Once upon a time, I held a naïve hope that public education could be pried loose from the grimy grip of self-righteous, presumptuous, intolerant, diversity-loathing, idea-banning, illiberal bullying leftists fluent in Newspeak. That was then. This is now.

Now I know that is not possible—at least not in time to educate properly children who are currently in school or soon-to-be in school. There are good signs that a movement is afoot to challenge the MAN—who now is a homosexual, drag queen who uses the pronouns fae, faer, faers, and faerself.

A few communities are battling to replace their partisan/activist school boards. There is growing vocal opposition to the promotion of critical race theory-derived assumptions, gender theory, and obscene material. And a few state legislatures are banning cross-dressing boys from participation in girls’ sports.

While these are significant developments, even if successful, they are but a pea shot into an ossified, systemically biased, massive infrastructure composed of leftist controlled school administrations, school boards, state boards of education, state legislatures and ancillary leftist controlled organizations like teachers’ unions; the American Library Association; the Modern Language Association; the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, the Illinois “Safe” Schools Alliance, and all the organizations that profit from selling their racist “anti-racism” and pro-homosexual, pro-“trans”-cultic snake oil to public schools—all in the purported service of “safety” and “inclusion.”

Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that in recent years, Illinois’ ideologically non-diverse General Assembly has passed several laws requiring taxpayer-funded schools to preach leftist assumptions about “gender” and sexuality starting in kindergarten and to indoctrinate faculty with those same assumptions through “professional development.”

Here are articles about three bills that passed requiring leftist indoctrination in public schools:

Leftist Public School Indoctrination Bill Moving Forward in Springfield

Another K-12 School Indoctrination Bill Coming Through the Illinois Sewage Pipeline

Leftist State Board of Ed and Lawmakers Collude to Indoctrinate Illinois Students

It’s not just Illinois, the Land of Illiberalism that’s corrupting public education. What’s taking place just over the border in Wisconsin illustrates the presumptuousness of public servants in indoctrination camps that self-identify as “schools.”

Last month, Empower Wisconsin exposed a bit of what an Eu Clair Area School District (ECASD) in Eu Claire, Wisconsin imposed on all staff and faculty during their Feb. 25, 2022 “Equity Professional Development” on “Safe Spaces.” (Is there any word more abused by leftists than “safety”?) A slide presentation included this galling statement:

Remember, parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities. That knowledge must be earned.

Who put leftists in charge of what parents are entitled to know about their own children? Who gave leftists the moral authority to conclude that parents must earn the right to know their children’s “identities”?

That claim is brazen and presumptuous. For those who have worked in public schools or studied closely what’s been taking place incrementally over the past three decades, such a claim is not, however, surprising. And it’s widely shared by leftists in schools across the country.

The Federalist reported that Superintendent Michael Johnson justified this violation of parental trust by saying he wants to create an “equitable, safe and inclusive” place “for all students.” Further, Johnson said,

Our staff often find themselves in positions of trust with our students. The staff development presentation shared extensive data and information to assist our staff members in our ongoing efforts to create a safe and supportive learning environment for all students. … The ECASD prides itself on being a school district that makes all students feel welcome and safe in our schools.

Does being in a position of trust require staff members to affirm all identities? Does it require concealment of all identities or just the ones staff members have concluded are good, healthy, and morally acceptable?

If staff members found themselves in positions of trust with students who identified as zoophiles, sibling lovers, or polyamorists, would parents have to earn the right to that information?

Are Johnson et al. concerned about cultivating the trust of parents or about making all parents feel welcome and included?

Johnson asserted that “the staff training focused on data showing students who identify as non-heterosexual have a higher incidence rate of mental health issues than heterosexual students.” Did Johnson and his buddies look at long term health risks from “transitioning”?

Did they examine material suggesting that gender dysphoria—like depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation—may be a symptom of some other underlying condition or caused by trauma?

Did Johnson and his propaganda collaborators look at the data and information regarding detransitioning?

Have Johnson and his ideological compeers researched deeply the issue of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria—a social contagion that is resulting in explosive growth in the number of adolescent girls suddenly deciding they’re boys—a heretofore nonexistent phenomenon?

Every organization leftists cite to justify their efforts to promote their views of “gender” and sexuality in schools are controlled by leftists. And every statistic and tidbit of “information” leftists cite to justify their efforts is arguable. But no debate is permitted by ideological tyrants who presume their subjective assumptions are inarguable objective facts.

I will conclude with this call from philosopher, theologian, and Princeton law professor Robert P. George a year ago–a call that’s even more urgent today:

If you have kids in public schools in New Jersey or a state that has similar laws mandating the indoctrination of children in public schools on matters of sexuality, and if you do not believe in the “Woke” ideology into which your kids are being indoctrinated, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to get your children out of those schools. The indoctrination literally begins in Kindergarten and First Grade.

The state-run schools in New Jersey and elsewhere now reflect the adoption by the State of an established religion. It is not a traditional religion, and it is not theistic, but it is a religion nonetheless–a system of ideas embodying a particular view of human nature, the human good, human dignity, and what is most important (“sacred”). The public schools are as “religious” today as they were at the beginning when they reflected the Protestant Christianity that was dominant when public education began in the U.S. in the 1830s. The difference is that Protestant Christianity has been replaced by secular progressive ideology.

If secular progressive ideology is not your family’s religion, your kids don’t belong in schools dedicated to promoting it–and to indoctrinating children in it. Your kids should be brought up in your own faith. Allowing them to be educated in a set of dogmas that are antithetical to your own beliefs simply makes no sense.

Get them out.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/If-You-Care-About-Children-and-Americas-Future-Keep-Your-Kids-Out-of-Public-Schools.mp3

For those who for years have been battling critical race theory-infused and sexually deviant material in public schools with little help from their friends, recent developments offer a smidge of hope.

I began opposing both types of resources in about 2005 when I was a member of the highly partisan English Department at District 113’s Deerfield High School on Chicago’s North Shore. At that time, my opposition and warnings fell on deaf ears—well, except for the propagandists. Theirs were hostile ears—very hostile.

Teachers in District 113 were pushing CRT-tainted content in the classroom and in what is loosely called “professional” development. Teachers who claimed to “honor all voices” and “value diversity” were pushing leftist assumptions about sexuality while censoring all dissenting voices in the classroom. They hoped that the voices of conservative parents had been effectively silenced. They were largely right. And now District 113 has wasted taxpayer money to put tampon machines in boys’ bathrooms. That’s what happens when we allow bullying and fear to paralyze us.

Racism and disordered sexuality eagerly promoted by leftist change-agents in government schools are destroying the hearts, minds, and bodies of children; the integrity and safety of families; and all institutions of public life that previously protected order and liberty.

But leftist efforts to unleash chaos by appealing to the most selfish, dark, and ignorant desires of deceitful and desperately wicked human hearts through propaganda and tyranny have awakened the consciences of Americans.

Americans now see what leftists are doing. Americans see that leftists are fostering racism to divide and conquer. Americans see the grifters scamming Americans by creating the illusion that America is awash in racial bigotry and then swooping in to sell their snake-oil to the gullible and intimidated.

Americans of color see their children being taught the lie that they are oppressed victims with no agency in their own lives. Colorless Americans see their children being taught the lie that they are racist oppressors by dint of their tint. And Americans see the fruits of this racist teaching in the riots, arson, looting, and violence that pollute our streets.

Americans see the bizarre explosion of troubled adolescent girls suddenly deciding they are boys trapped in biologically healthy girls’ bodies. Americans see public schools affirming such cultish ideas and behaviors, while concealing their complicity from parents.

Americans of all political stripes see the reprehensible destruction of girls’ sports and the sexual integration of school bathrooms and locker rooms.

Americans see curricula and library book collections permeated with obscene literature that promotes disordered sexuality.

And Americans see leftist lawmakers passing laws that require public schools to introduce and affirm leftist beliefs about homosexuality and cross-sex practices to kindergartners.

But finally with racism and unbounded sexuality unleashing chaos and suffering throughout the public square, aided and abetted by the politicized re-education long taking place in public schools, Americans are using their voices to oppose this evil.

Parents are organizing and confronting partisan and indolent school boards from California to the New York island. And when threatened by hostile, tyrannical board members and the Department of Justice with being labeled domestic terrorists, parents are doubling down rather than cowering.

As a result of the collusion between the National School Boards Association (NSBA) with the Justice Department to crack down on critics of leftist school boards, seventeen state school board chapters have withdrawn from the NSBA, taking with them $1.1 million in dues, which constitutes about 42% of the NSBA’s annual income from dues. More money will be lost as these state school boards withdraw too from participation in NSBA-sponsored events. Other local chapters are considering doing likewise. This is but a small step in loosening the grimy, grasping grip of unelected, unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats on education, which should be a local matter.

In droves, teachers are electing to leave the far-leftist, culturally regressive, morally repugnant National Education Association. World magazine reported that the NEA has lost 65,000 members since 2019. One teacher profiled by World is Tracy Hiebert, a black woman and decades-long teacher, who left the NEA because of its support for “critical race theory, LGBTQ issues, and inappropriate sex education.”

I’ve saved the best for last: Parents are pulling their kids out of school. Since the start of the pandemic, Chicago Public Schools has lost 25,000 students, and nationwide 1.5 million students have left public schools.

In a macro-burst of righteous indignation, creativity, and deep love for their children and this nation, parents are choosing alternative ways to educate their children. They are sending them to existing private schools or co-ops. They are homeschooling. And they are creating new micro-schools/co-ops that take many forms.

IFI has long argued that churches must view the children in their congregations as a mission field. Churches should make it possible for any member who wants to exit public schools to do so, either by making the necessary funds available to parents to send their children to existing Christian private schools or by creating affordable schools.

Christians can donate their skills, knowledge, time, and money for this revolutionary project. Retirees in good health with free time can contribute significantly to such a venture. Christians with financial resources can provide help in many forms from curricular material to scholarships. Christian teachers trapped in our taxpayer-funded breeding grounds of lies could provide enormous help in establishing schools that are conducive to human flourishing.

Americans of all ages, races, ethnicities, religions, and nations of origin long to live in a union that is again touched “by the better angels of our nature” rather than drowning in the basest impulses of our fallen nature.

The vast web composed of public schools and all the ancillary organizations affiliated with them, including colleges and universities that train future teachers, organizations and individuals that profit from selling their “diversity, equity, and inclusion” wares to schools, political advocacy groups (e.g., GLSEN, the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance), teachers’ unions, the American Library Association, and the Modern Language Association, are all controlled by leftists. The bias is systemic. Changes will not come in time for children in school today. But as we pull our children out, we must continue to oppose what leftists are teaching those children remaining in public schools. It is a stewardship issue. Our money is being used to indoctrinate children with lies, and these children will be our culture-makers shortly.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Smidge-of-Hope-on-the-Education-Horizon.mp3

Former Illinois state senator Daniel Biss recently guest-hosted a culturally regressive radio program titled “Live, Local & Progressive” in which he sought to draw attention to yet another God-forsaken executive order (2019-11) from Illinois’ morally bankrupt governor, J.B. Pritzker, which was signed “shortly before the Pride parade.” The executive order establishes a 25-member “Affirming and Inclusive Task Force,” essentially to use government schools to advance the ideology and goals of the “trans” cult.

Lest anyone think the task force will be ideologically balanced between those who believe biological sex matters when it comes to, for example, private spaces and athletics and those who believe it doesn’t matter, here’s what Pritzker’s order dictates:

The Task Force shall consist of at least one representative from the Office of the Governor and no more than twenty-five (25) members, selected by the Governor, who have experience or expertise related to supporting transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students in schools including, but not limited to, students, parents or guardians, teachers, school administrators, lawyers, medical professionals, and representatives from community-based organizations.

Note that members must have “experience or expertise” related to “supporting” students who embrace “trans”-cultism. The word “supporting” has nothing to do with assisting students in ways that move them toward accepting their immutable biological sex. It means facilitating their reality-denying feelings, their invasion of the privacy of their peers, their tyrannical linguistic demands of others, and the hijacking of hard-won girls’ athletic opportunities by objectively male students.

Any guesses which community-based organizations Pritzker will include? Could it be the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance? Equality Illinois? The Center on Halsted?

The order took effect on July 1, 2019 and its recommendations are due on the governor’s desk by Jan. 1, 2020.

Biss’ guests were the following:

Nat Duran, a young woman who pretends to be a man and works for the  “LGBTQ”-indoctrinating organization the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance.

Nicki Bazer, an attorney “who represents school districts in her day job, and also does pro bono work on behalf of transgender youth.”

Juliet Berger-White, Deputy General Counsel in the Office of the Governor and another activist for all things “trans”—particularly school issues—who helped craft Pritzker’s executive order.

Nat Duran exposed the lie that “gender identity” is fixed and immutable—a lie that some “trans” ideologues have tried to pass off to a gullible public:

[W]hen folks often think of trans and gender expansive young folks in school systems, they immediately go to restroom and locker room usage, right? Anyone who’s been in a public space and used these facilities know that they are really gendered, and so how do we make sure that students who maybe are exploring different aspects of their identity are able to use these spaces in a way that feels safe and supportive to them…. [E]specially as you think of younger grades, I think especially around middle school, students who are really just figuring out a lot of things about their lives, like allowing room for fluidity as well. I think sometimes… even if a school in the best of intentions enforces a really supportive practice, is it so rigid that it doesn’t allow for a student who’s like, “Well, I think I might be trans, or maybe I’m non binary, but I’m still figuring it out, and so I don’t know what restroom feels best to me right now.

Point of correction: restrooms and locker rooms aren’t “gendered.” They’re “sexed.” They correspond to objective, immutable biological sex.

Duran didn’t explain exactly why private spaces should correspond to “gender identity” as opposed to biological sex. Nor did she explain why it’s hateful for normal students to refuse to use restrooms with opposite-sex peers, but it’s not hateful for cross-sex passers to refuse to use restrooms with opposite-“gendered” peers.

And if, as “trans”-cultists assert, it’s impossible to know the authentic “gender identity” of a person by their clothing, hairstyles, or anatomy, “trans”-identifying students can’t possibly know whether their same-sex peers are male or female. Therefore, they shouldn’t care where they change their clothes or shower. Imagine a boy who identifies as a girl filing an expensive lawsuit to access the girls’ locker room only to discover all the girls identify as boys.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive—particularly when we do it based on an incoherent ideology.

Duran’s discussion of identity exploration and fluidity points to the end goal of the “trans” revolution. The end goal is the eradication of public recognition of sex differences everywhere. Identity exploration, gender expansiveness, and gender fluidity preclude the existence of anything other than the wholesale sexual integration of every space, activity, and context. No more sex-segregated anything for anyone. Even school practices that are “really supportive” of opposite-sex-identifying students is insufficient. Duran and most other “trans” activists seek locker room and restroom free-for-alls—literally, restrooms and locker rooms Free. For. All.

It is critically important to understand that if society is legally prohibited from “discriminating” based on both sex and “gender identity,” there remains no legal way to prohibit what leftists call “cisgender” persons (i.e., persons who accept their sex) from using opposite sex private spaces. If a public school allows biological male Bob who pretends to be Mary to use the girls’ locker room, there would be no way to prevent biological male Tom who accepts his sex from using it. The school couldn’t prevent him from using it based on his sex because they’ve already allowed another male access to it. And they couldn’t prevent Tom from using it based on his “cisgender” identity, because they can’t discriminate based on “gender identity.” Abracadabra, all private spaces become co-ed.

Duran’s discussion also reveals how young the children are whom cultural regressives seek to inculcate with the “trans” ideology.

Duran also longs for government schools to be complicit in concealing information from parents about their own children:

[H]ow do we think through parental communications? If I’m calling home to talk to a parent, [is the student] out, or safe and supported, at home? Am I going to be using a different name or set of pronouns when I do that?”

In the view of “trans” dogmatists, those parents who reject the unproven, arguable, doctrinaire assumptions of the “trans” cult are unsafe and unsupportive and, therefore, deserve to lose parental rights.

Attorney/activist Nicki Bazer deceived Biss’ audience by omission. Here’s what she said:

[T]he rights of transgender, gender expansive, non-binary students are already protected in Illinois…. [U]nder the Illinois school code, all students have a right to equal opportunity to all educational programs and services. And under the regulations that the state board of education has issued, they have defined that, and made clear that you cannot discriminate or exclude or segregate students based on their gender identity. [T]hat applies to all schools within Illinois that are public schools. The Illinois human rights act also touches all non-sectarian K12 schools, or pre-K12 schools, and that also prohibits discrimination in all schools on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. And under the Illinois Human Rights Act, sexual orientation, sex, is defined as including gender identity.

Interestingly, Bazer did not share these relevant words from the Illinois Human Rights Act, which is state law:

The Act permits schools to maintain single-sex facilities that are distinctly private in nature, e.g., restrooms and locker rooms.

Nor did she share this from the 2016 Transgender Students in School  guidelines posted by the Illinois Association of School Boards:

[F]ederal courts in non-school cases have recognized a fundamental right to privacy or acknowledged the legitimacy of safety concerns in cases involving individuals undressing, using the restroom, or showering in an area to which a member of the opposite birth sex has access. Moreover, a federal district court recently asked the question whether a university engages in unlawful discrimination in violation of Title IX or the Constitution when it prohibits a transgender male student from using restrooms and locker rooms designated for men on campus. The court concluded: “The simple answer is no.”

Juliet Berger-White inadvertently exposes the hypocrisy of cultural regressives who claim to value diversity:

The goal of the executive order is to ensure that we are bringing together a crucial group of stakeholders who have great experience on the ground…. These stakeholders have been doing this work on an ongoing basis, but the benefit of doing it from the perspective of a governor-appointed task force is that it can help these private stakeholders collaborate with the government, and the Illinois State Board of Education, to figure out what next steps should be, and what that looks like.”

In other words, outside “progressive” activists are going to collude with the government to advance their sexuality dogma. Who are these “crucial stakeholders”? Are any lesbians who object to the sexual integration of women’s private spaces included? Will the task force include members of the professional mental health and medical communities who in increasing numbers are concerned about “adolescent-onset gender dysphoria,” the effects of puberty blockers like Lupron, and how social “transitioning” at young ages may effect brain development? What about Muslims, Orthodox Jews, or theologically orthodox Christians who are taxpayers and have children in public schools? Are parents and students who object to the sexual integration of private spaces and athletics crucial stakeholders?

The name Berger-White may sound familiar to long-time IFI readers. Her husband, Jeff Berger-White, is a former colleague of mine from the years I worked full-time in Deerfield High School’s writing center on Chicago’s North Shore. He was at the center of a huge community controversy over his decision to teach the egregiously obscene play Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes.

The play revolves around two couples: married Mormon couple Harper and Joe whose marriage is disintegrating in large measure due to Joe’s repressed homosexuality, which he eventually acts upon; and a homosexual couple, Louis and Prior. Louis leaves Prior when he finds out Prior has AIDS, and then has a month-long affair with Harper’s husband Joe.

There’s the black, homosexual, ex-drag queen nurse with the heart of gold, Belize; and the Angel with “eight vaginae” whose visits prompt sexual arousal and orgasm. The play is replete with references to orgasms, fellatio, semen, ejaculation, and f***ing. It includes the line “Suck my ****, Mother Theresa.”

In the heat of the controversy, Mr. Berger-White sent a letter to our local press asserting that it is the responsibility of English teachers to “challenge the emotions and morals” of their students—a belief clearly shared by his wife. His assertion raises some questions:

• Is it really the responsibility of high school English teachers (or government lawyers) to challenge the emotions and morals of students (or other people’s children)?

• Who decided that and when?

• How does the pedagogical goal of challenging the emotions and morals of students square with “progressive” commitments to ensuring students feel “safe”?

• If society agrees that challenging the emotions and morals of students is the responsibility of high school English teachers, why do we never hear about materials being presented that challenge the emotions and morals of “progressive”/”LBGTQQAP” students?

In the Biss interview, Juliet Berger-White asserted that “the law sets the floor,” but that when it comes to government schools affirming “trans” dogma, “there’s no ceiling.” Echoing her husband’s sentiments, she acknowledges the moral implications of promoting the “trans” ideology and policies in government schools, arguing that taxpayer-funded schools should abandon respect for biological sex “not just because we’re legally obligated to do so, but because we’re morally obligated to do so.”

The presumptuous Berger-Whites are using their taxpayer-funded jobs to indoctrinate other people’s children with their sexuality ideology. Their views are premised on arguable assumptions that are rarely addressed and never proved. Neither compassion nor “inclusivity” requires the affirmation of arguable assumptions that deny reality or that deem subjective feelings of greater importance than biological reality, especially if those assumptions result in the sexual integration of private spaces and speech mandates.

Teachers, leave those kids alone.

Conservatives, teach your children well, which can’t be done in places where foolish adults don’t respect physical embodiment as male or female or by cowardly adults who passively acquiesce because they care more about themselves than the children who have been entrusted to them.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/trans-schools_audio.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Here’s something many Illinoisans don’t know about the school sexuality-indoctrination bill created by Illinois’ premier homosexual and “trans” activist organizations: Equality Illinois and the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance (formerly part of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network).* This bill, which requires that the “teaching of history shall include a study of the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the history of this country and this state,” also mandates the following:

 [N]o pupils shall be graduated from the eighth grade of any public school unless he has received such instruction in the history of the United States and gives evidence of having a comprehensive knowledge thereof.

Did you get that? Leftists in Springfield, controlled by outside organizations whose sole raison d’être is to transform the ontological, moral, and political beliefs of Americans, seek to require that children be inculcated with Leftist assumptions about deviant sexuality and be tested on them in order to move on to high school.

Exploiting taxpayer funds and captive audiences of children constitutes the most egregious form of propaganda imaginable. This outrageous effort to use children and public monies to advance a Leftist ideology must be opposed with the kind of fervor and tenacity usually demonstrated only by Leftists.

The bill also has a troubling section on the state’s textbook block grant program. This program, which historically provided textbooks to public and private schools—including Catholic schools—has not been funded for the past five years. If funding is restored and if the school sexuality-indoctrination bill passes, private religious schools would either have to forgo textbook-funding or use textbooks that include material that espouses positive views of disordered sexuality—views that violate both Catholic and Protestant doctrine.

If passed, the ideologically-driven school sexuality-indoctrination bill—also known deceptively as the “Inclusive Curriculum” bill (SB 3249  and HB 5596)—would require not only that k-12 teachers teach about the “roles and contributions” of homosexuals and those who reject their biological sex but also to tell students about the sexual predilections of those contributors. In other words, when teachers teach about the accomplishments of Sally Ride or the plays of Oscar Wilde, they would have to discuss their disordered sexual feelings and life choices as well. I wonder if Leftists will require that students be taught that Wilde’s first homosexual encounter was with a 17-year-old when Wilde was 32.

The goal of homosexual and “trans” activists is to use government school curricula to transfer the good feelings children and teens have about achievement to homosexuality and biological-sex rejection. That is decidedly not the role of public schools.

Teachers would also have to teach about the history of homosexual and “trans” activism. Because Leftists have been so effective at advancing their ideology by falsely claiming that homosexuality and biological-sex rejection are analogous to race, they are continuing with that false (and insulting to blacks) analogy by falsely claiming that “LGBTQQAP” activism is analogous to the Civil Rights Movement and must be taught as such to children.

The only other state in the nation that has passed such a radical and destructive law is California, which exposes how radical and destructive Springfield is.

IFI is pleading with Illinoisans—including families that homeschool and private-school their children—to contact their state representatives and senators to urge them to oppose this bill. Until such time as every theologically orthodox church creates a school to educate their children or provides financial assistance to their families who want to pull their children out of government schools but cannot homeschool and lack the means to send their children to private schools, we must continue to fight the usurpation of government schools by Leftists.

Due to death, divorce, desertion, or disability, there are many families in which there is only one wage-earner who cannot afford private school tuition. Compassion for their plight and a commitment to stewarding how our taxes are used should lead Christians to actively oppose this bill with all its devilish details.

*(Note the dishonesty of these organizations’ names: They are about neither equality nor safety. Equality demands that we treat like things alike. Homosexuality is not like heterosexuality, and it’s not like race. And “safety,” as virtually everyone knows by now, has been redefined by homosexuals and those who masquerade as the opposite sex to mean absence of the expression of beliefs with which they disagree.)

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to both your state representative and state senator, urging them to reject this effort to politicize curricula in order to advance biased beliefs about sexuality to children in government schools. Contact them repeatedly.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Devilish-Details-in-School-Sexuality-Indoctrination-Bill.mp3

Worldview Conference May 5th

Worldview has never been so important than it is today!  The contemporary culture is shaping the next generation’s understanding of faith far more than their faith is shaping their understanding of culture. The annual IFI Worldview Conference is a phenomenal opportunity to reverse that trend. This year we are featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet on Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

While conservatives squeak “uncle” about the “social issues” from the dark recesses of their homes and churches where they hide, the jackbooted Left marches boldly forward obsessed with making the “social issues” the central plank of everything. They’re especially obsessed with transforming the hearts and minds of other people’s children using taxpayer-funded government schools in which they have an audience of cultural captives.

The newest brazen effort to exploit public money in the service of propagandizing Illinois children is a creation of Equality Illinois and the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, two of Illinois’ dubious “LGBTQQAP” activist organizations, and their most reliable allies in Springfield, State Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago) and State Representative Anna Moeller (D-Elgin) who have sponsored SB 3249 and HB 5596 respectively.

If passed, this “Inclusive Curriculum” bill will require that any “book or book substitute that will be used as a text or text substitute” include the “role and contributions” of homosexuals and of men and women who adopt opposite-sex personas (also known deceptively as “transgender”). In other words, all materials used in schools must address the roles and contributions of people who define themselves by their disordered sexual desires.

In addition, this bill will require that “the teaching of history of the United States in public schools shall include a study of the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the history of this country and this State.”

But, wait, the activist sponsors aren’t done:

This instruction shall be designed to teach that LGBT individuals have a rich history and have made substantial and valuable contributions to society, including government, arts, sciences, mathematics, sports, education, and in the economic, cultural, and political development of society. The instruction shall teach about the rich advocacy among the LGBT community and the LGBT community’s allies to be treated equally. Instruction shall reinforce that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression [i.e., cross-dressing], have a right to be treated with civil, legal and human rights, and as full human beings above all else.

When possible, adults, including school district employees who openly identify as LGBT and other openly LGBT adults in the community that the school district may decide to consult with, should be involved in the development and delivery of this instruction at the discretion of the LGBT individuals.

This bill applies to kindergarten through 12^th grade. You read that right. Leftists seek to mandate that five-year-olds be exposed to positive portrayals of perverse sexuality, and they want this exposure to be reinforced every year for the next 13 formative years.

Don’t be deceived by the language of “civil rights,” “legal rights,” or “human rights.” Neither homosexuals nor “trans”-identifiers are being denied any civil, legal, or human rights. To be clear, men and boys have no civil, legal, or human right to use women’s or girls’ private spaces, and women and girls have no civil, legal, or human right to use men’s or boys’ private spaces.

Equally deceptive is the reference to “full human beings.” “LGBT” activists relentlessly assert that disapproval of homosexuality or opposite-sex impersonation constitutes treating those who identify as homosexual or “trans” as less than full human beings. This language and this bill are intended to use cultural accomplishments to transform children’s view of homosexuality and biological-sex rejection and to silence dissent.

This bill’s advocates seek to use cultural achievements to suggest without stating that homosexuality and biological sex-rejection are good because people who affirm homosexual or “trans” identities did great things. The strategy employs a kind of false syllogism that goes something like this:

Sally Ride was a physicist, astronaut, and the first American woman in space.

Sally Ride was a lesbian.

Therefore, homosexuality is good.

Rational people who have developed the ability to think properly about morality will not be duped by this propaganda technique. Mature people who have been trained to think rationally about morality recognize that people can be kind, creative, brilliant, funny, and/or generous and yet at the same time experience disordered feelings and engage in immoral acts.

The problem is that children, teens, and even many adults have a poorly developed moral compass. Children and teens are especially predisposed to thinking that those they love or admire are perfect in every way.

Can those who choose to place their unchosen same-sex attraction at the center of their identity do great things? Of course they can. And so too can people who experience other disordered desires and engage in other types of immoral acts. But subjective sexual feelings and the volitional acts impelled by those feelings have nothing to do with their great achievements. So, why mention them?

Leftists seek to associate homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation with achievement in order to transfer the positive feelings people have about achievements to homosexuality and gender confusion. Leftists want to inculcate young minds and hearts with arguable propositions without actually having to make an argument with evidence and without allowing dissenting arguments to be made. The Left treats their arguable assumptions about the morality of homosexuality and biological-sex rejection as if they were unassailable objective moral truths. And they’re counting on no one noticing or addressing what they’re sneakily doing.

An NPR reporter asked me how I would respond to a homosexual teen who complains that he’s not seeing himself represented in curricula. I responded that I would ask the teen what he thinks should be done about a polyamorous student who complains that he doesn’t see himself  represented in curricula, or the girl who’s in love with her brother (remember, love is love, and who are we to judge) and doesn’t see herself represented in curricula, or the girl who embraces promiscuity as central to her identity and complains that she doesn’t see herself represented in curricula.

Lawmakers, administrators, and school board members would never allow teachers to present to students resources that include the role and contributions of polyamorists, sibling-lovers, or promiscuous persons. Or rather, they wouldn’t allow teachers to identify the polyamorous predilections, incestuous identities, or promiscuous propensities of men and women whose achievements are shared with students. And why not?

Because—at least for now—lawmakers, administrators, and school board members believe polyamory, consensual incest, and promiscuity are immoral and unhealthy. And therein lies the problem: Many people—including Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox—believe that homosexual activity and opposite-sex impersonation are equally immoral. Public schools—which are funded by all taxpayers and serve a diverse population—have no business treating homosexuality or opposite-sex impersonation as if it were objectively and inarguably moral.

Furthermore, this bill puts homosexuals–both inside and outside schools–in charge of curricula, and it requires that “LGBT” activism be taught. Obviously, such activism is to be taught positively. Schools are expected to teach about “LGBT” activism as they would teach about the Civil Rights Movement. But it’s not like the Civil Rights Movement because homosexuality per se is not analogous to race per se.

If this indoctrination bill is passed, “agents of change” (formerly known as teachers) will base their text selections not on the quality of a text but, rather, on whether it was written by a homosexual or by someone who adopted an opposite-sex persona or on how it depicts homosexuality and the “trans” ideology. Curricula will become–even more than it is already–a political tool.

If this bill is passed by the Illinois Senate and House and lands on “No-Social-Agenda” Rauner’s desk, is there any doubt that he will sign the bill into law? Remember, he just attended a swanky fundraising soiree hosted by Equality Illinois (which, by the way, was honoring Planned Parenthood). “No-Social-Agenda” Rauner spoke at and donated $15,000 to Equality Illinois to help it in its effort to eradicate moral truth about sexuality from the public square.

Former intelligence analyst and senior contributor at The Federalist, Stella Morabito, warns about the harms done to children through the kind of politicized curricula that Equality Illinois, Steans, and Moeller are pushing:

Identity politics and leftist politicization in the schools is pervasive these days…. Radical education reform has gutted school curricula of meaningful content, replacing it with identity politics, fads, and political activism.

…

The highly politicized nature of today’s public schools serves to draw virtual targets on the backs of students whose beliefs don’t align with its own. A bully is free to target with the taunt “bigot” any child who comes from a traditional Christian home, and the curricula will back them up.  

While conservatives are badgered relentlessly to shut up about the “social issues,” Leftists rub their hands in glee. Unrestrained by anyone in their own party and with conservative obstacles largely removed, “LGBTQQAP” activists and their Leftist toadies advance their perverse positions on the “social issues.”

So, fight this bill, and while you’re doing that, plan an escape route for your children from government schools.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to both your state representative and state senator to ask them to reject this effort to politicize curricula in order to advance biased beliefs about sexuality to children in government schools.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Wait-Till-You-See-What-LGBTQQAP-Activists-Have-Planned-for-IL-Schools.mp3

RESCHEDULED: IFI Worldview Conference May 5th

We have rescheduled our annual Worldview Conference featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet for Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture.

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

In my eight years with IFI, I have had good experiences with journalists, including even leftist journalists. They have largely treated me graciously and chosen comments from our interviews that accurately represented IFI’s positions on issues. Last week, however, that streak came to a screeching halt. I had an experience that bore out the charges of bias leveled against the mainstream press.

After reading my article on the Chicago Public Schools new “guidelines” that permit gender-dysphoric students and teachers to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms, Bettina Chang, a writer for Chicago Magazine, interviewed me for some twenty minutes on IFI’s views of the guidelines. When her article came out two days later, I was, to put it mildly, surprised.

The bias of Chang is evident not only in the space allotted to quotes from leftists but also in the particular quotes from our 20-minute interview she chose to include and in her remarkable defense of her bias.

Amount of space allotted to leftists vs. conservatives

Chang included quotes from representatives of four far-left, pro-“LGBT” organizations: The Center on Halsted, Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, Chicago Gender Society, and Howard Brown Health.

Chang included quotes from one conservative organization: Illinois Family Institute.

She used 33 words from The Center on Halsted, 101 words from the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, 86 words from the Chicago Gender Society, and 75 words from Howard Brown Health. She also paraphrased additional ideas from these organizations.

From our 20-minute interview, Chang used 8 words.

The 8 words she chose from our interview represented two points, one of which had nothing to do with the substance of the arguments against the use of opposite-sex restrooms by gender-dysphoric students, and the other misrepresented what I said.

Interview comments to Chang

To better understand the problems with her article and her defense of it, it’s important to know more about my initial answers to her questions.

I explained that IFI believes restrooms and locker rooms should correspond to students’ objective, immutable sex rather than their feelings about their sex because physical embodiment as male or female is profoundly meaningful and is the source of feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy.

I asked rhetorically why gender-dysphoric boys should be permitted to go to the bathroom, change clothes, or shower with only girls but girls should be denied that right.

I suggested that if curtains and stalls provide sufficient privacy to separate objectively male students from females, then there remains no reason to maintain any single-sex restrooms for any students.

I asked how the Left can be sure that if there is a mismatch between mind and body, the error rests with the body and not the mind.

Chang asked me to respond to the Leftist belief that prohibiting gender-dysphoric students from sharing restrooms with opposite-sex students is equivalent to prohibiting blacks from sharing restrooms with whites, which I did both in our initial conversation and an email that followed. Here was my response:

The only difference between blacks and whites is skin color, which is analogous to eye or hair color. So, would skin color (or eye or hair color) be relevant to restroom, locker room, shower, or shelter usage? Of course not. Even whites have diverse skin, eye, and hair colors. No one suggests that any of those color differences are relevant to feelings of modesty or the desire for privacy. So, any imposed separation was generated not by feelings of modesty or the desire for privacy. Rather, imposed separation of races in restrooms was motivated by racism.

Now with regard to sex, virtually everyone—including gender-dysphoric persons and homosexuals—acknowledge that men and women are substantively and significantly different. When homosexuals claim they are attracted only to persons of the same sex, they are implicitly and necessarily saying men and women are different, and those differences include bodily differences. When gender-dysphoric persons say they don’t want to use restrooms or locker rooms with persons of their same sex, they are saying there are fundamental and significant differences between men and women, and those differences include bodily differences. In fact, the intense desire to have an opposite-sex body is the central desire of virtually all gender-dysphoric persons. They are necessarily saying that their desire to use opposite-sex restrooms is based on those physical differences. They are demanding privacy based on sex differences while denying that privacy to others.

And if the demand for privacy based on objective sex differences is equivalent to racism, then why is the demand of gender-dysphoric persons for privacy based on sex differences not equivalent to racism? If separate restrooms for men and women are analogous to separate restrooms for blacks and whites, then are separate restrooms for gender-dysphoric males and non-gender-dysphoric males analogous to separate restrooms for blacks and whites as well? They are acknowledging sex differences and demanding to have those desires accommodated. So, why are sex differences meaningful only for those who have gender dysphoria but not for those who don’t?

So, from all those comments, here is what Chang wrote:

But acknowledgement remains an obstacle for conservative groups. Suburban-based Illinois Family Institute posted a blog this week decrying the CPS policy. The author, Laurie Higgins, says she does not believe the medical consensus that transgender people are mentally healthy, adding that “physical embodiment” of a sex should dictate bathroom use—though the group has no plans to petition CPS for changes to the policies because “that’s for community members to do,” she says.

That’s it.

While she got IFI’s position correct that we believe restroom use should correspond to physical embodiment as male or female, she conveniently omitted the reasons we believe that. She also omitted the points about the incoherence and inconsistency of the CPS guidelines that I raised through rhetorical questions. She did, however, manage to include six words about the unimportant point that IFI is not getting directly involved in efforts to overturn the CPS guidelines.

Chang’s defenses of her bias 

Even more interesting are Chang’s defenses of her imbalance.

First she told me “Sadly my editor has cut down the portion where I quoted you because he wanted me to focus on Chicago-only groups.”

Then she told me this stunner, which oddly has nothing to do with the location of IFI’s office:

[I]n writing the story, I could not ignore that your opinion is based on factual inaccuracies.

We address the question of balance by looking at accuracy as well as representation. It is your personal belief that transgender people are mentally ill, which is why you are against the policy. I think that’s important for our readers to know, and I included that in the article. I asked follow up questions to get a better view of how you came to that conclusion, but the reasoning you provided was too far outside the facts to responsibly report. [emphasis added]

Her rationalization of bias is remarkable for two reasons, the first of which is that I never said that “transgender people are mentally ill.”

Second, Chang is factually and absolutely incorrect when she claims that my opposition to gender-dysphoric persons using opposite-sex restrooms is based on my “personal belief that transgender people are “entally ill.” In point of fact, I told her specifically that IFI opposes gender-dysphoric persons in opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms because we believe objective, immutable physical embodiment as male or female is deeply and profoundly meaningful and is the source of the desire for privacy and feelings of modesty.

Here’s what I said when she went fishing for a statement from me about the mental health of gender-dysphoric persons: I asked how leftists can be sure that if there’s a mismatch between mind and body, the error rests in healthy, normally functioning bodies. And I said that the highly politicized mental health community is prescribing protocols that do not advance health.

What’s more remarkable still are the opinions of leftists that Chang evidently believes are based on factual accuracies and, therefore, suitable for print:

• From the Center on Halsted: “It’s a great day for gender-diverse students in CPS.” What is the “fact” on which this opinion is based? Gender-diverse students may have the opinion that it’s a great day, but what is the objective and accurate fact upon which that opinion is based? What is the objective factually accurate definition of “great”?

• From the Center on Halsted: “This is an affirmation of their viability as human beings.” What does this even mean? And what is the objective factual accuracy on which the opinion that affirmation of viability of gender-dysphoric persons as “human beings” requires allowing them in opposite-sex restrooms? What is the objective factual accuracy supporting the implicit opinion that people who oppose opposite-sex persons in their restrooms view gender-dysphoric persons as not viable human beings?

• From the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance: “Obviously it’s helpful when people have the support of their parents, but if it’s not possible, it’s great that a student can still be who they are in school.” What is the objective factual accuracy on which the opinion that it’s “great” that a student can pretend he or she is the opposite sex at school? What is the objective factual accuracy on which the opinion that parental support requires affirmation of the desire to be the opposite sex is based?

• From the Chicago Gender Society: “You’re not born with hate. You have to be taught hate. Like we’ve seen in North Carolina and Mississippi in recent months.” What is the objective factual accuracy on which the opinion that people who oppose opposite-sex persons in restrooms hate them?

• From Harold Brown Health: “So for kids to have the option to be in a safe environment…it’s a new day. A clean slate.” What is the objective factual accuracy on which the opinion that allowing gender-dysphoric girls in boys restrooms and locker rooms enhances school “safety.” What is the objective factual accuracy on which the opinion that allowing gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms creates a “clean slate”?

Apparently, leftists believe that opinions must be based on “factual accuracies” as defined by them. Hint: These factual accuracies are actually assumptions with which leftists agree.

So much for fair and balanced reporting and intellectual diversity.

Yesterday, I discussed the dishonesty of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) when reporting on the ill-conceived “transgender” policy at East Aurora High School in Aurora, Illinois and the school board’s dissolution of the ad hoc committee that included five deviant sexuality activists from outside the community. Anyone who naively believes the dissolution of this unelected committee due to community opposition is the definitive end to this story should read the email below that was sent by one of the activists to the other ad hoc committee members. It reveals the  presumptuousness, self-righteousness, and tenacity of “LGBT”-affirming activists: 

Dear Members of the Ad Hoc Committee: 

For myself and the hundreds of supporters of transgender students and their families in the East Aurora Schools, I was extremely disappointed to learn that the District 131 school board dissolved the Ad Hoc Committee.  I learned this, not as a courtesy from anyone at the district, but from the news media.  Learning secondhand about the decision sends a clear message that the district does not value the many exhausting hours members have volunteered and that the work we have done has been for nothing.  Notwithstanding recent events, we know that we have been a part of a critical conversation that must continue for the health and safety of East Aurora youth and families. 

Dissolving the Ad Hoc Committee fails the community and the district.  The dialogue beginning to develop presented an important opportunity for education and agreement on the best approach for the district to support a population of its students.  The difficult nature of the dialogue reveals just how critical it is that we have it.  The fact is that there are transgender students in East Aurora Schools (and all schools) and it is the district’s obligation to support and protect them.  Quitting the work now leaves unaddressed the damage done and a community divided.  Not to mention the liability incurred in recognizing the need for the work and then walking away. 

The work we’ve started is simply too important to abandon and the young people to whom we and the district are beholden deserve our thoughtful attention.  Thus, I propose that we continue the discussion with or without the official stamp of the school board. 

Please let me know whether you are available to meet on Wednesday, January 9 at 6p or Wednesday, January 16 at 6p to discuss how to move forward.  Location will be determined. 

You may reach me at sarah@illinoissafeschools.org or at 312-368-9070 ex. 323.

A few points in response:

• Since it is the mission of the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance to foist their beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality and gender confusion on public schools, why does Sarah Schriber claim that her “exhausting hours” were volunteer hours? And if she so deeply resents the rejection by the school board and community of her “volunteer” contributions, why is she initiating the continuation of her “volunteer” work?
• Schriber’s implicit claim about wanting to “dialogue” is laughable. Neither her organization nor any other “LGBT” advocacy organization seeks to “dialogue” with conservatives on how to think about issues related to same-sex attraction or gender-confusion. They will tolerate no other conceptualizations of homosexuality and gender-confusion than their own. Anyone who disagrees with their non-factual, subjective, unproven assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexual acts, cross-dressing, elective amputations of healthy body parts, “same-sex marriage,” or “same-sex adoption” are deemed ignorant hateful bigots. For evidence of that, just read the email sent by another member of the former ad hoc committee, the gender-confused Mr. Joanie Wimmer.
• Schriber’s declaration that she intends to continue to meet even “without the official stamp of the school board” reveals not merely how presumptuous she is, but how tenacious. Aurora community members need to be even more tenacious.

And Illinoisans in other communities need to be prepared to be equally tenacious because advocates like Schriber are coming to your schools–including your elementary schools. Unfortunately, many are employed in your schools even now, working behind the scenes to create policy and exploit curricula in their efforts to transform the beliefs and values of your children.

Anyone who’s concerned about the increasing involvement of deviant sexuality activists in our public schools should pay close attention to recent events in Aurora, Illinois—events that may unfold further. Those who believe the issue is over do not understand the obsessive fervor with which these activists pursue their dystopian vision, including corrupting the hearts and minds of our children. 

To review, an administrator (Christine Aird) in East Aurora School District 131 worked behind the scenes last summer with an activist from the “LGBT”-affirming organization, ironically named the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, to come up with an unnecessary school policy that would have permitted gender-confused students to use the restrooms and locker rooms of opposite sex students. This administrator then misled the school board into thinking that such policy was required by state law. Public opposition to the policy resulted in the school board rescinding the policy four days later. 

Subsequently, the board formed an unelected, ad hoc committee to revisit policy for gender-confused students. On this committee sat two homosexual activists from outside Aurora, an activist from the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance who does not live in Aurora, and two cross-dressing men who do not live in Aurora. 

Well over 100 Aurora community members, most of whom were Hispanic, showed up at ad hoc committee and school board meetings to express their strong opposition to any policy that would allow students to use restrooms and locker rooms of opposite sex students. They also expressed opposition to non-community members serving on any committee that was creating policy for the district. As a result primarily of community involvement, the school board disbanded the ad hoc committee after just two meetings. 

In reporting on this story, Nathan Smith, public policy associate for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) managed to accomplish what I thought was impossible: diminish my view of GLSEN. His GLSEN blog post about this entire debacle was dishonest in two significant ways. 

First and most important, Smith attributed the decision of the East Aurora High School Board of Education to dissolve the ad hoc committee solely to the Illinois Family Institute. Although IFI appreciates Smith’s assessment of our influence, his assertion is untrue, likely deliberately deceitful, and unfair to the scores of Aurora citizens who were most responsible for the decision of their school board to dissolve the ad hoc committee. 

His assertion that IFI was responsible reflects either journalistic incompetence or deliberate dishonesty or both. The article I wrote in which I urged Illinoisans, particularly Aurora community members, to contact the board of education was published before the ad hoc committee had even formed. 

It was the Aurora community members who showed up at the second meeting of the ad hoc committee and a subsequent school board meeting who were responsible for the school board’s decision to dissolve the committee, and yet Smith never said a word about their attendance at these meetings and their vocal opposition to the controversial policy.  It’s mind-boggling that anyone reporting on this event would fail to mention that over 100 community members attended the meeting and opposed both the policy and the composition of the ad hoc committee.

It’s obvious why Smith would omit these inconvenient truths from his blog post. It serves GLSEN’s strategic purposes to conceal community opposition to the perverse goals of deviant sexuality advocates—goals that GLSEN relentlessly promotes. It also serves GLSEN not only to distract the public’s attention from the effectiveness of community involvement but to drum up hatred against IFI. Although, I understand Smith’s strategic reasons for his startling omissions, I would hope that a commitment to truth and accuracy would supersede GLSEN’s strategic interests. 

Second, Smith erroneously claims that the East Aurora School Board disbanded “efforts to protect” gender-confused students. What the school board did was disband the committee on which multiple activists who were not Aurora community members were serving and which the community opposed. Smith assumes that the only way to protect students who suffer from gender confusion is to maintain a committee composed of unelected, non-community members; to accept his ontological and moral presuppositions about gender confusion; and to enact policy with which he agrees. In a diverse world, however, there are multiple, competing visions of how best to respond to and protect those who experience gender confusion. 

One final point, unlike the “progressive” activists who actually served on the ad hoc committee while not living in Aurora, I only wrote about the story, as did homosexual and gender-confused activists all over the country. No IFI employee even attended a meeting of the school board or ad hoc committee.

For those who despite all evidence to the contrary still believe that the bullying amendment that is pending in the Illinois Senate is centrally about stopping bullying, please read what one of Illinois’ chief homosexual activists organizations, Equality Illinois, recently sent out to its devotees:

SAFE SCHOOLS – AMENDMENT SUBMITTED FOR ANTI-BULLYING LEGISLATION

Thanks to the work of Representative Kelly Cassidy and broad Prevent School Violence Coalition, which includes groups like Equality Illinois, Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, ACLU of Illinois, among others, bill passed the House and is now going to State Senate.

Equality Illinois is a homosexual activist organization. The Illinois Safe Schools Alliance is a homosexual activist organization that was once part of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The ACLU is an organization as committed to normalizing homosexuality and gender confusion as GLSEN, Equality Illinois, and the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance.  And State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) is openly homosexual.

Equality Illinois also made clear that HB 5290 is unnecessary: “House Bill 5290 modifies current law by integrating the specific recommendations of the Illinois School Bullying Prevention Task Force.” HB 5290 restates the recommendations created by the very liberal Bullying Prevention Task Force. Those recommendations are easily available on the Illinois State Board of Education website for any school district that feels it needs further guidance.

Cassidy stated that this additional law is needed because 3 school districts (out of over 900) have no policy and 20 do not have “adequate” bullying policy. What she failed to make clear during floor debates is that the 3 school districts that don’t have bullying policy are already in violation of existing law, so HB 5290 is unnecessary.

Furthermore, HB 5290, which mandates nothing, would do nothing about the 20 school districts that have — in Cassidy’s view — inadequate policy. If these 20 districts have bullying policy, they are in compliance with existing law.

To illustrate that “anti-bullying” programs that address homosexuality or gender confusion (aka “gender identity” or “gender expression”) are centrally about promoting “progressive” notions about homosexuality, just replace “sexual orientation” (a Leftist rhetorical creation) with another condition constituted by subjective feelings and volitional sexual acts.

Everyone knows that teenage girls who are promiscuous are often called ugly names or worse. No decent person wants promiscuous girls bullied, so why don’t anti-bullying laws and school policies include promiscuity in their lists of conditions for which students may not be bullied?  Why don’t teachers show films in which promiscuity is portrayed positively?  Why don’t schools invite speakers who affirm a sexually promiscuous identity to come talk to students about how bad it felt to be bullied in high school for their promiscuity?  Why don’t they have “youth programming” in which promiscuity is affirmed? Why don’t teachers have students read and perform plays in which promiscuity is celebrated and disapproval of it is portrayed as ignorant, bigoted, hateful, provincialism — all in the service of ending bullying?

Or replace “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” with polyamory?  What if some students are bullied because either they or their “parents” identify as polyamorists? Will schools have anti-bullying “youth programming” in which polyamorous unions are  portrayed as morally equivalent to families headed by two people?  Mary Jo Merrick-Lockett, a teacher in a Minneapolis high school that has recently been at the forefront of a national bullying campaign to malign and sue the district into ideological submission to the great and powerful pro-homosexual lobby had this to say:

If you can’t talk about [homosexuality] in any context, which is how teachers interpret district policies, kids internalize that to mean that being gay must be so shameful and wrong. And that has created a climate of fear and repression and harassment.

Will teachers assert that silence on the issue of polyamory creates a climate of harassment for polyamorists? Do teachers believe that internalizing the belief that polyamory is wrong is damaging to students?

What if a student is bullied because her parents are siblings in a committed, loving incestuous relationship? Will public school administrators treat adult consensual incest exactly as they are treating homosexuality and gender confusion — all in the service of ending bullying?

We all know the answer to these questions. Schools would never have students read plays, novels, and magazine articles; or watch films; or perform plays; or attend “youth programming” sessions; or listen to invited speakers that affirm promiscuity, adult consensual incest, or polyamory — not even to end bullying. The reason that lawmakers wouldn’t seek such remedies and administrators would not permit them is that they would not want to affirm something as positive that they believe is immoral — not even to end bullying.  And this is the point: public schools are both implicitly and explicitly taking sides in the public debate about the nature and morality of homosexuality.

Some will take offense at my comparison of homosexuality to polyamory or adult consensual incest because — they argue — those conditions are immoral and homosexuality is not. But that is precisely the unsettled debate. The moral beliefs of homosexuals and their ideological allies who oppressively control public schools are just that: beliefs, assumptions, moral propositions — not facts.

All the various organizations committed to using public schools to normalize homosexuality are trying to make the case that opposition to their anti-bullying laws, policies, and programs constitutes support for bullying, and our lawmakers are falling for it. Our lawmakers are quaking in their boots because they know homosexuals will call them supporters of bullying if they don’t toe the pro-homosexual ideological line. Allowing their fear to control their actions is destructive and embarrassing. 

The truth is it is entirely possible to oppose bullying without mentioning every possible condition for which students may be bullied, without “youth programming,” and without duplicative non-mandatory laws that will before long be made mandatory.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to contact your senator and urge him/her to oppose this unnecessary bullying bill.

Help expand our reach by forwarding this email to like-minded family and friends.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

Part I of this two-part article about Illinois’ new “enumerated” school anti-bullying law and its attendant Task Force exposed the bias and lack of diversity of the Task Force as well as the troubling recommendations made by it.

106-page Task Force recommendations refer to” broader cultural systemic issues of power, privilege and oppression,” “homophobia,” and “underlying power imbalances.” For the uninitiated, this language may sound benign or even positive, but those familiar with the jargon of the “teaching for social justice” movement will recognize the troubling ideas concealed beneath the deceitfully reassuring rhetoric.

The goals of the Task Force are consistent with the mission of the organization that created the law: the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance (ISSA). ISSA is a homosexual activist organization that was originally an affiliate of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). ISSA’s anti-bullying law was created specifically to add the terms “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression” to existing law, which in turn would provide liberal assumptions about homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder an even greater foothold in Illinois schools.

The Task Force recommends “all schools in Illinois immediately embark on a journey of complete school transformation,” which means all public and private schools in Illinois. Current law applies only to public schools and non-sectarian, that is, non-religious private schools, but the Task Force calls for an amendment to the existing law so that it would apply to religious private schools as well.

The Task Force recommendations include indoctrination plans for students, teachers, administrators, all school employees (e.g., maintenance workers, bus drivers, cafeteria workers), and future teachers enrolled in college and university teacher-preparation programs.

The Task Force asserts that “complete school transformation cannot be accomplished without adequate commitment, time, and resources,” stating that “nothing less than the complete overhaul of the education system in Illinois” will suffice, and that “the state of Illinois fully fund pilot projects to collect and evaluate data on the efficacy of the proposed school transformation model.”

Their recommendations include this troubling suggestion: “Many changes will need to be made to state laws, ISBE regulations and school policies.”

Many community members feel helpless to stop the usurpation of public education by liberal ideologues hell-bent on using taxpayer resources to advance their moral and political beliefs, but there are things taxpayers can and should do:

1. Email your local school administrators and request the following information:

a. Ask for detailed information about any “bullying prevention” activities that are planned for students.

b. Ask for detailed information about any “bullying-prevention” training (i.e., professional development) that is planned for administrators, teachers, and staff.

c. Ask if any of the “bullying-prevention” activities that are planned for any of these groups specifically mention “sexual orientation,” “gender-identity” (i.e., Gender Identity Disorder), or “gender-expression” (i.e., cross-dressing).

d. Request copies of any resources that will be used in “bullying-prevention” training for students, teachers, administrators, and staff.

2. If your administration is uncooperative, file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to access the information. FOIA requests are easy to file and cost-free for the first fifty pages of documents. Every Illinois school district has a FOIA officer who by law must be identified on the district’s website. Your district’s FOIA officer can provide instructions on how to file a FOIA. Click here and go to page 56 for a sample FOIA request. Taxpayers should be making use of FOIA requests. They provide invaluable (and often surprising) information about what takes place behind the scenes in schools.

3. Finally, tell your children’s teachers that under no circumstance is your child to be exposed to any resources or activities that mention “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” or “gender expression.” Tell them that you will provide “bullying-prevention” instruction at home. And ask them to notify you prior to any activities or presentations that address “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” or “gender expression,” so that you can opt your child out.

IFI is urging our readers to research how your school districts are implementing the Illinois Prevent School Violence Act (PSVA). Please do this if you’re a taxpayer. You don’t have to have students enrolled in school. All taxpayers are subsidizing what takes place in our public schools; and today’s students are tomorrow’s culture-makers. We all have a stake in public education.

We cannot afford to sit around fretting and whining about the corruption of public education by liberal ideologues who have transformed education into indoctrination. Please email your schools, and if anything troubling turns up, send the information and documentation to IFI. We would love to share with IFI readers what’s taking place in particular school districts around the state.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

Illinois parents may soon begin to taste the diseased fruit of the Illinois “enumerated” anti-bullying act that Governor Quinn signed into law a year ago on the Sunday morning of the Chicago “gay pride” parade at a ceremony at Nettelhorst School, Chicago’s first public elementary school to march in the debauchery-affirmation parade, which is located in the city’s premier homosexual neighborhood “Boystown.” (And there are still gullible people who buy the deceit that this law is centrally about bullying.)

The term “enumerated” is an obfuscatory euphemism that means the law specifically includes homosexuality, Gender Identity Disorder, and cross-dressing. Of course our lawmakers wouldn’t dare use those terms out of fear that Illinoisans would see the pernicious truth lurking behind the civil rights argot. No, our lawmakers use the equally obfuscatory euphemisms of “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression.”

This law required our State Superintendent of Education, Christopher Koch, to appoint a Task Force to make recommendations about the implementation of the anti-bullying law. Here are just a few of the “unbiased” Task Force members:

Christopher Koch: Illinois State Superintendent of Education, who according to the Chicago Tribune, lives with his “partner.” Other public sources (here and here) reveal that partner to be Kyle A. Lentz.

In 2009, Koch was honored by the homosexual activist organization, Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, as “advocate of the year.”

Rocco Claps: openly homosexual Director of the Department of Human Rights (Read more HERE).

Shannon Sullivan: openly homosexual Director of the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, who seeks to exploit all public schools — including elementary schools — to normalize her own sexual proclivities.

Jennifer Nielsen: Associate Director of the Anti-Defamation League (pictured here in the homosexual newspaper Windy City Times, promoting the pro-homosexual film It’s STILL Elementary. Trailers of this film can be viewed HERE).

Lonnie Nasatir: Regional Director of the Greater Chicago/Upper Midwest area with pro-homosexual Anti-Defamation League. Nasatir had this to say about the civil union law: “In our eyes this is an issue of pure and simple fairness and equality; we knew representative [Greg] Harris would need a lot of help and we thought it would be a great opportunity to inform the community about what the bill means and other issues about the LGBT community to be informed and educated citizens.”

And this: “Today we celebrate the hard work of advocates and legislators, and specifically Representative Greg Harris, who worked tirelessly on this bill for several years to ensure all citizens are afforded the rights and privileges of married couples…. This is a proud day for the state of Illinois as we have recognized a fundamental inequality and taken steps to remedy it.”

Dr. Stacey Horn: assistant professor in the College of Education, University of IL at Chicago (former academic home of Bill Ayers). In an article co-authored by Horn she writes, “A final LGBTQ school safety strategy involves…integrating LGBTQ topics into the school curricula.”

According to the UIC website, Horn is “interested in factors (e.g., age, religion, school context, intergroup context) related to sexual prejudice among adolescents and adults….In her teaching, she….also examines how to use our knowledge about adolescent development in creating educational and social context that support and promote positive developmental outcomes for all youth, and specifically for youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.”

Click here, here, and here for more on Horn.

Dorothy Espelage: Professor of Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of IL at Urbana-Champaign. HERE are some words of wisdom from Espelage: “Kids are bombarded by homophobic messages….The kids’ attitudes in this state are homophobic in nature. They marginalize boys who don’t act like boys and girls who don’t act like girls….This is very controversial….It’s tied to religion, it’s tied to values, and we’re a very sexually repressed nation as it is, anyway.”

Ann Rangos: self-identified lesbian high school student who is described by David Fischer of the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance as “an incredible activist.”

Sukari Stone: self-identified lesbian high school student who writes the following on her blog:

I’m extremely passionate about human rights. More specifically gay rights. I work with an orginization that helps make schools safer and more welcoming to LGBTQA students. Equal rights are very important to me. Probably one of the most important things in my life at the moment (and hopefully for awhile). I have serious pride in who I am and honestly don’t care whether others accept me or not. And because of my ridiculous pride I’ll let you in on a little secret of mine…I’m a rainbow kid. Get it? I like girls. Cool right? (Source)

I was thinking gay thoughts as usual)….I promise to try to cut down on the ridiculous about of gay things in my posts. I really can’t help it. Most people have 2 parts of their brain, a logical side and an artistic side. I actually have 3 parts; an artistic side, a logical side and a gay side. (Source)

After reading [“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards], I honestly laughed. Seriously, this guy needs to be put away. I could just imagine a red-faced fat man screaming this sermon at the top of his lungs. “What’s his deal?” I asked myself.

What surprised me even more was the fact that people were so quick to believe this idiot. If they even read the Bible they’d know that the God portrayed in it was a good one. A loving caring and accepting one.

Personally, I am not religious. I don’t believe in God but I have read the Bible and studied religion a little bit. It’s just not my cup of tea. I could rant on and on about religion in general but I don’t want to ridiculously offend someone (for once in my life).

I think that Johnathan Edwards was trying to get his listeners to live a life of fear of paranoia. After all, if I believed that God was holding me by a string over a flaming pit I’d be pretty damn scared too. He’s using fear to force people to live their lives perfectly and not to make any mistakes. The God portrayed in the Bible was a forgiving guy so I’m not exactly sure what edition Edwards was reading. Maybe he knew that this wasn’t happening. That God was a hateful being that wanted to kill everyone. It could’ve been a pretty smart way to brainwash people into believing what you had to say.

Basically, Johnathan Edwards was either a ridiculously smart manipulator or a guy that was coming down from a serious acid trip while delivering his sermon. (Source)

Here are some of the recommendations made by the Koch-appointed Task Force (comments and questions in brackets are mine; all emphases are mine):

• education stakeholders in Illinois [should] commit to engaging in overall school transformation….To accomplish transformation, schools must:
• Recognize the impacts of systemic cultural issues such as racism, sexism, classism, adultism, disability discrimination andhomophobia that contribute to negative and hostile environments for youth and adults
• Provide effective youth programming with:
• Strong ties to theoretical constructs related to bullying…and behavioral change [Will any of the “theoretical constructs” used in “youth programming” dissent from liberal dogma regarding homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder?]
• An evaluation component [Will students be evaluated? If so, on what will they be evaluated? Will they be evaluated on the degree to which they have embraced the moral assumptions of liberal demagogues?]
• Methods and strategies for adapting programs to unique school contexts (e.g., race, age, gender) and ecological domains (e.g., peer relationships, family relationships)
• Provide professional development to all school personnel (including not only administrators and teachers, but bus drivers, maintenance workers, security, cafeteria workers, etc.) on issues of:
• School-wide expectations, as well as reporting and monitoring requirements when expectations are not met
• Impacts of systemic cultural issues such as racism, sexism, classism, adultism, ableism and homophobia that contribute to bullying and school violence, as well as hostile environments for youth and adults that inhibit learning and development
• In order to support schools in the school transformation process, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and other governmental agencies, where possible, should:
• Support amendment of the PSVA (the Illinois “enumerated” anti-bullying law) and implementing regulations to…cover all public and non-public schools, require more detail in mandated anti-bullying policies, and more effectively support school transformation efforts
• Develop two to four common indicators (e.g., incidence rates, discipline referrals related to bullying, overall school climate) that address bullying and school violence and require all schools and districts to report annually
• Establish an administrators’ academy to teach all school administrators ways to establish and maintain a positive school climate
• Make available quality technical assistance and professional development to schools engaged in the school transformation process
• Ensure all pre-professional education for school personnel prepare them to engage in and lead school transformation processes [“Pre-professional education” refers to students preparing to become teachers. In other words, the task force is recommending that all future teachers be indoctrinated with their subversive ideas about homosexuality.]
• Fully fund pilot projects to collect and evaluate data on the efficacy of the proposed school transformation model to comprehensively prevent and address bullying and school violence

Some random thoughts about this legislative debacle:

— It’s odd or ironic or hypocritical that an educational group that purports to embrace diversity and tolerance would apparently make no effort to create a diverse task force. It’s clear that the task force excluded anyone who opposes bullying but believes that affirming volitional homosexual acts harms children.

— It’s also odd that despite the fact that lesbians constitute less than 2% of the population, they comprise 100 percent of the student representation on the task force.

— According to research, the kids who are most frequently bullied are obese kids, and not one was included on the task force. In addition, I’ve never heard a single expert advocate the celebration and affirmation of obesity as a means to eradicate the bullying of obese students.

— I am loathe to refer, even indirectly, to particular students, but our state’s educational leaders have foolishly decided to make students public figures by including them on the task force. This reminds me of the equally foolish practice in District 113 of including students on committees that interview teacher candidates. Teacher candidates should be insulted by such a practice. However did we arrive at a cultural place where immature students who lack both knowledge and wisdom and who hold disordered moral beliefs serve on committees that make critical educational decisions for Illinois students? Clearly, Koch’s allegiance to homosexual kids is greater than his allegiance to conservative adults, sound pedagogy, or philosophical diversity. Perhaps he fears being accused of “adultism” if he doesn’t include students and “homophobia” if he doesn’t include homosexual students on the task force.

—Many conservatives fearfully, ignorantly, and, in some cases, self-righteously proclaim–at least publicly–that the homosexuality of educators and lawmakers doesn’t matter to them. Well, it better matter to them because when an educator or lawmaker affirms and embraces a homosexual identity, they are announcing precisely what they hold to be true about the nature and morality of volitional homosexual acts. And these non-factual assumptions about homosexuality will shape their decisions on a whole host of issues including laws, school policies, curricula, their own classroom comments, and professional development opportunities provided to school employees at public expense.

—How much will these complete “transformations” of all schools cost individual districts and the state?

It should be obvious that this anti-bullying law, like virtually all contemporary anti-bullying laws, policies, and activities, is centrally concerned with exploiting legitimate anti-bullying sentiment and public education to transform the moral beliefs of Illinois students. Part II of this article on Illinois’ “enumerated” anti-bullying law will focus on what community members can do in the hope of mitigating the law’s moral and pedagogical damage.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

Bullying in schools is a serious problem that must be addressed. In a misguided, poorly reasoned attempt to address it, Illinois legislators recently passed the disastrous “School Anti-Bullying Act” (SB 3266).

The problem of bullying did not necessitate any new state laws in that virtually every school in the state has more than adequate anti-bullying policy. The problem is not with a lack of policy, and the solution is certainly not this new, poorly constructed law.

For those who naively believe that “anti-bullying” policies, programs, and legislation are centrally about ending bullying, please note where and when Governor Pat Quinn signed into law the Illinois “School Anti-Bullying Act.” The symbolism of the time and place of the signing ceremony points to the real purpose of the legislation, which is to exploit legitimate anti-bullying sentiment and Illinois public schools to undermine traditional beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder. If this legislation were not a Trojan Horse for getting homosexuality-affirming resources into public schools and were truly about addressing all forms of bullying, why would Quinn sign it into law on the Sunday morning of the Chicago “gay pride” parade, and why hold the ceremony at Nettelhorst Elementary School — the Chicago elementary school that has marched in the “gay pride” parade for two years — which happens to be located in the homosexual neighborhood called Boystown?

SB 3266 was initiated by the homosexual advocacy group Illinois Safe Schools Alliance (ISSA), which grew out of the unholy alliance of the Chicago chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and the Coalition for Education on Sexual Orientation. According to the homosexual newspaper the Edge, “ISSA and its allies and predecessors worked more than a decade to get the legislation passed.” ISSA Executive Director Shannon Sullivan praised the passage of this legislation. You may recognize this name: Shannon Sullivan is the lesbian who has been working to introduce resources that affirm homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder to elementary school children in Oak Park.

Below are some excerpts from the actual text with the most problematic language emphasized:

Bullying on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, military status, sexual orientation, gender-related identity or expression….

“Bullying” means any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act or conduct, including communications made in writing or electronically, directed toward a student or students that has or can be reasonably predicted to have the effect of one or more of the following:

…

causing a substantially detrimental effect on the student’s or students’ physical or mental health….

substantially interfering with the student’s or students’ academic performance; or substantially interfering with the student’s or students’ ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or privileges provided by a school….

Bullying, as defined in this subsection (b), may take various forms, including without limitation one or more of the following: harassment, threats, intimidation, stalking, physical violence, sexual harassment, sexual violence, theft, public humiliation, destruction of property, or retaliation for asserting or alleging an act of bullying. This list is meant to be illustrative and non-exhaustive….

Each school district and non-public, non-sectarian elementary or secondary school shall create and maintain a policy on bullying, which policy must be filed with the State Board of Education.

This legislation is disastrous for two reasons.

First, it is disastrous because it is an “enumerated” law which means it includes the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender-related identity or expression” (i.e., “transgenderism,” “transsexuality,” and cross-dressing) in the list of conditions for which students cannot be bullied. Why, in a non-exhaustive list that omits other conditions for which students are bullied, would these two be specifically named? Do our legislators and the crafters of this legislation actually expect the public to believe that there are more students bullied for their same-sex attraction or cross-dressing than for being shy, socially awkward, impulsive, overweight, studious, or athletically challenged? And why not use the proper term for “gender-related identity or expression” which is Gender Identity Disorder (GID)?

The answer is that the motives behind both the inclusion of these particular terms as well as the refusal to use the correct term, GID, are wholly political. Those who proposed and promoted this legislation are seeking to end bullying based on “real or perceived” homosexuality or GID by transforming the moral and political views of students. This new law with its inclusion of the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender-related identity and expression” will be used to introduce resources that implicitly and explicitly affirm homosexuality and GID in even elementary schools and will be used to simultaneously censor resources that espouse traditional views.

Second, it is disastrous because of its ambiguity. For example, the bill identifies bullying as “any severe verbal conduct that can be reasonably predicted to cause a substantially detrimental effect on a student’s mental health.”

• How is the vague phrase “substantially detrimental effect” defined? If a teacher brought in two scholars to debate same-sex adoption and one of the conservative scholar’s arguments was that homosexual acts are inherently morally flawed, could a homosexual student claim that he experienced a substantially detrimental effect on his mental health? Or what if a classmate made such a point in a classroom discussion?
• Do athletic codes that prohibit genetic males from joining the girls’ swim team “substantially interfere” with the ability of a boy who has GID to “participate in the activities provided by the school”?
• What if a teacher in order to have students study both sides of the public debate on same-sex marriage assigned reading from conservative scholars or columnists that asserted that same-sex marriage should not be legalized because homosexual practice is not moral? Could a homosexual student claim that he was publicly humiliated?
• Does this new legislation render illegal a high school dress code that prohibits boys from wearing lipstick and dresses to school?
• If a school counselor were to provide a student or his parents with information about GID counseling, could that be considered gender identity discrimination or bullying if the student claimed the provision of such information humiliated him or had a detrimental effect on his health?
• If a school prohibited a boy with GID from using the girls’ bathrooms, could the school be found liable for violating this law?
• Does this require all public and private non-religious schools to create policy on bullying that specifically mentions “sexual orientation” and “gender-related identity and expression”?

Since the list of bases on which bullying is prohibited is deliberately “non-exhaustive,” what is the justification for the exclusion of other conditions for which students may be bullied? The current legislation gives examples from three broad categories of conditions but offers no reasons for the inclusion of some conditions and the exclusion of others:

1. Disorders (e.g., GID): Why does the bill include only one disorder (i.e., GID) while excluding other disorders, like Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Attention Deficit Hyper-Active Disorder (ADHD), Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), anorexia, bulimia, and Aspberger’s Syndrome, all of which can lead to behaviors for which kids are bullied? And why does the bill not use the correct designation, Gender Identity Disorder, rather than the politically biased terms “gender-related identity and expression”? It seems likely that there are more students in public schools who are ridiculed for behaviors related to ADD, ADHD, or Aspberger’s Syndrome than there are students who are ridiculed for behaviors related to GID.

The inclusion of only this one psychological disorder and the failure to use the correct designation reflect the acceptance of particular assumptions regarding the nature and morality of cross-dressing that are controversial and unproven. The use of the politically biased phrase, “gender-related identity and expression” exposes the political nature of this bill and the influence of the “transgender”-affirming Illinois Safe Schools Alliance in the creation of this legislation.

2. Conditions centrally defined by impulses and volitional behavior that carry moral implications (e.g., “sexual orientation” and Gender Identity Disorder): Why does the bill exclude other behaviors that many consider immoral and for which kids may be bullied, like “sexting,” aggression, stealing, plagiarizing, drug use, and promiscuity? For example, students who use drugs are called “druggies” and “stoners,” and girls who are promiscuous are called “sluts” and “hos.” Obviously, schools no more need policy that specifically mentions homosexuality to protect homosexual students than they need policy that mentions promiscuity in order to protect promiscuous students.

The reason that no other conditions that are centrally defined by desire and volitional acts that many deem immoral are included is that the crafters of this legislation seek to use law to promote the unproven belief that homosexuality and GID are analogous to race. By including these conditions in a list of morally neutral conditions, they seek to reinforce implicitly their false assumption that homosexuality and GID are morally neutral. Indeed, the use of the political term “sexual orientation,” which embodies the ideas of biological determinism, immutability, and moral neutrality, rather than “homosexuality” further exposes the political nature of this legislation. When crafting their own policy, schools should replace “sexual orientation” with the less political term “homosexuality.” (Further, when replacing the term “sexual orientation,” there is no reason to add the term “bisexuality,” because no one is bullied for the heterosexual part of bisexuality.)

3. Conditions that carry no moral implications (e.g., race, sex, and disability): the crafters of this bill excluded other morally neutral conditions for which far more students are bullied, like obesity, nearsightedness, farsightedness, acne, speech impediments, shyness, social awkwardness, or lack of athletic ability. These omissions further reveal the political nature of this legislation.

Focus on the Family’s anti-bullying project, True Tolerance, warns against the inclusion of specific categories:

Listing certain categories creates a system ripe for reverse discrimination, sending the message that certain characteristics are more worthy of protection than others. Instead of bringing more peace and unity, this can politicize the school environment and introduce divisiveness among different groups of students and parents.

A more general, and therefore more inclusive, description would be far superior. It’s too bad Illinois legislators didn’t consider the apolitical, concise, and inclusive anti-bullying policy created by the Alliance Defense Fund.

The new Illinois law requires the creation of a fifteen-member Task Force whose responsibility it will be to make recommendations “for preventing and addressing bullying in schools in this State.” The Task Force is required by this bill to include a high school or college student who has been bullied. This student should be someone who has been bullied for characteristics such as race or disability that have no behavioral manifestations about which there is moral controversy.

The Task Force must also include representatives from organizations that address bullying. To avoid yet even more policy blunders, these representatives should be from organizations that are not centrally concerned with the partisan socio-political goal of normalizing homosexuality. To avoid the appearance of being a tool for the homosexual movement, the Task Force should exclude representatives from GLSEN and the Safe Schools Alliance or balance them with representatives from conservative organizations like IFI.

So far only twelve states, including, unfortunately, Illinois, have anti-bullying legislation that specifically mentions “sexual orientation” and “gender identity/expression.” The inclusion of these terms in anti-bullying policies and legislation allows homosexualists to use them as cultural battering rams to destroy First Amendment speech and religious protections. The central purpose of the inclusion of these terms in legislation and policy is not to protect homosexuals and “transgenders” but to censor the expression of traditional moral beliefs and ultimately eradicate them.