The recent passage of HB204, Utah’s religious accommodations law for public universities, has drawn criticism from some faculty members who argue that it intrudes on academic freedom or imposes unworkable burdens in the classroom. But those criticisms misunderstand both the law and the history that made it necessary.

More than 25 years ago, I represented a University of Utah student, Christina Axson, in a case that raised a straightforward question: Should a student be forced to choose between her education and her sincerely held religious beliefs?

At the time, there was no clear answer. Universities handled these situations inconsistently; sometimes accommodating, sometimes not and often leaving students to navigate the consequences alone.

That case didn’t immediately resolve the issue. But it exposed a gap that has persisted in higher education for decades.

HB204 is an effort to close that gap.

The law doesn’t require universities to abandon academic standards. It doesn’t give students the right to disregard coursework or dictate the terms of a class. What it does provide is the student’s ability to request a reasonable accommodation due to a religious conflict.

And this idea isn’t new. It’s the same standard that has long governed other areas of civil rights law.

Public universities already operate under legal obligations to accommodate disabilities, to prevent discrimination based on race or gender, and to ensure equal access to educational opportunities. These requirements haven’t dismantled academic rigor; they’ve strengthened it by making it more inclusive and more consistent.

Religious belief belongs in the same category.

The pushback from some professors often centers on the idea that accommodation will erode their control over the classroom. But the law doesn’t revoke that control. It places boundaries around how that control is exercised, just as other civil rights protections do.

A professor may still determine the substance of a course, the standards for evaluation and the expectations for performance. What the professor may not do is refuse to consider a reasonable alternative when a student’s religious practice creates a genuine conflict, as there is a key difference between an “inconvenience” and an “infringement.”

In my experience, most accommodation requests aren’t complicated. They involve scheduling conflicts (e.g., exams that fall on religious holidays, attendance policies that conflict with observance, assignments that can be completed in an alternative format without altering the academic objective, etc). None of these examples is impossible to accommodate.

It’s not that professors are unwilling to accommodate, but the consistency with which they do so. HB204 establishes a process and required engagements, clarifying that a student’s religious rights are not secondary to institutional preferences.

Critics suggest that the law invites abuse from ‌students citing religious beliefs to avoid coursework, but that concern is overstated. The law applies to sincerely held beliefs, and universities retain the right to evaluate the legitimacy of a request and the reasonableness of the accommodation. It isn’t a blank check.

More importantly, the possibility of misuse doesn’t justify the absence of protection; we don’t eliminate civil rights safeguards because they might be tested at the margins. We refine them, apply them and rely on institutions to exercise judgment.

Utah’s Legislature provides clarity on what’s already being done. And that clarity matters beyond this state.

Public universities across the country face the same underlying tension between institutional authority and individual rights. Many operate without clear policies, leaving decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis, often without guidance. That uncertainty benefits no one — not students, not faculty and not the institutions themselves.

HB204 offers a framework that other states will inevitably examine and potentially emulate.

It isn’t a radical departure from what universities already do across the nation. It’s simply a recognition of a principle: Students should not have to abandon their beliefs to access public education.

When critics argue that this law goes too far, they are, in effect, arguing for a return to a system that was inconsistent, unclear and at times unjust. I have seen that system firsthand.

This law doesn’t create a new right. It affirms an existing one and provides structure to protect it.

James W. McConkie is an experienced lawyer who grew up in New York City and London. He earned his law degree from the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. He worked for U.S. Congressman Gunn McKay and was appointed as an Assistant United States Attorney in the State of Utah. He is a founding member of the law firm of Parker & McConkie Personal Injury Lawyers, where he has focused on personal injury and civil rights for more than four decades.

The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.