A quality higher education should push students to engage with challenging ideas rather than allow them to retreat from discomfort. Utah’s HB 204 would require public colleges and universities to accommodate students who object to required coursework on religious or conscience grounds, by excusing participation or offering alternatives. Allowing students to opt out of assignments for personal beliefs sets a dangerous and harmful precedent.
A solution without a problem
Rep. Mike Petersen introduced HB 204, which would create a set process for “belief accommodation” in Utah’s public colleges and universities. Petersen has said he was motivated in part by his daughter’s experience in a master of social work program outside Utah, where she was required to write a letter to a lawmaker advocating for pro-LGBTQ policies. He also cited concerns from a legislative intern who was assigned to watch a film with explicit content.
While these examples may feel personal and concerning to those involved, isolated anecdotes should not dictate statewide higher education policy. College assignments often simulate real-world professional expectations. A social work student may be required to understand policy advocacy, regardless of personal beliefs, because advocacy is embedded in that profession. Exposure to uncomfortable material is preparation. This is not optional.
The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) upholds policies that dictate that “Social workers have a responsibility to engage in advocacy to ensure that the human rights of LGBTQIA2S+ people be protected from any and all efforts to limit full participation in civic life and related activities that effectively enhance social, physical, and mental health well-being.” Most workplaces will not allow any sort of value-based discrimination, even based on religion. Legislating broad opt-out protections based on singular experiences risks overcorrecting and undermining institutional authority across the board.
Weakening academic standards
A bill that allows students to pick and choose what they learn about essentially weakens our academic system. Core coursework is designed to build critical skills; excusing participation undermines the learning process. Along with this, some students could fulfill requirements differently, leading to unequal educational experiences. Using religion as a scapegoat for education has become a national talking point.
In December 2025, an instructor at the University of Oklahoma was placed on leave after a student reported receiving a failing grade on a paper in which she cited the Bible to argue that the “belief in multiple genders” was “demonic.” The essay submitted was riddled with grammatical errors, and using the Bible as a reference in a gender studies class is not appropriate. Gender studies is taught as a social science or humanities discipline that relies on peer-reviewed research, scholarly books and journal articles. If an assignment requires scholarly academic sources, then citing the Bible as proof of a social claim will not meet the assignment’s evidence standards. Religious texts are considered theological sources, not empirical research.
Along with this, public universities are not supposed to promote one religion. Using the Bible as a source can be seen as promoting one religion if it is treated as authoritative truth. The essay was highly inappropriate for a college-level course. That student capitalized “He” and “His” when referring to God in some parts of the essay but failed to do so consistently. For example, she wrote, “He created us with such intentionality and care, and He made women in his image of being a helper,” where “He” is capitalized but “his” is not. Not to mention, “his image of being a helper” does not make sense. There is informal and conversational phrasing throughout the essay. The essay is written in the first person and presents a reaction paper rather than a thorough response to the questions of the assignment.
Assignments are evaluated on academic criteria, not religious authority. The issue wasn’t that the student was religious; it was that her essay sucked. The student did not engage with the subject through academic standards. Implementing this bill would only invite more situations like the one at the University of Oklahoma, where academic expectations are reframed as attacks on personal faith. If higher education begins prioritizing personal ideology over intellectual rigor, it ceases to be education at all.
Dangers of ignorance
Higher education is not meant to affirm everything students already believe. It is meant to challenge assumptions and broaden perspective. By no means should students be required to change their beliefs, but they are required to understand the material presented to them and engage with it thoughtfully. Faculty across Utah have raised serious concerns about HB 204’s implications. Rick McDonald, a professor at Utah Valley University, warned about how broadly a conscience objection could be interpreted. Universities, he noted, are designed to push students beyond their existing worldviews.
Gabe Byars at Salt Lake Community College similarly cautioned that the bill could reduce the very “viewpoint diversity” lawmakers claim to support. Students could engage only with ideas they already accept. Allowing students to opt out of learning about certain topics is dangerous because ignorance does not stay contained within the classroom. Graduates enter workplaces where they will inevitably encounter diverse identities and viewpoints. If they are not trained to engage with differing perspectives using professionalism, they may struggle to communicate effectively or collaborate with colleagues. This can cause harm to the people they serve or work with by fostering exclusion.
HB 204 may be framed as a defense of religious liberty, but it risks eroding the foundation of higher education. Universities must uphold consistent academic standards and ensure that degrees reflect genuine mastery of subject matter. Personal belief deserves respect, but it cannot become a veto over curriculum. Discomfort is not discrimination. Challenge is not coercion. Education cannot survive if students are allowed to substitute personal ideology for intellectual engagement.
