A New, Distorted Civics in Utah
At the University of Utah’s Day of Collective Action, a presentation titled “Indigenizing the U” reminded students and faculty that “it is the responsibility of non-Native peoples who build the current systems of oppression to disrupt it.” At Utah State University’s 2019 Inclusive Excellence Symposium, the keynote address focused on “how systemic racism exposes us all to racial ignorance” and on strategies for “transforming our knowledge into concrete social change.” Another presentation, “Decentering Whiteness,” summarized the imperative for “decolonization,” which must begin with the “enactment of value-laden beliefs” and be “based upon restoring and respecting the sovereignty of Indigenous peoples, lands, and knowledges.”
Each of these presentations heralds a new civic education – one that is becoming dominant throughout the Utah System of Higher Education. In an upcoming case study for the National Association of Scholars, I examine how Utah’s public universities teach civics. I’ve found that the state follows a national trend: while it requires students to “demonstrate a reasonable understanding of the history, principles, form of government, and economic system of the United States,” its students are increasingly likely to receive an alternative civic education under the auspices of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which espouse a quite different vision of American history and civic life.
In many ways, Utah’s concern for civic education is commendable. Utah makes a greater effort than many states to ensure the teaching of American history and government – including in higher education. The Utah System of Higher Education (USHE) mandates that every public university in the state must require one “American Institutions” course. While far from the most robust requirement – Texas requires students to take four classes in American history and government – USHE’s mandate serves as a good starting point. At the University of Utah, for a political science course to fulfill the requirement, it must cover a wide array of topics usually associated with robust civic education, including the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, the concept of citizenship, the separation of powers, and federalism. Students who study these topics will surely graduate better prepared for citizenship.
The requirement, however, falls short in several ways. Some of the courses offered in the “American Institutions” category follow a longstanding trend in higher education – namely, the reduction of civic education to the tropes of identity politics. Weber State University recently added three new entries to its list of “American Institutions” courses: HIST 1620 The LGBTQ Experience, HIST 1600 The Black Experience, and HIST 1610 The Latinx Experience. Needless to say, these courses drift considerably from the intention of the requirement, and by fixating on narrow identity categories, they enable a distorted civic education.
Weber State’s ersatz American Institutions courses reflect a new sort of civic education – one steeped in the watchwords of identity politics. This new civics is on the rise, not only in Utah but across the U.S. It portrays American history as a catalog of oppression, colonialism, and systemic racism. It espouses a vision of citizenship defined by the quest for “liberation” and “social justice.” Ultimately, it seeks to go beyond laying the groundwork for our contemporary political debates. Rather, it seeks to instill the “right” conclusions about these debates. Hence a barrage of university-sponsored events, lectures, and training sessions that treat systemic racism, rampant oppression, and the moral imperative of decolonization as foregone conclusions.
Increasingly, the new civics come to students from outside the formal curriculum altogether, through initiatives under the broad umbrella of DEI. The University of Utah’s Day of Collective Action and Utah State University’s Inclusive Excellence Symposium provide obvious and poignant examples. Campus DEI initiatives, however, go far beyond occasional events, or even mandatory training—they function as a basic guiding principle of university policy.
Throughout Utah’s public universities, DEI is on the rise. In 2020, the USHE adopted its Equity Lens Framework, a set of guiding principles for the system that uses “Critical Race Theory as a cornerstone.” Many of Utah’s universities reinforce this commitment with far-reaching institutional policies. In its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategic Plan, Southern Utah University promises to “incorporate diversity as a performance dimension within the tenure and promotion process for faculty.” Weber State’s Strategic Plan promises that a “commitment to equity-minded and inclusive practices will be a job qualification and performance criterion for 100% of university positions.” Utah Valley University’s Inclusion Plan promises to integrate “inclusion, equity, and diversity goals into annual faculty reviews across each college and department.”
In other words, to remain in good standing, faculty at these institutions must demonstrate their commitment to DEI. Again, the concepts of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” connote substantive political positions. Forcing faculty to demonstrate their DEI credentials is a straightforward violation of academic freedom. But perhaps more importantly, it also guarantees that more students will receive a politically charged education – including a vision of American history and civic life that focuses excessively on narrow categories of identity.
Utah’s policymakers should take note. They rightly require students to demonstrate “a reasonable understanding” of our political system and history. Unless they act, that “reasonable understanding” will soon be eclipsed by the political imperatives of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
