We approached the effort with genuine interest. Jamie attended the recent Dignity Index event, and Corinne joined a follow-up conversation with Shriver to explore the ideas more deeply. While he is sincere in wanting to improve civic dialogue, we came away with serious concerns. The more closely we examined the Index, the more clear it became that the model risks confusing civility with truth and could ultimately suppress honest, principled speech.

The slippery slope of speech scoring

The Dignity Index attempts to quantify virtue by rating speech itself. But rating speech isn’t neutral. Once a score exists, the power lies with those who define the standards. The danger is institutional: universities and bureaucracies inevitably turn scoring systems into tools of pressure and conformity. The Index is sold as a mirror, but in practice, it risks becoming a muzzle.

The problem with a moral scorecard

The Index begins with a universal truth — that every human being has inherent worth. But it quickly shifts from recognizing human value to ranking speech, as if all ideas carry equal merit merely because all people do.

That’s the flaw. The Index confuses civility with truth. When rejecting a false or harmful idea is labeled “undignified,” moral conviction is punished.

In the American tradition, dignity flows from truth, not tone. Our founders didn’t fight a revolution for polite disagreement; they fought for principle — the radical truth that “all men are created equal.”

And many of the movements that expanded American freedom — abolition, women’s rights, civil rights — would have scored poorly on the Dignity Index. Truth often sounds sharpest to those who most need to hear it. If tone becomes the measure of moral speech, then courage will be misread as contempt.

The dehumanizing effect

Ironically, scoring speech ends up undermining the very dignity it claims to promote. We don’t rate our spouses or children on a scale because dignity is not a number — it’s a relationship. If we truly believe every person has inherent worth, we can’t reduce one another to numbers based on how our words make someone feel.

The Index presents itself as objective, but it is unavoidably subjective. It trains people to judge speech not by intent, truth, or moral clarity, but by how it makes someone feel in the moment. That’s not dignity — that’s emotional scoring.

How we build dignity that lasts

If we truly want to elevate civic dialogue, the answer isn’t to grade speech. It’s to strengthen the foundations that make good speech possible in the first place: civic education, moral reasoning, personal responsibility, and the Golden Rule. Dignity grows out of character, not compliance.

Utah would be far better served by more open debate, more honest dialogue, and more opportunities for people to wrestle with real ideas — without being judged afterward by an arbitrary scale. Those experiences build resilience and respect more effectively than any score ever could.

In fact, Tim has agreed to participate in a public debate on the Dignity Index. That willingness to engage openly is exactly the kind of civic courage communities need. It’s an opportunity to model disagreement rooted in moral conviction and mutual respect — dignity born of character, not of scoring.

Dignity that lasts doesn’t come from a scale or an institution. It flows from truth, and truth requires the freedom to speak boldly, even when it’s uncomfortable. When truth is the standard, dignity follows. But when civility replaces truth, both are lost.

Jamie Renda is the president of Path Forward Utah. Corinne Johnson is the president of Utah Parents United.