The Story of the Utah State Capitol

by MATTHEW A. SMITH

The Utah State Capitol building could be considered the crown of the Salt Lake Valley. Nestled high atop the northernmost hills of Salt Lake City, this beautiful statehouse can be seen from miles around in most directions. Despite its current location overlooking the capital city in which it resides, Salt Lake City was not the original choice for the Utah State Capitol.

In 1851, legislators for the then-territory of Utah decided the small working-class town of Fillmore, named after the sitting President Millard Fillmore, would be the ideal place to construct a government building. Construction began in 1855 for what was to be called the Utah Territorial Statehouse. (Fillmore City)

Funding for the project came in part from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which had recently arrived from the Midwest to start colonizing the new territory. Other construction funding came from the federal government, with a personal touch from President Millard Fillmore himself, who had become sympathetic to the young territory’s quest for statehood. (Fillmore City)

Fillmore’s goal of achieving capital city status never was fully realized. In 1856, after only part of the statehouse was completed and just one legislative meeting, territory lawmakers determined the bigger town of Salt Lake City would be the better option for a permanent location. (Fillmore City)

However, the capitol building as it is seen today took some time before it became a reality n Salt Lake City. Many local buildings in the area were used for the purposes of conducting territory business while officials pondered a final government home. (Fillmore City) In 1896 Utah was finally granted statehood by the federal government and that accelerated plans to come up with a capitol building. In 1900, the “Capitol Commission” was started as a special group dedicated to creating plans, searching locations and securing financing for the project. (“May Construct State Capitol”)

A few places in Salt Lake City were top candidates for the new construction, including the grounds of Fort Douglas, downtown Salt Lake City near the city/county building that had served as the temporary state building for some time, or the northernmost hills of Salt Lake City known as Arsenal Hill. (“Surveying Site of New Capitol”) Arsenal Hill was a more popular choice among decision-makers due to its central location and elevation. The site was not without its obvious challenges, though. The state legislature as well as the Capitol Commission had strong doubts regarding the placement on Arsenal Hill. Not only was there a large, natural grade, but there was also a large presence of residential neighborhoods and private property. Lawmakers knew it would be expensive to secure the land for the project to move forward. (“Surveying Site of New Capitol”)

Despite these concerns, Arsenal Hill was chosen. Thanks to a $1 million bond provided by the state legislature and receipt of an inheritance tax in the amount of $800,000 that was charged to the estate of Union Pacific Railroad President E. H. Harriman, the finances were secured for construction of the Utah State Capitol. (About the Capitol)

Once the finances were secure, Utah architect Richard Karl August Kletting won the bid out of 10 other national and local candidates to design the capitol building. (“Plans Selected by Commission”)

Kletting wanted to start right away because the governor of the new state of Utah, William Spry, who also served as the chair of the Capitol Commission, promised the citizens of Utah the project’s foundation would be poured by the time the following session of Congress commenced. (“Construction of State Capitol”)

Throughout the construction process, the Capitol Commission and Kletting worked together to ensure satisfactory completion. There was a clear understanding between the two that the capitol building be “functional, distinguished and lasting.” (Centennial Exhibit)

The materials involved in the construction were specifically chosen with Kletting’s eye on perfection and architectural significance, the sort that made him a name in the industry up to that point in his career. A priority that both Kletting and the commission agreed upon was the need for this building to be as fireproof as possible. (Centennial Exhibit) As most structures in that day were created with stone and wood, the destruction a fire would have on a building of such scale was certainly apparent. So, Kletting used reinforced concrete for the frame instead of wood, the standard framing option then. He also ensured the further protection by installing a vacuum system for fire suppression and stone walkways. (Centennial Exhibit)

capitol

The Tribune announced on March 14, 1912, that the esteemed architect Richard K. A. Kletting had been selected to design the capitol.

Aside from pragmatic construction methods, the pride Kletting had in Utah’s own natural resources gave way to the use of Utah granite, copper, Sanpete limestone and Utah onyx on the construction site. (“Marble Dial in Stone”) This was crucial in Kletting’s attempt to make this capitol building unique and representative of the local environment. These resources adorn the entire building, from the rotunda to the basement, and granite and limestone make up a large part of the capitol footprint. (About the Capitol)

Unfortunately, the state legislature was not able to hold its meeting, as promised earlier by Gov. William Spry, on the capitol grounds. Construction delays prevented the ability to open the capitol on time, thus an alternate location was designated for the session. (“Construction of State Capitol”)

The Utah State Capitol was finally completed enough in 1915 for many state workers as well as state legislators to move in. Improvements were still being completed to the satisfaction of the Capitol Commission and Kletting, but most of the working quarters were complete enough to house many people.

Then on October 9, 1916, as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune, the Utah State Capitol was dedicated before a crowd of nearly 40,000 people. Citizens, out-of-state guests, dignitaries and reporters attended the dedication on the steps of the capitol.

Gov. Spry addressed the crowd and said, in part, “I want to tell you how glad we feel that such numbers have turned out to accept from us this home that we now turn over to you.” (Centennial Exhibit)

Matthew A. Smith is a junior at The University of Utah. He is majoring in mass communication with an emphasis in journalism and religious studies.

Primary Sources

“Fillmore City,” http://www.fillmorecity.org/historyoffillmore.html

“About the Capitol,” https://utahstatecapitol.utah.gov/explore/about-the-capitol

“Centennial Exhibit,” https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4l_fw7iWWaLSTdvNi1xSWNqZk0/

“Capitol Commission and City Are Agreed,” Salt Lake Herald, October 13, 1912.

“Construction of State Capitol,” Wasatch Wave, August 2, 1912.

“Plans Selected by Commission for Utah’s New State Capitol and Photograph of Richard K. A. Kletting, the Winning Architect,” Salt Lake Tribune, March 14, 1912.

“Surveying Site of New Capitol,” Salt Lake Tribune, August 12, 1911.

“May Construct State Capitol,” Salt Lake Herald, June 11, 1909.

“Marble Dial in Stone,” Deseret Evening News, January 16, 1900.

 

 

Advertisements

Lucin Cutoff Tragedy: Greek Contribution and Sacrifice in the Mountain West

by JONO MARTINEZ

Greek immigrants were among the last Europeans to make their way into the United States during the late 1800s. Toward the turn of the twentieth century, thousands of young Greeks fled to Utah to live what they would consider their first years of exile. Facing continued Turkish control in their own country, many of these people, young men and boys mostly, sought to live a life elsewhere with hopes of returning to a more promising Greece. (Papanikolas, 45)

Finding solace in the American West, Greek immigrants quickly took to labor on railroads and mines as a means to survive. These men endured long, isolated seasons of strenuous labor with payment as low as $20 for a single month. Although California and Nevada would provide bountiful labor for immigrants, the railroads of Utah would be of special interest to them and would also tragically cost some of their lives. Among the places where extensive Greek contributions took place are the Carbon County mines, Murray-Midvale smelters, Bingham Canyon mines, Magna mill, Garfield smelter, and north of Ogden for railroad-gang work on the Oregon Short Line (later Union Pacific). (Papanikolas, 46-48)

On February 19, 1904, 24 men—16 of whom were Greek immigrant railroad workers—died in a train collision near the Lucin Cutoff crossing the Great Salt Lake. The Lucin Cutoff is a 102-mile railroad line in Utah that runs from Ogden to its namesake in Lucin. (“With Dead”) News reports at the time provided varying numbers of victims and gave inconsistent details regarding the details of the crash. By most accounts, the air brake system failed on the eastbound train, which contained a boxcar of black powder, and the locomotive collided with a dynamite-laden westbound train attempting to clear the mainline. (“Air Brakes”) The magnitude of the explosion was such that the adjacent small town of Jackson was destroyed and 1,000 feet of track were blown up, leaving an excavation 30 feet deep. One engine was blown over in the flat and almost buried in the salt earth; one of the drive wheels was found nearly a half-mile away. (“Dynamite Wrecks”)

p0121n01_03_01

An unidentified group watches a woman shaking hands with a railroad worker. Greek Archives photograph collection, 1900-1967, Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, The University of Utah.

The disaster would quickly gain the attention of local newspapers, with Ogden’s own Standard dedicating at least one piece a day of coverage for the weeks following the event. Accounts in the paper were graphic, with descriptions of decapitated bodies and scattered limbs. (“Dynamite Explosion”) Even the hailed New York Times would mention the half-mile radius of damage in its February 20 issue. The article listed by name the three American victims, but the immigrant workers were lumped into a single group with little to no recognition. While the tragedy was indeed covered in the news, the loss of the eight Utahns would ultimately overshadow the loss of Greek immigrant life. As The Salt Lake Tribune would make sure to mention on February 20, 1904, “A majority of those killed were Greek laborers, although many of the victims were English-speaking people.” The emphasis on “American” life over immigrant casualties in news accounts of the 1904 wreck ultimately reflected views that foreign laborers were expendable. (“Memorial Honors”)

Misfortune for the victims’ families only grew in the days following the accident. The designated coroner charged various undertakers, including Larkin & Sons, with handling the 24 bodies. Larkin opted to remove the bodies under his care to his own establishment in order to better prepare them for burial. This raised a protest from the assembled multitude of Greeks, many of whom had cousins and other relatives under the coverings inside the improvised morgue. They declared the bodies should not be moved. Richey, the other undertaker, later burned the blankets in which their bodies had been wrapped for transportation to the city. The Greek community had their own blankets that they wished to use instead, which were traditionally used for bedding. These were often hand-woven of superior material by them in Greece and brought to America with them. (“Dead are Brought”)

It was clear that there would be a long process in both identifying and treating the bodies, yet unique issues arose with regard to the extant language barrier between immigrants and local authorities who hoped to discover the cause of the accident. Two Americanized Greeks, John McCart and Arthur Mitchell, were sworn in as interpreters. Even so, they were unable to communicate much information to the authorities due to the conditions survivors were in. According to a story published in The Salt Lake Tribune on February, 26, 1904, “very little information concerning the accident could be elicited from the wounded Greeks.”

Other obstacles in the investigation came in the form of English-speaking witnesses who refused to give their full testimony. For example, Sam Courtney, the conductor of the water train, was questioned to no avail. Courtney’s hips and back were badly injured in the accident; yet, when he was asked who, in his opinion, was responsible for the makeup of the train and for the accident, he refused to make any statement. Ultimately, no blame would be placed on a single party and all persons interviewed would be absolved. (“Verdict of Jury”)

George N. Tsolomite, vice-consular agent for the Kingdom of Greece, arrived two weeks after the accident in Ogden. He then decided to contest each of the probate proceedings, which had just begun in Weber and Box Elder counties for the appointment of administrators in the estates of the Greeks who were killed in the recent railroad disaster at Jackson. (“Verdict of the Jury”) For many people at the time and now, it was evident that immigrants were misused as employees, especially those who could not speak English. Tsolomite’s involvement was to lessen aggravations felt by the families. Yet it was disasters like the one at Jackson and countless others that eventually energized immigrants to force employers to improve working conditions through labor unions. (“Memorial Honors”)

On October 22, 2000, nearly a century after the Lucin Cutoff tragedy, members of Utah’s ever-growing Greek community gathered in Ogden to witness the installation of a granite monument in memory of the deceased workers. (“Memorial Honors”) The tragedy and suggestion for the memorial were brought to the attention of the Utah Hellenic Cultural Association by Stella Kapetan of Chicago, who discovered the episode while researching her family history. (“Memorial”) This commemoration was seen by many as long overdue, considering that the majority of the men were buried without a headstone. For many, those Greek railroad workers who lost their lives are an example of the undervalued efforts and sacrifices undergone by immigrants in the United States of America. The memorial now serves as a reminder to both Greeks and non-Greeks of an otherwise downplayed moment in Utah history. Furthermore, their contribution as immigrants to help build the American West now receives the credit it has deserved.

Jono Martinez graduated in May 2017 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in journalism.

Sources

“Action of Greek Counsul,” Standard, March 1, 1904.

“Verdict of the Jury Judge Pritchard in Cut-off Disaster,” Standard, March 1, 1904.

“Coroner’s Inquest Continued to Thursday,” Standard, February 26, 1904.

“Inquest in Jackson Explosion,” The Salt Lake Tribune, February 26, 1904.

“Verdict of Jury in Cut-off Disaster,” Standard, February 26, 1904.

“Air Brakes Failed,” The Salt Lake Tribune, February 24, 1904.

“Dynamite Explosion Brings Havoc and Death,” Standard, February 23, 1904.

“Dead are Brought to Ogden Sunday,” Standard, February 22, 1904.

“With Dead of the Jackson Explosion,” The Salt Lake Tribune, February 22, 1904.

“Dynamite Wrecks Town,” The New York Times, February 20, 1904

“Memorial Honors Forgotten Victims of 1904 Railroad Tragedy,” The Salt Lake Tribune, October 23, 2000.

“Memorial,” Deseret News, May 29, 2000.

Papanikolas, Helen Zeeze. Toil and Rage in a New Land: The Greek Immigrants in Utah. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah State Historical Society, 1970.

 

Nuclear Testing: Southern Utah’s Battle for Air

by ARYAN FARAHANI

During the years of World War II and throughout the years of the Cold War, we saw many horrific acts of violence that changed many components of our society. Within these acts of violence, the rise of destructive weapons, known as nuclear weapons, were more prominently showcased throughout the world.

Not only were these nuclear weapons used for “safety,” but they were also manufactured to showcase a nation’s superiority. In 1945, toward the end of WW II, the United States was the first nation to use nuclear weapons, on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After these horrendous events, and as the quest for world dominance continued, many more nations began developing nuclear weapons. With that in mind, the competition to create the world’s best nuclear weapon was in the works. And with the United States taking on the role of global hegemon, it was clear that in order to create the perfect weapon, many tests had to be conducted throughout the US.

Nevada, with its desert-like geography and immense amounts of open space, was an ideal site for one of the nuclear testing centers operated by the United States Department of Energy. Nye County, in south-central Nevada, also was close to two cities in southern Utah: St. George and Cedar City. With the initial test-taking place in January 1951, many Southern Utahns were unaware of what exactly the nuclear tests would entail. But in the coming years, the disastrous effects of the “purple cloud” became more evident. (“Atom Explosions”) As Seegmiller writes, “Relatively few Iron County residents were aware of or concerned about nuclear testing when the first mushroom-shaped cloud rose into the western skies … but the cloud figuratively remains over southern Utah and Nevada to this day.”

The Salt Lake Telegram reported on January 27, 1951, that “residents of Southern Utah, miles to the cast of here, said they saw the sky light up and heard the distant rumbling.” This initial blast was the beginning of many tests. And although that was the case, many were not aware of the harmful toxins that nuclear tests would release on the residents, as well as on the surrounding residents of Southern Utah.

Through the initial steps of the first nuclear test, further progress needed to be achieved. Therefore, another nuclear test was conducted in April 1952. The Salt Lake Telegram reported on April 14, 1952, that “indications pointed to the testing of another atomic device rather than a full-blown atomic bomb,” which would essentially “be developed into future atomic weapons.” Many of the repercussions were still not evident to the residents, but it became clear that more nuclear tests were to be conducted in the near future.

Moreover, another nuclear test was conducted in March 1953. The Iron County Record reported on March 5, 1953, that “ranchers, miners, migrants, private fliers, and others concerned are warned that the atomic energy commission’s Nevada proving grounds will be used for nuclear experiments.” Although this was the case, many were still not warned of the harms, but instead had to find out about them the hard way.

In consideration of the above tests that were conducted throughout the years of 1951-1953, some individuals who were educated on the matter of nuclear weapons concluded that they were obliged to talk about it. It wasn’t until 1953 when some of the nuclear tests’ tragedies began to become evident. More specifically, and as reported in the May 7, 1953, issue of the Irony County Record, University of Utah research student Ralph L. Hafen noted that he was “morally obligated to warn people of the irreparable damage that may have occurred or may in the future occur” from the nuclear tests. Hafen stated in the Irony County Record that the plutonium and radiation that the tests released could affect many components of southern Utah residents’ lives, which can be summarized to include cancer, blindness, mutations, death, and climate change.

Capture

The Iron County Record reported on March 3, 1955, that ranchers were convinced atomic testing had killed their sheep.

Many individuals in southern Utah began noticing that some changes in their everyday lives could be related to the nuclear tests that had been conducted in the border state of Nevada. And although they noticed, it was clear that the tests would continue to be conducted. That being said, the March 31955, issue of the Iron County Record reported that “the third atomic blast [of 1955] was seen from Cedar [City],” which shows its severity, because Cedar City is more distant to the Nevada border. The article also stated that that southern Utah farmers were “convinced that the atomic fallout from the experiments at Yucca Flats in Nevada two years ago was the direct cause of heavy loss to sheep herds grazing in adjacent areas.” Therefore, they filed a lawsuit against the Atomic Energy Commission for its actions and incompetent behavior. Also in 1955, many citizens, including southern Utah residents, were briefly told about the harms that the nuclear tests could have on their lives. The Iron County Record reported on February 3, 1955, that “the Atomic Energy Commission, Department of Defense, has announced that it will not be responsible for patrons who might wander into the area, without proper authority.” It was also reported in the same issue that it was dangerous to be around the tests, identifying that “caution has also been advised for individuals in the general area.”

Film_transparency_of_atomic_explosions_at_the_Nevada_Test_Site_Nye_County_Nevada_circa_1950s

The view of an atomic explosion at the Nevada Test Site, located 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Nye County, Nevada. Lloyd Franklin Manis Collection, Special Collections, University of Nevada-Las Vegas. Used with permission.

The book Fallout: An American Nuclear Tragedy by Philip Fradkin discusses the government’s historical role with nuclear testing. Fradkin highlights how the Atomic Energy Commission was at fault through “the mistakes and subsequent cover-ups” that they used with these nuclear tests. (2) It is clear that the government officials involved with these tests were aware of their harms, but did not feel a need to tell residents the details. Instead, these officials withheld information, and gave them a brief warning four years after the first nuclear test took place.

Southern Utah residents were deeply affected by these events and by the actions of the Atomic Energy Commission. In the book Justice Downward: America’s Atomic Testing Program in the 1950s, a former University of Utah professor, Howard Ball, discusses the careless behavior of the government. Ball examines the events of the blasts, and quotes Frank Butrico, a Public Health Service radiation safety monitor who worked in St. George during the 1953 series of tests. Butrico testified in a 1982 wrongful death suit filed by 24 cancer victims and their relatives. He said, “The radioactive cloud hung over St. George for over two hours, fallout radiation levels peaked at a little less than 6 rads, well over even AEC standards.” (Ball, 43)

In addition to that, southern Utah residents were not truthfully told about this information. Instead, they were told, “Radiation levels were a little above normal but not in the range of being harmful.” (Ball, 43-44) Not only was valuable information withheld from residents, but they also were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation that indefinitely caused many issues to their health and surrounding environment. With a matter as severe as this, it is saddening to learn about the truths after they had initially taken place. Although there isn’t a reliable statistic proving the amount of illnesses and cancer-related deaths the exposure of the radiation levels caused, Seegmiller reports that “as of September 1994, 1,003 claims had been approved, 829 claims had been denied, and 125 were pending.” These figures illustrate just how severe the effects were on southern Utah residents.

All in all, it is clear that the nuclear tests that were conducted in Nevada are an incredibly important part of Utah’s history as a whole. Although this research focuses on the years of 1951-1955, these nuclear tests ultimately changed many people’s lives, and to this day in 2017, the effects that these nuclear tests had on southern Utah residents are extremely palpable. It is important to take into account these events, because although these nuclear tests caused many tragedies, they are an essential part of our history, and are important components in learning more about how nuclear activity had an effect on Utahns.

That being said, today, the government has set up funds to compensate families for the illnesses and deaths these blasts may have caused. Although it does not make up for the damages the nuclear tests have done, it does show some initiative and responsibility on the government’s part. Looking through the United States Department of Justice webpage, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act “established an administrative program for claims relating to atmospheric nuclear testing and claims relating to uranium industry employment.” (RECA) And if these nuclear tests are proven to be the cause of any harm, then families would receive compensation to make up for the indescribable damage.

Aryan Farahni graduated in May 2017 from The University of Utah. He attained a Bachelor of Science degree in political science, with minors in media studies and international studies. 

Sources

“Atom Explosion Set off in Nevada,” Salt Lake Telegram, January 27, 1951, 1.

“Spews Purple Cloud,” Salt Lake Telegram, October 30, 1951, 1.

“Scientists Arrive at Vegas for Second A-Blast,” Salt Lake Telegram, April 14, 1952, 2.

“Atomic Proving Ground Set for Nuclear Test,” Iron County Record, March 5, 1953, 3.

Ralph L. Hafen, “Effects of Atom Blasts on Southern Utah Discussed by U. of U. Student, Iron County Record, May 7, 1953, 9.

“Citizens Are Warned of Dangers at Nevada Test Site,” Iron County Record, February 2, 1955, 2.

“Local Sheep Raisers File Suit with Govt. for Loss,” Iron County Record, March 3, 1955, 1.

“Third Atomic Blast Seen From Cedar,” Iron County Record, March 3, 1955, 8.

Ball, Howard. Justice Downwind: America’s Atomic Testing Program in the 1950s. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Fradkin, Philip L. Fallout: An American Nuclear Tragedy. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1989.

The United States Department of Justice. “Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.” https://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca

Seegmiller, Janet Burton. “Nuclear Testing and the Downwinders.” Utah History to Go, http://bit.ly/1nSvCYD

 

 

 

 

 

Utah Prohibition: Battle Between State and Religion

Article and images by KRISSI KARREN

More than one hundred years ago, anti-alcohol movements spread across the United States. On January 16, 1920, the prohibition of alcohol was enforced by the 18th amendment to the United States Constitution, which made the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors officially illegal throughout America. (Fisher, Prohibition)

Salt Lake City, Utah, is the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormons follow “The Word of Wisdom,” a health law that stipulates that certain substances, including alcoholic drinks, are harmful.

IMG_9837

The still at Sugar House Distillery, where small batches of vodka, rum, malt whisky and bourbon whiskey are produced.

In the 1840s, Mormon pioneers settled in Utah, thus creating a long lineage of conservative culture. Mormon leaders have not only guided their religion, but also Utah politics. This article focuses on Utah’s stance on alcohol production and consumption between the time of Prohibition to 2017. By studying the political conditions in Utah we can gain insight about the effect of church over state and what led to ratification of the 21st amendment, and how Utah currently regulates alcohol consumption.

According to Bruce Dyer in his thesis, “A Study of the Forces Leading to the Adoption of Prohibition in Utah in 1917,” Senator Reed Smoot was an influential man in both the LDS religion and in politics. During the early 1900s, Senator Smoot controlled Intermountain Republican, a newspaper published in Salt Lake City. During the spring of 1908, the Intermountain Republican devoted considerable space on the front page to open political discussion. According to Dyer, each morning in large black letters the newspaper asked, “Shall Utah have Prohibition?” Within the box were the opinions of those who either favored statewide prohibition or were against it. Intermountain Republican and other journals were stressing the prohibition issue.

Also according to Dyer’s thesis, The Salt Lake Tribune carried the majority of the anti-prohibition articles appearing in local press. In 1908, an unidentified Tribune writer reported that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owned Zion’s Cooperative Mercantile Institute, which was one of the most extensive liquor dealers in the state. (Dyer, 11) In addition, The Salt Lake Tribune addressed the fact that one of the religion’s greatest leaders, Brigham Young, was empowered to grant licenses to persons to manufacture liquor, which brings up the issue of business over beliefs. (Dyer, 12) According to a speech made by Richard Lyman on October 3, 1930, the most important pressure against Prohibition came from businessmen whose interests included liquor manufacture or sales.  

image1

Sugar House Distillery uses American oak whisky barrels that have been charred. This and the wood add flavor to the liquor.

Anti-alcohol movements were created to show that alcoholic drink in any form was dangerous and destructive. Alcohol was blamed for social problems such as unemployment, poverty, business failure, slums, insanity, crime and violence. Prohibitionists were utopian moralists because they believed that eliminating the legal manufacture and sale of alcoholic drink would solve the major social and economic problems of the American society. (Fisher, Economic) From the late 1800s to the early 1900s, Utah politicians came face to face with moral implications while deciding what was best for Utah and ultimately the American people, but first relied on the Mormon community for support.

According to a story published in the Deseret News on June 11, 1910, “although increasing scientific evidence on the adverse effects of alcohol helped the movement, moral rather than scientific considerations seem to have sustained it.”

Heber J. Grant, seventh president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, made an address in 1916 at an officers meeting of the Mutual Improvement Association. He said, “I believe that Utah should have been the first state in the Union to have adopted state prohibition, because the Lord has given to us a prohibition law….”

According to author Del Vance in his book, Beer in the Beehive, A History of Brewing in Utah, in 1929 Albert Becker was elected to the Utah House of Representatives. He was the first and last local brewery owner to hold a high position in Utah’s state government and lobbied hard for repeal of Prohibition. (194) It was becoming apparent to the government that prohibition did little to stop alcohol in Utah. Federal agents seized more than 400 distilleries, 25,000 gallons of spirits, 8,000 gallons of malt liquors, and 13,000 gallons of wine. (216) Chaos rose with underground sales and consumption of alcohol. Rather than decreasing crime rates, there was an increase, which put into perspective the viability of alcohol prohibition.

From 1920 to 1933 there was homebrewing, bootlegging, a declining economy and political propaganda on the restriction of alcohol, until the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed. On December 5, 1933, the state of Utah became the thirty-sixth state to ratify the amendment, which made the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors legal. However, with the events of history in mind, alcohol consumption would not go back to how it was before the prohibition.

The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, known as the DABC, was created in 1935, two years after the ratification of the 21st Amendment, which gave individual states the right to choose their own system of controlling and distributing alcoholic beverages. The Utah legislature believes that the state should control sales to promote responsible drinking and holds the intent to reasonably satisfy the public demand and protect the public interest, including the rights of citizens who do not wish to be involved with alcoholic beverages. The legislature also required that the department be operated as a public business using reasonable management principles and practices.

I experienced the effect of Utah’s government on alcohol regulation firsthand while touring Sugar House Distillery with owner James Fowler. Sugar House Distillery is located on 2212 S. West Temple in the Sugar House neighborhood of Salt Lake City. This distillery received federal approval for spirits distilling in September 2013, and Utah approval in January 2014. It now produces vodka, rum, malt whisky, and bourbon whiskey. James Fowler first showed me the “Zion Curtain” that he has to pull down over the alcohol he has for sale in the front room as well as the curtain that is over the window on the door that separates the front room from the distillery. This is a legislative provision required of restaurants and other establishments to keep children from seeing alcohol. Fowler said he is required to keep detailed records about his distillery that are examined by the DABC’s compliance department. In addition, he said 68 percent of his sales go toward taxes, thus making an income difficult in this industry. Despite challenges posed by legislation in Utah, he chose to launch his business here rather than Texas or Nevada. Ultimately, he said, “Utah has outstanding resources for fresh local ingredients and there is something special about the extra persistence required to locally produce alcohol in Utah.”  

To conclude, we can see that Mormon beliefs impacted the prohibition of alcohol in the 1900s. But because of crime rates, a declining economy and the fight of the opposition, the 18th Amendment eventually became unsuccessful.

The Utah State Legislation continually changes alcohol regulations. For example, in March 2017, Governor Gary Herbert signed a bill giving Utah the strictest drunken driving law in the nation. (Scribner) Herbert also signed into law HB 442, a 144-page document that made “numerous changes to how restaurants, dining clubs and off-premise beer retailers will operate.” (Lake) As the Tribune editorialized on April 26, 2017: “[E]very year the Legislature takes a step forward — like loosening the ridiculous Zion Curtain requirements … — it takes two steps back.”

Krissi Karren is a junior at The University of Utah and is majoring in mass communication. She is pursuing a career in the field of visual communication and is interested in writing about psychology and health of the human body, while residing in San Diego, California. Karren also wants to learn more about power Vinyasa yoga.

SOURCES

Irving Fisher, Economic Benefits of Prohibition (Westerville, Ohio: American Issue Press, 1926).

Irving Fisher, Prohibition at its Worst (New York: Alcohol Information Committee, 1927).

Heber J. Grant, “Prohibition,” address delivered June 9, 1916, to the Mutual Improvement Association. Reprinted in The Young Woman’s Journal xxvii (1916): 402-405. http://bit.ly/2phc8AN

Lyman, Richard R. “Prohibition, Not State Control.” Address in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, October 3, 1930. 

Merrill, Joseph F. “Alcohol, Citizenship and the Church.” KSL Radio Station, September 13, 1931. Speech.

“Prohibition: history of the movement in Salt Lake City,” Deseret News, June 11, 1910.

Scribner, Herb. “2017 changes to liquor laws join other significant state actions,” Deseret News, March 11, 2017.  

Dyer, Bruce T. “A Study of the Forces Leading to the Adoption of Prohibition in Utah in 1917.” Master’s Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1958.

Karren, Krissi. interview with James Fowler, April 3, 2017. 

Lake, Catherine Parrish. “2017 Changes to Utah Liquor Laws.” Stoel Rives LLP Alcohol Beverage Blog. http://bit.ly/2qgJYal

“Utah liquor laws fly past peculiar and into weird.” The Salt Lake Tribune, April 26, 2017. http://bit.ly/2pvZNsY

Vance, Dell. Beer in the Beehive: A History of Brewing in Utah. Salt Lake City, Utah: Dream Garden Press, 2006.

Reactions to Utah’s Public School Sex Education in the Early to Mid-1900s, from Medical Professionals and Students

by MARISSA SITTLER

Sex education has been a contentious topic since it was first introduced by the United States government in the early 1900s. However, Utah has been and continues to be stuck on the receiving end of flak from outsiders, as well as its own residents concerning its (lack of) sex education.

What might be defined as “sex education” now, was not the same during 1946-47, when LaMar Holmes conducted a study, The Status of Sex Education in the State of Utah, in which he sought to discover what Utah’s K-12 public schools were teaching its students. Holmes mailed a questionnaire to 435 public school principals listed in the Utah Public School Directory of 1946-47. One hundred seventy-four out of the 435 questionnaires were returned.

In Holmes’s study, he defined sex education as “activities directed toward bringing about the development of wholesome habits, conduct, attitudes, and ideals within the individual to the end that the family will be preserved and home life improved.” (Holmes, 10) The purpose of sex education, in his eyes, was not to teach of sexually transmitted infections or contraception, but rather to teach adolescents to respect the opposite sex, and to build “wholesome” relationships.

In Holmes’s study, there was not an official sex education curriculum for Utah’s public schools that was mentioned. Instead, offerings at schools varied. One example was a unit of instruction called “sex education” that was administered in tenth and eleventh grade physical education. Another school’s principal simply said that sex education was part of the health education program in his school. Perhaps the most comprehensive curriculum mentioned in the study was that of a home nursing class, which included a one-hour period for lecture and informal discussions about each of the following subjects:

“1. Anatomy and physiology of the female reproductive system. 2. Physiology and hygiene of menstruation. 3. Conception, growth and development of the fetus, and the birth of a baby. 4. Prenatal care of the mother including social and emotional adjustments. 5. Baby care including collection of layette and demonstration of a baby bath. 6. Brief discussion of the social diseases.” (Holmes, 19)

On the other end of the spectrum were schools where sex education was not integrated into the curriculum. Rather, instruction was given if “problems arose.” (Holmes, 18)

Three decades before Holmes’s study, Utah newspapers were discussing the need for a consistent curriculum and regular instruction of sex education. The Salt Lake Telegram reported on March 5, 1916, that Dr. M. J. Exner of New York said, “Sex education at high school is necessary” because the earlier the education, the better guidance in regards to the topic for high school-aged boys. Exner also commented on the sources of sex education in early years, and that “91.5 per cent said they received their early impressions from unwholesome sources, mostly from older boys; 70 percent said those impressions had aroused in them morbid curiosity, distorted the whole sex question, and led to unfortunate practices.”

On August 11, 1927, the Ogden Standard Examiner covered a meeting of the World Federation of Education. In an address to its health section, Dr. T. W. Galloway of New York, associate director of the department of education of the American Social Hygiene association, stressed “the need of greater sex education in home and school, particularly among junior high school students.” In addition, Galloway said the current state of sex education did not include enough information about biology, anatomy, hygiene, or venereal diseases.

p1086n038

The Utah State Capitol building, circa 1920. Used with permission. Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, The University of Utah.

In a May 5, 1948, Daily Utah Chronicle article, another medical professional added her two cents to the sex education discussion. Dr. Bernice Moss, of the physical education department, believed that even those who had already been taught or trained on the topic of sex education could benefit from further instruction.

An article in the Salt Lake Telegram on May 23, 1938, noted that Dr. William Cary, a gynecologist and obstetrician, said “too many college courses are being taught by people who have had no personal experience” when it comes to sex education classes and that the teaching of such curriculum needs to be better.

A sex education conference in 1948 sponsored by the Adult Education committee, Board of Education of Iron County School District, and Parent-Teachers Association was held in a public school auditorium and was regarded as highly successful with good attendance. Miss Winifred Hazen, the consultant in family life education for the State Department of Public Instruction, was the conference leader. In a February 12, 1948, Iron County Record article, she stressed “the need for accurate knowledge of sex behavior, and fundamentals to proper training of every child, and also the responsibility of teacher and parent in giving proper information.”

It was not, however, only medical professionals who recognized the need for expanded teaching of sex education in Utah’s public schools. Students, also, voiced their opinions in favor of the matter. Several Utah newspapers chronicled stories on students’ reactions. As the Utah Daily Chronicle reported on March 2, 1939, “Sex education should no longer be a matter to be whispered about, a large majority of American college students believe.” Sixty-two percent favored making courses on the principles of sex mandatory, according to a nationwide study done by the Student Opinion Surveys of America.

The Salt Lake Telegram reported on April 8, 1948, that more students had been interested in a course on sex education than any other class offered in adult education curriculum of the Salt Lake City schools, according to Ralph V. Backman, head of the division.

On December 10, 1948, the Telegram reported that college students did indeed want more education about sex. According to surveys, about 99 out of 100 of people of all ages said they learned “practically nothing from courses in high school or from parents! Appalling!”

Despite considerable support for improvement upon sex education from medical professionals as well as students themselves in Utah’s public schools, currently the status of Utah’s public sex education is abstinence-only. Senator Frances Farley introduced the idea of teaching abstinence in 1988 into schools’ core curriculums in response to the AIDS crisis then. However, what Farley did not introduce was an abstinence-only stance, but the curriculum has since become that.

A February 16, 2017, Salt Lake Tribune article reported that Utah Democratic representative Brian King tried to introduce two bills to update Utah’s sex education curriculum. Both failed because people view sex education as the parents’ role. King’s bills intended to create a more comprehensive sex education for students, as the current curriculum for Utah’s public schools forbids the teaching of contraception, in addition to many other things.

The Trump administration has threatened to defund Planned Parenthood, an external source of sex education for what is not taught in schools. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan created a bill to eliminate health care for millions of Americans, which included Planned Parenthood centers. Neil Gorsuch recently became the Supreme Court Justice, and his history of interference with reproductive health and rights is concerning to Americans who need basic access to reproductive health care at centers such as Planned Parenthood.

Marissa Sittler is a sophomore at The University of Utah studying communication, with an emphasis on journalism.

Sources

Albert E. Wiggam, “College Students Seek More Sex Education,” Salt Lake Telegram, December 10, 1948, 8.

“Sex Education Conference Draws Good Attention,” Iron County Record, February 12, 1948, 10.

“Sex Education Popular,” Salt Lake Telegram, April 8, 1948, 8.

Jean Bruno, “Sociology forum urges early sex education,” Utah Daily Chronicle, May 5, 1948, 2.

“American Students Favor Sex Education,” Utah Daily Chronicle, March 2, 1939, 1.

Ruth Millett, “Doctor Suggests Improvements In Sex Education,” Salt Lake Telegram, May 23, 1938, 4.

“Sex Education Need Stressed,” Ogden-Standard Examiner, August 11, 1927, 3.

“Sex Education In High Schools Is Urged,” Salt Lake Telegram, March 5, 1916, 5.

The Tribune Editorial Board. “Sex ed is ed,” Salt Lake Tribune, February 16, 2017, 10.

Holmes, LaMar L. The Status of Sex Education in the Schools of Utah. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah, 1948.

 

 

 

The Media’s Role in Citizens’ Perceptions of Topaz, the Japanese Internment Camp in Utah

by Elizabeth Fields

The media have always played a role in our history. More than simply relaying the news, media dictate which stories deserve our attention, whether or not we are aware of it. Sometimes subtle and sometimes not, the media mold our values and opinions through careful choice of language and selection of which stories to tell. In the case of the Japanese internment facility located in Delta, Utah, the media’s influence over the public proved to be no different. Through the alienation of Japanese-American citizens and normalization of internment facilities, Utah media placated its citizens and prevented them from being able to recognize Topaz as being inhumane and unjust.

WRA official

Internees began arriving at the Central Utah Relocation Center, known as Topaz, on September 11, 1942. This article from the August 27, 1942, issue of the Millard County Chronicle, was typical of the coverage.

Described as being “one of the most flagrant violations of civil liberties in American history,” the upheaval and relocation of many Japanese-American citizens during World War II was set in motion on February 19, 1942, when President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. (history.com) This order authorized the creation of military zones along the West Coast and stipulated that individuals who were considered a threat to national security could be relocated to internment facilities located farther inland. The order soon was used to justify the removal of Japanese-Americans who were suspected of having an allegiance to Japan. Forced to put their jobs and education on hold and to give up their homes and most of their possessions, more than 120,000 citizens were sent to internment camps in states including Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado, where they were closely monitored to ensure that they could not assist the enemy. The Central Utah Relocation Center, more commonly known as Topaz for the mountain to the west, officially opened on September 11, 1942. By the time it closed, it had housed more than 11,000 detainees. (topazmuseum.org)

American citizens who did not have ties to Japan had been primed by the media to distrust and dislike Japanese culture, both domestic and abroad, since the beginning of America’s involvement in WW II. In the months leading up to the opening of Topaz, Utah citizens were exposed to hateful, racist terminology degrading their perception of the Japanese. On January 6, 1942, the Salt Lake Telegram reported that American soldiers were “killing the cocky little invaders like flies,” quite literally dehumanizing the foreign enemy. On January 5, 1942, the Salt Lake Telegram relished the thought of American allies writing “in rivers of Japanese blood.” This violent rhetoric set the stage for internment camps to open without question or opposition from the American public. It is important to note that Utah media consistently referred to the Japanese enemy as “Japs” in nearly any article written about the progress of the war.

In September 1942, when Japanese-American citizens began arriving at Topaz, the media also referred to these camp residents as “Japs.” On August 27, the Millard County Chronicle published an article under the headline, “WRA Officials Arrive to Take Over Jap Camp.” In the same issue, a separate article advertised cheap labor provided by internees and provided details about “how the Japs can be got, the regulations, and other information.” In this particular story, the language is eerily reminiscent of historical articles advertising slave labor. Utah media did not even bother to differentiate between the Japanese enemy and the Japanese-American citizen. Instead, the media lumped the two populations together using the same racial slur. Immediately, citizens living outside of internment camps differentiated the Japanese-American citizens as being in a separate category from themselves and associated them with the enemy. In some cases, citizens may not have even made a distinction between citizens and the enemy because the two shared the same epithet.

To further Utah’s ignorance to the injustice at play, Utah media completely normalized the Topaz internment camp by publishing mundane, day-to-day happenings at the camp, none of which included any of the harsh realities of life at Topaz. One of the most insulting articles was published in the Salt Lake Telegram on December 30, 1942, with the headline, “You Wouldn’t Trade Places.” It suggested that those living outside internment camps were actually experiencing some kind of envy. The article observed: “There are all sorts of rumors—that the Japanese evacuees from California live there in style, that they are being fed far better than most Americans.” The article described the minimalistic lifestyle of internment camp, but then assured readers, “Certainly they are being treated decently … the food is wholesome…. Although not being pampered, they are being very fairly treated.” It even claimed that the Japanese-American citizens enjoyed the work they did at the camp, saying, “Work becomes desirable as a pastime.” In reality, life at Topaz was anything but fair. According to the Densho Encyclopedia,

“Many of the apartments were not finished when inmates arrived. The prisoners had to endure especially cold conditions until gypsum board was installed on the walls and ceilings… Ill health was common at Topaz… Several prisoners reported how this … traumatized them and prevented them from ever feeling fully secure in camp.”

On December 17, 1942, the Millard County Chronicle published an article detailing the plans for a Christmas party to be held at Topaz: “This will be a large scale operation, purposed by the WRA [War Relocation Authority] to promote good will, [and] to show the proper Christian spirit.” The brief article clearly applauded the righteousness of the WRA and completely dismissed the fact that internees could not be in their own home with their friends and extended family to celebrate. Many of the internees were not Christian and did not even observe Christmas as a holiday. This article reinforced the concept that they they were comfortable and happy, perhaps even lucky. This complete misconception of the reality of living in an internment camp prevented Utahns from recognizing the injustice of the situation.

The last and perhaps one of the most significant elements in keeping Utah citizens silent was the Espionage Act. This act prevented anyone from publishing material conveying “anti-patriotic” sentiments. More than an act of censorship, the Espionage Act reflected a deep-rooted fear that citizens of Japanese descent felt a stronger alliance to Japan than to America that would cause them to betray their country. On May 28, 1942, the Millard County Chronicle wrote,

“What shall we do with Japanese aliens to prevent possible espionage and sabotage?… Many of the Japanese, especially those of American birth, were loyal to the United States. But their fathers and mothers were aliens. It was to be expected that a considerable number of these would be tied to Japan by bonds of race and nationality.”

The Espionage Act only encouraged feelings of distrust toward the Japanese and furthered the media’s contempt for them. To write in opposition of Topaz would be to risk interrogation or even detainment. Simply put, it was unsafe to openly protest Topaz. Had it not been for the Espionage Act, perhaps Utah media would have exposed the truth about Topaz and the public would have had the ability to resist.

As Americans when we think of World War II, we think of bravery and sacrifice. We think of the grainy, black and white footage of victorious soldiers raising the flag at Iwo Jima. We think of Rosie in her red bandana, proudly pulling her denim sleeve across her flexed arm and proclaiming, “We Can Do It!” We think of the famous photograph of a young soldier home from war, in the streets of New York kissing a stranger out of pure elation. We do not think of an American Japanese family leaving their home in San Francisco to be locked away in an internment camp in Utah. We do not think of a young American Japanese student, forced to halt his education to be unjustifiably imprisoned. We do not think of thousands of people uprooted from their homes, careers, and aspirations to satiate the racism of a fearful country. We do not think of it, but we should. Through alienation, false justification, and writing within the boundaries of the Espionage Act, Utah media placated citizens and manipulated them to believe that Topaz and facilities like it were just and necessary.

Today still, our country faces prejudice every day that is perpetuated by our media. With the understanding of the injustice of Topaz, we are better able to critically analyze the sources we rely upon and protect those who our media would wrongfully have us fear.

Elizabeth Fields is studying strategic communication at The University of Utah.

Sources

“They Fought Like Demons,” Salt Lake Telegram, January 5, 1942, 8.

“The Japs Take a Beating,” Salt Lake Telegram, January 6, 1942, 6.

“The Story of 112,000 Japanese in America,” Millard County Chronicle, May 28, 1942, 8.

“WRA Officials Arrive to Take over Jap Camp,” Millard County Chronicle, August 27, 1942, 1.

“Utah County Wants Topaz Jap Laborers,” Millard County Chronicle, September 27, 1942, 8.

“To Hold Xmas Festivities at Topaz,” Millard County Chronicle, December 17, 1942, 1.

“You Wouldn’t Trade Places,” Salt Lake Telegram, December 30, 1942, 6.

“Japanese-American Relocation.” History.com, http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/japanese-american-relocation.

“Topaz.” Densho Encyclopedia, http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Topaz.

“Topaz Camp.” Topaz Museum, http://www.topazmuseum.org/topaz-camp.

 

The Edmunds Act of 1882

by JENNA DAVIS

In the 1800s, polygamy practiced by Mormons in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints created complications between the Mormons and non-Mormons in the state of Utah. Polygamy is when a man has more than one wife at the same time. Non-Mormons urged Congress to pass an act making polygamy illegal. In 1882, Congress passed the Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act, which barred members of the LDS Church from practicing polygamy and created punishments by law for those found guilty of it.

Group_portrait_of_three_wives_of_Brigham_Young__Zina_D__Huntington_Young__Emily_Partridge_Young__and_Eliza_R__Snow_Young

A portrait of three of Brigham Young’s wives. From left: Zina D. Huntington Young, Emily Partridge Young, and Eliza R. Snow Young. Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, The University of Utah.

It is important to know the history of plural marriages in Utah in order to understand why the Edmunds Act was passed. According to the LDS Church’s website in an article titled “Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah,” Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, claimed to have had a revelation from God that instituted plural marriage among the members in the early 1840s. It is believed that Smith received this revelation and made sense of it through the readings in the Book of Mormon, specifically in Jacob 2:30, where the scripture reads of God commanding followers to increase the number of children born into the gospel covenant and to “raise up seed unto me.” Mormons believed God ordained their practices, but non-Mormons didn’t agree with this and this created opposing opinions in the Utah Territory.

The question of whether Congress should interfere with the church’s practices and punish polygamy by law was debated in the newspapers. On January 1, 1882, the Deseret News quoted an article that was published in Century magazine that observed that the “Mormon problem was a local disturbance and nuisance and not a national difficulty.” Referencing the Edmunds Act that was about to be passed, the author argued that the punishments of conviction were unfair. He said it was unfair to bar all people who believed in polygamy or practiced it from serving as jurors in polygamy trials. The author claimed this was “a packed jury,” meaning it was an unfair selection and gave no chance to the person being prosecuted.

Brigham_Young_and_his_wives_

Brigham Young pictured with his wives. Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, The University of Utah.

Although some viewed the passing of the act as unfair, most non-Mormons in the Utah Territory thought it was just. According to the Ogden Herald on January 4, 1882, the practice of polygamy in the Utah territory divided the Mormons and non-Mormons and created much tension. It was believed that if the practice was stopped, there could be greater peace and harmony in the territory.

The Salt Lake Herald reported another example of an opposing opinion on January 24, 1882, claiming that the act was denying rights and privileges that all citizens deserved and was singling out one religion in punishment. The Salt Lake Herald noted that “denying them privileges of citizenship seems to be a hobby with a good many anti-Mormons” and added, “we believe the suppression of polygamy will prove a sorry failure, should it pass.” But, regardless of the opposition, the Edmunds Act was soon passed.

The Salt Lake Herald reported on January 24, 1882, that the Edmunds Act consisted of three characteristics. The first was that it made it easier to find evidence to convict someone of practicing polygamy. Officials only had to demonstrate that there was more than one woman living with a man in the same house. The act also was explained in the Ogden Herald on January 26. The Deseret News reported on February 2 that the main purpose of the act was to “simply put Utah into political control of the minority.” The exact wording of the act is,

“Every person who has a husband or wife living, who in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction hereafter marries another, whether married or single, and any man who hereafter simultaneously or on the same day marries more than one woman, in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 and imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.”

The act was passed to create a punishment for those practicing polygamy with the goal of ending it completely. But, as one scholar points out, the provision that denied polygamists the right to vote had consequences for women. Mormon women who cohabited were disenfranchised after being granted the right to vote in 1870 by Utah’s territorial legislature. (Finkelman, 322)

After the act was passed the members of the church had to figure out how to deal with their existing relationships, possessions, and offspring and learn to live a monogamous lifestyle. It was a hard transition for them and some continued to practice for a while, which exacerbated the animosity in the state. The Salt Lake Herald reported on May 7, 1882, that polygamy was prevailing in spite of the laws of the US Congress and that “open violation of authority of this government has frequently occurred.” The article stated that non-Mormons viewed the Mormons as intolerant, wrangling, and that they ultimately had “weakened the authority of the United States.” Though persecution still raged against Mormons who were trying to deal with the transition, eventually the church strongly forbadd its members from continuing the practice of polygamy.

According to the church’s website in the article titled, “Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah,” in 1890, eight years after the Edmunds Act was passed, Church President Wilford Woodruff issued a “Manifesto” declaring his intention to abide by the law forbidding plural marriage. He said he would use his influence to convince the members of the church to abide by the law as well. Then, in 1904, the LDS Church strictly prohibited any new plural marriages and since then, polygamy has been forbidden among the members of the LDS Church.

According to a transcript of a talk given in General Conference on the LDS Church’s website titled “Do Not Practice Polygamy,” former LDS President Gordon B Hinckley, who served from 1995-2008, said that if any members were caught practicing polygamy, they would be excommunicated from the church. Excommunication means that their records are taken away from the church, they are no longer recognized as a member, and are denied all privileges of membership.

Even though it took many years after the act was passed, the Edmunds Act was the final law against polygamy that had a lasting influence and greatly impacted the acceptance of Mormons throughout the world. The Huffington Post reported on February 18, 2016, that 51.41 percent of Salt Lake County residents identified as Mormon. Neighboring Utah County was 80 percent Mormon. By following the laws of the land, this immense number of Mormon people can live more peacefully and without opposition and resentment from the government and others in their community. To that end, the LDS Church disavows the “fundamentalist Mormons,” a sect not affiliated with the church that still practices polygamy because members believe it “brings exaltation in heaven.”

Jenna Davis graduated from The University of Utah in 2017 with a major in journalism and a minor in French.

Sources

“The Debate,” Salt Lake Herald, May 7, 1882, 2.

“Anti-Mormon Legislation,” Deseret News, February 2, 1882, 8.

“The Edmunds Bill,” Ogden Herald, January 26, 1882, 1.

“Local News,” Salt Lake Herald, January 24, 1882, 4.

“A Polygamy Bill,” Salt Lake Herald, January 24, 1882, 1.

“Another Crusade,” Ogden Herald, January 4, 1882, 2.

“Legal Aspects of the Mormon Problem,” Deseret News, January 1, 1882, 8.

Finkelman, Paul, ed. Religion and American Law: An Encyclopedia. London: Routledge, 2000.

Harrison, Mette Ivie. “Do Mormons Still Practice Polygamy,” Huffington Post, February 18, 2016. http://huff.to/1ULs8U9.

Hinckley, Gordon B. “Do Not Practice Polygamy,” transcript, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, http://bit.ly/2lSphyz.

“Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, http://bit.ly/2mq7dtw.

“Sister Wives family appeal polygamy ruling to US Supreme Court.” Fox News, September 13, 2016.

Utah’s Role in Nuclear Testing During the Early 1950s

by ZACH CARLSON

The early 1950s were a tumultuous time for the United States of America. The Red Scare was well into effect, the Korean War was raging on, and Soviet Russia’s nuclear capabilities were looming on the horizon. These issues carried into 1951, marking the beginning of the new year with nuclear testing in what is now known as the Nevada Proving Grounds. The Proving Grounds are 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. On January 27, 1951, the United States began dropping nuclear bombs to test the effect of them.

NTS_-_Warning_handbill

The U. S. Atomic Energy Commission distributed handbills such as this one before the first series of tests was conducted. The public is advised that there is “no danger” to individuals living outside the testing area. The Downwinders of Utah Archive, J. Willard Marriott Library, The University of Utah.

On January 4, 1951, the Iron County Record published an article stating, “We must pull out of Korea completely and stop useless sacrifice…. The A-bomb should be used if it will help our forces in Korea.” These lines tell us how local community members felt about the political situation then. Later in the article it is stated that “not a single letter expressed actual terror at the thought of another war and the possibility of A-bombs being used against us. War … is better than attempted appeasement of aggressors.” The local citizens would rather be exposed to the effects of nuclear radiation than roll over to the enemy. Little did they know, they got what they wished for.

In late January 1951, nearly a dozen nuclear bomb tests took place. The Salt Lake Telegram published an article on January 29, 1951, discussing how the 10th and 11th atomic blasts had affected locals. The bombs rattled casinos over 60 miles away in Las Vegas. The newspaper also reported on the wide number of complaints from citizens: “Citizens generally were not pleased. The police department got four calls per minute for a half hour.” Beyond this general grumble and discontent from Las Vegas and Utah residents, public fervor died down for a while.

A conference was held at the University of Utah in May 1951 on the subject of nuclear testing and specifically how Americans had been kept sheltered from just what nuclear bombs and energy could do when compared to other countries. An article published in the Salt Lake Telegram on May 19 discussed how the United States had recently declassified and made public a large amount of nuclear information. The author rightfully draws a connection between this now-public knowledge and citizens, especially Utahns and Nevadans, having such an up-close experience with nuclear bombs.

fig1

This image was published in a February 1955 information booklet produced by the AEC for people who lived near the Nevada test site.

Later in 1951, multiple nuclear tests were delayed because “light winds” could spell death and disease for local residents of Utah. The Salt Lake Telegram reported in November that “the postponement was the third in as many days.” This tells us just how common and deadly these light winds could be.

In April 1952, the United States began testing the effects of nuclear fallout on troops. The Salt Lake Telegram discussed how from 10 miles away the heat from the blast singed the hair off of people’s faces. The heat was described as a “blast furnace.” The soldiers had dug fox holes only 4 miles away from ground zero, subjecting themselves to extremely unhealthy doses of radiation.

For over a year, the continued nuclear testing didn’t receive much attention, as it just became a part of day-to-day life except for when it caused a much greater inconvenience. In May 1953 residents of Cedar City and southern Utah, specifically St. George, were asked to stay in their homes and not leave or drive anywhere. The problem lasted longer than one would expect; the radiation lingered in the air days after the nuclear test. The levels of radiation were deemed safe by the Atomic Energy Commission. The Iron County Record reported on May 21, 1953, that “the levels of radiation produced outside the test control area were in no way harmful to humans, animals or crops.”

Poisoning from radiation takes time to rear its ugly head in the form of cancer, birth defects, and other unfortunate symptoms. Janet Burton Seegmiller writes in The History of Iron County that:

Relatively few Iron County residents were aware of or concerned about nuclear testing when the first mushroom-shaped cloud rose into the western skies and drifted to the northeast in 1951, but the cloud figuratively remains over southern Utah and Nevada to this day. Residents live with every day what the cloud left behind that the eye could not see. There are no southwestern Utah neighborhoods or communities that have not been touched by the tragedy of cancer or birth defects or lingering bitterness over human and financial losses.

These people had been promised by their own government that they would be safe throughout the nuclear testing. They had been lied to. Seegmiller discusses that declassified documents show even back in the late 1940s it was painfully aware to scientists that this was hazardous to human and livestock.

The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) proceeded to continue with the tests, anyway. Sheep began to have burns on their faces and miscarry fetuses that had deformities. Those that survived to birth would often die due to other deformities. Everyone still believed the government when it reassured the citizens that everything was fine. In 1984, the United States District Court ruled in Allen v. United States that “fallout caused human deaths and the federal government was negligent in failing to warn residents.” But the government won a reversal on appeal on the grounds of national security. On May 11, 1984, the New York Times reported that a federal district judge ruled that ”the Government was negligent in failing to warn residents who lived in the path of fallout plumes about the danger of radioactive contaminations.” The government again appealed the decision. In Utah, The Right Place, Thomas G. Alexander writes, “Although they knew or suspected the danger from the fallout, they did not tell the people… that they stood in risk of cancer or leukemia. Rather, AEC officials publicly lied about the danger.”

In 1990, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was passed. The government apologized to its very own citizens, now known as the Downwinders, and established a compensation program to help individuals who contracted certain cancers and other serious diseases. On March 2, 2015, the Department of Justice reported that it had awarded more than $2 billion in “compassionate compensation to eligible claimants” under the act.

Zach Carlson is a student at The University of Utah. He is pursuing a degree in communication with an emphasis in journalism. Zach is an avid consumer of movies, video games, and books, and loves dogs.

Sources

“Let’s Hear from the People,” Iron County Record, January 4, 1951, 2.

“Nevada Area Braces for More A-Blasts,” Salt Lake Telegram, January 29, 1951 3.

“The Big Question,” Salt Lake Telegram, May 19, 1951, 4.

“Storm Delays Atomic Tests,” Salt Lake Telegram, October 26, 1951, 7.

“Wrong-Way Wind Postpones Nevada A-Test” Salt Lake Telegram, November 17, 1951, 2.

“Mighty A-Bomb Slams Troops,” Salt Lake Telegram, April 22, 1952.

“Plan ‘Most Daring’ A-Bomb, Troop Maneuvers,” Salt Lake Telegram, May 26, 1952, 3.

“Atomic Winds – Fall-out,” Iron County Record, May 21, 1953, 2.

Alexander, Thomas G. Utah, The Right Place: The Official Centennial History. Salt Lake City, Utah: Gibbs Smith Publishers, 2003.

Peterson, Iver. “U.S. Ruled Negligent in A-Tests Followed by Nine Cancer Deaths.New York Times, May 11, 1984. http://lib.utah.edu/services/geospatial/downwinders/

Seegmiller, Janet Burton. A History of Iron County: Community Above Self. Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Society, 1998.

Horse Racing at the Utah State Fair and Pari-Mutuel Betting

by HALIE BERRY

The Utah State Fair has been a cornerstone of Utah history even before Utah became a state in 1896. The original development of the fair was to promote “self-sufficiency” within agricultural production. The first fair, known as the “Deseret Fair,” was held in October 1856 under the supervision of the Deseret Agricultural and Manufacturing Society.

After its opening, the fair received little financial help from the Territorial Legislature and moved to various locations. Nevertheless, it was able to persevere as an annual event and in 1902 the Legislature purchased 65 acres for the purpose of assisting the local community. (Utah State Fair History)

In this pursuit, the fair had become a favored part of the horse racing industry in Utah. Horse races were featured on a new track and a covered grandstand welcomed spectators dressed in their best attire to enjoy the event. By 1909, horse racing in Utah developed similar rules and regulations to that of other organizations around the country and continued to gain increased popularity. Despite the success of the horse racing industry, there was rising opposition against it. Track owners were considered biased in the handling of wagering and during that time bookmakers were hired by the track. Utah had no state agency to oversee and/or regulate bookmaking of the horse races. (Westergren, 7)

By 1913, the belief of “dishonesty” within horse racing clouded the industry and the Salt Lake Herald and the Deseret News wrote lengthy editorials in 1909 and 1913 about the problems horse racing caused and why it should be banned. Westergren summarizes the reasons they offered, including: “The ‘fixing’ of races by dishonest horse owners and jockeys who ‘fleeced the public’ rather than providing, good, honest sport; the loss of spectators’ money in wagering at the track, depriving honest local merchants of sales and profits; the rise in crime that generally accompanied racing meets; and the moral impact of horse race gambling on individuals and families.” By February 17, 1913, Governor William Spry signed an anti-racing law initiated by Charles R. Mabey. The legislature passed the bill after a month-long “acrimonious debate.” (Westergren, 8)

In February 19, 1925, the Salt Lake Telegram reported that Representative Charles Redd had proposed a bill to the Legislature to legalize pari-mutuel betting and horse racing under a new state horse racing commission. Redd believed that horse racing was “the sport of kings” and should be re-established in the Utah industry. The bill proposed that the governor appoint a three-member committee to control the pari-mutuel betting system under new regulations by the commission. The bill gained traction among the legislature, but in March 1925, according to the Salt Lake Telegram, Sen. Herbert S. Auerbach considered the races “to be the most vicious forms of gambling and would bring into the state the worst riffraff of its kind.” This quote came after Auerbach admitted to not being “strait-laced” and dipping his hand in betting on a few races at the track.

State_Fair

A large crowd ventures to the Utah State Fairpark to watch horse racing in 1907. Shipler Commercial Photographers Collection, Mss C 275, Utah State Historical Society. Reprinted with permission.

Despite some pushback, the House Legislature passed the proposed bill on March 7, 1925, by a vote of 41 to 4 with ten members absent and by March 11, 1925, the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 12 to 5 with three absent. The law was signed by Governor George Dern and became effective on May 12, 1925. For the first time in twelve years, the horse racing industry was revived and the pari-mutuel betting system was now legal. Many who approved the bill believed horse racing was a “clean” and “respectable” sport and that the new law would encourage breeders to produce competitive offspring, bringing in a renewed source of revenue into the state. (Westergren, 8-9)

By April 1925, the fairgrounds needed improvements. Fred Dahnken and William P. Kyne, well-known men in the horse racing industry who conducted successful races in Phoenix and Reno, proposed a deal with the state fair board and were approved for a $60,000 track deal to develop horse racing over the next ten years at the Utah State Fairgrounds. According to the Salt Lake Telegram, this agreement included improvements to the existing grandstand, paddocks, jockey room, horse stalls, and fences.

Utah_State_Fair_Association___Trotters

Two racers wait outside the fairgrounds in 1908. Shipler Commercial Photographers Collection, Mss C 275, Utah State Historical Society. Reprinted with permission.

As opening day drew nearer, things were in full swing to prepare for the event. The Salt Lake Telegram reported on June 6, 1925, that a new chute would be added to the track, extending the length of the race to run up to a three-quarter-mile. Artisans put final touches on the barns, pari-mutuel booths were set up, and jockeys and exercise boys warmed up horses on the track. On June 8, the Salt Lake Telegram announced the program of the State Fair’s “Inaugural Day” and informed readers that July 2 would kick off the horse racing season with a $1,500 purse.

The Salt Lake Telegram reported on July 1:  “Several carloads of horses, in prime condition, arrived at the track today and yesterday and still more are due this evening which will swell the number of equine nobility to participate in the coming meeting to a full 400 head.” C. B. Irwin, owner of at least 21 thoroughbreds at the races, believed his top horse that he called the “route-goer,” Lizette, would be the one to beat. “He would run her from the car to the track, that’s how good he thinks Lizette is,” observed the newspaper. At last, July 2, one of the most anticipated days of the year, arrived and the Utah State Fair officially opened the races under the new Horse Racing Commission. A large number of people ventured to the track to take in and bet on some of the top thoroughbreds competing.

The new system controlled the odds of the race; no jockey, bookie or horse owner could “fix” the race ahead of time. The minimum wager was $2.00. Bettors could choose from three types of tickets to place on a horse: win, place, or show, similar to other races. According to Westergren, “This ticket system was universally used at all tracks where the pari-mutuel system was functioning. The rules placed no limit on the number of tickets a bettor could buy. He might put down money on every horse in the race if he chose. However, payoff came only if the participant held a ticket for a horse that finished in one of the first three positions.” Tickets purchased from a pari-mutuel betting machine were cashed in to verify receipt of the wager amount. Odds were based on the wagers at the track and the money collected from their bets, rather than fixed, random odds by a bookie. Therefore, bettors wagered against themselves. Once expenses were paid to the state and licensed track owner, the remainder of the pool was divided among those with winning tickets. (Westergren, 12, 10)

The Salt Lake Telegram reported on July 3, 1925, “Women dressed in their fine summer clothes added a touch of color to the scene. The pari-mutuel machines received a good play, a fact which testified by the clicking one constantly heard as wagers were made.” The day was considered an overall success, according to William P. Kyne, the general manager of the State Fair races. On July 3, 1925, the Salt Lake Telegram highlighted, “Running strongly to the front, Lizette never placed the issue to doubt and ran to victory with more than two lengths to spare,” living up to Irwin’s expectations. It was estimated that between 3,500 and 10,000 attended opening day, including Heber J. Grant, the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Governor George H. Dern, Salt Lake City Mayor C. Clarence Nelsen, and several other government officials. (Westergren, 14)

Overall, the races were financially successful as they hoped; from May 12, 1925, through the end of 1926, it was reported that racing brought in an additional $129,646 in total revenue. Business and community support was at an all-time high. But by February 1927, public concern with ethical issues of horse racing and betting affected support for the sport. Just two years after the passage of Representative Redd’s bill, pari-mutuel betting would again be banned by the Utah Legislature after accusations of corruption. (Westergren, 15)

Utah_State_Fair___P_26

Horses and buggies race to an exciting finish in 1904. Shipler Commercial Photographers Collection, Utah State Historical Society. Reprinted with permission.

In March 1992, the Davis County Clipper reported that Utah horse breeders had filed a petition to get pari-mutuel betting on the ballot, which would give counties the right to decide whether or not they would approve pari-mutuel wagering at horse races in their jurisdiction. According to the article, “The funds collected in the pari-mutuel wagering will be used to support the public, promote economic growth and reduce taxes.” Even though the bill made it on the ballot, late opposition from the LDS church prevented the bill from passing.

It’s been 90 years since pari-mutuel horse race betting has been legal. However, the positive impact it had on Utah’s economy shows the progressive role it can play today. It’s reported that the Utah State Fairgrounds is in a state of distress. Brian Grimmett of KUER reported on March 27, 2014, that an audit by the Utah State Auditor found the Utah State Fair Corporation is highly subsidized compared to similar state fairs around the country: “The legislature has given the fair more than $6.8 million since 2004. Meanwhile, attendance has decreased almost every year since hitting a peak in 2008.” Many of these concerns are due to the crumbling infrastructure. Legislative auditors are concerned if a plan to update and improve fair park facilities isn’t in place, the State Fair will be destitute in a few years, reported Judy Fahys of KUER.

The horse racing/breeding industry is an established sport in Utah. Allowing pari-mutuel betting or a similar system would be an incentive for members of the community to get involved, support the races and generate a year-round source of income to update and maintain current buildings at the state fairgrounds. Pamela Wood of the Baltimore Sun reported on March 18, 2016, that a new track deal allowed off-track betting at the Maryland State Fair all year. It was projected to generate upward of $500,000 per year in revenue for the Maryland Jockey Club, horsemen, and building upkeep and maintenance. Passing a similar bill here in Utah would allow the state fair to create new sources of revenue while continuing the tradition of the fairgrounds for future generations.

Halie Berry graduated in May 2017 from The University of Utah with a Bachelor of Science degree in mass communication with an emphasis in sports broadcasting.

Sources

“Huge Throng Thrilled as Lizette Wins Feature of Opening Day,” Salt Lake Telegram, July 3, 1925.

Track and Equipment is Ready for Opening Event,” Salt Lake Telegram, July 1, 1925.

Program Announced for the First Five Days’ Racing,” Salt Lake Telegram, June 8, 1925.

“Fair Grounds Race Track to Have ‘Chute Added,’” Salt Lake Telegram, June 6, 1925.

“Fair Grounds Track Deal is Made,” Salt Lake Telegram, April 15, 1925.

Senate Overrides Dern’s Veto of McCarty Election Measure; Utah Horse Racing Bill Passes,” Salt Lake Telegram, March 12, 1925.

“Solon Revives Horse Races in House Measure,” Salt Lake Telegram, February 19, 1925.

Horse Breeders Want Pari-Mutual Vote,” Davis County Clipper, March 31, 1992.

Our History.” Utah State Fair, http://utahstatefair.com/history

Fahys, Judy. “State Fair Park’s Future Remains Uncertain.” KUER, June 19, 2014, http://kuer.org/post/state-fair-parks-future-remains-uncertain#stream/0

Grimmett, Brian. “Utah State Fair Under-Attended and Over-Subsidized.” KUER, March 27, 2014, http://bit.ly/2pm6r2R.

Luhm, Steve. History of Horse Racing in Utah.” The Salt Lake Tribune, May 2, 2006http://bit.ly/2plUp9n.

Westergren, Brian N. “Utah’s Gamble with Pari-Mutuel Betting in the Early Twentieth Century.” Utah Historical Quarterly 57, no. 1 (Winter 1989): 4-23.

Wood, Pamela. “Community, state fair reach deal on off-track betting at the fairgrounds,” Baltimore Sun, March 18, 2016, http://bsun.md/21ALmMz.

 

 

Brigham Young University Athletics “blind-cited” by National Women’s Law Center on 25th anniversary of Title IX

by MICHAEL CHARLES WATERS

Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex in any education program or activity that receives federal funding.

Twenty-five years after it was enacted, Brigham Young University found itself in trouble with the federal law. The law was signed in 1972 by President Richard Nixon to give equality to women in programs that provide education. The law states:

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” (United States Congress)

The Salt Lake Tribune reported on March 2, 1997, that BYU claimed its athletics program had given varsity status to sports in which female athletes had shown interest and ability to compete. BYU women’s athletic director Elaine Michaelis said BYU had what it needed for quality programs, but that there were some areas that needed improving. She also pointed to progress with upgrading women’s locker rooms, ensuring that practice facilities were equal, and adding a women’s soccer team to increase the number of women’s scholarships. But, in order to afford scholarships for women’s soccer, BYU had to shift money from the men’s sports. One of those sports was men’s wrestling.

The Deseret News reported on March 11, 1997, that BYU wrestling was on the bubble and was close to discontinuation. Head wrestling coach Mark Schultz was having a difficult time recruiting athletes to BYU, because scholarships were scarce due to BYU’s continued efforts to comply with Title IX. Funds were being taken from wrestling and reallocated to other areas, and Schultz was told his position would be adjusted to part-time status. Athletic director Rondo Fehlberg, who was an All-American wrestler at BYU in the early 1970s, had mentioned that his preference was to add sports instead of dropping them. But if it became necessary for gender-equity, he would drop wrestling. Per former U.S. Department of Justice policy advisor Jessica Gavora:

“…No men’s program is exempted, no matter how successful or established… Brigham Young University eliminated its top-10-ranked men’s gymnastics team and its top-25-ranked wrestling team.” (53)

BYU’s head track coach Willard Hirschi also had some troubles with Title IX. Hirschi said in an interview with the Deseret News on March 13, 1997, that the men’s team was only allowed 12 scholarships for 19 events, while the women’s team was awarded 18 scholarships. Part of the reason women had more track scholarships than men is that an imbalance is created by the large number of football players awarded scholarships. The total number of financial awards allocated to other men’s teams is then adjusted accordingly. This didn’t sit well with Hirschi.

TitleIXComplianceCommitteeCharter11-25-13_0

The first page of the charter prepared by the Title IX Compliance Committee at Brigham Young University.

The Deseret News, BYU’s own Daily Universe, and The Salt Lake Tribune reported on June 3 and June 4, 1997, that the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) filed complaints against 25 schools, including BYU, stating that the institutions were not in compliance with Title IX. The complaint alleged that female varsity athletes were not receiving the same benefits by way of scholarships as the men were.

R. J. Snow, vice president for advancement at BYU, said in an interview with the Deseret News on June 3 that the institution was making considerable advancements when it came to women’s collegiate athletics. He also said that the motivation behind the complaints directed at BYU and other institutions, including Utah State University, was mainly for publicity and that the NWLC went to the media first before contacting the listed schools. In a statement to the Deseret News, NWLC co-President Marcia D. Greenberger said female athletes were putting forth a lot of effort, but were getting the short end of the stick when it came to getting scholarships.

The Daily Universe reported on June 4, 1997, that the complaint’s purpose was to have the schools in violation work with the Office of Education for Civil Rights. According to what Michaelis told the Universe, BYU had been doing just that for the past three years. The Universe also reported that the claims requested that women’s teams have equal locker space, the same quality of media guides and the same room and board opportunities as male athletes. After a random audit two years prior to the claims from the NWLC, BYU completed a new women’s locker room that provided more space. But Michaelis said the national scene was changing and BYU needed to look further at improving the women’s program. Otherwise, BYU would lose all federal funding.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported on June 4, 1997, that the BYU student body was made up of 52 percent women, but that women only made up 38 percent of the school’s varsity athletes. They also reported that the women’s varsity teams only received 30 percent of the school’s monetary awards in athletic-related student aid. This was an infraction of Title IX.

On June 7, 1997, The Salt Lake Tribune published another story stating that it was odd to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Title IX by filing complaints against just 25 schools. Indeed, as Fort Worth Star-Telegram journalist Andy Frielander reported, there were 305 Division I schools in the National Collegiate Athletics Association in 1997. The Tribune’s article reiterates the complaint that the 25 schools should offer the same number of scholarships between women and men as well as a standard that the percentage of woman in the student body should equal the percentage of female varsity athletes. The Tribune also quotes Title XIV as it pertains to athletic scholarships:

“To the extent that a recipient awards athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid, it must provide reasonable opportunities for such awards for members of each sex in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics.” (U.S. Department of Education)

The Tribune added that institutions of higher learning should strive for gender equity in both participation and scholarship awards.

On June 20, 1997, syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in the Deseret News that Title IX has not equalized opportunities for women in sports.

“In 1972, Title IX was passed in the name of fairness. Why pay the tax dollars so our sons could play but not our daughters? But the playing field is not yet truly level. There is barely a school in the country in which the proportion of women athletes matches the proportion of women students.”

Gordon Monson of The Salt Lake Tribune reported on December 9, 1997, that Michaelis said that Title IX has helped women gain many opportunities in sports. Female athletes were starting to get more of what the men got.

On December 11, 2011, the Daily Universe reported that the playing field for women in sports was leveling out. But there is still a problem for some men’s teams, because football is included in the scholarship count.

“There are 4.5 scholarships given to the men’s tennis program and 8 to the women’s, 9.9 to the men’s swim and dive team compared to the 14 women receive, and 12.6 for the men’s cross country/track and field team, whereas the women’s squad gets 18 at BYU. As a result, the fairness of Title IX continues to be debated among those affected by it.” (Ellett)

This shows that BYU was making progress toward total compliance with Title IX, regardless of lack of scholarships for male athletes not playing football.

On August 8, 2012, The Daily Universe reported that the decision to cut men’s gymnastics and the wrestling team further helped BYU be compliant with Title IX: “That decision has helped BYU to better meet the standards set for Title IX and allow the university to use its resources in the best ways possible.” Janie Penfield, BYU associate athletic director, also said in the article that schools are only checked occasionally to make sure they meet Title IX requirements. If schools show little to no progress, they will be penalized.

A committee charter from 2013 illustrates that BYU continues to push for full compliance with Title IX.

Michael Charles Waters is a junior at The University of Utah majoring in mass communication with an emphasis in journalism. He has worked for Salt Lake Community College, where he had his own sports talk show for school radio and television, and interned with the Utah Jazz in video production. He currently works at The University of Utah filming and creating highlight videos for the teams as well as supply play-by-play analysis and color commentary for some of the teams.

Sources

Joe Baird, “Bridging the Gap; Utah Schools Pleased With Progress on Gender Front; Local Schools Like Their Progress,” The Salt Lake Tribune, March 2, 1997, B1.

Jeff Call, “BYU coach wrestles hard times,” Deseret News, March 11, 1997, D7.

Doug Robinson, “BYU’s Hirschi believes Title IX is hurting track and field,” Deseret News, March 13, 1997, D3.

Jeff Call, “BYU, USU among 25 to be cited,” Deseret News, June 3, 1997, D4.

Dan Egan, “BYU and USU Both Caught Off Guard By Group’s Charge; TITLE IX: Catches BYU, USU Off Guard,” The Salt Lake Tribune, June 4 1997, B1.

Kathryn Sorenson, “BYU under fire for discrimination,” The Daily Universe, June 4, 1997.

“Pay to Play—Equally,” The Salt Lake Tribune, June 7, 1997, A10.

Gordon Monson, “Michaelis Loves ‘Purity of Sport’ (And Winning); Michaelis Leads Cougs To the Final 16,” The Salt Lake Tribune, December 9, 1997, D1.

“Brigham Young University Title IX Compliance Committee Charter,” Brigham Young University Compliance, http://bit.ly/2p9sDMU

Ellett, Carlie McKeon. “At 40, Title IX has leveled playing field at BYU.” The Daily Universe, December 11, 2011. http://bit.ly/2oAlmb6

Frielander, Andy. “UTA meets Title IX standards—University ranks high in recent gender study,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, April 30, 1997, 1.

Gavora, Jessica. Tilting the Playing Field: Schools, Sports, Sex and Title IX. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2002.

Goodman, Ellen. “Title IX has yet to level the playing field for women.” Deseret News, June 20, 1997, A11.

Houghton, Jared. “Title IX: Helping or hindering college sports?” The Daily Universe, August 8, 2012. http://bit.ly/2otNvQX

United States Department of Labor. “Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972.” http://bit.ly/24uzmTF

Cornell University Law School. Legal Information Institute. 14 CFR 1253.430, Financial Assistance. http://bit.ly/2p9OCnb