University of Utah faculty say it was “overreach” for the school to force a student to change the wording of her Earth Day event flyer — and they want the school’s administration to apologize to her.

The rare rebuke came during a Monday meeting of the U.’s Academic Senate. Norm Waitzman, a senator and economics professor, pushed the faculty group to respond to the situation that drew attention and criticism last week.

“The essence of a university is to discuss critical issues,” Waitzman said. That includes climate change, he added, and the disparate impacts on specific populations, which the student aimed to address.

The issue came to a head earlier this month when student Raquel Juarez, a junior, said a U. official contacted her about the flyers she had started taping up to advertise the Earth Day panel on April 22. The school’s student government was set to sponsor it.

Juarez said the administrator told her she needed to remove the phrases “environmental justice” and “communities disproportionately affected by climate change” from the flyers and an email advertisement she had drafted.

She was provided “alternative rhetoric,” Juarez said, generally referring instead to sustainability at-large. She disagreed with the changes but made them, she said, so the event could still be marketed to students.

The U.’s Dean of Students Jason Ramirez and Deputy General Counsel Robert Payne spoke to faculty during the Academic Senate meeting Monday. They said that because the event was tied to a march to the Utah Capitol, it appeared to be advocating for a position.

The university, they said, can’t take a side on issues because it is bound by Utah System of Higher Education, or USHE, policy on institutional neutrality. That also applies to sponsored student groups, including the U.’s student government, because it is funded by the U. and is viewed as a formal extension of the school, Payne added.

Payne said he doesn’t personally love the neutrality policy — adopted by USHE in December 2023 — but that doesn’t mean the school doesn’t have to follow it. It prohibits schools from taking any kind of political or social stance.

Under the policy, Payne said: “It’s OK to have a forum to discuss an issue. It’s different to have a march or protest or rally.”

The U. didn’t mention that distinction when it first issued a statement on the conflict last week.

At the time, a school spokesperson said: “If the students had focused their original post on sustainability and broad environmental issues, they would not have been asked to change the language.”

The original flyer also didn’t mention the rally, which Ramirez acknowledged at the Academic Senate meeting; only the planned email did. That’s because the U. and student government didn’t plan to sponsor the off-campus march over liability concerns, Juarez said.

Instead, the flyer read that the panel would involve speakers “advocating for communities disproportionately affected by climate change and environmental harm.”

After the mandated adjustments, it was changed to: “Come learn about sustainability issues impacting the state of Utah.”

Her planned email to students read that the event “celebrates the planet while also examining how environmental harm affects communities and how social, economic and historical systems shape these outcomes.”

That was adjusted, too, under the administrator’s direction.

Faculty fight back

Ramirez told the Academic Senate that Juarez’s initial flyer should not have been approved, and the student should not have been given a green light to start hanging them up.

He called that an error and said the process will be fixed moving forward, with more guidance from U. lawyers, citing the institutional neutrality policy’s “vague directives.”

“I hate that the student suffered on this one,” he said.

Faculty argued the school’s administration should raise that with USHE and the state Legislature.

“At some point, we are over-acting and reacting to make it a hostile environment for people who have the ability to discern truth and science from garbage,” said David Turok, a senator and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology.

One senator questioned if the direction from the U. meant that student groups can never hold a march or rally.

Yvette Romero Coronado, a senator and associate professor of social work, said confusion over how to implement the policy doesn’t excuse the U.’s role in silencing a student. “The effect on the student is very real,” she said.

Leslie Francis, a senator and distinguished professor of law and philosophy, also said that the money Juarez spent on the flyers should be refunded.

Juarez previously told The Salt Lake Tribune that by the time the U.’s administration raised concerns, she had already spent her allotted student government funds on the flyers and couldn’t afford to print more. Ramirez said he would make sure the money is refunded.

But Waitzman said that wasn’t enough. “This was overreach,” he said.

With his motion, the Academic Senate voted 47 in favor, with 16 opposed and 10 members abstaining, to request that the U. issue an apology to Juarez.

It’s rare for the faculty body to take such strong and quick action. And it comes amid ongoing tensions between professors and administrators at the state’s flagship school, as well as continued concerns across higher education statewide about neutrality and diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI.

But while he understands there is frustration, Academic Senate President Richard Preiss believes it ultimately wasn’t “productive or constructive” to pass the motion. He had tried to get the body to hold off on the vote drafted in “haste and passion.”

He pushed instead to try to work with the administration to come up with clearer guidelines.

“But they wanted something voted on right then and there,” Preiss said after the meeting.

On Tuesday, Juarez said she appreciated faculty defending her. Confusion over the neutrality policy, she said, is challenging for students.

“I appreciate the acknowledgment that this process fell short,” she said.

Moving forward, she said, she hopes the U. won’t avoid difficult conversations, like the one she organized for Earth Day, but instead “create a framework where they can take place responsibly, clearly and without fear of suppression in how they are communicated.”