Utah board rejects resolution directing removal of 'diversity, equity and inclusion' from schools after extended debate

The Utah State Board of Education considered, debated and declined to adopt a resolution directing removal of programs, trainings or offices referenced as "diversity, equity and inclusion" (DEI) from Utah schools. The underlying resolution (Draft 2) was defeated in a recorded vote; the final tabulation in the meeting transcript shows the motion to adopt the resolution failed with 10 votes against and 4 in favor.

Board members spent more than an hour debating the resolution and multiple procedural motions. Member Hall moved to postpone consideration of the resolution to the full board meeting on May 1, 2025; that postponement motion was seconded by Member Kelly and later voted on — the transcript records a separate vote to postpone to May 1 that failed 9 against, 5 in favor. A separate attempt to postpone indefinitely (offered as an amendment by Member Earl) also failed (vote recorded in transcript as 10 against, 4 in favor).

Discussion centered on three topics: whether a board resolution is the appropriate vehicle for what some called a rule‑like directive; whether existing state law (cited in the meeting as HB 261 and a statutory citation discussed in the transcript, read aloud as part of the record) already addresses the subject; and whether the draft language would unintentionally reach lawful programs such as Latinos in Action or unified sports. Several members said they had received hundreds of emails and calls from constituents on both sides of the issue.

Member Kelly, speaking in opposition to rapid action on the resolution, said she did not want the board to be seen as seeking to eliminate programs such as Latinos in Action: "I would not want any members of the public to in any way, be led to believe that it's the intention of this board to eliminate a program like Latinos in Action," Kelly said, adding she had helped start the program at American Fork High School.

Member Hall, who sponsored the resolution, told colleagues that the text as drafted did not reflect his intent and said he hoped the board could "put something together that sends a message that we are living in a country that's approaching 40% multicultural" and that the messaging should emphasize unity rather than division.

Several board members urged legal review and pointed to board policy 2003, which states that resolutions do not have the force of rule or law. Member Carey asked whether the draft resolution’s mandatory phrasing (for example, directing local education agencies to "shall" rescind programs) risked violating the board’s own policies by acting like a rule rather than an advisory statement; an Assistant Attorney General on the call advised that, as drafted, a resolution that mandates actions could conflict with the board's policy on the role of resolutions.

Superintendent Ryan Dixon (state superintendent) said the legislative debates had clarified that the three words — "diversity," "equity," and "inclusion" — are not individually prohibited but that using them together as an office or program is the statutory concern; he recommended the board consider a legal briefing to clarify where the statute and existing practice intersect. Member Boggess said parts of the draft trace back to language proposed by federal or other sources and warned the board should consider federal attention, noting recent U.S. Department of Education letters to other states.

Procedurally, board members proposed alternative approaches during the meeting. Member Booth circulated a draft letter/statement intended to thank educators and communicate the board's support for students; the suggested statement was not seconded as a board motion and therefore was not adopted. Several members urged creation of a rule or a committee process to produce clearer, legally vetted language that would define compliance and avoid unintended impacts on established programs.

Final tally: the board rejected the resolution (Draft 2) in a roll‑call vote; the meeting transcript records the outcome as 10 opposed and 4 in favor, with the four affirmative votes identified in the record as Member Brinton, Member Boggess, Member Hall and Member Green. The board did not adopt any substitute language or send the draft directly to committee during the same session.