S.B. 295 Intellectual Diversity in Education and Government: transcript

You, thank you. Mr. Chair. Also have an amendment number one to it. So yeah, It, we have a substitute as well. If you, I, I'll go ahead and move the substitute, substitute one and then amendment one. Why don't we move both of those?

Yeah. The, the, the amendment actually clears up some language because there was some doubt of whether Latinos in action, for instance, could still be a club under the rules. And, and that clarifies that, that they can, uh, the important thing though, is they emphasize the action part of it, and they have to make sure that it's, it doesn't exclude other kids. So, uh, then, uh, the substitute actually clarifies some of the language in the bill. Uh, and, uh, you know, for instance, it, it allows, it allows a panel that's not a debate. So the, the language in there about debates was a little bit vague, and so we kind of separated that so that you could have a panel, uh, discussion, uh, that only served one side of the equation. So, okay.

Yes. And so, amendment one just clarifies that language on the clubs.

Thank, thank you. So, I, I, I'll be speaking to, uh, the amended and substituted bill. Okay. So, uh, Mr. Chair members of the committee, uh, thanks for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 2 95. This bill rests on a simple constitutional PR principle. Public institutions must treat individuals equally regardless of personal identity characteristics, and may not compel ideological affirmation as a condition of employment, enrollment, or participation. Now, to understand why this bill is before you consider two real events in Utah education. First at Weber State University last fall, an invited author, Darcy Little Badger, withdrew after receiving a list of words and concepts, she was expected to avoid the story spread nationally, and the legislature was blamed, but nothing in existing Utah law required restricting a guest speaker's vocabulary. A guest lecture is not mandatory training and not a condition of employment or graduation. The law prevents compulsion, not conversation. That episode revealed institutional overcorrection born from misunderstanding. SB two ninety five addresses that directly, clarifying protections for guest speakers while building the affirmative framework of viewpoint diversity, transparency, and accountability that neutrality alone cannot provide. Second, in Weber School District, a turning point. USA Student Club at Fremont High School was denied authorization In response, Representative Hall and members of the school board and our state school board actually work with the district to clarify policy and ensure viewpoint neutral treatment of student organizations. Much of the statutory language in this bill reflects the district policy framework developed through that process. SB 2 95 carries that locally tested solution into statewide law, ensuring schools may regulate conduct and safety, but may not, but may not approve or deny a student club based on ideology rather than lawful standards. Let me briefly address the concerns you may hear in opposition to this bill. Does this restrict academic freedom? No. The bill explicitly preserves classroom instruction, academic research, and the invitation of guest speakers representing any viewpoint. What it prohibits is compelled ideological affirmation, mandatory statements, or trainings that assign collective guilt or moral standards based on identity. Consider how we teach economics. I, I guess since I was an economics professor, uh, to begin with, let me just kinda use that as an example. Student students learn Keynesian theory. They learn Austrian econ economics, Marxist analysis, free market principles of Adam Smith. A good professor ensures students understand each framework well enough to debate it. But if students were required to sign a statement affirming one theory, theory as truth in order to receive a grade, we would recognize that as indoctrination and not instruction. This bill draws that same constitutional line across all subjects. Teach ideas strongly do not require students to adopt them for decades. First Amendment doctrine was, has distinguished between the freedom to speak and, and the compulsion to affirm. SB 2 95 protects the former and prevents the latter. Is this an attack on diversity programs? No. The bill expressly allows student success and support services for all students. And that was the, the really, the whole point. What it prohibits is differential treatment based on identity without and infor important government interest. Equal access support is permitted. Identity based discrimination is prohibited. That distinction reflects longstanding federal civil rights law and is written directly into the bill's definition of prohibited, discriminatory, discriminatory practice. If a program serves all students equally and requires no ideological affirmation, this bill is not restricted. Why is the legislature, why is the legislative oversight necessary? Because current law contains prohibitions, but limited accountability. This bill adds structured reporting, biennial compliance review, re uh, remediation timelines and appropriations consequences consistent with how Utah already holds institutions accountable for performance. We apply this standard to workforce outcomes and graduation rates. Applying it to non-discrimination is not a departure, it is the same principle. Will this chill speech? No. The bill regulates institutional conduct, not individual expression. Faculty may teach cons, controversial ideas. Student may, students may receive research, contested theories. Speakers of any viewpoint may be invited to campus. What institutions may not do is require public ideological affirmation as a condition of status. If a chilling effect exists today, it more often falls on the FA falls on the side of students or faculty members who hold a dissenting view and fears consequences for expressing it. Protections from compelled belief must work in both direction. Does it? Does this conflict with federal law? No. Every operative section preserves federal civil rights compliance, where federal law requires a submission or practice, institutions may comply to the minimum extent required with documentation and transparency. The structure is designed to harmonize state neutrality with federal obligations. And with that, I, uh, Okay. Conclude my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I appreciate this bill as a correction to an overcorrection. Um, but honestly, some of these issues were brought up when this bill was ran. And so, um, I I, when we say that we blame the legislature, it's not really a, a blame game. It's more of the kind of atmosphere we created and trying to un-create that atmosphere. So, um, I appreciate this bill. I appreciate the work that you've done to, um, make it a more neutral setting. Uh, as somebody in education, I can say that, uh, this is a step in the right direction. And, um, the, the premise that we were rapidly indoctrinating people still kind of hurts us a little bit, you know? So, um, I hope this is something that makes it better. And we recognize that our clubs, our debates, our panels, our forums are born out of interest from our students frequently and, um, infrequently they were maybe nefarious. But, uh, I appreciate that we've, that we're moving in the right direction. So thank you for this bill, and thank you for setting up some guidelines. I appreciate that.

Thank you. I just wanna thank the sponsor for bringing forth the bill that encourages competing ideas. Uh, it seems to me in higher ed, there's been not very much competition of, uh, intellectual thought, so I appreciate this intellectual diversity. And, um, thank you for bringing this bill. Oh, sorry. One, one last thing. Okay. Uh, just a quote that I love a John Stewart Mill. He Said he, he can do a microphone. I can't hear you. He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them, but if he's equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. John Stewart Mill. Thank you.

Thank you, chair. Jeff Lambert, commissioner of Higher Education. Uh, the, the Board of Higher Education hasn't taken a position on this bill, but I do wanna take the opportunity to address how important it is, uh, for any opportunity to continue to foster, uh, the marketplace of ideas on our campuses. Uh, the, the whole intent of higher education is for the students who attend there and study there, and the researchers who research there to be free, to explore different ideas, to debate different ideas, and to learn from those debates and let those ideas be subject to the crucible of scrutiny. And we feel like, uh, the opportunity to clarify that role for higher education is an important one. Uh, the bill particularly, uh, adopts, uh, the sim similar principles that the Board of Higher Education has established in its resolution on free speech and its guidance around free speech directing institutions to seek out opportunities to invite speakers, guest lecturers, and to have symposiums where we can have controversial ideas and where our students can be exposed to different ideas and have the opportunity to determine through those debates, uh, their position on those ideas, and to participate in those debates is an important part of learning. And so we appreciate the sponsor being willing to take feedback that we gave, that we feel like helped improve the bill. We appreciate the ability to have the legislature partner with us in preserving the role of higher education as the marketplace of ideas and will continue to support, uh, any efforts to, to continue that role for higher education. Thank you.

Welcome. Thank You. Thank you. Uh, everyone on the committee. I'm Brad ac, president of a FT Utah, and, uh, our local A FT, Utah College Council Local, uh, um, 47, 23, I think is the number of that local. Appreciate the senator for speaking with our, uh, professors that met with him, uh, went over this bill. We are not taking a position on it right now either. Uh, I don't want to repeat what the good commissioner said. Uh, but again, um, that academic freedom, um, is important. Uh, being able to teach those, uh, challenging ideas in our, in our classroom. We have seen in this past year, uh, and even before that much doxing that was going on against our professors. Uh, lots of threats, even death threats, things like that. And also, unfortunately, we did have some instances where, uh, professors will reprimand and disciplined, uh, for using free speech. So we're hoping that this bill will protect them along with others, and that we can have that freedom of, uh, speech on our campuses. Thanks. Thank you,

Uh, Gabe Byers, if you'd like to turn your mic on camera on the question. There you go. Hello, My name is Gabe Byers. I am faculty at Salt Lake Community College. However, at the moment, I'm speaking as a private citizen. My concerns really revolve around the line, starting at 1126, the degree granting institution shall, uh, with that, I actually fully agree with the principles that Commissioner Landward put out that we've talked about today. Uh, promoting freedom of speech, promoting a diversity of ideas. Uh, but this bill does it in a way that the degree institution shall host public events at s Foley Community College. Is that part of our mission to be hosting public events around controversial issues and debating topics? I would argue that's actually pushing our mission as a community college. I would wonder instead if it would be wiser to simply, uh, go back to Yi's freedom of speech policy, encourage all institutions to do a, give substantive coverage to, uh, all sides of an issue. I support the idea of reporting to the legislature personally. I actually wanna push back. Uh, our institution is, has in the past year and currently undergoing multiple reporting and audits around the issues with 2 61. Uh, we are reporting back to the legisl says we are communicating with Yushi and we are communicating, uh, with the Office of Attorney General and state office and the auditors of the legislature. So I worry that much of this is an extension of that. I would encourage the legislature to let 2 61 play out, if anything, simplify the language to encourage that no topic is prohibited. We want viewpoint diversity. This is what Viewpoint diversity is, we are watching. I think that's enough. Thank you very much. Thank

Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to comment today. My name's Sydney osha. Um, I'm speaking today as President of US, U'S Chapter of the American Federation of Teachers Union. As, uh, Brad Assay mentioned, uh, we are not taking a position on this bill, um, but I would like to make some comments. So I really do appreciate that SB 2 95 emphasizes broad exposure to a diversity of viewpoints in higher education. Um, when we met with Senator Johnson last week, it was clear that we were on the same page about that, and we had the same goals. Um, so we appreciated the time, um, that, that he spent with us. And the, the comments I'm sharing today, I also shared with him then. Um, but we also think that it's important for, to ensure that students are exposed to a diverse range of ideas to stay committed to the academic mission in higher education. So, however, when we're reviewing the current legislation overall that's being presented during this session, I've noticed some areas where different bills may create overlapping or contradictory exp expectations for institutions. And that's what I wanna speak to today. So, whereas SB 2 95 promotes exposure to diverse viewpoints, um, which supports SB 3 34 from last year, the Center of Pacific Excellence, the forthcoming HB 2 0 4, which was just passed on, uh, through the house floor earlier this week, that's the higher education Student Belief accommodations bill that's sponsored by Representative Mike Peterson. Um, that would allow students to request exemptions from course materials that conflict with their beliefs. Um, so my concern is that institutions and Yui will struggle to navigate these exemptions while also meeting, um, the requirements of this, of 2 9 5 and SB 3 34, um, in a consistent way. So I'm not speaking for, uh, or against SB 2 95, but I'm requesting the legislature to consider how these range of bills will interact in a practical sense, because on the ground, as an educator, as a faculty member, I could see like a headache coming my way trying to sort this out. Um, and so if the goal is viewpoint diversity, I think it makes sense to move forward with 2 9 5. But if that is not the goal, then 2 0 4, you know, I guess would be the way to goal with, which is not, not my recommendation. Okay. Um, I hope that's clear. Thank you.

There we go. Thank you so much for the opportunity to comment on this bill. Um, I, my name is Nicole Allen. I'm a faculty member up at USU, and I'm also a former debater. So many of the items that Johnson, that Senator Johnson raised, like close to my heart, what I would like to add is a helpful comment or point of potential improvement would be that from the experience of the implementation of 2 6 1, what we experienced at many universities was precisely what Senator Johnson outlined, which was over compliance. And so at our own university, there were several student clubs that were audited and asked to close, um, even though they would've fit well within the, um, requirements of 2 6 1. I bring this up because I think that in order for this to be successful, to limit the damage that was done by over compliance with 2 6 1, there needs to be a direct anonymous reporting mechanism from staff, students, and faculty at universities to UJI or to the legislature itself. There's very little that folks on the ground in education can do when these bills are interpreted by our university's legal staff, and then we are forced to comply with them. So what I wanna ask is that if this moves forward, that safeguard that, um, closes the gap between the legislative intention and the implementation be addressed. Thank, does that conclude?

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for having me. My name is Heidi Alder, and I'm general counsel and government liaison for Weber School District. I wanna thank Senator Johnson for bringing this bill. Um, I appreciate the framework that he referenced in. We were school district's policy. We tried very hard to ensure equal, uh, treatment of all of our clubs. We have both, obviously, curricular clubs and non-curricular clubs in our schools. And we have been trying to walk the line that the, that has been in the law for quite some time now about treatment of curricular clubs versus treatment of non-curricular clubs and our, our non-curricular clubs. Um, we've tried to bring all of the various, uh, schools in line so that all of the non-curricular clubs are being treated the same. I do appreciate the substitute bill that Senator Johnson introduced. I I think that addresses some of my questions that I was gonna present, but in that same line, I believe that there are two other places in the bill that could potentially use some cleanup to allow those clubs like Latinos in Action in line six 14 and in line 6 33. The bill states that a school club may not promote, limit or restrict membership based on personal identity characteristic. And certainly while we don't want any of our clubs to limit or restrict membership based on personal identity characteristic, I do worry that some of the clubs by name Latinos in Action being one of 'em would be viewed as promoting a personal care identity characteristic, and that that might limit some of our non-curricular clubs. I believe that that can be easily fixed, um, if Senator Johnson is willing to wanna be more than happy to continue to work with him offline to perhaps address that so that we don't exclude any clubs that we currently have, and that students, um, can, can find a place in at our high schools. Thank you.

Did you read Hey, can, can I, Mr. Chair? Go ahead. Did, Did you read the amendment that we did?

I did. Does that amend those two?

I I thought those was just amended lines 4 0 8.

Yeah, that amendment would be great for those other two places too. Okay.

I I'll take a look at those. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thanks For your testimony.

Thank you, Mr. P. Uh, thank you Mr. Uh, thank you Chair. I'm the chairman right now. Mr. President Chair. There You go. Rancher. Cool guy. Um, I would like to send Senate Bill 1 95 intellectual diversities and education and government out with a favorable recommendation.

I, I, I I'll just sum briefly, uh, SB 2 95 establishes a simple rule for public institutions, teach any idea, debate, any viewpoint, compel none, treat every individual equally. Nothing in this spill bans discussion. Nothing limits academic inquiry. Nothing prevents support for students who need help to succeed. What it does prevent is something far narrower and far more serious. The use of government authority to require ideological belief or to treat people differently because of identity, those are not partisan concerns. Those are constitutional boundaries throughout our history. Civil liberties protections have mattered most not when they protect protected popular views, but when they protected dissenting ones. And that is ultimately what this bill safeguards the student who questions prevailing orthodoxy. The faculty member who teaches compelling competing traditions, the citizen who believes government should treat individuals as individuals. Recent events in our own state showed what happens when the line between discussion and coer coercion becomes unclear. Institutions overcorrect speech narrows and trust erodes. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you for those words. I appreciate that tremendously. Um, you know, these, these are activities that people go to. Most of these listed here are people go to willingly and they go to, um, as their choice. So, uh, providing these choices and providing that people go to them willingly. I, I think this is a great one.

Oh, I was just gonna make a motion. Okay. But Senator Rebe beat me To it. Okay. There you go. We gotta be quick Yep. On this committee. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you very much. It's nice to be in this committee. I don't think I've, uh, had the pleasure so far. So I I appreciate being here, chair and members of the committee. S sp 2 95 strengthens Utah's institutional Neutrality framework and corrects two predictable failures that surfaced after HB 2 61. So, HP 2 61 established an important constitutional boundary. Public institutions may not compel ideological affirmation and may not treat individuals differently based on identity. SB 2 95 ensures that that boundary is applied correctly. And so I've got a substitute online too that you can, uh, but I'm going to be speaking to that substitute if it's okay. Thank you. So, I, I did not, uh, author HB 2 61, but after an event, uh, that happened at Weber State, I, I decided to write an op-ed about it in the, in the Deseret News. And I, I really wanted to clarify what the bill actually does, because I think what it does, what it did versus what people thought it did, were very different things that Weber State University and an invited author withdrew after receiving a list of words she was told to avoid. HB 2 61 was cited as justification that was incorrect. HB 2 61 rec regulates compelled institutional practices. It does not regulate guest lectures or invited speakers. This substitute makes that explicit. In statute existing prohibitions do not restrict a guest lecturer in an academic course or a speaker invited by faculty, administration staff, or student organizations. Institutional neutrality does not mean speakers cannot state a point of view. It means institutions cannot compel belief or punish dissent. That clarification is necessary to prevent overcorrection and to protect open discussion. Neutrality alone is defensive. This bill adds an affirmative expectations. State institutions of higher education must designate public policy events each academic year that introduce students to competing or diverse perspectives. Some of those events must be structured debates while presenters advocating opposing approaches and, and respond to each other. The substitute actually, uh, removed a few of the things that were were mentioned, one that the speakers must be, uh, recorded, and, uh, things that, uh, I, the, the universities actually felt like went against what we were trying to do. This is not a partisan quota system. It is a structured reinforcement of the marketplace of ideas. Universities already hold events. This ensures public policy discussions are visible in intentional and transparent. Institutions must publish a publicly accessible calendar and make event. And, and that's, that's about all that does, is they, they're able to pre present these, uh, things. But I, I think the important thing is that, uh, they retain a neutral position. Neutrality alone is defensive. Uh, and so I, I I think that part of it is, is really important. Current law contains prohibitions, but limited enforcement structure. This creates a bilineal compliance review by the Board of Higher Education. Uh, it also clarifies K through 12 club standards using objectives, uh, uh, decisions following concerns in Weber school district. This substitute reinforces viewpoint neutrality in student organization. Authorization schools may regulate conduct safety and operational logistics. What they may not do is approve or deny student clubs based on ideology. So there's a difference in the bill between a, a club that is part of a course and a club that is not. And so, uh, there, there is nothing that restricts a club that is a non-curricular club in terms of the ideology that's supported. Does this restrict academic freedom? No. Classroom instruction, academic research and invited speakers are explicitly protected. The bill regulates institutional conduct, not faculty viewpoints. Professors may teach controversial ideas. Students may debate them. What institutions may not do is require ideological affirmation as a condition of participation. Is this an attack on diversity programs? No. Programs may continue so long as they are open to all students and do not exclude or condition participation on identity or a compelled belief. Equal access is preserved. Identity based exclusion is not Does this create surveillance? No. And so, you know, and that in, in fact, we took out the recordings in order to, to state that more explicitly, the bill explicitly preserves federal civil, civil rights compliance and allows institutions to comply with federal mandates. Members of the committee, HB 2 61, drew a constitutional line and HP SB 2 95 clarifies it. I, I know, you know, after I'd written that op-ed, uh, Katie Hall and I actually visited, uh, Weber State, uh, in a faculty forum. And there were a lot of interesting questions that were brought up. And that, and that made us both think that we really had to clarify what was going on there in this bill. Uh, I, I think that there was an overreaction, and I think we need to correct that overreaction. And so that's what this bill clarifies. It, it prevents neutrality from being misinterpreted as censorship. It reinforces the marketplace of ideas in higher ed. It creates structured review with cure periods before any fiscal consequence. It ensures student organizations are treated based on conduct and objective standards, not, not ideology. This bill does not ban ideas. It does not restrict discussion. It ensures public institutions remain neutral arbiters of, of policy, not enforcers of belief. I respectfully ask for your favorable recommendation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I just have a question regarding, um, government involvement in trying to make things neutral. Do you ever wonder if it makes things worse?

Yeah, I, I, I think the initial bill actually did make things worse. I, but I, but I actually think after I, after I wrote, uh, the op-ed with, with Representative Hall, and I think people started to realize that the bill really wasn't what they thought it was. And I think there was a really hard look to begin with. And I think there was overcorrection and I, I think this is necessary to fix that overcorrection.

Thank you. Just one more question. Um, would it be better to let natural discourse prevail instead of having government involvement in it?

Well, I think that's, I I think that's what this is actually an attempt at to clarify that, that professors are not compelled in their speech. They can, they can talk about issues that they, that, that they have, but they can't compel students to, uh, believe those issues. It's fine. You, you know, there's different approaches to economics. For instance, you know, you might have somebody, I, I, I bring that up because, uh, long ago I taught economics, right? And I, you know, I taught Keynesian theory. I taught, uh, Adam Smith. I taught Carl Marx. And I, I think it's necessary for students to learn those different viewpoints where I would've crossed the line if I'd have said, okay, now you have to tell me why Karl Marx was right. And you have to believe it, right? And, but, but it's perfectly okay for me to say, look, here's all those competing theories. I want you to explain them. I want you to be able to debate each side of that issue. And I, I think, I think that was the correction. But also, one of the things you have to remember that was going on at the same period of time, there used to, there used to be a, an exception for higher ed with respect to diversity programs, right? And there used to be exceptions, uh, in terms of civil rights. And, and we, we had affirmative action programs. And right before this occurred, we actually had a Supreme Court decision where that was no longer accepted. Uh, there was a Harvard case, there was a North Carolina case. And so what, what happened during that period of time was, was he say, how can, how can we make sure that students are treated fairly across the board? And that was really, you know, that was really what was going on there. And I think that's, uh, you know, was there overcorrection to it? Yeah, I think there was, I think this bill actually clarifies that. And, uh, you know, we did get pretty strong bipartisan support in the Senate for this bill. And I actually worked, uh, across the aisle to try to get to, to make sure that we were addressing all the issues.

Thank you. I I have a question for you to make sure I understand. If, if, if I understand the purpose of, of the clarifications you're saying, we, we can have an Adam Smith Club, we can have a Karl Marx Club, you could have a Muslim club, you could have an evangelical club. You just can't restrict those clubs based on, uh, have standards, requirements or limitations that apply to one club that don't apply to a another club. Yeah,

Those would be considered non-curricular clubs under this identification. Right. But if they're curricular clubs, so if they're required, uh, for students in classes, then, then there have to, there they have to be open to all the students. And actually all the clubs have to be open to all the students. It doesn't mean they can't call them, you know, the Muslim club or, uh, you know, any other particular group.

Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you. Committee. My name is Tiana Tonga, and I am an ordinary citizen representing my family. Um, I just wanted to come and, um, support this bill and thank Senator Johnson for his thoughtfulness with this, um, with h HB 2 61. I was in favor of that bill. I still am in favor of that bill, but I came across a lot of conflict with my own Pacific Islander community, strong con, strong opposition. And as we sat down and had the conversations about the details of that bill, it became very apparent that there was a lot of, um, misinterpretation of the bail of the bill. And in fact, I, um, had a discussion with both Representative Hall and one of the Pacific Islander, um, uh, advisors at Weaver State to talk about it because of the concerns, because I didn't see, uh, 2 61 as punitive. I saw it as something really healthy, um, even perpetually for not just my Pacific Islander community, but all communities. And, um, and I appreciate the clarification because right now Weaver State is getting ready for their intercollegiate luau, and because of their misinterpretation of 2 61, many of the other colleges in the state have opted out because, like you said, they have gone to the far extreme interpretation of it, which just cut off everything. And that was so sad and devastating to me because luau, I mean, it's an American version, um, of who we are, but it's a way for us to express even our fundamental understandings of liberty and freedom and civics and our own, um, Platos and philosophers. And so thank you so much for this clarification. I also wanted to get on here to show my family all my, uh, Pacific Islander family that there is clarification. So let's sit down and have that conversation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, was there an amendment to Senator you needed passed, or is it already amended and

Subbed? No, there is a substitute online second substitute that, that clarifies the wording in the, uh, you know, in the presentations. Uh, uh, the universities actually came to me and said that the, the way it was structured wouldn't work very well. And they wanted some more flexibility in, in the way those debates would be structured to fit within their regular schedule, to take out the video recordings because of copyright infringements. And, you know, uh, they, they didn't want that to be become something that people just critiqued, which I, which I thought was, was reasonable. Then there was also some questions about, uh, you know, the, the, the, we adopted a lot of the stuff that the Weber state, the Weber school district adopted when they had a, a difficulty. Uh, there was a student group that wanted a turning point, USA, uh, you know, student group, a non-curricular group. And, and there was some discussion as to why that wouldn't be appropriate under 2 61. So we adopted a lot. Katie Hall worked with them quite a bit. Representative Hall worked with them quite a bit to, to come up with some language. And I think we've, we've settled in a good place as far as the clubs are concerned too.

Good. So if you could adopt that sub, that would be really great.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would make a motion to adopt second sub SB 2 95, intellectual diversity and education and government would Thank you. That's in order. Would you like to speak to that? I'll waive, Uh, discussion to that motion.

The second sub is before us. I Would make a follow up motion, Mr. Chair, that we adopt second sub SB 2 95, intellectual diversity and education and government with a favorable recommendation. That's an order. The motion is

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just had one quick question. So, if people wanted to, to do luaus for their Polynesian club in universities, would they still be allowed to do that?

Oh, of course. Lovely.

Um, then I am in favor of this, not just for as long as they invite me.

Okay. But also a missionary in Tahiti, so I love that. Oh, well, that's very cool.

I, I, I just have concerns sometimes when government tries to get in the middle of everyone else's problems and tries to be the mediator because I see us making things worse than better. But I'm really grateful for this bill, so thank you.

Well, I'll just comment that my fourth great-grandfather was the first missionary in Tahiti, so that's fun. Uh, other than that, I waive.

Thank you Mr. President. Colleagues, uh, Senate Bill 2 95 draws a clear constitutional boundary. Public institutions must treat individuals equally and may not compel ideological affirmation as a condition of employment, enrollment, or participation. This is not a bill about banning ideas. It is a bill about drawing a line between discussion and compulsion. Two recent events in Utah education illustrate why clarification is necessary. At Weber State University, an invited author withdrew after receiving a list of words, she was expected to avoid the story spread nationally and the legislature was blamed. I actually, uh, got together with Carrie Ann Libe and, and Katie Hall in the house, uh, to write an op-ed about this situation, and explained that there was nothing in that bill that restricted that. And so I, uh, then after that, uh, Carrie, uh, Representative Hall and I, uh, were at Weber State University for a, a lecture after that, Senator Millner was there and it was evident that, uh, there was a, a misunderstanding of what was in the bill and the language. I, I, I feel like, uh, the sometimes attorneys get a little bit ahead of themselves and misinterpret things. And so, uh, I decided, uh, Representative Hall and I decided that it was important for us to clarify Exactly. Go over again what this mean? Because nothing in Utah law required restricting a guest speaker's vocabulary. A guest lecture is not mandatory training. It is not a condition of employment or graduation. The law prevents compulsion, not conversation. That episode revealed something important. When institution, when institutional neutrality is unclear, institutions sometimes overcorrect when they overcorrect speech narrows and trust erodes. SB 2 95 clar clarifies that invited speakers are protected. It also strengthens transparency and viewpoint diversity. So neutrality is not merely aspirational, but operational. The second example arose in Weber School District when a student club was denied authorization based on ideological concerns. After review and collaboration with the State Board of Education policy was clarified to ensure viewpoint neutral treatment of student organizations. SB 2 95 carries that locally tested framework into statewide statute. Schools may regulate conduct and safety, but they may not approve or deny student clubs based on etiology rather than lawful standards. Let me speak directly to the concerns my colleagues have. Does this restrict academic freedom? No. The bill explicitly preserves classroom instruction, academic research, and the invitation of speakers representing any viewpoint what it prohibits his compelled ideological affirmation, mandatory statements or trainings that'll assign collective moral status or require agreement as a condition of participation. Consider how we teach economics. Students study case theory, Austrian economics and Marxist analysis. A professor may teach any of them vigorously, but if students were required to sign a statement affirming one theory as truth in order to receive a grade, we would recognize that as, as indoctrination and not instruction. This bill draws that same constitutional line across all disciplines. Teach ideas, fully debate them vigorously. Compel none for decades. First Amendment doctrine has distinguished between freedom to speak and compulsion to affirm. SB 2 95 protects the former and prevents the latter.

Mr. President? Um, it's probably no secret that in 2024 when the original, uh, bill HB 2 61 came forward, I was not a big fan of it. Um, in fact voted against it. Um, I do agree with the good sponsor here that, uh, there has been some overcorrection and I applaud him for the work that he's done in, uh, working to, um, clarify the law and to put in the, um, language of the intent of the sponsor. And I also wanna thank him for, um, uh, allowing me to give some input on, on this bill. And he's just been, uh, uh, wonderful to work with on this bill. And I, I just wanted to stand in support of that. So thank you.

Mr. President, I, I move that first substitute to SB 2 95. Be read for a third time.

we talked quite a bit about this the other day, so I'll I'll be brief. The incidents that Weaver State in Fremont High did not reveal a problem with open dialogue. They revealed what happens when the boundary between conversation and compulsion is unclear. SB 2 95 clarifies that boundary. It protects speech, it protects dissent, it protects equal treatment and it preserves the neutrality that public institutions require an a pluralistic society. The question before us is straightforward. Should public institutions treat individuals as individuals rather than as representatives of identity groups? Should students encounter competing viewpoints rather than a single approved perspective? And should accountability exist when those principles fail? SB 2 95 Answer Yes. It does not ban ideas, it does not restrict discussions. It ensures Utah's public institutions remain open forums for debate, not arbitrators of belief. I respectfully ask for your favorable vote. Thank you Mr. Discussion to this bill. Senator Fillmore?

Yes, I, I move that, uh, SB first substitute SB 2 95 pass And the question is, shall first substitute Senate bill

Senator Stevenson. Thank You Mr. ProAm. Uh, motion to circle

Thank you Mr. President Pro Tim Senate Bill 67 prohibits law enforcement agencies from requiring

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to circle

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to a adopt amendment number two in my name.

Um, yes. This is something that, um, we caught just our elementary schools in code have not had, um, curricular clubs before. And so this just makes a little amendment that they, um, can have the, the non-curricular clubs. So,

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So HB or SB 2 95 adds new requirements for higher education intended to promote intellectual and viewpoint diversity. Um, it clarifies, clarifies the existing exemption for guest lecturers in academic courses and invited speakers to ensure that they are not restricted by the DEI pro prohibitions on university, on universities. Even if the speakers content touches on those topics, it adds a new public policy, a new public policy events requirement for universities to organize and host public policy debates and multiple perspective events each academic year with presenters presenting multiple different views. These events must be open to all students and staff and the general public and listed on a publicly searchable online calendar, um, that it also, um, has clear distinctions between curricular and non-curricular clubs. In our public education curricular clubs may not promote, degrade or otherwise identify a personal identity characteristic in their general purpose. And non-curricular clubs cannot degrade a personal identity characteristic. Characteristic. All these clubs must be open to all and elementary schools in that last amendment can have curricular clubs. Um, the amendment also allows the non-curricular clubs, which they've already had. And in code it was that they couldn't have them, so, or it would've changed that they couldn't have 'em. So we, we changed that. Um, objective uniform standards for authorization and denial of clubs in public education and uniform treatment of similar non-curricular clubs across the schools within an LEA. Both of these, um, items in this bill are to hit certain things that we've seen. The first one with within higher ed, um, is because of, uh, some guest speakers that were told that they couldn't use certain language, uh, if they were coming to be a guest speaker on our higher ed institution up in Northern Utah. And we wanna make it clear that, again, we want institutional neutrality as the goal, but that viewpoint diversity and a plethora of ideas with the ability for students to hear debate civilly and be exposed to all ideas and not be afraid of any differing views is also the goal. Our higher ed institutions should be the bastions of free speech. Um, and then the second one within the clubs for our public edu education institutions deals with just, uh, some people that reached out to us after, um, trying to start a club in their school and felt that they were getting different treatment based on their club. And so we thought we better make some clarifications on what curricular clubs are and what non-curricular clubs are, and then stay that the LEAs need to treat, um, all the clubs the same within their district. And that's the bill. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker colleagues. I, I rise in opposition to this bill. Um, but with a lot of gratitude to the bill sponsor, we've had a, a good conversation about a part of this bill that really troubles me. Um, not, not just as a, as a school teacher, but as a father. I have two little girls, eight and 10. And one of the things that would be impacted by this bill, not just higher education, but in our K to 12 school system, there are two types of clubs, curricular and non-curricular. And a curricular club is a beautiful thing. It can receive, uh, support from the school. You can use buses to take students to tournaments and things. A club that I've always admired and that I want hope my daughters might enter is Girls Who Code. I don't know if you're familiar with it, but there is a, there's a large gap in our, our STEM fields. And, and there are clubs out there that are created to encourage young women to consider these fields under this bill. Girls Who Code would no longer be allowed as a curricular club because under this bill online 4 0 7, it says, A school shall limit or deny authorization or school facilities used to promote clubs that are proposed. Clubs that, uh, for curricular club clubs promote, degrade or otherwise identify in the club's general purpose or personality, personal identity characteristic simply by having the name girls or the word girls in the name, that club will no longer be allowed to be a curricular club. They would no longer be able to get support from the LEA. The LEA would not even be allowed to authorize them. They shall limit or deny authorization under this bill. Uh, again, I, I think the good sponsor for having the conversation with me. Um, and I, I ask you all to, to join me in, in voting no on this bill for the sake of all the, not just young women, but all the, all the folks out there for whom we are trying to, to raise up into different press professions. I'll just say this on a closing note. I am a, an Asian male elementary school teacher. I am about less than 1% of my profession's workforce. That's what I represent. And, and my greatest goal is to see all kids looking at all professions and seeing a place for themselves within it. And right now, this bill would prevent that. So I I thank you for joining me in opposition. Thank

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative? Uh, will you yield to a series of questions? Yes. Yes, sir. Representative Thurston, could You give me an example of non-curricular clubs that would be allowed at all levels? Elementary, junior high, high school, Non non-curricular. Yeah, sorry, Mr. Speaker, non-curricular clubs. Yes.

Um, pro, almost anything would be, um, considered non-curricular. The, the Girls Coding Club that was just mentioned could be a non-curricular, um, Latinos in Action could be a non-curricular, uh, the chess club. The, there's a multiple, like almost anything as long as it doesn't do degrade. So Mr. Speaker, could, um, Christian Bible Study be a non-curricular club? As a non-curricular club? I believe so, yes.

Well, I'd like to ask you then, the amendment that you just adopted said, um, non-curricular clubs that do not relate to religious issues. Oh, I apologize. Yes, you're right. I'm sorry. Yes. Non-religious, non-political or public policy or social justice. I apologize. Yes. So, um, this is my concern, and I probably should have mentioned it when we're discussing the amendment, but it's still relevant. First Amendment is a pretty important thing, and courts have held that religious speech is one of the most highly protected along with political speech. So we're saying if you want to get together and talk about chess, no problem. You want to get together and talk about the 10 Commandments. You want to get together and talk about Baat or Milton Friedman or Meese or many other thinkers. That's a problem because that's now straying into religious or political speech. And my concern is that whether or not the courts would be an issue with this, I have an issue with this. I have an issue with us picking and choosing between protected classes of speech, and in fact, we're excluding what I consider to be the most important protected classes of speech. So, um, colleagues, I just, I'm very concerned about this. I think this addresses some of the issues. I was concerned about Latinos in action. I have my kids, other kids participate in Latinos in Action. It was a good thing for them, a lot of things. But now we're saying that if you want to have a Bible study club, you want to have a study to think about the, um, political philosophers that are related to conservative thinking, we've not gonna let that happen. And I, I have some serious concerns of if we're gonna have a level playing field, it ought to be an open playing field level all the way around.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The sponsor yield, do a question. Representative Hall, will you yield to a question?

Yes, yes. Representative Wilcox,

Mr. Speaker, I just wanna make sure I understand in light of the questions that were just asked, um, would this necessarily necessarily prohibit any discussion or a club focused on philosophy or the great philosophers that we've, that were mentioned perhaps?

No, it would not. And, and, and thank you for asking that question. I just wanna clarify in the, in the amendment that that amendment right there is only for elementary school, uh, in the elementary schools, but you're, you're absolutely right. It would not prohibit any of that.

Not prohibit discussion to that, Mr. Speaker will sponsor yield to a follow up question. Representative Hall, will you yield to a follow up question?

Yes. Yes. Representative Wilcox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, Mr. Speaker, would there, would there be any would restriction whatsoever, even in perhaps, uh, a religious context if somebody were to study religious text, is part of this conversation for our high schools or our secondary schools?

Nope. There would be no restriction on that at all.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I speak in favor of this bill. I think this has been thought through a bit. Um, I am, I'm quite concerned of the lines that we're drawing, especially at the younger level, but I also am very familiar with, uh, with some of our rates right now in higher education. We are, uh, our girls are actually doing much better than our boys. I don't know if you've looked at that. Uh, both in graduation rates, attendance rates, even at admission to law school and medical school. Um, boys are in trouble. And, uh, I am at this point, I'd be much more comfortable with, uh, you know, kids who code, for example, on inviting any and all of those children who had that opportunity to study and learn to be a part of, of those conversations, rather than, uh, dividing them out. Now the, the sponsor can please, uh, feel free to speak to, you know, what that looks like and if this affects that or not. But as I've listened to the conversation this morning, I, I wanna make sure that we have as much clarity as we can on one, what the reality is right now in our current, our current scenario, and then two, what we're talking about. And it's really a policy of non exclusion. That's what we're trying to move towards. Opportunity, truly for all. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker call. The question question has been called, uh, which has the effect of any debate?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I really appreciate all the conversations that have happened about this. Um, I, I do wanna clarify. We, we did have extensive conversations with, or this, the Senate sponsored extensive concert conversations with yushi. Um, we've talked with USBE, we've talked with some attorneys within school districts who helped us with this language. Yes, there may have to be some name changes, but again, I agree with the, the last, um, uh, rep representative from Northern Utah that, um, we want this to be inclusion. So if, if some of those names need to be changed to say kids that code so that everybody feels welcome, that would be great. Again, we are going for institutional neutrality and inclusion of all. Um, and I, um, would ask for your vote. Thank you.

Uh, I believe that after we had voted on it, there was some things found and as, as the testimony was given, the, um, drafting attorneys found some corrections that need to be made.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, motion to adopt. Third substitute.

Um, yes. So based on our, um, discussion on the floor, uh, when our drafting attorney and PO policy analysts were listening to it, they discovered that uh, there was some mistakes in the legal analysis of what was drafted in the amendment that we adopted. And based on the, the questions by the good representative from Provo, um, we felt that the better thing to do would be to change it here. So we don't have to go to conference committee and we can send over a clean bill without any constitutional questions.

Uh, thank you. Um, I, we've already had this discussion. I but that portion just, or the new substitute just takes out that amendment that got put in. Uh, we just took that one, that part out and the elementary schools will just be doing it the way they've always been doing it. And, um, there won't be those constitutional questions that were raised.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, motion to adopt. Third substitute.

Um, yes. So based on our, um, discussion on the floor, uh, when our drafting attorney and PO policy analysts were listening to it, they discovered that uh, there was some mistakes in the legal analysis of what was drafted in the amendment that we adopted. And based on the, the questions by the good representative from Provo, um, we felt that the better thing to do would be to change it here. So we don't have to go to conference committee and we can send over a clean bill without any constitutional questions.

Uh, thank you. Um, I, we've already had this discussion. I but that portion just, or the new substitute just takes out that amendment that got put in. Uh, we just took that one, that part out and the elementary schools will just be doing it the way they've always been doing it. And, um, there won't be those constitutional questions that were raised.

I'll waive thanks. Summation has been waived.

Yes. There we, we changed some, some things with respect to clubs. There was one amendment that they made and I asked them to take it off and so they reconsidered the, the vote and then, and then voted on it again. So that amendment was no longer in there, had to do with clubs in, in grade schools, which I didn't really like that Well, but so, but that one's taken out of it. Uh, the universities did ask us to, to modify some of the provisions on, uh, having debates on campus. And, uh, there was a provision in there that said they had to record it. We took that out and, uh, so I, I, I think the bill's actually better than it was before, so

Senator Vickers Baldy Lein Bremmer Bus Cullimore Escamia Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Kinins Ipson Johnson Aye. Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Plum Milner I Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Pickers Weiler Wilson Aye. Winterton Juab Aye. President Adams Aye. Thirst

Mr. President, the house refuses