Warning: not for young readers

September 23-29 is the ominously and inaccurately named Banned Books Week established by the book-banning American Library Association (ALA) to suggest that book banning is prevalent in America and very scary.

Although the ALA named it Banned Books Week, it acknowledged in the “about” section of the Banned Books Week website that it’s not really about books that have been banned à la Fahrenheit 451 or even asked to be banned. It’s centrally about books that have been challenged, which is a horse of an entirely different and far less dark color. A book is challenged when the appropriateness of it in some context is questioned.

Of course, the book banners at the ALA hope that no one notices the book banning they do through de facto book-banning protocols called Collection Development Policies (CDPs) that coincidentally align with the “progressive” biases of many librarians. (FYI, the field of library science is decidedly not ideologically diverse; it’s dominated by “progressives.”)

Libraries use CDPs to determine which books they will purchase with their limited budgets. CDPs advise librarians to purchase only books that have been positively reviewed by two “professionally recognized” review journals. Well, guess what folks, the “professionally recognized” review journals are dominated by ideological “progressives.”

Most parents who challenge books are not requesting that they be banned. Most parents are requesting one of three things: 1. that a book be moved to an adult section of the library, 2. that a library not use its limited resources to purchase a particular book, or 3. that a publicly funded school not select a particular book to be taught. Parents are not requesting that publishing companies be prohibited from publishing book titles, that parents be prohibited from purchasing them, or that booksellers stop selling them.

“Progressive” book-banning librarians count on community members not realizing that books that are never purchased can’t be “banned.” So, when school and community libraries refuse to purchase or request books that espouse conservative beliefs about the nature and morality of, for example, homosexuality or cross-dressing, there’s no opportunity for “progressives” to “ban” books. Their “banning” is achieved prior to the purchase of books. It’s far more comprehensive. And it’s much more cunning. Through CDPs, librarians effectively ban books they don’t like (i.e., conservative books) with nary a controversial word messily spilling out into the public square. If CDPs resulted in no books being purchased that espouse liberal beliefs about sexual deviancy and confusion, you can bet your bottom dollar that ALA members would be having conniptions.

One of the purportedly “banned” books that’s been getting a lot of press lately is The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian by Sherman Alexie—a book taught in many 7^th-, 8^th-, and 9^th-grade public school classes. The novel is not utterly devoid of good qualities. It addresses some important issues regarding racial discrimination, poverty, conformity, inclusion, friendship, independence, and resilience, and it does so with heart and humor. But it also contains much to render it unsuitable for inclusion in public school curricula.

I want to make clear that not selecting a book to include in a school curriculum is not equivalent to book banning. If not selecting books did constitute book banning, then “progressive” English teachers and librarians are the ethical equivalent of Fahrenheit 451 firemen because they routinely engage in the non-selection of books.

The first problem with the The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian is that it is written at about a fourth-grade level. Any late middle school or early high school teachers who select it reveal both a lack of confidence in the intellectual ability of their students and a willingness to acquiesce to the dumbing down of academic standards. Appealing to the emotions and baser impulses of adolescents is the last refuge of lazy, uninspiring, and unaspiring academic scoundrels.

Second, Alexie’s book contains language and ideas to which no educator should intentionally expose students. Yes, I know the tired rationalization: “This is authentic adolescent language.” This rationalization should raise some questions: If the author is justified in using such language to portray authentically adolescent culture and emotional experiences, then why aren’t students justified in using such language in school in order to be authentic and to express adequately and accurately their emotional truths? And why aren’t teachers allowed to use this kind of language, since it also represents authentic adult language and experience? In fact, society euphemistically refers to profanity and obscenity as “adult language.”

Here’s an idea to help teachers determine which novels and plays they should recommend or teach to other people’s children: If a novel or play contains language and imagery that cannot be read aloud over the public address system, used in the hallways, spoken at school board meetings, or printed in our newspapers, they should not recommend or teach it to other people’s children.

So, let’s put The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian to the test. Let’s have superintendents, principals, school board members, and students read these passages over the public address system, at an assembly, or at a school board meeting:

Excerpt 1:

Yep, that’s right, I admit that I masturbate.

I’m proud of it.
I’m good at it.
I’m ambidextrous.
If there were a Professional Masturbators League, I’d get drafted number one and make millions of dollars.

And maybe you’re thinking, “well, you really shouldn’t be talking about masturbation in public.”
Well, tough, I’m going to talk about it because EVERYBODY does it. And EVERYBODY likes it.
And if God hadn’t wanted us to masturbate, then God wouldn’t have given us thumbs.
So I thank God for thumbs.

Excerpt 2:

“Hey, Chief,” Roger said. “You want to hear a joke?”

“Sure,” I said.

“Did you know that Indians are living proof that nig***s fu** buffalo?”

Excerpt 3:

I headed over to the library bathrooms because they’re usually a lot cleaner than the ones by the lunchroom. So, okay, I’m going number two, and I’m sitting on the toilet, and I’m concentrating. I’m in my Zen mode, trying to make this whole thing a spiritual experience. I read once that Gandhi was way into his own number two. I don’t know if he told fortunes or anything. But I guess he thought the condition and quality of his number two revealed the condition and quality of his life.

Excerpt 4:

“Kid, you better keep your hands out of my daughter’s panties. She’s only dating you because she knows it will piss me off. So I ain’t going to get pissed. And if I ain’t pissed then she’ll stop dating you. In the meantime, you just keep your trouser snake in your trousers and I won’t have to punch you in the stomach.”

Excerpt 5:

“Arnold, please go with Miss Warren.”

I gathered up my books and followed Miss Warren out into the hallway. I was a little worried. I wondered if I’d done anything wrong….”

“What’s going on, Miss Warren?” I asked.

She suddenly started crying….

She hugged me hard. And I have to admit that it felt pretty dang good. Miss Warren was, like fifty years old, but she was still pretty hot…. So I sort of, er, physically reacted to her hug. And the thing is, Miss Warren was hugging me so tight that I was pretty sure she could feel my, er, physical reaction. I was kind of proud, you know?

Ah, literature at its finest, most sublime, and inspiring.

In Fahrenheit 451, it is the “hedonistic, anti-intellectual” forces in society that are burning books. Today, the hedonistic, anti-intellectuals in charge of public schools are the ones exploiting books to promote those ideas and images that appeal to our hedonistic, anti-intellectual impulses while concomitantly banning books that are more intellectually challenging and morally uplifting .

Many “educators” attempt to justify the inclusion of Alexie’s book by citing its National Book Award. This common strategy should raise several more important questions: What were the criteria used for determining the winning novel? How many people served on the committee that awarded the honor to The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian? And what were the ideological leanings of those who made that decision?

This justification calls for a serious, open, and honest examination of the ideological monopoly that controls academia and the elite world of the arts and that has resulted in censorship of conservative perspectives. To offer as justification for teaching a text its garnering of literary prizes or ALA approval without acknowledging that those who award the prizes or who belong to the ALA are generally of the same ideological bent is an exercise in sophistry.

What school committees, departments, administrations, boards, the ALA, the National Education Association, and organizations that award literary prizes desperately need is the one form of diversity about which they are least concerned and to which they are least committed: ideological diversity.

Furthermore, this justification represents a common fallacy called an “argument from authority” which relies on the word of an expert or authority rather than on evidence. The fallacy goes something like this: This teacher made the decision to teach this text, and he is has won a Golden Apple Award, or the school board has decided to allow this book to be taught because it won a  National Book Award. The fallacy lies in the fact that honors can be awarded based on specious criteria, and teaching abilities do not guarantee sound judgment. Really smart people can make really chuckleheaded decisions.

In the extensive body of literature from which English teachers can choose, surely they can find books that address substantive issues without resorting to adolescent potty humor, sexual vulgarity, and the use of language that civilized people do not use in private or public.

Parents who object to the inclusion of texts in libraries, sections of libraries, or classrooms due to obscene language, sexuality, or highly controversial messages are not engaging in inappropriate censorship. All educators evaluate curricular materials for objectionable content, including language, sexuality, and controversial themes. The irony is that when librarians and teachers decide not to select a text due to these elements, the choice constitutes an exercise in legitimate text-selection, but when conservative parents engage in it, they are tarred with the label of censor and book banner.

Parents should doubt the veracity and fitness for their roles of any librarians, teachers, administrators, or school board members who claim they will never take into account the nature and extent of profanity, obscenity, sexuality, and controversial themes when choosing texts.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Who-ARE-the-Book-Banners.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

In the wake of the shocking Pennsylvania Grand Jury report which revealed that 301 priests sexually abused more than a thousand children, Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced that her office would investigate Catholic dioceses in Illinois in pursuit of “a complete and accurate accounting of all sexually inappropriate behavior involving priests in Illinois.”

We applaud this decision and her desire for truth, transparency, and accountability. Justice must be pursued and children must be protected.

But we want to encourage the attorney general not to stop there. Prior to the Pennsylvania revelation, the Chicago Tribune published a deeply disturbing report exposing similar abuses of our children in Chicago Public Schools. This report revealed that more than 520 cases of juvenile sexual assault took place in Chicago’s public schools over the past ten years. That is an average of one per week.

How many cases were prosecuted? Which cases were covered up and by whom? How many predators are still working in our schools and have access to our students? How many cases were not reported?

If the Pennsylvania scandal is the catalyst for an investigation in Illinois—and we agree that it should be—shouldn’t the Chicago Tribune exposé be the impetus for an investigation of all school districts in Illinois going back further than a decade?

A hotline has been set up to report incidents of child sexual abuse in Illinois: 888-414-7678.

Years of concealing crimes, ignoring victims and protecting abusers isn’t unique to one institution. All crimes against children demand a full accounting. Predators must be exposed, prosecuted and removed from positions of power that provide them access to minors.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact the Attorney General’s office to encourage them to investigate the sexual crimes against our children in public school systems across the state of Illinois.

If you have information that would help stop a predator from preying on children and put him behind bars, please call the hotline: 888-414-7678. The hotline is answered by trained staff during business hours, and messages will be returned if contact information is provided.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

Warning: not for young readers

A private preschool in Shenzhen, China just made international news for hiring a pole-dancer to sexualize welcome its 3-6-year-old students on the first day of school. With a bare midriff, black leather hot pants, and platform shoes, a young woman is seen bumping and grinding around a pole up on a stage, swinging her long ponytail in the kind of performance one would expect to see only in strip clubs and Hollywood movies. Posters advertising a pole-dancing school adorned the walls of the courtyard where the undulating performance took place. Principal Lai Rong—a woman—rationalized her decision by claiming that she wanted to “lighten up the atmosphere.” Has she ever heard of therapy pets, ventriloquists, or magicians?

Inquiring minds might be asking why the atmosphere at the preschool she runs is dark. Is she alluding to the fear some children experience when they attend school for the first time? If so, surely Rong can’t believe either that pole-dancing is going to help them or that pole-dancing is the only (or best) option for alleviating separation anxiety in little ones. Some—this writer included—might argue that exposing preschoolers to pole-dancing darkens rather than lightens the atmosphere.

Some shocked and offended parents tried to shield their children from seeing the unseemly spectacle, and some are reportedly seeking to withdraw their children from the school. In response to one mother’s objection, Rong justified pole-dancing as “good exercise.” Whatever happened to the Hokey Pokey?

But apparently not all parents objected. The Daily Mail quotes one parent as saying, “What kind of prejudice is this? What’s wrong with pole-dancing?… [P]ole dancing is just another art form!” Ah yes, of course, all moral disapproval from more tradition-oriented adults is “prejudice.” No need for an actual argument when name-calling will do.

Well, some argue that stripping is an art form and that “drag” is an art form. Some argue that the pornographic photos in Playboy Magazine are art. Some call a photo of a crucifix submerged in urine art. Some called Robert Mapplethorpe’s photograph of his own nether region from which a bullwhip is dangling “art.” Just slapping the word “art” on anything the darkened minds of fallen humans create, however, does not make it art. And if pole-dancing were art, it would be wholly inappropriate art for children.

This summer the Ames Public Library in Ames, Iowa defended its “Camp Drag” by claiming that it would “Provide interested young people with a unique opportunity… to learn the art of drag performance.” Ironically, this same summer a documentary about the beloved Mr. Rogers—a deeply faithful Christian—met with huge critical and popular success from even “progressives” who regularly present activities, images, and ideas to children that would have disturbed him.

Now we’ve got drag queen story hours for toddlers in taxpayer-subsidized public libraries all across the country and a public library in Iowa hosting a drag camp for the kiddies, so how long until we have public libraries hosting pole-dancing workshops for the little ones? Why would pole-dancing be a greater moral offense than drag queen story hours? The kinds of things a generation or two ago could be found only in triple-X book stores and clubs in seedy city neighborhoods or remote stretches of highways, or in the basements of weirdos, “progressives” now work like the devil to show to our children and teens. Picture books about homosexuality and cross-dressers, story time with drag queens, teen magazine tutorials on anal sex, and now pole-dancing for preschoolers. This is where the sexual revolution has taken us. It’s baffling that “progressives” can see the rotting forest for the trees and still believe America (or anywhere else) is a better place—especially for children—than it was before the sexual revolution ruined everything.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Pole-Dancing-for-Preschoolers.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

On August 20, 2018, in an article on foolish public school administrators and board members who are permitting co-ed restrooms, I referred to a recently published study by Dr. Lisa Littman, physician and associate professor of the practice of behavioral sciences at radical Ivy League Brown University. Her study is on “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” (ROGD) among mostly female “adolescent and young adult” (AYA) children, a relatively new phenomenon discussed by concerned parents in online forums. Dr. Littman describes this phenomenon and urges further study:

In recent years, a number of parents have been reporting in online discussion groups… that their adolescent and young adult (AYA) children, who have had no histories of childhood gender identity issues, experienced a rapid onset of gender dysphoria. Parents have described clusters of gender dysphoria outbreaks occurring in pre-existing friend groups with multiple or even all members of a friend group becoming gender dysphoric and transgender-identified in a pattern that seems statistically unlikely based on previous research. Parents describe a process of immersion in social media, such as “binge-watching” Youtube transition videos and excessive use of Tumblr, immediately preceding their child becoming gender dysphoric. These descriptions… raise the question of whether social influences may be contributing to or even driving these occurrences of gender dysphoria in some populations of adolescents and young adults. 

On August 22, 2018, Brown University crossed the Leftist line and published a news story about Dr. Littman’s study and hoo boy did Brown feel the wrath of men in dresses with flowing tresses and bearded women in dungarees. Five days later, Brown took down the offending article and invented a rationalization to mask their censorship. First, they claimed concern about Littman’s study design:

In light of questions raised about research design and data collection related to the study on “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” the University determined that removing the article from news distribution is the most responsible course of action.

As anyone who pays attention to studies related to homosexuality and gender dysphoria knows, “progressives” are much fussier about research design in studies whose conclusions they don’t like than they are about studies whose conclusions they do like. The criteria they use to evaluate the soundness of studies whose conclusions they favor—like the infamous study by Simon LeVay of a tiny part of the hypothalamus of 35 men, or the infamous “lesbian study,” or the newest poorly designed study on homosexual parents out of Italy—barely exist. But when it comes to better-designed studies whose conclusions they don’t like, like University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus’ study, the criteria are impossibly stringent.

Even as “LGBTQQAP” activists have touted these deeply flawed studies everywhere for years, how often have Leftist academicians criticized them for convenience sampling, confirmation bias, small sample size, non-replicated conclusions, and self-reported responses?

Brown’s statement also included a risible and embarrassing attempt to feign commitment to free inquiry:

The University and School have always affirmed the importance of academic freedom and the value of rigorous debate informed by research. The merits of all research should be debated vigorously, because that is the process by which knowledge ultimately advances, often through tentative findings that are often overridden or corrected in subsequent higher quality research. The spirit of free inquiry and scholarly debate is central to academic excellence. 

But their de facto apology to Big Brother (who now identifies as Big Sister and uses the pronoun “ze”) exposed what’s really going on and contravenes their claim to be committed to “academic freedom” and “rigorous debate”:

At the same time, we believe firmly that it is also incumbent on public health researchers to listen to multiple perspectives…. This process includes acknowledging and considering the perspectives of those who criticize our research methods and conclusions…. There is an added obligation for vigilance in research design and analysis any time there are implications for the health of the communities at the center of research and study.

The School’s commitment to studying and supporting the health and well-being of sexual and gender minority populations is unwavering. Our faculty and students are on the cutting edge of research on transgender populations domestically and globally. The commitment of the School to diversity and inclusion is central to our mission, and we pride ourselves on building a community that fully recognizes and affirms the full diversity of gender and sexual identity in its members. These commitments are an unshakable part of our core values as a community. (emphasis added)

If I may be so presumptuous as to translate sophistry into plain English, Brown is saying that the feelings of “trans”-activists trump all other considerations. No matter how well a study is designed and executed, if trannies don’t like the findings, “progressive” universities will not draw attention to it even if the study is conducted by their own faculty.

How could the health of “trans”-identifying persons be put at risk by studying whether there may be environmental causes for feelings of bodily alienation, the examination of which may result in the dissipation of gender dysphoria without social “transitioning,” surgery, or lifelong cross-sex hormone-doping?

To fully grasp how troubling this censorship effort is, it’s important to know a bit about what Littman’s study found:

The description of cluster outbreaks of gender dysphoria occurring in pre-existing groups of friends and increased exposure to social media/internet preceding a child’s announcement of a transgender identity raises the possibility of social and peer contagion. Social contagion is the spread of affect or behaviors through a population. Peer contagion, in particular, is the process where an individual and peer mutually influence each other in a way that promotes emotions and behaviors that can potentially undermine their own development or harm others. Peer contagion has been associated with depressive symptoms, disordered eating, aggression, bullying, and drug use.

…

It is plausible that online content may encourage vulnerable individuals to believe that nonspecific symptoms and vague feelings should be interpreted as gender dysphoria stemming from a transgender condition. Recently, leading international academic and clinical commentators have raised the question about the role of social media and online content in the development of gender dysphoria. Concern has been raised that adolescents may come to believe that transition is the only solution to their individual situations, that exposure to internet content that is uncritically positive about transition may intensify these beliefs, and that those teens may pressure doctors for immediate medical treatment.

According to Littman, parents report that their children “had many comorbidities and vulnerabilities predating the onset of their gender dysphoria, including psychiatric disorders, neurodevelopmental disabilities, trauma, non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), and difficulties coping with strong or negative emotions.” Here are three of the case studies Littman summarizes to illustrate some possible causes of ROGD, including social contagion and trauma:

• A 12-year-old natal female was bullied specifically for going through early puberty and the responding parent wrote “as a result she said she felt fat and hated her breasts.” She learned online that hating your breasts is a sign of being transgender. She edited her diary (by crossing out existing text and writing in new text) to make it appear that she has always felt that she is transgender.

• A 14-year-old natal female and three of her natal female friends were taking group lessons together with a very popular coach. The coach came out as transgender, and, within one year, all four students announced they were also transgender.

• A natal female was traumatized by a rape when she was 16 years of age. Before the rape, she was described as a happy girl; after the rape, she became withdrawn and fearful. Several months after the rape, she announced that she was transgender and told her parents that she needed to transition.

This effort to quash dissemination of the study exposes again the hypocrisy of “progressives.” Remember the oft-recited argument for all sorts of policies, practices, and laws, “If we could save one life…” Well, don’t expect sexual anarchists to apply it consistently. If one or one hundred teens could be spared chemical sterilization and surgical mutilation by examining reasons other than body misplacement for feelings of bodily dissatisfaction, don’t expect the “trans” community to support it. No sireee, their doctrinaire dogma must be defended at all costs, even the cost of children’s bodily integrity and psychological health, and academic freedom.

All of America’s essential and historically most treasured principles, like speech rights, association rights, religious liberty, and sound pedagogy, are being devoured and vomited out by sexual deviants with inordinate amounts of cultural power, and most conservatives do exactly what Brown University did: We hold their barf bag.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Brown-University-Caves-to-Cross-Dressers-and-Their-Collaborators.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

One of the accusations that is most offensive to gays and lesbians is that they are child predators who want to seduce our children sexually. I stand with them in finding this accusation to be highly offensive.

To be clear, I have documented elsewhere that the arguments put forth by advocates of pederasty parallel key arguments used by gay activists. And some studies indicate that there is a higher percentage of homosexual pederasty than heterosexual pederasty.

Nonetheless, the vast majority of gays and lesbians are not pederasts. And so, to accuse them of infiltrating our schools in order to prey sexually on our children is both ugly and false. (See, here, however, for potential problems with school-based Gay Straight Alliances.)

The LGBT’s Ideological Goals for Our Children

But what is 100 percent truthful is that while the vast majority of LGBT activists presumably do not have sexual goals for our children, they most certainly have ideological goals. Without a doubt, they want to influence the way our children think.

They want our kids to view same-sex attraction as no better or worse than opposite-sex attraction. (Perhaps some want kids to view same-sex attraction as superior!)

They want children to embrace the possibility of gender fluidity.

They want them to consider whether they might be transgender themselves.

All of this is easily documented, and at this point in history, cannot be reasonably denied. The ideological seduction of our little ones is at hand today. And it has been at hand for some years now.

The Lunchbox

Well over a decade ago I purchased the GLSEN Lunchbox (second edition), containing helps for gay-friendly educators to be used in grades K-12.

The goals, of course, were to teach “tolerance” and to reduce “anti-LGBT harassment” in our schools. But the method was to normalize, if not celebrate, virtually every LGBT talking point.

The Lunchbox included activity cards, some of which listed famous people from history, all of whom were allegedly gay. Other activity cards offered definitions of terms like genderqueer (and remember, the target audience for some of these activities was elementary school children.)

Then there was the exercise called “Getting in Touch with Your Inner Trannie” (as in transgender identity). And I remind you: This goes back over a decade.

When I testified before a local school board, holding up the Lunchbox and its full-length training manual, one of the board members said out loud, “That material is not in that box.” (I guess for some people, it’s better to deny the truth rather than face it.)

What has happened in the years since?

What Has Happened

Here’s the tiniest sampling, not even touching on the many LGBT-themed curricula in our schools.

• A July 25 headline on LifeSiteNews announced: “American Library Association endorses ‘drag queen storytime’ for libraries across U.S.” (chew on that one for a while; need I say anything more?)

• There is now an endless stream of gay-themed books for little children, including titles like Monsters and Robots, which features “poly amorous parents and a bisexual character who is prominent in the story.” This is part of the LGBTQ Picture Books series. (For a sampling of LGBT children’s books through 2011, see here.)

• The same can be said for trans-themed books, such as Who Are You?: The Kid’s Guide to Gender Identity. The blurb states, “This brightly illustrated children’s book provides a straightforward introduction to gender for anyone aged 5+… An interactive three-layered wheel included in the book is a simple, yet powerful, tool to clearly demonstrate the difference between our body, how we express ourselves through our clothes and hobbies, and our gender identity. Ideal for use in the classroom or at home, a short page-by-page guide for adults at the back of the book further explains the key concepts and identifies useful discussion points. This is a one-of-a-kind resource for understanding and celebrating the gender diversity that surrounds us.”

• As of 2016, “A new study by trend forecasting agency J. Walter Thompson Innovation Group found that only 48 percent of 13-20-year-olds identify as “exclusively heterosexual,” compared to 65 percent of millennials aged 21 to 34.” The indoctrination is working!

• LGBT activists have decided not to cloak or hide their agenda in the least. In the words of S. Bear Bergman on the Huffington Post, “I Have Come to Indoctrinate Your Children Into My LGBTQ Agenda (And I’m Not a Bit Sorry).” (This was originally published on March 7, 2015.)

Bergman explains, “All that time I said I wasn’t indoctrinating anyone with my beliefs about gay and lesbian and bi and trans and queer people? That was a lie. All 25 years of my career as an LGBTQ activist, since the very first time as a 16-year-old I went and stood shaking and breathless in front of eleven people to talk about My Story, I have been on a consistent campaign of trying to change people’s minds about us.”

Ideological Indoctrination

Again, Bergman is not talking about sexual recruitment. Absolutely, categorically not. But he is talking about changing people’s minds, beginning with children: “I want them to know that we’re absolutely as worthwhile and worthy of love and respect as anyone, and that if you’re kind to us and behave yourself well there’s a better than even chance you can get an invitation to brunch.”

And what if that means children coming into conflict with their parents or their religion? Bergman doesn’t flinch: “I want kids to know this even if their parents’ or community’s interpretation of their religious tenets is that we’re awful. I would be happy — delighted, overjoyed I tell you — to cause those children to disagree with their families on the subject of LGBTQ people.”

I stand with Bergman in calling for the gracious treatment of all human beings. And I personally counsel parents to encourage their children to befriend other kids who are marginalized. In this effort, we agree.

But with everything within me, I will resist the LGBT indoctrination of our children. I urge you to stand together with me. Better still, I urge you to stand together with your kids.

This article was originally published at The Stream.com

The American Library Association (ALA) has revealed that it has not yet reached the nadir of ethical corruption. Through its Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) division, the Intellectual Freedom Committee, which promotes “continuing education programs” for children, just wrote this (you better be sitting down):

Interested in bringing Drag Queen Storytime to your library? ALSC Committee Members received tips for optimizing success from library pioneers who have already done it.  We also had the chance to meet a Drag Queen who talked about the value of offering this program, including fostering empathy, tolerance, creativity, imagination and fun.

I kid you not. Librarians who have brought in deviant entertainers to captivate the innocent imaginations of toddlers are “pioneers”? Think “brood of vipers.”

This feckless ALA statement raises questions: Should we foster in children empathy for those who choose to engage in transvestism? Should we tolerate adults who expose children to transvestism? Should we encourage children to view men who masquerade as women as “fun”?

Every year, the ALA sponsors the laughably named “Banned Books Week” (this year, Sept. 23-29, 2018) during which self-righteous, dissembling librarians foment “book-banning” paranoia. The ALA fancies itself a bastion of liberty and arch-defender of the free exchange of ideas. In reality, the ALA is most notable for being a censorious, partisan purveyor of perverse leftist ideas about sexuality. The ALA can’t seem to find an idea too perverse for children and can’t discern an age too young to be exposed to perversion.

The ALA pursues its hysteria-fomenting goal chiefly by ridiculing parents who, for example, don’t want their five-year-olds seeing books about children or anthropomorphized animals being raised by parents in homoerotic relationships. Scorn will be heaped on parents who hold the unpopular belief that homoeroticism and cross-dressing—even when presented in whitewashed, water-colored images—don’t belong in the picture books section of public libraries.

Most taxpayers have no idea how purchasing decisions in publicly subsidized libraries are made, but they should, because the policy librarians follow serves as a de facto book-banning mechanism.

Libraries use Collection Development Policies (CDP’s) to determine which books they will purchase with their limited budgets. CDP’s maintain that librarians should purchase only books that have been positively reviewed by two “professionally recognized” review journals. Guess what folks, the “professionally recognized” review journals are dominated by ideological “progressives.” Publishing companies too are dominated by ideological “progressives,” so getting books published that espouse conservative ideas (particularly on the topics of homosexuality and gender dysphoria) is nigh unto impossible.

If librarians really cared about the full and free exchange of ideas and if they really believed that “book-banning” is dangerous to society, they would direct their rage and ridicule at the powerful publishing companies, professionally-recognized review journals, and their own profession, all of which do far more “book-banning” than does a handful of powerless parents seeking to have a picture book removed (or sometimes just moved).

The American Library Association has a goddess they revere. Their goddess, now deceased, is Judith Krug, past president of the portentously named Office of Intellectual Freedom (or is it the “Ministry of Truth”?) of the American Library Association. In a 1995 interview, she said this:

We have to serve the information needs of all the community and for so long “the community” that we served was the visible community…. And so, if we didn’t see those people, then we didn’t have to include them in our service arena. The truth is, we do have to.…

We never served the gay community. Now, we didn’t serve the gay community, because there weren’t materials to serve them. You can’t buy materials if they’re not there. But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then to begin to ask for it. Another thing we have to be real careful about is that even though the materials that come out initially aren’t wonderful, it’s still incumbent upon us to have that voice represented in the collection. This was exactly what happened in the early days of the women’s movement, and as the black community became more visible and began to demand more materials that fulfilled their particular information needs. We can’t sit back and say, “Well, they’re not the high-quality materials I’m used to buying.” They’re probably not, but if they are the only thing available, then I believe we have to get them into the library. (emphasis added)

I wonder if librarians heed Krug’s words when it comes to resources that espouse conservative views on homosexuality and gender dysphoria. Are the anti-book-banning soldiers fighting to fill the gaping lacuna in their picture books and Young Adult (YA) literature collections on these topics? Are they fulfilling their responsibility to fill that hole if necessary with materials that are less than “wonderful”—which is to say, with materials that their “professionally recognized review journals” may not review positively or at all?

Here are some children’s book ideas that librarians could request to fill gaps in their collections. These are not book ideas I want to see in libraries. Rather, they’re topics ALA members would request if they were truly committed to the principles they espouse:

• Books for children and teens that challenge “progressive” beliefs about homosexuality and gender dysphoria—you know, pro-heterosexuality/pro-heteronormativity/pro-cisgender books

• YA novels about teens who feel sadness and resentment about being intentionally deprived of a mother or father and who seek to find their missing biological parents

• Dark, angsty novels about teens who are damaged by the promiscuity of their “gay” “fathers” who hold sexual monogamy in disdain

• Novels about young adults who are consumed by a sense of loss and bitterness that their parents allowed them during the entirety of their childhood to cross-dress, change their names, and take chemicals to prevent puberty followed by cross-sex hormones, thus irreversibly altering their psycho-social development and deforming their bodies

• Novels about young girls who suffer grievously because their fathers adopted female personas

• Novels about teens who suffer because of the harrowing fights and serial relationships of their lesbian mothers

• A picture book that shows the joy a baby bird experiences when, after the tragic West Nile virus deaths of her two beloved daddies, she’s finally adopted by a daddy and mommy? (For those “progressives” who struggle with analogies and reading comprehension, please note, the joy the baby bird experiences is not about her daddies’ deaths but about her adoption by a father and a mother.)

I listed several of these story ideas four years ago in an article that so enraged “progressives” that some  homosexuality-affirming websites, including Huffington Post, took me to the woodshed. In doing so, they (not surprisingly) misrepresented my thesis. I was wondering whether librarians would request and include stories in their book collections with which some children may identify but that convey ideas “progressives” don’t like. I was suggesting that “progressives” engage in a more absolute form of “book-banning” than the kind of which they accuse conservatives.

The anger of “progressives” on these websites demonstrated that they are far more, shall we say, “passionate” in their opposition to books they don’t like—including even book ideas—than are conservatives. “Progressives” become enraged in the presence of a story idea—including book ideas that haven’t even a hint of hatred.

Their anger confirmed my point. When conservative parents challenge an occasional book, “progressives” ridicule them (which includes librarians ridiculing their own patrons). When I merely describe hypothetical storylines, “progressives” go ballistic. How dare I even propose a story that suggests some child somewhere may want a mother and a father or that a teen may not like the promiscuity of her fathers or the emotional and relational instability of his mothers. If this is how homosexuals respond to a story idea, imagine if such a story were published and purchased and displayed in a library? If that were to happen, librarians better be ready for the jackbooted, anti-censorship change-agents who will storm-troop in demanding that some book-banning take place pronto. They might even sue.

While conservatives are forced to subsidize multiple homosexuality-affirming picture books and drag queen story hours, “progressives” aren’t forced to subsidize any resources that dissent from partisan, “progressive” dogma on sexuality.

And the ALA claims to be all about intellectual freedom.  Yeah, right. And the emperor’s new clothes are fabulous.

The ALA is plunging deep into the “drag” cesspool, pulling children down with them.

It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck
and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.
(Luke 17:2)

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/The-ALA-Plunges-Deeper-into-the-Drag-Cesspool-1.mp3

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  We need your support, and are deeply grateful for those who stand with.

As the school year begins, public elementary, middle, and high schools across the country are being asked by parents of “trans”-identifying children to sexually integrate restrooms and locker rooms. These parents are making the presumptuous request for all children to be forced to share private spaces with opposite-sex peers. School boards and administrations are acquiescing, some because they’ve embraced “trans”-cultic assumptions and others out of fear of litigious leftists. All suffer from indefensible ignorance on an issue of urgency and critical importance.

Here are just a few of the things about which most school board members and administrators remain ignorant:

• They’re ignorant of the possible causes of sexual confusion and bodily alienation, which can include family dysfunction, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment.

• They’re ignorant of the phenomenon called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria.” Fortunately for them, a study by Dr. Lisa Littman, physician and associate professor of the Practice of Behavioral Sciences at Brown University, was just published that examines this troubling phenomenon:

In on-line forums, parents have been reporting that their children are experiencing what is described here as “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” appearing for the first time during puberty or even after its completion. The onset of gender dysphoria seemed to occur in the context of belonging to a peer group where one, multiple, or even all of the friends have become gender dysphoric and transgender-identified during the same timeframe. Parents also report that their children exhibited an increase in social media/internet use prior to disclosure of a transgender identity.

…

The worsening of mental well-being and parent-child relationships and behaviors that isolate [adolescent and young adult children] from their parents, families, non-transgender friends and mainstream sources of information are particularly concerning. More research is needed to better understand this phenomenon, its implications and scope.

• They’re ignorant of the dramatic and troubling increase in the number of teens who identify as “trans.”

• They’re ignorant of the relationship between gender dysphoria and autism.

• They’re ignorant of the low rates of suicide among gender-dysphoric children and that there “is no persuasive evidence that gender transition reduces gender dysphoric children’s likelihood of killing themselves.”

• They’re ignorant of the high rates of desistance in gender-dysphoric children who don’t socially and chemically transition. Desistance is the abatement of gender dysphoria and opposite-sex identification.

• They’re ignorant of the phenomenon of “detransitioning” (also called “trans” regret), which is when people stop pretending to be the sex they are not. The fundamental feature of “detransitioning” is ceasing to take risky cross-sex hormones.

• They’re ignorant of the conditioning that they facilitate when they allow co-ed restrooms and locker rooms. “Trans” activists and their “progressive” collaborators believe that society “conditions” children into believing that biological sex matters. They maintain the peculiar belief that stereotypes precede and shape male and female differences rather than the other way around. “Trans” activists and their water-carrying school leaders ignore that through their actions, they are engaging in egregious social conditioning. Through pronoun policing; mandatory co-ed private spaces; litigation; falsified birth certificates and driver’s licenses; public shaming and epithet-hurling; and cultural indoctrination on a massive scale through control of government schools, academia, the press, the arts, and professional medical and mental health communities, public recognition of sex differences in all contexts is being eradicated.

Ignorance and cowardice are on full display in a Kansas City, Missouri school district that has installed co-ed restrooms in two new elementary schools and retrofitted two middle schools and one high school with sexually-integrated restrooms. The walls and doors in stalls are floor-to-ceiling, and there are common areas with shared sink troughs, so boys and girls can wash up together.

Executive director of organizational development, Rochel Daniels, suggests that co-ed restrooms were necessary because of the district’s “policy about non-discrimination.” Hmmm, that’s weird because Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 says that “A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex.”

Of course, the signs on the spanking new restrooms don’t say “co-ed.” That would expose too much. The signs say “gender-neutral.” That term is silly because the “trans” cult asserts with sacrilegious fervor that “gender” refers to the socially-constructed roles, conventions, and behaviors arbitrarily associated with males or females. It makes no sense to designate restrooms “role-neutral.” No one has ever cared what roles restroom-users assume or conventions they adopt as they live and move and have their being before and after excreting. All that has mattered when it comes to restroom-usage is their biological sex. The signs, however, inadvertently admit the co-ed nature of the restrooms: They also include the symbols for the two only two sexes that exist.

What these silly signs are likely alluding to is not “gender” but “gender identity,” which “trans” cultists define as the subjective, internal, felt sense of being male or female. If “trans” cultists are to be believed—which they shouldn’t be—there are scores of existing “gender identities.” If “trans” cultists win the day, signage should say something like “all gender identities,” and those pesky male/female symbols erased. As with “gender,” when it comes to restroom-usage, no one has ever cared about the subjective, internal, felt sense of the maleness or femaleness of restroom-users. Why should they? What do I care if the woman in the stall next to me wishes she were a man?

“Trans” cultists view the idea that restroom-usage should correspond to biological sex as arbitrary and socially-constructed, but it’s no more arbitrary, socially-constructed, and culturally-imposed than is the radical idea that restroom-usage should correspond to subjective, internal feelings about one’s sex or that restroom-usage should correspond to no human attributes.

In addition to the aspects of the “trans” debate listed above of which school administrators and board members are largely ignorant, there’s another relevant matter never discussed or likely even contemplated by our fearless leaders: epistemology. That’s a big word for the study of knowledge. What do we know and how do we arrive at knowledge? Can we rely on the truth of our beliefs? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains that epistemology is,

the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits?

School administrators and board members are making revolutionary changes in restroom and locker room practices and policies based on assumptions and information. What are those assumptions? Are they sound? What criteria do they use to evaluate the soundness of these assumptions? If they base their decisions on information, what criteria do they apply to the research cited or the organizations that publish the research? Do they seek out and evaluate dissenting views applying the same standards to all research? So many necessary questions completely ignored.

The request by children or teens to have all others refer to them by incorrect pronouns or to force opposite-sex peers to share private spaces with them is what the “trans” cult and its collaborators refer to as “social transitioning.” The word “social” implies society, which in turn assumes the notion of the common good. How do we know whether its good for children to access opposite-sex spaces? Is it good for all children? It’s arguable that it’s good for gender-dysphoric children; it’s even more arguable that it’s good for all children. How is “good” defined?

Schools are discussing whether co-ed restrooms equipped with toileting closets and shared sinks undermine modesty. Will these types of restrooms serve as an incremental step in desensitizing students at young ages to engaging in private bodily functions with opposite-sex peers? Will these types of facilities thereby cultivate or undermine the virtue of modesty? Will these types of facilities reinforce the belief that objective, immutable biological sex per se is profoundly meaningful or will they reinforce the “trans”-cultic belief that biological sex per se has no intrinsic meaning?

So many necessary questions completely ignored.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Co-Ed-Restrooms-in-Government-Schools-Led-by-Fools.mp3

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  We need your support, and are deeply grateful for those who stand with.

It might not be what you think.

I’m a second-generation homeschooling Dad. I won’t deny my bias in favor of home education, nor my belief that it’s an amazing lifestyle that offers tremendous benefits to families willing to make the commitment. After all, I experienced those benefits myself.

But in addition to my personal experience, I have more objective reasons for believing in homeschooling. And today I’d like to share with you what may very well be the single greatest reason why every Christian parent should consider homeschooling their children.

As we look at Scripture, we see a pattern emerge about how God views education. The Biblical model for education is always God centered, faith driven, and parent directed. No exceptions.

We could talk about all three of those elements, but today I want to focus on the third one.

In debates among Christian parents about educational choices, the discussion often seems to center around the educational content. Advocates of Christian education rightly point out that our public school system is becoming increasingly hostile to our faith—that the environment has proven itself toxic to our young people, and that the worldview taught isn’t consistent with our beliefs as Christians.

That’s a discussion worth having, but lost in that often contentious debate is a point that, in some respects, is even more fundamental.

It’s the question of who is doing the teaching.

Throughout Scripture, we see multiple passages commanding parents to teach, instruct, and guide their children. From the classic passage in Deuteronomy 6:6-7, where parents are commanded to teach their children diligently, to Ephesians 6:4, where fathers are told to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, the pattern is consistent: parents are given the fundamental responsibility for the education of their children.

Grandparents are given some responsibility as well, but guess who isn’t given responsibility? That’s right: the government. But guess who else isn’t given the primary responsibility? The church. Yes, the church has a role, but nowhere in Scripture will you find the church given the main responsibility for the training and education of the next generation. That lies squarely with parents.

Now, there are some responsibilities in life we can delegate. If you hire a lawn care company to mow your grass, the owner of that company can delegate the task to an employee. As long as the employee does a good job, the owner has fulfilled his responsibility.

But there are some things we’re not supposed to delegate. My brother once made the statement that God has given parents a jurisdictional responsibility to teach their children—not as something to delegate, but as something to do.

There are some big words there, but the idea is simple. God created different areas of responsibility (i.e., jurisdiction). There are certain tasks that are given to the government that can’t be done by individuals. There are other tasks that are given only to the church. And, of course, there are some tasks that are given only to families. Extreme caution must be used when delegating any such fundamental responsibility to someone else, even another God-ordained institution.

Too often, however, Christian parents in America are ensnared by a mindset of delegation. We delegate our children’s minds to their teachers at school. We delegate their physical development to a coach or P.E. instructor. We delegate their entertainment to TV, video games, and the Internet. And we delegate their spiritual growth to a Sunday school teacher or youth pastor. Then we sit back, satisfied that we’ve got it all under control.

But God doesn’t call us to merely coordinate our children’s upbringing. He calls us to grab hold of our responsibility with both hands and do the hard work ourselves.

A simple question we should ask ourselves is this: when it comes to my children, am I delegating more than I’m doing? I’m not saying we can’t delegate anything, but when we start delegating to others more than we’re personally doing, I believe we’ve crossed a line God never intended for us to cross.

This is one of the primary reasons I believe in homeschooling. It’s not just about the content of the education and the fact that the government schools are hostile to our faith. It’s about the simple fact that God didn’t give the government (or church, for that matter) the responsibility for teaching my children. He gave it to my wife and me. And we want to take that responsibility seriously.

Maybe you’ve considered homeschooling in the past, or perhaps you never have. If you’re on the fence, allow me to encourage you to look to Scripture to see what God says about the training of the next generation.

And let me also encourage you to grab hold of your responsibility as a parent and never let go. Remember, some jobs were given to us to do, not to delegate. Raising the next generation in the ways of God is one of them.

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

Dangerous people: taxpayer-funded; indoctrinating impressionable, young minds; all with the goal of undermining Western civilization. If you suppose this describes the henchmen and tactics employed by a Marxist regime halfway around the world, you are wrong. Rather, this commonplace scenario is found in the halls of higher education at public colleges and universities across the Western world.

Taxpayers, parents and students who pay tuition to public universities, and alumni who donate to their public alma maters are filling the coffers of institutions where, more often than not, truth is deemed subjective, differences between the sexes are viewed as a result of social constructs, and the myriad problems of the third world are laid solidly at the feet of Western imperialism.

Please watch the video below, produced by Prager University, as Jordan Peterson details how critical thinking, freedom of speech, and diversity of opinion have become endangered species on college campuses and in the classrooms of public universities:

IFI Annual Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

“Keeping our eyes on the prize”
with keynote speaker George Barna

Friday, October 5, 2018
The Stonegate in Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Click HERE for more details

School District U46 (Elgin, Illinois) School Board Member Jeanette Ward offers a profile in courage, grace, and wisdom, while fellow board members Veronica Noland and Melissa Owens offer profiles in hypocrisy and ignorance. Their hypocrisy and ignorance were revealed during a recent school board meeting discussion about proposed changes to the “Student Code of Conduct.”

In 2013, the board voted to add the terms “sexual orientation,” “gender identity” and “gender-related identity or expression” to the section of school board policy on bullying and harassment. Those are the only conditions constituted by subjective, internal feelings and volitional behavior to be specifically identified. Since board policy then concludes with the inclusion of “any other distinguishing characteristic,” there exists no necessity for naming any characteristic, let alone ones constituted by subjective feelings and volitional behavior.

But bad became worse this past Monday night when the board voted to add this language from board policy to the “Student Code of Conduct,” which all parents must sign in order to enroll their children in District U46. Prior to the 5-2 vote, with Phil Costello joining Ward in opposing the change, Ward asked if, under the policy change, students would be guilty of bullying if they refused to use the “pronoun preference for a gender dysphoric student.”

She offered this commonsense and compassionate explanation for her opposition to punishing students for refusal to lie in the service of a science-denying ideology:

I don’t think it helps the student who is struggling with this issue to help them in their denial of reality. And I don’t view that as a form of bullying. I think to join them in what is not real, in the real world, only hurts them.

Hoo boy, the leftist ideologues on the school board did not tolerate well her dissent from their dogma.

The self-righteous Noland huffed:

I have to say something. Using the terms “gender dysphoric” and making the statements that you make hurt the students of this district. They go against what the accepted practices from major major organizations in this country… the American Academy of Pediatrics… I could bring out my list of references from a year and a half ago… but I will strongly strongly condemn your terms that you use and the language that you use in hurting the students of this district. I think it’s an ideology of yours, and it’s a minority in this district and a minority in this country. It goes against our policies that we have voted on. It goes against against so many things. You can continue to use this as a political platform of your own because you have that right, but I will vociferously object to the comments and the terms that you use for our students.

When Noland suggests students are “hurt” by the term “gender dysphoric”—a term which is not a pejorative and is used commonly in the mental health community—what does she mean? Does she mean students who seek to pass as the sex they are not don’t like the term? If so, how does her strong, strong condemnation of and vociferous objection to Ward’s beliefs make students in the district who share those beliefs feel? Might they be hurt by Noland’s words?

Noland cites—again—the American Academy of Pediatrics’ endorsement of “trans”-affirmative experimental protocols without mentioning that all anyone really knows is that a small committee of leftist members of the AAP created this policy, which an even smaller group then voted on. The rest of the thousands of members of the AAP had no input or vote on the policy. In fact, most didn’t know about it until the public learned about it.

Noland believes that Ward’s “ideology” is shared by only a minority in the district and country. To which of Ward’s positions specifically is Noland referring? Does Noland believe most people in the country oppose the use of the term “gender dysphoric”? Does she believe most people in the country want students punished for refusing to use incorrect pronouns? If so, perhaps at the next board meeting, she can provide conclusive, research-based evidence for her claims.

Further, is Noland—who is apparently a true-blue “progressive”—arguing that minority groups should be denied a voice? The hypocrisies just keep piling up. Commitments to tolerance, diversity, and minority voices gone in slavish servitude to the disordered, doctrinaire sexuality ideology of the left.

Perhaps the most laughable of Noland’s statements was her characterization of Ward’s views as an “ideology” that informs a “political platform.” Why are Ward’s views on the science-denying “trans” ideology part of an ideology but Noland’s views are not? Why when Ward expresses her views on the “trans” ideology is she guilty of using school board discussions for a political platform, but when Noland expresses her views on the same subject, she’s not guilty of using board discussions for a political platform? Noland should be asked to answer these questions publicly.

Then board member Melissa Owens made clear the Orwellian, anti-First Amendment—even fascist—nature of this policy (fascism: “A political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government—and no tolerance for opposing opinions; tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control”):

If sitting at a table in a position of power and saying that our students don’t live in reality, if that’s not bullying, I don’t know what bullying is to be quite honest with you.

Well, I would argue that if sitting at a table in a position of power and saying that students must speak lies or risk being disciplined for bullying is not bullying, I don’t know what bullying is—to be quite honest.

Objectively male students who claim to be girls are denying the reality of their sex. Stating that objective truth no more constitutes bullying than does saying that Rachel Dolezal denied reality when she claimed to be African American.

Throughout multiple board meetings in which Jeanette Ward has repeatedly contended for the truth, enduring uncivil and open hostility from arrogant colleagues and community members, Ward has demonstrated courage, grace, wisdom, restraint, and humility. In addition, with grace, she weathers despicable attacks on her school board Facebook page from people like “Sex Positive Parent/Sex Education Teacher” Kim Cavill, who earlier this week called Ward the “High Priestess of the Order of Moron” (nice role model for kids).

Here’s some apolitical truth.

At birth, doctors do not assign or designate “genders” (as redefined by “progressives”). Rather, doctors identify the sex of babies, which is virtually always correct except in the very rare cases of babies born with Disorders of Sexual Development (i.e., intersex disorders, which are wholly irrelevant to discussions of the “trans” ideology). “Gender” (as redefined by “progressives”) denotes the arbitrary socially constructed behaviors, conventions, and expectations associated with maleness or femaleness. It’s beyond silly to claim that at babies’ births, obstetricians assign to them arbitrary socially constructed behaviors, conventions, and expectations. Obstetricians identify the sex of babies, and the sex of humans can never change. Pronouns denote and correspond to biological sex.

No administrator, faculty member, staff member, or student should be compelled by Big Brother to lie by being forced to use incorrect pronouns when referring to someone who masquerades as the sex they are not. Punishing students—or staff—for resisting mandatory speech codes is institutional bullying at its worst. The government has no right to compel speech—let alone deceitful speech. For an arm of the government—which is what schools are—to require employees or students to lie is a frightening exercise of tyrannical power.

Thank you to Jeanette Ward for standing bravely and almost alone for truth in the District U46.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Jeanette-Wards-Profile-in-Courage-Grace-and-Wisdom.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

Written by Tony Perkins

Written by Elizabeth M. Economou

The Harvard College administration is forcing the Harvard Glee Club, founded in 1858 and the oldest collegiate choir in the nation, to open its membership to women following the adoption of new rules, The Harvard Crimson announced.

The traditionally all-female Radcliffe Choral Society at Harvard, founded in 1899, is also subject to the new rules. Changes to the Ivy League choral mainstays come under the leadership of Dean Rakesh Khurana.

“We want to ensure we are providing students a deeply transformative experience — intellectually, socially and personally — that will prepare them for a life of service and leadership. Harvard College should and will set the standard for liberal arts and sciences education for the next hundred years. This is who we are. Our students leave here and exert ripples across the world,” reads a statement from the ultra-PC Khurana on the school’s website.

That so-called transformative experience includes a politically correct worldview based on leftist ideology.

And this ideology includes punishment for any Crimson students who wish to join single-sex clubs.

The Harvard Glee Club has separated the sexes for a good reason: the music itself.

“For centuries, choral music has made use of the biological differences between men and women to create harmonies — and to create unique sounds, in the case of music written for single-gender choirs,” noted B. Pollak, a senior editor-at-large at Breitbart, in a recent article.

Khurana’s scheme to make the liberal university even more progressive has been in the works since 2016. In a letter to Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust, he established a set of punitive rules, which were accepted.

An excerpt from Khurana’s 2016 letter says the following: “Discrimination is pernicious. Stereotypes and bias take hold, normalizing in a community behavior, which should be unacceptable. In this case, the discriminatory membership policies of these organizations have led to the perpetuation of spaces that are rife with power imbalances. The most entrenched of these spaces send an unambiguous message that they are the exclusive preserves of men.”

“In their recruitment practices and through their extensive resources and access to networks of power,” Khurana continued, “these organizations propagate exclusionary values that undermine those of the larger Harvard College community.”

As a result, students at Harvard who join any single-sex clubs — not just choirs — are barred from leading sports teams or campus organizations. They are also denied “dean’s endorsement letters” for fellowships and scholarships, such as the Rhodes and Marshall scholarships, according to Breitbart.

Not everyone is singing Harvard’s politically correct praises.

“Dean Khurana is essentially using his power to demand that everyone subscribe to dogmatic assumptions about the nature and meaning of biological sex, which is antithetical to the liberal view of power — and to sound pedagogy,” Laurie Higgins, a cultural issues writer for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), from Carol Stream, told LifeZette.

“In principle, progressives embrace moral relativism and absolute autonomy,” added Higgins. “As a consequence, they are untethered to moral boundaries, which results in their willingness to abuse power in the service of tyrannically and ironically imposing their dogmatic moral and ontological beliefs.”

She added, “Conservatives need to dig their spines out of the attic where they’ve been storing them until a time when they won’t actually need them.”

To be sure, the consequences of not speaking up have been devastating for our youth on important social issues of the day — but don’t expect to hear that from the politically correct chorus of administrators at Harvard.

Elizabeth Economou is a former CNBC staff writer and adjunct professor. Follow her on Twitter.

This article was originally published at LifeZette.com

Here was the headline: “Only 33 Percent of Students Proficient in English, Math.”

Last month, IFI’s Laurie Higgins wrote: “Devilish Details in School Sexuality-Indoctrination Bill.” And in a recent IFA Spotlight podcast, Higgins discussed the Illinois state senate’s approval of the bill mandating the teaching of “Leftist assumptions about deviant sexuality” in government-run schools. It also requires that eighth grade children will have to be tested on them “in order to move on to high school.”

Let us back up for a minute — here is Higgins explaining the legislation that recently passed the state senate:

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

. . .

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

Such propagandizing is “decidedly not the role of public schools,” Higgins explained.

SB 3249 has already passed in the senate and now awaits House approval.

Okay, let us fast-forward now to the new report from the U.S. Department of Education’s NationsReportCard.gov:

About two thirds of eighth graders in American government schools do not even rank as “proficient” in reading or math, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s recently released National Assessment of Educational Progress. In some districts, less than eight out of 100 students were proficient in either subject.

The results were hardly surprising to anyone who monitors the dismal state of what the government euphemistically refers to as “public education.” Indeed, the fact that even a third of American victims of government “schools” can be considered “proficient” in reading or math is more of a surprise. But even that minority may be attributable to the dumbed-down metrics used.

You can peruse the lousy Illinois test scores in that report as well.

Based on what you’ve just read, who could possibly think that the state of Illinois should mandate more LGBTQIA(etc.) propaganda rather than focusing on reading, math and science? Of course not! But to progressive lawmakers, there’s little that’s more important than the radical Leftist social agenda. Certainly not proficiency in the areas of study the schools are in existence to create.

This is also from the article linked at the opening of this post:

“The atrocious NAEP performance is only a fraction of the bad news,” explained George Mason University Professor Walter Williams, a longtime critic of the abysmal failure of public “education” in America. “Nationally, our high school graduation rate is over 80 percent. That means high school diplomas, which attest that these students can read and compute at a 12th-grade level, are conferred when 63 percent are not proficient in reading and 75 percent are not proficient in math.”

Incredible!

If parents don’t get involved quickly, there will be a day when student proficiency is higher in the history of the contributions of those identifying as part of the ever-growing LGBTQIA(etc.) cabal. Forget about proficiency in math when Oscar Wilde liked boys and wrote fiction! That day may already be here.

Of course, it’s not just this legislation that causes government schools to go astray from what used be their priority:

As The Newman Report and FreedomProject Media have documented extensively, the victims of government schools will be highly proficient in believing in global-warming alarmism, gender ideology, LGBT propaganda, globalism, humanism, socialism, and more. But as the latest NAEP results show, the schools are utterly failing to teach even the basics — reading, writing, and math — that would allow students to educate themselves.

“Parents,” the article concludes, “you have been warned.”

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to urge him/her to reject SB 3249, the effort to politicize curricula in order to advance biased and unproven beliefs about sexuality to young children in government schools. Contact them repeatedly!

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here: goo.gl/O0iRDc to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

About two thirds of eighth graders in American government schools do not even rank as “proficient” in reading or math, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s recently released National Assessment of Educational Progress. In some districts, less than eight out of 100 students were proficient in either subject.

The results were hardly surprising to anyone who monitors the dismal state of what the government euphemistically refers to as “public education.” Indeed, the fact that even a third of American victims of government “schools” can be considered “proficient” in reading or math is more of a surprise. But even that minority may be attributable to the dumbed-down metrics used.

Breaking the numbers down, the NAEP, more commonly known as the “Nation’s Report Card,” revealed that barely one third of eighth-grade students in 2017 America scored “proficient” or above in reading. Much of that failure has to do with the teaching of “sight words” in government-schools across America, a scheme that has been exposed as quackery since it was first tried over 150 years ago.

In mathematics, the numbers are even worse. The 2017 results showed that fully 67 percent of eight-grade students in America are not “proficient” in math. By the time students hit 12th grade, the situation is even more alarming. According to the NAEP, just one in four American high-school seniors was proficient in math last year.

The NAEP is a test administered by the feds every two years to what they describe as a “nationally representative sample” of students across the country. Around 150,000 students at each tested grade level take the test. Unlike other federally controlled testing schemes, the NAEP is not considered “high-stakes,” because poor results do not negatively affect teachers, students, or schools. But they nevertheless reveal some important facts.

“The atrocious NAEP performance is only a fraction of the bad news,” explained George Mason University Professor Walter Williams, a longtime critic of the abysmal failure of public “education” in America. “Nationally, our high school graduation rate is over 80 percent. That means high school diplomas, which attest that these students can read and compute at a 12th-grade level, are conferred when 63 percent are not proficient in reading and 75 percent are not proficient in math.”

Professor Williams, who highlighted the even more disastrous proficiency rates among black students, noted that the problem goes even deeper. “It’s grossly dishonest for the education establishment and politicians to boast about unprecedented graduation rates when the high school diplomas, for the most part, do not represent academic achievement,” he wrote. “At best, they certify attendance.”

That means universities are perpetrating a fraud of massive proportions by admitting all these illiterates into higher “education.” But when the obvious goal of government-controlled schools and colleges is to prepare social-justice warriors and anti-American revolutionaries — all at taxpayer expense — it should be obvious why such elaborate frauds would be used to keep Americans in the dark.

As The Newman Report and FreedomProject Media have documented extensively, the victims of government schools will be highly proficient in believing in global-warming alarmism, gender ideology, LGBT propaganda, globalism, humanism, socialism, and more. But as the latest NAEP results show, the schools are utterly failing to teach even the basics — reading, writing, and math — that would allow students to educate themselves. That is 100 percent deliberate.

Parents, you have been warned.

This article was originally published by FreedomProject.com

Want to know who “progressives” in Springfield fear? They fear parents with kids in private schools. The rest of you are merely annoying gadflies to be swatted down with a rolled-up copy of their school sexuality-indoctrination bill and haughty flick of their wrists.

Why do I say that? Because the Springfield swampsters, fearing the wrath of private schoolers, just introduced an amendment to their “Inclusive Curriculum” bill that exempts private schools from the mandate that schools teach about the disordered sexuality of cultural contributors.

You heard that right. Springfield swampsters couldn’t care less how conservative parents with kids ages 5-18 in government schools feel about their children being forced to learn that not only was Sally Ride the first woman in space but that she was also a LESBIAN! Hurray for homosexuality!

State Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago), who introduced both the Senate version of the bill (SB 3249) and the amendment will use every resource at her disposal to ensure that your taxes are used to undermine your belief that homosexual desire is disordered and homosexual acts immoral.

Steans and State Rep. Anna Moeller (D-Elgin), who introduced the House version (HB 5596), evidently believe the nonsense that homosexuality per se is analogous to race per se. Of course, that I know of, they’ve never actually made their case for such an analogy even as they plow forward exploiting it. It’s an expedient tool for advancing a moral ideology, so why should they care if it makes any sense.

The Left says those who experience homoerotic attraction, engage in homoerotic activity, and/or are involved in homoerotic relationships are entitled to see people like themselves represented in elementary, middle, and high school curricula. They are entitled to know who in history experienced homoerotic attraction and engaged in homoerotic activity. They believe those who have actively promoted the belief that homoerotic activity and relationships are equivalent to heterosexual activity and relationships should be treated like Civil Rights pioneers. In their skewed view, boy-lover Harvey Milk is of the stature of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And these leftists insist that their beliefs—and only their beliefs—be taught to captive audiences of children in public schools on the public dime from kindergarten through senior year in high school.

Please note that no lawmaker would propose and no administrator or teacher would support a bill like this unless they had arrived at a prior moral conclusion that homosexual activity is moral activity. That’s why no one has yet proposed a bill that would mandate the teaching of the roles and contributions of bigamists, polygamists, or polyamorists. They wouldn’t propose or support such a bill even if some teens or their parents identify as bigamists, polygamists, or polyamorists. They wouldn’t propose such a bill even to curb bullying. And why is that?

Lawmakers, administrators, and teachers fully understand that such a bill would contribute to undermining the moral belief that bigamy, polygamy, and polyamory are immoral and destructive. And that’s their goal: to undermine the moral belief that homosexual acts and the “trans” ideology are morally flawed.

So, unless you want the sexuality ideology of Leftists taught to your children in public schools at your expense, you best muster the fervor of parents who send their children to private schools. Push back and push back hard.

And those of you who homeschool or private-school your children, if you care about how your taxes are used; if you care about the indoctrination of children, some of whom will be our culture-makers in a few short years; and if you care about the plight of your friends and neighbors who can’t homeschool or afford private school, please join this important battle for the hearts and minds of Illinois children. You know it’s only a matter of time before “LGBTQ” activists and their ideological allies come after private schools and then home schools. They are no respecters of boundaries or of conservative parents.

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

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

Click HERE to check out this week’s IFA podcast for more information!