Last month, author Darcie Little Badger withdrew from a scheduled speaking appearance at Weber State University after receiving a list of “prohibited words and concepts” she would need to avoid. The list included terms like equity, diversity, inclusion, anti-racism, bias, and critical race theory. She called it censorship and withdrew from the event.
The controversy spread quickly. News coverage amplified the narrative, insinuating the blacklist arose from a law the Utah Legislature passed. Few paused to ask a basic question: Does the 2024 law HB261 require banned words or restricted vocabulary?
It does not. As the authors of HB261, we believe the public deserves clarity.
Ending ideological compulsion
HB261 does not ban ideas, words from private individuals or academic topics. It bans compelled belief, and it bans discrimination based on personal identity characteristics.
The law ended mandatory diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programming and ideological litmus tests for hiring, promotion, admissions or scholarships. As a way to steer universities toward centers for student success, the law did prohibit campuses from having an office more narrowly focused on “diversity, equity and inclusion.”
But it doesn’t prohibit open discussion of all these same concepts. Instead, it prohibited compelled statements about identity or systemic belief. It restored institutional neutrality so no student or employee must profess a political worldview to participate in public education.
The law also requires universities to remain institutionally neutral on contested political questions, while protecting the academic freedom of individual faculty and students to take any position.
This moment offers Utah a chance to ask a larger question. Should universities shield students from contentious ideas, or should they trust students enough to engage in real debate? And when implementation misfires, should we blame the law or the way it is being interpreted?
To be clear, HB261 did not ban discussion of DEI or critical race theory. It did not prohibit teaching about race, oppression, gender or American history. It did not ban a single word of private speech or from a book.
Faculty remain free to research and teach difficult subjects. Guest speakers remain free to share their views. Academic freedom stands.
HB261 protects inquiry. It does not restrain it.
More help, more freedom
What about a list of prohibited words or concepts, such as the one apparently circulated at Weber State? Is that level of caution required by law?
Nothing in HB261 instructs institutions to censor vocabulary or restrict voluntary discussion. Implementation challenges often arise when institutions overcorrect out of legal caution.
Yet more than simple caution is evident from inviting a speaker whose work centers on concepts like anti-racism and equity, then applying restrictions that prevent her from discussing them.
Whether this was an intentional attempt to provoke controversy or an overreaction that created controversy, the outcome was predictable.
A guest lecture is not mandatory training. It is not a condition for employment or graduation. HB261 prevents compulsion, not conversation. A healthy university engages ideas rather than smothers them out of fear.
Critics warn that HB261 will silence conversations about race or oppression. The truth is the opposite. When only one worldview is acceptable, dissent becomes risky. When belief is enforced, curiosity dies. Academic freedom depends on the freedom to question, not just the freedom to comply.
Utah trusts its faculty to teach complex topics with honesty and rigor. We only require that instruction never cross the line into compelled affirmation.
Teach ideas strongly. Do not require students to adopt them.
Consider how we teach economics. Students learn Keynesian theory, Austrian economics and Marxist analysis. A good professor ensures students understand each framework well enough to defend it in a debate. But if that professor required students to sign a statement affirming “markets are inherently exploitative” or “government intervention always fails” to receive a grade, we would recognize that as indoctrination, not instruction.
HB261 draws that same line across all subjects. Students must also feel free to challenge ideas without fear that disagreement will harm their grade or standing.
Protection from compelled belief works in both directions. Students who question DEI orthodoxy deserve the same protection as students who advocate for it.
A university worthy of the name encourages challenge, not conformity. Free inquiry is not a threat. It is the lifeblood of learning.
Cultivating intellectual diversity
HB261 restored neutrality and ended compelled ideology. But neutrality alone is not enough. The next step is ensuring universities are not only free from compelled belief, but are places where students regularly encounter real viewpoint diversity.
Intellectual diversity grows through conversation, not silence. Some states have introduced policies requiring structured debates on contested questions so students hear more than one side. The goal is not to avoid controversy, but to meet it directly.
At a time when many universities retreat into risk management and self-censorship, Utah can stand for something better. Our campuses should reflect confidence in students, not fear of disagreement. We should trust students with difficult ideas rather than filtering those ideas through administrative caution.
Public universities should not merely allow disagreement. They should invite and foster it. Regular debates and contrasting lectures on controversial issues prepare students to think deeply, evaluate arguments and engage as informed citizens. Students do not grow when difficult topics are avoided. They grow when they are trusted to think.
That is why we are introducing legislation this session to promote intellectual diversity and encourage structured debate across Utah campuses. The answer to speech we disagree with is not less speech. It is more speech.
Seeking deeper common ground in the humanities
A real marketplace of ideas requires common intellectual ground. For centuries, that ground was the liberal arts: history, literature, philosophy and the study of self-government. Utah launched the Center for Civic Excellence at Utah State University to help rebuild that foundation.
Intellectual formation matters now more than ever. A fearless university does not shelter students from ideas. It equips them to meet those ideas directly.
HB261 corrected the problem of compulsion. Now we must build a culture of discussion. Utah can lead the nation in campuses where ideas collide productively, where disagreement is not feared, and where learning is alive rather than guarded.
Weber State has acknowledged that implementation is still underway. That is normal during reform. But universities must distinguish between good faith questions about the law’s application, and decisions that undermine its purpose, whether from excessive caution or deliberate resistance.
We are ready to help institutions apply the law accurately and confidently.
Utah students deserve more ideas, not fewer. They deserve campuses where curiosity is rewarded, disagreement is permitted, and education is fearless.
The Weber State episode confirms that free inquiry is vulnerable to overcaution and fear. The law prevents compulsion. Now we must all do the work of building a culture where the freedom to question is not an exception, but a daily habit of the mind.