Sutherland Newsletter – August 9, 2007

1.Mero Recommends Three Options for UHSAA

To help legislators understand the relationship between the Utah High School Activities Association and the State Office of Education, Paul T. Mero, president of the Sutherland Institute, testified before the Administrative Rules Review Committee on August 13, 2007.  Mero said, “There will be no lasting solutions to the problems surrounding UHSAA, or even the State School Board for that matter, until this Legislature settles the case of who serves whom.”  He then offered three policy options to reform UHSAA and the broader system of interscholastic activities.  The options include:

  1. Sever the formal relationship between UHSAA and the State, and fold the functions delegated to the UHSAA into the State Office of Education.
  2. Maintain the formal relationship between UHSAA and the State, and require that the State Legislature appoint its Board of Trustees.
  3. Sever the formal relationship between UHSAA and the State and separate competitive athletics from high school budgets.

To read Mero’s full testimony, click here.


2.Mero’s Speech at International Conference Now Available to Wider Audience

In its prestigious monthly periodical, The Family in America, The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society has published a speech delivered by Sutherland Institute President Paul T. Mero at the World Congress of Families IV in Warsaw, Poland.  In the speech, “The Physics of the Natural Family: Why Families Don’t Fall Down,” Mero explained, “There are natural reasons why structures fall down or stay standing.  Every physical structure is governed by laws of nature and their existence can be explained through the science of physics.  Family structures are no exception to any of these laws or science. There are scientific reasons, quantifiable and empirical, why certain families fall down and why many others stay standing.”


3.Sutherland Distributes Global Warming Study to 10,000 Utahns

Some well-intentioned people would have you believe that the world is going to melt away due to global warming, but according to a study distributed locally by the Sutherland Institute, there is a lot of disagreement in the scientific community concerning causes and effects of climate change.

“To the degree we can provide some clarity to the discussion of global warming, especially in light of Governor Huntsman’s new initiatives, we want to be of help,” said Paul T. Mero, president of Sutherland Institute.  “Part of our role is to separate fact from fiction.  The truth is scientists are far from agreement about global warming.”

In a recent Heartland Institute publication, Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Results of an International Survey of Climate Scientists, Joseph L. Bast and James M. Taylor have compiled the work of two German environmental scientists.  Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey among more than 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries in both 1996 and 2003.  Their findings include:

  • Most scientists don’t believe scientific knowledge is sufficient to predict future climate
  • Most do not believe computer models “accurately verify climate conditions”
  • Most believe global warming would have some positive as well as negative effects
  • Most believe the science is too unsettled to form a basis for public policy

The summary of the results from the international surveys can be found at