3/13/2023

Last week’s curation at RealClear’s American Civics portal leads off with Hans Zeiger’s piece in National Review that was written in light of Civic Learning Week, the week of March 6. “Left, right, and center – we would all do well to reflect on the tradition that makes us shareholders in a great, diverse, and idealistic nation, and why we should each do our part to keep this tradition alive through civic education,” Zeiger argues. He notes that due to early 20th century Progressives, who challenged the basic premises of American self-government, and the more recent tilt toward STEM learning, civics and history have unfortunately been pushed to the sidelines in K-12 education. To counter this trend, Zeiger counsels educators to teach these key principles of the American Founding: equality, freedom, constitutionalism, and civic responsibility. “Each generation must take up the American political tradition and pass it along to the generation that follows,” he contends. “This is not a partisan responsibility or one that rests with one class or demographic – it is one that belongs to all of us.”

At Law & Liberty, Richard Samuelson continues his recent examination of civil rights laws and present American culture, asking this important question: “How can America accommodate the diversity of moral opinions we currently have?” The first of these rival views accepts “the notion that there are different ways of living well, and that a free society must give people space truly to live as their consciences dictate.” In the second, “[t]oleration means that one must actively support opinions that represent progress. It affirms certain doctrines and groups that present themselves in opposition to the old ways.” These warring views are obvious when considering the ongoing court battles with the Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who recently declined to make a cake celebrating a transgender transition, and NFL player Ivan Provorov, who declined to participate in his team’s Pride Night celebration due to his religious beliefs. Samuelson concludes by making the case that “to apply the methods our federal, state, and local governments employed against Jim Crow to what is, fundamentally, a religious fight over what it means to be human is a recipe for religious war.”