It is my hope that IFI subscribers will even read articles about schools other than their own. When I write about a problem in a particular school, I always address the problematic assumptions that underlie whatever particular issue I am addressing. Those assumptions need to be analyzed and understood because they are pervasive and will manifest sooner or later in problems in all schools.

My goal is to address the weaknesses in the arguments used to defend, for example, anti-bullying curricula that specifically address homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder, so that people will not be deceived and so that they will be equipped to confront the problems in their own public schools.

Last Thursday, I wrote an article about Beye Elementary School in Oak Park, exposing the pro-homosexual activism that has arrived on its doorstep and which will be arriving on the doorsteps of every elementary school unless taxpayers become educated and develop some spine.

In response, I received several negative emails which are reprinted (unedited) below followed by my responses to them. The reason I’m reprinting these emails and my responses is that the specious ideas and ad hominem arguments embodied in these emails are common and often effective in silencing conservative voices:

You guys crack me up. I find it appalling you’re using religion to justify bulling other people. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3) I think God wanted us as human beings to grow and learn and to better ourselves, not spend our time judging other people and why they do things. I’m not a baptized christian, but I grew up in a catholic school. When did men become the judges of other men? Food to think about while you go on your religious crusade to purify schools of the wicked. I can’t believe you all have the free time to sit around and bully others.

Don’t be a hater.

The message by Laurie Higgins on your website today is just what most Oak Parkers expect – and are more than ready to confront – from an intolerant advocacy group such as yours. Bring it on! You’ll that Oak Park is different – we strive to be a a safe haven from hate. We believe that love, respect, and tolerance indeed will triumph above all evil – including the small-minded evil (in the name of religion, no less!) promoted by the likes of the Illinois Family Institute. That’s how we – gay and straight – are raising our children in Oak Park. So stick to your conservative constituency and keep your gospel of hate away from Oak Park.

I am outraged at the misinformed and ignorant view that your organization promotes. The fact that you’ve hijacked the American flag for use on your website is also outrageous. Your views are wholly unamerican and hateful. They have more in common with Hitler’s 3rd reich than with the freedoms we celebrate here in the United States. I live in Oak Park and am proud of the diversity and acceptance of our village and its school districts… my children are fortunate to live, play and work with those who are different from them whether by race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. They are richer, wiser and BETTER human beings for it.

Just wanted to let you know that it is groups like yours that really make hating conservatives so easy.Beye School has every right to introduce their students to the reality of the world! Whether you believe in it or not, it exists and children need to understand what that means! That is their right and it’s not right for you to butt in and decide for the whole world what is right…God did not judge, neither did Jesus…so who gives you the right to do so?I am not gay nor do I have children, but I am glad that these students are getting information that I never got growing up…prejudices start young and your statements makes it clear where you stand on these issues. I am disappointed that you would think that making this charge helps your group. It certainly motivated me to write this to you to tell you the opposite. Bring it!

Are you a joke? Jesus would run back into the tomb if he met you people.

Those who wrote these emails are making the common mistake (or employing the common tactic) of arguing that moral disapproval of conduct constitutes hatred of persons or bullying. Nowhere in the text of my article is there anything to suggest that I hate those who self-identify as homosexual or that I advocate hatred. Similarly, nowhere in the text of my article–or my private conversations–have I ever or would I ever recommend bullying.

My beliefs about the morality of volitional homosexual acts have no bearing whatsoever on my feelings about persons. My beliefs about homosexuality do not diminish my recognition of the infinite worth of those who self-identify as homosexual, and my beliefs do not diminish the pleasure I take in their company or the respect I have for their admirable qualities.

Of course, those who make the specious claim that moral disapproval of conduct constitutes either hatred of persons or bullying never apply it consistently or to themselves. They never say, for example, that their moral disapproval of gossip, aggression, fornication, adultery, or polyamory constitutes hatred of those who engage in gossip, aggression, fornication, adultery, or polyamory.

Perhaps they hate those whose beliefs they disagree with or whose conduct they disapprove of, but they ought not project their habits or experiences on to others.

Contrary to what one of the writers asserted, the ideas that are promoted in public schools are my business and the business of every taxpayer. Every Illinois public school receives some state funds, and therefore every Illinois taxpayer should care deeply about what their hard-earned money subsidizes.

This same writer is absolutely wrong and presumptuous in her claim that the public servants who are employed by Beye School have “every right to introduce their students to the reality of the world.” This is an astounding claim. Are these “educators” going to introduce elementary school children to the reality of adult consensual incest, paraphilias, polyamory, and Tiger Woods?

No, the emailer is wrong: teachers have no right to introduce non-objective, non-factual, values-laden, unproven, controversial beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality to other people’s children.

What struck me as both troubling and ironic is her statement that “it is groups like yours that really make hating conservatives so easy.” It is this kind of hatred as well as the hostility in the email that said “Are you a joke? Jesus would run back into the tomb if he met you people,” and in the one in which I was called a “hater” that result in conservatives choosing to self-censor.

We must not yield to this kind of bullying. Into the vacuum that our silence creates, the other side continues to pour the lie that moral claims constitute hatred. We must speak the truth boldly, unequivocally, and persistently in order to protect children, preserve our rights, promote the health of society, and restore the integrity of public education.

Despite what one of the writers claimed, it is not I who is deciding what is right for the “whole world.” It is activist-educators who censor all resources that affirm the view that volitional homosexual acts are immoral, while at the same time presenting resources that affirm the views that homosexuality is ontologically analogous to race and morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Those activist-educators do not value philosophical diversity; nor are they interested in fostering critical thinking. They’re interested in using other people’s money to indoctrinate other people’s children with their socio-political vision.

Another writer accused me of being “un-American.” I’m quite certain that if she read our founding documents, she would find no statements of affirmation of volitional homosexual acts. The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal,” but not that all desires are worthy of respect, and certainly not that all forms of sexual conduct are worthy of respect.

I’m continually amazed at the misunderstanding and misapplication of Scripture. God, of course does judge. And when on earth, Jesus did judge between right and wrong conduct. For example, He said to the woman caught in adultery, “Go and sin no more.”

Followers of Christ are certainly not prohibited from making moral judgments. The erroneous claim that the Bible prohibits making judgments between right and wrong must be examined in light of the following verses: “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment” (John 7:24), and “The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks justice” (Psalms 37:30). “Judge not lest ye be judged” means that we are not to engage in unrighteous judgment. We are not to hypocritically condemn the speck in the eye of others while ignoring the plank in our own. We’re to recognize the universality of sin and offer forgiveness as we have been forgiven. This verse does not entail a refusal to judge between right and wrong behavior. It does not prohibit humans from making distinctions between moral and immoral conduct.

It’s absurd to claim that the Bible prohibits Christians from making statements about what constitutes moral conduct. If it did mean that, we could not say that slavery, racism, bestiality, polyamory, selfishness, fornication, adultery, aggression, incest, lust, or gossip is immoral, for surely those moral propositions constitute the kind of judging that repel my critics.

What is ironic is that both of the emails that claim that society ought not judge contained unambiguous judgments of both my beliefs and my actions.

Once we forfeit the right to make statements about what constitutes moral behavior, we forfeit the right to be parents, and we forfeit the right to a just society.

It was only a matter of time before homosexual activism infected elementary education here in Illinois. This cancerous activism appeared during a recent Institute Day at William Beye Elementary School in Oak Park during which Oak Park resident and lesbian, Shannon Sullivan, who is the Executive Director of the Illinois Safe Schools Network, was invited to speak to the entire faculty.

During her biased presentation, Sullivan showed the film That’s a Family, which I too have seen. It was shown at a professional development workshop at Deerfield High School when I worked there, and it angered more than a few staff members. Our workshop was organized by our homosexual director of technology, which should help put to rest the silly claim that the sexual orientation of our educators is irrelevant.

That’s a Family implicitly espouses the offensive claim that families led by homosexuals are morally equivalent to those led by guardians, disabled parents, racial minorities, or heterosexuals. Some teachers at Beye are planning on showing this piece of political propaganda to their elementary students, citing the presence of families led by homosexuals in the Oak Park community as justification. But simply because a particular family structure exists does not require public educators either to discuss it or affirm it. Watch an excerpt from the film here.

Also, spend a few minutes wandering around the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance website to see how very busy Shannon Sullivan is in her efforts to use public schools as well asIllinois colleges and universities that train future teachers to promote her socio-political vision. Here’s just one of her efforts:

The P Project is a partnership between the Alliance and an advisory board of representatives from Illinois colleges and universities involved in pre-professional preparation of teachers, counselors and social workers. Gathering data on the status of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer (GLBTQ) issues in pre-professional education, The P Project aims to support Illinois colleges and universities in further inclusion of diversity issues into their curricula in more meaningful ways. For more information, or to join The P Project, please contact Shannon Sullivan.

In addition, on Tues, Jan.19 at 7:00 p.m., Sullivan will be presenting the “Welcoming Schools” program to parents, which is a curriculum developed by the well-funded pro-homosexual political lobbying organization: the Human Rights Campaign (That last fact was omitted from the PTO newsletter).

According to the PTO newsletter, “it is important that all children attend schools in which they learn to appreciate and respect human differences…[Sullivan] will discuss how…parents can support Beye’s efforts to strengthen the approach to family diversity while lessening gender stereotyping and bullying.”

From this statement, astute readers can infer that Ms. Sullivan likely affirms both homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder (aka “transgenderism”). “Lessening gender stereotyping” is common code language for affirming transgenderism and trans-sexuality, which means that Ms. Sullivan likely supports the absurd notion that those people who experience Gender Identity Disorder, are actually born in the wrong body. Furthermore, she may want to use public education to affirm this radical, destructive theory to other people’s children.

“Diversity” simply means difference. There is nothing inherently positive about “diversity.” “Family Diversity” is a term that obscures the politically incorrect truth that not all family structures are worthy of appreciation or respect. Some differences are good, some differences are bad, and some are neutral. The forms of diversity of which Ms. Sullivan is enamored are, in the view of many people, profoundly wrong; and public schools have no right to use school hours, school resources, and public money to affirm Ms. Sullivan’s unproven, divisive theories to children. The administration has no right to impose these unproven, divisive, and often religious beliefs, on teachers through Institute Day presentations or any other professional development workshops that focus on “anti-bullying” or “diversity.” And administrators have no right to expect or compel teachers to share Sullivan’s subversive ideas with young children, many of whose parents have political, philosophical, moral, or religious beliefs that conflict with them.

There are increasing numbers of polyamorous families in this country. Are public schools going to seek to “approach” that form of “family diversity”? Is everyone expected to respect and appreciate this family configuration simply because polyamorists have decided it’s worthy of respect? If children being raised in polyamorous families are mocked, are schools going to expose all students to anti-bullying curricula that affirm polyamory? Does disapproval of polyamory people or poly-households constitute ignorant prejudice and hatred?

The answer to all those questions–at least for now–is decidedly “no.”

Administrators would not feel compelled to affirm polyamory even to end bullying. They intuitively know that anti-bullying curricula that specifically mention polyamory would go much further than merely curtailing bullying; they would contribute to undermining the view that polyamory is immoral. This is precisely what homosexual activists know, and the naïve conservative community does not.

No–administrators would seek to find ways to curtail bullying while maintaining the view that polyamory is immoral.

Elementary schools should not in any context introduce homosexuality or Gender Identity Disorder to children. I would argue that schools that affirm either implicitly or explicitly the following ideas are engaging in irresponsible, unethical, presumptuous, and perhaps unconstitutional moral indoctrination:

• The theory that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to skin-color or race
• The theory that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality
• The theory that families led by homosexuals are morally equivalent to families led by heterosexuals
• The idea that moral disapproval of homosexuality constitutes ignorance, bias, prejudice, hatred, bullying, or harassment
• The idea that expressions of moral disapproval of homosexuality should be prohibited

Since many who affirm homosexuality attend churches that embrace “gay theology,” I would argue that the charge so often leveled at conservative people of faith should be extended to liberal people of faith, which is that schools that affirm homosexuality violate the separation of church and state by imposing the religious views of some on all children.

And if public schools, either implicitly or explicitly, convey the idea that disapproval of homosexuality is wrong or harmful, I would argue that they are coming dangerously close to violating the separation of church and state, in that many Muslims, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants believe that homosexuality is wrong and harmful. When schools teach, either implicitly or explicitly, the unprovable belief that homosexuality is moral or that disapproval of homosexuality is immoral, they are teaching many children that their religious beliefs are wrong.

All District 97 taxpayers should be outraged by this egregious usurpation of public money (remember, taxpayers subsidized the Institute Day presentation) and class time to advance the social, political, moral, and philosophical views of Ms. Sullivan, the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, and the Human Rights Campaign.

Beye parents should give explicit instructions to their children’s teachers that under no circumstances should their children be exposed to any resources, activities, or classroom discussions that address homosexuality or Gender Identity Disorder. And all District 97 taxpayers who oppose the introduction of false, controversial, and age-inappropriate ideas to Beye Elementary School children should contact the following people to express civilly your unequivocal opposition:

Take ACTION: Call Principal Jonathan Ellwanger at: (708) 524- 3070

Concerned taxpayers, parents, future parents, and especially fathers, need to respond to this insidious attempt to capture the hearts and minds of children. “Safe schools” initiatives are the Trojan horse for getting subversive theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality into our schools. Those who support these initiatives never reveal that the means by which they seek to curtail bullying is by eradicating the true belief that homosexuality is immoral.

Public education is rife with problems, but perhaps none quite as prevalent as pro-homosexual advocacy which infects schools from elementary through high schools, from small schools to large, and from poorly performing urban schools to affluent, prestigious suburban schools.

What may provide one of the links between all these seemingly diverse educational contexts are the departments of education through which all public school teachers must pass. An article published in December 2009 in the Music Educators Journal provides a glimpse into the troubling and presumptuous goals of just one of our nation’s educator-ideologues: Professor Louis Bergonzi, Chair of the Music Education Division at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

His article is entitled “Sexual Orientation and Music Education: Continuing a Tradition,” and his thesis is that music education can be improved by “acknowledging other sexual orientations, specifically, homosexuality.” He believes that it’s time to “Consider the beneficial presence of…musicians, colleagues, and students…whose emotional, romantic, and physical attractions are to…the same sex.” He explains that his article focuses on “high school students and teachers” but is relevant to all educational levels.

He asks “Isn’t it time…to examine how homophobia and heterocentrism bias our curricular content and the lives and work of LGBT teachers? Isn’t it time we eliminate heterosexuality’s privileged place in our profession?”

Professor Bergonzi writes on his faculty bio page that “the beliefs that guide my music education actions-as-teaching include viewing schools as agencies of social progress.” This activist professor seeks to use public money and the minds and hearts of other people’s children to engage in the radical, subversive activity of eliminating heterosexuality’s privileged place.

Professor Bergonzi took umbrage at the criticism of his pedagogical philosophy that appeared in a very short article for OneNewsNow in which I made three brief comments. On the website Buzzflash, Bergonzi indignantly huffed to writer Bill Berkowitz, “‘Linking me to Ayers seems as an attempt at guilt by association…It’s a bit ironic that groups attempting to link me to terrorism are themselves on the watch list of the highly respected Southern Poverty Law Center.'” There’s a lot to contend with in that brief quote:

• First, I did not link Professor Bergonzi to Ayer’s terrorist activity. Rather, I clearly linked Professor Bergonzi’s pedagogical position to Ayer’s educational malfeasance that manifests through Ayer’s promotion of critical pedagogy which views teachers as agents of social change.
• Second, Illinois Family Institute is not on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate groups list.
• Third, the Southern Poverty Law Center is respected only among political liberals–those who ironically call themselves “progressives.” To read more about Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center, click here, here, here, here, and here.

In responding to my challenge to his belief that teachers should think of themselves as agents of social change, Bergonzi offers this remarkable defense: “‘What’s contemptuous about my story as an example of school as agencies of social progress?…A first-generation immigrant child goes to college because they [sic] attended a great school district and earned scholarships based on talents s/he worked to develop with the help of their school teachers? So, what’s wrong with schools as agents of social progress?'” Apparently, Bergonzi sees no distinction between immigrants earning scholarships based on talents and public school teachers promoting a-historical, divisive, and unproven theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality.

Bergonzi goes on to ask “‘Would there be so many mission-driven or religious-based private schools if it were not, in part, because parents want their children and their society to progress in a certain way?'” Here, Bergonzi starts to make sense: private schools have every right to promote whatever theories on whatever issues they deem appropriate. But public schools that use public funds have no such right. Public school employees have no right to use public money to undermine the philosophical, political, or moral beliefs of other people’s children.

Bergonzi futilely claimed that “‘[T]he approach I took of my article was not to sermonize about what music teachers should do.'” Oh, really.
Bergonzi has a section in his article entitled “Privileges for Heterosexual Music Teachers” in which he identifies sixteen privileges. Here are just a few:

• Heterosexual teachers may speak freely about their personal life and activities in response to a student’s innocent question.
• Heterosexual teachers may use stories from their personal life in their teaching, without editing.
• Heterosexual teachers do not have to worry that parents will be upset that they talked about their life partner.
• Heterosexual teachers may put pictures of their spouse/family on their office wall or desk.
• Heterosexual teachers may kiss their boyfriends/girlfriends/wives/husbands good-bye in front of the school building.
• Heterosexual teachers may invite their partners to go along on school trips and tours.
• Heterosexual teachers can have their spouse leave a message on the music office answering machine that ends with “Love you” without worrying that a student may hear it.
• Heterosexual teachers can give out their home phone numbers and not worry about people’s reactions when their spouses answer the phone.

Although this list does not constitute a “how to” on achieving these goals, it does seem to constitute a mini-sermon on the goals Professor Bergonzi would like to pursue. It seems clear that Bergonzi would like those teachers who volitionally embrace homosexuality and its philosophical underpinnings to have all the “privileges” he lists, and he sees music education as a means to achieving these goals.

When Bergonzi claims that “the music education profession should contribute to societal development by affirming..future generations,” is he claiming that music teachers should affirm all desires, attractions, and impulses that students experience? Should music teachers affirm polyamory in order that polyamorous students feel affirmed? Should music teachers use curricula to undermine the privilege that monogamy enjoys?

When he claims that music educators “should consider how [they] might improve the work they do by acknowledging homosexuality,” it’s clear that he really means “affirming homosexuality.” He does not mean that teachers should merely “acknowledge” homosexuality. He points to the “internalized self-hatred and emotional pain” that students who identify as homosexual experience as a result of bullying. But Bergonzi fails to acknowledge that there is an ocean of difference between ending bullying and affirming homosexuality. In his conflation of ending bullying and affirming homosexuality, he exposes the truth that homosexual activists successfully conceal, which is that the means they use to end bullying is to try to eradicate the moral conviction that volitional homosexual acts are immoral.

Bill Ayers has this to say about education:

[T]he fundamental message of the teacher is this: you can change your life-whoever you are, wherever you’ve been, whatever you’ve done, another world is possible. As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly…: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large…education is never neutral. It always has a value, a position, a politics. Education either reinforces or challenges the existing social order, and school is always a contested space – what should be taught? In what way? Toward what end? By and for whom?

Does this not sound just a wee bit like the ideas embodied in Professor Begonzi’s article?

And Professor Bergonzi is just getting started with his revolution: In May, 2010, he is the co-sponsor of a symposium held at the University of IL (Urbana-Champaign)on Establishing Identity: LGBT Studies and Music Education. Here are a few of the sample topics for which they are seeking paper proposals: Queer Representation in Music Education Curricula; Coming Out: Role and Power of the Institution; Queer Politics Inside and Outside of the Academy; Legal Issues of Being a LGBT Music Educator; and What Do I Know and Teach About Homosexuality.

I would like to submit the radical proposal that society suffers when it comes to believe that positive self-regard trumps virtue. And I would like to submit the radical proposal that if we wish to preserve a stable, healthy society, our government institutions should “privilege” heterosexuality.

IFI readers with memories like steel traps may remember the names of Stevenson High School English teachers Melissa Mack and Bill Fritz. For those, like me, who have memories like steel sieves, Bill Fritz is the sponsor of Stevenson’s Gay Straight Alliance and one of the sponsors of last year’s first dance for students who identify as homosexual. Melissa Mack is the Stevenson High School teacher who circulated an email to the entire faculty of Stevenson High School in which she denounced IFI for being “an extreme fringe group” and said that my article about the dance constituted a “hate-filled opinion from someone who supports book-banning” and “can only be characterized as ignorant prejudice.” All this because I expressed the view that public schools have no business either implicitly or explicitly affirming particular views of the nature and morality of homosexuality. You can read about last year’s brouhaha here and here.

Well, Mr. Fritz and Ms. Mack show no signs of ceasing their exploitation of public money to advance their personal views on controversial issues. They each co-taught dubious workshops at the November National Council for Teachers of English (NCTE) conference held in Philadelphia.

Background
Here is the description of one of the workshops that Stevenson teachers led and Stevenson taxpayers likely subsidized:

CONFRONTING OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL IN THE CLASSROOM (S)

Teachers are often hesitant to teach works with merit that contain controversial material. These presenters will argue that in order to prepare students to become responsible citizens of a world where they are exposed to disturbing, confusing, often frightening realities, it is imperative to teach them how to deal with sensitive issues.

Chair:
Jennifer Arias Sweeney, Adlai E. Stevenson High School, Lincolnshire, Illinois

Presenters:
Jeremy Gertzfield, Adlai E. Stevenson High School, Lincolnshire, Illinois
Melissa Mack, Adlai E. Stevenson High School, Lincolnshire, Illinois

This workshop raises several questions:

• Who decided that in order to prepare students to become responsible citizens of a disturbing, confusing, frightening world, it is imperative for educators/ideologues to teach controversial material?
• How, pray tell, did students during, say, the disturbing, confusing, frightening WWII years manage to become responsible citizens without being taught controversial material?
• Who decided that one of the tasks of English teachers is to teach students how to deal with sensitive issues, and what qualifications do they have for such an undertaking?
• How is Ms. Mack, who widely shared her view that conservatives are fringe extremists, ignorant, and hateful, qualified to teach students how to deal with controversial issues sensitively?
• Why do teachers who hold these beliefs rarely if ever teach controversial material that intelligently articulates conservative views?
• Why do teachers who hold these beliefs not feel compelled by the realities of this frightening world to spend equal time on and present equivalent resources from all sides of controversial issues?

Here is the other workshop presented by Stevenson teachers and paid for by hard-working District 125 taxpayers. This workshop was listed in the NCTE program in the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender” (LGBT) category:

CONFABULATING THE CLASSICS
LGBT

Presenters in this session will offer a hands-on demonstration of tools and techniques for opening up the classics to be more inclusive of students who may not, on the surface, feel included in the teaching of the classics–students of different ethnicities, economic backgrounds, and sexual orientations. Using these techniques can empower teachers to help diverse students become reflective and critical participants in their own learning.

Presenters:
William Fritz, Adlai E. Stevenson High School, Lincolnshire, Illinois
David Jacobson, Adlai E. Stevenson High School, Lincolnshire, Illinois
Lisa Lukens, Adlai E. Stevenson High School, Lincolnshire, Illinois
Jennifer Arias Sweeney, Adlai E. Stevenson High School, Lincolnshire, Illinois

Once again sexual desires that many consider disordered and volitional sexual behavior that many consider immoral are included with other conditions that are utterly devoid of moral implications: race and economic backgrounds.

What special “tools and techniques” are necessary to teach the classics to students who experience same-sex attraction? What possible relevance do their sexual impulses and sexual behavior have on either teaching or understanding Shakespeare, Dickens, and Austen? And although Horace and Juvenal, for example, have something specific to say about homosexuality, no special tools or techniques are necessary to teach their texts to students who experience same-sex attraction.

The Stevenson teachers who presented this workshop likely hold a number of unproven, faith-based, controversial, and fallacious assumptions pertaining to homosexuality which they are using public money to promote. It’s safe to assume that they believe that homosexuality is a 100% heritable condition; that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality; that homosexuality constitutes an immutable and morally defensible “identity” analogous to race; that disapproval of volitional homosexual acts is equivalent to racism; that conservatives hate homoesexuals; and that even an intelligent, articulate exposition of conservative views that explicitly renounces hatred and violence will result in hatred and violence toward homosexuals.

What’s also troubling is that while these teachers exploit their access to public funds to promote their unproven, subversive beliefs to teens, no taxpayers demand that they provide justification and evidence for the assumptions that guide their teaching. These “educators” have every right to harbor whatever destructive and erroneous theories they want on the nature and morality of homosexuality or on the nature and morality of conservative views. They have no right, however, to use their publicly subsidized jobs to promote them.

Stevenson English teachers have politicized curricula and pedagogy at taxpayers’ and students’ expense. The unconscionable exploitation of public money by activist ideologues to advance their own controversial, unproven moral and political beliefs through their classroom comments, their curricular selections, and the workshops they attend and lead must stop.

All Illinois public schools receive state funds, which means all of us subsidize the mischief of activists like Mack, Fritz, and their accomplices. Please contact Superintendent Eric Twadell, Principal Janet Gonzalez, and the District 125 School Board to express your opposition to this use of public money.

Taxpayers in every school district should pay close attention to the professional development opportunities offered to staff and faculty on late arrival days, Institute Days, and during summer workshops; and taxpayers should pay close attention to the workshops, conferences, and seminars that faculty members attend and teach–particularly English and social studies teachers.

The public has both a right and an obligation to know about these expenditures since they’re paying for them. If an email request to the administration, asking for the content and costs of professional development activities (including the cost of travel, lodging, food, registration fees, teacher-training, and substitute teachers) does not yield an adequate response, please consider filing a Freedom of Information Act request to access this information.

Make A Tax-Deductible Donation
The work of the Illinois Family Institute is completely underwritten through the voluntary generosity and shared blessings of pro-family citizens. IFI operates on a modest annual budget, which represents the greatest need for your support. We operate with a small, full-time staff, and we hire additional part-time legislative staff to assist us during the General Assembly.

To help our work for Illinois’ families continue, please send your donation today:

• DONATE ONLINE HERE — It’s safe, fast and secure!
• DOWNLOAD OUR MONTHLY GIVING FORM AND MAIL OR FAX IT IN TO             (708) 781-9376
• CALL US:             (708) 781-9328

There is a concerted effort on the part of proponents of “critical race theory” to erode respect for America through public education. Critical race theory, also known as “teaching for social justice” pervades departments of education all around the country. Unapologetic former Weather Underground domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, who is a professor of Education at University of Illinois at Chicago, is a central figure in the effort to use our taxes to promote critical race theory in public schools.

Ayers has disciples who you can often recognize by their job titles. In Seattle, WA in 2007, Caprice Hollins, the district’s “director of Equity, Race & Learning Support,” generated a controversy when she sent an article entitled “Deconstructing the Myths of ‘the First Thanksgiving'” to all staff and faculty in a Seattle school district. More recently, and much closer to home, District 113’s (where else) Andrea Johnson used her spanking new highly paid position as Director of Diversity to send this very same polemical article from the organization, Oyate, to every staff and faculty member of Deerfield and Highland Park High Schools.

If this article were merely an unbiased historical account intended to correct factual inaccuracies, no one would find it troubling. But it’s not. From the inaccuracies in the document masquerading as facts to the factual omissions to the distinctly non-neutral tone, authors Judy Dow and Beverly Slapin reveal their strident biases:

Why is it seen as necessary for fake “pilgrims” and fake “Indians”…to sit down every year to a fake feast, acting out fake scenarios and reciting fake dialogue about friendship?… Is it because as Americans we have a deep need to believe that the soil we live on and the country on which it is based was founded on integrity and cooperation? This belief would help contradict any feelings of guilt that could haunt us when we look at our role in more recent history in dealing with other indigenous peoples in other countries.

The repetition or echo of the word “fake” reinforces the authors’ view that the entire Thanksgiving reenactment that children have enjoyed for decades is inauthentic and offensive. Their rhetorical question regarding our country’s founding is really a non-factual assertion that America’s founding was an illegitimate adventure devoid of integrity or any spirit of cooperation. They more than imply that America continues its practice of exploiting indigenous peoples–a claim straight out of the critical race theory playbook, which Sol Stern exposes in his article “Pedagogy of the Oppressor.”

Myth #3 in “Deconstructing the Myths of ‘the first Thanksgiving'” is that “the colonists came seeking freedom of religion in a new land.” The “facts,” according to Dow and Slapin, are a series of non-sequiturs and statements irrelevant to the myth they are attempting to refute:

The colonists were not just innocent refugees from religious persecution. By 1620, hundreds of Native people had already been to England and back, most as captives; so the Plimoth colonists knew full well that the land they were settling on was inhabited. Nevertheless, their belief system taught them that any land that was “unimproved” was “wild” and theirs for the taking; that the people who lived there were roving heathens with no right to the land. Both the Separatists and Puritans were rigid fundamentalists who came here fully intending to take the land away from its Native inhabitants and establish a new nation, their “Holy Kingdom.” The Plimoth colonists were never concerned with “freedom of religion” for anyone but themselves.

Sometimes what passes for scholarship baffles the mind. This purported refutation of a myth demonstrates almost no logic and provides no evidence for the authors’ odd claim that the “colonists” did not come seeking freedom of religion.

The authors take a stab at creating the illusion of impartiality when they say that “Neither [the Europeans nor the Wampanoags] totally trusted the other.” But then they offer their “factual” explanation for the mutual mistrust:

The Europeans considered the Wampanoag soulless heathens and instruments of the devil, and the Wampanoag had seen the Europeans steal their seed corn and rob their graves.

According to Dow and Slapin, the Europeans didn’t trust the Indians because the Europeans thought bad things, and the Indians didn’t trust the Europeans because the Europeans did bad things. The unifying theme is that Europeans were bad.

No mention in any of the “fact” sections of any of the savage acts of the Wampanoags.

In the concluding “fact” section following “Myth # 11,” which is “Thanksgiving is a happy time,” the authors offer this “factual” statement:

For many Indian people, “Thanksgiving” is a time of mourning, of remembering how a gift of generosity was rewarded by theft of land and seed corn, extermination of many from disease and gun, and near total destruction of many more from forced assimilation. As currently celebrated in this country, “Thanksgiving” is a bitter reminder of 500 years of betrayal returned for friendship.

The fact is that the first Thanksgiving celebrated by the pilgrims took place fewer than 400 years ago, so it’s a little bit fuzzy what the polemicists Dow and Slapin are referring to with the 500-year reference.

But more important, it is not a fact that Thanksgiving as currently celebrated in this country is a bitter reminder of betrayal. It would take hours and hours of critical race theory propaganda to get American children–even those who have Native American heritages–to view our Thanksgiving celebrations as betrayal.

If we can convince critical race proponents to pursue their identity/grievance politics on their own time and their own dime, and if we can stop critical race “agents of change” from using other people’s children to effect cultural change in the direction of their own distorted social and political vision, American children will continue to enjoy Thanksgiving celebrations.

Our elementary school celebrations, though not perfect recreations of the first Thanksgiving, have long honored the significant contributions Native American peoples made to the survival of the pilgrims. And until recently our public school celebrations taught the fact that the pilgrims’ first Thanksgiving was a humble offer of sincere thankfulness to God for his merciful provision.

Parents, whether you have elementary, middle, or high school students, ask them if their teachers mentioned or discussed Thanksgiving or if they distributed any handouts about Thanksgiving. Ask your children what their teachers said and ask them to see handouts. If you discover that the kind of ideas discussed here were presented to your children, contact the teacher/s and administration to express your strong opposition to efforts to exploit public education for partisan political purposes that undermine respect for America.

Make A Tax-Deductible Donation
The work of the Illinois Family Institute is completely underwritten through the voluntary generosity and shared blessings of pro-family citizens. IFI operates on a modest annual budget, which represents the greatest need for your support. We operate with a small, full-time staff, and we hire additional part-time legislative staff to assist us during the General Assembly.

To help our work for Illinois’ families continue, please send your donation today:

• DONATE ONLINE HERE — It’s safe, fast and secure!
• DOWNLOAD OUR MONTHLY GIVING FORM AND MAIL OR FAX IT IN TO (708) 781-9376
• CALL US:  (708) 781-9328

It was suggested to me that I file a Freedom of Information Act request with the school district for which I worked for a decade and which my four children attended. It was suggested that I request documents that mentioned my name. Neither I nor my husband was prepared for what we read in district emails, which are, of course, public documents.

The district is District 113 which is composed of Deerfield High School (DHS) in Deerfield, IL and Highland Park High School (HPHS) in Highland Park, IL, both affluent Chicago suburbs. I worked full-time in the writing center and was a member of the DHS English Department.

These emails resulted from my criticism of public education in general or District 113 in particular for promoting exclusively liberal views of the nature and morality of homosexuality; for promoting “critical race theory” or “critical social theory”; and for failing to provide balance on these two topics, both in terms of resources presented to students as well as to staff and faculty through professional development opportunities. The views I expressed are held by many across the country, including many prominent scholars; and I expressed them openly, either directly to the administration and school board or in public forums like the Chicago Tribune, Pioneer Press, or pro-family websites.

There are two reasons I am making public the content of some of these emails:

First, the public needs to be aware of the ways that activist educators who profess to value diversity and honor all voices really think about those who hold conservative views. All taxpayers, but particularly conservative taxpayers, need to understand that hatred of conservative views results in censorship in curricula and worse.

Second, there are District 113 employees who demonstrate a degree of incivility, intolerance, hatred, or lack of professionalism that is truly shocking. They engage in what can only be described as cyber-bullying–malicious, defamatory behavior for which students would be disciplined if they engaged in it.

I will allow those who are running our schools, teaching our children, extolling respect, tolerance, diversity, and inclusivity, and whose salaries are paid by the public, to speak in their own voices. I offer only brief parenthetical comments in red italics following some of the emails. I have identified the “sexual orientation” of openly homosexual teachers or administrators in the hope of disabusing IFI readers of the notion that the sexual orientation of educators is irrelevant. Some names of people were redacted from the emails by the district law firm. They will be identified as “redacted”:

From Superintendent George Fornero to DHS English teacher who taught Angels in America, Jeff Berger-White: “This is mostly an FYI however I found it strange. Its [sic] from a community activist in Highland Park who knows a friend of a friend of Lauries [sic].

And then Fornero forwarded this email to Berger-White:

I have a pretty good idea that she doesn’t care for Jews. [Laurie’s son], now in his 20’s was seeing a Jewish girl when he was 13. Even though they were a couple in school, he was not allowed to attend her bat mitzvah ceremony because he was not allowed to step foot in a temple. I guess the contamination would have spread to his pure heart nor did he attend her celebration-probably too many Christ killers there. [This is an abhorrent, malignant lie. Not in my private or public words or in my interactions with colleagues or students have I ever expressed anti-Semitic views. Growing up, my son had more than one girlfriend and many close buddies who were Jewish, and he attended countless bat and bar mitzvahs, as did my other children. In addition, unlike some parents, I required my children to attend the religious ceremony if they wanted to attend the evening celebration. How are the anti-Christian slurs in this email any less offensive than anti-Semitic slurs? And how could a superintendent forward a gossipy, pernicious, libelous email like this to anyone, let alone another district employee?]

From openly homosexual HPHS teacher Paul Swanson to openly homosexual superintendent George Fornero: “I’ve said it before–I could silently work with a gay attorney advising me–and I wouldn’t represent the district. I just want to debate her….OK, never around a board election. But I’m dying to take her on…. Hey, what about if next year I teach Angels as an act of solidarity. It wouldn’t hit [redacted] his first year, and it would show them they didn’t win because they didn’t. You stood up to them! OR how about I teach something really gay, but not really sexual.”

Paul Swanson to George Fornero: “cmon————–I want the American Civil Liberties Union on [Laurie’s] ass so fast–that’s the way to get her–get the big guns to do it. There must be someone in the area who’s connected to the Anti-Defimation [sic] League. [This reveals that Swanson believes that my views either are or should be illegal. That should trouble taxpayers.]

Paul Swanson to George Fornero: “I have a name/word for this woman and I cannot put it in print.”

HPHS teacher’s aide Beth Avraham to HPHS Spanish teacher, Mr. Robin Oliver: “[LAURIE] IS ONE SICK PUPPY!!!!!! Some Christian!!!!!! I hope she burns in the hell she believes in–what a sick bitch….”

Beth Avraham to Robin Oliver: “That bitch actually told me to my face that my brother would burn in hell. She is such a sicky….She will eventually get what she deserves….I just wish I could be there to see it happen. [I knew Beth and thought we were friends. Clearly, I was wrong. One point of clarification: I have never said anything about her brother to her or anyone else. I know nothing about her brother, and I never use language like the language she ascribed to me. These comments epitomize the hypocrisy of those who self-righteously proclaim their commitment to tolerance while at the same time calling those who hold different moral convictions hateful names.]

Beth Avraham to Robin Oliver: “We have a lot of non-thinking, pee-brained, stupid, hateful ignorant duds walking around this earth who have nothing else to do but to cause trouble for others.”

DHS social worker Bonnie Mollison to DHS English Department aide Mary Boote: “Thank you for sending this pathology on to me, it has opened my eyes.” [To read what a public school social worker views as “pathological” click here]

Openly homosexual DHS assistant principal Lilly Brandt to superintendent George Fornero: “LOL… [Laurie’s] laying the groundwork for opening up the next front–Laramie Project.

“It’s been a long seven years…remember that this BEGAN LONG before you were here…back in the Linda Hansen days with the Heidi Chronicles, my first year in the district…welcome to DHS!.

“Every year, they have been chipping away and chipping away. So, when we ask ourselves, ‘at what cost?’ the answer must come not from looking only at Angels in America, but from looking at the entire seven years worth of anti-homosexual harassment that the system (and DHS particularly) has endured.” [The three plays Brandt references are obscene, profane, pro-homosexual plays that have been taught at both high schools.]

HPHS assistant principal Tom Koulentes to George Fornero: “The hatred displayed in this letter is surpassed only by the ignorance.” [This was a response to a very brief email I sent to District 113 administrators and school board members in which I criticized District 113’s promotion of the SEED program and Glenn Singleton’s “critical race theories.” There is not one word of hatred in it, and I would be happy to provide a copy of it to anyone who is interested.]

From [redacted] to George Fornero (subject: as per school board member Harvey Cohen’s suggestion): “After we talked today I received a copy of a letter that Laurie Higgins sent Stu Senescu, the president of the caucus….I guess [Laurie] is now more focused on the board than Deerfield High School. I wonder if this will motivate her to find a candidate to back. Harvey and I are at odds on who can be on the board. Laurie and I both think that board members cannot work for the district nor can their spouses. Harvey tells me that there is no rule against it. If Harvey is correct, please do not spread the news until it is too late to file petitions. [This community member was trying to prevent either me or my husband from running for the school board, and she was involving Superintendent Fornero in the manipulative effort. They surely wouldn’t want any philosophical diversity on the school board.]

From expensive San Francisco diversity consultant Glenn Singleton to George: “I am not sure how healthy my reading the venom-filled, slanderous remarks of Laurie and her spouse are.” [Neither I nor my husband have ever sent a “venom-filled or slanderous” email to George about Singleton or anyone else.]

Superintendent George Fornero to Glenn Singleton: “Welcome to White Suburbia!”

Robin Oliver to George Fornero: “What is this IFI and why are they so repugnant in their views?”

There are yet more deeply disturbing emails, but, unfortunately, I can’t reveal them. Highland Park High School Spanish teacher Robin Oliver, whom I have never met, sent two reprehensible emails to George Fornero and Paul Swanson that I will not make public because the information he discussed would be terribly painful to family members of mine who have no connection to any district issues.

And before now, I have revealed to very few people that about a year before I was demoted at Deerfield High School, I was told by then principal Sue Hebson that I was prohibited–as either a staff member or community member–from speaking to any staff or faculty members other than her or George Fornero about any district concerns I might have. So much for free speech and diversity.

All of this–from the adolescent gossiping to the attempt to manipulate a school board election to the malicious vitriol–are responses to my criticism of the district’s sustained promotion of critical race theory (i.e., social justice theory a la Glenn Singleton and Peggy McIntosh); its relentless promotion of liberal views of homosexuality; and its refusal to present resources from scholars who hold dissenting views on these topics.

What these emails reveal is the utter hypocrisy of administrators and teachers who publicly claim that they value diversity, promote tolerance, and treat all with respect, while privately scorning and deriding those who hold dissenting views. Tragically, these are not the only public school administrators and faculty members who share these views and engage in such malevolent rhetoric. They just happen to be the ones who got caught.

My personal feelings about these revelations are unimportant. The integrity and professionalism of district employees and the sincerity of their claims regarding tolerance, respect, diversity, inclusivity, intellectual inquiry, and critical thinking are, however, important.

If District 113 taxpayers choose not to address the serious pedagogical failings exposed in these emails or the ethical breaches these emails reveal about some district employees who engage in unprofessional, irresponsible, manipulative, and hateful behavior, then I guess they will have the kind of school climate they deserve–one in which conservative views are censored and in which, behind-the–scenes, conservatives are savaged. It’s too bad for students, especially those who hold conservative world views. They deserve better.

It really is time for government schools to collapse under their own corrupt weight.

Last week, IFI was alerted to the fact that some School District 204 (Naperville, Aurora, Bolingbrook, & Plainfield) middle schools were participating in a diversity day last week. The person who contacted us thought that it would be a good idea for IFI to make this information known to District 204 parents.

On Thursday morning, I called six of the seven District 204 middle schools, leaving messages with six principals and two assistant principals. I explained that I worked for the Illinois Family Institute, that we had been contacted about this diversity day, and that I had some questions about it. Only one principal, Kathy Kosteck from Scullen Middle School, returned my call.

She expressed surprise that anyone would have concerns about a diversity day, so I explained that many parents understand that “diversity” is code language that conceals pro-homosexual ideologies.

She expressed her desire that parents make contact directly with the school regarding questions and concerns they have about curricula or activities. I explained that the issue of homosexuality is the most difficult cultural issue to discuss publicly because those who hold liberal views of homosexuality often label those who believe that homosexual practice is immoral as hateful, ignorant bigots. In addition, public education is dominated by those who hold liberal views on homosexuality and seek to promote those views through curricula, diversity days, and anti-bullying programs.

As a result, many parents justifiably fear that if they express their concerns directly to administrators or teachers, either they or their children will suffer repercussions, which is why some come to IFI. Ms. Kosteck had no apparent sympathy for parents who may be uncomfortable asking the questions I was willing to ask on their behalf.

Ms. Kosteck did share that Scullen Middle School was participating in a diversity day using resources provided in part by Teaching Tolerance, the educational division of the dubious Southern Poverty Law Center, which has long promoted homosexuality as morally equivalent to heterosexuality and analogous to race. As some IFI readers may recall, the Southern Poverty Law Center is the organization that in 2008 added IFI to their list of active U.S. hate groups because of one article posted in 2005 that claimed that homosexual men have a reduced life expectancy.

According to Kosteck, Scullen teachers were using resources from Teaching Tolerance’s “Mix It Up” program for grades K-12. She explained that teachers would be facilitating conversations among students who ordinarily don’t have opportunities to interact. I asked if she could send me copies of the lists of questions that teachers may be using in their facilitations. She refused.

Here are a few of the activities from the Mix It Up website to which Ms. Kosteck directed me:

• Controvesial Issues
• Controversial Issues Handout
• Homophobia Quiz
• Stay in the Mix for Valentine’s Day (Addresses state bans on “gay marriage”)
• Stay in the Mix with Music (asks if students are angry at the way some music portrays lesbians)
• Early Grades Allies
• Not True! Gender Doesn’t Limit You
• Teasing About Gendered Activities, Traits or Possessions

Perhaps none of these particular resources was consulted or used to create activities in District 204. Right now, only the administrators and teachers know for sure.

District 204 parents–and perhaps parents in other districts–might want to ask their school administrators and their children’s teachers the following questions:

• Did our school participate in Teaching Tolerance’s Mix It Up Day?
• Who proposed the idea of participating in Teaching Tolerance’s “Mix It Up” Day?
• Who planned “Mix it Up” Day?
• Were parental notification/opt-out letters sent out prior to Mix It Up Day?
• If not, why not?
• Was “sexual orientation,” “homosexuality,” “transgenderism,” “gender identity,” or “gender expression” mentioned in any of the resources or activities?
• Ask that the school provide to you any and all resources used with students. If they refuse, as Ms. Kosteck did me, file a Freedom of Information Act request to get them.Click HERE to look up the contact information for schools in District 204.

Parents should be deeply concerned when an administrator or teacher refuses to provide resources used with students to anyone who requests them. Parents should be concerned anytime they hear the word “diversity” used in public schools because most diversity programs view volitional homosexual practice as a form of diversity that society ought to embrace, affirm, and celebrate. And while I’m about the business of issuing warnings, parents should be wary of anti-bullying curricula, many of which tacitly seek to use anti-bullying programs to make students feel ashamed of believing that volitional homosexual acts are immoral.

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form.

If a monthly pledge is not feasible at this time, perhaps you could send a one-time, tax-deductible gift. Click HERE to donate today!

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

Here is the form letter sent by the College of DuPage to those who expressed concern over Dr. Adelman‘s use of curriculum to advance her particular political biases. What is noticeably absent from this letter are any responses to the questions or concerns I raised in my initial article:

I thank you for your message regarding the honors seminar offered last spring. President Breuder has asked that I respond on behalf of the College.

The student in question did indeed bring her concerns to our attention last spring. We have looked into the matter and spoken with Dr. Adelman. She handed out the schedule for the course during the first week of class, at which point the students saw which films would be covered. Students had the opportunity to withdraw at that point with a complete refund if they did not feel comfortable with the films on the schedule. In presenting the curriculum, our faculty make every effort to be accurate, to exercise appropriate restraint, and to show respect for the opinions of others, including our students. This situation has strengthened our resolve to provide students with careful advising and ample opportunity to make considered choices in their course selections.

The faculty of College of DuPage maintains a remarkable culture of caring for our students, and we are deeply proud of this. Every day, I encounter examples of the amazing lengths to which our professors go to help our students fulfill their potential. I am also deeply impressed with the accomplishments of our students, who often excel academically while dealing with any number of hardships and obstacles. I assure you that we are working tirelessly to improve the lives of all of our stakeholders.

Thank you again for your inquiry.

Joseph Collins, Ph.D.
Vice President, Academic Affairs
(Email: collinsj@cod.edu)
Phone:             630-942-3203
Fax: 630-942-3925

Dr. Collins does not explain why Dr. Adelman did not include in her course description the list of controversial films students would be required to watch. Instead, a student would have had to register, pay, purchase books, and show up for class. Then sometime during the first week, after they were given the list of assigned films, they would have had to go through the process of dropping a class, selling back books, selecting and re-registering for a new class, and starting that class a week late.

He does not explain why Dr. Adelman failed to include in her course description the fact that the class would emphasize controversial topics related to human sexuality.

He does not explain why Dr. Adelman did not include in her course description any acknowledgement of her moral, philosophical, or political biases.

He does not explain why she did not provide a “variety of perspectives” on the very controversial topics she chose to cover when according to her email to her student, she believes the provision of a variety of perspectives is important.

He does not explain how this statement from Dr. Adelman to her former student reflected “respect for the opinion” of her student: “Perhaps you are critical of anything that does not condemn homosexuality–I hope not, because that is not critical examination at all.”

He does not explain why the views of Dr. Adelman’s students on the topic of homosexuality are any concern or business of hers.

There was one more element of the story that I was unable to include in my article due to its length, but which I did share with Dr. Collins in a phone conversation. Dr. Adelman told her former student that if she permitted the student to do an alternative assignment, the student could not earn as many points as her classmates. Even if the substitute assignment were more rigorous and even if the student did superior work, she would not have available to her the number of points her classmates had available to them. As I told Dr. Collins, this seems to be a punitive response to a reasonable request. Dr. Collins and Dr. Adelman should explain how this action reflects “restraint and respect.”

I wonder, when Dr. Collins expresses how deeply impressed he is “with the accomplishments of our students, who often excel academically while dealing with any number of hardships and obstacles,” might he be referring to the hardships and obstacles posed by biased, unfair, politically motivated professors?

It would have been nice to read somewhere in this unsatisfactory bit of PR, some acknowledgement that what happened last spring to this honors student was not quite right.

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form.

If a monthly pledge is not feasible at this time, perhaps you could send a one-time, tax-deductible gift. Click HERE to donate today!

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

The famous — and soon to be infamous — Scholastic Books has decided to include the pro-homosexual book for 9-12 year-olds, Luv Ya Bunches, in its middle school book fairs. This troubling book is already in the Scholastic Book Club catalogue, which is distributed to elementary school children.

Because of the vociferous protests of homosexuals and a petition drive by the pro-homosexual organizationChange.org, Scholastic Books has reversed its initial decision to exclude the book from their book fairs. It will now allow Luv Ya Bunches to be included at its middle school book fairs.

According to the Guardian, author Lauren Myracle “who regularly makes the list of the most banned and challenged authors in the US — capitulated on the language, removing words such as ‘geez’, ‘crap’, ‘sucks’, and ‘God’, but refused to replace the lesbian parents of her character Milla with a heterosexual couple.” Scholastic Books includes Luv Ya Bunches on its “Teacher’s Picks” page as one of the “Best Books” for grades 3-5.

Change.org describes Scholastic Books as “one of the largest education publishers in the world with broad influence over the reading materials of children everywhere. . . .These are the same book fairs that have reach [sic] to millions of schoolchildren nationwide.” Clearly, homosexual activists recognize the potential Scholastic Books has to transform the views of impressionable children.

IFI is urging parents to notify your children’s schools that because Luv Ya Bunches is listed in the Scholastic Book Club catalogue, the catalogue is not to be distributed to your child and that you will not be ordering any books from Scholastic Books.

In addition, notify your children’s school that if Luv Ya Bunches will be included at the Scholastic Book Fair, your child is not to be taken to the fair during or after school hours.

Finally, call the Scholastic Books feed back line and send emails to Scholastic Books management to inform them that as long as they are carrying books that affirm homosexuality as moral, you will not purchase books from them. To leave an email message, contact Investor Relations. or call:

Jeanie Salgado, Scholastic Book Fairs:             (407) 829-8265
Scholastic Book Group:             (212) 343-4731
Scholastic Books feedback line             (212) 343-6834      

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!.

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form.

If a monthly pledge is not feasible at this time, perhaps you could send a one-time, tax-deductible gift. Click HERE to donate today!

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

What is the difference between an educator and an ideologue? Perhaps a look at Naperville North High School’s teacher Kermit Eby will help answer that question.

Kermit Eby, the Naperville North social studies teacher who last year invited unapologetic Weather Underground domestic terrorist and “critical social theory” proponent Bill Ayers to speak at Naperville North, has now invited history revisionist and America-hater Howard Zinn to speak at Naperville North on Saturday, Nov. 7 at 2:00 p.m.

This same teacher signed the Support Bill Ayers petition (For those interested, Eby is signatory number 1947 on the petition, and he identifies himself as a Naperville North High School teacher). And this is the same Kermit Eby who signed the Historians Against the War petition in 2003, again identifying himself as a Naperville North High School teacher. These historians opposed “the expansion of United States empire and the doctrine of pre-emptive war that have led to the occupation of Iraq. We deplore the secrecy, deception, and distortion of history involved in the administration’s conduct of a war that violates international law, intensifies attacks on civil liberties, and reaches toward domination of the Middle East and its resources.”

Of course, Mr. Eby has every right to sign any petition he wants, but his obvious political leanings and interests appear to be influencing his pedagogical activities. A parent who had multiple meetings with Eby as a result of two of her children having him as a teacher wrote on a Daily Herald blog that Eby makes his political views known through his classroom commentary as well as curricular resources:

Both my daughter and my son sat through Kermit Eby’s American history classes. My son also had him for American government. I know Mr. Eby. I sat through five parent conferences with him and I had several conversations with him and exchanged three years of email notes with him. Kermit Eby is the stereotype of the so-called-progressive teacher. When I called to complain about a gay-rights skit he put on in which two girls held hands and kissed during a mandatory attendance assembly he justified himself by claiming to be a “progressive missionary working for social justice in the underbelly of affluence.” And there is no balance of any kind. My kids sat through his classes and listened to daily rants about the evils of the Republican Party, conservatives, religion, America, capitalism and especially George Bush.

Since Eby sent out district emails this week encouraging Naperville North and Naperville Central social studies and communication arts teachers to attend and to invite their students to attend Zinn’s lecture, it’s clear that he’s using extracurricular activities to promote his political vision as well.

This is not the first time Zinn has been invited to speak at Naperville North. According to a Nov. 8, 2002 Naperville Sun article, Zinn spoke to Naperville North students on the topic of “The Uses of History and the Current War on Terrorism.” Who, I wonder, invited Zinn in 2002?

Howard Zinn is the author of the book A People’s History of the United States, which has been used in history classes across the country for many years. Thomas Sowell, African American scholar at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, a prestigious conservative think tank, has this to say about Zinn’s book:

It speaks volumes about our schools and colleges that far-left radical Howard Zinn’s pretentiously titled book, A People’s History of the United States, is widely used across the country. It is one indictment, complaint, and distortion after another. Anyone who relies on this twisted version of American history would have no idea why millions of people from around the world are trying, sometimes desperately, to move to this country. The one virtue of Zinn’s book is that it helps you identify unmistakably which teachers are using their classrooms as propaganda centers.

An article in The New Criterion describes Zinn’s People’s History of the United States as an “anti-American fantasy masquerading as history,” a “book whose message is that the New World, once a paradisal playground … when Columbus met the gentle Arawaks, was ruined when rapacious, war-mongering white men overran the continent.”

It goes on to say “Zinn’s story-noble savages oppressed by nasty capitalists–was calculated to appeal to the politically correct, anti-American spirit that has been regnant among the country’s elites since the late 1960s.”

In a commentary on The People’s History of the United States, author Daniel J. Flynn, describes Zinn as an “unreconstructed, anti-American Marxist” and Zinn’s book as a

cartoon anti-history of the United States. . . If you’ve read Marx, there’s really no reason to read Howard Zinn. The first line of The Communist Manifesto provides the single-bullet theory of history that provides Zinn with his narrative thread– “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle” . . . Thumb through A People’s History of the United States and you will find greed as the motivating factor behind every act of those who don’t qualify as “the people” in Zinn’s book. According to Zinn, the separation from Great Britain, the Civil War, and both World Wars all were the result of base motives of the “ruling class” — rich men to get richer at the expense of others . . . This slanderous tome and its popular and academic success are monuments to human credulity and delusion, and to the disgraceful condition of American letters.

If an educator who personally holds left of center socio-political views invites primarily or exclusively left- of-center speakers, is he truly an educator or an indoctrinator? And how is critical thinking fostered or diversity honored through such obvious imbalance?

In the student online newspaper, NorthStar Online, Rachel Rodi writes about the prominent speakers Naperville North has hosted over the years: Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, anti-war protestor and perennial jailbird Kathy Kelly, and Howard Zinn. The only teacher quoted in this article was–you guessed it–Kermit Eby.

Kermit Eby should read Stanley Fish’s book Save the World on Your Own Time in which he argues that educators should not “advocate personal, political, moral, or any other kind of views except academic views.” Fish contends that some “faculty members . . . have forgotten (or never knew) what their job is and spend time trying to form their student’s character or turn them into exemplary citizens.” He asserts that teachers are not hired to do things like “produce active citizens, inculcate the virtue of tolerance, redress injustices, and bring about social change.” In Fish’s view, “these are tasks properly left to preachers, therapists, social workers, political activists, professional gurus, [and] inspirational speakers.”

Those who choose to teach in government schools, whose salaries are paid by the public, should be held publicly accountable when they violate sound pedagogical principles. When, year after year, they exploit the relative privacy and autonomy of the classroom and violate the trust of the public by using public resources to try to effect cultural change in the direction of their political vision, they must be publicly exposed and challenged. Unfortunately, Kermit Eby is not alone.

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form.

If a monthly pledge is not feasible at this time, perhaps you could send a one-time, tax-deductible gift. Click HERE to donate today!

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

Last spring I was contacted by a remarkable student at the College of DuPage who could teach many adults a thing or two about courage and conviction.

She was enrolled in an integrated biology and film class entitled “Honors Seminar: Biology 1100 (Survey of Biology) and English 1154 (Film as Literature)-Defining Human Health on a Changing Planet” that was described in the course catalogue as follows:

This seminar combines an investigative and interactive approach to biology with the study of film as a literary genre to explore the concept of human health in its broadest sense. Using the medium of film as a commentary on past and current biological issues, we will explore ecological, evolutionary, and hereditary relationships among living organisms, examine lifestyle issues and analyze the relationships between population, agriculture, pollution, biodiversity, and disease. The principles and procedures underlying the modern approach to understanding living processes are emphasized. You will also explore contemporary health issues, and through these investigations come to appreciate the role of biology and film in society. Learning methods for this seminar include reading, film viewing, class lecture and discussion; labs issue deliberations, field trips, and cooperative research projects. All seminar participants will also be involved in service learning to enhance understanding of health issues at the local level.

Reading, film-viewing, lectures, discussions, labs, field trips, research projects, service projects, ecology, evolution, heredity, lifestyles, population, agriculture, pollution, biodiversity, disease, past biological issues, current biological issues, film appreciation–whew–I’m exhausted just reading this exhaustive list of topics and methods. And somehow in the midst of all this verbiage, the film/English professor, Dr. Deborah Adelman, forgot to mention her strident political biases and agenda. She failed to mention that she has a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual political agenda that she uses her Illinois taxpayer- funded salary to promote.

In her course description, she offered no clue that she would require her students to watch what most people consider an intensely pro-abortion film, Vera Drake, or the film Kinsey about the perverted sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, or the pro-homosexual film Brokeback Mountain.

When the teacher finally revealed what films she was assigning, the student wrote her the following:

As an honor student I do not make it a practice of trying to get out of assignments that make me uncomfortable; but rather, it is quite the opposite. I am paying for my own college education, and I am picking classes that I think will not only challenge me but also teach me a lot.

At the beginning of class you stated that you do not like movies with violence in them. Well, just like you, there are certain movies that I do not care to see. I do not like movies with a lot of sexual content and pornographic images. Not only do they make me feel uncomfortable, but the content in these movies morally offends me. These kinds of images are not easily forgotten, but rather they stay in a person’s mind for a lifetime. I do not care to put these images in my mind, because they may color a possible marriage for me in the future.

The whole theme for this seminar is human health and a changing planet. In class, we have discussed how Kinsey’s ideas led to the sexual revolution and gave us more sexual freedom. However, we have failed to look at the other side of the story. Sexual freedom often goes hand in hand with STDs, divorce, abortion, and other terrible consequences.

Instead of watching Kinsey and Brokeback Mountain, may I write a 3-5 page research paper on different views of human sexuality, by looking at academic resources such as books, journal articles, statistics, and films? My request is not to escape this unit on human sexuality because it makes me uncomfortable, but rather to think critically about different views on human sexuality.

Here’s the response of yet another “educator”–Dr. Adelman–who purports to be committed to exploring multiple perspectives:

I do think that work in college will often make a student uncomfortable. That is part of the college experience. I am not in the practice of coming up with alternative assignments because the material makes students uncomfortable. A big part of the college experience is learning to explore material, concepts, issues, etc. from a variety of perspectives.

I also am not in the position nor particularly interested in forcing you to view something you do [sic] want to view. If you don’t view the films, however, you really won’t be able to participate in the discussions. Perhaps you can be more specific and let me know what it is that makes you uncomfortable and why you think it is advisable for you not to view the films. There are a number of films coming up that may also make you uncomfortable. I do think that the best art does challenge us to go beyond our comfort zones.

. . . I do need to warn you that that you probably will not want to see the Spike Lee film I am showing on Monday (She’s Gotta Have It)

One thing I do need to point out right away is that from my end of the class, I am interested in your exploring how the medium of film explores human sexuality. . . We have also emphasized in class the role culture plays in human behaviors. So I am looking at feature films that are attempting to portray the filmmaker’s vision about sexuality. Any possible alternative assignment would have to be about film. This of course will be hard, because most films that deal with human sexuality will have some images in them you might not want to see.

. . . I don’t think you are able to really comment on whether or not the films you don’t want to watch are in some way pornographic because you have not seen them. You would need to define what you mean by pornography, because it is really a stretch to consider the film Kinsey pornographic, or Brokeback Mountain for that matter. There are some graphic scenes in both of them, and while one scene in Brokeback Mountain has been criticized from promoting certain stereotypes of male homosexual behavior, neither film comes anywhere close to fitting all the definitions of pornography I have encountered. Kinsey as a film also does not promote some of the things you are concerned with-it is a biopic which gives a fairly reserved portrayal of Kinsey and his work, and the portrait is certainly far from flattering in many moments. Brokeback Mountain, more than anything, is about how cultural mores towards homosexuality leave two broken lives as a consequence.

Perhaps you are critical of anything that does not condemn homosexuality–I hope not, because that is not critical examination at all (emphasis added).

In addition to “wow,” I have a number of random thoughts regarding Dr. Adelman’s response:

• What in the course description would have alerted prospective students to the films they would be required to watch or the bias of Adelman or the emphasis on film depictions of human sexuality? In fact, of all the myriad topics specifically mentioned in the course description, the only one conveniently omitted was the one that Adelman emphasized to the student: human sexuality. Brokeback Mountain could be justifiably included in this course because Adelman’s use of ambiguous phrases like “human health in its broadest sense” and “lifestyle issues” enabled her to include virtually anything her polemical heart desired. The course description gave absolutely no indication that students would be expected to view films that include nudity and simulated sex acts and that espoused liberal assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexual behavior. Students who are spending a lot of money on their education deserve sufficient information to make informed course selections.
• What in the course description would have alerted prospective students to Adelman’s theory–articulated in hackneyed, Cliche rhetoric–that “great art should challenge us to go beyond our comfort zones”?
• Exposure to images that make people “uncomfortable” is not essential to education. Somehow, students in American Universities managed to be well-educated–some would contend even better educated–for almost 350 years without being exposed to images of nude people simulating sex acts, including deviant sex acts.
• There is a difference between being exposed to ideas that challenge one intellectually and being exposed to images that one finds inappropriate and morally offensive.
• When was the last time that you heard of a professor selecting curricular resources that challenged only liberal or “progressive” views and that made liberal or “progressive” students uncomfortable?
• Many ideologues like Adelman claim that conservative students should be challenged morally and emotionally regarding their beliefs on homosexuality, but these same educators refuse to expose students to conservative perspectives on homosexuality because they may make homosexual students feel “uncomfortable.”
• What evidence is there to suggest that Adelman presented a “variety of perspectives” in her class?
• Teachers should teach about controversial topics only if they have the integrity to allot equal time to and present equivalent resources from all perspectives. This will ensure that authentic intellectual inquiry is being pursued rather than advocacy.
• When Adelman says that “Kinsey does not promote some of the things you are concerned with,” she implicitly acknowledges that Kinsey does, indeed, promote other of the things the student was concerned with.
• And when Adelman says that the film Kinsey offers a “fairly reserved portrayal of Kinsey,” she acknowledges–unwittingly perhaps–that the film fails to accurately portray the degree and extent of his depravity. In other words, the film sugarcoats Kinsey’s life.
• Adelman tries to conceal the pornographic elements in her film choices through tricksy rhetoric, saying that “neither film comes anywhere close to fitting all the definitions of pornography I have encountered.” So, according to Adelman, it’s not really pornography unless it fits all of the definitions of pornography she has encountered. That odd claim raises the question, can it be considered pornography if it fits just one of the definitions I’ve encountered? I rather like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart‘s definition of pornography which is that “I know it when I see it.”
• The fact that Brokeback Mountain depicts cultural impediments to homosexual relationships as tragic is the very reason to avoid the film. The pro-homosexual director, Ang Lee, seeks to use the power of narrative and visual imagery to transform society’s convictions on the morality of volitional homosexual acts. He and Adelman (and Neil Postman) know that emotional experience rather than intellectual or moral propositions are winning the day in our increasingly non-thinking culture.
• It is absurd to claim, as Adelman does, that one cannot fairly determine whether a film has objectionable content without seeing it. Since Brokeback Mountain was easily one of the most controversial movies in recent years, there is a plethora of information available that would enable consumers and students to know that it contains offensive imagery and ideas. The same goes for Kinsey.
• One hopes that Adelman does not really believe that only positive views of homosexuality can provide evidence of “critical examination.”
• What business is it of Adelman’s how her students view homosexuality?
• Illinois taxpayers pay College of DuPage professors with PhDs between $96,900-$119,500 annually.

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form.

If a monthly pledge is not feasible at this time, perhaps you could send a one-time, tax-deductible gift. Click HERE to donate today!

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

by MassResistance.org

Contributes to offensive display of sexual perversion, child pornography, and anti-Catholic bigotry — now being exhibited at Harvard University

WARNING: Photos at the linked site are offensive and pornographic.

If you want to know what Americans can expect in public schools, look no further.

Kevin Jennings is Barack Obama‘s “safe schools” czar in the US Department of Education. He’s also the founder of the national homosexual group GLSEN, which sets up “gay straight alliance” clubs in high schools and middle schools across America. GLSEN is officially supported by the Massachusetts Legislature.

Jennings is also a former member of the radical homosexual group “Act Up”, and he contributed to this depraved and offensive museum exhibit on “Act Up” now at Harvard University (see press release).

See the complete article, along with more photos of this shocking exhibit HERE…

Both higher and K-12 education are in desperate need of reform, though there are some extremely positive signs are on the horizon. Within a decade we might well see elementary, secondary, and universities become more about learning and less about cushy careers for the so-called “education professionals.”

Last month I referenced the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, and today I wanted to bring to your attention an excellent article on their website by George Leef:

Creative Destruction Coming to Higher Ed
The emergence of high-quality online education could revolutionize college education.

First, let’s provide a quick definition of “Creative Destruction” from the Library of Economics and Liberty (emphasis added):

“Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950) coined the seemingly paradoxical term “creative destruction,” and generations of economists have adopted it as a shorthand description of the free market’s messy way of delivering progress…

Schumpeter and the economists who adopt his succinct summary of the free market’s ceaseless churning echo capitalism’s critics in acknowledging that lost jobs, ruined companies, and vanishing industries are inherent parts of the growth system.

The saving grace comes from recognizing the good that comes from the turmoil. Over time, societies that allow creative destruction to operate grow more productive and richer; their citizens see the benefits of new and better products, shorter work weeks, better jobs, and higher living standards.”

The Pope Center’s George Leef opens his article:

“Remember the movie Jaws? I’m thinking especially of the scene where you know that the shark is about to take a gigantic bite out of the helpless swimmer.

We may have a similar scene about to play not in theatres, but in real life. Corresponding to the helpless swimmer are the many colleges and universities that have neither strong reputations nor large endowments. And the shark? Online education.

It’s true that online education has been around for years without doing any noticeable damage to traditional bricks and mortar schools. There is reason to believe, however, that things are about to change.”

Mr. Leef outlines one company that is seeking to provide higher education offering better quality, lower cost, and greater convenience. Leef writes:

“Most students (and their families, and taxpayers) now spend $20,000 to $50,000 per year for college. In return, they get instruction by professors, lecturers, and grad students that is often indifferent. What if they could instead get better instruction for $1,200 per year?

Yes, you read that right – $1,200.”

Of course there are hurdles to accomplishing this transition – but with the cost of living being what it is, there are a lot of incentives for both education providers and students to make online education work. With the advance of technology being what it is, my money is on this becoming a reality in the not too distant future.

Click here to read George Leef’s excellent article.

It’s my personal view that the same incentives and technology will finally help free many K-12 students from the prison that is the public school system. I’ve addressed my personal opinion on this topic here and here, and I must say that reading the following article from the New York Timesmade me very happy:

Study Finds That Online Education Beats the Classroom

Reporter Steve Lohr wrote about a recent “93-page report on online education, conducted by SRI International for the Department of Education” that put forward “a most intriguing conclusion”:

“On average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction.”

According to Lohr:

“The report examined the comparative research on online versus traditional classroom teaching from 1996 to 2008.”

And:

“The study’s major significance lies in demonstrating that online learning today is not just better than nothing – it actually tends to be better than conventional instruction,” said Barbara Means, the study’s lead author and an educational psychologist at SRI International.”

Of course there will be financially motivated as well as honest critics, but at the end of the day, it’s about learning – and, in fact, liberty. Parents, children, and those continuing their education after high school should be allowed to choose what’s best for them – and not be consigned to the bloated, self-important, inefficient and ineffective K-12 and University Education Industrial Complex.

Click here to read more on this topic.

John Biver is the Editor of Champion News.

A longtime champion of homeschooling rights around the globe, Home School Legal Defense AssociationSenior Counsel and Director of State and International Relations Christopher J. Klicka was called home by his Lord on October 12, 2009, at age 48, following a 15-year battle with multiple sclerosis.

An attorney, spokesman, lobbyist, and homeschooling husband and father, Chris is survived by his wife, Tracy, their seven children (ages 11-21). An integral part of Home School Legal Defense Association’s staff for 24 years, Chris was HSLDA’s first full-time employee, first executive director, and first full-time attorney. He believed passionately that homeschooling was the best educational method for children and demonstrated that passion in every area of his life.

IFI had the privilege of working with him on occasion. He will be greatly missed.

Please keep his wife and children in your prayers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=–tEY8gwrlQ

In this video clip, “Safe Schools Czar” and pederast-protector Kevin Jennings frets over the “aggressive” promotion of heterosexuality that takes place in public schools through the teaching of Romeo and Juliet.

Jennings makes the disingenuous claim that parents are fearful that homosexuals “are after their kids.” He implies that the chief concern of parents is that teachers will try to recruit children into the homosexual lifestyle, when in reality that is not the chief concern of most parents.

Rather, the concern of many parents and other taxpayers is that homosexual activists are committed to changing students’ views on the nature and morality of homosexuality. Homosexual activists both within and without our public schools are using public funds to indoctrinate other people’s children with their radical, unproven beliefs that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race and that volitional homosexual acts are morally equivalent to heterosexual acts. Would Jennings deny that activist teachers and members of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network — the organization he founded — seek to change student views about homosexuality?

We should all hope that if teachers are using curricula to reinforce beliefs about sexuality, they are using it to affirm only heterosexuality and more specifically heterosexuality within the confines of marriage.

Yale University’s motto Lux et veritas, which means light and truth, succinctly captures precisely what education should cultivate. It is an elementary truth evidenced by human anatomy and the biology of procreation that all humans are created heterosexual — a truth from which Jennings would likely recoil. Similarly, we should recoil from the peculiar concern with Romeo and Juliet expressed by our Safe Schools Czar — a man whose adult life has been shaped by a retreat from truth — and instead demand that our schools always “aggressively” point students toward truth.

Carl E. Olson, editor of IgnatiusInsight.com, said this about Jennings’ ludicrous claim: “[W]hen the reading and studying of Shakespeare-who is one of the greatest writers in any language-is deemed part of a campaign to promote heterosexuality, you know that ideology has trumped reality and that the new barbarians are not only within the gates, they are the gatekeepers.”

Because of Jennings’ foolish beliefs and dangerous deeds, there is widespread and increasing public opposition to his appointment to the Department of Education. The inestimable Princeton University law professor Robert George has joined the chorus of American citizens who are calling for Jennings’s expulsion from the Department of Education.

Please take a moment to watch this short video from Professor George: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wK5-F6SCNFo

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form.

If a monthly pledge is not feasible at this time, perhaps you could send a one-time, tax-deductible gift. Click HERE to donate today!

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.