In an October 2015 article about attendance rates in Illinois School District 60, the Chicago Tribune reported  that “average daily attendance is up from 92 percent in 2010 to around 94 percent in 2014, and it hovers about equal to the state average, according to state board of education data.”

So the state daily attendance average is about 94 percent, and according to New Trier High School officials, student attendance on the controversial All-School Seminar Day on race was 77 percent. According to the North Cook News, more than 900 students were absent. Retiring superintendent and spinmeister Linda Yonke stated the obvious that attendance “was lower than a regular school day.”

Not to worry though about the popularity of dogma day because Linda Yonke also claims the low attendance rate was expected “for a day like this when there were no tests or homework assignments.”

Riiight, the 900 absences had nothing whatsoever to do with the whiz-bang, taxpayer-funded “progressive” phantasm that included over 100 sessions and 38 speakers (who were paid collectively about $28,000)–none of whom were discernibly conservative in perspective. I’m still hoping someone will find out how many of the speakers “identify” as conservative.

---

IFI depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

-and, please-

UPDATE: A Freedom of Information Request has revealed that the cost for speakers for New Trier’s All-School Seminar Day are almost $28,000, with $15,000 alone going to Colson Whitehead.

Much virtual ink has been spilled, money wasted, and fallacious arguments spewed by supporters of the bias inarguably present in the sessions offered on New Trier’s All-School Seminar Day titled “Understanding Today’s Struggle for Racial Civil Rights,” which takes place tomorrow Feb. 28.

A closer look at the money spent and diversity ideology promoted—often through fallacious logic—may lead parents to do two things: 1. Keep their children home on “progressive” dogma day. 2. Pursue changes in future seminars with the doggedness and passion (if not the fallacious reasoning) of “progressives.”

Pacific Educational Group lines its pockets with taxpayer money to subsidize Leftist definition of “diversity

On Feb. 19, the North Cook News reported that New Trier has paid almost $90,000 to notorious snake oil salesman Glenn Singleton and his Pacific Educational Group. Here’s a little anecdote about another affluent school district on Chicago’s North Shore that was similarly beguiled by the oily diversity scammer Singleton: District 113 which encompasses Deerfield and Highland Park high schools and which is where I first encountered the ethically-challenged Glenn Singleton. This is my former place of employment and the school from which all four of my children graduated.

Between spring 2007 and spring 2008, District 113, using both federal and district money, spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $83,000 to hire the San Francisco-based Glenn Singleton and representatives from his Pacific Educational Group to come  seven times to teach District 113 employees about their “whiteness.” This figure included Singleton’s fees, travel expenses, per diem, and costs of hiring substitute teachers for all the teachers who were absent from class to attend the all-day indoctrination seminars. The $83,000 included $10,000 for substitute teachers and $20,000 to feed everyone at the Highland Park Country Club where the meetings took place.

I asked then-superintendent George Fornero why we were hiring Singleton and was told it was due to Highland Park High School’s failure to make “adequate yearly progress” under the No Child Left Behind Act. The district had received federal money to help the Hispanic students perform better on standardized tests, and Fornero used it to hire Singleton. Both Singleton and his facilitators explicitly stated that neither he nor his book on which his consultations were based (Courageous Conversations) provide any solutions.

Every time Singleton or his representative came, every administrator, every department chair, two teachers from every department, and area (e.g., multi-media, custodial pool, technology, secretarial pool) from both high schools attended all-day meetings during which they discussed their “whiteness.” This meant that all the participating employees missed seven days of work or classes.

I asked the school board and administration how even in theory does having secretaries, custodians, and teachers miss school to talk about their “whiteness” at the Highland Park Country Club help minority students improve their test scores.

They offered no answer.

At the all-staff, all-faculty meeting to introduce District 113 to his “social justice” theories, Singleton made some surprising statements. He explained that many experts believe the causes for the underperformance of minority students are poverty, language issues, mobility, and lack of family support. He then made the startling claim that none of those factors is the cause. The causes, he claimed, are “institutional racism” and “whiteness.”

He went on to classify audience members into three categories according to their potential responses to his theories: The first group were those who would agree with him immediately. The second group were those who would be on the fence and need to be convinced. And the third group were “those who are gifted at subverting reform.” In other words, those who dare to suggest that limited English skills likely affect test scores are “gifted at subverting reform.” Singleton cunningly attempted to prevent dissent by pre-labeling pejoratively those who disagree with his theories.

Toward the end of the year, Singleton visited classrooms to evaluate the continued need for his services. He also visited the writing center where I had worked for eight years. After school, he met with the administration which included all department chairs to “debrief.” The next day, one department chair told me and two others confirmed that Singleton had called for me to be fired citing as justification the following quotes I had on my wall:

“Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.” (The Supreme Court of the United States, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

Despite incessant repetition of the word ‘diversity’ in academe, the tragic fact is that the academic world is one of the most intolerant places in America when it comes to diversity of ideas” (Thomas Sowell, African American, Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution).

“One is an individual, not an instance of blood or appearance. The assault on individual identity was essential to the horror and inhumanity of Jim Crow laws, of apartheid, and of the Nuremberg Race Laws. It is no less inhuman when undertaken by ‘diversity educators’” (Alan Kors, Professor of Intellectual History at University of Pennsylvania).

“‘[D]iversity’ — nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses – [is] the . . . belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation” (George Will, syndicated columnist).

“The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling” (Thomas Sowell).

Singleton also boasted in the meeting that he had gotten employees in other school districts fired. Two weeks later, I was demoted.

After spending thousands of dollars on Singleton’s doctrinaire and racist theories, Fornero, perhaps unintentionally, acknowledged precisely what District 113 got for their time and money in a 2009 letter to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan:

Dear Honorable Duncan,

. . .

As was the case in the spring of 2008, our non-English speaking students were once again asked to demonstrate their academic abilities by taking the ACT and the WorkKey assessments in English. And once again, despite taking the test seriously and despite working for hours longer than other students to complete it, when these students receive their results next fall, they will all fail [emphasis added].

One would think that an admission like that would be the nail in the coffin of divisive, intellectually vacuous, ideologically-driven expenditures. But the public should never underestimate the fervor of true proselytes driven by political motives. They will continue to abuse their access to public money until community members publicly and vigorously oppose them.

Fallacious arguments of seminar defenders

Getting to the gist of the concerns of critics of Tuesday’s seminar is made challenging by the pervasive use  of fallacious arguments by “progressives” to obscure the critics’ arguments. Here’s a quick look at some of the fallacies New Trier “progressives” use:

1.)  Traitorous critic fallacy (an ad hominem fallacy):  Criticizing or dismissing an opponent’s argument by attributing it to some unfavored group rather than responding to the substance of the argument.

The use of this fallacy was on full and unabashed display by New Trier father Paul Traynor when he appeared recently on WTTW’s Chicago Tonight  ( a must watch segment for a lesson in fallacious reasoning) and dismissed the arguments of New Trier parents by suggesting these parents are somehow connected to Breitbart and IFI.  Traynor twice claimed IFI is a “hate group registered with the Southern Poverty Law Center” clearly suggesting that IFI is, in reality, a hate group. In addition, Traynor complained that “IFI—this hate group—has gone after me personally.”  What did IFI do to warrant his fear? I critiqued his public comments that he voluntarily provided to the Chicago Tribune. Instead of responding to the substance of the seminar critics’ arguments, Traynor attacked two organizations that have written about the controversy.

2.)  Abusive fallacy (ad hominem): Verbally abusing one’s opponents rather than responding to their arguments.

For example, seminar supporters have repeatedly called seminar critics “racists.” In addition, on Chicago Tonight, Traynor criticized the suggestion that Colonel Allen West or Sheriff David Clarke could be  invited to represent conservative ideas and criticized Dennis Prager as a member of the “alt right.” (Apparently, Traynor views invited “queer Latinx” speaker Monica Trinidad as a moderate—Trinidad who once “tweeted a picture of mounted police officers with the comment ‘Get them animals off those horses.’”)

3.)  Straw man fallacy:  Refuting an argument never made by one’s opponents.

So, when seminar supporters say things like “Racism exists,” “New Trier kids are sheltered,” “Colson Whitehead and Andrew Aydin [two of the invited speakers—both liberal Democrats] have won national book awards,” “Students may express dissenting views,” “New Trier is a great school,” “The seminar was carefully constructed,” or “Parents were included,” they are not responding to the central argument made by critics who justifiably see the seminar sessions as biased. All of these claims made by seminar supporters are true (well, most of them) but irrelevant to the arguments of seminar critics.

4.)  Appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum, appeal to common belief, bandwagon fallacy): Expressing the idea that because a belief is popular or widely held it must be true.

Both seminar supporters and superintendent Linda Yonke employed this fallacy saying that most community members support the seminar as currently constituted. Whether or not such a claim is true is irrelevant.

Maybe, just maybe New Trier community members can wade through the flurry of fallacies to get seminar supporters to answer the only relevant question: Do you believe the sessions are relatively balanced between conservative and “progressive” views on race-related topics. If so, can you point to the resources used and speakers invited that represent conservative perspectives.

---

Please support the work & ministry
of Illinois Family Institute!

Surprise, surprise, liberal administrators and community members oppose and censor conservative viewpoints at a public school.

A controversy has been percolating in the affluent communities served by New Trier High School on Chicago’s North Shore. It’s a controversy that has implications for public schools all over the country—and not just high schools—so I hope taxpayers in other communities pay attention.

Taxpayers should pay attention to the activity that generated the controversy, the admirable actions taken by courageous community members who are fighting for intellectual diversity, and the reactionary obfuscation of administrators and community members who strive to censor dissenting resources.

Two weeks ago I wrote about the upcoming “All-School Seminar Day 2017” being held at both New Trier campuses on Feb. 28. Here is a brief excerpt from that article:

A perusal of the list of workshops being offered at this mandatory event reveals a Leftist dream for “education.” No need to travel to the next White Privilege Conference. New Trier parents can just send their kids to school for a smorgasbord of ideologically non-diverse seminars on “Understanding Today’s Struggle for Racial Civil Rights.”

An article in the Winnetka Talk, a local Pioneer Press paper owned by the Chicago Tribune, illuminates the problems corrupting public education in general and New Trier’s anti-diversity day specifically (all quotes are from this article):

District Supt. Linda Yonke said students must attend the keynote speech and a 50-minute homeroom presentation, but students who are uncomfortable with anything in the sessions will be able to leave.

Setting aside the reality that the vast majority of high school students would not admit to being uncomfortable even if they were (well, maybe some safe-space snowflakes would), the central issue is not student comfort. The central issue is ideological diversity. The central issue is whether both “progressive” and conservative perspectives should be presented through the materials and speakers included on Seminar Day.

Wilmette father Mark Glennon accurately described the seminar offerings as “flagrantly and unquestionably politically extreme.” Winnetka Talk cited Glennon’s wish for the seminar, a wish that all parents of children in public schools should share:

“What I’d like to see happen is simple: just some balance in what’s presented,”… [Glennon added] that debate among New Trier parents and residents has caused strife in an otherwise friendly community.

Strife develops whenever conservative community members finally reach their tipping point with regard to the egregious bias that infects academia at all levels.

“Progressives” drunk with their own power, presumptuously believing they alone know what is good and true, and accustomed to imposing their views with abandon don’t take kindly to resistance.

Winnetka Talk reporter Kathy Routliffe writes that “Seminar supporters…say the planned speakers and discussions will allow New Trier students to make up their own minds in a balanced manner on a crucial American social issue.”

How does an imbalanced seminar facilitate a “balanced manner” in which students can make up their own minds on a crucial issue?

But there it is. There’s the argument I predicted would emerge when I first wrote about the brewing brouhaha:

School administrators and faculty often respond to parents who challenge obvious bias and viewpoint discrimination by saying that students are free to express dissenting views, but that’s a red herring. The central issue is not whether students are free to express dissenting views. The central issue is whether all students should have their views challenged by the voices of experts or just conservative students. Should all students have the opportunity to have their views reinforced through reading and hearing the voices of experts or is that opportunity reserved just for “progressive” students?

New Trier father Paul Traynor is adamant about the importance of this non-diversity day:

“Not only is this a great lineup of programming, but an essential day for our kids….My sense is that this day is overwhelmingly popular across political lines, and that the opposition, although clearly well organized and very vocal, is very small.”

I wonder if Traynor’s “sense” about the bipartisan popularity of this ideologically-biased day is a sixth sense or if he’s polled a broad cross-section of New Trier community members, making sure that conservatives and “progressives” are equally represented.

While one can reasonably argue that it is essential for public schools to discuss race in America, this particular “programming” is decidedly not essential. If it were “essential,” (i.e., “absolutely necessary”), what does Traynor think about the quality of education New Trier students received prior to 2016 when this “essential” programming was introduced for the first time?

Traynor apparently believes that the size of the group opposing the ideological imbalance on non-diversity day justifies the administration’s dismissal of their views. So, what does that say about Traynor’s commitment to diversity and minority voices?

I would agree with Traynor on this one point: non-diversity day is in reality a “programming” day.

According to the Winnetka Talk, Superintendent Yonke is amazed at the positive response to non-diversity day:

I have had well over 300 phone calls, emails, and letters of support saying “Don’t change it, it looks fabulous….The direct communication we’ve had has been far more in support than in opposition. In fact, I’ve never seen this kind of outpouring of support on an issue in my life as an educator.

Notice what Yonke did not say. She did not say Seminar Day was ideologically balanced. She did not deny that Seminar Day is tipped precariously leftward.

I would submit that the reason Yonke has never seen this kind of “outpouring of support on an issue in her life” is that conservatives rarely organize or oppose the kinds of offenses against sound pedagogy that have been poisoning public education over the past few decades. The outpouring of support for non-diversity day at New Trier likely began after some parents started questioning and publicly criticizing the stunning absence of intellectual diversity on Seminar Day. There’s nothing quite like the bracing antipathy of a “progressive” challenged to include conservative viewpoints.

So, why doesn’t this kind of organized opposition to leftist curricular and extracurricular shenanigans happen more often?

First, many taxpayers don’t know what’s taking place in their children’s schools. They remain blissfully unaware of the curricular resources, supplementary resources, activities, teachers’ classroom comments, and professional development “opportunities” that districts provide on the public dime that promote “progressive” positions on a host of controversial cultural issues.

The second reason why opposition to the use of government schools for promoting “progressive” dogma is revealed in the comments from a Northfield mother:

Another supporter, Northfield resident Laura Shala Balson, whose son is an elementary school student, said she was “horrified” when she read the opposition group’s website.

“I’m a transracial parent. My husband and I are white and one of our children is black…I know we live in a well-off community that’s largely homogenous [sic] and white, but this is just the total opposite of the 10 years we’ve lived here. People have been kind and welcoming, just the opposite of this opposition.”

Please note that “transracial” parent Balson asserted that this “homogeneous and white” community is a kind and welcoming community—not a bigoted, hateful community.

It’s passing strange that Balson would be “horrified” that some New Trier parents would seek to include diverse voices on the topic of race, or that she would suggest that those who seek such diversity are unkind and unwelcoming. I would think the failure of seminar organizers to include speakers and resources from diverse perspectives would be far more horrifying to anyone who values diversity in education.

But that’s what many “progressives” do if their ideas are challenged: hurl epithets. While “progressives” claim to value diversity, they call names when conservatives suggest that commitments to diversity and critical thinking on complicated issues entail exposure to the best thinking on all sides of those issues. Including the perspectives of, for example, Ben Carson,  Larry Elder, Mia Love, Star Parker, Jason Riley, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Carol Swain, Stephanie Trussell, or Allen West—all of whom are black—does not constitute being unkind or unwelcoming.

Another mother assumes this biased event will foster critical thinking:

Wilmette resident Ruthie Swibel…said her support for the day “is based on giving students the benefit of the doubt of thinking critically about issues. If we canceled events because we didn’t want to talk about complicated issues, what message does this send to our school’s students?”

The parents who seek inclusion of additional perspectives on how to think about race, racial reconciliation, and the problems that affect minority communities do not seek to avoid events or discussions on “complicated issues.” Rather, they seek to have students exposed to the voices of experts from diverse perspectives on complicated issues.

Winnetka Talk cites New Trier’s All-Day Seminar website which tries to affirm the day’s nonpartisan bona fides:

The seminar day has a budget of $30,000, and “will not portray any political party as good or bad or promote the views of one party.”

Seriously? Okay, fine, the seminar day teachers and speakers will likely avoid using the words “Democrat” and “Republican,” but can anyone read the session descriptions and say with a straight face that they don’t reflect Democratic positions? Enquiring minds would love to know how many of the invited speakers or authors of resources vote Republican.

Paul Traynor is satisfied with not only the content of the seminar but the degree of involvement the administration provided to the community:

Traynor said the district did involve parents, and gave them plenty of time for input: “They sent out an email before the holiday break saying ‘Here’s the game plan.’ … so these folks who say there was no consultation, no outreach, that’s just false.”

I would challenge Traynor’s claim that an email sent out after the event was planned constitutes parental involvement, “consultation” or “outreach.” It would be more accurate to say that parents were notified about the planned event just before the busy holiday break. Parents were not included, involved, or consulted during the planning stages. I wonder if the game-plan email expressly told parents that most if not all seminar offerings espouse “progressive” views on racial (or “trans”) issues.

Perhaps the proximate cause of this community kerfuffle was parental opposition to the biased content of Seminar Day, but the ultimate cause was the biased content of Seminar Day.

---

Read more recent articles from Laurie:

The Radical “Trans”-Formation of America

Corrupt, Nonsensical Legislation Reintroduced

Highlights Magazine for Children Affirms Homoeroticism

---

Join IFI at our Feb. 18th Worldview Conference

Don’t miss our third annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Frank Turek on Sat., Feb. 18, 2017 in Barrington. Dr. Turek is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

This is a wonderful opportunity to enhance your biblical worldview.