Last month, award-winning author Darcie Little Badger cancelled a scheduled talk at Weber State University after being told to avoid certain “prohibited words and concepts.” The list reportedly included equity, diversity, inclusion, anti-racism, bias, and critical race theory. Calling the restriction censorship, she withdrew from the event.
The incident quickly became national news. Many headlines suggested the restrictions were the result of Utah’s 2024 law, HB261, passed by the state legislature. However, much of the public discussion overlooked a critical question: Does HB261 actually ban words, topics, or academic discussion?
The answer is clear: No, it does not.
As the authors of HB261, we believe the public deserves a factual explanation of what the law truly says—and what it does not.
Understanding HB261: Ending Ideological Compulsion, Not Debate
HB261 does not outlaw ideas, vocabulary, or academic subjects. It does not restrict private speech, classroom discussion, research, or guest lectures. Instead, the law focuses on two core principles:
- Ending compelled belief or ideological affirmation
- Preventing discrimination based on personal identity characteristics
The law eliminated mandatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programming and ideological litmus tests tied to hiring, promotions, admissions, or scholarships. It also redirected universities away from offices narrowly defined as DEI offices, encouraging a broader focus on student success instead.
What the law does not do is prohibit discussion of DEI, critical race theory, race, gender, oppression, or American history. Faculty members remain free to teach, research, and explore controversial or complex topics. Students and guest speakers are equally free to express their views.
Academic freedom remains intact.
Institutional Neutrality Without Silencing Individuals
A key provision of HB261 requires public universities to maintain institutional neutrality on contested political or ideological issues. This ensures that no student or employee is required to affirm a particular worldview in order to participate in public education.
Importantly, institutional neutrality does not mean individual silence. Faculty, students, and invited speakers may still adopt and defend any position they choose. The law protects inquiry—it does not restrain it.
This distinction matters. A neutral institution creates space for open debate, while compelled belief suppresses genuine learning.
Misinterpretation and Overcorrection: The Weber State Issue
So where did the reported list of “prohibited words” come from?
Not from HB261.
Nothing in the law instructs universities to censor language or restrict voluntary discussion. Situations like the one at Weber State often arise when institutions overcorrect out of legal caution, applying restrictions that go far beyond what the law requires.
Inviting a speaker whose work centers on anti-racism and equity, then preventing discussion of those ideas, contradicts the purpose of a guest lecture. A guest talk is not mandatory training, nor a condition of employment or graduation.
HB261 prevents compulsion—not conversation.
A healthy university engages ideas openly instead of avoiding them out of fear.
Why Free Inquiry Thrives Without Compelled Belief
Some critics argue that HB261 will chill conversations about race or social justice. The reality is the opposite. When only one viewpoint is acceptable, questioning becomes risky. When belief is enforced, curiosity fades.
True academic freedom depends on the freedom to challenge ideas—not merely to repeat them.
Consider how economics is taught. Students examine Keynesian economics, Austrian theory, and Marxist analysis. They are expected to understand and debate each framework. But if a professor required students to affirm a specific ideology to pass a course, that would be indoctrination, not education.
HB261 draws this same line across all disciplines.
Students must be free to disagree—without fear that dissent will harm their grades, opportunities, or standing.
Intellectual Diversity: The Next Step for Utah Universities
While HB261 restored neutrality and ended compelled ideology, neutrality alone is not enough. Universities should also actively foster intellectual diversity.
Real intellectual diversity grows through conversation, debate, and exposure to competing viewpoints. Some states have adopted policies that encourage structured debates on controversial topics so students hear more than one side.
Utah has an opportunity to lead by example—by trusting students to engage difficult ideas instead of shielding them from disagreement.
Public universities should not merely tolerate dissent. They should invite it.
Rebuilding Shared Foundations Through the Humanities
A true marketplace of ideas requires shared intellectual ground. For centuries, that foundation came from the liberal arts—history, literature, philosophy, and civic education.
To strengthen this foundation, Utah launched the Center for Civic Excellence at Utah State University, reinforcing the study of self-government and critical thinking.
A confident university does not filter ideas through administrative fear. It equips students to confront ideas directly, thoughtfully, and rigorously.
