In what researchers believe is a first of a kind survey in more than 15 years, the group EdChoice has surveyed 344 state legislators across the nation to gauge their knowledge and views on educational policy.

Some of the findings are interesting when compared to the views of the public on the same subjects.  For example, the new Surveying State Legislators study finds that a small majority 52 percent of state legislators support school vouchers.  Yet, the national average among the public finds much stronger 61 percent support for school vouchers.

In an even greater divide, 67 percent of state legislators are supportive of charter schools, which are alternative public school settings.  Only 53 percent of the public is supportive of them.

Lawmakers are very likely to say that education in their home state is going well with 49% saying it is on the “right track.”  However, 60 percent of the public says that education is on the “wrong track.”

An earlier EdChoice study released this summer found that 93 percent of Hoosier parents using a voucher were either somewhat (12 percent) or very satisfied (81 percent) with their chosen school. That is the highest approval rating of any voucher program in any state ever surveyed.  The number one reason eligible, low-income Hoosier parents choose a voucher, according to that same survey, is not so much academic as it is a desire to have their child in an educational setting with better values that are faith based.

A school board member and a state legislator think school bathroom and locker room policies should be based on common sense rather than political correctness. They say the move toward co-ed facilities must be challenged.

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

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

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

Anti-discrimination policy bait and switch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, back to Ellis’ revelatory comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Macro-aggressive government employees 

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

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

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

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

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

“Fringe” political “hate” group 

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

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

“IFI Labeled Hate Group”

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

“The Morality Police at the Southern Poverty Law Center”

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

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

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

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

Who really foments hatred?

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t delay, act today!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who has a “personal agenda”?

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

Long-Range Leftist Plan

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

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

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

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

Rights

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

Harm

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

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

Love vs. hate

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe topful
Of direst cruelty!”
—Lady Macbeth

By the fall of 2017, kindergartners in Washington State will be taught to “understand the range of gender roles, identity, and expression across cultures.”1 For those unclear about what precisely will be taught, the kindergarten curriculum developers provide a helpful glossary that includes a definition of “gender”:

Gender: A social construct based on emotional, behavioral, and cultural characteristics attached to a person’s assigned biological sex. A person’s social and/or legal status as male or female.

• Gender expression. The way someone outwardly expresses their gender, whether consciously or unconsciously.

• Gender identity. Someone’s inner sense of their gender (see Transgender).

• Gender roles. Social expectations about how people should act, think, or feel based on their assigned biological sex.

Kindergarten now marks the starting point for government indoctrination of children into the brave, new, sexless, science-denying orthodoxy of the “transgender” movement, the end result of which is not a more compassionate society, but a society in which there is no public recognition of, or respect for, sexual differentiation.

In early May 2016, the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) joined the ranks of the foolish by issuing guidelines pertaining to gender-dysphoric students in K–12 schools. Students who wish they were the opposite sex may now use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms, and on school-sponsored overnight trips, they may room with opposite-sex students.

These guidelines also apply to “gender non-binary” students who don’t “identify” as either male or female and to “questioning” students who aren’t yet sure which sex they would like to be. In other words, these students may make their restroom, locker room, and hotel room selections in accordance with their unstable sexual confusion.

In an effort to facilitate student confusion, the CPS “guidelines” mandate the use of Newspeak by faculty and staff, requiring them to lie by using opposite-sex pronouns when referring to gender-dysphoric students.

Exploitation of Title IX

One week later, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Education (ED) issued an almost identical edict, except theirs came with a threat of the loss of federal funds for non-compliance with what they euphemistically describe as “significant guidance.”

Elementary, middle, and high schools all around the country have been accommodating requests (or demands) from parents to have their gender-dysphoric children granted access to restrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams that correspond to the sex these children wish they were rather than the sex they actually are. In a case in Illinois, a male student sued his district for the right to unrestricted access even to the girls’ locker room, which includes showers. Often school administrations are accommodating these requests without informing the parents of students whose privacy is being invaded.

The DOJ and the ED, through the intrusive Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which is an unelected collective of bureaucrats, have proclaimed that henceforth, in the section of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that prohibits discrimination based on “sex,” the word “sex” includes “gender identity” and “gender expression.” Further, sex-segregated restrooms constitute discrimination based on “sex,” meaning that schools have no legal right to maintain separate restrooms for boys and girls.

There are multiple problems with this creative argument, the first of which is that the word “sex” in Title IX means sex.

Second, progressives themselves relentlessly assert that sex and “gender identity” are wholly distinct.

Third, Title IX specifically states the following: “A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.“2

Fourth, neither the DOJ nor the ED has lawmaking authority, so neither can change the definition of the word “sex” in Title IX.

Exploitation of Title VII

But the Barack Obama administration had still more government power to wield illicitly in its quest to eradicate sex-segregation. Like the ED, the DOJ under Attorney General Loretta Lynch has declared that the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes “gender identity” and “gender expression.” The abuse of Title VII is far more dangerous than that of Title IX because it has broader applicability.

Whereas Title IX applies only to schools, Title VII applies to every business in the private sector with over 14 employees, to every government entity, and to every religious organization, including religious schools of every grade level from elementary through college.It even applies to churches, which are exempt only from the prohibition of religious discrimination. Churches and other religious institutions are not exempt from the ban on “sex” discrimination.

So if the Obama administration’s redefinition of the word “sex” to include “gender identity” prevails, even churches couldn’t prohibit gender-dysphoric persons from using opposite-sex restrooms. The decree—it can’t veraciously be called a law—would mandate that gender-dysphoric guests at church weddings or attendees of concerts and athletic events at Christian colleges be allowed in opposite-sex restrooms.

Since men are permitted to go shirtless on beaches, at pools, in public parks, in high-school swim classes, and on swim teams, there would be no legal warrant for prohibiting women who “identify” as men but forgo bilateral mastectomies from going shirtless as well.

Sex Segregation versus Racial Segregation

Progressives, who never tire of exploiting race as an analogue for sexual deviance, compare racially segregated restrooms to sex-segregated restrooms, again misconstruing the issues. Racially segregated restrooms were unjustifiable because they were based on the false belief that people of different races are ontologically different. Sex-segregated restrooms are justifiable because they are based on the true belief that men and women are different—a true belief that even homosexuals implicitly acknowledge when they say they are attracted only to persons of their own sex.

When announcing the DOJ’s lawsuit against North Carolina following that state’s passage of a law prohibiting de-sexed, co-ed restrooms, Attorney General Lynch said, “It was not so very long ago that states, including North Carolina, had signs above restrooms, water fountains and on public accommodations keeping people out based upon a distinction without a difference.”

If there is no more difference between men and women than there is between blacks and whites—as Lynch clearly implies—then how is it justifiable to maintain single-sex restrooms or showers anywhere? Why not allow men and women and boys and girls to share the same restrooms, locker rooms, showers, shelters, and hospital rooms just as blacks and whites do?

Lynch also suggested that the unwillingness of women to share restrooms with gender-dysphoric men is evidence of fear, disrespect, misunderstanding, closed-mindedness, unfairness, lack of compassion, unjust regressive discrimination, and the denial of equality. If that’s the case, then how would she characterize the unwillingness of gender-dysphoric men to share restrooms with non-gender-dysphoric men? If separate restrooms for men and women are analogous to separate restrooms for blacks and whites, then aren’t separate restrooms for gender-dysphoric men and normal men also analogous to separate restrooms for blacks and whites?

Justifying Deception

The left uses the little-known history of some cross-dressing men successfully deceiving women in restrooms as a perverse ethical justification for allowing men in women’s restrooms. The argument goes something like this: Since gender-dysphoric men in especially convincing disguises have successfully deceived and violated the privacy of women who don’t want to share restrooms with men, let’s just openly allow gender-dysphoric men to continue to invade women’s privacy.

That’s analogous to arguing that since some peeping Toms successfully spy on women through windows without being found out, there’s no harm done, so no foul. Or, since some husbands commit adultery without their wives ever finding out—again, no harm, no foul.

Others believe, however, that the deception per se is harmful. The use of ever-more-elaborate disguises—including chemically and surgically facilitated ones—by gender-dysphoric men to conceal their sex from women who don’t want to use restrooms with objectively male persons is comparable to peepers using ever-more-sophisticated technology to peep.

Questions for Progressives

There are still more critical questions that should be posed to anyone who supports de facto co-ed everything, questions that will expose the incoherence of the subversive un-sexing of America:

1. Why should gender-dysphoric men and women be allowed to dictate that restrooms, showers, locker rooms, shelters, and hospital rooms no longer correspond to objective, immutable sex?

2. Why should gender-dysphoric men be able to dictate that they get to use restrooms with only women, but actual women are prohibited from saying they should get to use restrooms with only women?

3. If stalls provide sufficient privacy to separate gender-dysphoric men from women in restrooms, and curtains provide sufficient privacy to separate gender-dysphoric men from women in changing areas, why don’t stalls and curtains provide sufficient privacy to separate gender-dysphoric men from other men in men’s restrooms and changing areas?

4. If there is a mismatch between a person’s sex and his feelings about his sex, how can progressives be certain that the error resides in the body rather than the mind? If a person has XY chromosomes that have commanded his brain to produce and release male hormones to which his body is able to respond, thereby developing normal, unambiguous, healthy, fully functioning male anatomy, he is clearly male. If he nevertheless desires to be—or insists that he is—female, might this not be an error of his mind?

5. If a man “identifies” as “bi-gender” and has appended faux-breasts to his torso while retaining his penis, should he be permitted to decide at will which locker room he uses in the altogether?

6. Those who suffer from gender dysphoria claim that their DNA and the genitalia it shapes are wholly unrelated and irrelevant to “gender” and “gender identity,” and that genitalia shouldn’t matter when it comes to restrooms, changing areas, and showers. They further claim they want to use restrooms with only those whose “gender identity” they share. So, why do gender-dysphoric men demand to use women’s restrooms? How do they know that the males using the men’s restrooms do not “identify” as women, and how can they be sure that the females using the women’s restrooms do “identify” as women? Is it possible that gender-dysphoric men are basing their restroom choices on genitalia? If so, why are they permitted to do so, but actual women are not?

7. Leftists claim that people who don’t want to share restrooms, changing areas, showers, shelters, and hospital rooms with persons of the opposite sex are hateful. If it’s hateful for women to say they want to share these facilities only with other women, why isn’t it hateful for gender-dysphoric men to say they want to share them only with women?

8. Progressives routinely mock opponents of co-ed restrooms, asking whether historical restroom practices that require restroom-usage to correspond to sex will also require “genitalia police” to determine whether restroom-users are in reality the sex that corresponds to the restrooms they seek to use. Well, in the mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up progressive world, will there be “gender-identity” police demanding proof that all restroom-users are either the sex that corresponds to the restrooms they seek to use or have proof that they have been diagnosed as gender-dysphoric? If not, how will women know if their fellow restroom-users are actual women, or gender-dysphoric men masquerading as women, or male predators masquerading as gender-dysphoric men?

9. If the views of Obama and Lynch prevail and gender-dysphoric men are permitted in women’s restrooms, on what basis could all other men be prohibited from using women’s restrooms? Normal men couldn’t be prohibited from using women’s restrooms based on their male sex because men would already have been allowed in. And normal men couldn’t be prohibited from using women’s restrooms based on their “identification” as males because that would constitute discrimination based on “gender identity,” which Obama and Lynch argue violates Title IX and Title VII.

The Final Chapter

The editorial board of the Charlotte Observer opined that “the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms—and vice versa—might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort.”3 This comment reveals what many Americans don’t realize: identifying as the opposite sex does not require or necessarily include any surgery, cross-sex hormone-doping, or even cross-dressing; the mere assertion of one’s “gender identity” is sufficient.

Of course, none of those actions can efface the truth of sex; all they can do is mask it. But Americans should disabuse themselves of the rationalization that sharing a shower with Caitlyn Jenner might not be so bad as long as his testicles have been given the heave-ho and his pesky penis has been tucked inside.

And this brings us to the final chapter in the dystopian cultural narrative the left is writing: the end of sex-segregation everywhere. The elimination of the binary. No more public recognition of or respect for objective maleness and femaleness. “LGBTQQAP” activists and their ideological allies seek to create a solipsistic, make-believe world in which nothing outside the self is recognized as real or meaningful. Objective, immutable, biological sex, which is the source of feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy, will become a hoary relic of the past. Even language will be co-opted to serve an ontological and epistemic lie.

A compassionate society helps those who suffer from disordered thoughts and emotions. It does not affirm confusion or facilitate fiction. This most profound distortion of reality and morality must be resisted. •

1. Washington State Health and Physical Education Standards (March 2016), 32
2. 34 C.F.R. Part 106, Subpart D, §106.33: www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr106.html.
3. “Taking the fear out of bathrooms,” The Charlotte Observer (May 13, 2016): charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article77475147.html.

*TRIGGER WARNING*: A few words about silly people.

I know things seem bleak right now what with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea flexing their military muscles, our impotent president issuing more comical “warnings,” and racial strife dividing the nation.

But not to worry, folks. Just look at what some of our best and brightest are doing. Viet Nguyen, the student president of Brown University Undergraduate Council of Students has announced that–in the service of inclusivity–the Council will be stocking men’s restrooms with free tampons because “menstruation is experienced by more than just those who identify as women and…not all people who identify as women menstruate.”

Ah, I feel so much better about our future.

(Caution: Not for younger readers.)

According to a lawsuit filed yesterday by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a high school boy in the city of Virginia, Minnesota (near Duluth) who is pretending to be a girl and whom school administrators allow to invade the privacy of girls has been accused of engaging in vulgar sexual gestures in a girls’ locker room.

A group of girls uncomfortable changing with this boy present had sought from the administration the privacy to which they are entitled. Rather than require the biological-sex-rejecting boy to move to a single-occupancy restroom to change, the school suggested the girls move to an unused boys’ basketball locker room in an elementary school basement—which they did. The biological-sex-rejecting boy soon followed them, and on one occasion lifted up his dress and “twerked” in front of girls who were wearing only their underwear.

Todd Starnes reports that the suit alleges the following:

• Student X commented on girls’ bodies while in the girls’ locker room, including asking Girl Plaintiff F about her bra size and asking her to “trade body parts” with him;

• Student X danced to loud music with sexually explicit lyrics while twerking, grinding and lifting up his skirt to reveal his underwear;

• Student X would dance in a sexually explicit manner “dancing like he was on a stripper pole” to songs with suggestive lyrics….

The lawsuit also alleges that “Student X walked into the…locker room while Girl Plaintiff A was in her underwear and removed his pants while he was near her and other girls who were also changing.”

So, while a troubled boy is allowed to use restrooms and locker rooms with only girls and designated for girls, actual girls are denied the right to use restrooms and locker rooms with only girls and designated for girls despite complaints from both the girls and their parents.

The lawsuit names as defendants “Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Independent School District Number 706 (the Virginia School District) and Secretary of Education John King, Jr.”

Psychiatrist Dr. Boris Vatel writing for Salvo Magazine makes clear some inconvenient truths about the “transgender” phenomenon of which school administrators seem ignorant:

The NYC Commission on Human Rights maintains that gender identity is “one’s internal deeply held sense of one’s gender, which may be the same or different from one’s sex assigned at birth.” This statement intentionally uses language to distort reality. Except in cases of rare medical conditions resulting in ambiguous genitalia, no one’s sex is “assigned” at birth any more than the fact of belonging to the human species is assigned at birth.

More significantly, this statement erroneously implies that a person’s beliefs about himself carry more legitimacy than the physical facts that contradict such beliefs. Using the Commission’s reasoning, can we declare an alternate “age identity” to be legitimately different from one’s true age? What about “race identity” or even “species identity”? If one accepts as legitimate the logic by which men may identify themselves as women and insist on being considered as such by others, there is no reason to reject as invalid any number of other idiosyncratic identities that have no basis in reality.

…To suggest that there is no such thing as objective reality, or that reality is less important than what one wishes it were, renders the entire concept of psychiatric disorder invalid. In fact, the only way to accept the transgender phenomenon as psychiatrically normal is to say that, as a measure of reality, physical evidence is subordinate to what a person believes about or wishes for himself. And on that logic, we have no basis for calling anyone delusional….

Reading through the APA’s position on the transgender phenomenon, one gets the impression that the only suffering and disability experienced by “gender nonconforming” individuals stem from prejudice and discrimination on the part of those who disapprove of them. In reality—that is, any reality apart from the current attempt to reframe this phenomenon as a civil rights issue—these individuals do experience a great deal of disability associated with being unable to function adequately in society, as do other patients whose delusions influence their appearance and behavior.

Although the public’s reaction to the appearance and behaviors of people who consider themselves transgender may, indeed, be negative, to say that the disability of transgender individuals consists of being the recipients of a negative public reaction means confusing the cause with the effect. The fact is that the disability originates in the abnormal mental experience of “transgender” individuals and not in having been born in the “wrong” body or of living in the “wrong” society. However, according to the inverted logic of those who support the LGBT agenda, when an external reality contradicts the internal experience, the solution lies in altering reality in such a way that it conforms to the internal experience. Hence, the advocated approach to addressing an idiosyncratic internal experience is to give the person a new external reality by means of a surgically altered body and a re-educated society.

Identifying the problem as ultimately external naturally leads to the kind of solutions proposed by the New York Commission on Human Rights: fines and sanctions against individuals and institutions that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of being transgender. Ironically, the fact that the Commission would force others to conform to the beliefs of transgender individuals speaks to just how much functional impairment the latter experience in their everyday lives as a result of their beliefs.

The response of organized medicine, and psychiatry in particular, to the transgender phenomenon has been intellectually dishonest and dangerous to the mental and physical health of affected individuals. The acceptance of transgender beliefs as psychiatrically normal has in many cases led to harmful medical interventions in which individuals undergo so-called “sex-reassignment” surgery. These operations cannot “reassign” sex; they can only disfigure normal anatomy.

And now schools are facilitating an intellectually dishonest and dangerous response to a psychiatric disorder—a response that harms both those students who suffer from gender dysphoria and all others.

Here’s an idea: How about parents of students in this district and all other Virginia, Minnesota community members organize a sit-in to protest this science-denying nonsense and moral outrage. They should sit in the superintendent’s office until the administration restores school policies and practices that prohibit students from accessing opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms, thereby fulfilling their obligation to protect the modesty and  privacy of girls and boys.

Oh, and maybe someone should send this story to School District U-46 CEO Tony Sanders.

“Laurie’s Chinwags”

Have you had a chance to checkout the latest special feature we are calling “Laurie’s Chinwags?” For the past few weeks, we’ve been adding audio recordings (aka podcasts) to articles written by Laurie. We hope this new feature will serve the needs and desires of IFI subscribers. We would appreciate any constructive feedback.

Tony Sanders, the chief executive officer of School District U-46 which serves 40,000 students in Cook, DuPage, and Kane Counties in Illinois, has declared that a middle school locker room is henceforth co-ed. He has declared from on high that a student who wishes to be the opposite sex may use whichever locker room his or her heart desires. Even more troubling, Sanders has further declared that no parents in the district may be apprised of the fact that their children may be sharing a locker room with an opposite-sex student. If it weren’t for one courageous school board member, Jeanette Ward, who alerted the community to this presumptuous decision on the part of the administration, parents would still be unaware of the practice that took effect on September, 6, 2016.

Opposition to co-ed restrooms and locker rooms does not constitute hatred of those students who suffer from gender dysphoria. And opposition to co-ed restrooms and locker rooms is not solely or centrally about the physical safety of students posed by close encounters of the undressed kind, although by high school such risks are not nil.

Rather, opposition to co-ed restrooms and locker rooms is driven by a recognition of the arguable assumptions embedded in and promoted by such practices. In other words, allowing co-ed restrooms and locker rooms depends on first accepting a number of controversial ideas about biological sex. Further, allowing co-ed restrooms and locker rooms necessarily means teaching those underlying ideas to all students. Practices and policies teach.

For example, such practices teach all students that feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy when engaged in intimate bodily activities have no necessary connection to biological sex. Co-ed restrooms and locker rooms teach all students that subjective feelings about one’s sex take precedence over biological sex in even the most private spaces. Such practices teach all students that in order to be compassionate and inclusive, they must share restrooms and locker rooms with persons of the opposite sex. Attorney General Loretta Lynch has, in effect, told girls the truly wicked lie that their desire not to share restrooms and locker rooms with boys is tantamount to the refusal of white racists to share restrooms with blacks. While many parents teach their sons and daughters that they should leave a restroom or locker room if an opposite-sex student enters, schools now teach them that leaving would be hateful and bigoted.

In a Facebook statement district CEO Tony Sanders explained his feckless decision:

While the vast majority of transgender students in our schools prefer to change in private, the needs of each student is addressed on a case by case basis.

State and federal statutes prohibit districts from releasing information about any student without parent permission. If we provide information regarding a student that would lead to the identification of the student without parental permission, we would be in violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Illinois Student Records Act. As such, administration will not share with a school community if a transgender student is utilizing the locker room of his or her choice.

Any student who does not feel safe in a locker room or a restroom should immediately contact the school principal. Schools can then work to address any concerns and, if appropriate, find an alternative location to address privacy or safety concerns.

Sanders must be kidding. He’s exploiting the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Illinois Student Records Act to rationalize not telling parents that their children’s privacy will be invaded by an opposite-sex student? If these laws, which were passed in part to give “parents the right to have some control over the disclosure of personally identifiable information from their education records,” are now used or abused to allow school administrators to prevent telling parents that their children will be sharing restrooms or locker rooms with opposite-sex students, then the laws need to change. School administrators can make parents aware of the decision to allow co-ed restrooms and locker rooms without giving student names. Withholding a general notification about the end of sex-segregated restrooms and locker rooms violates the rights of other students and their parents.

Here are a list of questions that should be posed to your favorite teachers, school board members, and administrators:

• Do you believe children who wish they were the opposite sex have the right to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms?

• Do you believe students have a right to use restrooms and locker rooms with only persons of their same-sex?

• Do you believe that parents have a right to know if their children may be sharing a restroom or locker room with opposite-sex students?

• Why should girls who are uncomfortable sharing girls’ restrooms or locker rooms with a biological boy (formerly known as a boy) be forced to use other facilities (as Tony Sanders suggested above)?

• Should “gender fluid” or “gender non-binary” students be permitted to choose on a daily basis which restrooms or locker rooms they want to use?

• If policies that prohibit “discrimination” based on both sex and “gender identity” are applied to bathrooms and locker rooms, on what basis could schools prohibit a non-gender-dysphoric boy (i.e., a normal boy) from using girls’ restrooms or locker rooms? If schools argue that he can’t use girls’ facilities, he could point out the inconsistency of allowing another boy—the gender-dysphoric boy—to use the girls’ facilities while prohibiting him. He could also claim that since allowing a boy who “identifies” as a “transgirl” to use the girls’ facilities, while prohibiting him—a “cisboy,” they’re discriminating against him based on his “gender identity.”

• Does physical embodiment as male or female per se have any meaning relative to modesty and privacy?

• Why is it acceptable to allow a boy who wishes he were a girl in the girls’ locker room but not the girls’ shower?

• Should objectively female students who “identify” as male be permitted to use urinals in boys’ bathrooms using “stand-to-pee” devices? If not, why not?

• Should an objectively female coach of a boys’ swim team who “identifies” as a man be allowed in the boys’ locker room while the boys are showering and changing? If not, why not?

• Should an objectively female swimmer who “identifies” as male but has chosen not to have “top surgery” be permitted to wear a boy’s Speedo for swim practices and meets? If not, why not?

• Should an objectively female swimmer who “identifies” as male and has had a double mastectomy be permitted to change and shower with the boys? If not, why not? If all the boys and their parents are okay with her changing and showering with the boys, would she be permitted to do so?

• Staff and faculty routinely use student restrooms. Should male teachers who pretend to be women be allowed to use girls’ restrooms? Should biologically male teachers who “identify” as women but choose not to take cross-sex hormones, cross-dress, or have any surgery be allowed to use girls’ restrooms?

If you can get your school leaders to respond, their answers will likely reveal several things. (And don’t let them get away with responding to any of the hypothetical scenarios posed above with the all too common responses of “That will never happen,” or “That’s different.”)

First, their answers will likely reveal that our public school leaders have not thought about the ramifications of the ideas embedded in the practices and policies they are already implementing.

Second, their answers will likely reveal the inherently contradictory nature of the leftist ideas they are implementing.

Third, these leaders will likely reveal that they do, in fact, believe that objective, immutable biological sex per se has meaning: Biological sex is the source of feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy.

Opposition to co-ed restrooms, locker rooms, and showers in public schools has little to do with the risk of sexual assault by boys who “identify” as girls (or claim to), though that risk increases in middle school and high school. Opposition to such subversive practices stems from the abandonment of any recognition of and respect for the deep meaning of objective biological sex. Leftists are persuading or coercing public schools to treat subjective, disordered feelings about biological sex as if they are of greater importance than objective, immutable sex.

One of the many troubling lessons I learned from working in a well-respected public high school (Deerfield High School) for a decade and sending four children through public school is that few public school teachers, administrators, and school board members are deep thinkers. That is not to say they’re not intelligent. Rather, they rarely think critically about their own assumptions or about the logical outworking of ideas. In fact, many become become downright angry if pressed to think deeply about ideas—particularly ideas that challenge their usually unchallenged dogma.

Another critical issue that I hope becomes evident by thinking through these questions is where the chuckleheaded ideas, practices, and policies—which are embraced by foolish administrators, teachers, school board members, and parents or tolerated by cowardly administrators, teachers, school board members, and parents—will lead. They will lead to unrestricted co-ed restrooms, locker rooms, and showers everywhere. Eventually, there will be no more privacy curtains in locker rooms, no more separate showers, no more accommodations of just a few gender-dysphoric students.

Those who prefer not to rock boats—including even the pirate ships that are carrying away their children—will assuage their prickly consciences by repeating the empty mantras “Oh well, it’s just a few confused children,” or “Oh well, they’re  taking cross-sex hormones and are going to have surgery, so they’ll look like the sex they’re pretending to be.” What these cowardly boat-steadiers don’t realize is that “transactivists” and their political enablers like Barack Obama don’t think “transgender” persons need to cross-dress, take cross-sex hormones, or have surgery (By the way, having “top” or “bottom” surgery does not transform women into men or vice versa). In the doctrinaire leftist cosmos, a “trans” person doesn’t have to feel distress about their biological sex. All that’s needed for a person to be “trans” is his or her claim that he or she feels like the opposite sex (or both sexes or neither sex)—today.

The logic of leftist arguments necessarily leads to the end of sex-segregation everywhere. Don’t dismiss these changes in practices or policies as trivial or as affecting only a few students. These changes affect all students, and they are profound. In fact, these changes are the portents of the most radical cultural revolution in modern history.

“Laurie’s Chinwags”

Have you had a chance to checkout the latest special feature we are calling “Laurie’s Chinwags?” For the past few weeks, we’ve been adding audio recordings (aka podcasts) to articles written by Laurie. We hope this new feature will serve the needs and desires of IFI subscribers. We would appreciate any constructive feedback.

“For the wisdom of this world is folly with God.”
~ 1 Corinthians 3:19~

I just read with interest a breaking  “news” story on Wheaton College that reported that Wheaton has been listed as the “worst” college on the Princeton Review’s list of “LGBTQ-Unfriendly” schools and included on the “Shame List” by Campus Pride, an organization committed to normalizing homoeroticism.

“Objective” news reporter Leonor Vivanco neutrally reports that the “Shame List” is composed of campuses that have “applied or received a Title IX exemption to allow institutions to discriminate against LGBTQ persons, or that have a demonstrated history of anti-LGBT actions [emphasis added].” These are reporter Vivanco’s “unbiased” words—not Campus Pride’s.

Translated, this means that Wheaton College, a theologically orthodox college whose motto is “For Christ and His Kingdom,” makes distinctions based on the Bible between licit and illicit sexual behaviors.

Campus Pride cites as evidence for the inclusion of Wheaton on its Shame List Wheaton’s invitation to Rosaria Butterfield to speak on campus. Butterfield is a former feminist English professor who formerly identified as a lesbian and is now a follower of Christ, wife, and mother. For those unfamiliar with Butterfield, she is a compassionate and erudite speaker who has written two books about her conversion: The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert and Openness Unhindered: Further Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert on Sexual Identity and Union with Christ.

Vivanco quoted two Wheaton alumni who affirm homosexual identities and who describe commitments to theological orthodoxy as creating an unwelcoming, unsupportive, and dangerous place. There were no quotes from Wheaton alumni who affirm theological orthodoxy and who disagree with the implied proposition that in order to be welcoming, supportive, and safe, Wheaton must abandon the clear teaching of Scripture on matters related to homoeroticism.

Vivanco also mentioned an unusual and uncivil incident that took place last year at Wheaton when “a student threw an apple at a classmate who questioned the school’s president about LGBT people at a school event.” Two of my children and their spouses graduated from Wheaton College, and one of them also received a master’s degree in Systematic and Historical Theology from Wheaton, so I have some familiarity with the character of Wheaton students and the climate of the college. The apple-throwing incident was an unfortunate and remarkable aberration that I’ve heard offended the vast majority of Wheaton students and alumni—including those who affirm theological orthodoxy. It’s also unfortunate that Vivanco failed to report on the aberrational nature of the apple-throwing incident and how offensive it was to students and former students. Perhaps she would have known that if her research had extended beyond those who reject theological orthodoxy.

By being ranked the “worst” school by those who choose to place their unchosen homoerotic attraction at the center of their identity, Wheaton College is revealed as among the best colleges for those who place Christ at the center of their identity—including some who experience unchosen homoerotic attraction.

Affirming theological orthodoxy on sexual matters is not mutually exclusive of deeply loving those who believe differently and make choices based on those beliefs. In fact, those who value divers peoples and demonstrate tolerance of their beliefs do it every day.

“And he said to all, ‘If anyone would come after me,
let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.’”
~Luke 9:23~

Presenting “Laurie’s Chinwags”

IFI is pleased to announce a new feature we are calling “Laurie’s Chinwags.” In light of changes in the way many Americans prefer to access information, we’re adding podcasts to our articles. Podcasts will accompany both our new articles as well as previous articles that are of particular importance and relevance. As we add podcasts to previous articles, we will republish them for our subscribers’ convenience.

A group of suburban Chicago students and parents are fighting the Obama administration’s policy to make public school restrooms and locker rooms accessible to the opposite sex.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachmann!  She distinguished herself by not only forming and chairing the Tea Party Caucus in 2010 in the U.S. House but also through her courageous and outspoken pro-life leadership as attested to by her rating of zero from NARAL.

Please register today before the early bird special expires.

Once again, we are pleased to have Dr. Duke Pesta, a nationally renown expert on the dangers of Common Core, speak at two special forums in Springfield and Collinsville.  Earlier this year, we had him in Orland Park, and we were asked to bring his presentation to central and southern Illinois to give more people the opportunity to hear what he has to say about the state of education in America.

If you are a taxpayer, an educator, a therapist, a religious leader, or an elected official, or if you have young children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces, or simply care about what’s being taught to children in grades K-12, it will be well worth your time to join us.

The various issues surrounding Common Core are so important to understand, and our speaker is so knowledgeable about this big government overreach, we are making this a free event, and will only take a free will offering to help offset our costs.  We think it is vitally important to maximize Dr. Pesta’s exposure at these two special forums in August.

We are hoping and praying these forums will attract hundreds of concerned Americans, so please invite all your like-minded friends to join us either in Springfield or Collinsville.  Click on a link below to access a flyer.

Thursday, August 25th at 6:30 PM
iWorship Center
3200 Shaler Road
Springfield, Illinois  62707

Friday, August 26th at 6:30 PM
REVIVE Church
1105 Beltline Road
Collinsville, IIllinois  62234

Please let others know about these events!

Written by Dennis Prager

There was rare good news this month. On August 4, The New York Times published a front-page article headlined, “College Students Protest, Alumni’s Fondness Fades and Checks Shrink.”

According to The Times, some college alumni are awakening to the fact that their beloved alma maters are nothing like the decent, open, tolerant, committed-to-learning places they remember. Rather, nearly every college and university in America has become the least open, the least tolerant, the most hate-filled and the most anti-American (and, of course, anti-Israel) mainstream institution in America.

As stated in the article: “Alumni from a range of generations say they are baffled by today’s college culture. Among their laments: Students are too wrapped up in racial and identity politics.”

Let’s put it more starkly. Colleges are America’s preeminent racist institutions. They encourage, for example, black dorms and black graduations; and they foment minority hatred of whites (through “white privilege” indoctrination seminars, ethnic studies courses, black studies courses, etc.).

Additionally, college students “are allowed to take too many frivolous courses.”

College students graduate without taking any courses that elevate their intellect or character — which was the original purpose of universities. You can get a bachelor’s degree in English from UCLA without reading a Shakespeare play.

These students have also “repudiated the heroes and traditions of the past by judging them by today’s standards rather than in the context of their times.”

Most college graduates are taught to see the great men who founded America not only as not great but also as bad. After all, they were white, male and affluent. And some were slaveholders.

“University administrations,” The Times says, “have been too meek in addressing protesters whose messages have seemed to fly in the face of free speech.”

Meek? College administrators give new meaning to the word. With precious few exceptions, they have no principle except keeping their job.

That it took these alumni so many years to realize how destructive their beloved colleges have become is as unpleasant a surprise as The New York Times publishing this piece was a pleasant surprise.

The Times quotes Scott MacConnell, an alumnus of Amherst College:

“‘As an alumnus of the college, I feel that I have been lied to, patronized and basically dismissed as an old, white bigot who is insensitive to the needs and feelings of the current college community,’ Mr. MacConnell, 77, wrote in a letter to the college’s alumni fund in December, when he first warned that he was reducing his support to the college to a token $5.”

It also quotes a Yale University graduate named Scott C. Johnston, “who graduated from Yale in 1982 (and) said he was on campus last fall when activists tried to shut down a free speech conference, ‘because apparently they missed irony class that day.'”

Yale now competes with Brown University and similar left-wing institutions in embracing students who employ fascist tactics, such as taking over deans’ offices and shouting down conservative speakers.

But this reduction in giving probably won’t matter much. Yale has an endowment of over 25 billion dollars. It can easily afford to have contempt for alumni like Johnston, for it knows that most alumni would continue to give if the university announced that it would not admit anyone who believes that God created the universe.

Wealthy fools will continue to give money to Yale and all the other left-wing seminaries still known (inaccurately) as universities. There is no group that better embodies the famous statement attributed to Vladimir Lenin: “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them.”

Can you name a more moronic group than wealthy capitalists who give tens of millions of dollars to universities so they can teach students that capitalism is evil?

It is, of course, understandable why leftists give so much money to universities. But why do non-leftists?

Here are two key reasons:

First, and most importantly, it makes them feel good about themselves. Universities are the world’s secular temples. Long ago, wealthy Americans gave to their churches, whereas they now give to universities.

Second, many of the very wealthy are savants — people who are brilliant at making a lot of money, but not at much else. And there is no connection between wealth and wisdom. There are Silicon Valley and Hollywood billionaires who have less wisdom than many seniors at Christian high schools.

So, here’s my advice to wealthy individuals who love America and do not wish to undermine the Judeo-Christian and classical liberal values on which it is built:

Give to medical research. And if you give to a college, give to one that actually venerates America and the life of the mind (Hillsdale College, for example). Or give to causes that are attempting to undo the damage of the universities. Examples include the Young America’s Foundation, YAF, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, ISI, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, FIRE, and Prager University (which has had over 100 million views just this year, the largest single group of viewers being young people under 35).

But if you love America, among the worst things you can do is contribute to 95 percent of the country’s universities. America would better off if you burned that money.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com.

Written by Kelsey Harkness

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled an interest in taking on the transgender bathroom debate on Wednesday, granting a Virginia school system temporary permission to keep its bathrooms separated by biological sex.

In a 5-3 vote, the justices issued a stay in the case involving a transgender student in Gloucester County who is suing his school board to gain access to the boys’ restrooms. The stay halts a lower court’s order that said the school board must allow the transgender teen, Gavin Grimm, into the bathroom that corresponds with the student’s gender identity.

Gavin, 17, was born female but now identifies as a male.

If the Gloucester County school board’s petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case is denied, the stay will terminate automatically, and Gavin will be allowed to use the boys’ bathroom. If the court decides to take the case, the stay will remain in effect until the justices reach a final decision.

The lawsuit alleges that by prohibiting Gavin from using the boys’ restrooms, the school board’s policy violates Title IX, the federal statute that bans discrimination on the basis of sex.

The U.S. District Court in Eastern Virginia initially rejected that argument, and sided with the school board’s claim that Title IX does not protect against discrimination based on gender identity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit disagreed, and issued an injunction that required the school to allow transgender students to use restrooms in accordance to their gender identity.

Some in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender movement downplayed Wednesday’s decision, calling it “just a temporary delay.”

“Across the country, courts and policymakers are recognizing that discrimination against transgender people is sex discrimination,” Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in a prepared statement. “We are confident that if and when this issue reaches the Supreme Court, the court will affirm that recognition.”

Conservatives, however, call the decision a significant step in their direction.

“It’s significant that the Supreme Court said we’re going to put a hold on that—we’re going to preserve the status quo as it’s always been in society, as it’s always been in schools,” Jeremy Tedesco, a lawyer at the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal. “That boys use boys’ restrooms and girls use girls’ restrooms.”

The implications, Tedesco added, could reach far beyond Gavin and other students in Gloucester County.

In directing schools nationwide to open their showers, bathrooms, and locker rooms to students of the opposite biological sex, the Obama administration cited the Gloucester case.

The Department of Education wrote that its interpretation “is consistent with courts’ and other agencies’ interpretations of federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination,” and linked to the case.

A total of 24 states are now challenging the legality of the administration’s mandate, in addition to dozens of private legal battles playing out nationwide.

“The Department of Education—in all the litigation that’s going on across the country and in their major, chief mandate that they sent out nationally to all the schools saying that Title IX requires schools to allow students of one sex to enter locker rooms and bathrooms of students of the opposite sex—they’re all relying on the Gloucester decision from the 4th Circuit to say that’s required,” Tedesco said. “What the Supreme Court has done is thrown that decision into serious doubt.”

Tedesco, who is involved in several of these challenges, said the decision is “a really important outcome” for Alliance Defending Freedom’s case in Illinois.

In that case, 50 families in the Chicago area are suing the Department of Education and the Justice Department for threatening to take away federal funding if the school does not comply with the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX.

Lawyers for the Obama administration, Tedesco said, “have been citing the Gloucester decision over and over again for why they should win.”

Now, he said, “it’s going to be a lot more difficult for them to rely on that case, with the Supreme Court putting the entire decision on hold and calling it into question.”

Gloucester County, located about 140 miles south of Washington, D.C., and just north of Newport News, Virginia, has more than 5,000 students in its eight public schools.

The Gloucester County school board welcomed Wednesday’s decision, saying in a press release that it “continues to believe that its resolution of this complex matter fully considered the interests of all students and parents in the Gloucester County school system.”

My thoughts on yesterday’s “emergency stay” by SCOTUShttps://t.co/RF8zr2cP5W

— Joshua Block (@JoshACLU) August 4, 2016

Josh Block, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union representing Gavin, said he was disappointed by the decision because it will leave Gavin isolated from the rest of the student body.

In a blog post, Block wrote:

Gavin was preparing to begin his senior year with a fresh start. He would finally be able to use the restroom without being isolated. Even if the Supreme Court ultimately decides to let the lower court’s decision stand, Gavin will have had to spend most of his senior year forced to use a separate restroom from the rest of his classmates, simply because of who he is.

The high court’s four conservative-leaning justices all voted in favor of the stay. They were joined by Justice Stephen Breyer who wrote that he granted the stay “as a courtesy” in order to “preserve the status quo.”

Only four justices are needed for the Supreme Court to review a case, making it likely that the bathroom fight could be decided soon.

Article originally published at DailySignal.com.

On Tuesday afternoon, radio host Mark Elfstrand interviewed IFI’s Laurie Higgins about her recent article addressing the Black Lives Matter movement and the foolish and false statement made by Chicago Urban League president Shari Runner on the “root cause” of gang-on-gang and black-on-black violence.

Mark and Laurie also discussed her article about Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s decision to join other liberal states in filing an amicus brief in a federal district court in Texas in support of mandatory coed restrooms and locker rooms in all public schools.

Additionally, Mark asked Laurie about IFI’s letter of warning written by attorney Jason Craddock that was sent to Illinois State Board of Education Superintendent Dr. Tony Smith and Board Chairman Rev. James Meeks in June.  In this letter, we warned them of anticipated lawsuits (which could cost our school districts millions) and asked them to prohibit school administrators from implementing a policy that would permit gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and/or locker rooms.

We also have an important call-to-action for this issue:

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send  Superintendent Smith and Board Chairman Meeks an email or a fax to let them know that you are resolutely against any policy that would have male and female students sharing restrooms or locker rooms.

You can also call Dr. Smith’s office at (312) 814-2220 and/or Rev. Meeks’ office at (217) 557-6626 to leave a message of concern.

To listen to this 10-minute interview, please click the link HERE or the graphic below:

https://soundcloud.com/lets-talk-with-mark/mark-interviews-laurie-higgins-august-2-2016

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

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

Please register today, before the early bird special expires…