Again, Illinois Family Institute wants to commend all those Naperville taxpayers who acted on their convictions, expressing their vigorous opposition to the Bill Ayers invitation. If only more communities would follow your example, we could effect positive change in our public schools by ridding them of the influence of political activists who seek to use public education to bring about cultural transformation in the direction of their values and beliefs.

Illinois Family Institute and many others were very happy that the administration at Naperville North decided to cancel the Bill Ayers speaking engagement, but I was troubled by two of the comments Superintendent Alan Leis made in his formal announcement.

He wrote that “parents and others have written urging us to continue with the event because they want students exposed to diverse viewpoints.” What troubles me about this claim is its transparent hypocrisy. Appeals to “exposing students to diverse viewpoints,” or “teaching the controversy,” or “fostering critical thinking,” or “honoring all voices” are only made in the service of exposing students to left-of-center, including far left-of-center ideas. These appeals are never made in the service of exposing students to conservative viewpoints, particularly on the topic of homosexuality, which is one of the topics on which “social justice” theory advances a left-of-center position.

Dr. Leis’ comment reminds me of a comment a teacher made in the Deerfield Review last year during the community brouhaha over the teaching of the obscene pro-homosexual polemic Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes at Deerfield High School. The faculty member who was teaching it, Jeff Berger-White, wrote this troubling statement: “There are going to be times during their years in high school, if we [teachers] are doing are [sic] jobs well, when most students should feel intellectually, emotionally, and even morally challenged.” He also said that “I’ve been given a lot of trust and autonomy in designing curriculum. It’s one of the chief pleasures of my job.”

What is curious about this statement is that it contradicts the very reasons teachers and administrators offer to justify their absolute refusal to expose students to any writing or speakers that espouse conservative viewpoints on the controversial topic of homosexuality while presenting them with numerous resources that espouse liberal viewpoints. So, which is it? Should teachers “expose students to diverse viewpoints,” “honor all voices,” “teach the controversy,” “foster critical thinking,” and “challenge students”–or not?

In public schools, homosexuality is the central topic on which faculty refuse to expose student to diverse viewpoints and one on which “social justice” theorists take a left-of-center position. Social justice proponents believe that those who experience same-sex attraction constitute a group of people defined, not by desire and volitional behavior, but by immutable, inherent traits. Social justice proponents believe, with no proof, that homosexuality is equivalent or analogous to race and biological sex, and that volitional homosexual conduct is moral conduct. And they believe that those who disagree with those unproven claims are “oppressors.”

Where you find an ardent proponent of “social justice” theory, you will often find someone who ardently seeks cultural affirmation of volitional homosexual conduct. It’s no surprise that Kermit Eby, the Naperville North teacher who invited Ayers, is the faculty sponsor of Naperville North’s gay-straight alliance.

Dr. Leis went on to say that “What was most unfortunate was that a few directed their anger toward an outstanding high school and at a well-regarded, award-winning teacher who encourages students to think for themselves.” Dr. Leis doesn’t elaborate who exactly regards this teacher well and on what basis they so regard him. Is it rebellious teens who hold liberal views that regard him positively, or is the positive regard widely held by both students and parents? Is the positive regard based on his likeable personality, or is it based on something more substantive such as a willingness to expose his students to diverse perspectives on controversial issues, which is one of the hallmarks of good teaching? Dr. Leis didn’t share precisely how Mr. Eby encourages students to think for themselves. Dr. Leis also did not elaborate on what award Kermit Eby won or what the selection criteria were for that award.

This “excellent teacher” defense is the same irrelevant defense that Deerfield High School’s administration used when Angels in America was challenged. I say irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the particular controversial decisions at issue. Is Dr. Leis suggesting that good teachers never make mistakes?

Even well-regarded teachers who have won prestigious awards are capable of serious errors in judgment, particularly once they allow their own personal socio-political values and motives to shape their classroom commentary and curricular choices, and once they relinquish commitments to honor all those parents who entrust their children to them. Is Dr. Leis willing and able to prove publicly and with evidence that Mr. Eby has not used curricula and classroom commentary to express and promote his own philosophical, moral, and political views?

Comments and decisions like those of Mr. Berger-White, Dr. Leis, and Mr. Eby raise a number of critical questions:

• Do we taxpayers believe that the job of good teachers is to challenge students emotionally and morally?What hubris for teachers to think their jobs involve challenging the morals of students. In so doing, they’re likely challenging the morals of parents who work hard to counter the effects of our corrosive culture as they struggle to train up their children in the way they should go–and who pay these teachers’ salaries.And how dare teachers presume to challenge the emotions of students who may be emotionally fragile for any number of reasons of which teachers are completely ignorant and which are none of their business.
• How much autonomy are we taxpayers obligated to grant teachers who demonstrate the lack of wisdom and judgment that far too many public school educators demonstrate?
• Has our trust been terribly misplaced?
• If teachers and administrators truly believe that it is their job to expose students to cultural controversies and diverse viewpoints as well as challenge students emotionally and morally in order to foster critical thinking, will they write policy to ensure that the diverse viewpoints to which students are exposed include conservative viewpoints? And will policy be written that prohibit the kind of political commentary that too many teachers engage in behind their closed classroom doors?

In my experience, activist ideologues in public schools count on conservatives becoming battle-fatigued and retreating after an intense skirmish. Then they continue with the status quo. It is only sustained vigilance and public pressure that can effect systemic changes.

We must be vigilant about what’s taking place in the schools we fund. We must pay attention to our children’s complaints about the political commentary that takes place in publicly subsidized classrooms. We must pay attention to curricula and even assemblies. We must examine school policy. We must examine the content of professional development opportunities that we subsidize, including the in-house Institute Day, late-arrival day, and summer workshops provided by school districts and the seminars, workshops, and conferences that teachers attend. If necessary, taxpayers should file Freedom of Information Act requests to access this information. “Social justice” ideologues use all of these contexts to advance their arguable beliefs, and they count on the apathy, busyness, ignorance, fear, and battle-fatigue of conservatives to achieve their dubious goals. We must persevere.