Utah Sen. John Johnson is relaunching debate over his proposal put forward during the 2023 legislative session targeting diversity, equity and inclusion programs at public Utah universities.

This time around, however, he’s not seeking to eliminate them, a proposal that generated a sharp rebuke from some. Rather, the conservative North Ogden Republican wants to investigate ways to tweak or pare back such programs, buoyed by the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision striking affirmative action polices at U.S. colleges.

He put out the call Monday for feedback and hopes to debate the matter at a yet-to-be set interim committee meeting later this summer or fall and aims to craft a proposal for consideration during the 2024 legislative session.

Diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs — increasingly targeted by conservative lawmakers across the country — aim to help students of color and those belonging to other marginalized groups thrive in a university setting. Weber State, the University of Utah and Utah State, among others in Utah, have DEI offices or programs.

Johnson, though, views DEI programs with suspicion, worried they promote the interests of those they mean to benefit — students of color and others — at the expense of others. His proposal during the 2023 session to axe them, Senate Bill 283, was referred last February to an interim committee for further study.

“How do we structure things so instead of creating a race war we actually create opportunities?” he said Monday. “Let’s think about how we can provide support without crossing the line of being exclusive of other students.”

Johnson sent out a tweet Monday announcing his plans to craft new DEI legislation. He’s drawn sharp criticism from some who view his push as contrary to efforts to fight racism and promote equal opportunity and he alluded to that.

The form of DEI programs “is unconstitutional according to research I have completed with the help of many organizations across the US,” he said in his tweet. “If any of you want to engage in a serious open (dialogue) on the subject (let’s) do it. If you simply want to attack and call people racist please stay out of the conversation.”

Weber State spokesperson Bryan Magaña said university representatives would be willing to take part in any discussions, noting a panel discussion the college hosted earlier this year on S.B. 283 that included Johnson and foes of the legislation. “Weber State is a marketplace of ideas and we often share opportunities for students and community members to view things in a new or different way,” he said.

The university, he went on, is “committed” to “equity-minded practices” that read, in part, that the school is focused on earmarking resources for students “who have greater needs due to the systemic shortcomings of our educational system in providing for them.” The practices also put a focus on recognizing that eliminating “structural racism” in higher-education institutions requires “intentional critical deconstruction of structures, policies, practices, norms and values assumed to be race neutral,” a seeming acknowledgement of inequalities inherent in the university’s system.

That seems to run counter to Johnson’s contention that singling out certain groups for assistance via DEI programs can have the effect of harming others. Indeed, to the extent DEI programs give “special privileges” to distinct groups, Johnson told the Standard-Examiner, they fall within the parameters of the June 29 U.S. Supreme Court striking university affirmative action programs that aim to bolster student body diversity.

Whatever legislation he ends up proposing may not pass, Johnson said, “but that Supreme Court decision has made it difficult, I think, for universities to justify what they’re doing.”

He singled out apparent policies that require applicants to Utah’s public graduate schools to write “diversity statements” addressing their personal efforts and philosophy with regard to diversity.

In pulling back from pushing to eliminate DEI programs, Johnson suggested they can be broadened to eliminate reference to race.

“Rather than taking the attitude that we just totally have to wipe out all of this stuff, what can we do to eliminate the bad without eliminating the good pieces of it? And what are those pieces and how can we make those pieces more inclusive?” he said.

Programming meant to aid students who are the first in their families to attend a university could be worthwhile, for instance, regardless of their color.

“Can we identify that as a problem, and rather than segregate people by race or by their gender, we simply look and say, ‘Let’s find a way to help these first-time college students,'” he said. “That is really inclusivity. You’re including everybody that has that issue. It doesn’t matter what color you are.”

Newsletter