Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
It started as what critics call a “Don’t Say Gay” bill last year, but has since evolved into broader legislation to control what teachers can and can’t say — or display — in their classrooms.
Advertisement
With HB303, Rep. Jeff Stenquist, R-Draper, wants to ban teachers from “endorsing, promoting or disparaging” certain beliefs or viewpoints, including religious or political beliefs and sexual orientation or gender identity.
Stenquist started working on the bill about a year ago, after some parents expressed concerns about a teacher talking about pronouns and gender identity with young students.
HB303 would restrict teachers from having those discussions unless they’re germane to the curriculum, and would require teachers to tread carefully as to not sway a student to change their beliefs. It would also effectively restrict the display of Pride flags or other symbols that could be interpreted as a “political” or “social” belief unless they’re relevant to the curriculum.
Stenquist said he’s trying to address a “perception problem” with teachers and “get political and ideological fights … out of the classroom.” He said his goal is to “reassure parents that students are not being exposed to some political or ideological ideal that they may not agree with,” regardless of political or social leanings.
But the bill’s opponents — including the Utah Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah — argue it’s too vague and would create a “chilling effect” on teachers, leaving them at risk over what they can or can’t say to their students without punishment.
Despite those concerns, the bill narrowly cleared its first legislative hurdle Monday. It advanced out of the House Education Committee with a split, 6-5 vote. Its next stop: the House floor.
Advertisement
What does the bill do?
HB303 would prohibit school employees or officials from using their position, “through instruction, materials or a display of symbols, images or language” to support, promote or criticize certain beliefs. It also bans them from inviting, suggesting or encouraging students to “reconsider or change” the students’ beliefs.
Those beliefs, as listed in the bill, include:
Religious, denominational, sectarian, agnostic, or atheistic beliefs or viewpoints
Political or social beliefs or viewpoints
Viewpoints regarding sexual orientation or gender identity
The bill would, however, allow teachers to wear religious clothing, including jewelry such as a rosary, or other “accessories that are central to the individual’s sincerely held religious belief.” It would also allow them to display “personal photographs” of their family members.
It would also allow teachers to discuss “an age-appropriate topic” or display an “age-appropriate image or symbol” as long as it’s part of an approved curriculum.
Stenquist said the bill would require Utah school districts to implement a more “standardized policy around neutrality” across the state.
The debate
While drafting the bill, Stenquist worked with Megan Kallas, a parent and one of Stenquist’s constituents, who came to him to prevent “inappropriate conversations” that she said her first grade daughter’s teacher was having with some students outside of curriculum dealing with topics of gender identity, gender fluidity and pronouns.
Advertisement
Frustrated that school and district officials didn’t address the issue because there was no “policy on the books to say this is inappropriate,” Kallas said she turned to Stenquist. Since then, she said he’s crafted a bill to implement a “fair and neutral policy that protects all students and creates in the classroom an environment of learning versus an environment of ideologies being passed around from teacher to student without parental consent.”
Kallas and other supporters told the committee HB303 is aimed at ensuring teacher “professionalism” and fostering a learning environment free from political pressures or ideologies.
But Sara Jones, director of government relations for the Utah Education Association, a union that lobbies on behalf of teachers, urged lawmakers to oppose the bill, expressing concerns about ambiguous language.
For example, Jones noted the bill’s language allows teachers to display personal photographs in their classrooms or offices.
“But can those photographs include a family standing in front of a place of worship, or a family member holding a sign at a rally at the Capitol, or a same-sex couple holding a Pride flag, or would those types of personal photographs actually be interpreted as promoting religious, political (beliefs) or sexual orientation?” she questioned.
Advertisement
Jones also wondered how teachers are supposed to avoid “inviting” a student to change their political viewpoints while teaching topics such as U.S. government or history. “It implies classroom instruction, which includes careful analysis, discussion, deliberation of facts, should never include a student then considering how that information might change their viewpoint or their opinion,” she said.
“Ambiguous language is a hazard for educators who won’t know how the statute applies to them, and may end up facing disciplinary or licensure actions,” Jones said.
Two students spoke in favor of the bill. One from Springville High School said she believes there shouldn’t be “gay pride” flags in the classroom, and that some of her teachers have “placed biases into what they’ve been teaching.”
“When I go to school, I want to be able to be taught how to think and not what to think,” she said.
Another student, from Maple Mountain High School, also spoke against allowing “symbols” she didn’t agree with in classrooms and “teachers that would tell us things that I didn’t want to believe in, but I felt that if I disagreed I wasn’t welcome.”
Advertisement
“School needs to be a place of learning and it needs to be a safe place and it was not that for me,” she said. “We need to prevent different beliefs from making other people uncomfortable.”
Representatives for conservative groups including Utah Parents United spoke in favor of the bill, arguing it would ensure “balanced, unbiased and neutral content” in classrooms.
But Zee Kilpack, who identified themself as a transgender person, spoke against the bill, arguing it discourages the mere discussion of the existence of LGBTQ+ people, who’ve historically had a hard enough time feeling welcome.
“Obviously, we live in Utah. We live in a place where a lot of parents don’t support LGBTQ+ ideology. And yet, queer kids exist anyway,” they said. “School was one of the few places where I could see people that were queer.”
Kilpack also argued HB303 would not “prepare kids for the future,” from colleges to workplaces “that will have all of these ideologies expressed.” They also worried it would restrict LGBTQ+ teachers from posting pictures with their partners, “where that can be a nonpolitical statement of them just existing.”
Advertisement
Rep. Dan Johnson, R-Logan, asked Stenquist if the bill would “cause teachers to feel like they’re monitored so much that they can’t say anything anymore.” Stenquist acknowledged “this will be somewhat of a paradigm shift for some teachers,” but only those that “may feel like part of their job is to endorse some particular worldview.”
“But I think the vast majority of teachers will probably not be affected by this,” Stenquist said, describing the “best teachers” as those that “students don’t know what their political viewpoints are. And I think that’s the goal that we need to get to.”
To questions about how to define a “social belief” or concerns that the bill’s language is too vague, Stenquist said it’s difficult to define “neutrality” in state code, but he welcomed anyone to offer “better language” to make it clearer than the current bill. It may not be “perfect,” he said, but he urged lawmakers not to “make perfect the enemy of good.”
Rep. Carol Spackman Moss, D-Holladay, who has worked as an educator, argued against the bill, worried it will especially impact teachers of history, social studies, literature and other subjects that can cover controversial topics. She said it suggests “teachers aren’t trained and aren’t professional enough,” while there are already school policies and procedures in place that address unprofessionalism.
Rep. Kera Birkeland, R-Morgan, vehemently argued in favor of the bill, saying it doesn’t “target” any single group.
Advertisement
“I get really tired of hearing that we’re targeting people,” said Birkeland, who this year sponsored a controversial bill to restrict transgender access in government-owned bathrooms and other facilities while also expanding unisex and single stall facilities. “We try to show kindness and compassion and then we’re told, ‘But you’re rejecting them.’ We’re not.”
Birkeland said the “majority of people do not care who you love, they want to let you love who you love and be who you are. But when we try to run bills to create balance, and the first thing we throw out is, ‘This targets one community,’ we send a message to these kids that they’re being targeted, and they’re not.”
“We want everyone — everyone — to walk in that class and feel like they belong, and that has to do with coming in and being spoken to with respect and dignity,” Birkeland said. “That’s why this bill’s before us, so that every kid — no matter their identity, no matter their beliefs — walks in and knows that they are respected, and will be treated with dignity.”
But one of Birkeland’s Republican colleagues, Rep. Neil Water, R-St. George, opposed the bill, saying he’s worried about its unintended consequences — along with legislation the Utah Legislature has already passed this year to ban diversity, equity and inclusion programs in public entities.
“I’m concerned about sterilizing our classrooms,” he said.
Advertisement
House Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield, also supported the bill, first thanking students who spoke in support of the bill. “They showed bravery in an increasingly political school environment.”
“This bill refocuses our classrooms to basic academic learning and provides a professionalism standard that will support all students,” Lisonbee said. “It is vital that we provide these standards and the expectation of learning and exploring different ideas in a neutral environment.”
Utahn Jacob Hancey spoke against the bill, arguing against restricting teachers from expressing their viewpoints to help foster realistic, healthy debates.
Hancey said he “never saw eye-to-eye on anything political” with one of his high school teachers, “but our discussions were wonderful. We became friends until the day he died.”
“Every day we’d have arguments … I learned so much more from him and the respect that he showed me by giving me this chance to form my opinions and really refine them,” Hancey said, urging lawmakers not to support the bill.
Advertisement
“Because I think those conflicts are a chance for students to grow.”
Utah News Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Utah News Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor McKenzie Romero for questions: info@utahnewsdispatch.com. Follow Utah News Dispatch on Facebook and Twitter.
Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
SALT LAKE CITY (KUTV) — Patti Wheeler was curious what her son Wyatt, a business student, was using when she found a “supplement” container on a family trip.
A short time later, he was dead.
”My son Wyatt passed away from Kratom,” said Wheeler, who flew into Salt Lake from Florida and arrived at the state Capitol on Thursday.
“There’s no doubt in your mind that Kratom was the cause of Wyatt’s death?” 2News asked.
Advertisement
“A hundred percent,” she replied, adding the coroner confirmed it, calling some forms of Kratom as addictive as heroin or morphine.
MORE | Kratom
2026 Legislative Session (Graphic: KUTV)
Wheeler is the executive producer of a new documentary, “Kratom, Side Effects May Include,” and Drug Free Utah invited lawmakers — in the middle of the Kratom debate — for dinner and screening Thursday night at the Gateway theater.
Walter Plumb, Drug Free Utah leader, said his daughter would drink Kratom as a tea and that it spiked her blood pressure.
“She eventually had a stroke,” Plumb said, followed by months of rehab.
Advertisement
The American Kratom Association said the substance, derived from leaves of tropical trees in Southeast Asia, is safe if used properly.
Though legal in most states, the FDA has urged people not to consume it, citing adverse side effects, including seizures.
“I’m a success story,” said Lora Romney, a “nine-year” Kratom user, who testified before a legislative committee last month. “I have incredible health.”
Romney said Kratom dramatically improved a nerve condition.
“If this were to be banned,” she said, “I literally will not be able to get out of bed.”
Advertisement
Measures at the Capitol could severely restrict Kratom, which is widely available at stores all over the state, but banning it outright seems off the table with just a couple of weeks to go this legislative session.
Utah voters entrust our representatives with real authority — with our voice. This includes the duty to speak when constitutional norms, the rule of law and basic human dignity are under strain.
(Haiyun Jiang | The New York Times) The U.S. Capitol in Washington on Wednesday, July 2, 2025.
On Jan. 24, a group of neighbors in Holladay found ourselves talking about troubling national news — another fatal encounter involving federal law enforcement in Minneapolis.
At first, we spoke cautiously, unsure whether we shared the same political views. But restraint soon gave way as people voiced what they were feeling.
“I’ve been crying all day.”
Advertisement
“I’m questioning what it means to be an American.”
“I no longer recognize the party I belong to.”
“This is wrong, and I feel powerless to stop it.”
That sense of powerlessness, it became clear, was because we do not see our values being reflected in congressional action. Utah voters entrust our representatives with real authority — with our voice. This includes the duty to speak when constitutional norms, the rule of law and basic human dignity are under strain. When that voice is absent, silence itself becomes a message.
Writing a letter to a member of Congress can feel like a small thing, but we had to begin somewhere. So one was written that we all could sign, directed to Utah’s delegation. At its core, the letter asked a simple question: Is loyalty to a political movement taking precedence over loyalty to constituents’ values?
Advertisement
The values we had in mind are not radical, but moderate. We believe them to be widely shared across Utah.
Respect for law and life
We believe Utahns want law and order, but we reject brutality, abuse of power and enforcement stripped of humanity. Justice works best when it is firm, lawful and tempered with mercy. Congressional oversight of the executive branch is not optional; it is a constitutional responsibility, especially when violations occur.
Consensus through compromise
Utahns have learned over time to navigate disagreement through listening, good-faith negotiation and respect for democratic outcomes. Strategies of domination and marginalization — whether aimed at individuals, cities, states or nations — undermine democratic legitimacy and weaken the country. We want representatives who are committed to bipartisan problem-solving, not partisan entrenchment.
Growth and well-being for all
Utahns are deeply concerned about unsustainable debt and widening economic inequality. Prosperity carries responsibility for the common good. Those entrusted with public resources must act with integrity, address poverty and corruption, and resist oppression wherever it appears — at home or abroad.
The letter noted the low profile that Utah’s congressional delegation has maintained despite a series of concerning executive actions over the past year.
Advertisement
“We feel you can and must do more,” it stated. “With narrow margins in Congress, if you act together as Utahns — prioritizing principles over partisanship — our state can have an outsized influence in defending constitutional norms, insisting on accountability and restoring trust in government.”
We closed by asking our leaders to put Utah values first, to speak clearly when the rule of law is threatened and to use the power we entrusted to them with courage and independence.
Before delivering it, we thought to invite others to sign with us — friends, family members, others who might share our concerns but lacked a constructive way to act. We hoped for a few dozen signatories from across the state.
We began circulating it on the morning of Jan. 27. The response exceeded our expectations. By noon, dozens had signed. By evening, hundreds. The next day, Utahns were signing it by the hundred per hour.
Messages expressing relief and resolve also poured in.
Advertisement
“Thank you for putting my feelings into words.”
“I haven’t been this relieved to sign something in a long time.”
“I hope this letter becomes impossible to ignore.”
After two days, we delivered it to the offices of each senator and member of Congress with more than 1,700 signatures from across the state. And they were still coming — within three more days the total was more than 2,400.
This effort was not a scientific poll. But it confirmed something important: Politically moderate Utahns may not dominate headlines, but we are engaged, and there is pent-up desire for our voice to be acknowledged.
Advertisement
We are ready to support leaders — of any party — who will speak up for our values, act in defense of constitutional norms and the rule of law, and lead with integrity, dignity and courage.
(Cynthia Collier) Cynthia Collier is a Salt Lake Valley native.
(Dave Young) Dave Young lives in the Salt Lake valley.
(Ken Lisonbee) Ken Lisonbeelives in the Salt Lake valley.
Cynthia Collier, Dave Young and Ken Lisonbeeare Holladay neighbors, Salt Lake valley natives and concerned citizens.
Advertisement
The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.
For over 150 years, The Salt Lake Tribune has been Utah’s independent news source. Our reporters work tirelessly to uncover the stories that matter most to Utahns, from unraveling the complexities of court rulings to allowing tax payers to see where and how their hard earned dollars are being spent. This critical work wouldn’t be possible without people like you—individuals who understand the importance of local, independent journalism. As a nonprofit newsroom, every subscription and every donation fuels our mission, supporting the in-depth reporting that shines a light on the is sues shaping Utah today.
SALT LAKE CITY (KUTV) — Before the last Utah Olympics in 2002, there was a push for TRAX and a massive expansion of I-15.
This time, a state lawmaker envisions self-driving taxis and buses — hundreds or even thousands of them on Utah roads — by the 2034 games.
Rep. Matt MacPherson, R-Salt Lake County, is asking for $10 million in state money for a pilot project for UDOT to begin leasing robotaxis.
MORE | 2026 Legislative Session
2026 Legislative Session (Graphic: KUTV)
Advertisement
“I think if we can show a track record of safety … we can show our industry partners are meeting the requirements of the demands of our regulatory framework,” MacPherson said. “I would expect we would see this grow dramatically.”
He said Utah launched cutting-edge legislation on self-driving cars in 2018, but not much has happened since.
So, he’s coupling the $10 million budget request, which has not been prioritized, with a yet-to-be-released measure to better govern when someone is not behind the wheel.
Another plan at the Capitol would limit liability for self-driving car manufacturers.
MacPherson acknowledged that people are hesitant about robocars.
Advertisement
”Yes, absolutely,” he said. “I think it’s more hesitancy among those who have not had a chance to experience it or utilize it. I think most of the data that we’ve seen is that these autonomous systems are incredibly safer than human drivers.”
2News has covered demonstrations of self-driving vehicles, including an instance seven years ago where an older man was thrown from his seat and was hurt when the vehicle stopped.
McPherson said technology has advanced since then and is continuing to advance.