A well-known principle in democratic societies is simple: authoritarianism grows fastest when institutions restrict themselves before being forced to do so. This idea appears to be at the center of the recent free speech controversy at Weber State University (WSU).
University leaders now seem to recognize that the Utah Legislature did not ban discussion of terms such as diversity, equality, inclusion, racism, bias, or oppression in public colleges. That realization comes after months of confusion, controversy, and public criticism.
What Utah’s HB261 Actually Says
In 2024, Utah lawmakers passed House Bill 261 (HB261). The law prevents public colleges and universities from adopting DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) principles as official institutional policy. It also bars schools from requiring students, faculty, or staff to endorse or comply with DEI concepts as a condition for employment, enrollment, or academic success.
However, HB261 does not prohibit teaching, discussing, or mentioning DEI-related topics. In fact, the same legislation explicitly encourages free speech and academic freedom at Utah’s public institutions.
Fear-Driven Policies at Weber State University
Despite the law’s limited scope, WSU administrators reportedly reacted with extreme caution. According to multiple accounts, the university created an internal list of “restricted” words and concepts—including diversity, racism, bias, and oppression—that faculty members and guest speakers were discouraged from using on campus.
This interpretation went far beyond the law’s intent and wording, effectively self-censoring academic discussion where no legal requirement existed.
Academic Event Cancelled Over Censorship Concerns
The consequences of this misunderstanding became visible in October, when an academic event at WSU—ironically focused on censorship in higher education—was first restricted and then completely canceled.
The incident raised serious concerns about whether academic freedom at Weber State University was being undermined, not by lawmakers directly, but by administrative overreaction.
Author Darcie Little Badger Cancels Campus Appearance
The situation escalated further in November, when Native American author Darcie Little Badger withdrew from a planned appearance at WSU. University officials reportedly informed her that she should avoid using certain words, including diversity, racism, bias, and oppression.
Little Badger publicly explained that discussing Indigenous history, literature, and lived experience is nearly impossible without referencing these concepts. Rather than comply with what she viewed as unreasonable restrictions, she canceled the event and shared her experience on social media.
Public Response Forces University Reassessment
After the issue gained public attention, Weber State University officials acknowledged problems with how free speech was being handled on campus. The administration stated that it understood the situation was not being managed appropriately and committed to improving its approach.
This acknowledgment marked an important step toward restoring confidence in academic freedom at the university.
Lawmakers Remain Silent on HB261’s Intent
Much of the confusion surrounding HB261 could be resolved if Utah lawmakers clarified what the law does—and does not—require. However, key legislators have remained silent.
Notably, Rep. Katy Hall (R–South Ogden), the bill’s sponsor, has not responded to multiple requests from The Salt Lake Tribune seeking clarification about the intent behind the legislation.
Why Legislative Clarification Is Now Necessary
Given the real-world consequences of HB261’s vague interpretation, lawmakers should review how the law is being applied. If its impact does not match its intent, the Legislature should either issue clearer guidance or amend the statute.
Oversight of public institutions is legitimate. However, universities cannot function properly if leaders pre-emptively restrict speech out of fear of political backlash rather than legal obligation.
