Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House rejects bill that would have required schools to stress origins-of-species instruction is not 'empirically proven fact'
Summary
After intense debate, the House amended then rejected Senate Bill 96, a proposal that would have required curriculum language stressing that instruction on the origins of species is not an empirically proven fact; proponents cited parental oversight and constitutional context, critics warned of legal exposure and singling out one theory.
The Utah House debated and then filed Senate Bill 96 on Feb. 27 after a lengthy and often-contentious floor debate about how public schools teach evolution and related material.
The original Senate language addressed instruction "regarding the origins of species" and included a preamble that the legislature did not intend to present any scientific theory, hypothesis or inference regarding origins as "empirically proven." Representative Farrin, the floor sponsor, said the bill sought to encourage critical analysis and to avoid presenting scientific inferences as settled empirical fact: "We teach the origins of species in our schools... If it is merely an inference, then let's keep it as an inference and teach it as that," he said.
Opponents argued the measure was unnecessary, risked legal challenges and singled out one area of science. Representative Wyatt said the House should not weigh in on one particular scientific theory and warned about the precedent of qualifying a single subject: "If we decide to weigh in on this one particular theory, are we going to begin weighing in on all theories?" Representative Fauch noted similar bills in other states frequently prompted lawsuits and said courts often examine legislative intent.
Representative Urquhart offered an amendment to delete the bill's specific references to the origins of species and leave a short sentence directing the State Board of Education to "establish curriculum requirements relating to scientific instruction of students." Supporters of the amendment argued the State Board is best suited to set curriculum and the legislature should not single out a specific subject. The House approved the amendment 44–31.
After further procedural moves, the amended third-substitute bill was brought to final vote and failed 28–46, and was filed.
What happened on the floor: The debate ranged from constitutional preamble references to questions about educational scope, legal exposure and the proper role of the legislature versus the State Board of Education. Supporters argued clarifying language would encourage critical thinking; opponents said it risked litigation and improperly prioritized one scientific area for legislative qualification.
Next steps: With the bill filed after the House vote, proponents could seek reconsideration or pursue related policy changes through the State Board of Education or future legislation.
