Public speakers urge Utah State Board of Education to rescind Resolution 2026-01

Multiple public commenters at the Utah State Board of Education's public comment period urged the board to rescind Resolution 2026-01, saying its language privileges religion, harms nonreligious students and risks violating the Constitution.

Douglas Hendricks, a former teacher, told the board he emailed members about “the problems with resolution 2026-01, which you passed on February the 5th,” and said the resolution’s language that “religious people are the only people capable of sustaining a free nation” harms students. Hendricks said he circulated a petition and provided the board with copies; he stated that 455 people had signed and also said elsewhere in his remarks that 454 other people had signed. He also said a lawyer had informed “Chairman Heimes” that the resolution is unconstitutional and urged the board to rescind it.

“Words matter. Students have committed suicide because people in authority told them things like what you said in your resolution,” Hendricks said as he asked the board to rescind the policy.

David Whitaker, a public commenter, echoed that the resolution sends a message that religious people are morally superior and suggested the board revise the resolution to retain affirmations about liberty while removing language that, in his view, promotes religion over nonreligion. Whitaker said the resolution “crosses … the church-state separation line” and urged the board to reword it.

Diane Ricky, a retired public school teacher with four decades of classroom experience, told the board the resolution denigrates nonreligious citizens and students and asked that it be rescinded. “Please, I urge you to rescind resolution 202601 and in the future, please refrain from promoting religion being taught in public schools,” she said.

Speakers did not record any formal board response during the public comment period. The public comment section closed and the board moved to the finance committee report.

Why it matters: Commenters say the resolution's language risks sending a harmful message to students and may raise constitutional concerns; several advocated for a reworded statement that affirms civic principles without promoting religion.

What the transcript shows: Multiple speakers explicitly named Resolution 2026-01 and asked that it be rescinded or revised; Hendricks presented petition materials to the board and cited legal counsel he said had labeled the resolution unconstitutional. The transcript contains one inconsistency on petition counts (Hendricks said both 455 and, elsewhere, 454 other people) and uses slightly different spellings/numbers for the resolution in places; this article uses the form “Resolution 2026-01” to refer to the item consistently.

Next steps: No formal board action was recorded during the public comment period; the meeting proceeded to the finance committee report.