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
Could Utah be on the move? Fresh off leaving the Pac-12 for the Big 12, Dick Weiss believes that Utah could be on the move yet again. It is a decision that might well usher in another round of conference expansion
Weiss is a legendary (and highly reputable) sports writer who has worked for the Philadelphia Daily News and the New York Daily News. He reported on Saturday night that Utah could be set to leave the Big 12 and join the ACC, marking the latest bit of news concerning conference realignment.
This, after Utah was approved to join the Big 12 last summer. The Utes officially become Big 12 members this August.
It is an intriguing and yet curious report. Were Utah to join a new conference as Weiss is reporting, they’d be moving conferences along with former Pac-12 members Cal and Stanford (and SMU is leaving the AAC), all of whom are ACC-bound this year. But why would Utah want to leave for the ACC?
Advertisement
Weiss says it is about the television presence of the ACC on ESPN. But the Big 12 has a contract with Fox and ESPN, arguably putting them in a better spot than the ACC. Conference expansion and realignment is being fueled by the acquisition of media markets.
If a program is in a prime media market (such as Maryland and Rutgers were for the Big Ten), then a Power Four conference will come calling.
Speculation is circulating about potential shifts in college sports conferences. There is discussion about Utah possibly moving to the ACC despite its recent move to the Big 12, with some suggesting the ACC might be a better fit due to its ESPN network agreement and potential for…
And with their recent media rights deal, the Big 12 is set to surpass the ACC in terms of financial resources. So why would Utah leave a situation that makes geographic sense to join the ACC for potentially less money?
Advertisement
It may not make any sense. But if the ACC can make more money by adding Utah and help save their own conference then anything and everything will be on the table.
And since when has anything relating to conference expansion made any actual sense?
Are you ready for this, Utah and BYU and Utah State fans? Get ready. Your rooting world is about to be nudged off its axis.
And it will be OK — for some of you. Not all, some.
College sports is on the verge of transforming into something that could be more than a little off-putting to many college fans. Question is: Are you one of them?
The evidence of revolutionary change was all around, as the NCAA moved toward a multibillion-dollar settlement this week — from possible private equity involvement in athletic departments to revenue-sharing with college athletes, those athletes essentially becoming university employees, to backpay for past athletes being handed out to big contracts being offered and signed and sometimes allegedly reneged on by the powers that be, the powers you’re accustomed to cheering for.
Advertisement
Bottom line is, college sports will one day be professional sports.
And now athletic departments are looking for money to counter added expenses they’ll face on account of wanting to stay competitive while being made legally to share proceeds with athletes, as well as other costs of competition.
Private equity partnership is being explored by some schools, where firms would pour millions of dollars into athletic departments as a means of investment, and be rewarded with payouts from money gained by those departments in the years ahead. This has been whispered about for a long time, but some administrators, needing more revenue to remain competitive for the aforementioned reasons, reportedly are seriously considering this idea. Such investment makes you wonder how much say those firms would have in overall direction of individual teams inside departments, in decision-making, etc.
Think of it like this: If the University of Utah partnered with a private equity outfit that offered to throw $150 million at Utah sports, and the Utes used that money to offset, say, sharing revenue and other expenses, say, paying coaches’ salaries, would that firm then have influence over who was hired for what position or who was fired?
Already mega-boosters are waist-deep in donating money at many schools. What kind of sway do they hold over department decisions? Would private equity investment make matters better or worse? In football, would it possibly balance out an annual competitive chase for league and national titles that currently rests at the same familiar 10 to 15 teams, inflating it to four times that many? Is more money magic?
Advertisement
It certainly wouldn’t hurt, unless it certainly would, what with powerful money men and women sinking their teeth into college sports. Would Utah then be Utah’s team, would it be your team, or would it be some investment group’s team?
Nobody’s completely sure.
But, either way, money is becoming even more important moving forward than it’s been in the past. In the redistribution of that money, now with athletes getting a significant share, maybe more athletes than ever before depending on scholarship limits or a lack of them, high-level departments that used to put cash wherever they wanted, might feel panicked by losing some 25 percent of it to the kids they so often say they care so deeply about.
Indeed, college football and basketball have always been about money. Now it’s about who gets what portion of that money. Does it bother fans — you — that a good measure of that money will be mandated to go to athletes? And what if a pile of that money went to private investors?
Does anybody really care as long as winning — or an increased prospect of it — is achieved?
Advertisement
We get it. It’s all an adjustment.
Some fans have always wanted their college athletes to play for their school for the same reasons the fans cheer for it with such emotion — because they identify with it, because they feel connected to it, because it represents them, because they love it, because they want it to win.
While winning at their sport is a big deal to most college athletes, winning at life is an even bigger deal. And winning at life is defined by many of them via how much money they can get. The example so often set by their coaches is Exhibit A. Top coaches make a ton of cash and top players want the same.
That money has to come somehow, from somewhere.
The glory of the school? Puh-leease.
Advertisement
An example:
Perhaps you saw the recent paraphrased headline in The Tribune that read about like this: “QB alleges false promises by coach, others in lawsuit.”
If you had read something like that regarding a complaint by a college quarterback aimed at his coach 15 or 20 years ago, you would have thought it was a deal where an overzealous coach promised a recruit a certain amount of playing time straight from the start. Maybe the coach told the high school kid he would not only get an opportunity to start as a freshman, but that he would, in fact, start. All he had to do was sign right here on the dotted line and the job was his. Next thing, he does not start and the coach’s promise is broken.
No. That was so 1995, so 2005, so 2010.
In 2024, the false-promises lawsuit is about cold, hard cash, according to a report by The Athletic’s Stewart Mandel, money that was allegedly pledged to quarterback Jaden Rashada by Florida coach Billy Napier and others, including a big Gators booster and the Gator Collective, all as a means of getting the recruit to sign with Florida instead of Miami, where he had earlier committed, which through a booster of its own had previously promised money to Rashada to sign with the Hurricanes.
Advertisement
How much money? The report said Florida, via its booster, offered the quarterback $13.85 million, outdoing Miami’s booster by some $4 million.
So, how’re you feeling about college sports these days?
This is not your dad’s college football. Back then, in the good ol’ days, programs would simply slip some bills into an envelope and quietly hand them over to a recruit to seal a deal. Now, we have … this.
But how much different in terms of competitive balance is it, really?
After Rashada chose Florida the deal fell apart and the lawsuit is now filed, seeking more than $10 million in damages, alleging six counts of fraud and negligence against Napier and a group of others. The quarterback was released from his letter of intent at Florida last year, subsequently heading to Arizona State and now he announced he’s transferring to Georgia.
Advertisement
The question, then, is worth repeating: How’re you feeling about college sports, especially power football and basketball? Is all the money cavalierly being tossed around messing over the experience of rooting for your favorite college team?
Would an installed salary cap help or hurt?
Is the required money — funneled into revenue-sharing — now essentially being mandated by the courts and/or the threat of future lawsuits — and likely to be agreed to by all power conferences in order to avoid deeper monetary liabilities — mixed along with big sums of cash that could be garnered from investment firms and/or other sources enough to turn you and your interest away from college sports?
Will you view it as nothing more than pro sports, all as your ticket prices rise? Or does it not matter that your athletes playing for your school not only are being shown the money, but they’re also getting it? Are you envious because when you went to college, you worked two part-time jobs, one pumping gas and another sweeping floors in an administration building, as you paid tuition and completed a full-time class schedule? Are you a champion of athlete amateurism while the school pockets all the profits?
Yeah, are you ready for this and — who knows — maybe more? Get ready. It’s coming. It’s here.
Advertisement
Thing is, it’ll be OK. It will. Pay no attention to the bag man behind the curtain. One way or another, certainly in college football and basketball, the sports you really care about, money has always ruled the day. Yesterday, today, tomorrow. It looks now a bit different, but if the money comes, if the winning comes, your care-factor is bound to come alongside. Nothing revolutionary about that. At top college levels, altruism and amateurism have long been diminished, if not dead.
In the years ahead, you can pull for the poor, thrifty, gutty, little college underdog … if it doesn’t die, too.
On Thursday, a huge step was taken to soon make college sports as we know them changed forever.
The NCAA settled three lawsuits, including House vs. NCAA, and agreed to pay a nearly $2.8 billion settlement to athletes from 2016 to 2021 that covers back damages for the athletes who were unable to earn money from their name, image and likeness.
The five power conferences, including the Big 12 and Pac-12, agreed to terms of the settlement on Thursday. Yahoo Sports’ Ross Dellenger reported that if the NCAA lost the case, damages would have been $20 billion, which would have likely led to the NCAA filing bankruptcy, so the conferences felt it was in their best interest to settle and avoid catastrophe.
According to a letter from NCAA president Charlie Baker to member schools, obtained by Dellenger, to pay the $2.776 billion settlement over 10 years, the NCAA will use 42% of its own funds, while 58% will come from a reduction in distribution to its schools.
Advertisement
Power conferences will have about $664 million of distributions withheld over 10 years, per Dellenger.
While the loss of that NCAA distribution — which could work out to a reduction of 0.61% of the average Power Five school’s budget, according to Dellenger — will have some bearing on Utah’s athletic department budget, the real impact will be felt in the new proposed revenue-sharing model that is part of the settlement.
Under the settlement, schools can directly pay players up to $22 million per year, starting in fall of 2025. That number, per Dellenger, was arrived at by “us(ing) an average of power conference revenue streams as a sort-of formula to determine an annual revenue-sharing limit.”
As coaches hit the recruiting trail shortly to find their next class, questions about direct payments will surely be at the top of recruits’ minds, but those questions may not have answers right now.
How does Title IX factor into the payments? It’s not covered in the settlement.
Advertisement
“The settlement will allow, say, Ohio State, to share up to $20 million with its athletes. Which seems like a lot. But schools won’t be able to give all $20 million of it to the football team, lest they themselves want to be sued by their women’s sports athletes,” The Athletic’s Stewart Mandel wrote.
NIL collectives will likely still be in play as well, as the collectives operate outside of schools’ purview.
“Many within the sport believe that schools will keep their collective around for two reasons: (1) circumvent the revenue-sharing cap by using the third-party entity to offer “bonuses,” said one person; and (2) bend Title IX rules as collectives aren’t under the umbrella of the university,” Dellenger wrote.
While there’s no requirement for Utah to spend up to $22 million in paying its athletes, money will certainly be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, factor in recruits deciding where to play, and whether they stick around once they’re at Utah or enter the transfer portal.
Could player payment contracts include multi-year language, like professional sports, and prevent players from transferring before a certain time period?
Advertisement
“Officials are discussing a range of possibilities for athlete contracts, including implementing buyout clauses that are often found in coaching contracts,” Dellenger wrote.
There is still so much to be worked out in the coming months before fall 2025, when the new system is expected to go into effect.
What is for certain is that Utah has to find a lot more money in its budget if it wants to be competitive in this new world of college athletics.
According to financial fillings, Utah’s athletic department had a total operating revenue of $126,256,291 in the 2023 fiscal year with total operating expenses of $124,453,484, leaving an excess of $1,802,807.
Utah has done well to turn a profit at a time where some athletic departments across the country are operating at a loss, but the surplus is still well short of $22 million.
Advertisement
Step No. 1 will be to ramp up fundraising even more. Do fans currently donating to an NIL collective switch to donating to the athletic department to allow them to pay players directly? Will Utah’s athletic department absorb a current NIL program like the Crimson Collective, or will it continue to operate outside of the university in addition to the direct payments?
In addition to a massive uptick in donations, athletic directors across the country will have to start making cuts in the athletic department to free up money to start playing players.
What will happen to non-revenue sports? The revenue from football and men’s basketball currently covers the cost of all of the other sports Utah sponsors.
“There are concerns of the trickle-down effect these new financial requirements will have on athletic departments as well, including the possibility of schools cutting sports, athlete resources or administrative positions at both power-conference and non-power-conference schools,” Nicole Auerbach and Justin Williams of The Athletic wrote.
Cutting sports is a non-starter, though, as NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision rules require each institution to sponsor a minimum of 16 varsity sports, and Utah currently has 20 varsity sports. Even if Utah cut four sports, that’s not going to get them anywhere close to $22 million.
Advertisement
Utah declined to comment on the NCAA settlement at this time.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24038601/acastro_STK109_microsoft_02.jpg)
