Have you ever heard of the “Values Action Team,” which is a subgroup of the U.S. House GOP Republican Study Committee? Somehow in all my years of paying attention (including working a stint on Capitol Hill for a member of Congress), it escaped my notice.

Here is how the subgroup has been described:

According to the RSC document describing its Values Action Team, “The goal of this group was to unite conservative Members with pro-family coalitions by establishing legislative goals, identifying key tasks for Members and coalitions to perform, and executing action items that would lead to conservative victories.”

Here’s the opening paragraph of a new press release:

Washington, DC — U.S. Representative Randy Hultgren (R-IL-14), Co-Chairman of the Values Action Team, today introduced the Parental Rights Amendment, H.J.Res. 121, to protect the rights of parents to raise, care for and guide their children without undue government interference unless there is proof of abuse or neglect.

It is difficult to image a better first impression made by a Congressional “subgroup” than the introduction of the Parental Rights Amendment.

For too long, local school districts thought they owned America’s children. It is past time for that to end. “Owned?” Yes, a family moves inside the boundaries of a district and the children are now subjected to the supervision of that governmental unit.

For decades, parents have had to check in with the government if they were planning to send their children to a private school or homeschool their children. Imagine what the Founding Fathers would say to that.

And it’s not just public education, but the government’s role in overseeing health care for minors.

“The freedom for parents to direct the upbringing, education and care of their children is an American tradition once established beyond debate,” said Rep. Hultgren. “Yet every day, families are broken apart by state actors who presume they are able to make a better decision for a child than a parent can. With recent state laws and court decisions threatening this American value, it is time parental rights are enshrined as fundamental rights and therefore protected under the Constitution.”

Here is the “Background” section in the news release:

Parental rights are not explicitly granted in the Constitution, which has resulted in an ever-growing number of conflicts with local, state and federal governments, and courts, seeking to intervene in parental decisions without a substantive justification or semblance of a showing of harm. That debate was reopened in 2000 when a Washington state law provided the authority for a third party to override a good parent’s decision regarding their children if it would be in the “best” interest of the children to do so.

Today numerous lower federal courts refuse to treat parental rights as deserving of protection as a fundamental right, and 35 states include disability as grounds for termination of parental rights.

And they provide a few examples:

• Doctors at Boston Children’s Hospital’s ER disagreed with teenager Justina Pelletier’s primary care physicians at Tufts Medical Center that she suffered from mitochondrial disease. Instead, they said it was a mental illness, and the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families took her from her parents and into state custody. She was kept in the hospital’s psych ward and group homes for months. She was returned to her parents more than a year later, and her health still has not fully recovered.

• Following her birth in Missouri, baby Mikeala Johnson was taken into the foster care system because her parents are blind. When she was returned to her mother Erika 57 days later, they had forever lost important bonding opportunities, including Erika’s chance to breastfeed her baby early on.

• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Fields v. Palmdale held that “once parents make the choice as to which school their children will attend, their fundamental right to control the education of their children is…substantially diminished.” (emphasis added)

Here is what the Parental Rights Amendment does:

• Secures the tradition of parental rights as a fundamental right in the text of the Constitution.

• Secures the right of parents to choose the manner in which they educate their child.

• Guarantees the rights of a parent will not be abridged on account of a disability.

It is revealing that a Constitutional Amendment is called for. As with so many other moral issues, earlier generations operated by common sense. As common sense and common law became over-shadowed by countless statutes, big government was able to advance its agenda of making Americans its subjects, rather than their master.

On this topic, I would recommend a brilliant article by professor Anthony Esolen titled “Peonage for the Twenty-First Century.” That is peonage as in peon, little people dwarfed by the big people running the government. Excerpts of the article can be found here.

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

-and, please-

Last time I presented some of the background about why I enjoyed Bruce Deitrick Price’s new book Saving K-12: A Citizens Guide to Improving Public Education. In this post, I will present a few examples.

Giving the background on a topic is easy. Choosing examples on that topic when there are so many within one book, is not easy.

“The Education Establishment has spent 100 years making public schools dumber,” Price writes. Ouch. He explains:

That’s a common impression which, after years of research, I could finally explain. John Dewey and his colleagues were in love with social engineering. In devotion to this passion, they were willing to throw almost everything else overboard.

Price writes that the “two most challenging questions in education are: why do public schools settle for so much mediocrity and inefficiency; and how can we fix the situation?”

Mediocrity? Here’s Price:

Please note, my harsh judgment of the public schools is not something I dreamed up. You hear about it in the media every day. The U.S. has 50 million functional illiterates (an unforgivable failure by self-proclaimed experts).

Our students don’t compete well on international tests. A brainy guy like Bill Gates studied the public schools and said, you know what, the schools are so bad they are a threat to the country’s future! In fact, Gates merely repeated what a huge governmental commission concluded in 1983 (the famous Nation at Risk report).

In part one I noted my weariness with the failure of the national school reform movement. This is from Bruce Deitrick Price:

If you look back, you can find that many smart, sensible people have been writing laments and alarms about public schools for a long time. The decade 1948-1958 witnessed the publication of at least 10 major books with titles such as Retreat from Learning, Quackery in the Public Schools, Educational Wastelands, and Why Johnny Can’t Read.

“So, we can take it as stipulated,” Price writes, “that the nation’s public schools ran wildly off the tracks, starting a long time ago.”

Are you depressed yet?

In the first two chapters, you’ll read:

1) Culture Wars

“American children wander forlornly in an alien landscape they know little about and understand less.”

2) Reading Wars

“The Education Establishment favors the theories and methods that lead to bad results, and this is most blatantly so in reading…. But why? The short answer, I believe, is because John Dewey and his followers were far-left ideologues. They thought leveling was a good plan.”

So much of the school reform movement’s commentary and analysis amounts to a blah blah blah aimed at not overly offending the educational BLOB. Those writers can then still seem friendly to a system that is not friendly to Western Civilization.

In chapter 6, Price brilliantly compares Common Core with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) — both of which, he writes, are “bad to the bone.” “Here are ten descriptions that apply equally to Obamacare and Common Core” (I have only listed the headings):

1. Huge Federal Power Grab
2. Not a Response to Popular Demand
3. Incomprehensible by Design.
4. Public Excluded from Legislative Process
5. Dishonest Marketing
6. Media Complicit
7. Very Expensive and Would Get More So
8. Fundamental Transformation
9. Totalitarian Intent
10. Instant Train Wreck

In chapter 7 Price writes:

Take care of basic skills and basic knowledge, and everything else will fall into place. Unfortunately, our Education Establishment has spent decades building a fact-free school. Kids are kept busy all day but they are not expected to learn a lot.

Math. History. Methods. Common Core. Price covers a lot of ground in 180 pages. In the “About the Author” section at the end of the book, one of the endorsements reads “Bruce Price is one of the 10 people in the country who can explain what’s going on in education.”

Lenin asked his famous question in 1901: “What is to be done?”

Today in education, that question remains as hot and as urgent as an oncoming typhoon.

Oh, if Americans would realize the urgency…every year marks the end of the 12 years another group of kids has spent going from 1st grade through 12th.

Bruce Deitrick Price’s book is worth buying by those who appreciate reading the work of someone who doesn’t pull his punches. Click here for Amazon.com‘s page on Saving K-12.

The Left is working overtime to silence and/or marginalize conservative voices in America
The time to support IFI is now!

Historian David Barton says taxpayer-funded colleges and universities have long been known as breeding grounds for left-leaning indoctrination. However, conservative lawmakers are starting to demand neutrality and an end to speech codes that silence free expression on campuses.

Every 12 years another set of children progress through America’s government-run school system. Those that graduated this past spring started twelve years before that as first-graders in 2005.

In 2005 I had the honor of serving as the president of the Family Taxpayers Foundation (FTF), a non-profit focusing chiefly on school reform — both curriculum and finance…a to z, soup to nuts.

Jack Roeser, the founder of FTF and a self-made millionaire, witnessed the disintegration of the public schools both academically and fiscally.

School reform became a passion for him, and it was for me as well. During the years that I headed-up FTF in the mid-2000’s, we tracked and reported the news on the school reform front and conducted an exhaustive study of Chicago suburban area school district spending. That study is worthy of a separate article — suffice it to say that the adults running the “public” schools (teachers and administrators) enjoyed yearly pay raises unheard of in the private sector even as academic performance stagnated or dropped.

What resulted from my tenure at FTF was weariness with the national school reform movement. So many of the experts that I agreed with didn’t seem to grasp the fact that their message was not reaching enough people, or that their progress in bringing reform to the system was relatively miniscule.

After I left FTF, I stopped paying attention to the school reform movement.

Then, in 2013 I read an article by Bruce Deitrick Price. Price’s writings have been posting at what is still one of the best websites, American Thinker, since 2012.

When an individual is weary with a political topic and or political movement, it’s not easy to revive enthusiasm for it. But Price’s writing did that for me. Why? There is a directness, boldness, and thoughtfulness that kept my attention.

Over the years when I have come across articles on American Thinker it is common for me to ignore the author’s name and just begin reading. Without fail, when I found myself in agreement with an article about American public education, and that old spark in me on the topic reignited, I’d scroll up to see who authored the piece…and it was Bruce Deitrick Price.

When I discovered that he had authored a book on the subject of education, it was an easy decision to add it to my reading list.

Saving K-12: A Citizen’s Guide to Improving Public Education.

It doesn’t disappoint. The cover reads: “What happened in Our Public Schools? How Do We Fix Them?”

The following is the summary of the book from the publisher’s page (with emphasis added by me):

Public schools are a vast money pit. Education officials seem to prefer inefficiency and mediocrity. We could have better schools at less cost. This book explains how.

Bruce Deitrick Price is the country’s most prolific and aggressive writer on education. He is good at explaining the root causes, the problems that typically occur, and the ideological obsessions that lead our Education Establishment astray.

This book presents 65 articles divided into 10 themes: Reading; Math; Weird Theories and Methods; Common Core; Historical Background; Guilty as Charged; Where Are Our Leaders; and What to Do Now. You can read the articles in any order and dip in wherever you want. This is pleasant reading about grim topics. If we don’t save the public schools, we’re not going to save very much else.

Here is the author’s short bio:

Bruce Deitrick Price is a novelist, artist, poet, and education reformer. He graduated with Honors in English Literature from Princeton and lived for many years in Manhattan where he ran a graphic design business. Along the way he was fascinated by the counterproductive practices so common in public schools. He founded Improve-Education.org in 2005.

In part two I’ll provide examples of Price’s “aggressive” approach as revealed in the book.

The Left is working overtime to silence and/or marginalize conservative voices in America
The time to support IFI is now!

There are myriad reasons why young people are abandoning conservative principles, one of which is that our publicly funded schools are run by and our children are taught by fools who revile truth. Neil Rigler, an English teacher at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois, is one such teacher.

Last week, Rigler posted a link to an article from the far Left website PinkNews that criticized President Trump’s appearance at the Values Voter Summit, which is sponsored by the Family Research Council. Rigler added this comment:

Why isn’t this the lead story on national news? [Trump] endorses this hate group and supports legalized discrimination. Horrific. (Yet again).

Evidently Rigler is a disciple of the ethically impoverished, anti-Christian hate group known euphemistically as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has deemed the Family Research Council (and IFI) “hate groups.”

But why such a designation for organizations that actually denounce hatred?

The SPLC and Rigler hurl the epithet “hate group” at organizations that hold theologically orthodox views on the moral status of volitional homosexual activity and biological-sex rejection. The SPLC and Rigler evidently believe that moral positions with which they disagree constitute hatred of persons.

Of course, it’s unlikely they apply their underlying principle consistently. It’s unlikely they believe that all moral disapproval of volitional acts constitutes hatred of persons. It’s unlikely they would hurl the epithet “hater” at someone who believes homoerotic love between two consenting brothers is immoral or at someone who opposes the legal recognition of poly-marriages.

Foolish inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little Leftist minds.

Government employee Rigler posted his feckless, pernicious comment on his Facebook page where anyone with a Facebook account can see it, including former, current, and future students. Presumably some of them are theologically orthodox young people.

And Rigler fancies himself “inclusive.”

Unfortunately, Rigler is not alone among our taxpayer-subsidized propagandists who identify as educators and who accuse those who hold values and beliefs with which they disagree of being hateful. Rigler’s comment is emblematic of the openly contemptuous attitude many of our  public school teachers have toward those who hold conservative beliefs and values.

There’s Jason Spoor-Harvey, former Fremd High School social studies teacher and current history department chair at Oak Park and River Forest High School. Spoor-Harvey is “married” to a man and has posted pictures on his Facebook page of his faux-marriage as well as his hearty support for Planned Parenthood. When he was a teacher at Fremd, he posted pictures of Che Guevara and Karl Marx on his official school web page along with this image titled “Evolutionary Theory”:

Rigler and Spoor-Harvey have every right to express their foolish beliefs and values  on their Facebook pages, and parents have every right to say these men are poor role models for their children and refuse to place their children under the their tutelage. The mere fact that Spoor-Harvey is legally “married”—though not in reality married—to a man teaches young people a harmful, untruthful lesson and renders him an unfit role model.

But Rigler and Spoor-Harvey don’t restrict expressions of their political and moral views to their Facebook pages. They express their views in the classroom both through their comments and the materials they choose, like homosexual writer Tony Kushner’s essay titled “American Things,” which Rigler has taught. In this essay, Kushner compares the homosexuality-affirming revolution to the Civil Rights Movement and calls moral disapproval of homosexuality a “social evil.”

There are countless teachers like Rigler and Spoor-Harvey who see themselves as “change agents” and view it as their right and responsibility to use their publicly funded positions to transform the political and moral views of other people’s children. Sometimes they do so by bringing in representatives from partisan organizations to disseminate destructive ideas to children as unassailable truths.

Just last month, Public School District 150 in Peoria, Illinois invited the Central Illinois Pride Health Center (CIPHC) to teach eighth-graders a lesson on “Sexual Orientation and Gender Stereotypes.”

The executive director and founder of the CIPHC is Len Meyer (on the left below), a lesbian who masquerades as a man and is “married” to a woman.

In March 2017, Meyer partnered with Illinois State University for its 19th annual drag show charity fundraiser with proceeds going this year to CIPHC. Meyer said, “I have always been a supporter of the drag show…as a person of the community. I think it is a great opportunity to give students a chance to get involved and get exposure of the cause.”

Do PSD 150 administrators, teachers, and school board members really believe this is the kind of person who should be teaching 13-year-olds? Do they really believe this is the kind of person most parents in their community want to teach their children about sexuality?

The troubling and very hard-to-find “Sexual Orientation and Gender Stereotypes” lesson on the PSD 150 website lists a handout titled the “Genderbread Person,” as a “needed” material for this class. This infamous handout teaches children to sever the connection between one’s sex and gender, or in the words of the Genderbread Person, to break through the “binary.” The lesson outline includes teaching students the meaning of “key terms” like “cisgender,” “queer,” and “intersex,” which is defined as “actually quite common!”

What is never discussed in the lesson is whether the beliefs of the “LGBTQ” community are objectively true or good. No dissenting views are included.

Christian parents should not allow their children to be trained up by men and women who view Scripture as hate-filled, ignorant bigotry.

Christians should not allow their children to be trained up by men and women who do not recognize the intrinsic value of all human lives—and all means all—including those yet in their mothers’ wombs.

Christian parents should not allow their children to be trained up by adults who don’t recognize and respect the immutability and profound meaning of sexual differentiation.

Christian parents should not allow their children to be trained up by adults who believe that inclusivity and compassion demand the affirmation of sexual perversion or confusion or the relinquishment of physical privacy.

Christians parents should not allow their children to be trained up by those who cannot see that marriage has a nature central to which is sexual complementarity and without which a union is not in reality a marriage.

Churches must begin today to create affordable schools for their church families. For diverse reasons, many families are unable to homeschool and unable to afford Christian private schools. Churches should view the education of children in their flocks as a mission field, with mission funds going toward making disciples of them. No matter how nice they are, people like Neil Rigler, Jason Spoor-Harvey, and Len Meyer cannot properly educate children.

Thomas More College of Liberal Arts professor Anthony Esolen offers this parable to illustrate where we are culturally:

Imagine a scene of wholesale destruction. Every old and venerable structure has been reduced to rubble. People relieve themselves in the street. Sometimes they copulate there, too. Their “music” is little more than grunting and groaning. Their rulers are on the take. There are hundreds of thousands of old books in the mountain of stone and mortar that used to be the library. Most of those books are far beyond the capacity of the people to read. They sneer and snort at Shakespeare, because they can’t understand him. They’ve never even heard of Virgil. A lot of these people have taken to cannibalism.

Now then—you have retained some vague memory of a more noble way of life.  You have therefore arrived at a great truth. It’s perfectly obscure to most of your fellow rubble-pickers, who mock you and call you a prude, a Neanderthal, a medieval monk, a madman, a hater of the hungry, and so forth. Your precious truth is simply this: it is wrong to eat human flesh.

Well, that is no great burst of enlightenment, but it is a beginning. So what do you do?  Will you be content to say, “My children will do everything that everyone else is doing, but they will not eat human flesh?” They will be subhuman and subcultural, but their taste in dining will be restricted just a little?  Is that all?

Will you say, “Our family is not anthropophagous, but we will send our children to be taught by the same fellow that all the other parents use,” the one with the squalid leer, dabbling in excrement, contemptuous of any wisdom from the past?

…

What do you do, then?  Turn back, O man.  It’s time to recover and rebuild.

Churches should start the recovery and rebuilding project now. We’re very late. Some of our children are cannibals.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

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.

As stories pile up of public schools teaching first-graders it’s normal to have two mommies or two daddies or hosting “coming out” events for transgender students, one might sympathize with the urgency many parents feel to get their kids out of “government schools.”

But for some, such as those lacking the time and resources for private schools or homeschooling, the options are limited. And let me be clear: There are many good public schools and many dedicated Christian teachers in those schools who deserve our support. But it’s also clear that current trends don’t bode well for public education in America.

So perhaps it’s time for the historic Christian commitment to creativity in education to make a comeback. Glenn Sunshine, a Senior Fellow here at the Colson Center, often says that wherever Christianity goes, education follows.

The examples are stunning: from the monasteries in Ireland that preserved learning and civilization after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, to the cathedral schools that reintroduced education to Europe and eventually evolved into universities, to the Brethren of Common Life that churned out some of the most brilliant minds of the Reformation, like Erasmus and Martin Luther.

Then there are figures like Hannah More, who helped bring education to women and poor farmers in England. Or William Carey, “the father of modern missions,” who helped consolidate Indian languages and facilitate education on an unprecedented scale there. I literally could go on and on.

These Christian forebears should encourage us, even as the American education system groans beneath federal bureaucracy and secular ideology intent on deconstructing reality, to join in this Christian heritage of educational innovation.

Thankfully, there are already some good models to look to and take seriously. For example, there are innovative charter schools, many of which are led by Christians. And I’ve worked with many private Christians schools over the years that are not only committed to academic excellence and virtue cultivation, but also to being more accessible. And then there are the para-educational programs that supplement school—before, during and even beyond college and graduate school—cultivating leaders, like Summit Ministries, Impact 360, Link Year at Kanakauk, plus post-graduate programs like the John Jay Institute or the Blackstone Fellowship.

Another set of options, which my wife and I are particularly pumped about, is what you might call “hybrids.” We homeschool, but we don’t do it alone. Partnering with other homeschooling families to offer a common curriculum and hold once-or-twice-weekly classes can be a powerful way to educate and still become part of a larger, like-minded community. Our daughters take advantage of both in-person and online hybrid opportunities.

But among the most exciting models are those reaching students in places where opportunities have long been scarce. The gold standard for this is Chicago Hope Academy, which boasts an unmatched record for affordable, private, Christian education in the inner-city among families that traditionally would not be able to afford any educational choice.

Now in my view, none of these emerging models are in and of themselves “the solution.” But all of them together are heirs to the rich Christian heritage we have of creativity in and commitment to education. Taken together, they’re the beginnings of a promising alternative to state-run education. And we ought be clear on this point as Christians: no matter what we use among the public, private, homeschool or hybrid options, ultimately the education of our children is a parental responsibility—one that we cannot outsource.

This is no time for guilt-tripping or judgment. Rather, we’ve got to build on this momentum, and join the long tradition of Christians educating the next generation with excellence, even if in less-than-ideal circumstances.

At a forum at the College of William & Mary on Sept. 27, the ACLU got a sample of what conservatives have been experiencing on campuses for years.

As Claire Gastanaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, began speaking to a small audience, a group of demonstrators marched in with a large banner that said, “Blood on Your Hands.” They lined up in front of the stage, holding placards.

Apparently clueless about what was about to transpire, Ms. Gastaaga said, “Good. I like this. Good.”

She went on to say that she was going to inform the students about their right of protest, “which this illustrates very well.”

No, it didn’t. The students shut her down. They began loudly chanting inane slogans, including “ACLU, you protect Hitler, too!” and “ACLU, free speech for who?” and “The oppressed are not impressed!” The ACLU is also apparently guilty of perpetuating a system of “white supremacy” for not defending jackboot tactics like those seen at Berkeley and Middlebury College against conservative speakers.

What was supposed to be a #blacklivesmatter event was populated almost entirely by white students, presumably many from the W&M’s tony Williamsburg campus. Oppressed, they are not, unless you count the unbearable minutes when they can’t find a parking space for their Audis or Beamers.

For a taste of what Ms. Gastanaga endured for more than an hour and a half, you can see a brief video by an American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) team that filmed the event. It’s strangely satisfying. (See below)

Since the French Revolution, when it was famously observed that “revolutions devour their own,” the progressive left always seems surprised when the forces they have unleashed turn on them. Think back to the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, when old-line liberals like Vice President Hubert Humphrey were stunned by the street violence of the extreme left.

More recently, U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had that deer-in-the-headlights look when the antifa crowd, like the Occupy movement a few years ago, turned utterly violent. To her credit, she finally denounced their tactics.

In a more serious venue than campus playpens, the ACLU had another sobering experience this past week. During arguments on Tuesday in Gill v. Whitford, several U.S. Supreme Court justices indicated a reluctance to plunge into what Felix Frankfurter in 1946 called the “political thicket,” which is where the ACLU wants them to go. It’s part of the ACLU’s vision to do away with the state and local powers that still hamstring the federal government’s relentless growth.

A split federal panel had invalidated Wisconsin’s redistricting plan for its state legislature, calling it an unconstitutional gerrymander because the Republican-controlled legislature had drawn districts favoring the Republican Party.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing essentially that legislatures, being composed of politicians, should not have the authority to create voting districts. It’s time to change the rules of the game since the vast majority of state legislatures are now controlled by Republicans.

The ACLU had no such problem when Maryland’s Democratic legislators in 2011 drew a bizarre district that meandered from the conservative Western part of the state to liberal Montgomery County. This was intended to unseat outspoken conservative Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. It worked. Mr. Bartlett had won the 6th district by 28 points in 2010, but lost his seat by 21 points to Democrat John Delaney in 2012.

In progressive California, the politically-drawn district maps are so squiggly that they resemble Rorschach blots. But any court-ordered “solution” for redistricting would be an ongoing nightmare, with unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in control.

Who would appoint the “non-political” panels? How would they determine exactly how many voters of either party or no party should be included in each district? Would distinct communities be split for numerical balancing? Would they do this after every election? How much politics is too much politics? Apart from the difficulties, the whole thing would be unconstitutional.

On August 4, the American Civil Rights Union submitted an amicus brief in Gill, noting that the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine the “Times, Places, or Manner” of holding federal elections but leaves to the states the power to determine who votes. Therefore, establishing districts comprising voters is a state function, not a federal one.

Since the 1960s, the courts have variously waded into the issue, solidifying the principle that there is no place for racial bias in districting, but avoiding a sweeping “solution” to political gerrymandering.

On May 22, in a dissent in Cooper v. Harris, Justice Samuel Alito alluded to Frankfurter’s famous statement and warned against making federal courts “weapons of political warfare,” which would “invite the losers in the redistricting process to seek to obtain in court what they could not achieve in the political arena.”

Speaking of losers, as the ACLU ramps up its campaign against voter ID laws, traditional districting methods and other obstacles to its goal of fundamentally transforming America, its unruly children will be out in the streets in black masks, trying to intimidate anyone who disagrees with them.

When the ACLU itself comes under attack for not joining the mob, it’s a sign that the revolution has begun nibbling on its own.

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.

A new Gallup survey shows that the majority of Americans are not confident in government school systems. Only thirty-six percent of Americans expressed a ‘great deal’ or ‘quite a lot’ of confidence in government schools. This is however,  the largest number who are fairly confident in government schools since 2009.

The survey also found that both Democrats and Republicans are now more confident in government schools than in years previous. According to the Gallup survey:

The upswing in confidence in public schools from 2016 to 2017 is evident among both Republicans (up nine points) and Democrats (up five points). The tendency for Democrats to be more confident than Republicans in public schools has been generally constant over the past nine years, and is evident this year, with 41% of Democrats and 30% of Republicans confident in public schools.

The survey shows that the lowest point of confidence in the government school system was in 2014, when roughly one in four Americans, or twenty six percent. In 1987, fifty percent of Americans were confident in the education that the public schools provided their children.

Gallup has been measuring confidence in government schools since 1987. The survey notes:

From 1995 through 2006, the confidence rating for public schools remained fairly stable, hovering near 40%. From 2007 to 2014, with the exception of a significant bump in 2009 — the year that many states committed to the development of the Common Core State Standards — and a smaller uptick in 2013, confidence declined incrementally.

Government schools in the United States have certainly struggled to maintain confidence but this six point surge from 2016 to 2017 is evidence of the possible beginning of a positive trend. One factor that may be helping to boost confidence in America’s government school system is an all time high of graduation rates. The dropout rates are also seeing a decline.

Gallup research also shows that government school leaders are likewise optimistic about their school systems.

A recent poll of U.S. superintendents shows a significant majority (85%) are excited about their district’s future. However, there is clearly more work to be done to improve the quality of education and how it is perceived. Just 32% of these school leaders say they are excited about the future of U.S. education generally — a percentage that aligns closely with the 36% of Americans expressing confidence in the nation’s public schools.

IFI Faith Forum
Join us in Medinah, Illinois, to hear world renowned Christian apologist Ray Comfort. Space is limited, don’t miss this special one time event. Click HERE for more information.

Tickets are just $10 each. Call (708) 781-9328 or purchase tickets below.

IFI received a return-request letter via priority mail this week from Dunner Law, a law firm based in Washington D.C. that specializes in intellectual property law. The letter came from Adam Sikich, senior counsel with Dunner Law (and according to his bio, a “Star Wars aficionado”) on behalf of Dunner’s “Client,” the American Psychological Association (APA). In this letter, Sikich kinda, sorta implied Dunner might slap IFI with a $150,000 lawsuit if we don’t remove three illustrations we used in recent articles about a children’s picture book celebrating “pride” parades titled This Day in June by lesbian author Gayle E. Pitman.

Star Wars aficionado Sikich first told us how very important his “Client” is:

We represent the American Psychological Association, Inc. (“our Client”) in its intellectual property matters. We write to you regarding your organization’s use of protected illustrations from the copyrighted work This Day in June.

As you may be aware, our Client is the largest and most prestigious publisher in the field of psychology, mental health and development. Our Client’s children’s book division, Magination Press, publishes books that help children deal with the many challenges and problems they face as they grow up.

How have so many people for so many decades not realized how desperately little children need picture books about “pride” parades to help them face the challenges and problems they face—you know, the problems created for them by adults who sought to mainstream sexual deviance?

Then Aficionado Sikich informed IFI of the seriousness of our potential crime and the potential penalties for our potential lawbreaking:

Your organization’s use and posting of illustrations from This Day in June without our Client’s permission and without attribution to our Client or the book’s illustrator, Kristyna Litten, violates our Client’s exclusive rights in its work, including the right to control the publication, reproduction and distribution of the illustrations within the work. These actions subject your organization to copyright infringement liability under the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § I 06, entitling our Client to injunctive relief as well as statutory damages in an amount up to $150,000 if your organization is found to have willfully infringed the protectable rights in the illustrations. [emphasis added]

Clearly, Aficionado Sikich and the “Client” are miffed that the “Client” and illustrator were not given their due attribution. Well, Sikich’s command is my command, which I with subservience and alacrity hereby fulfill: The talented illustrator of Gayle E. Pitman’s rhetorically banal and offensive picture book This Day in June, which is published by the American Psychological Association’s Magination Press, is Kristyna Litten.

Oddly, Aficionado Sikich never mentioned the Fair Use Law which is used to determine whether copyright infringement has taken place:

Under the doctrine of “fair use,” the law allows the use of portions of copyrighted work without permission from the owner…. [T]he fair use of copyrighted material without permission is allowed when used for the following purposes: criticism; comment; news reporting; teaching.

What a coinkydink! Those were IFI’s–a non-profit organization–exact purposes. I just bet that impish Sikich knew that.

(Why, oh, why couldn’t he be a Harry Potter aficionado, so I could say “that impish Quidditch-pitchin’ Sikich”?)

Even odder was this remark from Sikich:

That your organization has used this work to support an anti-tolerance, anti-gay rights agenda makes the unauthorized and unattributed use all the more troubling.

How does IFI’s disagreement with Leftist assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality and the “trans” ideology or our views on what constitutes age-appropriate material for young children make our potential copyright infringement “all the more troubling”? How is Sikich’s angst about IFI’s moral views legally relevant?

Aficionado Sikich conveniently casts our views as “anti-tolerance, anti-gay rights.” How does Sikich or the “Client” define “tolerance”? Is Sikich or the APA (or the American Library Association for that matter) “tolerant” of conservative views on the nature and morality of volitional homosexual activity or the “trans” ideology? If so, how does their tolerance manifest? What specifically are the “gay rights” to which Sikich or the “Client” refers?

And this brings me to the most remarkable part of Aficionado Sikich’s letter: In it I learned that Magination Press is the children’s publishing arm of the American Psychological Association.

Wowzer!

To remind IFI readers, Magination Press is the publishing company that published This Day in June as well as conducted an interview in which Pitman was asked what her book is “really about.” She said this:

I LOVE this question! This Day in June is really about being who you are, and not apologizing for it. When I wrote this story, I wanted Pride to be featured as realistically as possible. I wanted to see drag queens, guys in leather, rainbows, political signs, the Dykes on Bikes —everything you would see at Pride. I didn’t want any of it to be watered-down or sugarcoated. Lots of people have asked me, “Do you think that’s appropriate for children?” And my answer always is—YES. There’s something very powerful about allowing something to be portrayed authentically, because it teaches children in an indirect way to be as authentic as they can. It’s also important to recognize that children respond to Pride very differently than adults do. When adults see people wearing leather, they make certain associations to that. Children see people wearing leather and think they’re just wearing a costume, or playing dress-up. What I love most about This Day in June is that the illustrations are age-appropriate AND authentic at the same time.

With Pitman’s fervent belief in the power of “authenticity” and her absolute opposition to “watered-down or sugarcoated” illustrations, why are all the illustrations actually watered-down, sugarcoated, and whitewashed images of the inappropriate things children really see at “pride” parades? And why aren’t there any cartoon-y pictures of topless women, bare-bottomed men playing dress-up in chaps and mouth gags, or men engaged in simulated sex acts? What are her criteria or the “Client’s” criteria for determining age-appropriateness?

Isn’t it even a wee bit troubling to the APA that this picture book exposes children to watered-down images of people wearing leather without understanding the perverse “kink” culture with which it is associated? Doesn’t this constitute a form ideological grooming? In other words, through these illustrations, aren’t Pitman, Litten, and the APA normalizing homosexuality, the “trans”-ideology, and “kink” long before children are able to understand the authentic reality and critically examine the assumptions embedded in the watered-down, sugar-coated, inauthentic illustrations?

Imagine if a children’s author were to offer this rationalization for including sugar-coated illustrations of a KKK rally: “When adults see people in white robes and pointy hats, they make certain associations, but when children see people wearing them, they think they’re just wearing a costume or playing dress-up.”

The moral of this creepy tale is that the APA, the “most prestigious publisher [or is it most litigious publisher?] in the field of psychology, mental health and development,” cannot be trusted with children. The “Client”—foolish and cruel step-sibling of Big Brother—demonstrates a malformed understanding of child development, a grotesque view of age-appropriateness, and no sense of sexual morality.

Listen to Laurie read this article in this podcast:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-Creepy-Tale-of-a-D.C.-Law-Firm-the-APA-and-IFI.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.

The Barna Group recently published a study conducted last November – with nearly 1,300 American adults age 18 and older – and discovered that the role of sex education is as important as ever, but Americans continue to debate whether teaching safe sex or abstinence is the way to go in the schools.

How generations view teen sex

American adults were asked whether they think it is fine for teens to have sex if it is consensual and if they use contraceptives.

“Thirty-seven percent of all adults affirm such sexual activity among teens –and males much more so than females (46 percent and 28 percent, respectively),” Barna divulged. “Sexual behavior is a topic on which generations predictably disagree, and Millennials really stand apart. Among Millennials, more than half (54 percent) feel consensual, safe sex among teens is OK.”

It was also found that an overwhelming majority of adults believe teens are not ready for sex and should not be encouraged to engage in it – even if it is labeled “safe.”

“While seven in 10 adults (71 percent) believe sex education classes should primarily use practical skills to reinforce waiting for sex, a smaller majority of Millennials agree (57 percent),” the researchers disclosed. “This compares to much higher rates among Gen X (74 percent), Boomers (75 percent) and Elders (85 percent). The other 43 percent of Millennials believe sex education should communicate that teen sex is OK, so long as young people consent and use contraception. Overall, only 29 percent of adults agree with this approach. Additionally, Millennials (38 percent) are more likely to say federal funding should be used to support this point of view, compared to Boomers (9 percent) and Elders (6 percent).”

Having children affects one’s take on the issue.

“Those with children under 18 (77 percent) strongly believe sex education should support a message of waiting, while those without minor children still favor this idea albeit to a lesser degree (68 percent),” Barna reported. “Even so, parents who are actively raising children are more likely to say teen sex is OK (48 percent vs. 31 percent of those not raising children). Given that Millennials and Gen X are most likely to currently have children under 18, these statistics indicate that young parents may struggle with the tension between their broader progressive values and a desire for their own children to be selective.”

Those who have tied the knot realize the importance of teaching children to wait until marriage before having sex.

“Married people (80 percent) and those who have been divorced (76 percent) are most likely to say the primary message of sex education should reinforce waiting, in contrast with the 57 percent of those who have never been married and 58 percent of those who have ever cohabited,” Barna’s report reads. “Nearly all married (91 percent) and divorced (92 percent) people also believe it’s at least somewhat important that teens be encouraged to avoid sex. Among those who have never been married, three-quarters (73 percent) agree. It’s possible the experience of commitment in marriage fosters a less lenient view of sexuality, or that holding stringent perspectives encourages people to pursue marriage.”

The faith factor

When it comes to the greatest influence that shapes adults’ views on teen sex and sex education, faith was found to be at the top.

“When asked what primary message sex education classes should offer, 78 percent of self-identified Christians and 86 percent of practicing Christians agree it should be a message that uses practical skills to reinforce waiting for sex,” the Christian research organization pointed out. “By comparison, 52 percent of non-Christians agree. The group most enthusiastic about this approach is evangelicals, with 94 percent in agreement. Church activity makes a difference as well. Among weekly church attenders, 84 percent agree that sex education should encourage teens to wait. This presents a marked contrast with those who attend monthly (79 percent) or less often (63 percent).”

The right approach

It is agreed that preparing teens for responsible and meaningful relationships with the opposite sex is a crucial aspect of sex education, but how this is communicated is often debated by American adults.

“When considering federal funding for sex education approaches, the highest percentage of Americans (43 percent) believe the two approaches should receive equal funding: telling teens they’re allowed to be sexually active as long as contraception is used, and giving teens skills to help them hold off on sex,” those conducting the survey found. “Among those who endorse one view or the other, 37 percent say most funding should go to the latter approach, while one in five (20 percent) supports the former. Practicing Christians are more likely to support funding for abstinence, with half (51 percent) favoring this approach and only 9 percent saying federal funding should support a message that condones safe sex. For evangelicals, the preference is very strong, with 80 percent advocating abstinence. This dramatically outweighs all other groups: non-evangelicals (47 percent), notional Christians (34 percent), people of other faiths (34 percent) and those of no faith (21 percent).”

Weighing the consensus

The way questions are asked about teen sexuality greatly impacted participants’ responses.

“When questions about sex education are framed within the context of information about teens’ habits and concerns about at-risk behavior, people’s views become slightly more conservative,” the researchers noted. “For example, when informed that the majority of teens are not sexually active, and that fewer are sexually active today compared to teens 20 years ago—facts that surprised two-thirds of respondents (65 percent)—77 percent indicate that a message that reinforces waiting for sex should be the primary approach to sex education. Before they received this information, 71 percent held this view. Women are more influenced by this knowledge, shifting from 72 to 82 percent who advocate for a message of waiting. All generational groups became more favorable of this message, with the biggest difference emerging among Millennials, who moved from 57 percent to 64 percent.”

How teen sex is presented makes a world of difference to those answering the survey.

“When reminded that the Centers for Disease Control describes teen sex as ‘at-risk behavior,’ like smoking and drinking alcohol, the vast majority (84 percent) claim it’s important to encourage teens to avoid sex, [while] 3 percent say they are unsure,” the pollsters revealed. “Without that information, only 53 percent had said teens should be encouraged to wait to participate, and 11 percent were unsure. One thing all Americans are well aware of: it’s vital to teach teens that condoms offer limited protection against STDs, and other contraceptives offer none. Eighty-one percent of adults and a majority of all segments say this is very important.”

Obama out, Trump in

President Donald Trump wasted little time in office before defunding Obama’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention program, which was previously slated to give grantees $200 million through 2020. The recipients missing out on the funding, along with several Democratic lawmakers, wrote the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a letter outlining their frustration about the “safe sex” program coming to an end.

“This action is short-sighted and puts at risk the health and well-being of women and our most vulnerable youth who depend on the evidenced-based work that TPP Program grantees are doing across the nation,” a group of Democratic senators vented to HHS Secretary Tom Price, according to Fox News.

After learning that Obama’s safe-sex program contributed millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, many were not surprised to see Trump give it the axe.

Federal agencies are among the first to admit that Obama’s so-called Teen Pregnancy Prevention program did little to nothing to protect teens.

“Furthermore, Health and Human Services Department spokesman Mark Vafiades indicated that the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program has little to no impact on teen health,” Townhall’s Cortney O’Brien stressed. “Vafiades said the evidence of a positive impact is ‘very weak,’ and the Trump administration wants to support a program that ‘provides youth with the information and skills they need to avoid the many risks associated with teen sex.’”

Many experts continue to warn about the detrimental effect sex education has when it focuses on safe sex.

“[E]xperts … have evidence that these sex ed programs are nothing more than a social movement,” O’Brien asserted. “In many classroom syllabi, ‘educators’ expose teens and children to graphic images, teach them that sexuality is ‘a natural and healthy part of life,’ and sometimes even omit the dangers associated with sex.”

School porn?

Besides encouraging kids to have sex and instructing them about how to use contraceptives, it is argued that the content in Obama’s sex-ed instruction are nothing short of pornography.

“Many classes have become unapologetically pornographic, yet many parents are unaware their kids learn dangerous messages laced with obscenity in the guise of ‘health education.’” WND reported last September. “The good news is that some parents are aware.”

Finally having enough, many parents are now refusing to silently stand by while their children are being subjected to pornographic content touted under the label of “sex-ed.”

“A growing parent-led movement in many districts will opt children out of these gross, inaccurate tutorials, or remove kids from public schools altogether,” WND’s Linda Harvey informed. “Schools in Omaha, St. Louis, Nashville and Honolulu are battlegrounds of huge controversies over X-rated lessons.”

Obama’s radically progressive sex-ed program was condemned for its promotion of sexually irresponsible, immoral and indecent behavior.

“But sadly, far more funds under Obama are allocated to abortion/contraception/homosexuality-promoting programs, called ‘comprehensive sex education’ or ‘sexual risk reduction,’” the pro-family advocate maintained. “These programs smash youth innocence and discretion. Many ask young adolescents to handle condoms by fitting them on artificial penises or bananas as early as the seventh grade.”

For years, public school’s sex-ed curricula has been laden with the former president’s pro-LGBT agenda.

“Some of these courses, bowing to the depraved demands of ‘LGBTQ’ advocates, teach role-playing scenarios where same-sex teens discuss whether it’s time to have sex,” Harvey warned. “And that means oral sex with a dental dam for two girls, or anal sex with lubricant and a condom for two boys.”

This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com

Can you hear the harmonious choir of diverse voices echoing from the Downers Grove Public Library Board of Trustees? You can’t? Oh, that’s right, Tuesday night in the service of diversity and inclusion, the Downers Grove Village Council expelled the one conservative member from the library board.

The controversy began when a “monitor” from the League of Women Voters attended a recent library board meeting at which board member Arthur Jaros expressed concerns over these three items that had been unexpectedly added by a yet-unnamed staff member (or members) to a proposed long-range strategic plan:

1. Provide regular training for all staff in equity, diversity, and inclusion.
2. Incorporate inclusive practices into library services.
3. Create a diversity strategy for hiring.

The “monitor,” Susan D. Farley, claims that Jaros “proceeded to continue to express his personal view on how we should… reject any… people different from white straight people.” This claim—which Jaros vigorously denies—clearly suggests that Jaros seeks to reject persons and that he holds racist views.

Jaros objected to #2 because he believed the term “inclusive” was too ambiguous. He’s of course right. Only sociopaths would think all phenomena or all perspectives on all phenomena should be included in libraries, particular in the children’s section. The library board agreed and struck item #2 from the list.

Jaros objected to #3 because such language usually refers to hiring quotas based on identity politics, and he believes that hiring should be based on merit. He’s right again. I would go further to say that the term “diversity”—like “inclusive”—is too ambiguous. Diversity is neither intrinsically good nor bad. It simply refers to differences. In the service of diversity, does the board want to hire KKK members, infantilists, and Antifa anarchists who have no respect for authority, rules, policies, or social conventions?

Most Americans by now know that “diversity” is code for race, class, sex, homosexuality, and “transgenderism.” The staff member (or members) who surreptitiously added these action items likely meant that the library should hire based on membership in these categories. What this phantom staff member (or members) surely did not mean is that library hiring decisions should ensure ideological diversity among staff members. The board voted to change the word “hiring” to “recruiting.” Meh.

And now we come to the part that twisted up the knickers of monitor Farley. Jaros opposed any requirement that all staff members be “trained” in “diversity” and “inclusion.”

“Diversity” and “inclusion” are terms exploited by the Left to justify purchasing picture books that celebrate two phenomena integral to Leftist sexuality dogma: homosexuality and biological-sex rejection (aka “transgenderism”). Leftists’ commitments to diversity and inclusion are, shall we say, inconsistently applied. Sometimes that is a good thing.

You don’t (yet) see librarians bleating about the dearth of picture books positively portraying polyamory. If love is love, why no picture books about consensually non-monogamous love for the kiddies? Nor do you see those bigoted speciesist librarians begging for picture books that celebrate zoophilia.

Could they be imposing their own prejudiced, provincial, hateful moral beliefs on all of society?

In order to do just that—that is, impose their subjective moral beliefs on all of society—social regressives continue to compare skin color to homosexuality and now to the science-denying “trans” ideology. But subjective erotic/romantic feelings or internal subjective desires to be the opposite sex have no points of correspondence to skin color—an inconvenient fact that Leftists ignore so they can virtue-signal and call people hateful bigots. Just don’t go calling them “hateful bigots” for their moral views. That would be bullying and make them feel unsafe.

Downers Grove Public Library presumably embraces the Library Bill of Rights that it includes in its library board policies:

• … Materials should not be excluded because of the… views of those contributing to their creation.

• Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current… issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

• Libraries should challenge censorship…. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.

• A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of… views.

Apparently diversity of views matters when it comes to resources but not when it comes to the composition of the board. Instead of banning books, the Village Council of Downers Grove bans people.

“Progressives” are nothing if not hypocrites. While they claim to oppose “book banning,” they engage in de facto “book banning” by simply neither purchasing nor requesting books that offend their sexuality sensibilities. While claiming to value diversity, they seek nothing less than a complete ideological monopoly when it comes to their doctrinaire sexuality ideology.  While claiming to value tolerance and inclusivity, they kick board members who don’t toe the ideological line off library boards. In their foolishness, presumptuousness, and self-righteousness, regressives violate their own principles, stooping to coercive and oppressive tactics to eradicate diversity and dissent.

“Progressives” claim to value diversity and inclusion even as they fight like pit bulls to quash both. The idea-police rationalize their censorship, people-banning, and assault on the First Amendment by arguing that some ideas may hurt the feelings of some people. So, are we as a society willing to apply that principle consistently? Are we willing to say that any idea that may hurt the feelings of people must be banned from public expression and that anyone who expresses those ideas must be prohibited from working or serving on diverse boards in America?

In prior rational times, safety entailed the absence of physical harm—not the absence of ideas we don’t like to hear. The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak freely and that includes the right of people whom Leftists hate to express moral propositions Leftists hate.

You know what’s as least as scary as book-banning? A society that can no longer distinguish right from wrong is at least as scary. A society that prevents people from working because of their moral beliefs about sexual behavior is at least as scary. And a society that places sexual desires above children’s needs, religious liberty, and speech rights is at least as scary.

In the packed room of 200 people on Tuesday night, 21 people spoke: 16 in favor of the village council’s decision to oust Jaros, 5 opposed. In a town of 49, 500, are there not 20—or 200—conservatives with the spine to come alongside Jaros?

Fortunately, Jaros is an attorney. He’s suing monitor Farley, the local chapter of the League of Women Voters, and village councilman Greg Hosé for defamation.

Remember James Damore, the Google software engineer who in a measured and smart internal memo made a persuasive case that Google was an “ideological echo chamber” and was promptly fired? Downers Grove Mayor Martin Tully and his Gang of Six just “googled” Arthur Jaros.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Downers-Grove-Village-Council-Ousts-Only-Conservative-Library-Board-Member-in-Service-of-Inclusion.mp3

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI,
please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  

It does make a difference.

It is the beginning of a new academic year and for many students who attend taxpayer funded schools in Illinois that means about 10 months of left-leaning indoctrination along with co-ed restrooms and locker rooms. A grassroots activist says schools do not have to be that way.

Written by Thomas Madison

On August 28th, the West Chicago Public Library Board voted 6-1 to retain the homosexuality-celebrating picture book This Day in June. IFI thanks you for your support in emailing the library director Benjamin Weseloh to share your concerns about this book.

There were roughly 80-100 people in attendance, and 90 percent of them were pro-LGBT supporters of the book. Unfortunately, this is usually the case when book controversies arise. Those who seek to normalize disordered sexuality are far more passionate, tenacious, and bold than are those who oppose the normalization of sexual deviance. The Left seems to care far more about promoting lies to young children than conservatives do in protecting them from lies.

Those community members who had the wisdom and courage to oppose this troubling picture book needed much more verbal support at the meeting. IFI is disappointed in the absence of local community support for those brave men and women. We know significant opposition to this book exists because of the hundreds of messages that were sent to the director, but emails alone are insufficient if real change is to occur. Sometimes people are unable to make meetings, but often emailing concerns represents indefensible cowardice or surrender.

The supporters of the book came out strongly against IFI, explicitly attacking us and making numerous spurious statements. The most obviously false statement was that IFI is a hate group. IFI’s positions on homosexuality no more constitute hatred of persons who believe differently than does disapproval of polyamory or polygamy constitute hatred of polyamorists or polygamists. Leftists are either unable to understand this distinction or unwilling to admit it because they know that fallacious ad hominem attacks work.

The most startling remarks made in support of the book were that the content was not sexual. This is a complete denial of reality and a reminder that people will pervert the truth to suit their own lifestyles. The book is specifically intended toward “helping” children recognize and accept the diversity of sexual preferences. It features men kissing men and women kissing women. Since when is romantic kissing or even simply kissing romantic partners not a sexual act?

Some of the board members noted the importance of the library representing the diverse views found in its community. The speciousness of this claim is revealed in the absence of books on a host of topics. This absence is due—at least in part—to librarians imposing their moral views through the purchasing process. When they impose their views, it’s called responsible text selection. When conservatives want purchases to reflect their views, leftists call it censorship and book-banning.

We were disappointed not only in learning how the board members voted but also in learning that regardless of their votes, the book would have stayed on the shelf. According to the parliamentarian, the policy of the board is to let the library staff decide for themselves the quality of material, so last night’s vote was a non-binding vote. The board’s policy is reflective of the American Library Association (ALA), the far-leftist organization that wanted children’s computers to have access to pornography) and which actively promotes homosexuality and the “trans” ideology. Should unelected library staff whose training comes through the highly politicized and leftist field of library science be granted such near-absolute autonomy?

Ultimately, if community members want to see this inappropriate book moved to a restricted area—as it is in other local libraries like Downers Grove—or removed altogether, they will either have to convince the staff to move or remove the book, or West Chicagoans must elect better board members to change board policy.

West Chicago Public Library employee Joan Happel posted this celebratory announcement on Facebook, “The library director’s decision is to keep the book where it is! That decision was never in question.” Happel evidently finds nothing problematic about a picture book for young children whose author said this:

When I wrote this story, I wanted Pride to be featured as realistically as possible. I wanted to see drag queens, guys in leather, rainbows, political signs, the Dykes on Bikes—everything you would see at Pride. I didn’t want any of it to be watered-down or sugarcoated. Lots of people have asked me, “Do you think that’s appropriate for children?” And my answer always is—YES.

Unfortunately, numerous libraries throughout the country and in Illinois are using public monies to promote the normalization of homosexuality and the “trans” ideology. The battle against dissenting views—including Judeo-Christian views—continues. Those relatively few brave souls who step up to oppose deception—especially deception that harms children—need many others to come alongside them. IFI wonders how many area pastors showed up to make statements about this book.

Here is a breakdown of how the West Chicago Library Board voted and their respective term expiration years.

Voted in Support of the Book:

Nancy Conradt – President, term expires – 2019

Frank Fokta – Vice President, term expires – 2019

Richard Bloom – Treasurer, term expires – 2021

Rosario Herbst, term expires – 2019

Diane Kelsey, term expires – 2021

Patricia A. Weninger, term expires – 2019

Voted to Remove the Book:

David W. Reynolds, Sr., Term Expires – 2021

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

-and, please-