Copyright Salt Lake Tribune
A popular dance workout program was dropped from the Provo Recreation Center’s lineup this summer, leading to outcry from longtime participants and instructors. Its removal came after one person complained about the classes, sparking a city review of the Dirtylicious Dance Fitness curriculum. Officials say they identified problems including unauthorized video recording and ultimately found that as a “taxpayer-funded facility,” it had a “clear mission to support family-friendly programming.” Dirtylicious co-founder Erica Tanner and her husband, Matson, pushed back — arguing that the classes aren’t explicit and that their values align with the city’s mission. They offered to adjust the fitness program to conform to rec center guidelines, and more than 30 Dirtylicious supporters also emailed Provo officials — far outnumbering the six negative comments the city received, according to a review of emails The Salt Lake Tribune obtained through an open records request. [Read more: What really happened to Dirtylicious in Provo? How one complaint upended a community.] The Tribune used those records to compile the following snippets from the original complaint, a sample of responses from supporters and opponents, some past complaints the city’s review uncovered, as well as communications between Dirtylicious and Provo city staff. The classes have not returned to the rec center’s lineup since they were dropped June 23. The original complaint The complaint that launched the city’s review came from a person who described themself as a parent and concerned taxpayer. The Tribune sent a request for comment to their email address but they didn’t respond. The city also found no record of any rec center members with the person’s provided name. May 24: Original complaint: “... After seeing a video of the class on Facebook (linked above), I noticed that many of the dance moves appear quite sexual. Since the Recreation Center is a family-oriented facility ... and accessible to teens and younger children, I believe this type of content is inappropriate. I would appreciate clarification on why a class with such suggestive content is being offered at a government-funded center. There’s no way this is a good use of taxpayer dollars. And can you explain what steps are being taken to ensure all programs are suitable for all ages?” May 27: Response from Cathy Smits, then-Provo Recreation Center manager: “... The Provo Recreation Center offers Dirtylicious Dance Fitness (DDF) classes as part of our broad fitness programming. DDF is a certified dance fitness format offered at recreation centers throughout Utah. ... Our DDF classes emphasize fitness, confidence-building, and body positivity in an inclusive community environment. All instructors are trained professionals who ensure classes remain appropriate. ... We understand that dance fitness classes may be perceived differently by community members. ... We regularly evaluate all programming to ensure it aligns with our mission of serving the diverse needs of Provo residents.” May 29: Reply from person who complained: “Thanks for your email. It sounds like you’re not recognizing how sexual this dance class is. And I’m not comforted by the idea that other cities are doing it. Can you help me answer these questions: 1. Is this class open to teens of both genders, and what age guidelines or restrictions are in place to ensure age-appropriateness? ... 2. Are you open to formally, transparently reevaluating programs that community members feel may not reflect the intended atmosphere of a publicly funded, inclusive space for all ages? 3. Do you believe a class that includes sexually suggestive movements like twerking aligns with the values of a city-operated, family-friendly facility? 4. What is the formal review process for determining whether a class or program is in line with the city’s standards for public programming and family use? ... 5. Has the city considered whether this type of class might be more appropriate in a private studio setting rather than a publicly-funded recreation center?” July 7: From person who complained: “... I wanted to follow up after seeing [recent news about] the Dirtylicious Dance class being removed. It was interesting to see people were upset, but what stood out to me was that none of them really denied that the class is sexualized. That seems like a pretty key point. As a parent, I think it’s totally fair for the City to support a wide range of fitness and dance classes — but there should be some kind of baseline criteria. ... Something simple like: • Is it focused on cardio, strength, balance or flexibility? • Is it non-sexual in nature? • Is the content safe and appropriate for everyone — adults, teens, men, women? • Would most parents be unconcerned if their teen joined by mistake, or snuck in? Most classes at the rec center would pass that test easily. Dirtylicious Dance doesn’t seem to. Adding ‘fitness’ at the end of the name doesn’t really change the overall feel of it. If people want to take that kind of class, that’s their choice - I just don’t think a city-run facility using taxpayer dollars is the right place for it." Dirtylicious supporters May 31: June 1: June 27: June 26: July 9: Dirtylicious opponents July 3: July 7: Past complaints Provo’s review found that concerns about Dirtylicious had apparently been raised before the person complained in late May. In one, the rec center’s former fitness coordinator wrote to a Springville recreation center employee, outlining in May 2023 how Dirtylicious classes work and noting their growing popularity. She noted that she had expected pushback about the class but “surprisingly I’ve only had one complaint form turned in by a man in his 40’s by the looks of it.” [Read more: Fast facts about Dirtylicious, the Utah fitness program some call too sexy] The former fitness coordinator wrote: “He said he thought the class was disgusting and doesn’t reflect the morals and values of this area and he thinks we should move the class somewhere hidden away where they can’t be seen. He made it sound like a strip show. I’m always baffled by these comments because if you do not like the class you do not have to stand and watch it or participate in it.” In another, she said a yoga instructor had mentioned she “didn’t think this class was appropriate for a family friendly facility.” The city also provided a complaint from August 2024 that read: “Patron is upset and mad about the name ”Dirtylicious Dance" on the promotion tv, thinking it is objectifying and sexualizing women: ‘dance exercise is supposed to make people feel healthy and strong, not dirty or delicious.’" Communication between Dirtylicious and the city The Tanners tried multiple times to explain their program to Provo city officials. The following email thread is one example. It begins with Matson Tanner defending Dirtylicious and ends with its dismissal. June 10: From Matson Tanner to Smits: “... You mentioned that some dance moves in our classes have been perceived by some during the review as ‘too sexual.’ While we were not provided with specific examples, we take this feedback seriously and are eager to address it. ... It’s worth noting that the moves in our format are very similar to those found in other dance and fitness classes offered at the Rec Center. The key difference is that our format teaches them in counts as opposed to a follow-along format, and that we offer modifications to attendees when teaching more difficult moves. … We are deeply grateful for the opportunity to collaborate with the Provo Recreation Center. ... We are long-time Provo residents and proud members of the community." June 12: Response from Smits: “... I did want to mention that it has not been just one instructor but several instructors, as well as participants, who have recorded videos with content that does not meet the expectations of Provo City and the Provo Recreation Center. … Our directors, legal department, Parks and Recreation board and myself will continue to review the program and make a final decision." Reply from Matson Tanner: “Appreciate the clarification on videos. ... As discussed, we have re-emphasized our existing policies with our instructors and are leaning in with any specific corrective action with them as needed. We do recognize that attendees will likely post their own content on their own accord and may be a bit more difficult to control. In follow-up, could you please provide the date, time, and location of the upcoming public meeting? We’d like the opportunity to attend and participate.” June 13: Response from Smits: “I have appreciated the correspondence on this matter and I want to thank you for sharing some of the modifications that you proposed. The board meeting was yesterday. We are still reviewing and will have some follow up-up next week.” June 17: Reply from Matson Tanner: “I’m a little bummed that the meeting happened and we were unable to attend, but I hope it went well. We would have wanted to be there, and at other future meetings, so we could provide context and answers to questions or concerns. ... With that said, I wanted to follow-up with you to see how things are going, how we can lean in to help, and if there are any other upcoming meetings we could support in?” June 20: Follow-up reply from Matson Tanner: “I wanted to follow-up here!” Response from Smits: “I’ve been out of the office for a few days due to the holiday, but I will be back in Monday...” June 23: Response from Smits: “Thank you for taking the time to share the structure and layout of the Dirtylicious Program. We truly appreciate the effort and creativity you’ve put into developing it. After much consideration, we have decided to discontinue offering the class and move in a different direction that aligns with our current goals and programming.” June 24: Reply from Matson Tanner: “Thank you for your response and for the time you’ve invested in reviewing the Dirtylicious Dance Fitness (DDF) program. While we appreciate your kind words about our efforts, we are deeply disappointed. ... We are committed to maintaining our long-standing partnership with the Provo Recreation Center ... However, we feel that the decision-making process did not fully reflect our program’s value or provide us with a fair opportunity to address concerns. Specifically: 1. Lack of Inclusion in Discussions: We were not invited to participate in the review process or public meetings where our format was discussed, despite our repeatedly expressed interest in attending. ... 2. Unclear Policies and Expectations: The concerns raised about our classes appear to stem from issues not outlined in any existing Rec Center policies or guidelines ... 3. Disproportionate Response: The decision seems heavily influenced, and initiated, by a single individual’s perspective, whose identity and residency remain unverified. Given the hundreds of patrons who enjoy and benefit from our classes, we feel this response is disproportionate. … To move forward, we respectfully request the following: We are committed to working constructively to resolve this matter. ..." July 2: Follow-up reply from Matson Tanner: “We have not heard from you. ... Unfortunately, we don’t feel this matter has been addressed properly or professionally. Response from Smits: “... The City’s public facilities, including the Recreation Center, are guided by standards of conduct outlined in Administrative Directive 2010-06 (updated June 11, 2019). ... While we recognize that more consistent monitoring on our part would have been helpful, we are committed to strengthening our oversight moving forward. ... During our review, we identified elements of the program that did not align with these established standards. ... After weighing my findings in light of established standards, your admissions, and considering the advisory recommendation of the [Parks and Recreation Advisory] Board, I have decided to discontinue the class. I believe the decision to discontinue the class is both appropriate and reasonable. ..." July 3: Reply from Matson Tanner: “... We deeply value the Provo Recreation Center and are disappointed by this notice. ... Again, we believe this decision stems from an incomplete and unfair evaluation. ... We are eager to align with your public commitment to collaboration and address concerns to ensure DDF’s continuation at the Rec..."
