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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another mother assumes this biased event will foster critical thinking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more recent articles from Laurie:

The Radical “Trans”-Formation of America

Corrupt, Nonsensical Legislation Reintroduced

Highlights Magazine for Children Affirms Homoeroticism

Join IFI at our Feb. 18th Worldview Conference

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

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

This is a wonderful opportunity to enhance your biblical worldview.

There is a commonly held belief that most parents have that America’s public school system is completely neutral in terms of religious and social values. The view is that the public school system exists only to teach neutral subjects, such as reading, writing and arithmetic. But is this an accurate perspective? Are government-run schools neutral?

What many parents do not know is that GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) has been actively working with government schools since 1990 to introduce pro-LGBT propaganda into the school classrooms. Have you ever wondered to yourself why LGBT issues were not overrunning the nation in the 1980s (and before)? Well, GLSEN is one of the main agencies that have helped to normalize the homosexual and transgender lifestyles by reaching children when they are young.

They have chapters in most of the major cities in America, and their online resources are utilized by thousands of schools, even the “good school districts” in rural areas. While we, as conservative Americans, support the right of every American citizen to be protected from physical threats and unfair discrimination, we do not support the normalization of sexually aberrant lifestyles as being normal and healthy. We do not believe that six-year-olds should be told that, if they want to have a surgery to remove their reproductive organs and transition into the opposite gender, that is a wonderful life decision. According to one study of individuals who had cross-sex surgeries, 25% later attempted suicide.

The levels of depression and suicide are rampant for people who embrace these disconnected lifestyles. And it is not merely because they are bullied by other members of society. Lots of immigrants and minorities experience the same types of discrimination and verbal assaults as members of the LGBT community. The fact is, people who reject their given gender have cut themselves off from their very identity. They have ceased to be themselves and have decided to become something entirely different. That is not a decision that elementary or even high school students should be encouraged to make.

While people have the right in our country to believe whatever it is that they wish to believe, when tax dollars are concerned, as they are in the public school system, all tax-paying citizens have a right to input as to how those tax dollars are used.

The use of private citizens’ money to teach young children that they should reject their own God-given gender, in favor of their own choice, is not an appropriate use of public funds. Indoctrination is not the just prerogative of the civil government, and any time a government has used its influence to reshape the minds of the youth in history, things went very, very wrong.

In a document entitled, “Developing LGBT-Inclusive Classroom Resources,” teachers are encouraged to use the new Common Core curriculum as a means of teaching about LGBT issues in every subject, at every grade level, from K-12. So if you are teaching second grade math or fourth grade geography, you as a teacher are supposed to figure out how to teach, at taxpayer’s expense, how important LGBT issues are to that subject and every other sphere of existence. Allow me to quote from that document:

Implementation of the Common Core State Standards is one way that many states and school districts are making efforts to ensure quality education for all students. The examples below demonstrate how an examination of the standards and themes can lead to locating opportunities for the natural inclusion of LGBT-related content in English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, and Mathematics.”

For parents who still believe that the public school system is like the “Leave it to Beaver” world they imagine it to be, they need to think again. These schools are NOT neutral. Parents need to rethink their current model of turning their children over to highly trained indoctrination professions for a minimum of 10,800 hours of instruction between K-12. They need to find a way to regain influence as the most important and influential voices in the lives of their children. That will take time and effort, but it is so important. Our children’s futures depend on it.

Conservatives claim that government schools are in the tank for “progressivism” and that “progressive educators” lie when they claim to value diversity. There is no better evidence for those claims than the upcoming “All-School Seminar Day 2017” on Feb. 28 at New Trier High School (both campuses), which serves the affluent communities of Northfield and Winnetka, Illinois.

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

Esteemed Chicago attorney Joseph Morris describes the seminar as “a rather bold and raw effort at hard-left propaganda with decidedly anti-American, anti-free-market, anti-family, anti-parent, and bigoted biases on display.”

In our quixotic quest for the holy grail of education–ideological diversity–let’s meander about the day’s agenda (click here and here) to learn about some of the workshops and speakers.

Seminars/workshops

• “Whose Civil Rights?: Transpeople of Color Navigating the U.S.”: “Civil rights are social and political freedoms that everyone in our society is supposed to have access to; however, because of socialization, bias, and discrimination, many trans people (particularly trans people of color) do not have access to these freedoms. In this session, we will explore the current cultural climate that enforces a gender binary and, therefore, forecloses civil rights for many trans people. We will examine how trans people are challenging and changing these systems.”

• “21st Century Voter Supression” [sic]: “A group discussion about the methods and regulations used in the US to deny or limit the voting rights of various minority groups…..The main emphasis of the workshop will be how to recognize, identify, and combat modern voter suppression tactics. Attendees should come out with a few concrete plans or ideas to help address the problem moving forward.”

• “Blackenomics 101 (The Movement, The Music, The Solution)”: “Rapper, entrepreneur, and activist, John the Author explores systemic racism in relation to building a black business and artist presence in minority communities.” I wonder what New Trier students will learn from little-known Chicago rapper who penned this little ditty about economics (my apologies to Mr. Author for any translation errors):
  

  CHORUS:
  
  Blackenomics nigga (repeat 8x)
  Black beat black, nigga
  Black beat black, suga
  Black heat black, nigga
  Take a back seat back nigga
  Not graduate from back
  Give back, nigga,
  Tell them get back, nigga
  Blackenomics nigga (repeat 8x)
  Black beat black, nigga
  Black eat black, suga
  Black heat black, nigga
  Take a back seat back nigga
  Not graduate from back
  Give back, nigga,
  Tell them get back, nigga
  

  VERSE 1:
  
  I seek to restore
  That’s why I opened the store
  That’s why I seek to rebuild
  ‘Cause I know they seek to destroy
  So when they look to the hills,
  That’s when I look to the Lord
  And when he tell me to kill
  That’s when I reach for my sword
  Die motherf*cker die
  I’m surprised that you’re still alive
  I heard you sold your soul a long time ago, but not I nigga, not I
  I’m a freedom fighter
  Need a lighter—no need cause I’m streakin’ fire, you can buy it from me
  All the lyin’ eye of tiger (?) I ain’t lyin’, come to my side you can try it for free
  Savor the taste, cause too much can endanger your taste buds
  Hope you niggas know what is and what ain’t love
  Cause if you don’t, then you can f*ck around and make love
  I’m from a city where we had a black mayor but they took his ass
  The public school system wasn’t built to last
  No equal opportunity or (?) to land on
  The only way we stand a motherf****** chance is if we break (?)
  

  CHORUS
  

  VERSE 2:

  Blackenomics, that’s the logic, that’s the target
  That was not a threat at all, that’s a promise
  It’s apparent if you feel it, you will flourish
  If you don’t you will perish, incoherent
  Lost souls—you lost souls when you crossed over,
  Trying to pass like a gallstone
  Raised from the foster home
  Niggas lost hope when the walls broke
  They crucify me, but the cross broke
  Heavy is the head that wear the crown
  I don’t wanna be king, but I’m the only one ready for it now
  Cause all these other niggas selling out
  Individualism is all these mothersf*ckers yelling about
  Divide and conquer, white supremacy the silent monster
  I see you sneaking in the corner trying to have some karma
  We ain’t looking to know your honor
  No your honor we (?) problem
  The resolution is an economic revolution
  All in the name of retribution, you ready? Let’s do it
  They integrated then infiltrated through immigration
  The richest folk in our neighborhood ain’t even our neighbors
  They take the dollar back across town, don’t you dare tell me to calm down
  (?) mister doghouse
  We want it all now, it’s time to push ‘em all out—I’m ready to start now

  If this is what passes for education in one of Illinois’ best public high schools, imagine what kind of education our poorest performing schools offer.

• “R.E.A.L.: Race, Equity, and Leadership – A Unique Course for High School Students”: Students will “Experience a snapshot of a unique high school course that is grounded in the Courageous Conversations Protocol. The “Courageous Conversations” protocol was developed by skillful race-baiter Glenn Singleton who exploits public schools to advance Leftist assumptions about how to think about race. I first encountered Singleton and his Pacific Educational Group when I worked at Deerfield High School, where seven one-day visits to District 113 to teach faculty and staff about their institutional racism and “whiteness” cost almost $100,000.

• “Not a Day Has Passed”: Students will watch a slide show based on an article by Lee Mun Wah. According to his bio, Mun Wah is among other things “an…Asian folkteller, educator, community therapist and master diversity trainer.” I first learned of Lee Mun Wah’s “Stir Fry Seminars” when one of Deerfield High School’s premier “change agents,” Daniel Cohen, became a disciple of Mun Wah. Cohen, now an English teacher at Oak Park and River Forest High school, is listed as Stir Fry Seminar “facilitator-intern”:
  

  As a white man dedicated to anti-racist, anti-sexist work, Daniel works to recognize his own assumptions and biases….Daniel has come to realize that he carries his whiteness, his maleness and his heterosexuality with him everywhere.

  How dare he. Surely Cohen has learned from the Left that he can dump his maleness like a hot potato. And if he can do that, it should be easy-peasy to shed that politically-incorrect whiteness and heterosexuality that mark him indelibly as an oppressor.

• “A People’s History of Chicago”: “In the tradition of Howard Zinn, A People’s History of Chicago is a poetic, progressive history that celebrates this great American city from the perspective of those on the margins whose stories are not often told.” For those who are unfamiliar with Howard Zinn, he was a far Left historical revisionist who wrote The People’s History of the United States, which is used in many high school social studies classes. Eminent economist Thomas Sowell said this about Zinn’s pseudo-history book:
  

  It speaks volumes about our schools and colleges that far-left radical Howard Zinn’s pretentiously titled book, “A People’s History of the United States,” is widely used across the country. It is one indictment, complaint, and distortion after another. Anyone who relies on this twisted version of American history would have no idea why millions of people from around the world are trying, sometimes desperately, to move to this country. The one virtue of Zinn’s book is that it helps you identify unmistakably which teachers are using their classrooms as propaganda centers.

• “Western Bias in Science”: “Newton, Darwin, Curie…Can you think of a nonEuropean [sic] or non-American scientist in history? Come examine the western bias in science education, its sources and its implications, in this interactive workshop.”If the theme of the all-day seminar is race, why would all European and American scientists be excluded? Don’t students learn about African American scientists George Washington Carver and Mae Jemison?Moreover, by the end of high school, how many scientists have students learned about in depth? 12? 16? 20? Here’s a question for those rummaging for racism: How many of the 20 most influential scientific discoveries or theories in over 2,000 years of history were the accomplishments of non-European and non-American scientists? And let’s not forget that America and Europe together cover vast geographic territories and include wildly diverse cultures and ethnicities over this time period. Many important American and European scientists are also excluded from the short list of scientists about whom students learn.

• “Developing Empathy & Acceptance by Reading Picture Books to Children”: “Come to the Northfield Library and read picture books to a group of children (ages 3-5). The picture books will focus on themes of embracing diversity…and social justice. Students will lead activities related to the books with the young children.” One wonders what picture books students will be reading to toddlers and who chose them? What forms of “diversity” will be depicted in these picture books?

Speakers

Andrew Aydin is the keynote speaker at the Northfield campus. Aydin is a policy advisor to liberal congressman John Lewis. Aydin has contributed to the ethically impoverished Southern Poverty Law Center and the dystopian feminist comic book Bitch Planet.

Monica Trinidad “will share her organizing work with We Charge Genocide….She will then lead a hands-on workshop that will guide participants through a discussion of the Black Lives Matter movement today.” Trinidad “is a queer, latinx artist and organizer born and raised on the southeast side of Chicago.” The word “Latinx” was invented by those who detest “gendered” anything, including language. The goal is to “move beyond gender binaries….Latinx…makes room for people who are trans, queer, agender, non-binary, gender non-conforming or gender fluid.”

OiYan A. Poon: “Dr. Poon challenges students to critically analyze systems of higher education, student affairs practices, and to understand their power to transform oppressive structures as social justice change agents…. she received….a 2013 National Distinguished Educator award from the Pacific Education Group’s Courageous Conversations Summit.” An award from the Pacific Education Group is confirmation that Poon is a Leftist.

Suggestions for ideological diversity on race

• The Winnetka campus is offering a seminar on “Mass Incarceration: Race and Prison in America.” Perhaps in the interest of ideological diversity, seminar organizers could have students read Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald’s testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary titled “The Myth of Criminal Justice Racism.”

• In the workshop on black economics, students might be better served by reading some essays by black economist and Stanford University’s Hoover Institution scholar Thomas Sowell.

• New Trier could invite Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece Dr. Alveda King to talk about the “black genocide”: the disproportionate number of black babies being aborted relative to the number of blacks in the population.

• Seminar organizers could have students read or listen to and discuss an interview with black author Shelby Steele on “The Future of Race in America.” Steele asserts that fatherless families and the use of “victimization as a rationalization” are the chief causes of the plight of blacks in America.

• Perhaps New Trier could offer students the opportunity to listen to a presentation by author and member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board Jason Riley, who happens to be black, in which he discusses his book Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make it Harder for Blacks to Succeed.

I can almost see the scornful scowls on the faces of the organizers of New Trier’s All-School Seminar Day at the thought of exposing students to assumptions about race with which they—“progressive” dogmatists—disagree.

What can parents do?

• New Trier parents could file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all documents including electronic communication that mentions “All-School Seminar Day,” “civil rights,” “race,” “racism,” “systematic racism,” “institutional racism,” “bias,” and “microaggression.” Those are broad terms, but they can limit the time frame that their request covers to, for example, Feb. 1, 2016-Jan. 9, 2017. This would help them know who the propagandists organizers are. Leftist teachers depend on their anonymity, autonomy, and absence of accountability to exploit their positions and taxpayer money to proselytize and propagandize.

• New Trier parents could call their children out of school on All-School Indoctrination Day. They could call them out for “personal reasons,” or tell the school administration and board members exactly why they’re calling them out. No school administration wants to risk the bad PR that would result if they tried to take disciplinary action against students for their absence, and no teacher wants to risk the bad PR and wrath of parents if he or she tried to dock a student’s grade for their failure to attend an indoctrination day.

• Parents could ask for the total cost to the district of holding this event, including speakers’ fees (and flights and per diem if speakers have come from out of state), cost of materials, and cost of any substitute teachers that may be needed.

• Parents could attend the next school board meeting to criticize (winsomely, of course) the absence of ideological diversity on these topics, which violates the most basic pedagogical obligations of a sound education. School administrators and faculty often respond to parents who challenge obvious bias and viewpoint discrimination by saying that students are free to express dissenting views, but that’s a red herring. The central issue is not whether students are free to express dissenting views. The central issue is whether all students should have their views challenged by the voices of experts or just conservative students. Should all students have the opportunity to have their views reinforced through reading and hearing the voices of experts or is that opportunity reserved just for “progressive” students?

• Parents should request that another “All-School Seminar Day” be offered with equal number of opportunities in which dissenting views (i.e., conservative views) on matters related to race (or gender dysphoria) are presented. If the school administration refuses, they should be asked to defend their refusal. Conservatives are always on the defensive. It’s long past time that we use the hypocrisy, intellectual inconsistency, and rhetoric of “progressives” to put them on the defensive.

It should be obvious that it’s not ideological diversity that we find in government schools today. It’s ideological incest committed by Leftists. And the kind of de facto censorship of conservative ideas that is corrupting New Trier’s All-School Seminar Day is what transmogrifies education into indoctrination.

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your prayers for our safety as well as for wisdom and direction are vital. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, and to your own email network is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

*WARNING: NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN*

Orange Coast College, a community college in Costa Mesa, CA, employs Olga Perez Stable Cox to teach classes on human sexuality. During a recent human sexuality class, Cox went on an anti-Trump/anti-Pence/anti-conservative rant which was recorded by a student and posted online. In it Cox is heard calling President-Elect Donald Trump a “white supremacist” and Vice-President-Elect Mike Pence “one of the most anti-gay humans in this country.” She further described the election of Trump as an “assault” and “an act of terrorism.”

Then in an act of astonishing hubris and irrationality, Cox condemns everyone who voted for Trump:

One of the most frightening things for me and most people in my life is that the people creating the assault are among us. It is not some stranger from some other country coming and attacking our sense of what it means to be an American and the things that we stand for and that makes it more painful because I’m sure that all of us have people in our families and our circle of friends that are part of that movement and it is very difficult. 

There is a second, less-viewed video in which Cox expresses her happiness that Orange County, California where she lives voted Democratic, saying that “Living in Orange County is scary” because it’s conservative.

Apparently not noticing the irony, Cox goes on to say that she is committed to keeping her “classroom safe.” In the service of “safety,” she tells students she will provide phone numbers they can call if they “find anyone being racist, or in any way prejudiced, or treating you in an unfair way”—with “unfair” being determined by Leftist assumptions. Last time I checked, it’s as legal to be a racist bigot as it is to be an anti-Christian or anti-conservative bigot.

Two students also report that Cox “tried to get everyone who voted for Donald Trump to stand up and show the rest of the class who to watch out for and protect yourself from.” She has a very odd way of making conservative students feel (in “progressive” parlance) “safe.”

Here’s a bit more on Cox who has no academic degrees in political science and was not hired to pontificate on matters political. She is a 64-year-old lesbian with a bachelor’s degree in sociology and a master’s degree in “Marriage, Family, and Child Counseling.”

On her faculty bio site, there is no curriculum vitae, but there is a lengthy list of sexuality resources including links to Go Ask Alice, Out Proud, Alternative Sex, Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, National Coalition of Sexual Freedom, American Civil Liberties Union, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Human Rights Campaign, The Advocate (homosexual magazine) and two pornographic websites. She also provides links to the websites of numerous “sex educators” including Annie Sprinkle a “feminist stripper” who for a performance “art” piece titled “A Public Cervix Announcement” inserted a speculum into her nether region and invited male and female audience members to view her cervix with a flashlight—which they did.

So, California residents pay the salary of a woman who refers students to Annie Sprinkle’s website. Sheesh.

It would be interesting to learn more about what qualifies Cox to teach collegiate-level courses in human sexuality—well, other than her extensive familiarity with homosexual and pornographic websites.

The Coast Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 1911 took to Facebook to extol the virtues of Cox and criticize the student who recorded her unprofessional whining. The teachers union claims Cox “encourages open discussions on challenging and provocative issues and topics” and “skillfully allows students to respectfully present their varying opinions.” From what I saw, there was no encouragement of an open discussion” regarding the election unless asking Trump-voters to stand in a line-up encourages open discussion.

“Progressives” are usually obsessed with power dynamics, and yet there’s nary a peep from the union about the power differential between Cox and her students. After Cox accuses those who voted for Trump of being terrorists, how comfortable would the alleged “terrorists” be in challenging Cox’s provocative claims when she has the power to pass or fail them?

It’s clear that Cox had no interest in fostering dialogue or critically examining her assumptions. Her goal was to inculcate students with her beliefs using—not reason—but demagoguery.

Safety

Let’s take a quick look at the way “progressives” have redefined “safety,” which is inextricably entwined with their redefinition of “identity.”

Safety used to refer to freedom from danger, injury, or serious risk. It did not refer to freedom from exposure to unpleasant ideas, claims, or beliefs—even ideas, claims, or beliefs that criticize  beliefs and feelings that we may place at the center of our identities. Safety does not require that others respect the beliefs and feelings we place at the center of our identities or the life choices that emerge from those beliefs and feelings. To respect something means to hold it in esteem, and no one has an ethical obligation to hold all the beliefs, feelings, or volitional actions of others in esteem.

Here’s another proposition the Left should chew on: Conservatives have no ethical obligation to acquiesce to the rhetoric that they manipulate to serve their social and political goals. Conservatives have no ethical obligation to accept the Left’s beliefs about “safety.” And conservatives have no ethical obligation to accept the Left’s assumptions about what constitutes harm.

Accepting the claim of the “self-esteem movement” that irreparable harm will be done to people if their feelings, beliefs, or volitional acts are not affirmed by others has led us to a cultural place where infantilized college students seek succor in nurseries safe spaces replete with puppies and crayons following a bracing encounter with ideas they find offensive.

Identity

It’s impossible to discuss “safety” as currently construed by “progressives” without also discussing “identity” as currently construed by “progressives,” which I did earlier this year:

Homosexual activists began transforming the concept of “identity.” They sought to recast identity as something intrinsically inviolable, immutable, and good. They sought to refashion identity in such a way as to make it culturally taboo to make judgments about any constituent feature of identity. They re-imagined identity in such a way as to move homoeroticism from the category of phenomena about which humans can legitimately make moral distinctions to one about which society is forbidden to make judgments.

…Identity when applied to individual persons simply denoted the aggregate of phenomena constituting, associated with, affirmed, and experienced by individuals. Identity was “the set of behavioral and personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group.”

Identity was not conceived as some intrinsically moral thing, because identity could refer to either objective, non-behavioral, morally neutral conditions (e.g., skin color) or to subjective feelings, beliefs, and volitional acts that could be good or bad, right or wrong. Prior to the new and subversive conceptualization of identity, there existed no absolute cultural prohibition of judging the divers elements that constitute identity.

By conflating all the phenomena that can constitute identity, “progressives” demanded that society should no more make judgments about feelings and volitional acts than they should about skin color.

While Cox clearly cares deeply about the “safety” of the privileged “identity” groups, one wonders if she has any interest in the “safety” of those who find their identity in Christ. The expanded redefinition of “safety” to mean insulation from unpleasant ideas is selectively enforced to apply only to those ideas that make “progressives” uncomfortable—or enraged.

End-of-Year Challange

As you may know, IFI has a year-end matching challenge to raise $110,000. That’s right, a small group of IFI supporters are providing a $55,000 matching challenge to help support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.

Please consider helping us reach this goal!  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2017!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

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

Written by George Yancey

You may have heard of the professor watchlist put together by Turning Point USA, a conservative activist organization. As I understand it, the list is meant to point out unfair progressive or radical professors in the United States so that students can be forewarned before taking their classes. In some ways this is a brilliant move for Turning Point. It has attracted attention to a group that most of us had no previous knowledge about.

But I am not a fan of compiling lists of people who supposedly have something wrong with them. Some of the professors on the list have expressed dismay at this effort to stigmatize them. I don’t blame them. We should criticize individuals as individuals. This list stereotypes them as members of a group.

Perhaps I am also uncomfortable with this list because I know what it is like to be a professor. Every word is scrutinized. Anything I say or write can easily be taken out of context, to make me whatever kind of monster someone wants me to be: racist, sexist, homophobic, simple-minded or any other sort of social pariah. It’s all too possible that some very thoughtful professors have been mixed in with those who really do traffic in political bigotry and Christianophobia. (I have no idea how carefully the charges against the professors on the list have been investigated.)

The SPLC’s “Hate List”

But despite my general aversion to this watchlist, there is one thing that keeps me from totally dismissing it: the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) “hate list.” I have been a critic of the way that list stigmatizes the SPLC’s political enemies. At one time the SPLC served a valuable purpose in helping us to identify truly dangerous and violent groups. Now, it seems their major purpose is to tell progressives whom they should reject from polite company. Maybe now, though, they can learn something from Turning Point’s watchlist: there’s something basically wrong about developing and publishing lists of this sort.

Many of the professors on the Turning Point list have expressed their distaste for the list and the stigma it places upon them, and have understandably felt defensive. Colorado University philosophy professor Allison Jaggar said,

No one belongs on the Campus Watchlist because no such list should exist. The Watchlist’s claim “to fight for free speech and the right for professors to say whatever they wish,” while simultaneously aiming to chill any speech that it deems “un-American,” is a prime example of Orwellian newspeak.

Julio C. Pino, associate professor of history at Kent State University, told the New York Times,

What we are seeing with this site is a kind of normalizing of prosecuting professors, shaming professors, defaming professors.

But many Christians and Christian groups have also felt the shaming and defamation of being included on the SPLC’s list. Although I haven’t investigated the criteria used to include professors on the Turning Point watchlist, I do know the rationale for inclusion by which groups are included on the SPLC’s list, and I find it to be suspect. What they label as “hate” is bounded by their political and religious biases. Some groups on the list, perhaps many of them, would never have been included had their politics aligned with the SPLC’s.

In a very real way, then, the professors on the Turning Point list and many Christians on the SPLC list have concerns in common. They feel maligned by a group that has stigmatized them due to their political statements.

So whether it’s an accurate representation of the professoriate or not, the Turning Point list can have real value either way. Perhaps some of these professors, discovering what it’s like to placed on a list like this one, will reconsider the advisability of constructing lists that stigmatize political enemies. Rebecca Schuman, a Slate columnist who writes frequently on higher education, said it beautifully:

This is, indeed, a turning point in our country, a time of fear. … Fear of being placed on a list, targeted as undesirable, and subjected to whatever happens next. It’s a time to fight the impulse to create a watch list.

She went on to observe how unhelpful it is to be “placing targets on backs.” She was writing about the Turning Point watchlist, but it’s hard to see why her remarks wouldn’t apply to the SPLC hate list just as well.

It was easy for mostly-progressive professors to ignore the concerns of those labeled as “hateful” — or to assume the label must be justified — when it was mostly religious and political conservatives who were being labeled. Now, however, they could be a voice that points out the harm of such lists.

That’s my hope, though I am not naïve enough to think it will really happen. I know too well how easily people can justify inconsistent thinking.

The Usefulness of the Turning Point List

So rather than rely on professors to come to reach a helpful conclusion about the general unfairness of such lists, we need to be ready to hold them intellectually accountable. The same goes for everyone who criticizes the professor watchlist. Their criticisms of the Turning Point list should be turned back to the SPLC hate list.

Is the professor watchlist stigmatizing? So is the SPLC list.

Is the professor watchlist politically biased? No more so than the SPLC list.

Will the professor watchlist have the effect of silencing political and ideological opponents? What do they think the SPLC list has been doing the past couple of decades?

Perhaps being on the professor watchlist creates the possibility of being targeted for violence. Has anyone heard of Floyd Corkins and what he tried to do to a Christian organization on the SPLC list?

Criticisms of the professor watchlist can be very useful in dealing with the misuse of the SPLC list.

So despite my misgivings about the Turning Point list, I do find it to be useful for addressing the problems created by the SPLC list. It is not a list that I would personally endorse or work on putting together. But as long as others have done so, we may as well use it for what it is worth.

Article originally published at Stream.org.

Written by Dr. Roy Spencer

In the early 1990s I was visiting the White House Science Advisor, Sir Prof. Dr. Robert Watson, who was pontificating on how we had successfully regulated Freon to solve the ozone depletion problem, and now the next goal was to regulate carbon dioxide, which at that time was believed to be the sole cause of global warming.

I was a little amazed at this cart-before-the-horse approach. It really seemed to me that the policy goal was being set in stone, and now the newly-formed United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had the rather shady task of generating the science that would support the policy.

Now, 25 years later, public concern over global warming (aka climate change) is at an all-time low remains at the bottom of the list of environmental concerns.

Why is that?

Maybe because people don’t see its effects in their daily lives.

1) By all objective measures, severe weather hasn’t gotten worse.

2) Warming has been occurring at only half the rate that climate models and the IPCC say it should be.

3) CO2 is necessary for life on Earth. It has taken humanity 100 years of fossil fuel use to increase the atmospheric CO2 content from 3 parts to 4 parts per 10,000. (Please don’t compare our CO2 problem to Venus, which has 230,000 times as much CO2 as our atmosphere).

4) The extra CO2 is now being credited with causing global greening.

5) Despite handwringing over the agricultural impacts of climate change, current yields of corn, soybeans, and wheat are at record highs.

As an example of the disconnect between reality and the climate models which are being relied upon to guide energy policy, here are the yearly growing season average temperatures in the U.S 12-state corn belt (official NOAA data), compared to the average of the climate model projections used by the IPCC.

Yes, there has been some recent warming. But so what? What is its cause? Is it unusual compared to previous centuries? Is it necessarily a bad thing?

And, most important from a policy perspective, what can we do about it anyway?

The Policy Hoax of Global Warming

Rush Limbaugh and I have had a good-natured mini-disagreement over his characterization of global warming as a “hoax”. President-elect Trump has also used the “hoax” term.

I would like to offer my perspective on the ways in which global warming is indeed a “hoax”, but also a legitimate subject of scientific study.

While it might sound cynical, global warming has been used politically in order for governments to gain control over the private sector. Bob Watson’s view was just one indication of this. As a former government employee, I can attest to the continuing angst civil servants have over remaining relevant to the taxpayers who pay their salaries, so there is a continuing desire to increase the role of government in our daily lives.

In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given a legitimate mandate to clean up our air and water. I remember the pollution crises we were experiencing in the 1960s. But as those problems were solved, the EPA found itself in the precarious position of possibly outliving its usefulness.

So, the EPA embarked on a mission of ever-increasing levels of regulation. Any manmade substance that had any evidence of being harmful in large concentrations was a target for regulation. I was at a Carolina Air Pollution Control Association (CAPCA) meeting years ago where an EPA employee stated to the group that “we must never stop making the environment cleaner” (or something to that effect).

There were gasps from the audience.

You see, there is a legitimate role of the EPA to regulate clearly dangerous or harmful levels of manmade pollutants.

But it is not physically possible to make our environment 100% clean.

As we try to make the environment ever cleaner, the cost goes up dramatically. You can make your house 90% cleaner relatively easily, but making it 99% cleaner will take much more effort.

As any economist will tell you, money you spend on one thing is not available for other things, like health care. So, the risk of over-regulating pollution is that you end up killing more people than you save, because if there is one thing we know kills millions of people every year, it is poverty.

Global warming has become a reason for government to institute policies, whether they be a carbon tax or whatever, using a regulatory mechanism which the public would never agree to if they knew (1) how much it will cost them in reduced prosperity, and (2) how little effect it will have on the climate system.

So, the policy prescription does indeed become a hoax, because the public is being misled into believing that their actions are going to somehow make the climate “better”.

Even using the IPCC’s (and thus the EPA’s) numbers, there is nothing we can do energy policy-wise that will have any measurable effect on global temperatures.

In this regard, politicians using global warming as a policy tool to solve a perceived problem is indeed a hoax. The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources.

Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source for decades to come. Deal with it. And to the extent that we eventually need more renewables, let the private sector figure it out. Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from.

The Dodgy Science of Global Warming

The director of NASA/GISS, Gavin Schmidt, has just laid down the gauntlet with President-elect Trump to not mess with their global warming research.

Folks, it’s time to get out the popcorn.

Gavin is playing the same card that the former GISS director, James Hansen, played years ago when the Bush administration tried to “rein in” Hansen from talking unimpeded to the press and Congress.

At the time, I was the Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA/MSFC, and NASA had strict regulations regarding talking to the press and Congress. I abided by those regulations; Hansen did not. When I grew tired of them restricting my “freedoms” I exercised my freedom — to resign from NASA, and go to work at a university.

Hansen instead decided to play the ‘persecuted scientist’ card. After all, he (and his supporters in the environmental community) were out to Save The Earth™, and Gavin is now going down that path as well.

I can somewhat sympathize with Gavin that “climate change” is indeed a legitimate area of study. But he needs to realize that the EPA-like zeal that the funding agencies (NASA, NOAA, DOE, NSF) have used to characterize ALL climate change as human-caused AND as dangerous would eventually cause a backlash among those who pay the bills.

We The People aren’t that stupid.

So now climate research is finding itself at a crossroads. Scientists need to stop mischaracterizing global warming as settled science.

I like to say that global warming research isn’t rocket science — it is actually much more difficult. At best it is dodgy science, because there are so many uncertainties that you can get just about any answer you want out of climate models just by using those uncertianties as a tuning knob.

The only part that is relatively settled is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has probably contributed to recent warming. That doesn’t necessarily mean it is dangerous.

And it surely does not mean we can do anything about it… even if we wanted to.

Article originally published at Cornwallalliance.org.

Written by Todd Starnes

There’s trouble brewing in Lincoln, Nebraska where students at a public school were told they could not fly the American flag – because it might spark some sort of post-election backlash.

Several of my astute readers sent me a link to a story in the pages of the Lincoln Journal Star titled, “Safety concerns prompt school to ask students to not fly flags.”

On Veterans Day someone had pulled Old Glory off a flagpole on a students’ pickup truck at The Career Academy.  It’s unclear who was responsible for desecrating the flag, but the owner of the truck was concerned about a “potentially disruptive climate.”

The school district said that prompted the school’s administrators to “review the situation and make a determination that there would be potential for continued disruption.”

The Journal Star reported that administrators asked students not to fly the flag “out of an abundance of caution.”

Although, they did say they would “consider letting students fly the flags on another appropriate day, such as Presidents Day,” the newspaper reported.

As you might imagine, the flag ban did not go over very well in Lincoln – home to many God-loving patriots.

“We have heard from many students, families and community members who were concerned about taking away those rights,” the district said.

The outrage prompted the school district to hold a press conference on Nov. 17 to retract the ban and apologize.

“We want to make this very clear: Lincoln Public Schools students are free to fly their flags on their cars, and leave the flags on their vehicles during the school day,” the district said in a prepared statement.

They also reminded the general public of their patriotic bona fides – from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to promoting Veterans Day.

“LPS believes in the teaching of the tenets of the Constitution and all it represents,” they stated.

“Hindsight would suggest that this could have been handled in a different way and we are amending our original decision,” the district said. “We respect the right for students to display their flags. We should not have asked our students to remove them.”

The district went on to say their flag ban “could easily and understandably have been misinterpreted as infringing on the rights of freedom of expression and speech.”

There was no misinterpretation — because it was an infringement – a shameful infringement.

Instead of cracking down on American patriotism, how about cracking down on people who desecrate the American flag? How about more discipline and less capitulation? Is that too much to ask from a public school these days?

Then again, this is the same school district that had a problem with teachers calling children boys and girls. They wanted the teachers to use more gender inclusive language.

I wonder what the gender inclusive word for stupid is – because there’s a whole mess of it in the public education system.

This article was originally posted at ToddStarnes.com

Glimmers of light shimmer in the darkness that has been spreading within public schools.  The darkness is caused by a fog of science-denying ignorance imposed on school districts from within by teachers and administrators who view themselves as agents of social, political, and moral change and from without by “trans” activists from organizations like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), the ACLU, and Lambda Legal.

The newest battle is taking place in Pine-Richland High School in western Pennsylvania where on September 12, 2016,  five courageous school board members voted to establish policy requiring students to use either the restrooms that correspond to their biological sex, or a single-occupancy “unisex” restroom, or a single-occupancy restroom in the nurse’s office.

But these generous accommodations were not enough for three gender-dysphoric students. Following the board decision, two boys who are pretending to be girls and one girl who is pretending to be a boy filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against the district, the superintendent, and the principal.

One of the students, Jacob Evancho (brother of America’s Got Talent star Jackie Evancho) who now goes by the name “Juliet,” claims that before he was required to use sex-appropriate restrooms, “Pine-Richland was a safe, and kind…place. Everyone was so sweet.”

His comment illustrates one of the many problems with policies that permit gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms. These policies teach all students that in order to be kind, sweet, compassionate, and inclusive, they must pretend that biological sex per se has no meaning relative to modesty, and they must be willing to relinquish their privacy. Sex-integrated restroom and locker room policies teach all students that people’s  feelings about their sex trump their actual sex in private spaces.

But the school district is resisting. It has filed a lawsuit asking that the discrimination lawsuit be dismissed.

Lambda Legal, an organization that fights for co-ed restrooms and locker rooms for children and teens, and which is representing the three gender-dysphoric students in this lawsuit castigates the school district for their “shameful” actions, suggesting that opposition to co-ed restrooms renders gender-dysphoric students unable to “fully participate in their education.”

Why does requiring gender-dysphoric students to use restrooms with those whose “gender identity” they don’t share prevent them from being able to fully participate in their education, but requiring non-gender-dysphoric students (i.e., normal students) to use restrooms with persons whose sex they don’t share doesn’t prevent them from being able to fully participate in their education?

“Juliet’s” mother Lisa Evancho says this about the policy:

It makes me angry. It makes me wonder what kind of Neanderthals…think it’s appropriate to go in there and start picking on a particular segment of the population and make it all about them.

Why does the desire of normal students to use restrooms or locker rooms with only students whose sex they share constitute “picking on a segment of the population,” while demands by gender-dysphoric students to use restrooms or locker rooms with only students whose “gender identity” they share does not constitute “picking on a segment of the population”? Why is it unkind to require students to use restrooms with persons of their same sex but requiring  students to use restrooms with persons of the opposite sex is a sign of kindness?

If there are two distinct phenomena (i.e., biological sex which is constituted by objective DNA/anatomy/biology and “gender identity” which is constituted by subjective feelings/desires), why should restroom and locker room usage correspond to “gender identity” rather than objective biological sex?

“Juliet” Evancho claims that using a single-occupancy unisex restroom “marginalizes” him. In reality, however, it is not the policy that marginalizes him. It is his decision to acquiesce to his disordered desire to be the sex he is not and can never be that marginalizes him.

No one should be compelled to pretend Evancho is what he is not. But that’s exactly what the Left believes should happen. Since in the dystopian world of “progressivism,” subjective feelings trump all other considerations—including morality and reality—everyone must bend the knee to feelings, including even disordered, irrational, science-denying feelings.

Well, let me qualify that: Not all feelings are treated equally. The feelings of modesty that boys and girls and men and women who don’t want to share restrooms or locker rooms with persons of the opposite sex experience mean nothing. In fact, to Leftists such feelings are Neanderthal, ignorant, and hateful and must be eradicated.

Save the Date!  Feb. 18th Worldview Conference

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

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture:  Click HERE to learn more or to register!

What do you get when you bring together seven outstanding scholars to discuss the role carbon dioxide plays in the health of humanity and planet Earth?
You get The Climate Surprise: Why CO2 Is Good for the Earth, a set of concise, clear papers demonstrating that:

• Carbon dioxide benefits the Earth in many ways, and in fact the planet needs more of it in the atmosphere for plants and all other life to thrive.

• Calling the slight reduction in the alkalinity of seawater that comes with rising atmospheric CO2 “ocean acidification” is deceptive—and ocean species are fully capable of adapting to it.

• Proper economic analysis shows that we can adapt to the slight warming effect of the CO2 we add to the air at a cost far below that of trying to reduce it.

And there’s lots more in The Climate Surprise, all communicated in a way that makes it easy for non-specialists to understand and pass on to others. The Climate Surprise will make a great resource for

• students facing climate-change alarmist propaganda in their high school and college courses;

• citizens pressured to support policies to force a shift from abundant, affordable, reliable fossil fuels, supplemented by nuclear and hydropower, as our main source of electricity, to diffuse, expensive, and intermittent wind, solar, and other renewables;

• teachers eager to provide students with better information on climate change and climate and energy policy than comes from standard curriculum;

• journalists committed to balanced reporting on one of the most controversial issues of our time; and

• elected officials facing tough decisions on climate and energy policy.

The seven authors are

1. Bruce M. Everett, specialist in global energy issues and Adjunct Associate Professor of International Business at Tufts University;
2. William Happer, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton University and Director of Energy Research under President George H.W. Bush;
3. Craig Idso, founder, former president, and current chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and lead author of reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change;
4. Roger Kimball, Editor and Publisher of The New Criterion and Publisher of Encounter Books;
5. Richard S. Lindzen, dynamical meteorologist and former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT);
6. Patrick Moore, co-founder and for seven years a Director of Greenpeace and author of Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist;
7. Roy W. Spencer, Principal Research Scientist in climatology at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, U.S. Science Team Leader on NASA’s Aqua Satellite program providing global atmospheric temperature readings, and Senior Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance.

We’d like you to have The Climate Surprise and share it with others, so for the month of November, as our way of saying “Thank you!” for a donation of any size, we’ll send it to you absolutely FREE. All you need to do is mention Promo Code 1611 and ask for “The Climate Surprise” when you make your donation, whether at our secure online giving page, by calling our office at 703-569-4653, or by mailing your check to Cornwall Alliance, 9302-C Old Keene Mill Rd., Burke, VA 22015. All gifts are 100% tax deductible and will help the Cornwall Alliance fulfill its mission  to magnify the glory of God in creation, the wisdom of His truth in environmental stewardship, the kindness of His mercy in lifting the needy out of poverty, and the wonders of His grace in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

God Bless You,

E. Calvin Beisner
Founder and National Spokesman

Article originally published at CornwallAlliance.org.

Written by Kate Hardiman

For 11 years, Professor Duke Pesta gave quizzes to his students at the beginning of the school year to test their knowledge on basic facts about American history and Western culture.

The most surprising result from his 11-year experiment? Students’ overwhelming belief that slavery began in the United States and was almost exclusively an American phenomenon, he said.

“Most of my students could not tell me anything meaningful about slavery outside of America,” Pesta told The College Fix. “They are convinced that slavery was an American problem that more or less ended with the Civil War, and they are very fuzzy about the history of slavery prior to the Colonial era. Their entire education about slavery was confined to America.”

Pesta, currently an associate professor of English at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, has taught the gamut of Western literature—from the Classics to the modern—at seven different universities, ranging from large research institutions to small liberal arts colleges to branch campuses. He said he has given the quizzes to students at Purdue University, University of Tennessee Martin, Ursinus College, Oklahoma State University, and University of Wisconsin Oshkosh.

The origin of these quizzes, which Pesta calls “cultural literacy markers,” was his increasing discomfort with gaps in his students’ foundational knowledge.

“They came to college without the basic rudiments of American history or Western culture and their reading level was pretty low,” Pesta told The Fix.

Before even distributing the syllabus for his courses, Pesta administered his short quizzes with basic questions about American history, economics and Western culture. For instance, the questions asked students to circle which of three historical figures was a president of the United States, or to name three slave-holding countries over the last 2,000 years, or define “capitalism” and “socialism” in one sentence each.

Often, more students connected Thomas Jefferson to slavery than could identify him as president, according to Pesta. On one quiz, 29 out of 32 students responding knew that Jefferson owned slaves, but only three out of the 32 correctly identified him as president. Interestingly, more students— six of 32—actually believed Ben Franklin had been president.

Pesta said he believes these students were given an overwhelmingly negative view of American history in high school, perpetuated by scholars such as Howard Zinn in “A People’s History of the United States,” a frequently assigned textbook.

What’s more, he began to observe a shift in his students’ quiz responses in the early 2000s. Before that time, Pesta described his students as “often historically ignorant, but not politicized.” Since the early 2000s, Pesta has found that “many students come to college preprogrammed in certain ways.”

“They cannot tell you many historical facts or relate anything meaningful about historical biographies, but they are, however, stridently vocal about the corrupt nature of the Republic, about the wickedness of the founding fathers, and about the evils of free markets,” Pesta said. “Most alarmingly, they know nothing about the fraught history of Marxist ideology and communist governments over the last century, but often reductively define socialism as ‘fairness.’”

Pesta also noted that, early on, his students’ “blissful ignorance was accompanied by a basic humility about what they did not know.” But over time he said he increasingly saw “a sense of moral superiority in not knowing anything about our ‘racist and sexist’ history and our ‘biased’ institutions.”

“As we now see on campus,” Pesta said, “social justice warriors are arguing that even reading the great books of Western culture is at best a micro-aggression, and at worst an insidious form of cultural imperialism and indoctrination.”

Pesta, an outspoken critic of Common Core, said he believes that these attitudes will become more pronounced moving forward, due to Common Core architect David Coleman’s rewrite of Advanced Placement American and European history standards.

Pesta argues that Coleman, now president of the College Board, “has further politicized the teaching of history, reducing the story of Western culture to little more than a litany of crimes, exploitations, and genocides, while simultaneously whitewashing the history of ideologies like socialism and communism.”

Despite no longer giving the quizzes, Pesta told The Fix that he continues “to seek effective ways to teach students the literature of Western culture, which it is not only alien and complex, but often condemned by students before it is truly encountered.”

“We must absolutely teach those areas where Western culture has fallen short, but always with the recognition that such criticism is possible because of the freedoms and advantages offered by Western culture,” he said.

This article was originally posted at TheCollegeFix.com

Recently, U.S. Secretary of Education John King, while speaking at a press conference, remarked that although some homeschool situations are just fine, in general, “Students who are homeschooled are not getting kind of the rapid instructional experience they would get in school.”

King also said that part of the school experience is learning how to deal with and build relationships with peers and teachers—implying that homeschoolers don’t get this kind of experience.

Now, before I go on, in the interest of full disclosure, I’ll tell you that my wife and I homeschool our three daughters. To be specific, we’re part of a community of homeschooling families with a hybrid model that shares resources and that journeys together. We think our daughters are receiving a first-rate education. I say that not just so you know I’ve got a horse in the race, but because my wife and I have personal experience. We know this world. We live in it.

But back to the Secretary’s comments. It’s not clear what he meant by “rapid instructional experience,” but that can mean a sort of checklist approach—plowing through the material, cramming for standardized tests, and hitting every mandated topic. In that sense, he’s right. Many homeschoolers don’t get “rapid instruction” of this sort, but that’s not really education in the first place.

But what has me most concerned about the Secretary’s remarks is the classic “we know better than you” attitude so endemic among governmental elites—whether it’s telling us what kind of healthcare we need, or how to teach our young ones about the most intimate of human relations.

Let me be clear: The federal government’s ever-growing reach into our children’s education is a bi-partisan effort. The Department of Education was established by Jimmy Carter. George W. Bush signed the disastrous “No Child Left Behind” initiative into law. And Common Core, which many argue will leave kids unprepared for college, has both Republican and Democratic support.

But if the federal government really does know best, how is it, as Lindsey Burke of The Daily Signal notes, that “just one-third of all eighth-graders in public schools can read proficiently”? How is it that “Roughly two out of 10 students don’t graduate high school at all, [and]the United States ranks in the middle of the pack on international assessments?”

And while we’re at it, can we address this idea that homeschooled children don’t socialize well? That’s just nonsense. Some struggle, of course, but so do some public schoolers. And what does it mean for a child to be normally socialized anyway? If it’s activities, homeschooling author Joe Kelly observed recently that “Many home-schoolers play on athletic teams…” And “they’re also interactive with students of different ages… [having] more opportunity to get out into the world and engage with adults and teens alike.”

Now, I’m not trying to hammer public education. I grew up in Northern Virginia, home of some of the finest public school systems in the country that turn out highly educated, well prepared young people. And Colorado Springs, where I live now, is full of great teachers, and innovative charter schools.

But none of that changes the statistics. According to the National Home Education Research Institute, homeschoolers typically “score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests.” And they “score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents’ level of formal education or their family’s household income.”

Homeschoolers are, according to U.S. News “ripe for college.” They receive an education tailored to their needs. And you know what? They’re well-socialized, too

Now am I saying you should homeschool your kids? Not necessarily. What I am saying is that you—not the Secretary of Education, the federal government, or anyone else—know what’s best for your children and your family.

We live in a nation where we are free to tailor our children’s education to their specific needs, whether that involves public, private, charter, or home schooling. Let’s be proactive in protecting and championing that freedom. For more information on homeschooling statistics, check out the links below.

Home-Schooled Teens Ripe for College
Kelsey Sheehy | USNews.com | June 1, 2012

Research Facts On Homeschooling
Brian D. Ray, Ph.D. | NHERI | March 23, 2016

What Obama’s Education Secretary Got Wrong About Homeschoolers
Lindsey Burke / The Daily Signal | September 21, 2016

This article was originally posted at BreakPoint.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal landscape

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

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

Unjust discrimination

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

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

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

Suffering of gender-dysphoric persons

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

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

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

Safety

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

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

Biological sex, modesty, and privacy

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

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

Deception, gender dysphoria, and intersexuality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What should conservatives do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Monday, September 26 is School District U-46’s next board meeting, and it is shaping up to be even more contentious than the barn-burner of a meeting two weeks ago.

As you may remember, the Friday before Labor Day, U-46 CEO Tony Sanders made the decision to allow a gender-confused middle school student to use an opposite-sex locker room. And Sanders also decided to conceal this information from district parents.

Only one school board member, Jeanette Ward, had the courage and integrity to notify parents via her Facebook page of this information. As a result, she has been on the receiving end of vicious, hateful, and false personal attacks.

Contrary to what Leftists in the district are saying, Mrs. Ward revealed no personal identifying information about the student. She did not reveal the student’s name, sex, or school.

Those in favor of co-ed locker rooms and administrative secrecy are furious that most of the speakers at the last board meeting opposed co-ed locker rooms and secrecy. The pro-co-ed locker room/pro-secrecy crowd is rallying the anti-physical privacy troops to attend Monday’s meeting and speak. If the past is any indicator of the future, there will be a lot of nasty epithets hurled by “tolerant,” diversity-loving “progressives” at conservatives in general and Mrs. Ward in particular.

Please prayerfully consider attending and making a statement, particularly if you live in the district or lead a church that has children in the district. Remember, every school district in the state receives a portion of its funding from the state and a portion from the federal government, so every taxpayer in the state has a vested interest in every public school. Further, while “progressives” are angry that some of the conservative speakers at the last meeting were from outside the district, “progressives” never object when “progressive” speakers from outside school districts speak at school board meetings—which, by the way, are legally open meetings and subject to the Open Meetings Act.

If you are active on social media, Mrs. Ward could use your support there as well. There is a Facebook group called “School District u46 Uncensored” on which there has been a sustained and vicious attack on truth and reason.  To see what Mrs. Ward is up against, spend a few minutes reading comments by clicking here.  If you have a Facebook account, you can ask to join this Facebook group and perhaps leave some comments in defense of truth.

“Progressives” have long demonstrated a tenacity, perseverance, and boldness that many conservatives lack. It’s time conservatives demonstrate that they are as passionately committed to truth as the Left is to lies.

I know that this request will entail sacrifice, but this is a cause worth the sacrifice. Please come alongside Mrs. Ward in this very difficult effort to defend the rights of children and their parents and to defend truth.

The U-46 School Board meeting is Monday evening, September 26th at 7:00 p.m. at 355 East Chicago Street in Elgin. If you would like to sit in the main school board meeting room, try to arrive between 5:30-6:00 p.m. If you can’t make it much before 7:00, there will be overflow rooms available where the meeting will be streaming live. Anyone who wishes to speak will be able to fill out a “request to speak card.” Comments are limited to three minutes. You may want to type up your comment and read it so as to ensure you don’t exceed the three-minute limit. Those seated in overflow rooms who wish to speak will be notified when it is their turn to make their comments. (Perhaps someone could ask school board member Traci O’Neal Ellis how referring to the Republican National Convention as the “Klanvention” on her Facebook page makes children from Republican families feel welcome.)

And to everyone who attended the last meeting, thank you so very much. Your support was inspiring and encouraging!

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