Sutherland Institute submitted the following statement to Gov. Spencer J. Cox in response to calls for a ban on Critical Race Theory.

Good civics education policy already exists in the law. Let’s look locally to determine how well our schools are teaching what is required of them by law.

The last year has been dominated by concerns about health – not only from the COVID-19 pandemic, but also from the effects on well-being and mental health due to the social isolation the pandemic response has sometimes required.

This latest expression of federalism continues what the data suggest may be a new trend in American governance and civic affairs, illustrating that federalism remains alive and well in America.

This type of commitment to religious freedom by the Supreme Court, and by Congress in passing Title VII, is the reason the United States remains a beacon for respect of religious freedom to the entire world.

The fact that – despite what seems like political chaos coming out of Washington, D.C. – peaceful changes to the law continue each year without much disruption should add greatly to our peace of mind about the health of our society and our democratic republic.

Free college and debt cancellation – ultimately paid for by taxpayers – is the wrong approach to America’s student loan problem. Instead, we should reduce student loan debt by encouraging innovation in higher education that lowers college costs upfront.

Biden has wasted no time using the bully pulpit to call for reform during his first days in office. Of course, many of those reforms will take consensus from multiple branches and different levels of government in order to pan out. It remains to be seen whether the American people are willing to go in the direction that Biden wants to lead them.

We can no longer avoid this harsh truth: Despite the high value we place on education, we have allowed an atrophy to occur. We have ignored the gradual reduction of history and civics and accepted the erosion of content and context — and consequently, truth that enables leadership. This lack of accurate information leaves current and future generations unacceptably vulnerable to misinformation and disinformation.

The “do no harm” argument says that religious freedom should be pre-emptively restricted by government power and regulation in instances where there is risk that the exercise of religious freedom could harm someone, even in intangible ways. On paper it makes sense. But we don’t live on paper. We live in the real world.