The University of Utah now spends roughly $400,000 each year on a new project called the Dignity Index, a system designed to score political and social speech on an eight-point scale. According to the university, the goal is to curb contempt in public life, but the price tag and purpose raise concerns about how academic institutions handle political expression. The program is funded through an agreement with Project UNITE, created by former Utah Congressman Ben McAdams.
The Dignity Index rates public statements from “1,” meaning open contempt, to “8,” meaning full respect for the other side. The university states that the Index is meant to teach healthier disagreement by encouraging students and participants to avoid harsh or divisive rhetoric. Administrators argue that this tool will help improve civil discourse and reduce hostility on campus. The university also says the scoring system does not punish speech and remains a voluntary exercise.
The funding covers equipment and personnel associated with the program, making it one of the more expensive speech-related initiatives on a major campus. The university’s agreement includes support for a lead researcher who trains students and faculty on how to apply the scoring system. The school expanded the project after testing it during Utah’s 2022 midterm elections, where volunteers scored political statements from candidates to demonstrate how the model works in real time.
The program now includes a youth version intended for K-12 environments. It incorporates practices such as “restorative communication” and conflict-resolution techniques aimed at reducing tension among younger students. Supporters believe that introducing these standards early will help create a generation more inclined toward cooperative debate rather than personal attacks.
Critics warn that the system risks shifting attention from truth to tone, a concern often raised when institutions begin rating or guiding political language. They argue that scoring speech can pressure individuals to adopt preferred phrasing and discourage blunt but legitimate criticism. Some observers question whether a publicly funded university should invest heavily in a model that could influence how students express political opinions.
Concerns also surface over the program’s growing reach beyond Utah, as the model has been introduced in multiple states. As colleges nationwide debate how to handle political tension on campus, this initiative signals a trend toward structured oversight of rhetoric.
