot. And so I, I, I don't think this is gonna be an issue for most professors.

  12. Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost1:13:57

      Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And as a professor, I appreciate the sponsor's, um, vote of confidence that I do know what I'm doing when teaching my classes. My concern with this bill, my concerns are many with this bill. Number one, I think that this runs a significant risk of eliminating the value in a university setting of discussing hard things, of talking about things that make us uncomfortable, but are absolutely essential in creating critical thinkers who understand that there are need to be multiple viewpoints in on any, on any tough issue. I think that the term fundamental all alteration is vague and untenable. And I think that the, one of the biggest concerns that I have is this bill sincerely threatens accreditation for programs. Um, as somebody who actively works on the re on the accreditation and reaccreditation of the program, that in which I teach at the University of Utah, there are skills that are required of all students. And this bill runs the risk of allowing students to opt out of those skills that are required. And no neutral arbiter at the, at a university has jurisdiction over an accrediting body. And this is significant. This also puts the risk of those decisions on patients and clients of the professionals that we're training as a, as a, as a patient, for example, of a nursing student who is maybe going to see a nurse practitioner for reproductive health. That patient has no ability to know if that student has opted out of critical reproductive health issues. I have concerns about this, and I believe that there are ways to manage those points of friction in a university setting that absolutely have no place in statute because of the risks to both patients and clients who don't have the ability to know if their practitioners or their professionals are trained in the skills that are common. And we have accreditation risks that are significant and, um, cannot be overcome by the presence of the, the neutral arbiter, um, language in the bill. For this, I oppose the bill.

  13. Speaker (presiding)1:16:14

      Thank you, representative Dailey Provo. Further discussion to the bill Representative Hansen, further discussion to the bill Representative. Strong,

  14. Rep. Steve Eliason1:16:25speaker not certain

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize, I've spoken more today than all the other days combined, I had a, a letter from, uh, a, uh, constituent who, if he were elected to this body would probably be sitting in the southeast corner. Um, and so we don't share a lot of our political beefs in common. And he emails me frequently and says, what the heck? Why are you guys doing this and that? And he emailed me on this particular bill. And, uh, uh, I replied to him and I said, okay, this, um, the, the major portion of the bill here says that you don't have to publicly post what you've written. I said, we're all in favor of having to write something in opposition to what you believe. But in this one instance, uh, somebody was being required to publicly post this and that, uh, that goes against. And I, when I sent that, he replied that, uh, the, uh, a certain newspaper here in town had misrepresented the bill. And he says, I agree with you on this bill. So from a perspective of, uh, myself and a, uh, a much more left-leaning constituent, uh, I speak highly in favor of this bill.

  15. Speaker (presiding)1:17:40

      Thank you, Representative. Strong further discussion to the bill, Representative Kyle

  16. Rep. Ken Ivory1:17:46speaker not certain

      Speaker, I call the question, Question previous question has been called, which has the effective ending debate?

  17. Speaker (presiding)1:17:52

      All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule out motion passes debate has ended back to your Representative, Peterson, on summation.

  18. Rep. Michael J. Petersen1:18:01

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I, I didn't mention in my, in my, uh, presentation, I should have told you that, um, we've been working long and diligently with Yushi, with the Attorney General's office, with the Department of of Government Operations, and with the University of Utah, the, our first, our first draft. In fact, when it came out, they had significant concerns about the very, uh, about accreditation. And so we worked with, we worked with them to, to, uh, so that these concerns were no longer going to be valid, and they are no longer valid. Uh, we answered them in the bill. Um, accreditation is not going to be an issue as far as can you still discuss hard things? Absolutely. This, this is not about whether you're gonna opt out of hearing something you don't notice. We talk about, we talk about, uh, activities. We talk about examinations, and we talk about, uh, there's three things anyway. Lecture's not one of them. This is not to, this is not to get someone out of having to hear an idea that doesn't, that doesn't go along with them. It's about having to do something that doesn't agree with their conscience. So, um, again, we've, we've been, we've been working on this long and hard with lots of folks who are, who, uh, who know this even better than I do. And, uh, um, we, we are not gonna run into the troubles that, that have been, that you've been warned about. And so I would, uh, I would appreciate your vote. Thank you.

  19. Speaker (presiding)1:19:38

      Thank you, Representative Peterson Bo, you'll now be open on first substitute HB 2 0 4. Scene all present, hand voted, voting is now closed. First substitute HB 2 0 4 passes this body of 50 40 s votes. 14 no votes will be sent to the Senate

• Feb 25, 2026 Senate Education Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (50 turns)

  1. Committee chair2:25:58speaker not certain

     representative p Mike Peterson, glad to have you here. I noticed you have an amendment too online. Do you wanna move that amendment If we could? Yes. Okay. Can I have a motion to, uh, move that amendment? Uh, Senator Balderree, go ahead. So moved. Okay. So the motion is to, uh, apply Amendment two to HB 2 0 4. First substitute, uh, all in favor of that motion? Aye. Any opposed? Are you guys okay with moving the amendment? Okay, aye, aye. Okay. So the chair rolls out as unanimous, uh, Representative Peterson to the amended, uh, first substitute HB 2 0 4. Go ahead. The

  2. Rep. Michael J. Petersen2:26:45

     Teacher, uh, that amendment was a single word, but I, it reflects, uh, one final request from, uh, from Yushi. So I appreciate you doing that for me. Um, uh, I have a co-presenter, uh, professor Wilson, who's probably trying to, to join us. And I, I'll let her introduce herself in just a second. Um, this, this, uh, HB 2 0 4 started, uh, I have a daughter who's just finishing her master's degree outside of state, a master of social work, and she called me and said, dad, I just got, uh, I just got an assignment to, uh, write a letter of advocacy to my state legislator later. And she was told that what it had to be, what she had to advocate for. And so when she told me that, I was a little, a little taken aback that, uh, a professor would require advocacy for a certain, a certain, uh, ideology. And it just happened that over the course of the next few weeks, I, as I held some town halls, I mentioned to folks this, this experience of my daughters, and I had other people tell me, yeah, they'd had a similar kind of thing happen for them. In fact, as I talked, even my, my intern had a similar, uh, a similar, uh, experience where a, where a professor, um, his, his was a little bit different, but a professor who had him, uh, who was assigning him to do something that violated his, his, uh, his conscience. And, and in our, um, well, you might remember last year I passed, uh, well, the, the legislature, we passed a bill about conscious protection for state employees. Just saying that if a state employee was given an, uh, a task that violated their conscience, we would, we would staff around them. Things would be done if, if it, if it was, if it was a possible, we would staff around them. Because in our, in our state constitution, we have the phrase, the rights of conscience shall never be infringed. Yet I was, I, I was hearing from, from our, some of our state employees and now some of our students, that actually their rights are being infringed. And so, and so we, uh, so I decided to, to, to, to write this legislation, to do something about that. Students often, if not typically see themselves as sort of the sort of beholden to their professors, and, and it's difficult for them when they're, uh, given assignments or again, told to, uh, uh, assigned compelled speech. So, um, if it's all right, Mr. Mr. Chair, I'm gonna ask, uh, my friend, colleague, uh, uh, professor Robin Wilson to introduce herself and, and let her tell, tell some, uh, describe this bill just a bit for you, if that's all right. Uh, go ahead.

  3. Robin Fretwell Wilson, consultant to the Utah Senate2:29:57

     Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that. Thank you. Rep Peterson. I am Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor and a consultant to the Utah Senate. I speak in my personal professional capacity and do not speak for the University of Illinois, the Senate, or anyone else. And I wanna highlight two key points about the protections for religious belief and conscience in this bill, and then the process for such objections. So, first compelled speech, uh, the assignments to write one's lawmaker or newspaper, otherwise, take a public position that Rep Peterson just described, which are on lines 79 to 83, are classic instances of compelled speech by the state. HB 2 0 4 governs only state schools because it amends 53 H of the Utah Code, which lists state schools as institutions, faculty, or teachers at state schools, or state employees. So when they enlist or make students willing or not to, uh, advance public positions on contested questions like support for same-sex marriage, and the example, given they are acting as the state, the state has to be viewpoint neutral on questions of citizen speech. But being told what position to take is not viewpoint neutral. In fact, coercing students in any course to do this as a part of their grade would violate the First Amendment to the US Constitution, namely, its protection for free speech. Now, you know, as well as I do that the First Amendment is not self-executing. Students would have to, you know, get counsel to fight an assignment that encroached on their first amendment rights. So, provision four B in this bill aligns utah's code with the protection intended by the founders under the US Constitution. After HB 2 0 4, a faculty member could no longer corral an army of students to advance positions preferred by that faculty member. As a teacher, I know that students often don't feel like they can challenge, you know, the professor. Moreover, students may not learn about an assignment and the collision with their religious beliefs or conscience until after the ad drop period has passed, and it's just too late to get out of the class, or they have to pay penalty fees. So, second, let me talk about assignments that violate conscience. So the second protection in line 60 to 63 extends only to a subset of classes. Those that are mandated for graduation are one's major. And this permits students to request an alternative assignment when the student cannot do what is assigned for reasons of religious belief or conscience. Now, that second basis conscience is important, not only because it's in your constitution, as Rep Peterson said, but because religious reasons don't cover all objections. As one example, a student may not wanna write a paper arguing for a clean needle exchange for addicts as a form of what we sometimes call harm reduction, either because they object as a matter of conscience to facilitating drug use, or because a family member may have died in an overdose. Now, notice in line 60 to 63 that a student can object and be accommodated with another assignment. So long as being given another assignment is not a fundamental alteration. Now, that gets divined in lines 34 to 42, and it means a change so significant that it alters the essential nature of the degree, and either one of two things. It negatively impacts the student's ability to master the class's essential learning objections, objectives, excuse me, or acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to pass. Now this gets determined very importantly by the institution's designated neutral arbiter and lines 1 0 4 to 1 0 6, with guidance from ushi rather than the instructor. Now, as you can imagine, my colleagues, many people I know would see any change to a class, uh, at someone else's request as a fundamental alteration. Now that guardrail, a fundamental alteration, keeps a student from enrolling, let's say, in climate science as a major, and then objecting to every single assignment as a client climate objector. And I'll say one more word on process protection. Students give written prior notice to the instructor asking for an accommodation on line 69. The request is confidential unless disclosure is required by law. And nine line 95. And institutions oversee the process with guidance from ushi, specifically about reasonable notice by students of their objection in line 97, and reasonable notice from the faculty of the decision in line 98, teaching as fluid as any teacher knows. And sometimes assignments are created as the semester unfolds. So the response time may be different for assignments that are given on day one versus those that are given on the fly. Either way, these common sense mechanisms come out of extended conversations with the Utah State Higher Education Commission. And I think they are important guardrails and sound. Thank you.

  4. Committee chair2:35:31

     Thank you. Thank, thanks, Robin. Does that, does that conclude your presentation or, yeah, that, that that does. Yep. We're good. Okay. We're gonna come back to the committee for clarifying questions. Senator Riebe, go ahead.

  5. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe2:35:48

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, you mentioned your title as a consultant to the Senate. Uh, is this as a paid capacity, or I don't, I've I've never met you before. I've never seen you before. Do you live in the state of Utah?

  6. Robin Fretwell Wilson, consultant to the Utah Senate2:36:03

     I don't. I am a faculty member at the University of IU uh, university of Illinois. And I have worked with President Adams as a consultant to, um, to him and the body, uh, since he's been president. But, but my work with the Senate has gone back to the Utah Compromise in 2015, and I've worked on something like 18 different laws.

  7. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe2:36:28

     Okay, thank you. At his request. Thank you. Yeah.

  8. Robin Fretwell Wilson, consultant to the Utah Senate2:36:30

     Oh, and it's unpaid there. I wouldn't accept payment.

  9. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe2:36:33

     Okay. So that's just a title you have called yourself. So that's not like an official title, is that 'cause you're not paid and you're not part of our staff?

  10. Robin Fretwell Wilson, consultant to the Utah Senate2:36:45

      Uh, it was a title that President Adams told me to use, so yes, but no, I'm not on your staff and I'm not paid.

  11. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe2:36:53

      Okay, thank you. So, um, I'm looking at the fiscal note for this bill, and it's zero, um, as we are writing two curriculums now, instead of one curriculum for every classroom, who would be making up all this extra work and all this extra, um, curriculum that you would have to have available for any student that decided that this was not part of their conscience?

  12. Robin Fretwell Wilson, consultant to the Utah Senate2:37:19

      Well, I I don't think it's, uh, anticipated there will be a new curriculum in, in, in fact, it's anticipated that I should have said this at the outset. I don't think this is a, this is a, a ubiquitous problem. Uh, most of our professors, as as, as we've all had experience, most of our professors do do a great job. They, they, they care about their students. This is, this is because there are sometimes some professors who have difficulty, uh, recognizing that the individual, uh, conscience and beliefs of their, of their students. This is, so, this is not a, this is not like every, every faculty member are gonna have to go out and, and write a second, uh, uh, a second set of curriculum.

  13. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe2:38:06

      I, I disagree. I mean, I think if I was in a school and I was failing a class and I wanted to create some speed bumps in my failing grade, I could actually just say, this is against my conscience. Can you provide me with an alternative lesson? And imagine if you had four people in a class of a hundred that did that, you'd have four different lessons because each conscience could be something different. So, I mean, I could be opposed to this for a Catholic reason, and someone could be opposed to it for a Jewish reason, and then someone could be opposed to it for a vegan reason. And now you'd have four different lessons you were writing. How would you pay for, I mean, how much time would, would a professor be required to do that?

  14. Robin Fretwell Wilson, consultant to the Utah Senate2:38:45

      Well, again, I don't, I don't think that's what's gonna happen. Okay.

  15. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe2:38:48

      I, I, I disagree. Um, and I have one more question. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Um, thank you. When we, um, think about going to higher ed, we, we pay money, we choose our classes. And so why would I choose a cla Like, so maybe we could do something where you could get out of a class and get your money back if you felt your conscience was being violated. Um, I mean, I could maybe support that, but you choose classes based on the major that you wanna get. So if I see that there's a point that says you can't change it, because that would, um, not be in full, uh, accreditation of your class. But that brings up a point, like, if we are going to change the curriculum for accredited classes and at accredited universities, wouldn't this compromise the integrity of the class you were trying to get your degree in if you were just going to circumnavigate some of the requirements of your education?

  16. Robin Fretwell Wilson, consultant to the Utah Senate2:39:49

      Well, well, again, if, if you went, go back to the fundamental alteration, you can't fundamentally alter what a student's going to, what a student's going to learn or master. So that's the, that's, I think that's the most important piece to remember.

  17. Rep. Michael J. Petersen2:40:04speaker not certain

      Well, but I would also add, you can, uh, uh, you know, back down into, uh, lines 47 and 49, you can excuse participation. You can alter, uh, give an alternative deadline or alternative examination assignment or activity. So it's, it doesn't necessarily have to be a new, a new, a new piece of curriculum. Furthermore, again, as, as, as rep, uh, as, uh, professor Wilson pointed out if, if, if necessary, it goes to a, a neutral arbiter, Um, thank you. Uh, which By the way, was a, a, an addition by by Yushi. That was one of their requests.

  18. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe2:40:42

      Thank you. Um, yeah, I, I, I, I struggle with what people would determine fundamental. I mean, that, that has some subjectivity to it. I would, um, argue that this would create a lot of, um, stress in our professors' lives, having to maybe come up with multiple lessons, and then also thinking about, um, oh, I just lost it. Thinking about how we are, um, going to remain a university with integrity and autonomy and the ability to teach a class to the needs of our students. Once we start inserting ourselves into our universities with curriculum, it really becomes problematic. And every, this year and last year, I continually see us trying to insert ourselves into curriculum classes in higher ed. And I find that a little shocking because a university is a spot where we, um, we wanna give them autonomy, and we wanna give them the ability to navigate. I mean, I'm sure professors would be, um, empathetic to some of these things without putting it in law. But once you put it in law, I think it can be abused. I mean, school is expensive. I mean, I'm paying a couple of thousand dollars for two classes at Salt Lake Community College, and if I could get outta paying that bill because we took a conscientious objection, that would be great for me. Right. If I was failing. So I think that there's too much subjectivity, and it's a little too nebulous for me to support this. So thank you.

  19. Unknown speaker2:42:20speaker not certain

      Uh, let, let me ask a question. Okay. Under, under HB 2 61 and the follow up this year with, with, uh, the bill I presented the other day, SB 2 95, um, both of those, in fact, 2 95 actually clarifies this. Uh, the bill basically says that we should have viewpoint neutrality, equal protection, and freedom from compelled speech. And I, I think maybe the, and, and, you know, I, I actually like some of the definitions you're using on this, but, uh, with, when you're talking about compelled speech, though, uh, that that simply says you can't enforce your viewpoint on somebody, but you could ask them to, to, to actually explain, right. You, you could have them write a letter that says, what did you learn in class about this? Could you express that to somebody that that would be an alternative thing, wouldn't it? I, I mean, I'm just curious. Yeah.

  20. Robin Fretwell Wilson, consultant to the Utah Senate2:43:27speaker not certain

      Yes. And, and you could, and, and you could ask your, your students to send a letter advocating for whatever principles you want to advocate for. Just don't tell them that they have to advocate, advocate for X. You could say, um, 'cause we don't, we don't want the, we don't want the student to be told, you have to advocate on behalf of pro-life or pro-choice, just advocate, learn the principles of, of advocating. Or could they, could they write a paper explaining the both sides of that debate? Yep. Absolutely.

  21. Unknown speaker2:43:59speaker not certain

      I mean, Rob, Robin, I, I kinda wonder what, what's in the code there that, that makes them do, But what's in the bill that they do?

  22. Robin Fretwell Wilson, consultant to the Utah Senate2:44:11

      Yeah. So this is all appearing at line 79 to 83, and the multiple people, um, rep Peterson has indicated, including his daughter, have said that credit for a course has been tied, uh, credit to a portion of the grade has been tied to writing specific public figures or public outlets. So, taking a public position that is specified on the outcome that is taken. Um, and this bill does two things, not only response to profess, to Senator Rees's concerns, uh, which I can come back to, but, um, about alternative assignments. But it is saying that the state cannot, or state instructors cannot force or compel tie credit to a student having to take a specified position. Like my specified position is, I have to support same-sex marriage. Now, if they had been told, for example, that, um, you know, you should write a take, write an essay that you share with the public about same sex marriage that says the pros and cons, that's a very different assignment. That wouldn't be compelled speech because it would be viewpoint neutral.

  23. Unknown speaker2:45:37speaker not certain

      I'd, I'd be curious to see how this, uh, stacks up against SB 2 95. Quite frankly, I, I think that, uh, I, I, I think that compelled speech ideas actually started in, in HP 2 61. I don't know that that word has gotten out like it should in, in some ways. Right? But, but, uh, it, it'd be interesting to explore that more. I, I actually am supportive of what you're doing, because I, that's, that I think is clearly outlined in HB 2 61 that came out before, or SB 2 95, that you can't compel somebody to take a certain belief. And it, it'd be interesting to see what, what's really different about this. I like the way, uh, the language of this reads in, in many ways. So, uh, but I'm gonna be supportive of this. I hope we can, you know, kind of clarify those things between the two bills.

  24. Committee chair2:46:34

      Okay. Uh, do you have any comments? I do. Okay. Go ahead, Senator Baldy.

  25. Sen. Heidi Balderree2:46:41

      Thank you. I wholeheartedly support this bill. Uh, one, if there's one thing that I found in higher education in our current state today is that there is a lack of competing ideology. And, um, and so I believe that the true hallmark of a free society is in, its not in its demand for conformity, but in its capacity for accommodation. And our universities must be marketplaces of ideas where a student's grade depends on their academic merit, not on the sacrifice of their most deeply held convictions. And as we look at the diversity of thought and face across Utah's higher education landscape, we must ensure that our public institutions remain accessible to all forms of thought. And House Bill 2 0 4 broadens that scope of reasonable accommodation for students sincerely held religious and conscious, um, beliefs. And it moves beyond just excusing absences for religious holidays, to protecting students from being compelled to take public positions on matters of concern that violate their conscience, such as being required to write letters to lawmakers or publish opinion pieces that contradict their views. And this legislation ensures that a Utah degree represents a student's mastery of a subject, not their willingness to check their conscience at the campus. Gates. Thank you.

  26. Committee chair2:48:00

      Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other lights, we're gonna have to come to members of public. Anyone wanna speak to this bill, come forward. I'm going to set the timer for one and a half minutes. Uh, state your name for the record, and then go ahead, tell us whether you're for or against the bill, and then go ahead.

  27. Gayle Ruzicka, Utah Eagle Forum2:48:21

      Thank you. Eagle Forum, and, uh, I support this bill. I'm gonna share with you something that happened, uh, in our family. My daughter at, uh, you know, a young age, uh, went off to college in Michigan. It was a, it was a very conservative school. We thought all would be well. And, uh, her first year there, uh, she was looking through, working through the text for one of her classes. And, uh, it was very critical. There's a whole, they had a chapter that started out very critical of our religious beliefs, saying things about our church that just were not true. Uh, she, there she was back east all by herself. She called and she didn't want what to do. She says, I can't stay in this class, mom, I can't be part, there's only, there was only five students in the whole school that had the same religious belief that she did. So we talked it through, and this decision was made that she would go talk to their professor. So she went in and explained to him that she was gonna withdraw from the class. 'cause obviously they weren't gonna change the textbook. And, uh, instead he said to her, she, she explained to him what, what, uh, she believed, and that why she couldn't be in that class as, as, as they taught that. And, uh, he, uh, told her, he says, what if I give you all the time you want to explain about your church? So that's what she did. It was a great experience for her to do that. And, uh, he told, we talked to him later, and he said he learned a lot, and the students learned a lot. And she, that was a great experience for her. And she left there feeling like, you know, the right thing had been done. So this needs to happen. They need to have that kind of freedom. Thank, Thank you very much.

  28. Committee chair2:50:16

      Go ahead. State your name for the record. Sign in, tell us who you represent.

  29. Rick McDonald, professor, Utah Valley University2:50:23

      Hi, I'm Rick McDonald. I'm here as a private citizen, but I'm a full professor at, uh, Utah Valley University. Um, and I'm a member of the American Federation of Teachers. Uh, so I think, um, that there's a, a problem with the, the term activities in this bill. Um, on lines 49 and 61, um, an activity could be a lot of different things, uh, like a class discussion, right? And, and controlling where a class discussion goes can, can be very difficult, right? So in class discussions, exercises, readings, it opens the door to, uh, the institution's over compliance with bills and students'. Exploitation of the bill activities could include lectures in class discu, oh, sorry. Um, uh, if activities is not properly defined, nearly any coursework could be understood as an activity, particularly if students are awarded participation points or attendance points, as do universe, as do many in university instructors. Uh, the ambiguity of activities will also lead to over compliance by institutions as seen with other bills like HB 2 61. Um, uh, while the intent of activity as written in the bill could refer to a graded assignment or an assessment, the institution may over comply by extending that to allow a student's requested accommodation for a lecture or for a classroom instruction or discussion.

  30. Committee chair2:51:52

      Thank you very much. You, again, go ahead and state your name for the record.

  31. Heather Gooch, resident2:52:01

      Hello, Mr. Chairperson. My name is Heather G***h. I am here as a private citizen. Um, I have 30 years, uh, as an educator in the state of Utah, and I'm currently in a policy class. And so I've been closely following this bill, which I find to be very anti educator and really just unnecessary, um, compelled speech is already, um, against our federal laws. Um, it's really only those four lines, um, that we keep, uh, referring to, um, 79 to 83 that focuses on compelled speech. We already have systems in place at our higher education, uh, establishments to deal with these types of complaints. And so putting in a neutral arbiter seems like another level of bureaucracy that it, that, like who are these neutral arbiters gonna be? What policies are they, um, following. We have offices of, we have offices of Ouds, we have Title IX offices. We have equal, um, offices of equal opportunity where students can go and, and state their complaints about compelled speech. And so really, uh, ignoring the, the four lines of com compelled speech, which is really, um, kind of a hot topic. You now have students who can say, I don't believe in evolution. So I would like to not learn. And every legislator who has spoken again, um, about this bill has spoken against it, I think we should trust our legislators are educators and follow their, their path to say no to this. Bill. Thank you. Thank you very much.

  32. Committee chair2:53:43

      Go ahead and state your name for the record. How many more wanna speak to this? Okay. We'll go ahead and take

  33. Maryann Christensen, Utah Legislative Watch2:53:51

      You Mary Ann Christensen, executive Director of Utah Legislative Watch. And I'm here to speak in favor of the bill. And I wanna tell you, a story happened a long time ago. Um, I was married. We had a, a couple little kids and my husband, because his, um, career path wasn't going anywhere, he decided to go back to college. And, um, in one of the, these two hour classrooms, the, the, the professor kind of baited all these kids to come up and try and, and defend their faith in God. And then at the end, he tried to crumble all of their faith by saying, yeah, you, you used to believe in Santa Claus when you were three years old, and then you got more sophisticated and you don't believe in Santa Claus anymore. If you still believe in God, you're just not sophisticated enough to know better. And my husband being a little bit older was kind of resilient to that. But he looked around that room at all the 18 and 19 year olds and wonder how many of them now had big holes in their, in their belief in God. And I don't think that kind of thing should ever be happening. I don't think that's what parents send their kids to college for, is any kind of indoctrination or any kind of undermining of the family's faith. So I really appreciate your voting for the bill. Thank you very Much. Thank you.

  34. Committee chair2:55:10

      Go ahead, state your name for the record.

  35. Sean Crossland, AFT Utah College Council2:55:14

      Hello, Sean Crossland, A FT Utah College Council. I wanna point out as well that there's, uh, several of our members online that would like to speak against this bill. Um, I've been a higher education professional for 15 years in the state of Utah. Uh, if I had more time, I would list, uh, all of the conscious, uh, objections and religious concerns that I've encountered. Uh, I just wanna point out that there's approximately 240,000 students in public higher education in the state of Utah, which means that there are 240,000 consciousness that we would need to, uh, be prepared to accommodate, uh, with this legislation. Uh, a counterpoint recent study, uh, from Gallup, 2% of all college students, including 3% of all Republicans, say that they don't belong on a college campus. That number is incredibly low. 71% said their professors create a classroom environment that supports both students who express unpopular opinions and those who may be upset by such views. Um, we've heard a couple anecdotes, um, that are really not relevant. Um, we haven't heard a single example that pertains to the state of Utah, um, that this bill would actually apply to. Um, I would just paraphrase a, a quote from one of my mentors, John Salt Marsh. Our work as educators is not to change your mind, but to make sure that you, or to make sure that you don't think more like us. Our job is to make sure that you do not comfortably stay where you are.

  36. Committee chair2:56:39

      Thank you. I'm gonna take two online, and then we need to end because we we're already over. And we have one more Bill, uh, turn. Let's go to Tyler Coward. These are just in the order that they came up. Go ahead, Tyler.

  37. Tyler Coward, FIRE2:57:06

      Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman and thank you members of the committee. My name's Tyler Coward. I'm with the Foundation for individual Rights and Expression or Fire. Uh, we are a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting free speech for all Americans, especially in higher education. And fire's been long involved in Utah and supported Utah in, uh, the Campus Free Speech Act, the Campus Anti-Harassment Act, and the campus, uh, campus due process legislation, uh, introduced by Representative Teuscher a couple years ago. Uh, and Utah has been a national leader in protecting civil liberties in higher ed. Uh, I, I wanted to actually be on both sides of this bill. Uh, I've heard some concerns that, that resonate with me, uh, in our organization and some concerns from the bill sponsor that are real. Um, if a professor requires a student to publicly advocate for a political position as their own, such as writing a letter to a legislator supporting legislation they oppose, that raises serious, compelled speech concerns. And the provision prohibiting instructors from forcing students to publicly take or communicate the position as their own is, is sensible and consistent with the First Amendment. Just like the other bills I mentioned that Utah has enacted, it makes sense to codify these protections in a state law, and that's a good thing. As an aside, uh, to the representative, uh, we've seen a number of cases across the country, particularly in graduate social work programs, where this exact problem that your daughter, uh, experienced has arisen. Uh, 20 years ago, we had a case in Buffalo or in Rhode Island, and that litigation just resolved a couple years ago. It was 19 years worth of litigation over that compelled speech case. Uh, so it's good to get this into law, uh, to avoid those problems. I do think that there is a critical distinction between compelled personal advocacy and ordinary academic work. Uh, asking students to write from a perspective that they disagree with is often just good pedagogy, and it teaches them to analyze and grapple with competing ideas, requiring professors to create alternative assignments. Whenever a student objects raises academic freedom, concerns and just practical problems, uh, faculty may just avoid contr controversial material altogether to prevent having to design multiple, multiple, uh, alternative tracks. And this would degrade the learning environment. At Utah's universities, uh, college campuses should be in the places where students learn to engage controversial Experts. Thank, thank you very much. Appreciate It time. Thank you. Uh, thank you Mr. Chair.

  38. Committee chair2:59:31

      Brianna Kramer, you're our last speaker. Go ahead.

  39. Brianna Kramer, AFT Southern Utah University chapter2:59:43

      Greetings chair and committee. I'm here as President of the A FT Utah College Council chapter at Southern Utah University. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I have two primary concerns with this bill. First, the term activity in lines 35 and 49 is undefined and overly broad as written, it could be interpreted to include lectures or core instructional material leading to inconsistent and unintended application across, across classrooms. This language should be clarified or removed. Second, the appeals process in lines 96 through 1 0 6 creates practical challenges that may harm students requiring a neutral subject matter. Arbiter can cause delays result in incomplete disrupt progression and prerequisite courses, and potentially delay graduation, particularly at smaller regional institutions that lack multiple subject matter experts. Universities already have student complaint processes for students to have elevate concerns like what the bill is trying to address. This will be another mandate for institutions with more put onto students, administrators, and faculty, especially for something that this sponsor states is not a UBI ubiquitous problem. Colleges and universities are spaces where students should be able to share their viewpoints and engage openly with diverse perspectives, ambiguous requirements, and burdensome processes, risk minding that learning environment. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that you request amendments to address these concerns or vote no on the bill. Thank you for your time.

  40. Committee chair3:01:10

      Okay, thank you. That ends our public comment. I'm gonna come back to members of the Committee for Action. Senator Baldry, go ahead.

  41. Sen. Heidi Balderree3:01:17

      Thank you. Um, I would like to make a motion, uh, in support of House Bill 2 0 4, uh, that we forward it to the full body of the Senate.

  42. Committee chair3:01:29

      Okay. Any discussion of that motion? Senator Rebe, go ahead.

  43. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe3:01:33

      Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, you know, being a part of a conversation that you don't agree with everyone is a hard place to be. As an atheist up here, I can tell you that I hear lots of things that I disagree with, but you know what? I welcome those conversations because it opens my mind, it gives me insight to other people. And, uh, I was raised a Catholic and changed my opinions about that. Um, so I I, I don't really understand how we are going to start changing our curriculum so that we're not hearing divergent thoughts by saying, that's against my conscience. Sometimes having two illustrate somebody else's point of view builds empathy because you have to take yourself out of your own thoughts and look at it from somebody else's point of view. And that happens to me up here frequently as well. Uh, for Feltner versus Rhode Island, that case was decided that the university had qualified immunity. So the student did not win that case. He actually lost because there was qualified immunity. So if we go down this road and we do get this law passed, and then there's a lawsuit, we probably weren't gonna win because as a precedent of this not winning. So I, I, I will probably be the sole no vote again, which is okay, because I'm comfortable being alone and being in a room full of people that disagree with me. But I don't see this as being a path forward. I see this as being a place that's going to make our universities look like they are, um, being, um, manipulated by the legislative branch. So I will be all, no,

  44. Committee chair3:03:13

      And we'll come back to you if there's no other comments.

  45. Unknown speaker3:03:20speaker not certain

      Oh, I do have another comment. Okay. Go ahead. I would just like to state that, um, I agree with Senator Riebe that it's okay to be, uh, different and have a lone vote, uh, as, as evidenced by my floor votes. Uh, I'm not afraid to vote alone. And, and I appreciate her sharing with us her, her belief journey and how it's changed. And I would absolutely agree with you that, um, persuasion, it should be, we should be taught by persuasion, not by compulsion. And that is why, um, there, and she cited a case. So I'm gonna ci a case too. And that is justice. Robert H. Jackson in West Virginia Board of Education versus Barnett gave us a gold standard, um, against compelled speech. And when he said, if there's any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official higher or petty can prescribe what shall be Orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or forced citizens to confess by word or act their faith they're in. And with that, I conclude my comments.

  46. Committee chair3:04:24

      Thank you. Come back to you for,

  47. Rep. Michael J. Petersen3:04:28

      Um, first, uh, I met with folks from a FTA week or so ago, and I had intended to define activity, and I forgot to add that in there because activity's not to, it is not to, uh, uh, we're not saying, uh, it wasn't intended. The lecture was gonna be involved and you, and you just said, I don't want to hear about this. So, so I will get back to that. And, and I'll, and I'll have a floor amendment that, uh, that Senator Brammer can, can add to this. All right. Because I didn't, I didn't mean to do that. And I, and I apologize for, for, uh, letting that slip by. But I will also say I seems like I have more faith than the professors, than the professors do. 'cause I don't think this is a ubiquitous problem. I think it is. I think it is isolated experiences and for us not to pay attention to these students and some of the experiences that they have, I think, I think we fail them. And, uh, well, we, we could go on, but, uh, uh, I, I'd appreciate your support.

  48. Committee chair3:05:33

      Thank you. Okay. So the motion is to, did we amend it? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Come back to you, Senator Balder.

  49. Sen. Heidi Balderree3:05:44

      Okay. Um, so I guess I would just say that, um, you know, as I was reviewing the bill, um, just wanna remind the audience. This bill explicitly states that an accommodation cannot be granted if it creates a fundamental alteration to the course. This means that students must still master the same essential learning outcomes and confidence as their peers. They simply do so through an alternative assignment. And for that reason, I, um, support the motion to favorably recommend House Bill 2 0 4. Um, as, I guess, do you want me to say as amended or second sub, or For substitute as amended? First substitute as amended to the full body of the

  50. Committee chair3:06:25

      Senate. Okay. So the motion is to send out HP 2 0 4 first substitute as amended, uh, to the full body. All in favor say Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? It's two to one. And so that passes. I, I would ask though that you pay attention to the, the last speaker online, because I think, I think she made some good comments about, you know, possible amendments to Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Representative Wilcox is here. Okay. Representative Wilcox.

• Mar 6, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (34 turns)

  1. Sen. Brammer1:06:11

     for conscience in medical contexts, in law enforcement context in employment contexts. Uh, what this does is, uh, the bill prohibits, uh, compelled speech in higher education settings, and then it prevents compulsion into activities that violate a student's conscience. What the bill does not prohibit is professors from lecturing on and on difficult, uh, topics. And so we've been working with the various universities and agencies in the executive branch, and their major concerns have been answered in the con in the current substitution. And so what we're trying to do is just get to the idea that the rights of conscience for students can be protected and accommodations can be made whenever possible. And with that, I'm open to any questions.

  2. President (presiding)1:06:53

     Thank you for the presentation. Senator Brammer. Senator Riebe to the bill.

  3. Sen. Riebe1:06:58

     Thank you Mr. President. And has the sponsor yield to questions?

  4. President (presiding)1:07:01

     Sure. Senator Brammer, will you yield Senator Riebe? Go ahead.

  5. Sen. Riebe1:07:04

     Thank you. Uh, we had a great conversation about this in committee. Uh, my concern was, and I don't see if it's addressed here, is that if a professor was, um, in a class and she had, or he had numerous people who were making conscientious objections to some curriculum, would that professor then be required to create multiple lessons?

  6. President (presiding)1:07:29

     Senator Brammer to

  7. Sen. Brammer1:07:31

     The question. I didn't hear a question in that. I heard a concern, But Yeah. Let me, let me go ahead. Would you repeat that question? Senator Riebe?

  8. Sen. Riebe1:07:37

     Yes. If, um, a teacher has numerous different types of conscious objections to a lesson, does that professor now need to make multiple lessons?

  9. President (presiding)1:07:49

     Senator Brammer?

  10. Sen. Brammer1:07:51

      Yeah. There, there's a reason why the First Amendment is the First Amendment. We accommodate rights of conscience and belief. And so, uh, you know, we do not steamroll the rights of conscience in America just because multiple people have a claim to a right of conscience.

  11. President (presiding)1:08:10

      Senator Rebe,

  12. Sen. Riebe1:08:11

      Thank you. Uh, this is taking place in a higher ed classroom, right?

  13. Sen. Brammer1:08:15

      Yes. Senator Brammer. So, oh, go ahead, Senator Eeb.

  14. Sen. Riebe1:08:19

      So you would be actively signing up for a class because that's the class you wanted to take. And so if you're willingly signing up for a class that you wanna take, why would you take a class that violates your conscience?

  15. President (presiding)1:08:32

      Senator Brammer.

  16. Sen. Brammer1:08:33

      Uh, even when people sign up to take classes in higher ed, they do not leave their right to conscience at the door. Back to you, Senator Riebe.

  17. Sen. Riebe1:08:44

      Thank you. Um, as we talked about this in our, um, committee, we also discussed if you are going to change curriculum or that jeopardize your ability to be accredited as a class accredited, as a university accredited, as a, um, accredited, as a, um, major would losing that ability to teach the class that you believed you should be teaching it, would that jeopardize your accreditation?

  18. Sen. Brammer1:09:09speaker not certain

      Senator Brammer? No,

  19. Sen. Riebe1:09:12

      Thank you. I I believe that our professors do not support this bill. I think that our, the beauty of higher ed is that it has autonomy and a lot of the bills that we're running this year, questioning the autonomy of what's happening in our universities actually jeopardizes the sanctity of a higher ed class. Um, I also would be curious what would happen if you were taking a class and you all, you weren't passing it, and then all of a sudden you're like, you know what? I need to have a different lesson because this is against my conscience. This opens up a lot of speculation for what's gonna happen in a university. If I was failing a class and I had nefarious tendencies, I'd just say, Hey, I need to have a different lesson. This goes against my conscience. And that professor would then be required to create a whole nother lesson. So I, I think this is a slippery slope and we should be careful about what we're asking our professors to do. And this is really, um, this is really the merit of our higher institutions thinking about things you've never thought about before, taking people's other different opinions and trying to understand the other side of a situation. I went home and discussed this bill with my daughter and she said, we don't teach opinions, we teach facts and universities. So I'm against this bill.

  20. President (presiding)1:10:25

      Further discussion to the bill Senator Stratton.

  21. Sen. Stratton1:10:30

      Thank you, Mr. President. I was really pleased to hear our president of the University of Utah talk about a gathering recently with two or 300 students that gathered to talk about what it means to be someone of faith in attending that university. He was delighted with, with the outcome of that, uh, the, the, the meeting went on and on and there was a great strength. I appreciate the comments of every perspective that our, our, our good senator spoke before me. I believe, and I trust that we can get this right. We have, uh, many professors and many others that want to be very helpful and respective. Uh, we do hear from time to time those outcomes and circumstances that, uh, are not aligned with what we would hope it would be. With that, I appreciate the work of the sponsor, the work of the brain trust that was drawn upon to come up with this, uh, very carefully articulated language. I think we need to have a lot of sensitivity to recognize the diversity of thought, the strength of that diversity, uh, the great, uh, landscape that we have in our state and the have, have some confidence and trust that we can get this right. Appreciate the sponsor and the stand and support of this bill.

  22. President (presiding)1:12:03

      Thank you. Looking for further discussion. Senator Balderree.

  23. Sen. Balderree1:12:09

      I thank you Mr. President. I, I spoke on this one in committee as well. Um, but I strongly support this bill because the true hallmark of a free society is not found in its demand for conformity, but in its capacity for accommodation. And our universities must be marketplaces of ideas where a students' grade depends on their academic merit, not the sacrifice of their most deeply held convictions. As we look at the diversity of thought and faith across utah's higher education landscapes, we must ensure that our public institutions remain accessible to all. So this bill broadens the scope of reasonable accommodation for students sincerely held religious and conscience beliefs. It moves beyond just excusing absences for religious holidays to protecting students from being compelled to take public positions on matters of concern that violate their conscience, such as being required to write letters to lawmakers or publish opinion pieces that contradict their values. This legislation ensures that a Utah degree represents a student's mastery of a subject, not their willingness to check their conscience at the campus. Gates.

  24. President (presiding)1:13:13

      Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, Senator Brammer to the summation and a motion

  25. Sen. Brammer1:13:19

      And I to the bill, I was speaking to the bill with the amendment, but we have not yet adopted Amendment four. And so at this point I would move that we adopt amendment four.

  26. President (presiding)1:13:30

      Thank you. That motion's in order? Do you wanna explain the amendment and I'll place it. Place it,

  27. Sen. Brammer1:13:36

      Yeah. Thank you. So the primary purpose of the amendment is to, uh, make it so that it clarifies on the dates issues if there's an examination that conflicts with a, with a religious belief, and then if it also provides some clarity around what a reasonable accommodation would be within this context.

  28. President (presiding)1:13:59

      Thank you. Do have discussion on the motion to amend?

  29. President (presiding)1:14:02

      See no discussion. I'll place the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

  30. President (presiding)1:14:08

      Roll up Motion passes As the bill is amended. Any further, uh, uh, discussion on the bill? If not, I'm gonna go to Senator Brammer for summation.

  31. Sen. Brammer1:14:17

      Thank you very much. And, uh, you know, I I appreciate the, the commentary on this. One of the things that we do need to remember is there was a comment in one of the questions that, or at least after the questions, that we are invading the sanctity of a college classroom as if that was a place of great sanctity compared with the sanctity of the first amendment of our freedom of belief, of our freedom of conscience, and of our, of the free exercise clause of the Constitution of the United States, as well as Title one article one of Utah's constitution. Um, you know, we, we have not ensconced our higher education classrooms above those of the rights of our citizens. And while we certainly protect the free exercise rights of our professors within our universities, at the same time we also protect the free exercise rights of the students within our universities. And we do not allow them to be abrogated, um, without some means to achieve reasonable accommodation in the event that there is a conflict between the two. We want our students to grapple with difficult ideas, but we do not want them to be forced into compelled speech or situations that compromise their consciousness. And so for that reason, I urge your support and I move the question for first House bill 2 0 4 as amended.

  32. President (presiding)1:15:47

      Thank you. And the question is, under suspension of the rule, shall first substitute House bill 2 0 4 pass roll Cobo.

  33. Clerk (roll call)1:15:53

      Senator Spery Lewin Bramer aye. Bus Culmore Escamilla Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Ipson Ipson Johnson Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Sure no thumb. Bie Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers LER Wilson Winterton.

  34. President Adams1:16:41

      President Adams Aye. First substitute house bill 2 0 4, heaven received 17 yay votes. Five nay votes. Seven being absent passes. This body will be signed by, the pres will be returned to the house for further consideration.

• Mar 6, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (6 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)7:03

     For substitute house bill 2 0 4 Higher education student belief accommodation by representative Mike Peterson. Oh. Representative Mike Peterson.

  2. Rep. Michael J. Petersen7:15

     You Mr. Speaker? Uh, I have bad news. I'd like to make a motion to concur with the Senate amendments.

  3. Speaker (presiding)7:23

     Well I know you representative, it's probably not that bad of news. So, uh, would you like that motion is in order? Would you like to speak to it?

  4. Rep. Michael J. Petersen7:31

     Yes. We just removed the word activities from uh, from the list of things that we will make accommodations for.

  5. Speaker (presiding)7:37

     Thank you Representative Peterson. Discussion to the motion to concur with the Senate amendments on first substitute HB 2 0 4. Seeing none will go ahead and place that motion. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? Voting will now be open on for final passage on first substitute seeing all present, having voted voting is now closed. HB 2 0 4 passes this body with 57 yes votes.

  6. Speaker (presiding)9:56

     14 no votes will be sent to the Senate or Yeah. Sent to the Senate for the signature of the president. Madam Meeting Clerk