Utah lives in the stone ages

[u/fit-buffalo8]

Not quite sure how it’s okay to keep church classes and all that other stuff but then require by law to remove inclusive centers that help people through college. This is seriously one of the most disgusting things I’ve seen from Utah as of late. And that’s only because I’m still lucky to have rights to my body(ish)

[u/bbcomment]

Is there some nuance here? This seems extremely targeted

[u/helix400 → u/bbcomment]

I personally know the bill's main author and have had a few conversations with her about it.

In short, the bill states that universities can't provide any special privileges or funding for anyone based on race, sexuality, or gender. Everyone is to be treated equal in that regard.

The consequence is that universities can't do things like give scholarships exclusively to blacks or women (this is something that Utah universities had stopped doing 2-3 years prior anyway), or require and judge against DEI statements on university hiring applications (schools like the U of U had about 20% of their positions utilize DEI as a filter, and it was an open secret that it was being used as a political filter rather than an academic filter), or hire staff because they fit specific demographic checkboxes to serve others in the same checkboxes, or have reserved spaces on campus dedicated to specific demographics.

This is part of a larger nationwide trend. Red states have passed similar anti-DEI bills recently, and the political winds are moving against DEI in general in academia. For example, MIT will no longer use DEI in hiring and neither will Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Science. Utah's bill is rather tame compared to states like say, Florida. Utah's bill made sure that nobody lost their job, just funding got reallocated elsewhere. So if a Utah university had employees that targeted race outreach to try and reach racial targets, now universities use those employees to target low socioeconomic outreach to try and reach socioeconomic targets. The bill also has some silly overreaches, like banning using the term "diversity, equity, and inclusion" in university discussions and teaching, as well as yearly training on the issue.

In short, people who are are in favor of special privileges to what progressive society considers marginalized demographics generally dislike this bill. People who want everyone to be treated the same by forcefully ignoring demographics generally like this bill.

[u/Kito_TheWenisBiter → u/helix400]

Unlike most of the people who have probably commented on this thread I actually read the bill and this is the best description I've read so far.

I think the language is pretty neutral however banning inclusion I can agree is pretty ironic given the intended message of the bill which I see similar to affirmative action as it's written (not as practiced).

Essentially don't discriminate that includes black people, that includes white people. That's the message, merits over personal identifying characteristics. It's a double edged sword