Are Idaho's universities playing a game of cat and mouse with a new law designed to curb mandatory DEI courses? A watchdog group is sounding the alarm, alleging that four institutions of higher learning in Idaho have found a way to sidestep a recently enacted law aimed at preventing students from being forced into Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs unrelated to their chosen fields of study.
The Freedom of Inquiry in Higher Education Act, which went into effect in July, was designed to ensure that students aren't required to take DEI courses as a condition of graduation, unless those courses are directly relevant to their major, particularly in fields like ethnic studies, gender studies, or racial studies. The law does allow for exemptions for programs specifically focused on these areas.
However, the Goldwater Institute, a public policy think tank, claims that universities are already finding loopholes. Parker Jackson, a staff attorney for the Goldwater Institute, explained the core issue: "The whole goal of this law is to make it so that no one is forced to take mandatory courses that indoctrinate students with these discriminatory ideologies as a condition of graduation in unrelated fields." He highlighted that this concerns degree programs like social work, counseling, or psychology, where one might not expect to encounter concepts like critical theory, race, and gender studies.
But here's where it gets controversial... The Goldwater Institute has sent a letter to Idaho's Attorney General, Raul Labrador, demanding an investigation. The letter points to a memorandum issued by the Idaho Board of Education just before the law took effect. According to the Goldwater Institute, this memo appears to misinterpret the law, allowing for broader exemptions than originally intended.
Jackson elaborated, "The statute specifically says that the exemptions can only be used for courses, the title of which indicates that they're targeted towards these racial or gender or ethnic studies." He argues that the Board's guidance seems to suggest that if a degree program requires DEI mandates, even if the program title isn't explicitly focused on these studies, it can still qualify for an exemption. "So, we're talking about degree programs like social work or counseling or psychology, things that you wouldn't normally think would involve things like critical theory, race and gender studies, ethnic studies," Jackson stated.
And this is the part most people miss... The Goldwater Institute contends that this approach is a perversion of the law. "Well, that's kind of circular. They can't just avoid the mandate against these requirements by creating the requirements," Jackson said. He is urging the Attorney General to review exemptions granted to Boise State University, Idaho State University, the University of Idaho, and Lewis-Clark State College, asserting that these exemptions likely violate the Freedom of Inquiry in Higher Education Act.
As an example, the letter cites the University of Idaho's sociology program. A course titled "Introduction to Inequity and Justice" has apparently led to the sociology program receiving a DEI exemption, despite sociology not being an explicit race, ethnic, or gender studies program. The Goldwater Institute's letter emphasizes: "Stated simply, DEI-related courses may not be mandated unless the title of the degree program (e.g., ethnic studies) clearly establishes that the degree program itself is primarily focused on racial, ethnic, or gender studies."
Jackson concluded by emphasizing the broader implications: "Taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for funding left-wing activism and indoctrination." He believes that laws like this are crucial not only for protecting students from what he calls "political indoctrination" but also for safeguarding taxpayer money.
The University of Idaho, Lewis-Clark State College, and Idaho State University have directed inquiries to the Idaho Board of Education, which stated it will cooperate with the Attorney General's office but could not comment further. Boise State University did not respond to requests for comment.
What do you think? Is this a clever way for universities to adapt, or a deliberate attempt to circumvent the spirit of the law? Should taxpayer money be used to fund courses that some consider to be ideological indoctrination? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
