Committee advances bill allowing state‑school students to seek alternate assignments for conscience objections
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
HB 2.04, limited to state institutions, would let students request alternative assignments for reasons of conscience or religious belief so long as accommodations do not cause a 'fundamental alteration' to a course; the committee adopted a first substitute and recommended the bill 8–1 after extensive testimony for and against.
Representative Peterson introduced HB 2.04 and said the measure responds to instances in which students were required to complete assignments they felt violated their conscience. He described the bill as building on last year’s legislation that created conscience protections for state employees.
Professor Robin Wilson, a law professor appearing in a personal capacity, told the committee HB 2.04 “governs only state schools because it amends 53A to the Utah code,” and that the bill protects students from compelled speech when instructors require students to take public positions as part of coursework. Wilson described two key protections in the substitute: (1) students may request an alternative assignment when an assignment violates conscience or religious belief, and (2) the accommodation is not required if it would be a “fundamental alteration” to the degree or course (lines 34–42). She said a neutral institutional arbiter (lines 104–106) with guidance from USHE would determine whether an accommodation constitutes a fundamental alteration.
Supporters (including Sutherland Institute and faith groups) said the bill protects religious freedom and conscience without costly litigation; opponents (AFT Utah College Council, faculty speakers, and some university faculty) warned the bill could interfere with accreditation, licensing requirements and academic freedom. Faculty commenters argued the bill’s concepts—conscience, belief and sincerity—are difficult to define and could chill rigorous teaching. Several witnesses urged limiting accommodations so they do not alter essential learning outcomes or licensure pathways.
The committee adopted the first substitute and then voted 8–1 to favorably recommend HB 2.04 as substituted (Representative Moss recorded as the lone no vote). The sponsor and the law professor said the substitute’s guardrails—fundamental alteration and a neutral institutional review—are intended to preserve learning outcomes while addressing conscience concerns.
Next steps: HB 2.04 proceeds to the House floor with the committee’s recommendation; supporters and opponents indicated they will continue to negotiate details about definitions and implementation.