Lawmakers try to shut down all talk of diversity, equity and inclusion

It should come as no surprise that Wyoming lawmakers would debate a bill like Senate File 130, “The equality state not equity state act.” After all, they have a long history of wasting time on the political hot-button issues of the day, as well as debating bills that provide “solutions” to things that aren’t a problem here.

Yet we were all surprised that 22 state senators voted to introduce SF 130 during a budget session.

The bill is described as “an act relating to the administration of government; prohibiting governmental entities from engaging in any diversity, equity or inclusion program, activity or policy...” It defines DEI as “any program, activity or policy that promotes differential or preferential treatment of individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, gender identity or sexual orientation.”

As explained by its sole sponsor, Sen. Bo Biteman, R-Ranchester, earlier this week, “The whole thrust of this bill is to get us back to the Wyoming Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.... Our founders said it best. This DEI push we’re seeing lately walks the razor’s edge of being unconstitutional, because when you start promoting one group of people at the expense of another, that’s discrimination.”

What Sen. Biteman failed to do during a 90-minute meeting of the Senate Revenue Committee — which he chairs — was provide a single example of a situation in Wyoming in which someone was given preferential treatment because of one of the factors listed above.

In fact, it was three brave students from the University of Wyoming who articulately and courteously made their case during that meeting, offering the five senators multiple examples of how the university’s Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (ODEI) provides vital resources to students, including supporting religious freedoms and promoting civil discourse, ensuring accessibility for those with physical disabilities, and offering students employment and research opportunities.

Interestingly, all three of those students had white skin, and none of them said they were there because they had benefited personally from the ODEI. They were simply young Wyoming students who took the time to travel to Cheyenne and advocate for those who might need an extra resource or two in order to be successful at the state’s only four-year public university.

Instead of being greeted with open-minded attitudes, though, these three students were met with consistent — and often condescending — pushback from four older white men who were clearly just going through the motions of listening to testimony and had already decided to support the bill. (Sen. Stephan Pappas, R-Cheyenne, was the only member of the committee who disagreed with the proposal.)

UW has had an office dedicated to DEI since July 17, 2017, when Emily A. Monago became its first chief diversity officer. In addition to the resources the students outlined during their committee testimony, the office provides religious accommodation resources and works to ensure equal access in staff hiring processes. And it helps educate and advocate for students facing discrimination for any reason, including all of the factors listed above.

SF 130 intends to shut all of that down, but it goes way beyond that. It defines governmental entities as “the state, any department thereof, the University of Wyoming, and any county, city, town, school district, community college district, other political subdivision or other public corporation of the state.”

Because it leaves it up to governmental entities to create the rules for compliance with this bill, it’s unclear exactly what would and wouldn’t be allowed if it became law. Would the Wyoming Department of Family Services be able to offer staff training on how to provide services as effectively as possible to people of different cultural backgrounds? Would the Cheyenne Police Department be able to make a concerted effort to hire more minority officers in order to better serve the capital city’s population?

This is a classic example of government overreach from a group that is constantly decrying such behavior from the federal level. It also appears to be yet another knee-jerk reaction to a false “problem” created by the talking heads on national news networks, talk radio and podcasts.

Of course, as with most actions by politicians these days, we also have to ask “Whose ox is being gored by this?” During the committee hearing, Sen. Biteman offered the answer without providing specific names:

“It’s a major issue. We have some major donors that are very concerned about the direction things are going.”

What major donors, and to whom? Are these “major donors” to the university, to a particular political party (or branch of that party), or to Sen. Biteman and those who think like him?

All of this points to yet another bogeyman, created by political leaders in an attempt to distract people from the issues they care most about — access to health care, affordable housing, living wages, etc. Because the fact is, average Wyoming residents aren’t storming into the state Capitol, telling stories of minorities being given preferential treatment and demanding that lawmakers remedy the situation.

It also walks a razor’s edge of its own, threatening to tip into racism, anti-LGBTQ+ bias and other forms of discrimination.

Once again, lawmakers need to ask themselves what kind of a future they want for Wyoming. We hope it’s one that welcomes and includes a diverse population, rather than signaling to certain groups of people that they’re not welcome in the 307 area code. If not, they won’t have to worry about hearing from other UW students — or any young people — in the future.