Higher education is greatly important to the communities of the Palouse. Specifically, the University of Idaho is recognized as Moscow’s economic engine. A 2013 study completed by Steven Peterson and Stephen Pool concluded approximately 50% of the local economy that includes all sources of spending can be attributed to UI. Although this study was completed 10 years ago, there is no reason to believe there have been significant changes.

With that in mind, the tendency for local legislators to withhold monetary support from our university is mystifying. Sens. Dan Foreman, R-Moscow, and Cindy Carlson, R-Riggins, as well as Reps. Brandon Mitchell, R-Moscow, Mike Kingsley, R-Lewiston, and Charlie Shepherd, R-Pollock, all voted against the 2023 higher education budget.

I contacted each of these individuals to ask about their reasons for their oppositions.

I was disappointed that the only response I received was from Sen. Foreman. However, that was helpful in that Foreman is a main player in representing the Moscow/Lewiston area. His response was the following:

“I voted against the budget because the University of Idaho was pushing various programs on students that have no business in a state funded university. These programs included DEI, BLM, CRT, and sexual orientation endeavors. I will not vote in support of a budget that in part funds these types of efforts. Even though the university does support some positive efforts for the community, it needs to respond to the direction set by the Idaho Legislature. The university’s recent acquisition of the University of Phoenix was a seminal example of how to exclude the state Legislature from dealings affecting the citizens and taxpayers of Idaho. The Legislature represents the people of Idaho. Therefore, publicly funded institutions must listen to and include the Legislature in key decisions if they hope to witness budget approvals.”

While I am appreciative of the fact that Foreman took the time to respond to my request, there are details in his response that I find troublesome. However, it doesn’t seem responsible to reject his positions without an effort to understand them. I am reminded of Atticus Finch’s advice to his daughter, Scout, in the novel, “To Kill a Mockingbird”: “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view … until you climb in his skin and walk around in it.”

Foreman attended Bradley University in Peoria, Ill. This is a private school that publicizes a program that “is home to the boundary breakers, the new thinkers, to a symphony of unique voices, stories, and people who want to change the world. Bradley provides students the opportunity to grow into their chosen life path.”

The fact that Foreman attended a private university may account for his authoritarian attitudes about public university funding. His attitudes toward critical race theory, Black Lives Matter, diversity equity and inclusion and sexual orientation endeavors seem at odds with a free-thinking and respected private university such as Bradley. His restrictive ideas are unfortunately consistent with many of the conservative members of the Idaho Legislature. (It should be noted that the conservatives’ understanding of the term “critical race theory” has evolved to correspond to almost any historical study of race in America.)

Foreman and other conservative legislators declare their allegiance to their Republican Party platform, which proclaims its support for policy and financial measures that prohibit universities, colleges or public schools from incorporating social justice indoctrination theories. The platform statement specifically alludes to critical race theory, transformative social emotional learning, diversity, equity and inclusion, replacement theory, queer theory, etc. This group of legislators and others of their ilk seem to worry about appearing to be too woke. Even Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley had a very hard time when she had to decide whether it was all right to admit that the Civil War was caused by — yes — slavery.

A public university such as UI needs to prepare students for lives across the entire United States and beyond. The fact that the student population at UI is massively white poses a larger challenge than other more diverse universities must face. That makes the narrow approach to public education espoused by Foreman and other conservative members of Idaho’s Legislature particularly disastrous. They want to withhold funds to punish public higher education in Idaho for programs that should be a large part of its mission.

The UI should be applauded for its contributions to the economic growth of our community and for the future contributions from its creative students who should not consistently be reined in. Idahoans need to take a hard look at the type of leadership provided by these conservative folks they have elected for leadership. Legislators should know better than to impose their particular biases to restrict public university programs.

Foreman and the remaining group of our local representatives who did not respond to my request should know better.

Ringo, of Moscow, is a former mathematics teacher and a seven-term Democratic member of the Idaho House.