Controversial flag bill banning certain flags in classrooms passes House
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — A bill that would allow a select few flags to be displayed inside of public classrooms has passed the Utah House.
H.B. 77 — or Flag Display Amendments — would limit what flags could be displayed on government property by government employees or entities. Violation of this law could result in a $500 fine 'per violation per day' until the flag is removed.
The bill has been subject to scrutiny as it has moved through the Utah House. If enacted, the bill would prevent political flags from being shown, pride flags, and any flag that is not listed within the exceptions in the bill. Those exceptions include:
The official flag of the United States
An official Utah state flag
The current and official flag of another country, state, or political subdivision of another country or state
A flag that represents a city, municipality, county, or political subdivision of the state,
A flag that represents a branch, unit, or division of the United States military
The National League of Families POW/MIA flag
A flag that represents an Indian tribe defined by federal law
An officially licensed flag of a college or university
A historic version of a flag temporarily displayed for educational purposes
An official public school flag
An official flag of the United States Olympic Committee, United States or Paralympic Committee, International Olympic Committee, or International Paralympic Committee;
An official flag of an Olympiad or Paralympian that occurred or will occur within the state
A flag of an organization authorized to use a public school facility at the location and during the time in which the organization is authorized to use the public school facility.
These would be the only flags allowed to be displayed on government property. All others would be prohibited.
Initially being circled for further debate in a morning session of the legislature, after passing an amendment to the bill, it later passed in a 49-20-6 vote in the afternoon voting session on Friday.
Rep. Trevor Lee (R-Davis), the bill's sponsor, told lawmakers during debate that his bill was about maintaining political neutrality in schools and government properties.
'What we are trying to do here is make sure is that we have neutrality as it pertains to politics,' Lee told law makers on Friday. 'As many flags have become symbols of ideologies or political agendas from the left and the right. We would like to keep that stuff out of the classroom.'
The debate on the floor was limited, however when the bill was in committee, concerns were raised about the bills impacts the free speech of government workers. Ellie Menlove, policy councilor of ACLU Utah, told the House Education Committee that this bill targets the rights of LGBTQ people, and a pride flag wasn't a political symbol.
'The legislature should not stop teachers and cities from displaying flags that signal acceptance and support to their students and community members,' Menlove began. 'Respectfully, the bill sponsor is mistaken; pride flags are not political symbols.'
After the bill was passed, Utah House Democrats released a statement condemning the bill, saying, 'This harmful bill, which received bipartisan opposition, seeks to censor Pride and Transgender flag displays in public schools and government buildings. H.B. 77 is yet another example of unnecessary legislation aimed at silencing expressions of support and pride for our LGBTQ+ communities.'
The bill still has some ways to go before it can become law in the state. Having passed the House, it will go to a vote through the Senate after it goes through Senate standing committee. It will then need to be signed by the Governor.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
32 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Why some Canadians are alarmed by Mark Carney's pledge to act with urgency
Canadians elected Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberal government based on its pledge to act with urgency and fix things — the country's economy, its security and its standing on the world stage. But with the unveiling of a bill to supercharge the economy and early efforts to improve the country's adversarial relations with India and China, there's growing concern that Carney's plans to boost Canada could involve unsavoury trade offs. Ask Indigenous leaders who were left out of 'nation-building' meetings or were given just a week to comment on legislation that will fast track infrastructure projects reasonably expected to pass through their treaty-protected territories. Ask Sikh-Canadian leaders who have seen their members targeted for death or violence, allegedly on orders from Indian government agents. Last Friday, they listened as Carney defended his G7 invitation to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as one that 'makes sense' based on India's economic power, population and key role in international 'supply chains.' Ask foreign aid organizations, perhaps, if Canada commits to radically increasing defence spending along with NATO allies at a leaders' summit planned for later this month. Carney is not alone in his apparent willingness to step on toes if it means he can move further and faster in responding to the sense of emergency at hand. It's part of a global movement with governments invoking looming threats and emerging risks to push through all sorts of questionable — and sometimes contestable — priorities. The most blatant example is the one that has sparked the economic emergency in Canada. U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs on imports have been pushed through not with legislation that can be studied, debated and voted upon, but through presidential executive orders invoking real or imagined national emergencies at the Canada-U. S. border. They are premised upon risks from America-bound migrants, fentanyl, steel and cars and, despite initial court rulings that tranches of the tariffs are illegal under U.S. law, they remain in effect. Likewise, the generalized panic that Russia's three-years-and-counting war against Ukraine has instilled in Europe. There is legitimate reason to worry about the longer-term intentions of Russian President Vladimir Putin, a leader who has been unwilling to agree to a ceasefire despite sanctions, despite diplomatic isolation, despite the more recent appeals, threats and exhortations of the Trump administration. But preparations for a potentially wider conflict on the European continent now have German officials talking about rehabilitating long-abandoned bunkers, Poland vowing to build up 'the strongest army in the region,' and Swedish households receiving an alarming 32-page pamphlet from their government entitled: 'In case of crisis or war.' 'To all residents of Sweden: we live in uncertain times,' the booklet begins ominously. It goes on to cover everything from securing one's home to digital safety to instructions on how to stop bleeding to advice about handling pets and talking to children. This is the political and emotional backdrop against which Canada and other NATO member states later this month are expected to back an agreement to steeply increase in their national defence budgets, moving to five per cent of GDP from two per cent. If agreed to, it will result in many billions of dollars going to weapons, tanks, planes and soldiers' salaries. But before those purchases can go ahead, there will be many difficult choices made about how to come up with the funds. Governments always talk about finding budget efficiencies for unexpected priorities, though saving is not a specialty for which politicians are well suited. Even Donald Trump and Elon Musk came up spectacularly short of their savings pledges through the Department of Government Efficiency. More frequently, governments end up robbing Peter in order to pay Paul, as the saying goes — cutting spending in on domain to increase it in another. That is exactly what the United Kingdom did with blunt effect when it announced earlier this year that it would slash foreign aid spending drastically in order to increase the defence budget. 'Few countries have articulated such a direct, one-to-one trade off before between those two areas of public spending,' noted a report from ODI Global , a think tank, that criticized the British government for thinking of defence and foreign-aid spending as an either-or choice. Similar potential trade offs are cause for concern in Canada. Will the urgency to build oil pipelines and assert the country as an 'energy superpower' in new markets come at the cost of Canada's fight against global warming? Carney's reputation as a climate-change warrior is well-established, but his use of the oil-and-gas industry's ' marketing speak ' at a recent meeting first ministers' meeting with provincial premiers has some worried about the economy taking priority over the environment. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national association representing Canadian Inuit, wasn't even invited to the first ministers' meeting, which concluded with a statement about the need to 'unlock the North's economic potential.' 'It is troubling that in 2025, the Government of Canada is so comfortable with empty rhetoric in place of rightful participation,' the Inuit association said in a news release . The legislation to get Carney's economic fast-track transformation under way — one that the Liberal government wants to pass into law by Canada Day — was decried by the Assembly of First Nations, which had just seven days to provide any concerns about the bill, APTN News reported . There are those who will defend a go-fast approach to governing in extraordinary times. They will warn that there is a greater risk in being sunk by the status quo — the never-ending consultations, the delays, red-tape entanglements. 'The advantage of a wartime mentality lies in the sense of urgency it introduces, and the readiness it encourages to push aside unnecessary bureaucratic barriers,' wrote Lawrence Freedman, an emeritus professor of War Studies at King's College London, in a piece about Russia, Ukraine and Europe. It's a line that can be applied as equally to Ottawa as to Moscow, Kyiv, Paris, Brussels or London. But one person's bureaucratic barrier is the next person's guard rail — a measure ensuring confidence, protecting against damaging errors, saving lives. Moving at high speeds, it can be difficult to spot the difference.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
India Holds Major Air Drill Near Pakistan Weeks After Giant Dogfight
India concluded a massive two-day air combat drill along its southern border with Pakistan, according to multiple Indian news outlets. Newsweek has reached out to the Indian Defense Ministry and the office of Pakistan's prime minister for comment. The exercise took place nearly a month after India launched its military campaign "Operation Sindoor" targeting Pakistan in their biggest confrontation in decades following a deadly attack on a tourist bus in Kashmir that killed 26 people. Pakistan denied Indian accusations of involvement in that attack. Four days of fighting was marked by an extensive air battle, one of the largest dogfights since World War II, before the two nuclear rivals reached a ceasefire agreement following U.S. diplomatic efforts. The Indian Air Force issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) earlier this week for a large-scale exercise scheduled for June 7 and 8, taking place in Rajasthan's southern sector near the Pakistan border. Aircraft deployed included the Rafale, Mirage 2000, and Sukhoi-30, according to Indian outlets including Firstpost, The Shillong Times, and Mathrubhumi English. In May, Pakistan said it shot down several Indian planes, including the French-made Rafale and Russian Sukhoi, with Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar saying Chinese J-10C jets were used in the operation. Diplomatic tensions have continued despite a ceasefire agreed under U.S. pressure. India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi accused Pakistan of disrupting infrastructure development in the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir following the Pahalgam attack, Reuters reported Friday. Pakistan accused India of using claims of developmenta in Jammu and Kashmir to mask an unprecedented military presence, arbitrary arrests, and efforts to alter the region's demography in violation of international law, according to The Associated Press of Pakistan. Growing tensions also surround India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty following the Pahalgam attack. India's Defense Minister Rajnath Singh wrote in The Times of India on June 6: "India has made it clear that we have a zero-tolerance policy towards terrorism. Talks and terrorism cannot go hand-in-hand. Any future dialogue with Pakistan will focus solely on terrorism and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Also, if Pakistan is serious, it must hand over UN-designated terrorists like Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar." Pakistan's Foreign Office spokesperson Shafqat Ali Khan said on June 6, as quoted by the Associated Press of Pakistan: "We are deeply dismayed that the Indian Prime Minister has once again chosen to accuse Pakistan of involvement in the Pahalgam attack, without presenting a single piece of credible evidence." Relations between India and Pakistan remain tense and any incident could easily prompt a resumption of hostilities. Related Articles FBI Working With India to Disrupt Chinese Fentanyl Network-Kash PatelG7 Invite for Modi Signals India's Growing Weight for Democratic AllianceWorld's Highest Rail Bridge Opens to Reshape Nuclear Rivals' Power MapIndia's First Bullet Train Reaches Major Milestone 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
MIT class president barred from graduation after pro-Palestine speech
[Source] The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's 2025 class president was barred from attending her graduation ceremony on Friday after delivering a pro-Palestinian speech that criticized the university's ties to Israel during a commencement event the day prior. What she said Megha Vemuri took the stage at Thursday's OneMIT commencement ceremony wearing a keffiyeh over her graduation gown. During the Indian-origin graduate's four-minute speech, she praised students who protested the war in Gaza and condemned MIT's financial ties to Israel. 'Right now, while we prepare to graduate and move forward with our lives, there are no universities left in Gaza,' Vemuri said. 'We are watching Israel try to wipe out Palestine off the face of the Earth, and it is a shame that MIT is a part of it.' Vemuri specifically criticized MIT's research connections, stating that 'Israel is the only foreign military with which MIT has active research ties.' MIT reportedly received $2.8 million in grants, gifts and contracts from Israeli entities between 2020 and 2024. She concluded her speech by invoking MIT's tradition of turning class rings outward, saying graduates 'carry with us the stamp of the MIT name, the same name that is directly complicit in the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people.' Trending on NextShark: The aftermath MIT President Sally Kornbluth attempted to calm the crowd immediately after Vemuri's speech, saying, 'At MIT, we believe in freedom of expression. But today is about the graduates.' University officials later informed Vemuri she could not attend Friday's undergraduate ceremony and was barred from campus until it concluded. MIT said the speech differed from what was submitted in advance, with the university claiming Vemuri chose to 'deliberately and repeatedly' mislead Commencement organizers and lead a protest from the stage. The big picture Trending on NextShark: Vemuri's ban reflects growing tensions at universities where students have transformed graduation ceremonies into platforms for Gaza-related protests. These events unfold as universities navigate pressure from the Trump administration, which has been cutting federal funding for research and launching investigations into DEI programs. In an X post, House Speaker Mike Johnson called Vemuri's speech 'Ignorant. Hateful. Morally bankrupt,' urging parents to 'avoid MIT & the Ivy League at all costs.' Despite the controversy, Vemuri will receive her degree by mail and expressed no regrets, telling CNN she sees 'no need for me to walk across the stage of an institution that is complicit in this genocide.' The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) condemned MIT's decision, with Massachusetts executive director Tahirah Amatul-Wadud saying, 'MIT must respect academic freedom and respect the voices of its students, not punish and intimidate those who speak out against genocide and in support of Palestinian humanity.' Trending on NextShark: This story is part of The Rebel Yellow Newsletter — a bold weekly newsletter from the creators of NextShark, reclaiming our stories and celebrating Asian American voices. Subscribe free to join the movement. If you love what we're building, consider becoming a paid member — your support helps us grow our team, investigate impactful stories, and uplift our community. ! Download the NextShark App: Want to keep up to date on Asian American News? Download the NextShark App today!
