Last Thursday night, District 211—the largest high school district in the state with 12,000 students and five high schools—held a board meeting to discuss Superintendent Daniel Cates’ boneheaded proposal to allow students who “identify” as the opposite sex to have unrestricted access to the locker rooms of opposite-sex peers. Expecting a large crowd, the district moved the meeting to Palatine High School. The Daily Herald reported that 25 speakers were randomly selected, 16 of whom opposed the proposal, which is well over 50 percent.

Several years ago, when the district was first sued by a biological boy who was self-“identifying” as a girl, Cates allowed him to use the girls’ locker room as long as he changed clothes behind a privacy curtain. Cates steadfastly opposed this boy’s request for unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room. That was then, this is now. Now Cates proposes allowing boys and girls who pretend to be the sex they aren’t to have unrestricted access to the locker rooms of their opposite-sex peers. Perhaps Cates is spineless and follows the path of least resistance, which now leads into darkness. Perhaps he has morally devolved as so many school administrators have. Or perhaps his retirement at the end of this school year has freed his authentic inner corrupt self to emerge.

Cates couldn’t do this dirty work alone. It takes a village and at least four board members to indoctrinate children with an incoherent, irrational, and harmful ideology. One of those sorry villagers is the newly elected, morally corrupt, and unpleasant District 211 board member Kim Cavill, who is a sex “educator” when she’s not promoting feckless locker room policies.

If her name rings a bell, it’s because I mentioned her in an article about former District U46 school board member Jeanette Ward, a fearless, wise, and gracious woman who endured egregiously disrespectful treatment from fellow board members Traci O’Neal Ellis, Veronica Noland, and Melissa Owens. In an online post, Cavill referred to Jeanette Ward as the “High Priestess of the Order of Moron.” Oddly, that comment has been scrubbed from the Internet. Maybe she thought such a comment wouldn’t help her get elected to the District 211 board. Sounds a wee bit intolerant and hateful.

The curious story of the April 2019 election of Kim Cavill actually goes back to the even curiouser story of the 2017 school board election. Three well-qualified people who opposed co-ed private spaces for minors were running against three people who supported co-ed private spaces for minors. The three well-qualified challengers were,

Jean Forrest, a Chinese-American woman with an MA in economics who works as an actuary

Katherine Jee Young David, a Korean-American woman with a BS in Business Administration from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Ralph Bonatz who has a degree in electrical engineering and is a global quality control manager for an international corporation

On March 22, 2017, just 13 days before the 2017 election, LaSaia Wade, a 29-year-old “black trans woman” (i.e., a biological man), and Daye Pope, another biological male who passes as a woman, set up a Super PAC called Trans United Fund Illinois. Pope is the organizing director for a 501(c)(3) called Trans United Fund.

Two days later, on March 24, 2017—11 days before the 2017 election—Kim Cavill and her sister Lindsay Christensen set up a Super PAC called Parents and Neighbors for Quality Education (PNQE).

Just days after the founding of Trans United Fund Illinois, donations from some surprising people came pouring in:

• Matrix Director “Lana” Wachowski, a biological man who pretends to be a woman and lives with his dominatrix wife in Chicago, donated a whopping $10,000.

• Far left Illinois State Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago) also donated $10,000.

• Homosexual Clark Pellet, a retired attorney and development chair for the “LGBTQ” Center on Halsted who lives in Chicago, donated $5,000.

• Executive director of Gender Rights Maryland, Dana Beyer, a man who pretends to be a woman and lives in Chevy Chase, MD donated $1,000.

• Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) who lives in Brooklyn, NY donated $500.

• Homosexual Douglas Hattaway, president and CEO of a Washington D.C. strategic communications firm who lives in D.C., donated $500.

• Architect Kira Kinsman, a biological man formerly known as Kyle Kinsman who lives in Wilkes Barre, PA, donated $250.

The more than $26, 000 in donations for a school board election from donors who don’t live in District 211 then went to—you guessed it—Cavill’s Parents and Neighbors for Quality Education.

Enquiring minds may wonder why Cavill and her sister set up PNQE, since Trans United Fund Illinois was already established. Why the extra step to fund the defeat of conservatives? The answer to that question might be found in mailers and yard signs. State law requires that campaign mailers and yard signs identify the groups that pay for them. Signs must say “Approved by….”

Which sounds better—and by “better” I mean less likely to arouse suspicion: “Approved by Trans United Fund Illinois” or “Approved by Parents and Neighbors for Quality Education”?

Flush with filthy lucre, the Cavill sisters got busy smearing good people with nary a backward glance.

As reported by the “LGBTQ” newspaper Windy City Times, a local mom (Who could that have been?) reached out to Trans United Fund, “a national trans-led advocacy group,” who agreed to help them defeat the three candidates who supported single-sex locker rooms:

Trans United Fund (TUF) and a group of local parents, youth, and allies, worked together to launch the first trans-led, trans-focused independent expenditure in history. TUF assembled a powerful team of thoughtful allies to quickly build and execute a research-informed and strategic plan to help the parents and youth get their message out. TUF supported the parents’ efforts through digital, mail, phone banking and helping to train volunteers to reach their neighbors at the door.

The Windy City Times made clear this campaign was a smear campaign in which good people who believe locker rooms and restrooms should correspond to biological sex were vilified. District 211 community member Tracey Salvatore, spewing venomous lies said this about the good people who were defeated:

We are fed up with this small group of vocal, transphobic people guided by a national hate group [Alliance Defending Freedom] wreaking havoc in our community…. Our District 211 community will not tolerate adults bullying kids or intimidating us for one more day. The ADF-inspired slate of candidates ran with the agenda of inserting a hate-based, national agenda into our schools. They didn’t care that their policy changes would increase bullying and violence against kids…. So we reached out to Trans United Fund and they helped us to get our message out to our neighbors and community members. (emphasis added)

Neither Salvatore nor anyone affiliated with PNQE felt the ethical obligation to provide evidence that the three candidates feared or hated “trans”-identifying students, or that they bullied kids, or that they intimidated community members, or that ADF has a “hate-based agenda,” or that single-sex private spaces for minors increase “bullying and violence.” Why try to provide impossible-to-find evidence when hate-mongering rhetoric does the job.

The belief that biological sex is the source of feelings of modesty and the right to privacy when undressing does not constitute hatred of persons no matter how many times people like Salvatore and Cavill spread their repugnant lies.

I wonder if Salvatore spreads these same ugly and false lies about feminists—including lesbians—who oppose biological males in women’s private spaces. Perhaps Salvatore is unaware of the growing schism in the “LGBT” alliance. Just a week ago, a group of influential supporters of the “LGB rights” movement in the United Kingdom, including Stonewall UK founder Simon Fanshawe, published an open letter in the Sunday Times in which they criticize Stonewall and suggest it’s time for the formation of a new organization that is “committed both to freedom of speech and to fact instead of fantasy.” Here’s an excerpt from that letter that Salvatore, Cavill, and Cates should ponder:

Last October a group of LGB rights supporters asked Stonewall to “commit to fostering an atmosphere of respectful debate rather than demonising as transphobic those who wish to discuss, or dissent from, Stonewall’s transgender policies.” Since then, Stonewall has refused repeated requests to enter into any such dialogue…. We believe it has made mistakes in its approach that undermine women’s sex-based rights and protections. The most worrying aspect of this is that all primary-school children are now challenged to review their ‘gender identity’ and decide that they may be the opposite sex if they do not embrace outdated gender stereotypes.

Does Salvatore demonize teens as hateful transphobes if they don’t want to undress in the presence of male peers? What about female teachers who don’t want to undress in front of male colleagues? Does she accuse them of hate-based bullying?

Almost immediately after the school board election and defeat for all three good candidates, Cavill and her sister deactivated their Super PAC. Malignant Mission Accomplished.

And now we return our story to the school board election of April 2019. Kim Cavill, the person who orchestrated the ugly and deceitful campaign smear of three good people by creating a Super PAC front for a Super PAC financed by “LGBTQ” donors from out of the district, ran for the District 211 board and won. Is she really an emblem of good government and transparency?

If you are not yet convinced of her unfitness for serving on a school board or her unfitness to serve as a role model for children, here are just a smattering of quotes from her sex ed podcasts for children and teens.

From her podcast for tweens and teens on anal sex titled “All About Anal”:

Before trying anal sex, people need to talk about their own and their partner’s boundaries like any other type of sex. It should be preceded by a conversation about what the people participating in sex are consenting to, what they aren’t consenting to, how they’re expecting sex to go, and how they’re going to communicate during sex to make sure everyone’s still on the same page. Anal sex also requires a lot of lube.

From her podcast for “tweens and teens” titled “Let’s Talk About Porn”:

Porn can certainly cause relationship problems but so can a lot of other things. Porn causing relationship problems isn’t inevitable, it depends on the relationship and it depends on how the people in that relationship feel about porn…. [T]he evidence says that if you think porn’s bad, it is, and if you think porn’s fine, then it is.

One thing notable from sexpert Cavill’s podcasts is how studiously she avoids the words boy, girl, man, and woman. Even in her podcast explaining how babies come into existence, she never mentions men and women. Instead, she describes a “grown-up with a penis” and a “grown-up with a vagina.” Huh. I wonder what those are.

There are two lessons to be learned from this incredible story:

1. Local communities no longer control their own school boards and, therefore, their schools.

2. Cultural regressives are targeting the hearts, minds, and bodies of other people’s children—your children—and they’re using your money to do it.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Incredible-Story-of-District-211-School-Board-Elections_AUDIO.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

A new controversy has erupted in School District U-46, and this time it doesn’t involve compulsory co-ed locker rooms or offensive statements from board member Traci O’Neal Ellis. This time 18 local religious leaders have objected to school board member Jeanette Ward’s Facebook post about a controversial article on religion assigned in a sixth-grade class.

A teacher had her sixth-graders read an article by Australian history of religion professor and agnostic Philip Almond and then answer questions based on that reading. Here are some of the controversial statements from that article:

“Judaism, Christianity and Islam are three of the world’s major religions. While they have many differences, they all believe in the same God.

“Some of the prophets that Jews follow were Noah, Abraham and Moses. Christians follow these prophets too. They also think that Jesus was another prophet of the same God.”

“Jesus, Muhammad and the Hebrew prophets all described the same God.”

“The God of the Old Testament can be both good and evil.”

“Like the prophets of the Old Testament, Jesus predicted a day when God will punish humankind and will be merciless in doing so.”

 “Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same complex God. But each religion believes that its books and teachings reveal the true nature of that God. This disagreement has shaped the course of history. The followers of each religion believe that only they will be saved by God. They see all others as damned. This way of seeing people, as damned by God and beyond saving, has led to violence and hatred.”

After reading the assignment, Ward posted the entire article by Almond along with these innocuous comments:

Do you know what your children are being taught: Muslims believe in the same God as Christians and Jews?

My 6th-grader came home with this assignment today. She was supposed to read the article and answer the questions. (She will not be completing this assignment). The full text of the article is below. Quiz questions are depicted in the pictures. This article is utterly incorrect and false on many levels. This is one of the many reasons I voted no on this curriculum resource.

In response to Ward’s Facebook comments, a statement signed by 18 religious leaders—mostly from apostate denominations—was read at Monday’s school board meeting (see names and affiliations below*). They began by mildly critiquing Almond’s article for its lack of “nuance” and “generosity”:

None of us saw our faith traditions represented in their fullness in the article as represented from the school’s curriculum.

The central problem with the article was not lack of “nuance,” “generosity,” or  “fullness.” The central problem was theological errors taught to children as facts. For many Christians such theological errors are offensive, and having government employees present such errors to their children as facts compounds the offense.

Then, with insufficient nuance and generosity, these religious leaders criticized Ward’s Facebook comment:

[W]e feel that more important than the content of the article is the question of how we are to engage with inevitable differences of opinion, theology, and world view. Here, we strongly take exception to Ms. Ward’s approach… We believe that these instances represent a valuable opportunity to practice civil discourse and to express our differences with both respect and humility.

Seriously? Ward’s “approach” is more important to purported Christian pastors than a public school presenting resources that teach children that the God of the Old Testament is evil and that Allah and Jesus are the same?

Moreover, what specifically did Ward write that is uncivil, disrespectful, or prideful? Maybe these faith leaders could tell everyone exactly what the permissible ways to “engage with inevitable differences of opinion, theology, and world view” are.

One wonders why these religious leaders didn’t publicly chastise school board member Veronica Noland when she referred to opponents of co-ed locker rooms as “narrow-minded fear mongers.” And why didn’t they condemn school board member Traci O’Neal Ellis’ “approach” when she three times referred to Republicans as the equivalent of KKK’ers. Curiouser and curiouser.

This theologically imbalanced coterie of critics next claimed it’s the job of some unnamed persons to correct the misinformation provided to young middle schoolers by government employees:

[W]hen such articles and statements are presented to our children, we believe it is helpful to use these instances as opportunities to teach our children why we disagree with the information being presented and how to do so with respect and humility. Indeed, we believe teaching our children to identify, understand, and even challenge ideas with which they do not agree is helpful training for them as students, citizens, and people of faith.

The subject of their recommendation remains unclear. Who should teach children that the material presented at school is incorrect? Religious leaders? Parents? How can religious leaders or parents engage in the work of correcting misinformation if they don’t know that such misinformation was disseminated to their children?

This raises critical questions: Who selected this article? Did a department chair and curricula review committee read it? And why are teachers using resources that present arguable assumptions and errors as facts?

Continuing their criticism of Ward under the guise of offering their definition of proper leadership, the faith leaders inadvertently revealed their fealty to government employees as opposed to parents and other taxpayers:

[F]aithful, respectful leadership means engaging teachers and administrators directly.

This may be the most troubling part of their troubling statement. They failed to mention that the primary responsibility of school board members is to directly engage parents and other stakeholders—you know, the people who elected them and for whom they work.

How can Muslim, Jewish, or Christian parents have the kind of conversations with their children that this group of mostly “progressives” recommend unless a school board member or members engage directly with those parents to inform them of what was taught? Clearly the teacher didn’t do that.

From working for a decade in a public school, I learned that there is an unwritten principle that teachers, administrators, and board members cling to as if it were sacred. The rule is that if parents have a concern with resources, they should first express their concerns to teachers, and then if unsatisfied with the response, move up the food chain. In my humble opinion, that’s an arbitrary, socially constructed rule that parents need not honor.

Ironically, teachers, administrators, and board members who believe there’s no need to honor the practice of segregating boys from girls in restrooms and locker rooms think parents must honor the practice of keeping controversial resources on the down-low in order to avoid controversy. How “progressives” arrive at their ethical and moral imperatives is baffling.

Unfortunately, given the desire of “progressives” in government schools for absolute autonomy and their self-identification as “change agents,” controversy is both inevitable and necessary. To borrow from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in “Letter from Birmingham Jail”:

[W]e who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

There’s a lesson to be learned from this mess. It’s that “progressives” control schools in part because they act. Perhaps at the next board meeting, 20, 25, or 30 theologically orthodox Christians could make a statement about the problem of using taxpayer money to teach young children that Jesus and Allah are the same God or that the God of the Old Testament is evil. Surely there are a few pastors in the Elgin area who find such teaching objectionable. And surely  there are some who feel empathy for Jeanette Ward who stands in the gap for children when no other school board member does.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Faithless-Faith-Leaders-Protest-Jeanette-Wards-FB-Post_01.mp3

*Lois Bucher, associate pastor, First Congregational Church (United Church of Christ), Elgin; Richard T. Carlson, pastor, First United Methodist Church, Elgin; David Daubert, pastor, Zion Lutheran Church, Elgin; Marlene Daubert, deacon, Zion Lutheran Church, Elgin; Dr. Paris Donehoo, senior pastor, First Congregational Church (United Church of Christ), Elgin; The Reverend Dr. Nathaniel Edmond, Second Baptist Church, Elgin; Rev. Donald J. Frye (“married” to a man), rector, St. James Episcopal Church, West Dundee; Sulayman Hassan, Baitul Ilm Academy, Streamwood; Ed Hunter, chaplain, Presence Saint Joseph Hospital, Elgin; Margaret Frisch Klein, rabbi, Congregation Kneseth Israel, Elgin; Steven J. Peskind, rabbi and chaplain, Streamwood; Fred Rajan, reverend (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) and vice president, Office of Spiritual Care, Advocate Hospital; Karen Schlack, reverend, First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), Elgin; Jill Terpstra, reverend, St. Paul’s United Church of Christ, Kane County; Katie Shaw Thompson, pastor, Highland Avenue Church of the Brethren; Rev. Denise Tracy, president, Coalition of Elgin Religious Leaders President, Elgin; George Wadleigh, Christian Scientist; and Mark Weinert, pastor, First Christian Church, Elgin.

End-of-Year Challenge

As you may know, IFI has a year-end matching challenge to raise $160,000. That’s right, a great group of IFI supporters are colluding with us to provide an $80,000 matching challenge to help support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.

Please consider helping us reach this goal!  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2018!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 876
Tinley Park, Illinois 60477

A new controversy has erupted in School District U-46, and this time it doesn’t involve compulsory co-ed locker rooms or offensive statements from board member Traci O’Neal Ellis.  This time 18 religious leaders have objected to school board member Jeanette Ward’s Facebook post about a controversial article on religion assigned in a sixth-grade class.

A teacher had her sixth-graders read an article by…

Read more here…

Following a contemptible Facebook post by the now nationally infamous School District U-46 school board member Traci O’Neal Ellis in which she asserted that the American flag means no more to her than toilet paper, Monday’s board meeting saw a slew of impassioned comments most of them in support of Ellis. Most, however, failed to address the crux of public outrage: The public is outraged by the incivility of Ellis and by her myopic, imbalanced view of America.

Fifteen people spoke, twelve in favor of Ellis and three in opposition to Ellis’ comment. One of those fifteen people, Megan Larson, spent her entire time criticizing board member Jeanette Ward for condemning Ellis’ offensive comment–a comment condemned by many news outlets including the Daily Herald.

My question is, what the heck is wrong with conservatives? How can Ellis’ comment, which elicited national condemnation, including from former governor Mike Huckabee, motivate only three people to speak at a board meeting?

The meeting began as always with a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance during which Ellis was the only member not to cover her heart.

Let’s closely examine just one of the 12 Ellis-supporting statements, self-righteously intoned by Larson and capturing succinctly several Leftist arguments:

There are seven rules in the Board Members’ Code of Conduct which also form the basis of the board members’ oath.

The code states that “members of the board of education shall represent all school district constituents honestly and equally and refuse to surrender responsibilities to special interest groups or partisan political groups.”

I ask if implying that parents, staff, and students are Marxists, and radical Leftist extremists is apolitical.

The code states that “members shall take no private action that might compromise the board or the administration and shall respect the confidentiality of privileged information.”

I ask if twice issuing a call to outside agitators is apolitical.

“Members shall encourage and respect the free expression and opinion of other board members.”

I ask if taking private information and posting it publicly and then continuing to post 7 times in 4 days on the same topic is apolitical.

The failure to uphold this oath makes one unfit to represent the students and families of U-46. In my opinion, if one refuses to follow the tenets of the oath they [sic] took, they should be reprimanded.

Larson must have turned off her irony/hypocrisy detector when she wrote this.

So, here are my thoughts about Larson’s thoughts:

• The board members’ oath that Larson cited to criticize only Ward does not require that members refrain from expressing “political” statements while serving on the board. If, however, that’s how Larson interprets the oath, I would ask her and the board if Ellis’ multiple references to the Republican National Convention as the “Klanvention” were “apolitical.” More important, does referring to Republicans as Klansmen suggest to anyone that Ellis “honestly and equally” represents all U-46 constituents? Which is more offensive: being compared to Marxists and radical Leftist extremists or Klansmen?

• If Larson expects board members to honor their oath not to engage in “private action that might compromise the board or administration,” perhaps she should remember that it was Ellis’ supposedly “private” Facebook post in which she likened the American flag to toilet paper that set in motion the controversy that has compromised the integrity of both the board and the administration.

• The part of the board oath regarding “privileged information” quite obviously refers to privileged information available to board members in closed sessions—not to board members’ Facebook postings—which no one considers private. The Daily Herald Editorial Board wrote this on the brouhaha in general and privacy specifically:

You’ll recall, [Ellis] was the Elgin Area School District 46 board member who said on Facebook that the American flag represented “nothing more than toilet paper” to her. An apology was warranted for that appalling statement….

Unfortunately, her apology had a lot of qualifiers, including one that needs further review.

Ellis seems to think that because she made her statement on her personal Facebook page, it shouldn’t be a factor in her public role as a school board member.

“I make no apologies for my comment about the flag. I made them as a private citizen, as a taxpayer in this country on my personal Facebook page on a matter of import in the current national discourse based upon my personal experiences,” she said.

Indeed, she has that right. But when it comes to commenting on a public forum, there can be no distinction between public and private for elected officials, especially on social media, where every post, utterance and picture can be saved in a virtual locker forever.

When you run for office, your actions — both official and personal — are open for support or criticism. Voters in Ellis’ district should and will take what she said into account when and if she seeks re-election in 2019. That will be the consequence of her free speech rights.

• If it’s important for board members to respect the opinions of other board members, how much more important is it for board members to respect fellow board members themselves? In light of that, what do these words from Ellis signify to Larson:
  

  Jeanette Ward is the most absurd hypocrite I have ever had the personal misfortune to know and have to yield any of my personal time to. She dares to claim free speech to castigate U-46 kids and deny the humanity of our LGBTQIA students. She constantly WHINES about lack of tolerance to diversity of thought and CRIES like a 2 year old that her freedom of speech is being impinged on when anyone dares to disagree with her.

  There is a substantive and important difference between criticizing the ideas expressed by a colleague and hurling epithets at a colleague. Does anyone consider this kind of attack by one board member on another respectful?

  Ellis here is alluding to Ward’s opposition to sexually integrated restrooms and locker rooms. What Ellis is deceitfully saying without saying is that opposition to co-ed restrooms and locker rooms constitutes “castigation of U-46 kids” and the “denial of the humanity of LGBTQIA students.” This is, by the way, an arguable proposition and highly political.

• This past August, Ellis suggested that it’s “deplorable” to oppose the sexual integration of restrooms and locker rooms in public schools and implied that State Representative Jeanne Ives is deplorable because she opposes them. Further, Ellis falsely claimed that because Rep. Ives opposes co-ed private spaces in public schools, she seeks to deny students “safe learning spaces.” I would ask if these claims by Ellis are “apolitical.”

• Larson engaged in a bit of “truthiness” when she said that Ward posted seven times over four days about the Ellis mess. Technically, Larson may be right, but she forgot to mention that five of the posts were merely links to press accounts of the mess. Only in two did Ward herself write anything, and here is one of those posts:
  

  To those of you who agree that my fellow board member’s statement about our flag was despicable, but…who are also:-sending death threats (!!!?)

  -sending messages laced with profanity and name
  -calling-making comments on Facebook laced with profanity and name
  -calling-categorizing all African-Americans as believing or behaving a certain way…

  STOP.

  Disagree with Ms. Ellis over what she said in a coherent and cogent manner befitting to free people in the greatest country on earth.

  Maybe Larson didn’t actually read Ward’s posts. I wonder if Ellis ever chastised those who savaged Ward on Facebook last spring.

  In contrast, while Ellis may have posted only twice (i.e., the initial toilet paper post, and then her defense of it), her defense was 842 words long—6 times the number of words Ward wrote collectively.

At the end of the public comments, Ms. Ward offered an eloquent and moving defense of American ideals and a brief critique of the offensiveness of Ellis’ toilet paper comment. Then Ellis followed, providing further evidence of her unprofessionalism, incivility, childishness and vindictiveness.

Ellis began her statement with a formal salutation that included “teachers, staff, students and families in U-46,” nine district administrators by name, and all school board members by name—except Jeanette Ward. I have never witnessed anything as mean-spirited, immature, and unprofessional at a school board meeting as Ellis’ salutation.

In the body of her pseudo-apology, Ellis said to the aforementioned persons that she was “sorry” for her inelegant language and for unintentionally causing a “distraction.” Then she patted herself on the back for attending the meeting despite having been warned that it would be a “modern day lynching.” (Where’s an eyeroll emoji when you need one?) Painting criticism of her comments as a modern day rhetorical lynching is a cunning way for Ellis to silence her critics. So, what would Ellis call the vitriol spewed at Ward by her and her fans? Hmmm…

Despite how tenaciously Ellis tries to color the controversy as a denial of her liberties, the issue at the heart of this dust-up has never been the First Amendment. Rather, it’s about Ellis’ unprofessionalism, divisive and inflammatory vulgarity, and her ignorant lack of appreciation for the principles for which the American flag stands even when citizens—including Ellis—fail to perfectly embody them. It’s about Ellis’ refusal to recognize or acknowledge the remarkable strides America has made in deracinating racism. And it’s about the terrible example Ellis sets for students. The fault lies not with Jeanette Ward for exposing yet more ugly words from Ellis but with Ellis for uttering them.

And to Ms. Larson: If we at the Illinois Family Institute are the “outside agitators” to whom you referred, rest assured that no one issued a call to us to cover this unfortunate incident. Like press outlets all over the country (we were not first), our actions were impelled by the words of Traci O’Neal Ellis, who has demonstrated repeatedly that she is unfit for her position on the U-46 School Board.

Listen to Laurie read this article in this podcast:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Conservatives_and_U46.mp3

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

If Illinoisans want to know what’s wrong with public education, look no further than School District U-46, more specifically to the arrogant, self-righteous school board member Traci O’Neal Ellis who never misses an opportunity to insult conservative values through bigoted, divisive, uncivil language.  She is the school board member who has twice gleefully referred to the Republican National Convention as the “Klanvention.”

Evidently wanting to outdo herself in offending a segment of the diverse community whose interests she laughingly claims to represent, she just posted this on her Facebook page:

I’m proud to stand with the sons of bitches on the field today. And I promise you I would #TakeAKnee at school board meetings if my doing so would not be disruptive to KIDS and a distraction to the work we need to do for THEM. But [Trump’s] remarks are nothing more than continued white nationalism at its finest. That flag means nothing more than toilet paper to me. [emphasis added]

By asserting that the American flag means nothing more than “toilet paper” to her, Ellis reveals her crudity and unprofessionalism.

Ellis’ unprofessional comment came to light when a concerned community member sent it to the only  conservative on the U-46 school board, Jeanette Ward, who then re-posted it, with this brief statement:

This was sent to me by a very concerned constituent. A U-46 BOE colleague of mine has stated that our country’s flag means “nothing more than toilet paper”. I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Many patriotic Americans have shed their blood to defend the ideas and ideals America represents. To call it “nothing more than toilet paper” is absolutely despicable and disgusting.

Ellis, incensed that Ward and community members are (justifiably) upset by her juvenile comment, took to Facebook again to rationalize her comment and attack—not Ward’s brief comment—but Ward herself.

Ellis, who is black, began though with a summary of the tragic history of her family going back to the Middle Passage and continuing up to today when, Ellis reports, her family continues to experience racism. Because of this, she says that “The flag and the anthem are symbols in this country of freedom and ‘justice and liberty’ for all. Yet that is a blatant lie for black folks.”

But is it a “blatant lie for black folks”? Is there no justice or liberty for blacks?

I couldn’t possibly list all the blacks who have achieved success in virtually every area of life including the arts,  military, government, journalism, athletics, academia, and medicine. Ellis herself is a sitting school board member and an attorney, and yet she claims there is no justice or liberty for blacks.

Ellis shares that she has “many family members and friends who now serve or have served in the United States military, and they have my deepest respect. But let’s be clear, I can love and respect them without loving a false symbol of hope.”

How is the flag that represents the ideals and principles that have helped rid our nation of the scourges of slavery, slave codes, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws, and segregation a false symbol of hope? Is Ellis so blind that she cannot see how far this country has come in healing racial division? When I look around, I see daily marvelous evidence of racial unity. I see bi-racial couples, families that include adopted children of diverse races, churches with racially mixed congregations, colleges with racially mixed student bodies and faculties, and racially mixed groups of teens laughing together.

It is not the ideals and principles represented by the flag that have failed. It is fallen people who fail to live up to those ideals that have failed. It is fallen people who don’t recognize truth who perpetuate foolishness, injustice, and evil.

If the injustices that persist because of the fallenness of humans taint the flag for Ellis, then why don’t the great strides we’ve made in America in eradicating racial injustice generate in Ellis a love for the flag?

Ellis then behaved like a schoolyard bully, attacking Jeanette Ward personally:

Jeanette Ward is the most absurd hypocrite I have ever had the personal misfortune to know and have to yield any of my personal time to. She dares to claim free speech to castigate U-46 kids and deny the humanity of our LGBTQIA students. She constantly WHINES about lack of tolerance to diversity of thought and CRIES like a 2 year old that her freedom of speech is being impinged on when anyone dares to disagree with her. Yet she has the unmitigated gall to try to take me to task when I express MY OPINION on the flag on my personal Facebook page. Hey Jeanette (and anybody else offended by what I said), that’s not how free speech and liberty and the flag you love so much works. THAT’S. NOT. HOW. ANY. OF. THIS. WORKS.

Jeanette Ward has never denied “the humanity” of “LGBTQIA students.” When has she castigated U-46 kids and for what? Recognizing the profound meaning of objective, immutable biological sex, Jeanette Ward has worked courageously for the privacy rights of all students, which entailed opposing co-ed restrooms and locker rooms. Perhaps in Ellis’ twisted world, denying students access to the private spaces of opposite-sex persons constitutes “denying” their “humanity.”

All school board members, teachers, and administrators should care deeply about diversity of thought—something woefully absent in many public schools when it comes to matters related to race, sex, homosexuality, and the “trans” ideology. And school board members, teachers, and administrators—who are role models for children—should care deeply about how diverse views are expressed.

Ellis calls Ward’s 63-word comment on Ellis’ offensive Facebook post a galling attack on her speech rights. So what is Ellis’ 842-word screed in which she describes meeting Ward as a “personal misfortune,” and calls Ward an “absurd hypocrite” who “cries like a 2 year old”?

But Ward is not the only target of Ellis’ unrighteous indignation:

Finally, the fact that so many of you are coming UNHINGED over my post actually proves my point. The freedoms you enjoy and the flag you profess to love so much do not extend to me as a black woman. They are not my birthright. Yet I demand them anyway, and that demand includes the right to not feel any patriotism towards a piece of cloth and a pledge of allegiance to a country that does not love me back. Forced allegiance is not patriotism. It is fascism. And I will not bow to that.

Does Ellis actually think criticism of her Facebook post constitutes the denial of her freedoms? Does she think exercising her speech rights requires everyone else to remain silent? When she criticizes Republicans, conservatives, or colleagues is she denying them their birthright freedoms?

Ellis’ pouts that her country “does not love” her back. How did she arrive at that odd conclusion? Because her comment was criticized? Is she kidding? If she’s serious, what does her nasty personal attack on Ward mean? What do the hateful comments about Ward from Ellis’ fans in U-46 over the past six months mean?

Clearly Ellis doesn’t understand why so many people are upset by her adolescent “toilet paper” comment. People feel resentful about Ellis’ comment—not because they desire to force allegiance—but because the comment represents a myopic and distorted view of America, which is shaped by Critical Race Theory and promulgated as truth in public schools.

This ideology promotes an imbalanced, cynical view of American history. It encourages students to view the world through the divisive lens of identity politics, which separates people into groups according to who are the purported oppressors and who the oppressed. It cultivates a sense of undeserved guilt on the part of the alleged oppressors and robs minority students of a sense of agency in and responsibility for their own lives. Critical Race Theory (or teaching for “social justice”) is distinctly anti-American, hyper-focusing on America’s failings while diminishing or ignoring the remarkable success America has achieved in integrating virtually every ethnic and racial group in the world, and enabling people to improve their lots in life through economic opportunity and American principles of liberty and equality.

Ellis holds in contempt the American flag about which President Barack Obama said, “”I revere the American flag, and I would not be running for president if I did not revere this country.”

The American flag that drapes the coffins of soldiers who have given their lives for this country—the country into which millions of people have sought and continue to seek refuge—is to Ellis something that people should use to clean themselves after defecating.

Ellis has a First Amendment right to say anything she wants, and her community has the right to decide whether she truly seeks to represent all members of her community in a professional manner.  Ellis doesn’t seem to realize that school board members are role models for children or that she is a lousy one. If I were a member of her community, I would use my birthright freedom to give her the heave-ho.

Listen to Laurie read this article in this podcast:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/School-Board-Members-Adolescent-Statement-About-the-American-Flag.mp3

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

If Illinoisans want to know what’s wrong with public education, look no further than School District U-46, more specifically to the arrogant, self-righteous school board member Traci O’Neal Ellis who never misses an opportunity to insult conservative values through bigoted, divisive, uncivil language.  She is the school board member who has twice gleefully referred to the Republican National Convention as the “Klanvention.”

Evidently wanting to outdo herself in offending a segment of the diverse community whose interests she laughingly claims to represent, she just posted this on her Facebook page:

I’m proud to stand with the sons of bitches on the field today. And I promise you I would #TakeAKnee at school board meetings if my doing so would not be disruptive to KIDS and a distraction to the work we need to do for THEM. But [Trump’s] remarks are nothing more than continued white nationalism at its finest. That flag means nothing more than toilet paper to me. [emphasis added]

By asserting that the American flag means nothing more than “toilet paper” to her, Ellis reveals her crudity and unprofessionalism.

Read more…

Traci O’Neal Ellis, the school board member in Illinois School District U-46, which was embroiled in a controversy last spring over the superintendent’s secret decision to sexually integrate restrooms and locker rooms, has joined the fracas over the Chicago Tribune’s biased reporting about State Representative Jeanne Ives. This is the twisted comment Ellis has offered on her school board member Facebook page, accompanied by a link to the dishonest Trib article…

Read more…

Hard to believe but another offense was just exposed in Illinois School District U-46, and ironically, CEO Tony Sanders inadvertently exposed it.

Last Thursday, September 29, CEO Tony Sanders released a statement regarding the controversy over his secret decision to allow a gender-dysphoric student to use a locker room and restroom designated for persons of the opposite sex. Here is an excerpt from that statement:

Earlier this school year, I agreed to provide access to one transgender student to the locker room and restroom based on that student’s gender identity….As I shared in a prior weekly message, we could have done a better job communicating the change….For the sake of transparency, I am sharing with you the guidelines  we have established to support transgender students.

The guidelines assure community members that “The District is committed to proactively address the needs and concerns of…gender expansive students.” (trigger warning: sarcasm coming) It’s hard to imagine that for almost 200 years public schools failed to address the concerns of “gender-expansive” students. What was wrong with those people?

On a cursory read, Sander’s statement may seem innocuous, maybe even positive in that Sanders admits his prior poor communication and lack of transparency. But spend a few moments cogitating on the implications of what he has implicitly acknowledged and admitted. They ain’t pretty.

In his statement Sanders shared that there is a gender-dysphoric student in the district who has been given permission to use an opposite-sex locker room and restroom, which is exactly what school board member Jeanette Ward communicated and was vilified for communicating.

Tony Sanders implicitly admitted that Jeanette Ward is the only school board member who did a good “job communicating the change.” She is the only board member who was transparent.

Because Sanders chose to conceal information to which parents have a right, Mrs. Ward posted this on Facebook on September 5:

Starting tomorrow, U-46 Administration is changing its practice concerning students’ access to locker rooms of the opposite sex. Students who identify as the opposite gender (regardless of biological sex) will be able to use the locker room that corresponds with the gender with which they identify, at the same time as other students. U-46 has opted not to inform parents or the community at large of this change. I am informing you. I encourage you to contact U-46 administration about this matter if you have concerns.

Mrs. Ward did not release the name of the student, the sex of the student, or the name of the school the student attends. She provided no identifying information. The only additional information she provided in a press interview was that the student attended a middle school. U-46 has eight middle schools that serve 5,827 students. Communicating that the student is one of almost 6,000 middle school students hardly constitutes identifiable information.

The day after Mrs. Ward’s post, Sanders, evidently feeling some heat, posted this defensive and dissembling post: “Did we notify families? No, we did not. Why? Because it would be a violation of state and federal laws that protect students from the release of personal information.”

Was Sanders intentionally trying to mislead the public by playing fast and loose with language? His statement seems to suggest without stating that the district was prohibited from sharing with the public the information contained in Mrs. Ward’s post. His statement seems to suggest that Mrs. Ward violated federal and state laws with her September 5 statement—a statement which mirrors his very own statement published 3 ½ weeks later on September 29.

Surely in the past 3 ½ weeks, Sanders knew the public thought he had said that Mrs. Ward had violated state and federal laws. He must have known that because “progressives” have been accusing her on social media and at school board meetings of doing so. And in the midst of this unseemly spate of false accusations, Sanders never once stepped in—as a person of integrity would have—to correct the public. Never once did Sanders clarify that Mrs. Ward had not released any information that violated federal or state law.

Please absorb this: Sanders has now implicitly admitted there is no federal or state law prohibiting Mrs. Ward from making the statement she did on September 5. He implicitly admitted it when he said the very same thing. And every board member who claimed that it was illegal for Mrs. Ward to share the general information she—and finally Sanders—shared has been lying. Either that or they have utterly inept legal counsel (i.e., Miguel Rodriguez, you know the school attorney who “liked” board member Traci O’Neal Ellis’ reference to the Republican National Convention as the “Klanvention.”) Either way, Mrs. Ward is owed an apology—many apologies.

Sanders said “we could have done a better job communicating the change.” Surely he jests. Does he think all of his community members just fell off the turnip truck?

Most of the board did no job “communicating the change.” And the only board member who in fact did do a “better job of communicating the change” has been treated like a pariah by four board members, Tony Sanders, and many community members.

Speaking of which, every community member who insulted and attacked Mrs. Ward on the Facebook pages “Connecting the Dots in U-46” and “School District U-46 Uncensored,” wrongly accusing her of violating laws and releasing private information owes her a public apology for saying what Sanders has just said.

Now that Sanders has inadvertently admitted that the board should have communicated the information Mrs. Ward communicated three weeks ago, perhaps Rebecca Vogt-Miller, Dana Michelle, and Sandy Achler Reeves who wrongly accused Mrs. Ward of violating state and federal laws will apologize to her.

Perhaps Reeves, who was not content merely to accuse Mrs. Ward of violating laws but also wanted to kick her in the gut, will apologize for this:

I want Mrs. Ward to think about this. What if this student decides to take their own life because of what YOU did? What about their family losing their child because YOU violated federal and state law?? Can YOU live with yourself? Mrs. Ward please resign because YOU don’t care about these kids.

Perhaps Phil Novello who called Mrs. Ward’s act of good communication and transparency “a blatant hateful act” will apologize.

And surely failed school board candidate Larry Bury will apologize for not only wrongly accusing Mrs. Ward of violating laws but also for penning this malignant accusation:

Monday evening will be the true test of character for the members of our U46 Board of Education.

…

Do they stand in support of state and federal law?
…

Or do they stand in support the ugliness being perpetrated on U46 by a certain Board member who is willing to destroy the life of a U46 student in the name of political self-promotion

A feckless CEO and four feckless board members stumble from one offense to another—all of their own making—leaving the community with more than ample justification and motivation to give the sorry four (also known as the gang who can’t shoot straight) the heave ho. Two of them, Donna Smith and Veronica Noland are up for re-election this coming April.

And maybe, just maybe some of the people who have bullied Mrs. Ward for doing exactly what Sanders has finally done will have the humility and integrity to apologize to her (mark your calendars for the 12^th of never).

There is another school board meeting this Monday night, October 3 at 7:00 p.m.  at 355 East Chicago Street in Elgin. Please try to attend and perhaps ask CEO Tony Sanders and board members Donna Smith, Susan Kerr, Traci O’Neal Ellis, and Veronica Noland how it is that Tony Sanders didn’t violate any laws for saying virtually the same thing Jeanette Ward said.

And then there remains that pesky problem of co-ed locker rooms and restrooms in U-46. Sanders likes to emphasize that only one student is currently using an opposite-sex locker room and restroom, but someone should ask the board what they will do when more gender-dysphoric and “gender-expansive” students ask to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms. And what will the board do when these students and their parents assert that privacy stalls and adult supervision are unjustly discriminatory, because that’s what’s a’comin’.

Please prayerfully consider how you can support
the work and ministry of IFI through a donation.

At Monday night’s board meeting in School District U-46 about the controversial and secret decision to permit a co-ed locker room for a gender-dysphoric middle school student, it is estimated that of the 53 people who spoke, 43 opposed the decision, while only 10 approved of it. Approximately 29 of the speakers who spoke against co-ed locker rooms were from within the district, while only 5 of the speakers who spoke in support of co-ed locker rooms were from within the district.

A close look at the comments of a senior student (referred to henceforth as student X) from Elgin High School who spoke (and was quoted in both the Daily Herald and Chicago Tribune) provides evidence of the ignorance and hubris of “progressive” teens who are the products of the ignorant and tyrannical anti-culture that pervades taxpayer-subsidized schools. Her comments encapsulated many of the flawed arguments Leftists use to defend co-ed restrooms and locker rooms.

Legal landscape

Student X began by incorrectly claiming that “transgender individuals are…by law allowed to use the bathroom or locker rooms that corresponds with their gender identity. Illinois provides nondiscrimination protections on the basis of both gender identity and sexual orientation”

There are no such federal or state laws. In fact, the Illinois Human Rights Act specifically states that “The Act permits schools to maintain single-sex facilities that are distinctly private in nature, e.g., restrooms and locker rooms.”

Unjust discrimination

Requiring restroom and locker room usage to correspond to biological sex is no more unjustly discriminatory than is requiring school showers to be sex-segregated—which U-46 and every other school district does.

By requiring the U-46 student at the center of the controversy to change in a privacy cubicle under the supervision of a staff member, the board is implicitly acknowledging that biological sex matters deeply. Parents who oppose gender-dysphoric students using opposite-sex locker rooms are saying the very same thing. They’re just applying the principle rationally.

If prohibiting gender-dysphoric students from using opposite-sex locker rooms is unjustly discriminatory, then why is requiring them to use a separate changing cubicle acceptable? And if prohibiting gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex locker rooms is unjustly discriminatory, why should they be prohibited from showering with opposite-sex students? That is, after all, what the ACLU is seeking for the gender-dysphoric student in District 211. The ACLU is seeking unrestricted access for gender-dysphoric students to opposite-sex locker rooms.

Suffering of gender-dysphoric persons

Student X then listed a litany of truly sad afflictions that plague the gender-dysphoric population, including high rates of physical and sexual assault, bullying, depression and suicidal ideation, all of which suggest that gender-dysphoria is profoundly disordered and that in some cases—perhaps many—the cause of gender dysphoria may be external (e.g., sexual assaults or other trauma)—rather than innate.

What student X did not explain is how co-ed locker rooms and restrooms would solve the many problems she listed. If her chief concern is ensuring that gender-dysphoric students are not bullied or assaulted in restrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their sex, U-46 can provide them with access to single-occupancy restrooms.

But ensuring safety isn’t the chief goal of student X or “trans” activists. Their chief goal is compelling everyone to treat those who rebel against their sex as if they are in reality the sex they wish they were. But the desire and demand of gender-dysphoric persons to be treated as if they are the sex they are not does not supersede the rights of others to physical privacy. And despite what “progressives” claim, gender-dysphoric boys have no moral right to use girls’ facilities, and gender-dysphoric girls have no moral right to use boys’ facilities.

Safety

Student X finds fault with community concerns over student safety if gender-dysphoric students are allowed into opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms. Student X and others imply that prohibiting gender-dysphoric students from using opposite-sex facilities puts them at risk, but as already discussed, that is a a risk that can be eliminated by providing access to single-occupancy restrooms.

What student X and others ignore is that if Leftist locker room and restrooms policies are permitted, there remains no way to limit co-ed restrooms/locker rooms to gender-dysphoric students only. If the public is forced to accept the absurd idea that it is unjustly discriminatory to separate restrooms and locker rooms by sex, then there remains no rational argument for maintaining any sex-separated facilities. And the elimination of sex-separated restrooms and lockers rooms does, indeed, put girls at risk.

Biological sex, modesty, and privacy

But an equally or more important argument against co-ed restrooms and locker rooms pertains to the intrinsic meaning of biological sex from which feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy derive.

Girls and boys ought not see unrelated persons of the opposite-sex unclothed nor be seen unclothed by unrelated persons of the opposite sex. Boys and girls ought not engage in private bodily activities in the presence of unrelated persons of the opposite sex. The fact that some teens in our confused and corrupt culture have already lost their feelings of modesty and are comfortable changing clothes in the presence of unrelated opposite-sex students is no justification for government schools participating in the erosion of modesty.

Deception, gender dysphoria, and intersexuality

Student X concluded her comments by challenging the audience to guess her sex (I’m guessing female, hence my use of female pronouns). She was trying to make the point—and again, I’m guessing—that if a person’s sex is in some cases difficult to discern, biological sex is unimportant.

She reinforced her belief that it is impossible to discern the sex of some students by pointing out that gender-dysphoric students often disguise their sex through cross-dressing, cross-sex hormone-doping, and surgery. Apparently her point was that if humans can masquerade as the opposite sex so successfully that others are deceived, then biological sex has no intrinsic meaning. She was evidently suggesting that if, for example, a gender-dysphoric boy can through clothing, chemicals, and surgery successfully convince girls that he is objectively female, those actual girls have no right to physical privacy.

Student X also made this ludicrous statement: “Biology, psychology, sociology and any other science that has to address sex differences all support the idea that sex is a spectrum.” Student X declared imperiously that “Sex is a spectrum! Fact!”

Interestingly, she then cited intersex conditions—which are wholly different from gender dysphoria—as evidence for her claim. She specifically mentioned trisomy conditions in which children are born with extra chromosomes that result in a host of serious health problems including ambiguous genitalia, heart problems, and sterility.

In stark contrast, self-identified “trans” persons have no genetic anomalies. Therefore, with male or female brains that determine the release of male or female hormones, their bodies develop and function normally as males or females.

The problems of sexual development caused by missing or extra chromosomes are no more normal or good than are the sterility and heart problems caused by missing or extra chromosomes. These problems of sexual development are not proof of the existence of a sex-spectrum. Would student X argue that genetically caused blindness is evidence of a vision-spectrum?

Student X demanded that the board tell her how the school could possibly enforce single-sex bathroom and locker room policies: “How are you going to enforce that? Have students carry their birth certificate around? Require them to show you their genitals before entering? Put “F” or “M” on student I.D.s?”

In bygone years, decency, honesty, and respect for sexual differentiation existed and were sufficient to ensure widespread compliance with bathroom expectations.

Perhaps student X could explain how school administrators will ensure that only students who are gender-dysphoric will use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms?

What kind of proof will gender-dysphoric students be expected to provide to prove they are “trans”?

Which restrooms and locker rooms will “gender fluid” or “gender non-binary” students use?

And what about the estimated 70-88% of children with gender dysphoria who will come to accept their sex by adulthood? Should other children be forced to share restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex students who experience a temporary period of discomfort with their sex?

What should conservatives do?

The U-46 School Board has stated that it has no intention of revisiting the secretly adopted practice of allowing students who reject their biological sex to use opposite-sex private facilities—no matter how the community feels about this decision.

The majority on the board believe that inclusivity and compassion demand that girls and boys relinquish their privacy. Girls and boys who don’t want to share locker rooms or restrooms with students of the opposite sex must seek special accommodations from the anti-science ideologues who run the district. Girls who don’t want to change clothes near a boy in the girls’ locker room will have to move elsewhere—oh, yes, and be labelled hateful, exclusionary, discriminatory, heartless bigots.

“Progressive” and cowardly administrators respond to three things (none of which is reason):

1.) A huge public outcry: Administrators couldn’t care less if 2, 12, or 22 parents object to a practice, policy, activity, or resource. They care if 200, 300, or 400 parents object.

 2.) Bad PR: To be effective, press coverage of a controversial story needs to be extensive and sustained. Local press coverage is far less effective than national press coverage of a school controversy.

 3.) Lawsuits: Lawsuits are the Big Kahuna. Lawsuits speak with the loudest voice to school boards and administrations. Unfortunately, progressives are much more willing to sue school districts than are conservatives—particularly naïve Christians who think words of reason winsomely expressed will effect change. Conservatives need to disabuse themselves of that quaint and quixotic notion. The well-being of children is at stake. Leftists pursue their perverse goals for a more comprehensive sexual revolution with a fervor unmatched by conservatives. It’s time conservatives match Leftist fervor, boldness, tenacity, perseverance, and ingenuity. Parents of U-46 students should contact the Thomas More Society at (312) 782.1680 and pursue a lawsuit just as 50 families in District 211 are doing.

The Left wants to end the historical and commonsense practice of requiring that restrooms and locker rooms correspond to objective, immutable biological sex. Instead, Leftists want restrooms and locker rooms to correspond to subjective, unfixed, and unverifiable feelings about one’s sex. And the Left will not cease until the wobbly knees of every school administrator bow before this anti-science, anti-morality, anti-child ideology. If U-46 CEO Tony Sanders and board members Traci O’Neal Ellis and Veronica Noland think the privacy cubicle for gender-dysphoric students will long be tolerated by Leftists, they’re sorely mistaken.

District U-46 has an election coming up next April. Board president Donna Smith (who has served on the board for fifteen years) and board member Veronica Noland are up for reelection and need to be given the heave ho if for no other reason (and there are other reasons) than to establish balance and fair representation for a segment of the U-46 community that is currently underrepresented. Surely, in the second largest school district in the state, two fine conservatives can be found to give Smith and Noland a run for their money.

Remember, school board members need not have children enrolled in the district or even have children. In fact, of the current board members, only two have children enrolled in the district.

Signatures must be gathered and turned in by December 23, so get moving folks!

Finally, thank you to everyone who prayed for the U-46 School Board meeting on Monday evening, and a special thanks to those who attended and spoke.

Please prayerfully consider how you can support
the work and ministry of IFI through a donation.

A second article was needed to address adequately the problems exposed in Monday’s school board meeting in Illinois School District U-46 in which the decision to allow a middle school gender-dysphoric student to use an opposite-sex locker room and the decision of school CEO Tony Sanders’ to conceal that information from parents were debated.

It is important for taxpayers in every community to pay close attention to what is being done and said by leaders in U-46, because the serious issues regarding modesty, privacy, the meaning of biological sex, parental rights, and gender dysphoria will confront every community. And the arrogance, ignorance, and hypocrisy of “progressives” who are driving this destructive assault on truth and reality will need to be identified and boldly confronted.

Anti-discrimination policy bait and switch

Board member Traci O’Neal Ellis inadvertently let the cat out of the bag “progressives” furtively carry about and use to humiliate conservatives into silence and submission. But first some background is in order.

Any conservative who opposes the inclusion of “sexual orientation” (code word for homosexuality) or “gender identity” in anti-discrimination policies is routinely called hateful and falsely accused of either not caring about the bullying of homosexual and gender-dysphoric students or of actively supporting such bullying. School board member Jeanette Ward has been on the receiving end of such malignant and false accusations.

It is not a desire to harm students that leads conservatives to oppose the inclusion of conditions constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts (as opposed to objective, non-behavioral conditions like race, sex, and national origin) in anti-discrimination policies. All decent people—and yes, the vast majority of conservative people are decent—oppose bullying of any person for any reason.

Rather, the reasons conservatives oppose the inclusion of these conditions in anti-discrimination policies are these:

1.)  It opens the door for other conditions similarly constituted to be added to anti-discrimination policies.

2.)  It inevitably leads to the erosion of religious liberty, as we are currently witnessing.

3.)  Such policies are later exploited for purposes perhaps intended but never mentioned. In other words, “progressives” use the old bait and switch stratagem, knowing that gullible or gutless conservatives will fall for it.

So, back to Ellis’ revelatory comments.

She referred to the district’s “existing anti-discrimination policy,” that she said “has not changed.” Well, she means it hasn’t changed since 2013 when it changed.

Ellis implied without stating that the non-changing, existing policy mandates that gender-dysphoric boys be allowed in girls’ locker rooms and vice versa. Is that how the addition of the term “gender identity” to school anti-discrimination policies is ever explained, promoted, or justified to community members?

In 2013 U-46’s School Board—which had exactly zero conservative representation—added “gender identity” to its anti-discrimination policy at the recommendation of school attorney Miguel Rodriguez. I can’t find in board minutes an account of the discussion that took place prior to the vote, so I wonder what arguments were put forth to defend the addition. Did school board members inform parents that this policy change was needed in order to ensure that gender-dysphoric boys would be allowed in the girls’ restrooms and locker rooms? Or was it promoted as an effective tool for curbing bullying? Did community members assume the policy change was made in order to prevent harassment and abuse only to see it now used to justify co-ed locker rooms?

Ironically, the footnotes in the board documents recommending the change—a change that Ellis now suggests  requires sex-integrated locker rooms—cites the Illinois Human Rights Act which states the exact opposite: “The Act permits schools to maintain single-sex facilities that are distinctly private in nature, e.g., restrooms and locker rooms.”

It’s important to note that the policy that was changed applies only to “educational and extracurricular opportunities”—not to bathroom and locker room usage. In addition, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 specifically states that schools may maintain sex-separated locker rooms and restrooms.

Ellis, the school board member who suggested that those who oppose co-ed locker rooms are exercising “authority without wisdom” and are “bruising” children, is the same board member who referred to the Republican National Convention as the “Klanvention” on her Facebook page.  Enquiring minds want to know if such a slur might erode the trust conservative community members have in her ability to honor her oath to “represent all school district constituents honestly and equally”?

Ellis concluded her school board statement Monday night with these hollow words:

And to our students, I offer this to you. If you are straight, bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, gender non-conforming, queer, questioning, white, black, Latino, Asian, Native American, bi-racial, or any other racial, ethnic or national origin…if you score a perfect score on the SAT and are headed to Harvard, or you graduate dead last in your class, if you are able-bodied, or disabled, if you are low income or the child of the most affluent family in this district; if you have one, two, or no parents, if you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Scientologist, atheist, agnostic or of any other belief…however you show up in U-46, when you cross the threshold of a U-46 school, I welcome you. You are not “less than”. And because you are welcome here, that means that as a district, we have to work to meet your unique needs and well-being, while balancing others’ needs and well-being. In other words, we must exercise our authority with wisdom, in order to polish, not bruise you.

I wonder if Republican students who may have Republican parents believe those words.

And who “liked” Ellis’ “Klanvention” Facebook comment? None other than U-46 attorney Miguel Rodriguez, the person who recommended adding “gender identity” to school board policy.

Macro-aggressive government employees 

Although Bartlett High School English teacher Gary Lorber’s macro-aggressive conduct at the board meeting may have been unusual conduct for a teacher, his views are widely held by “progressive” teachers in government schools who self-righteously view themselves as “agents of change” and have assigned themselves the duty of shaping the moral and political views of other people’s children. In my experience, this kind of arrogant teacher is over-represented in English departments. They, like many on the U-46 school board, want government schools to have no conservative representation in leadership or teaching positions. One conservative member on a board of seven is one too many for the disciples of diversity.

Lorber’s intemperate treatment of Mrs. Ward, especially his maudlin concluding insult was both unprofessional and cruel. I hope you can find three minutes to watch this video of Lorber’s performance, but in case you can’t, here’s a bit of what he said to his board member, Mrs. Ward:

I do not know how you…have become…so hateful….I wonder what a little girl thinks of you when she looks into your eyes. I wonder what hatred you indoctrinated into her eyes when she looks into yours.

I have never seen a teacher so brazenly and perniciously attack his own school board member. If a conservative had said anything approaching this, he or she would be vilified as a hateful bully. No child of mine would ever sit in a classroom under the tutelage of a teacher so devoid of tolerance, respect, decorum, civility, and humility.

U-46 board policies state the following: “All District employees are expected to maintain high standards in their school relationships, to demonstrate integrity and honesty, to be considerate and cooperative and to maintain professional relationships.” When the board and administration review Mr. Lorber’s statement, do they hear the voice of a considerate, cooperative, and professional staff member?

“Fringe” political “hate” group 

Two speakers at Monday’s meeting alluded to Mrs. Ward’s support coming from a hate group. Rich Jacobs, “husband” of homosexual activist and Kane County judge John Dalton, referred to “fringe political groups known for hate and divisiveness,” and board member Veronica Noland referred to a group labeled a “hate group” by the (ethically dubious) Southern Poverty Law Center. Because of my keen powers of deduction, I suspect the allusions were to the Illinois Family Institute, and, therefore, some context is warranted. And I know from assertions made by multiple board members that the board takes pride in listening and learning from diverse voices (after which some members hurl epithets).

Since the Left loves them some yum yum southern impoverished law center putrescent potage, below are five articles about the SPLC. The first three detail my experiences with the infamous Mark Potok and his laughably named “Intelligence Report.” They reveal how deceitful and hapless Potok is and how bogus is his “hate groups” list:

“IFI Labeled Hate Group”

“When Will the Southern Poverty Law Center Stop Bullying?”

“The Morality Police at the Southern Poverty Law Center”

“The Church of Morris Dees” (originally published at Harper’s)

“The SPLC exposed – Southern Poverty Law Center – Morris Dees and hate crimes”

It is clear that some of the U-46 board and faculty members, like the SPLC, have redefined “hate” to include the expression of moral and ontological propositions with which they disagree. Perhaps these particular board and faculty members hate those with whom they disagree, but they ought not project their habits of mind onto others.

Most people are fully capable of deeply loving those who hold different beliefs and act in accordance with those beliefs. Most of us in this wildly diverse world do it every day. I wonder if these board and faculty members hurl the same ugly epithets at Muslim and Orthodox Jewish students and their parents who likely hold conservative views regarding co-ed restrooms and locker rooms?

Who really foments hatred?

Finally, I would argue that it is “progressives” who act and speak in destructive ways that foment hatred by relentlessly telling children and teens that those who believe that biological sex is profoundly meaningful hate those who reject their biological sex. That is a pernicious lie that undermines the possibility of dialogue with and relationships between people who hold different beliefs. Such a lie works against the purported goal of school boards everywhere to create and sustain diverse communities. By its nature, a diverse community will include those who hold diverse views, including on matters sexual. What “progressives” seek is a “diverse” community (and a “diverse” school board) in which everyone thinks just like them.

Here’s what “progressives” in their arrogance and self-righteousness refuse to acknowledge: Conservatives believe as strongly that “progressive” views on modesty, privacy, biological sex, and gender dysphoria are ignorant and destructive as “progressives” believe conservative views are.

Treating unreality as reality harms the entire U-46 community and undermines the very essence of education.

Last Call for IFI’s Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachman!

Don’t delay, act today!

(Please make sure to watch the linked video excerpts!)

So much to say about Monday night’s barn-burner of a school board meeting in Illinois School District U-46, so little time.

The meeting started at 7:00 p.m. By 6:00 p.m. the meeting room was filled to capacity, and attendees were sent to two upstairs overflow rooms to watch a livestream of the meeting. Approximately 58 visitors spoke, with 37 speaking in opposition to the school board’s decision to allow a student to use the locker room designated for persons of the opposite sex and to do so without telling U-46 parents of this decision. The remaining 21 spoke in favor of these decisions. In the overflow room where I was seated, pro-transparency/pro-single-sex facilities supporters vastly outnumbered anti-transparency/pro-co-ed supporters.

Accusations of hate flew during the lengthy meeting. Well, to be more accurate, accusations of hate flew from the Left to the Right as usual. Leftists accused those who reject Leftist assumptions about modesty, privacy, the meaning of biological sex, parental rights, and gender dysphoria of being hateful. Ad hominem epithets are infinitely easier to hurl than arguments are to make.

Some of the most obnoxious comments were expressed by school board member Veronica Noland, Rich Jacobs, and (my personal favorite) Bartlett High School English teacher (why am I not surprised) Gary Lorber.

Lorber is also the 1^st vice president of the local teachers union, the Elgin Teachers Association.

Lorber’s theatrical performance is a must-see, replete with fallacies of logic (e.g., ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, moral high ground, appeal to emotion, appeal to spite, bandwagon, and strawman). Lorber was shockingly unprofessional, referring to two of his own school board members as part of a “cast of cackling cronies.” His performance included repeated melodramatic proclamations that he will “be there,” wherever injustice—as he defines it—is to be found, and he presumptuously asserted that the students he is paid by taxpayers to teach English are his kids.

Rich Jacobs’ comments too were replete with fallacious reasoning, beginning with misrepresenting Jeanette Ward’s actions and then imputing ugly motives to her by accusing her of “intentionally fanning the flames of hatred.” Now that’s what I call “sickening” bullying.

Jacobs also stated that Mrs. Ward reached out to “fringe political groups known for their hate and divisiveness.” Some questions for Jacobs: What are the names of the “fringe political groups” to which he referred? What makes them “fringe”? What specifically constitutes hatred in Jacobs’ view? Is it the expression of moral and ontological assumptions with which he disagrees that constitutes hatred? Does he believe that love requires the affirmation of every desire, belief, and action held by others? Or is he the arbiter of which desires, beliefs, and actions must be affirmed in order to love others? How is the decision to allow gender-dysphoric students in opposite-sex locker rooms less divisive than opposing such a practice?

Jacobs is the “husband” of homosexual activist and Kane County judge, John Dalton. In 2011, Dalton was asked by the homosexual newspaper Windy City Times, “Are you active in the LGBT community?” Dalton responded, “I have for the last 20 years…worked, whenever the opportunity has presented itself, for equal rights. Some of the things I’ve done more recently include working with the School District U-46, which is the second largest school district in the state.”

Board member Veronica Noland, using Leftist language to convey Leftist dogma, referred to children whose “gender is not the same as the one assigned to them at birth.” News flash for Noland: No one is “assigned a gender” at birth. The objective sex of persons is identified at birth.

Noland implied wrongly that opponents of co-ed restrooms seek to force gender-dysphoric students into restrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their sex. She either didn’t listen to all the speakers or dishonestly ignored their comments, because multiple speakers who oppose co-ed restrooms and locker rooms recommended a compromise of allowing gender-dysphoric students to use existing single-occupancy restrooms.

After claiming to listen to all stakeholders, Noland proceeded to call those who dissent from her ideology “narrow-minded fear mongers.” Nice to see how she “represents” the whole community

Not to worry, folks, in the service of representing “all children,” compassionate Noland will make special accommodations for those non-gender-dysphoric students who don’t want to share private acilities with the opposite sex. Objectively female children have Noland’s kind permission to exit the formerly all-girls locker room and change elsewhere, and objectively male children are similarly permitted to exit the formerly single-sex boys’ locker room and change elsewhere.

Perhaps the most arrogant and ironic statement came from school board member Traci O’Neal Ellis who began with this quote from Anne Bradstreet: “Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to bruise than polish.” Ellis futilely attempted to suggest that allowing gender-dysphoric students into opposite-sex locker rooms and restrooms without informing parents constitutes exercising authority with wisdom, and that those who oppose such a decision are exercising authority devoid of wisdom and consequently are “bruising” children.

She further asserted that district policy that prohibits discrimination based on “gender identity” requires the district to allow gender-dysphoric students in opposite-sex private spaces. Such a claim flies in the face of the Illinois Human Rights Act which prohibits discrimination based on “gender identity” and says the following in its section on exemptions:

Nothing in this Article shall apply to: Facilities Distinctly Private. Any facility, as to discrimination based on sex, which is distinctly private in nature such as restrooms, shower rooms, bath houses, health clubs and other similar facilities for which the Department, in its rules and regulations, may grant exemptions based on bona fide considerations of public policy.

In addition Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 explicitly states that public schools may maintain separate restrooms and locker rooms for boys and girls.

For those who prefer not to listen to Ellis pontificate, the full text of her statement can be read by clicking here.

Here are some questions for the U-46 epithet-hurlers, including but not limited to Lorber, Jacobs, Ellis, and Noland:

1.) Why is it more hateful to believe that locker rooms and restrooms should correspond to objective sex than to believe that they should correspond to feelings about one’s sex?

2.) Do parents have an intrinsic right to know if their children will be sharing restrooms and locker rooms with persons of the opposite sex?

3.) Do students have an inalienable and intrinsic right not to share restrooms and locker rooms with persons of the opposite sex?

4.) Does objective biological sex per se have any meaning?

5.) Would you object to gender-dysphoric students changing clothes out in the open areas of a locker room designated for persons of the opposite sex?

6.) Would you object to a gender-dysphoric student showering in the locker rooms designated for persons of the opposite sex if those students didn’t object? If so, why would you object?

7.) Since U-46 believes that existing anti-discrimination policy requires the district to allow “trans” students to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms, may “cisgender” students use opposite-sex facilities as well? Wouldn’t prohibiting “cis boys” from using girls’ facilities constitute discrimination based on “gender identity”?

8.) If separate restrooms and locker rooms for gender dysphoric boys and girls are equivalent to separate restrooms and locker rooms for blacks and whites—as Attorney General Loretta Lynch asserts—then why aren’t separate restrooms and locker rooms for “cisgender” boys and girls equivalent to racism? And why aren’t separate restrooms and locker rooms for gender-dysphoric boys and “cisboys” equivalent to racism?

9.) Does the district have any Muslim or Orthodox Jewish students? If so, does the district know how these students and their parents view co-ed restrooms?

10.) Some supporters of sex-integrated restrooms and locker rooms object to the term “co-ed.” How many gender-dysphoric boys must be allowed in a girls’ locker room (or vice versa) before it can be called a “co-ed” locker room? 1, 2, 5?

11.) Will gender-dysphoric students be required to use opposite-sex facilities?

12.) What are the restroom and locker rooms practices with regard to “gender fluid” students?

Who has a “personal agenda”?

While “progressive” U-46 board members routinely promote and implement their subjective assumptions about modesty, privacy, parental rights, the meaning of biological sex, and gender dysphoria through practices and policies, they accuse those who dissent from their views of promoting a “personal agenda.” Hmmm…Curiouser and curiouser.

Long-Range Leftist Plan

Some find solace in the delusion that U-46 will continue the current practice of providing overseers who  stand near the private changing area when the gender-dysphoric student is using it. How charmingly naïve–or ill-informed.

The Left will allow no such accommodation to long remain. During this transitional period (pun noticed but not intended), cunning Leftists will allow privacy curtains. But not for long. They will continue their quest for total societal capitulation to their make-believe world. They will not stop demanding that everyone treat gender-dysphoric persons as if they are, in reality, the sex they wish they were. In the Orwellian world of Leftists, who insist even on controlling speech through force of law if necessary, there will be no long-term compromise. Resistance—so they believe—is futile.

Unless conservatives act with tenacity and boldness, there will be no separate changing areas for students who reject their sex. Everyone will be compelled to join them in their delusional, immodest world. Boys will have unrestricted access to girls’ facilities and vice versa. Everyone will be forced to refer to delusional boys by pronouns that correspond to and denote those who are objectively female. You see, it’s harder for gender-dysphoric boys and men to maintain their delusion when people keep using those darn correct pronouns.

It’s only a matter of time before Leftists tear down those walls segregating boys from girls, because the ultimate goal is “dismantling the gender binary.” Leftist ideologues have “deconstructed” marriage, and now they seek to “deconstruct” human nature. It’s quite a remarkable feat to delude hordes of sheeple or coerce them into pretending that the naked Emperor is actually an Empress wearing a dress. But maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. It’s not the first time in history that tyrants have managed to delude or coerce masses of sheeple into acquiescing to lies.

Rights

Not one Leftist responded to the idea expressed multiple times during the meeting that students are entitled to physical privacy when engaged in intimate bodily activities. Moreover, they also conveniently avoided saying that students have no such rights.

Harm

While many Leftists took umbrage at any suggestion that any gender-dysphoric student might ever engage in harassing or abusive behavior toward an opposite-sex student in a locker room, they studiously avoid discussions of what constitutes harm. Is harm only constituted by physical assault, or might harm include being seen partially unclothed by persons of the opposite sex? Might harm include the erosion of modesty? Some speakers last night shared that their children and others find nothing objectionable about sharing private spaces with opposite-sex persons. Is that a good thing, or is it an indication that harm has already been done?

“Progressives” routinely exploit children to advance their perverse, morally relativistic, culturally oppressive, anti-science agenda. Leftist adults caterwaul that any public expression of views they don’t like about what constitutes the good for children who suffer from gender dysphoria harms those children. In truth, it is “progressives” who harm confused and suffering children, first by affirming disordered thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and then by using those children as human shields to silence dissent.

Love vs. hate

U-46 “progressives” seem to believe that love, respect, and support necessitate affirming whatever each individual believes, feels, and chooses to do. Conservatives, in contrast, believe that love, respect, and support necessitate knowing and affirming what is true, which often entails disapproval of the beliefs, desires, and volitional acts of others. The two worldviews are irreconcilable. Ironically, “progressives” don’t apply their principles consistently. Not only do they not affirm the beliefs, feelings, and actions of conservatives with regard to modesty, privacy, the meaning of objective biological sex, parental rights, and gender dysphoria, but they also call conservatives ugly names.

Equality, empathy, compassion, inclusivity, diversity, tolerance, and liberty

U-46 “progressives” referenced equality, but commitments to equality demand that society treat like things alike. Boys and girls are by definition different. Even homosexuals implicitly acknowledge that reality when they say they are romantically and erotically attracted only to persons of the same sex. It is not hateful to acknowledge and respect those differences—which include meaningful bodily differences—in private spaces.

During the meeting “progressives” talked about empathy, compassion, and inclusivity, implying that these admirable qualities require boys and girls to share private spaces with persons of the opposite sex. And this illuminates one of the many problems with these subversive practices and policies: They teach all children  that in order to be empathic, compassionate, and inclusive, they must be willing to relinquish their privacy.

Those who once claimed to value diversity, tolerance, and liberty have become bitter Orwellian control-freaks. Welcome to Oceania.

Please Prayerfully consider how you can support
the work and ministry of IFI through a donation.