Utah School Board Member Censured by Lawmakers for Questioning Student’s Gender

The Utah Legislature took a historic step on Thursday, February 15, 2024, by passing a resolution to censure a conservative member of the Utah State Board of Education, Natalie Cline, for her controversial social media post regarding a high school basketball player’s gender. The resolution, which now heads to the governor’s desk, carries no real punishment but is a formal way for lawmakers to express their disapproval of Cline’s actions.

The controversy began when Cline, in a Facebook post, questioned the gender of a Salt Lake City high school basketball player, falsely insinuating that the girl was transgender. After learning that the girl was not transgender, Cline apologized for her actions, but the damage had already been done. The post sparked a firestorm of vulgar comments, leading to threats against the girl and her family.

The Utah State Board of Education responded swiftly, stripping Cline of her committee assignments and nearly all administrative responsibilities. The board will no longer allow Cline to attend meetings or place items on the agenda, and her colleagues have asked her to resign by February 19. However, Cline has not yet indicated whether she will comply with their request.

The legislative reprimand received unanimous support in the Senate after passing the House with only two votes against, one from a Democrat and the other from a Republican. The House Speaker, Mike Schultz, expressed his concerns about the potential national fallout if the body moved ahead with impeachment proceedings. He noted that the hateful comments directed towards the girl and her family would become a national issue.

The House Minority Leader, Angela Romero, was frustrated that Republican leaders cut off debate before she could propose an amendment that would initiate impeachment proceedings. Despite this, she and her fellow Democrats overwhelmingly voted in favor of the resolution to censure Cline.

Republican Gov. Spencer Cox supported the board’s forceful censure, stating that it effectively had the same impact as impeachment. He had previously urged the board to take action against Cline, arguing that she had embarrassed the state.

Cline defended her initial suspicions, stating that the national push to normalize transgender identities makes it “normal to pause and wonder if people are what they say they are.” However, her comments were met with criticism from LGBTQ+ rights advocates, who argued that the transgender bathroom ban passed by the state legislature gives people license to question someone’s gender.

Cox pushed back against these criticisms, stating that even if the girl was transgender, Cline’s actions were still inappropriate. He emphasized that the state is not about harassing students or treating them with disrespect.

Cline argued in a Facebook post that the board was taking away her right to represent her constituents without due process. She claimed that she did not have enough time to read all the materials and create a response before the meeting. However, the board determined that Cline had violated policies requiring members to respect student privacy and uphold state educator standards.

The board’s resolution stated that Cline allowed negative comments about the girl to remain on her social media page while deleting comments in support of the student, which together “appeared to constitute cyberbullying as defined” in Utah law.

The girl’s parents, Al and Rachel van der Beek, also urged Cline to resign and called for her impeachment in a letter published in The Salt Lake Tribune. They noted that the negative comments directed towards their daughter lasted for more than 16 hours and were one of the most painful experiences they had endured.

In conclusion, the Utah Legislature’s decision to censure Natalie Cline for questioning a student’s gender marks a significant moment in the state’s history. The controversy highlights the importance of respecting student privacy and upholding state educator standards, as well as the potential consequences of making inflammatory comments on social media. The incident serves as a reminder that words have power and can have far-reaching consequences, particularly in the digital age.