Idaho lawmakers are pursuing anti-DEI legislation

BOISE – Idaho’s Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Legislative Working Group focused on definitions, university policies and possible legislation in its second meeting.

Lawmakers met Monday for a lengthy session that also included an overview of the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down race-based affirmative action and accreditation standards for higher education. The committee will likely propose legislation aimed at restricting “DEI” activities and ideology.

DEI policies, activities and programs, particularly in higher education, have been the target of several Republican-led states in recent years, including Idaho. Those pushing these measures argue that they encourage diverse thinking and support underserved populations. Opponents say the policy is “woke” and disadvantages those who do not belong to historically underrepresented groups.

Near the end of the meeting, committee member Sen. Ben Toews, R-Coeur d’Alene, explained that the task force ultimately wanted to prohibit actions that “punish diversity of thought outside of this ideology.”

As an example, he said that as an undergraduate he took a course on Christian doctrine that was listed on the Women’s Studies list.

“I came with my own experiences, my own personal beliefs, and while I was expressing my beliefs, I had the professor in the class say that I was stuck in the ’50s and accused me of bigotry, and that’s accurate the concerns we want to address.”

One of the targets of Monday’s debate — both in discussions of a draft resolution from the State Board of Education and a Utah bill banning DEI — was centers at universities designed to support specific students, such as women’s centers.

“It really means our centers are going to be focused on supporting students,” Joshua Whitworth, executive director of the Idaho State Board of Education, told the working group on some of the draft anti-DEI resolutions the board is considering.

The only Democrat on the Legislative Committee, Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, worked in higher education and was director of the Women’s Center at Boise State University. Wintrow questioned this proposed policy and asked whether these centers are currently turning away students who are not the target population for services – such as men seeking help at the women’s center.

Wintrow said during her tenure as director, male students came to the center to report rape and ask for help, and she provided those services. She also said there are situations where the center’s name could be beneficial to those seeking services.

Wintrow told the story of a woman in an abusive marriage who drove her husband to class every day and saw the sign for the old women’s center. The woman finally decided to go inside and seek help.

“Luckily she escaped and is doing well today,” Wintrow said. “But if it hadn’t been for the ‘Women’s Center’ sign that she kept driving past – trying to find the courage to come by and seek help – I don’t know where she would be today.”

BSU later changed the name to the Gender Equity Center, but the Gender Equity Center’s webpage no longer appears on the university’s website, a search showed Monday.

These types of student support centers also came up in a discussion of Utah’s anti-DEI bill, which lawmakers passed this year. Toews gave a brief overview of the 35-page bill, which included a section calling for college student success and support centers to serve all students.

The law also prohibits higher education institutions from using public funds for training or activities that emphasize particular racial, ethnic or gender groups, Toews said.

The senator, who later said he had drafted legislation that would achieve similar goals to other anti-DEI laws, said he believes Utah’s legislation provides a useful definition for Idaho when considering a future bill.

The law contains a lengthy description of a “prohibited discriminatory practice,” which would include a policy, procedure, program, agency, initiative, or training that claims “one personal identity characteristic is inherently similar to another personal identity characteristic.” superior or inferior” and “asserts that an individual is inherently privileged, oppressed, racist, sexist, oppressive, or a victim based on their personal identity characteristics, whether consciously or unconsciously.”

The definition also includes that the banned practice “asserts that a person should feel discomfort, guilt, anxiety, or other psychological distress based solely on the individual’s personal identity characteristics,” that “meritocracy is inherently sexist or racist,” and that “sociopolitical “. “Structures are inherently a set of power relations and struggles between racial groups,” and that takes race or gender into account for financial aid and scholarships.