Student Religious and Conscience Accommodations

This policy was posted for public comment from August 28 – September 14, 2026

Comments have been condensed and reformatted.

Responses

Overarching Comments and Concerns

Academic Freedom – A common question expressed is how much this could restrict academic freedom, particularly if the content needs to be changed per the Faculty Responsibilities.

Thank you for the comment. No changes have been made. The policy is structured so that academic freedom and the essential learning outcomes of a course are protected as a matter of standard, not case-by-case discretion. A content accommodation is only required where it would not constitute a “fundamental alteration”. Where a requested accommodation would cross that line, the college is not obligated to provide it. Faculty retain control over course content, standards, and grading; the policy only requires an alternative path to the same learning outcomes where one reasonably exists.

Overall Process – the overall process outlined in the procedures seems vague on what parts different parties play. Concern that this needs to be more regulated and checked to ensure that students can't just dismissively use this policy to miss exams or assignments.

Thank you for the comment. No changes have been made. The dean of students is the single point of accountability and consults the faculty member and deans for content-related accommodations. Regarding the related concern that students could use the policy to dismissively miss exams or assignments. The written-request requirement, the interactive process, and the fundamental-alteration standard together mean that a request is not automatically granted; the dean of students evaluates it, consults faculty, and may deny it in whole or in part.

Timeliness of Returning Graded Work – general concern that the accommodation process timelines, as written, may prevent instructors from returning graded work to the rest of the class while waiting for a specific student's alternative assignment determination.

Thank you for the comment. The timelines have been adjusted per faculty feedback, to help alleviate this potential situation. Nothing in the policy requires faculty to pause grades to accommodate other students.

Request to tighten the language and make the procedures very clear, understandable, and easy to follow (especially including timing). Even with revisions, the commenter is worried that this policy exposes faculty to litigation.

Thank you for the comment. The timeline provisions have been substantially revised for clarity, the accommodation determination is made by the dean of students, and a faculty member implementing an approved accommodation is following institutional process, not exercising independent legal judgment.

A commenter expressed concern about excused absences for religious (cultural) reasons. They’ve had several pacific islanders whose custom requires them to go home for several weeks when a relative passes. This is part of the mourning tradition and helps the family. A big part of these students' grade is based on their communication in class. Unfortunately, some of these students have failed the class because of extended absences for this religious/cultural custom. How do we handle this?

Thank you for raising this. No changes have been made. This policy handles these requests through the same case-by-case interactive process and fundamental-alteration analysis used for any other content or schedule accommodation.

3. Definitions

3.C. Fundamental Alteration – recommendation to clarify whether the definition applies to certificate programs, technical education programs, workforce programs, proficiency programs, and other non-degree academic programs in addition to degree programs.

Thank you for the comment. No changes have been made. The definition of Fundamental Alteration includes programs generally and applies to all programs offered by the College, including programs in Salt Lake Tech.

3.D. Matter of Public Concern – multiple comments suggesting revisions for clarity and specificity. What exactly entails a "community matter," and does that limit what can be brought into a classroom? Perhaps revise as, “a political, social, religious, moral, or community matter” to avoid conflating the matter of public concern with speech about a matter of public concern.

Thank you for the comment and the suggested language. No changes have been made. This language is directly from the statute, and each request for a religious or conscience accommodation will be determined on a case-by-case basis. This does not limit what can be discussed in the classroom setting; rather, it focuses on accommodating assignments for an individual student.

3.E Reasonably Accommodate – Is it the student's responsibility to explain or defend why a particular element of a course or assignment conflicts with their sincerely held belief? There is a concern that students may be able to “just point at anything” and claim it conflicts with their sincerely held belief.

Thank you for the comment. No changes have been made. The dean of students may not require a student to prove the truth or validity of a religious or conscience belief per the statute.

3.G. Required Course – does this only refer to classes for which there is no alternative option, or does this refer to any class that can satisfy a graduation requirement? If an alternative course is available that does not conflict with a student's sincerely held beliefs, is a change necessary, or can the student instead enroll in or be placed in that alternative course? Also, clarification was requested regarding whether this definition includes coursework required within certificate, technical, workforce, and other non-degree academic programs. An additional suggestion was to add a “procedural” appendix or a section on the Provost’s website (or intranet) that lists these required courses for each department.

Thank you for the comment. No changes have been made in response to this comment. By way of comparison, ADS has a process for course substitutions in very limited instances. A similar process could be a solution for the proposed scenario. This would be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the course, the requirements, and the analysis with the dean of students.

3.H. Schedule Accommodation – suggestion that this definition should be revised to clarify that it is not excusing the student from the examination or academic requirement but merely rescheduling it for the student.

Thank you for the comment. The definition has been revised to include the language of “rescheduling.”

4.B. Types of Accommodations

4.B.1 – General Comment. Like comments regarding definition 3.H, suggestion that this section should clarify that a schedule accommodation is merely rescheduling the examination or academic requirement and not excusing the student from completing the requirement.

Thank you for the comment. 4.B.1.a has been revised to reflect “rescheduling” language.

4.B.1.b – Concerns about schedule accommodations. “If a student misses class, I maintain that it will always adversely impact their academic opportunities for success. We know this - students who miss classes do not do as well as those who attend (hence the push to notice and contact students who are not attending). Also, it is not possible to miss labs - they move on, and we do not have the facilities and budget to have labs outside the weeks on which they are scheduled.”

Thank you for the comment. No changes have been made in response to this comment. If a requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the course, it will not be approved.

4.C. Requesting an Accommodation

4.C.1 – Suggestion that only one channel should be designated for these requests to go through, as including multiple options for submission negatively affects the timeline. Multiple commenters suggested that 4.C.1.b should not be included in this policy, as it seems to conflict with what we currently have for the accommodation process. Alternatively, if both options must remain in the procedure, please clarify that a. and b. are an OR option for the student, not an AND.

Thank you for the comment. The policy has been revised to require that requests for accommodations go through the dean of students. If a college employee receives a request, or a student asks how to request an accommodation, the employee must refer the student to the dean of students within two business days.

4.C.2 – Recommendation to clarify how this provision applies when a student could not reasonably identify the need for an accommodation seven calendar days in advance.

Thank you for the comment. We have revised the timeline in the policy to address this concern.

Timelines (4.C., 4.D., 4.F) – multiple concerns about the timelines as written. As written, a determination could be issued after the examination, assignment, or academic requirement for which the accommodation was requested.

Thank you for the comments. We have revised the timeline in the policy to address this concern.

4.D. Determination

Is the Dean of Students Office responsible for ensuring that the student's beliefs are kept private? What if a Debate class has students discuss sensitive topics? Then it will be very difficult to mask those beliefs from the rest of the students if that one student is singled out to do something alternative (this also pertains to section 4.E.3).

Thank you for the comment. No changes have been made to the policy. The dean of students works with faculty to implement an approved accommodation in a way that limits disclosure of a student's beliefs where practicable.

4.D.1 – recommendation to consider whether academic administrators from the applicable school or college should participate in the interactive process when academic requirements or potential fundamental alterations are at issue.

Thank you for the comment. No changes have been made to the policy. The procedure calls for the dean of students to consult the associate dean or dean of the college on fundamental-alteration questions for required-course content accommodations.

4.D.4 – consider clarifying whether a determination that a requested accommodation constitutes a fundamental alteration is limited to the specific course and circumstances presented or may apply more broadly.

Thank you for the comment. No changes have been made in response to this comment. If a requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the course, class, program, or degree, it will not be approved. These determinations will be made on an individualized basis.

4.E. Faculty Responsibilities

4.E.2 – suggestion to clarify how approved accommodations should be administered when the accommodation extends beyond grading deadlines or the end of an academic term.

Thank you for your comment. Each accommodation will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If faculty have concerns with implementation, they can seek guidance from the dean of students.

4.E.3 – multiple comments and concerns were expressed, especially regarding the 2nd sentence, with suggestions for revisions or removal of the 2nd sentence. Suggestions to clarify whether this provision applies generally to instructional activities or only in connection with a requested or approved accommodation, and how this provision applies in courses where debate, advocacy, role-playing, or assigned-position exercises are part of the course learning objectives. Particular concerns were expressed around communication studies coursework. Comments expressed that as currently written, the 2nd sentence could be interpreted to mean that faculty in communication-related disciplines cannot require students to contribute content to student media platforms.

Thank you for the substantial and thoughtful feedback on this provision. The second sentence has been removed.

4.E.4 – concerns exist regarding whether faculty are expected to be experts in alternative religious perspectives when creating modified assignments. Additionally, there was a recommendation to consider whether additional guidance should be provided to faculty regarding implementation of approved accommodations. In Faculty Responsibilities, if a faculty member is determined to make an alteration, they may not be experts on teaching the material in that context, and the dean of students likely is not a content expert in that field either. 4.E.4 should at least also loop in the associate dean and the dean of the respective college into that discussion of what to do and how to create such materials.

Thank you for the comment. No changes have been made to this section. If a student requests an accommodation, the dean of students will involve the necessary people in the interactive process, which may include the associate dean or dean of the college offering the course.

4.E. – How does this affect adjuncts / what support will adjuncts have? Could we include the responsibility for adjunct support for full-time faculty and department administration to help them navigate this? Can we include the ability for faculty to use the Testing Center for accommodated testing times?

4.F. Appeal of an Accommodation Determination

The timeline here is very confusing. Please clarify this and allow time for the process to be done mindfully.

Thank you for the comment. The appeal timeline has been revised.

4.F.1 – recommendation to review the appeal timeline because an appeal may not be resolved until after the academic requirement at issue has passed.

Thank you for the comment. The appeal timeline has been revised.

4.G. Confidentiality

4.G.1 – suggestion to clarify how confidentiality requirements apply when implementation of an accommodation necessarily makes the accommodation apparent to others.

4.H. Retaliation Prohibited

What does "Retaliation against a student" specifically mean in this section? Other policies define retaliation, but those typically address retaliation as it relates to an employee. Should this be defined as aligning with the definition in the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities? Please consider defining retaliation in this policy and providing examples relevant to the student academic context.

Thank you for the comment. A definition for retaliation has been added to the policy.

Technical Suggestions

Recommendation to review the capitalization of "Dean of Students" for consistency throughout the procedure.

Thank you for the comment. The policy office follows the SLCC Style Guide maintained by IMC .

Comments

3. Faculty may not compel a student to publicly take or communicate a specified position on a matter of public concern as the student's own. This includes requiring a student to write a letter to a lawmaker or an editor, write an article for publication, publish an opinion online or on social media, or create or publish a podcast. The first sentence implies that a faculty member CAN have a student take a position on an issue as long as it's not a position specified by the faculty member. On the other hand, the second sentence with the unclear "this" could imply that any of the listed assignments are completely off limits, which may be at odds with the first sentence. Is the intent of this item to say that faculty can't require students to engage in public discourse at all as part of the course, or is it that the faculty member can require students to engage in public discourse, but may not prescribe a specific position that the students takes on the issue?
4. E. 3. I feel that the second sentence should be deleted, because it creates confusion. The first sentence addresses the issue. The second sentence creates confusion because it seems to imply that faculty cannot assign those types of assignments, but they definitely CAN assign those communications. They just can't do what is stated in the first sentence.
Definitions D: Matter of public concern - super vague, please clarify. G: Required Course - could you please have a "procedural" appendix or at least a part of the Provost's website (or intranet?) that lists what these are for each department? B1b - If a student misses class I maintain that it will always adversely impact their academic opportunities for success. We know this - students who miss classes do not do as well as those that attend (hence the push to notice and contact students that are not attending). Also, it is not possible to miss labs - they move on and we do not have the facilities and budget to have labs outside the weeks on which they are scheduled Requesting an Accommodation (4C) - the timelines here are not possible. And if it is to the Dean of Students OR Faculty then there is going to be a serious lag time as the two need to discuss. We need to designate ONE channel for these to go through and a timeline that will allow the Dean of students and faculty to mindfully work through this process and also mindfully modify course curriculum to accommodate the student. 4E Faculty Responsibilities. Are we going to hang out adjuncts to deal with this on their own? Could we write into this the responsibility for adjunct support by the full time faculty and department administration to help them navigate this? Can we write into this the ability of faculty to use the Testing Center for accommodated testing times? (If not, this is putting a lot of extra time for the faculty to find a room and proctor the late/early exam - and if they are adjuncts then they have to get paid for this) 4F Appeal of Accommodation determination: The timeline here is very confusing. Again, make this very clear and give some time for this to be done mindfully Nutshell: Please clean up the wording and make the process very clear, understandable and easy to follow (especially including timing). Even with that, I am worried that this policy hangs faculty out for litigation
On 9-11-2026, a policy forum was hosted by the Faculty Assocition to review and coment on this policy. Here is a summary of those comments: 1. For the definition of "Matter of Public Concern", what exactly entails a "community matter" and does that limit what can be brought into a classroom? 2. For the definition of "Required Class", does this only refer to classes that there is no alternative option for, or does this refer to any class that can satisfy a graduation requirement? If there is an alternative course available that does not conflict with a student's sincerely held beliefs, is a change necessary or can the student instead enroll or be placed into that alternative course? 3. For the deifintion of "Reasonably Accommodate", is it the student's responsibility to explain or defend why a particular element of a course or assignment conflicts with their sincerely held belief? Are students able to just point at anything and make a claim that it conflicts with their sincerely held belief? 4. The overall process seems far too vague on what parts different parties play such as the ADA/ADS office, Dean of Students, content Deans, Associate Deans, etc. This needs to be more regulated and checked to ensure that students can't just dismissively use this policy to miss exams or assignments. 5. There is a common question about how much this could restrict academic freedom, particularly if the content needs to be changed as per the Faculty Responsibilities. 6, In "Requesting an Accommodation", 1b should not even be included in this policy at all as it seems to conflict with what we currently have for the accommodation process. Faculty should not be involved in the front-end of this at all. 7. The timelines don't make sense and open up a lot of conflicts. Say a student puts in a request on a friday to the instructor 7 days before the assignment is due. The instructor then has 2 business days (Tuesday the following week) to get that to the Dean of Students, who then has 5 business days to make a determination (the following Tuesday), meaning the determination has been made after the due date. Even if the determination is made before the assignment due date, then there is VERY little reasonable time for faculty to make significant alterations to the assignment and also VERY little reasonable time to make an appeal in a way that is meaningful. 8. In Determination and Faculty Responsiblity, is the Dean of Students office responsible to ensure that the student's beliefs are kept private? What if there is a Debate class that has the students discuss sensitive topics? Then it will be very difficult to mask those beliefs to the rest of the students if that one student is singled out to do sommething alternative (this also pertains to number 3 under Faculty Responsibilities) 9. Concerns exist regarding whether faculty are expected to be experts in alternative religious perspectives when creating modified assignments. In Faculty Responsibilities, if a faculty is determined to make an alteration, they may not be experts on teaching the material with that context and the Dean of Stduents likely is not a content expert in that field either. Part 4 should at least also loop in the associate dean and the dean of the respective college into that discussion of what to do and how to create such materials. 11. What does "Retaliation against a student" mean in the Retaliation Prohibited specifically referring to? There is retaliation defined in other policies, but those typically have to deal with retaliation as it relates to an employee. 12. General concern: The accommodation process may prevent instructors from returning graded work to the rest of the class while waiting for a specific student's alternative assignment determination.
4.E.3.--The second sentence could be clarified to distinguish between assignments that require students to practice communication skills and assignments that require students to publicly express a particular position as their own. In communication studies, students may legitimately be asked to draft a letter to a lawmaker or editor, create a podcast, or develop social-media content as part of an academic exercise. The concern seems to be when students are compelled to publicly communicate a specified viewpoint as their personal belief. The policy should make clear that simulated, classroom-based, or otherwise clearly identified academic exercises are not prohibited, provided students are not required to present the position as their own personal or public belief.
3. D. This definition seems off. It is conflating the matter of public concern with speech ABOUT a matter of public concern. Perhaps editing to... 3.D. Matter of Public concern: a political, social, religious, moral, or community matter.
C.1. This section should be clarified that the options a. and b. are and OR option for the student, not AND. A student may go directly to the Dean of Students OR go to their faculty member (who will forward the request to the Dean of Students).
3.H. This definition of schedule accommodation should be clarified to make clear that it is not excusing the student from the examination or academic requirement but merely rescheduling it for the student.
4.B.1 Similar to my comment on 3.H. This section should clarify that a schedule accommodation is merely rescheduling the examination or academic requirement and not excusing the student from completing the requirement.
I am also concerned with the excused absence for religious (culture) reasons. I’ve had several pacific islanders whose custom requires them to go home for several weeks when a relative passes. This is part of the mourning tradition and to help the family. A big part of these students' grade is based on their communication in class. Exercises, presentations, group work, discussions, etc. Unfortunately, some of these students have failed the class because of extended absences for this religious/cultural custom. How do we handle this? In addition. 3. "Faculty may not compel a student to publicly take or communicate a specified position on a matter of public concern as the student's own. This includes requiring a student to write a letter to a lawmaker or an editor, write an article for publication, publish an opinion online or on social media, or create or publish a podcast.” I can see not requiring students to accept a position contrary to not their own. However, they can do so as an exercise in the privacy of our non-public classroom. They need to articulate that they can accurately see things from another's perspective. The second sentence needs to allow for students to write all those things as part of assignments in a communication class. They need not be required to do them coming from a position contrary to their own beliefs.
1. Policy • none 2. References • none 3. Definitions • 3.C. Fundamental Alteration. The Committee recommends clarifying whether the definition applies to certificate programs, technical education programs, workforce programs, proficiency programs, and other non-degree academic programs in addition to degree programs. • 3.G. Required Course. The Committee recommends clarifying whether this definition encompasses coursework that is required within certificate, technical, workforce, and other non-degree academic programs. • Consider adding “Retaliation” as it relates to students. 4. Procedures • 4.C.1.b. The Committee recommends clarifying whether the timeline for forwarding accommodation requests aligns with the timeline requirements imposed on students elsewhere in the procedure. • 4.C.2. The Committee recommends clarifying how this provision applies when a student could not reasonably identify the need for an accommodation seven calendar days in advance. • 4.C.3. The Committee recommends reviewing the capitalization of "Dean of Students" for consistency throughout the procedure. • 4.D.1. The Committee recommends considering whether academic administrators from the applicable school or college should participate in the interactive process when academic requirements or potential fundamental alterations are at issue. • 4.D.4. The Committee recommends clarifying whether a determination that a requested accommodation constitutes a fundamental alteration is limited to the specific course and circumstances presented or may apply more broadly. • 4.D.5. The Committee recommends reviewing the accommodation determination timeline. As written, a determination could be issued after the examination, assignment, or academic requirement for which the accommodation was requested. • 4.E.2. The Committee recommends clarifying how approved accommodations should be administered when the accommodation extends beyond grading deadlines or the end of an academic term. • 4.E.3. The Committee recommends clarifying whether this provision applies generally to instructional activities or only in connection with a requested or approved accommodation. • 4.E.3. The Committee recommends clarifying how this provision applies in courses where debate, advocacy, role-playing, or assigned-position exercises are part of the course learning objectives. • 4.E.4. The Committee recommends considering whether additional guidance should be provided to faculty regarding implementation of approved accommodations. • 4.F.1. The Committee recommends reviewing the appeal timeline because an appeal may not be resolved until after the academic requirement at issue has passed. • 4.G.1. The Committee recommends clarifying how confidentiality requirements apply when implementation of an accommodation necessarily makes the accommodation apparent to others. • 4.H.1. The Committee recommends defining retaliation for purposes of this procedure and providing examples relevant to the student academic context.
4.E.3.--The second sentence could be revised to more clearly distinguish between assignments that provide students with opportunities to practice communication skills and those that require students to publicly endorse a particular viewpoint as their own. In communication studies, it is appropriate for students to engage in academic activities such as drafting letters to lawmakers or editors, producing podcasts, or creating social media content as part of course learning objectives. The concern arises when students are required to publicly advocate for a specific position as an expression of their personal beliefs. The policy should therefore clarify that simulated, classroom-based, or otherwise clearly identified academic exercises remain permissible, provided students are not compelled to represent the assigned position as their own personal conviction or public belief.
The second sentence of 4.E.3 should be clarified, revised, or removed. As currently written, it could be interpreted to mean that faculty in communication-related disciplines cannot require students to contribute content to student media platforms. As someone who teaches news writing and reporting, I find that interpretation concerning. In journalism courses, students are trained to report accurately and fairly, regardless of their personal views on a topic. The purpose of requiring students to publish news stories through student media is not to compel them to advocate for a particular position, but to provide authentic reporting experience and help them develop a professional portfolio for future employment. Because the current language could be read as prohibiting standard journalism and media coursework, I recommend revising it to clearly distinguish between compelling students to express or endorse a personal viewpoint and requiring students to produce published journalistic or media content as part of their academic training.