Decades ago, summer was the time that necessitated increased parental vigilance. School was the safe place. But the times they have a’changed. Self-righteous “agents of change” stand ready at the schoolhouse door to mold other people’s children into ideological replicas of themselves. So now the school year has become the time that necessitates increased parental vigilance.

One organization that warrants particular attention is “Teaching Tolerance,” which is laughingly called an “educational project,” but is, in reality, the pernicious propaganda project of the leftwing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). This is the organization that has listed the Illinois Family Institute, Family Research Council, and the American Family Association as “hate groups.”

The propagandists — I mean educators — at Teaching Tolerance are taking full advantage of the propensity of parents to remain blissfully unaware of what their children are being taught. These “tolerance teachers” count on parents remaining ignorant of their goal to undermine conservative moral and political beliefs.

Here is the newest resource spawned by the manipulators of children at the SPLC’s Teaching Tolerance of which parents should be aware:

Planning to Change the World: A Plan Book for Social Justice Teachers 2011-2012

This handbook for teachers begins with a quote from the Brazilian Marxist, Paulo Freire, who is the guru for “social justice teachers” and wrote their bible, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

The introduction makes clear that liberation from oppression supersedes sound, apolitical education:

Planning to Change the World is a plan book for teachers who believe their students can create meaningful social change. It is the product of a collaboration between two education networks — the New York Collective of Radical Educators (NYCoRE) and the Education for Liberation Network — and is published in partnership with Rethinking Schools. The information and ideas featured on its pages come from teachers, college students and activists who, like you, struggle daily to put their values into practice. As educators, our vision of teaching for liberation often gets buried under the everyday realities of teaching. Bombarded with paperwork, tests, curriculum mandates, we feel frustrated, overwhelmed, alone.

…Planning to Change the World is packed with important social justice birthdays and historical events, words of wisdom from visionary leaders, lesson plans, resources, social justice education happenings and more. [Emphases added]

The planning book includes quotes from radical historical revisionist Howard Zinn, homosexual activist Staceyann Chinn, and controversial labor leader Cesar Chavez. It also includes dozens of resources for teachers, most of which are extreme leftwing resources, including resources that promote far leftist assumptions about homosexuality, economics, religion, and American “imperialism.”

Here are some of the historical events honored just in November by the SPLC’s “educators” from Teaching Tolerance:

• Transgender Day of Remembrance
• The 50th anniversary of the first openly gay person to run for public office
• Eid al-Adha: an Islamic holiday
• Muharram, the first day of the Islamic calendar
• The 170th anniversary of the Creole revolt
• First day of Native American Heritage Month
• 80th anniversary of the beginning of the removal of the Choctaw Indians from their lands
• Thanksgiving: Teaching Tolerance recommends that teachers use resources from the anti-American organization, Oyate, about which I have previously written.

Teaching Tolerance also recommends an activity they created called Thanksgiving Mourning:

[S]tudents will review two written works by Native American authors. The first — a speech written by Wamsutta James in 1970 — gave birth to the National Day of Mourning, which is observed on Thanksgiving by some indigenous people. To them, Thanksgiving is ‘a reminder of the genocide of millions of their people, the theft of their lands, and the relentless assault on their culture.’ The Day of Mourning, on the other hand, is a day of remembrance and spiritual connection, as well as a protest of the racism and oppression that Native Americans continue to experience.”

I wonder if Teaching Tolerance would revise their list of important “social justice” historical events to include mention of Joseph Scheidler, father of the pro-life movement. He is the indefatigable pursuer of social justice for the most vulnerable in America: babies in utero, whose developmental immaturity or imperfections put them at risk of legalized extermination.

As I’ve written before, “teaching for social justice” is, in a nutshell:

repackaged socialism with its focus on economic redistribution. Social justice theory emphasizes redistribution of wealth and values uniformity of economic and social position over liberty. Social justice advocates seek to use the force of government to establish economic uniformity.

Its other dominant features pertain to race, gender, class, and sexual orientation/ identity/ expression. Social justice theory as I’m describing it encourages people to view the world through the divisive lens of identity politics that demarcates groups according to which group constitutes the “oppressors” and which the “oppressed.” Those who are identified as the “oppressors” need not have committed any acts of actual persecution or oppression, nor feel any sense of superiority toward or dislike of the supposed “oppressed” class. The problem with social justice theory is that it promotes the idea that “institutional racism,” as opposed to actual acts of mistreatment of individuals by other individuals is the cause of differing lots in life.

Social justice theorists cultivate the racist, sexist, heterophobic stereotype that whites, males, and heterosexuals are oppressors. This is an offensive, prejudiced stereotype that robs minorities of a sense of agency in and responsibility for their own lives, telling them that their lots in life cannot improve through their own efforts but only through an appropriate degree of self-flagellation on the parts of the purported oppressors. It cultivates a sense of perpetual victimization and powerlessness on the parts of minorities and an irrational and illegitimate sense of guilt on the parts of whites, or men, or heterosexuals.

Finally, social justice theory is distinctly anti-American and hyper-focuses on America’s mistakes and failings. Social justice theory diminishes or ignores the remarkable success America has achieved in integrating virtually every ethnic and racial group in the world, and in enabling people to improve their lots in life through economic opportunity and American principles of liberty and equality.

To learn more about the ethically and intellectually bankrupt Southern Poverty Law Center’s deeply troubling ideology, goals, and tactics, click HERE (this is a very recent and important article from an immigration reform organization on the SPLC’s “phony claims”), and HERE.

When you’re done, email your children’s teachers, some of whom likely subscribe to Teaching Tolerance’s free online newsletter for educators, asking whether they will be using any resources or activities from Teaching Tolerance. Then make it clear that should they decide to use any resources created by, or recommended by Teaching Tolerance, you want to be notified so you can opt your child out.

There’s troubling news coming out of Florida that provides evidence that the cultural movement to normalize homosexuality poses a serious threat to First Amendment speech and religious rights.

Mount Dora High School social studies teacher and winner of the 2010 “Teacher of the Year” award, Jerry Buell, wrote this on his private Facebook page during non-work time:

I’m watching the news, eating dinner, when the story about New York okaying same sex unions came on and I almost threw up.

If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool as same-sex whatever! God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable???

The administrative response to this veteran teacher’s condemnation of government-endorsement of abominable (God’s word, not Buell’s) relationships is to suspend him from the classroom and begin an investigation.

Society has become so desensitized to the offense of cesspoolish acts that calling them cesspoolish constitutes an offense. Our cultural moral compass has become so broken that citizens do not recognize that homosexual acts are, indeed, cesspoolish. In a very literal sense, the primary sexual act engaged in by homosexual men is cesspoolish in that a cesspool is a waste receptacle, but the term “cesspool” also refers to corrupt, depraved acts. Although Buell’s word choice was indelicate and politically incorrect, it strikes me as accurate. (For recent CDC information on HIV infections among Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM), click HERE, and for shigellosis information click HERE.)

Christians have become deluded into believing that saying that homosexual acts are cesspoolish is an unchristian act, and they have been bullied into self-censorship by exactly the kind of repercussions Buell is experiencing.

Americans, including leaders in government, education, and even the church, increasingly accept the dangerous notion that the First Amendment should be subordinate to the “feelings” of homosexuals. What next? Will speech rights and religious liberty be subordinated to the feelings of “minority-attracted” persons (aka pedophiles) and polyamorists? How long will it be before yet another group committed to normalizing their particular sinful proclivity starts talking about how marginalized, stigmatized, and “unsafe” they “feel”?

Some questions for Mount Dora High School administrators:

• If teachers are not permitted to express their moral and political beliefs during their free time on their private Facebook pages, should they be permitted to express their beliefs on blogs?
• Should they be permitted to express them in letters to their local press?
• Should they be permitted to express them in conversations in public restaurants where they may be overheard by others?
• Should they be able to express them in radio or print interviews?
• Was it the word “cesspool” that generated the investigation and suspension of Buell, or was it his disapproval of the legalization of same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality?
• If it was the word choice that got the administrators’ panties in a bundle, will these language-dictators provide a list of acceptable denunciatory words? Remember, it’s our educators who are promoters of diversity and the free exchange of ideas and defenders of even obscene language when it’s found in the books they teach our children.
• If it were not merely the word “cesspool” but rather any expression of disapproval of homosexuality, is it just homosexuality that teachers may not condemn in their free time or are there other topics of which they may only safely express approval? If so, what are those topics and who decides?
• The First Amendment was intended to protect the expression of even unpopular ideas. How does Big Brother — I mean the Mount Dora High School administration — reconcile its draconian response to Buell with the First Amendment?

The Mount Dora administration might defend their actions by citing the need to keep students “safe.” What school administrations rarely do, however, is define “safety.” The entire homosexuality-affirming juggernaut depends on the tricksy manipulation of rhetoric. “Safety,” which formerly meant the absence of physical threat, has now come to mean the absence of emotional or intellectual discomfort. Of course, liberal activists in public schools won’t admit this (and conservative teachers are too fearful to expose it).

Intellectual and ethical consistency — never the forte of liberals — is not found in public schools even on the topic of “safety.” Liberal activists have no problem making conservative students feel uncomfortable (i.e., “unsafe”) if it’s in the service of eradicating conservative moral beliefs. In so doing, increasing numbers of homosexual students and their “allies” (another rhetorical buzz saw in the homosexuality-normalizing tool box) are becoming presumptuous ideological dictators. They treat all encounters with dissenting moral propositions with high dudgeon and an expectation of administrative censorship.

The exaltation of subjective feelings through the self-actualization and self-esteem movements and the demonization of shame have collided with the tyrannical homosexual “rights” revolution, resulting in the cultural collapse that’s happening right in front of our eyes. (And what do conservatives do? Cover their eyes, plug their ears, and shut their mouths.)

My advice: exercise your right to express unpopular ideas while you can.

Post script:

1. A fellow conservative with whom I discussed this article prior to posting expressed concern over any mention of sexual acts, arguing that we should not “dwell” on them.

I completely agree: dwelling on sexual acts is neither necessary nor constructive. I wish we had a society that valued modesty and privacy, but we don’t and the other side is making public statements about sexual acts and promoting images and ideas about sexual acts that are shaping the beliefs of Americans.

The current cultural problem is not that conservatives dwell on sexual acts, but that we ignore them. In my approximately 800-words above, I have about 80 words that address sexual acts. That hardly constitutes “dwelling.”

We are derelict in this cultural battle if we cede through silence the battle about the true nature of homosexuality, including the sexual acts in which homosexuals commonly engage. Our silence — which the other side covets — leaves homosexuals free to create and promulgate an unchallenged message. Even our high school comprehensive sex ed classes, purportedly concerned with adolescent health, rarely provide to students information on the astonishing array and rate of sexually transmitted infections associated with what the CDC calls Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM).

2. Over the weekend, I was sent a Christian Post article in which Neuqua Valley High School math teacher, Hemant Mehta, weighed in on the suspension of Jerry Buell. IFI readers may remember Mehta, or as he refers to himself and his blog, the “friendly atheist,” about whom I’ve written several times.

Initially, Mehta, who, according to the Christian Post views Mr. Buell as a “bigot,” wanted to “join in the backlash,” but some soul-searching restored Mehta’s reverence for the First Amendment. In his statement, Mehta implied that a situation involving IFI’s response to his blog was analogous to the Buell situation.

Several clarifications are in order. As I wrote in 2009, I did, indeed, contact Mehta’s administration and school board regarding something he had written on his blog, but I did not contact them because of his moral views or in order to have him suspended. In fact, I specifically said, “Of course, teachers have a First Amendment right to blog or speak publicly about anything they want.”

I contacted his administration and school board because Mehta had suggested on his public and widely read blog that it would be a good thing if homosexuals came and kissed in front of my home. His entire blog is an expression of his controversial social, political, moral, and philosophical beliefs, and I had never previously contacted his administration or school board. His suggestion, however, that homosexuals come to my home — whether delivered in jest or not — constituted an irresponsible, unprofessional comment that may have violated school policy regarding employee-community relations.

In subsequent articles, I urged parents to think about whether a teacher who publicly uses obscene language and vigorously promotes polyamory and atheism is a good role model for their children. The First Amendment prohibits the government from abrogating the right of citizens to express even unpopular ideas. It does not prohibit parents from making choices about the people with whom their children spend 180 hours a week.

To read more about Hemant Mehta’s blog, click HERE, HERE, and HERE.

One final note: I have met Hemant and find him a very nice person. Many people believe that condemnation of actions or passionate intellectual disputes indicate dislike or hatred of our worthy opponents. That’s nonsense or worse.

It’s not only possible but commonplace to like, value, enjoy the company of, and even love those whose beliefs and behavioral choices we find foolish and destructive.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

Part I of this two-part article about Illinois’ new “enumerated” school anti-bullying law and its attendant Task Force exposed the bias and lack of diversity of the Task Force as well as the troubling recommendations made by it.

106-page Task Force recommendations refer to” broader cultural systemic issues of power, privilege and oppression,” “homophobia,” and “underlying power imbalances.” For the uninitiated, this language may sound benign or even positive, but those familiar with the jargon of the “teaching for social justice” movement will recognize the troubling ideas concealed beneath the deceitfully reassuring rhetoric.

The goals of the Task Force are consistent with the mission of the organization that created the law: the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance (ISSA). ISSA is a homosexual activist organization that was originally an affiliate of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). ISSA’s anti-bullying law was created specifically to add the terms “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression” to existing law, which in turn would provide liberal assumptions about homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder an even greater foothold in Illinois schools.

The Task Force recommends “all schools in Illinois immediately embark on a journey of complete school transformation,” which means all public and private schools in Illinois. Current law applies only to public schools and non-sectarian, that is, non-religious private schools, but the Task Force calls for an amendment to the existing law so that it would apply to religious private schools as well.

The Task Force recommendations include indoctrination plans for students, teachers, administrators, all school employees (e.g., maintenance workers, bus drivers, cafeteria workers), and future teachers enrolled in college and university teacher-preparation programs.

The Task Force asserts that “complete school transformation cannot be accomplished without adequate commitment, time, and resources,” stating that “nothing less than the complete overhaul of the education system in Illinois” will suffice, and that “the state of Illinois fully fund pilot projects to collect and evaluate data on the efficacy of the proposed school transformation model.”

Their recommendations include this troubling suggestion: “Many changes will need to be made to state laws, ISBE regulations and school policies.”

Many community members feel helpless to stop the usurpation of public education by liberal ideologues hell-bent on using taxpayer resources to advance their moral and political beliefs, but there are things taxpayers can and should do:

1. Email your local school administrators and request the following information:

a. Ask for detailed information about any “bullying prevention” activities that are planned for students.

b. Ask for detailed information about any “bullying-prevention” training (i.e., professional development) that is planned for administrators, teachers, and staff.

c. Ask if any of the “bullying-prevention” activities that are planned for any of these groups specifically mention “sexual orientation,” “gender-identity” (i.e., Gender Identity Disorder), or “gender-expression” (i.e., cross-dressing).

d. Request copies of any resources that will be used in “bullying-prevention” training for students, teachers, administrators, and staff.

2. If your administration is uncooperative, file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to access the information. FOIA requests are easy to file and cost-free for the first fifty pages of documents. Every Illinois school district has a FOIA officer who by law must be identified on the district’s website. Your district’s FOIA officer can provide instructions on how to file a FOIA. Click here and go to page 56 for a sample FOIA request. Taxpayers should be making use of FOIA requests. They provide invaluable (and often surprising) information about what takes place behind the scenes in schools.

3. Finally, tell your children’s teachers that under no circumstance is your child to be exposed to any resources or activities that mention “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” or “gender expression.” Tell them that you will provide “bullying-prevention” instruction at home. And ask them to notify you prior to any activities or presentations that address “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” or “gender expression,” so that you can opt your child out.

IFI is urging our readers to research how your school districts are implementing the Illinois Prevent School Violence Act (PSVA). Please do this if you’re a taxpayer. You don’t have to have students enrolled in school. All taxpayers are subsidizing what takes place in our public schools; and today’s students are tomorrow’s culture-makers. We all have a stake in public education.

We cannot afford to sit around fretting and whining about the corruption of public education by liberal ideologues who have transformed education into indoctrination. Please email your schools, and if anything troubling turns up, send the information and documentation to IFI. We would love to share with IFI readers what’s taking place in particular school districts around the state.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

Illinois parents may soon begin to taste the diseased fruit of the Illinois “enumerated” anti-bullying act that Governor Quinn signed into law a year ago on the Sunday morning of the Chicago “gay pride” parade at a ceremony at Nettelhorst School, Chicago’s first public elementary school to march in the debauchery-affirmation parade, which is located in the city’s premier homosexual neighborhood “Boystown.” (And there are still gullible people who buy the deceit that this law is centrally about bullying.)

The term “enumerated” is an obfuscatory euphemism that means the law specifically includes homosexuality, Gender Identity Disorder, and cross-dressing. Of course our lawmakers wouldn’t dare use those terms out of fear that Illinoisans would see the pernicious truth lurking behind the civil rights argot. No, our lawmakers use the equally obfuscatory euphemisms of “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression.”

This law required our State Superintendent of Education, Christopher Koch, to appoint a Task Force to make recommendations about the implementation of the anti-bullying law. Here are just a few of the “unbiased” Task Force members:

Christopher Koch: Illinois State Superintendent of Education, who according to the Chicago Tribune, lives with his “partner.” Other public sources (here and here) reveal that partner to be Kyle A. Lentz.

In 2009, Koch was honored by the homosexual activist organization, Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, as “advocate of the year.”

Rocco Claps: openly homosexual Director of the Department of Human Rights (Read more HERE).

Shannon Sullivan: openly homosexual Director of the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, who seeks to exploit all public schools — including elementary schools — to normalize her own sexual proclivities.

Jennifer Nielsen: Associate Director of the Anti-Defamation League (pictured here in the homosexual newspaper Windy City Times, promoting the pro-homosexual film It’s STILL Elementary. Trailers of this film can be viewed HERE).

Lonnie Nasatir: Regional Director of the Greater Chicago/Upper Midwest area with pro-homosexual Anti-Defamation League. Nasatir had this to say about the civil union law: “In our eyes this is an issue of pure and simple fairness and equality; we knew representative [Greg] Harris would need a lot of help and we thought it would be a great opportunity to inform the community about what the bill means and other issues about the LGBT community to be informed and educated citizens.”

And this: “Today we celebrate the hard work of advocates and legislators, and specifically Representative Greg Harris, who worked tirelessly on this bill for several years to ensure all citizens are afforded the rights and privileges of married couples…. This is a proud day for the state of Illinois as we have recognized a fundamental inequality and taken steps to remedy it.”

Dr. Stacey Horn: assistant professor in the College of Education, University of IL at Chicago (former academic home of Bill Ayers). In an article co-authored by Horn she writes, “A final LGBTQ school safety strategy involves…integrating LGBTQ topics into the school curricula.”

According to the UIC website, Horn is “interested in factors (e.g., age, religion, school context, intergroup context) related to sexual prejudice among adolescents and adults….In her teaching, she….also examines how to use our knowledge about adolescent development in creating educational and social context that support and promote positive developmental outcomes for all youth, and specifically for youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.”

Click here, here, and here for more on Horn.

Dorothy Espelage: Professor of Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of IL at Urbana-Champaign. HERE are some words of wisdom from Espelage: “Kids are bombarded by homophobic messages….The kids’ attitudes in this state are homophobic in nature. They marginalize boys who don’t act like boys and girls who don’t act like girls….This is very controversial….It’s tied to religion, it’s tied to values, and we’re a very sexually repressed nation as it is, anyway.”

Ann Rangos: self-identified lesbian high school student who is described by David Fischer of the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance as “an incredible activist.”

Sukari Stone: self-identified lesbian high school student who writes the following on her blog:

I’m extremely passionate about human rights. More specifically gay rights. I work with an orginization that helps make schools safer and more welcoming to LGBTQA students. Equal rights are very important to me. Probably one of the most important things in my life at the moment (and hopefully for awhile). I have serious pride in who I am and honestly don’t care whether others accept me or not. And because of my ridiculous pride I’ll let you in on a little secret of mine…I’m a rainbow kid. Get it? I like girls. Cool right? (Source)

I was thinking gay thoughts as usual)….I promise to try to cut down on the ridiculous about of gay things in my posts. I really can’t help it. Most people have 2 parts of their brain, a logical side and an artistic side. I actually have 3 parts; an artistic side, a logical side and a gay side. (Source)

After reading [“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards], I honestly laughed. Seriously, this guy needs to be put away. I could just imagine a red-faced fat man screaming this sermon at the top of his lungs. “What’s his deal?” I asked myself.

What surprised me even more was the fact that people were so quick to believe this idiot. If they even read the Bible they’d know that the God portrayed in it was a good one. A loving caring and accepting one.

Personally, I am not religious. I don’t believe in God but I have read the Bible and studied religion a little bit. It’s just not my cup of tea. I could rant on and on about religion in general but I don’t want to ridiculously offend someone (for once in my life).

I think that Johnathan Edwards was trying to get his listeners to live a life of fear of paranoia. After all, if I believed that God was holding me by a string over a flaming pit I’d be pretty damn scared too. He’s using fear to force people to live their lives perfectly and not to make any mistakes. The God portrayed in the Bible was a forgiving guy so I’m not exactly sure what edition Edwards was reading. Maybe he knew that this wasn’t happening. That God was a hateful being that wanted to kill everyone. It could’ve been a pretty smart way to brainwash people into believing what you had to say.

Basically, Johnathan Edwards was either a ridiculously smart manipulator or a guy that was coming down from a serious acid trip while delivering his sermon. (Source)

Here are some of the recommendations made by the Koch-appointed Task Force (comments and questions in brackets are mine; all emphases are mine):

• education stakeholders in Illinois [should] commit to engaging in overall school transformation….To accomplish transformation, schools must:
• Recognize the impacts of systemic cultural issues such as racism, sexism, classism, adultism, disability discrimination andhomophobia that contribute to negative and hostile environments for youth and adults
• Provide effective youth programming with:
• Strong ties to theoretical constructs related to bullying…and behavioral change [Will any of the “theoretical constructs” used in “youth programming” dissent from liberal dogma regarding homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder?]
• An evaluation component [Will students be evaluated? If so, on what will they be evaluated? Will they be evaluated on the degree to which they have embraced the moral assumptions of liberal demagogues?]
• Methods and strategies for adapting programs to unique school contexts (e.g., race, age, gender) and ecological domains (e.g., peer relationships, family relationships)
• Provide professional development to all school personnel (including not only administrators and teachers, but bus drivers, maintenance workers, security, cafeteria workers, etc.) on issues of:
• School-wide expectations, as well as reporting and monitoring requirements when expectations are not met
• Impacts of systemic cultural issues such as racism, sexism, classism, adultism, ableism and homophobia that contribute to bullying and school violence, as well as hostile environments for youth and adults that inhibit learning and development
• In order to support schools in the school transformation process, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and other governmental agencies, where possible, should:
• Support amendment of the PSVA (the Illinois “enumerated” anti-bullying law) and implementing regulations to…cover all public and non-public schools, require more detail in mandated anti-bullying policies, and more effectively support school transformation efforts
• Develop two to four common indicators (e.g., incidence rates, discipline referrals related to bullying, overall school climate) that address bullying and school violence and require all schools and districts to report annually
• Establish an administrators’ academy to teach all school administrators ways to establish and maintain a positive school climate
• Make available quality technical assistance and professional development to schools engaged in the school transformation process
• Ensure all pre-professional education for school personnel prepare them to engage in and lead school transformation processes [“Pre-professional education” refers to students preparing to become teachers. In other words, the task force is recommending that all future teachers be indoctrinated with their subversive ideas about homosexuality.]
• Fully fund pilot projects to collect and evaluate data on the efficacy of the proposed school transformation model to comprehensively prevent and address bullying and school violence

Some random thoughts about this legislative debacle:

— It’s odd or ironic or hypocritical that an educational group that purports to embrace diversity and tolerance would apparently make no effort to create a diverse task force. It’s clear that the task force excluded anyone who opposes bullying but believes that affirming volitional homosexual acts harms children.

— It’s also odd that despite the fact that lesbians constitute less than 2% of the population, they comprise 100 percent of the student representation on the task force.

— According to research, the kids who are most frequently bullied are obese kids, and not one was included on the task force. In addition, I’ve never heard a single expert advocate the celebration and affirmation of obesity as a means to eradicate the bullying of obese students.

— I am loathe to refer, even indirectly, to particular students, but our state’s educational leaders have foolishly decided to make students public figures by including them on the task force. This reminds me of the equally foolish practice in District 113 of including students on committees that interview teacher candidates. Teacher candidates should be insulted by such a practice. However did we arrive at a cultural place where immature students who lack both knowledge and wisdom and who hold disordered moral beliefs serve on committees that make critical educational decisions for Illinois students? Clearly, Koch’s allegiance to homosexual kids is greater than his allegiance to conservative adults, sound pedagogy, or philosophical diversity. Perhaps he fears being accused of “adultism” if he doesn’t include students and “homophobia” if he doesn’t include homosexual students on the task force.

—Many conservatives fearfully, ignorantly, and, in some cases, self-righteously proclaim–at least publicly–that the homosexuality of educators and lawmakers doesn’t matter to them. Well, it better matter to them because when an educator or lawmaker affirms and embraces a homosexual identity, they are announcing precisely what they hold to be true about the nature and morality of volitional homosexual acts. And these non-factual assumptions about homosexuality will shape their decisions on a whole host of issues including laws, school policies, curricula, their own classroom comments, and professional development opportunities provided to school employees at public expense.

—How much will these complete “transformations” of all schools cost individual districts and the state?

It should be obvious that this anti-bullying law, like virtually all contemporary anti-bullying laws, policies, and activities, is centrally concerned with exploiting legitimate anti-bullying sentiment and public education to transform the moral beliefs of Illinois students. Part II of this article on Illinois’ “enumerated” anti-bullying law will focus on what community members can do in the hope of mitigating the law’s moral and pedagogical damage.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

By Meghan Cox Curdon, Wall Street Journal

Raise questions about self-mutilation and incest as a young-adult theme and all hell breaks loose.

If the American Library Association were inclined to burn people in effigy, I might well have gone up in smoke these past few days. ALA members, mostly librarians and other book-industry folk, are concluding their annual conference today in New Orleans, and it’s a fair bet that some of them are still fuming about an article of mine that appeared in these pages earlier this month.

The essay, titled “Darkness Too Visible,” discussed the way in which young-adult literature invites teenagers to wallow in ugliness, barbarity, dysfunction and cruelty. By focusing on the dark currents in the genre, I was of course no more damning all young-adult literature than a person writing about reality TV is damning all television, but from the frenzied reaction you would have thought I had called for the torching of libraries.

Within hours of the essay’s appearance it became a leading topic on Twitter. Indignant defenders of young-adult literature called me “idiotic,” “narrow-minded,” “brittle,” “ignorant,” “shrewish,” “irresponsible” and “reprehensible.” Authors Judy Blume and Libba Bray suggested that I was giving succor to book-banners. Author Lauren Myracle took the charge a stage further, accusing me of “formulating an argument not just against ‘dark’ YA [young-adult] books, but against the very act of reading itself.” The ALA, in a letter to The Journal, saw “danger” in my argument, saying that it “encourages a culture of fear around YA literature.”

The odd thing is that I wasn’t tracking some rare, outlier tendency. As book reviewer Janice Haraydaobserved, commenting on my essay: “Anyone who writes about children’s books regularly knows that [Mrs. Gurdon] hasn’t made up this trend. . . . Books, like movies, keep getting more lurid.”

They do indeed. I began my piece by relating the experience of a Maryland woman who went to a bookstore looking for a novel to give her 13-year-old daughter and who left empty-handed, discouraged by the apparently unremitting darkness of books in the young-adult section. To her and many other parents, the young-adult category seems guided by a kind of grotesque fun-house sensibility, in which teenage turbulence is distorted, magnified and reflected back at young readers.

For families, the calculus is less crude than some notion of fictional inputs determining factual outputs; of monkey read, monkey do. It has more to do with a child’s happiness and tenderness of heart, with what furnishes the young mind. If there is no frigate like a book, as Emily Dickinson wrote, it’s hardly surprising that parents might prefer their teenagers to sail somewhere other than to the lands of rape, substance abuse and mutilation.

But, to some, those are desirable destinations. Many of the angriest responses to my essay came from people who believe that a major purpose of young-adult fiction is therapeutic. “YA Saves!” was the rallying hashtag of thousands of Twitter posters who chose to express their ire in 140 characters or less.

It is true that so-called problem novels may be helpful to children in anguished circumstances. The larger question is whether books about rape, incest, eating disorders and “cutting” (self-mutilation) help to normalize such behaviors for the vast majority of children who are merely living through the routine ordeals of adolescence.

There are real-world reasons for caution. For years, federal researchers could not understand why drug- and tobacco-prevention programs seemed to be associated with greater drug and tobacco use. It turned out that children, while grasping the idea that drugs were bad, also absorbed the meta-message that adults expected teens to take drugs. Well-intentioned messages, in other words, can have the unintended consequence of opening the door to expectations and behaviors that might otherwise remain closed.

If you think, as many do, that novels can’t possibly have such an effect, ask yourself: When you press a wonderful, classic children’s book into a 13-year-old’s hands, are you doing so in the belief that the book will make no difference to her outlook and imagination, that it is merely a passing entertainment? Or do you believe that, somehow, it will affect and influence her? And if that power is true for one book, why not for another?

It so happened that, as the Twitterverse was roiling over “Darkness Too Visible,” I received an advanced reader’s copy of an “edgy paranormal” teen novel coming out in August. Have a look at the excerpt on the back cover, where publishers try to hook potential buyers: “I used to squirm when I heard people talking about cutting-taking a razor to your own flesh never seemed logical to me. But in reality, it’s wonderful. You can cut into yourself all the frustrations people take out on you.” Now ask yourself: Is a book the only thing being sold here?

In the outpouring of response to my essay, I’ve been told that I fail to understand the brutal realities faced by modern teens. Adolescence, I’ve been instructed, is a prolonged period of racism, homophobia, bullying, eating disorders, abusive sexual episodes, and every other manner of unpleasantness.

Author Sherman Alexie asked, in a piece for WSJ.com titled “Why the Best Kids Books Are Written in Blood”: “Does Mrs. Gurdon honestly believe that a sexually explicit YA novel might somehow traumatize a teen mother? Does she believe that a YA novel about murder and rape will somehow shock a teenager whose life has been damaged by murder and rape? Does she believe a dystopian novel will frighten a kid who already lives in hell?”

No, I don’t. I also don’t believe that the vast majority of American teenagers live in anything like hell. Adolescence can be a turbulent time, but it doesn’t last forever and often-leaving aside the saddest cases-it feels more dramatic at the time than it will in retrospect. It is surely worth our taking into account whether we do young people a disservice by seeming to endorse the worst that life has to offer.

Sharon Slaney, who works at a high school in Idaho, touched on this nicely in an online rebuke of her irate librarian colleagues: “You are naive if you think young people can read a dark and violent book that sits on the library shelves and not believe that that behavior must be condoned by the adults in their school life.” It is that question-the condoning of the language and content of a strong current in young-adult literature-that creates the parental dilemma at the core of my essay. It should hardly be an outrage to discuss the subject.

Mrs. Gurdon is the Journal’s children’s books reviewer. 

On Friday, May 27, Hawthorn Middle School North in Vernon Hills organized an in-school field trip titled “CHOICES” (Create Hopeful Opportunities in Children’s Everyday Situations) that included six speakers, two of whom told middle school students that they were homosexual.

Prior to the event, parents were sent a brief parental notification letter/permission slip that purportedly identified the topics and speakers. Oddly, parents were not told that any speaker would share with students any information about his homosexuality.

Neither the school employees who organized the event nor any school administrator thought that parents deserved to know that the presentations might include information on the single most divisive topic in America, and one which involves voluntary sexual behavior that many parents believe is profoundly immoral.

At the end of the day, students were invited to write an optional thank-you note to one of the speakers. One seventh-grade student wrote a brief note to the self-identified homosexual former drug user, thanking him for his openness and suggesting that if he and his boyfriend were ever to consider using drugs again, they should ask themselves WWJD (What would Jesus do).

Seventh-grade science teacher, Ms. Tommie Arens, criticized the note’s reference to possible future drug use, so the student decided not to complete it and tossed it in the trash. Arens retrieved it from the trash and informed several other teachers who later called the student into a meeting to question him about his motives for writing.

In addition to being bothered by the student’s note, one of the teachers believed the student had used an inappropriate tone of voice when during the Q & A, he asked the homosexual former drug user whether he had ever asked himself “What would Jesus do?” Some later conversations revealed that a teacher believed that inappropriate snickering took place during the presentation. It’s quite likely that at some point during a day of presentations, some middle school boys snickered about something, but just what is anyone’s guess.

While pondering the issue of middle school snickering, I wondered if the indignant teachers ever considered the impact and wisdom of having speakers announce their sexual proclivities to a middle school audience — proclivities that many consider deviant. When the two speakers announced that they were homosexual, they brought the image of two men having sex to the churning minds of a roomful of adolescents. Middle school students are completely justified in finding the idea of two men engaging in anal or oral sex repugnant, and sometimes children and adults laugh about ideas that make them uncomfortable and which they find offensive. Government employees have no right to expect or implicitly suggest that children not find the idea of two men having sex repugnant. Deviant sexual acts should not be respected, and school employees have no right to imply that they should be.

What is most troubling about this entire debacle is not the disputed actions of a middle school boy but rather the indisputably inappropriate actions of the teachers.

During the meeting with the student and multiple teachers, another 7th grade science teacher, Mrs. Erin Brickman, became frustrated that the student did not acquiesce to her interpretation of events, told the student to “Cut the crap. I’m not going to take any more of this crap,” and marched out of the room. Such behavior on the part of a teacher is inappropriate and unprofessional.

Even more problematic, however, are two of the questions Mrs. Brickman asked the student. She asked him how he felt about homosexuality and what his church teaches about homosexuality. Later the same day, she asked the student’s mother those same questions. Those questions, which are inarguably none of Brickman’s business, reveal two deeply problematic phenomena in public education. First, many teachers have become intrusive and presumptuous. And second, liberal teachers believe their ontological and moral views about homosexuality are objective facts and, therefore, they have the right to promulgate them within the public school context.

In a subsequent meeting with Principal Tom Springborn, which I also attended, the mother of the student asked why the parental notification letter did not mention homosexuality. Springborn said that because the topics that the two homosexual speakers were there to discuss were bullying and drug use, and because the speakers just mentioned but did not discuss at length their homosexuality, parents did not need to be notified ahead of time.

I asked him if a speaker were in a romantic, sexual relationship with his sister and just announced it to seventh-graders but did not elaborate on it, would that be okay. He said, “Yes.” Taken aback, I asked him to confirm his answer. I asked, “Just to be clear, are you saying that it would be okay for a speaker to share with students that he was in a sexual relationship with his sister as long as he didn’t talk further about it.” Principal Springborn again said, “Yes.” He added that he would want to know about such a statement ahead of time.

Now, I can just hear liberals caterwauling about my comparison of homosexuality to adult consensual incest. They will argue that adult consensual incest is immoral but homosexuality is not. But, that’s the disputed issue. Despite what liberals believe on this issue, their moral beliefs are not facts.

Homosexuality is more akin to adult consensual incest than it is to race or skin color. Even the far left organization SIECUS defines “sexual orientation” as “attractions, fantasies, and sexual behavior.” How can a condition defined as such ever be compared to skin color? Those who continually compare homosexuality to race must be compelled to provide evidence for their idiotic analogy.

Furthermore, Mr. Springborn is not exactly correct. The two homosexual speakers did not merely announce that they were homosexual — which I would argue is no small thing in and of itself. They also said that they have always known that they’re homosexual.

Embedded in this incident are several problematic issues.

First, despite Mr. Springborn’s open-mindedness about incestuous speakers, most school administrators would not permit a speaker to announce their amorous relationships with siblings. Nor would any middle school permit polyamorists to mention their sexual proclivities. And why not? The reason such announcements would be prohibited is that school administrators and teachers believe that adult consensual incest and polyamory are immoral. Therefore, allowing homosexuals to announce their predilections points to the reality that administrators have concluded that homosexuality is moral.

Second, both homosexual speakers told the students that they always knew they were homosexual. Such a statement implies biological determinism. Were the Hawthorne students also told there is no scientific evidence proving that homosexuality is biologically determined? Were students told that many immoral impulses emerge at the earliest ages? Were they told that childhood molestation could cause, in the words of a therapist who appeared on Oprah, “sexual orientation confusion”? Were students told that early molestation might result in “sexual orientation” confusion at such a young age that someone may not recall a time when they didn’t feel attracted to their same sex?

I told Mr. Springborn that it appears that one or more of the teachers involved have strong feelings and beliefs about homosexuality that differ from the student’s. He acknowledged that that was, indeed, the case, and he also said the teachers should not bring those feelings and beliefs to school contexts.

He also acknowledged that questioning the student about his feelings about homosexuals or his church’s teaching about homosexuality was inappropriate.

There were yet more troubling issues. In another email to Principal Springborn, one of the teachers admitted that another student was called in to a meeting because a teacher had seen him stare at another student in a “bullying fashion.” So now, staring has become bullying? How is staring in a bullying fashion differentiated from staring in a non-bullying fashion? Is it the starer’s motives, beliefs, or feelings that determine whether an incident of staring constitutes bullying?

Moreover, does every unpleasant student action constitute bullying?

How minimally unpleasant does a student action have to be and how draconian will the school anti-bullying measures have to become before parents say no more? Every civilized adult opposes bullying, but not every unpleasant student action constitutes bullying. Once teachers start inquiring about students’ feelings or religious beliefs, they have gone too far.

The final insult to parental rights and real education occurred after the speakers had concluded their presentations. Students were shown a promotional video about Challenge Day, about which I’ve written two articles (to read about Challenge Day, click here and here).

Following the video, students were given a “reflection” assignment that left some students in tears, a common occurrence among students who participate in Challenge Day. Many teachers view tearful revelations about deeply personal issues as appropriate educational activities.

The mother of the ill-treated student has asked that a notice be sent home informing parents that two of the in-school field trip speakers spoke about their homosexuality and that the video Challenge Day was shown. She has also asked that this notice include an apology from the administration for their failure to provide this information in the parental notification letter and permission slip. Parents deserved that information in order to make an informed decision beforehand, and they deserve it now so that they can have follow-up discussions with their children if they so desire.

The mother is still awaiting a response from the administration.

I can think of no more fitting way to conclude the school year than with excerpts from the retirement speech delivered by retiring Glenbrook North High School social studies teacher, James McPherrin, who is retiring after 33 years of teaching.

The words he expressed put to shame countless commencement speeches by celebrities who have little to offer students other than pedestrian cliches. It would behoove administrators, faculty, and students to hear Mr. McPherrin’s speech at the start and end of every school year.

Mr. McPherrin offers wisdom and erudition through eloquent prose that points those who have ears to hear toward truth:

St. Thomas More, the intrepid 16th century chancellor to King Henry VIII of England, once said, “When statesmen forsake their own private consciences for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.” Now, I would suggest that the very same quotation might be tailored so as to apply directly to teachers. It would read, “When teachers forsake their own private consciences for the sake of their public school duties, they lead their students by a short route to chaos.”

Thomas More was among the sterling individuals in the western intellectual tradition who understood well the necessary relationship between the natural law and the human law, and that circumstances often challenge us to acknowledge the rational demands the former places upon the latter. More, as we know, would later sacrifice his very life in defense of that compelling idea. In essence, dear colleagues, please consider that our cardinal duty as instructors of the young is to shepherd them in their journey towards truth.

Whether it be European History, English Lit, Calc, Phys Ed, or Music, our task is to foster in students a love for and desire to acknowledge what is true. If such a premise does not inspire our efforts, then I’m afraid they might well be for naught. Make it your purpose to ignite the element of intellectual longing that exists in all young people; that desire to know, that desire to bring order out of chaos. Give them that education to which the English writer, G.K. Chesterton, alluded, when he said, “Many are schooled, but few are educated.” There is a difference, and it would behoove us all to acknowledge it openly.

Furthermore, I would encourage you not to align yourselves with those forces within our noble field who would seek to rid the discussion of divine things from the intellectual discourse in our classrooms. This is an unfortunate act that flies in the face of a teacher’s visceral commitment to the free exchange of ideas. Steel yourselves against the notion that such discourse violates the separation of church and state. It doesn’t. A reflection of ethical ambivalence more than anything else, such an argument is a specious one, and those of us who purport to cherish freedom of expression, ought to find it intellectually repugnant. Students are naturally inclined to ask metaphysical questions. To do so is in complete keeping with their nature as young, sentient, beings. It is how they are wired, and to stifle such instincts, or, to attempt to coach them away, does them a grave disservice.

Once they understand the idea of truth and that things can be known — surprise, surprise — they naturally gravitate toward a desire to know in what truth has its origin. The logical consequences of such thinking may unsettle some of us. However, trepidation of that sort is the lamentable result of lost cultural moorings. To attenuate such discussions is to attenuate the very growth of our students’ scholarly faculties. It’s as plain as that! We were meant to contemplate higher things — most obviously within our English and history classrooms. Thomas Aquinas understood this as far back as the 1200s and explained quite clearly our human commission, when he said, if you’ll permit me, “Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do.”

May we have the courage to let our students’ minds move freely and joyfully toward those things for which they were made; and if such pursuits lead them to apprehend that force through whom we live and move and have our being, then so must it be. We should view any attempt to stifle such dialogues as nothing less than an attack upon reason itself. A final quotation from the luminous G.K. Chesterton: “A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it (Everlasting Man, 1925).

May we always have the strength and the wisdom to know when to swim against the stream.

Mr. McPherrin had this to say about his experience in public education: “It’s been a tough slog, but I think truth is making gains.” Our children deserve more teachers like James McPherrin, teachers who will, even in the face of obstacles, persevere in their labor to point students toward truth.

In a May 28, 2011 Wall Street Journal article, Bari Weiss said this about David Mamet, one of America’s foremost contemporary playwrights, who in the last few years has experienced a conversion to political conservatism of sorts.

Before he moved to California, Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright David Mamet had never talked to a self-described conservative.

Mamet said, “I realized I lived in this bubble.”

Weiss also reported that one of the basic truths Mamet realized is that “Real diversity is intellectual.”

Both the image of a person who has never talked to a conservative and the notion that real diversity is intellectual reminded me of one of the more pressing problems affecting public high schools: the absence of intellectual diversity on controversial topics.

A recent event at Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois offers hope that public schools may someday demonstrate a genuine commitment to diversity without which they cannot foster critical thinking.

Stevenson High School’s school-sponsored club, Truth Seekers, hosted a debate between AP Biology teacher Brett Erdmann and AP Calculus teacher Neal Roys on the competing theories of Neo-Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. This debate was followed by a lively Q & A. Approximately 70 adults, including both district employees and community members, and 250 students attended the debate.

Not only did administrators not place any obstacles in the path of club members who sought to hold this event, but they supported and facilitated the students’ efforts. In an email correspondence with IFI, Principal John Carter wrote that “We want students to be as prepared as possible to collect information from a variety of sources, critique that information, and come to their own educated conclusions.”

Superintendent Eric Twadell wrote:

The debate received great response from our students and was a wonderful reflection of the hard work, dedication and passion of our teachers …. we do believe that students should have the opportunity to learn and study a diversity of topics including those that some might consider “controversial.” In fact, as a teacher in the Social Studies Division here at Stevenson, for many years I taught students intelligent design every semester in my World Religions class. Our Stevenson High School Vision Statement calls us to create a culture of inquiry and engagement with challenging academic material, the recent debate was a great opportunity to engage students in important and relevant dialogue.

Dr. Carter and Dr. Twadell expressed important sentiments that all schools endorse in words but many teachers ignore in practice. Instead of presenting students with the best resources from scholars on both sides of disputed topics, many teachers present resources from only scholars whose views line up with theirs and then when challenged about the imbalance, say, “Well, students are free to disagree.”

How can students intelligently disagree when they’ve studied works that espouse ideas from only one perspective? Students are entitled to have their views informed by the best thinking on both sides of controversial or disputed topics.

Stevenson’s website offers this description of the Truth Seekers Club which is as remarkable as the event it sponsored:

Truth Seekers explore topics that matter to students. So we start each semester with student nominations of topics. In a typical semester, students nominate 70 topics. Then we vote to narrow the list to the top 10. During a typical meeting, we explore the topic for the week through any of the following activities: Group Discussion, Video Clip, Guest Speaker, Informal Friendly Debate, Formal Debate, Hot Seat. Once per year, we organize a large venue event to which we invite all interested students, staff and community members.

The first requirement is to keep an open mind to the possibility that truth exists and can be found by those who diligently seek it out. The second requirement is that students agree to form a view of reality that is free from contradictions. Views of reality that contain contradictions will not hold water. Some students attempt to avoid rejection of a cherished yet contradictory world view by separating their beliefs into two non-overlapping realms: public and private. However, the contradiction, like acid, will burn a hole in the world view causing it to leak once again.

Naperville Central High School also has a Truth Seekers Club that is described “as a place for students to tackle hot-button issues that are often touched on in the classroom but unable to be given a full treatment due to lack of time, curricular restraints, or overall reticence to air out an issue deemed too controversial.”

The club has tackled controversies regarding world population; feminism; same-sex marriage; abortion; universal health care; global warming; “gay” rights; evolution, Intelligent Design, and the origin of life; and academic freedom and censorship of “politically incorrect” speech.

On the topic of global warming, students watched both Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and the BBC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. Students watched the film Demographic Winter, which challenges the dominant view that our world is threatened by overpopulation, and the films Indoctrinate U and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which examine whether American universities are truly bastions of intellectual freedom and diversity.

Now, if only we could get all teachers to value intellectual diversity more than they value the promulgation of their own philosophical and political ideologies:

• Perhaps students could study the unproven, unprovable assumptions embedded in a materialistic or naturalistic world view that claims that all that exists is the material universe.
• Perhaps social studies teachers who use The People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn could also have students read some of the criticisms of Zinn’s polemical revisionist history, including those of Sol Stern. And maybe social studies teachers could include excerpts from some of Paul Johnson’s works as companion pieces to Howard Zinn’s.
• Perhaps librarians could be inspired to abandon their de facto censorship protocols (aka Collection Development Policies) and purchase books by Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, John McWhorter, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Christopher Wolfe.
• And the subject about which students remain the most ignorant and on which teachers engage in the most vigorous censorship, that is, homosexuality, needs a good shot of real intellectual diversity. For example, those who teach the plays The Laramie Project and Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes, and Tony Kushner’s essay “American Things,” could also teach essays by Robert George, Francis Beckwith, and Anthony Esolen. Students could read the work of scholars who challenge the deeply flawed comparison of homosexuality to race; or who challenge the idea that moral propositions about behavior constitute hatred of persons; or challenge the idea that strong, enduring feelings render behaviors inherently moral; or who examine how we determine morality.

Intellectual diversity is the lifeblood of academia without which there can be no culture of inquiry or critical thinking. Without intellectual diversity, there is no education; there is only indoctrination.

Every high school would be well served by having a Truth Seekers Club. Parents, if you have a teen who may be interested in a club like this, share this article with them. If either you or your child has more questions about Truth Seekers Clubs, contact the clubs’ advisors:

Neal Roys, Stevenson High School Truth Seekers Club advisor: nroys@d125.org

Dan Tompkins, Naperville Central High School Truth Seekers Club advisor: dtompkins@naperville203.org  

You can bet your bottom dollar that if there’s a way to use public money to promote leftwing political or educational theories, District 113 (Highland Park and Deerfield High Schools) will find it.

Superintendent George Fornero and Director of Diversity Andrea Johnson have managed to waste thousands of taxpayer dollars to promote Critical Race Theory/Critical Pedagogy under the guise of “Equity and Excellence.”

Last month District 113 — along with many other school districts around the country — used public money to send district employees to yet another “White Privilege Conference,” this time in Minneapolis.

In an article for the Minnesota Star Tribune, Katherine Kersten, offers this description of the conference:

To find out (what parents and taxpayers can expect), we can peruse the keynote address for the 2009 conference. It was delivered by “social justice educator” Paul Kivel and appeared in the conference journal, “Understanding and Dismantling Privilege.”

Kivel begins with what passes these days as a prayer: “I want to acknowledge the creative spirits in the world that nurture and sustain us and that connect us to each other and to the plant and animal life around us.”

Then he winds up for a fire-and-brimstone sermon. We Americans “are completely dependent on U.S. imperialism and war to sustain our daily lives.”

Our schools, too, are riddled with racial bias. “Our school system has been set up … to perpetuate white supremacy and white privilege.” Poor and minority students “do not drop out — they are pushed out.”

What’s gone wrong? For one thing, Christianity has far too much influence. It “has played a key role in developing and justifying sources of oppression” such as “violence and genocide,” Kivel tells us, and is “the beginning of modern or biological racism.”

But don’t despair, he counsels. We must look beyond our “declining empire” to “exciting progressive developments” in Hugo Chavez’sVenezuela — among them, “land reform and redistribution of wealth, neighborhood committees, recognition of women’s unpaid labor, end of spanking.”

In addition to Kivel, who spoke again this year, here are just a few of the other 2011 speakers whose livelihoods we taxpaying chumps subsidize and whose feckless ideas permeate public school curricula:

Z! Haukeness (yes, that’s actually his name): Haukeness is a “transgender” who admits to looking “pretty masculine” and asserts that he is “gender queer, gender non-conforming.” He explains that he became involved in working for racial justice after having a radical seventh grade teacher who told his class that “All of you are racists and your parents are too.” (Read more HERE.)

Jessica Vasques Torres: According to diversity consultant Jamie Utt, who loved the conference, lesbian Torres asked “Why do we, as queer folks want to join an institution with a 50% failure rate? Shouldn’t our goal be to deconstruct the very destructive, sexist, and heterosexist institution of marriage itself?” (Read more HERE.)

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz: According to Utt, Dunbar-Ortiz said that “‘The colonists who came to this country might as well have been wearing Nazi uniforms,'” in that “Their effect was the same on the indigenous people of this land.”

Waziyatawin: Utt learned from Ms. Waziyatawin that “Many people don’t want to hear the truth about what has been done to black, brown, and red people on these lands because it challenge the very system of supremacy on which our lives are built. The United States itself is built upon oppression. That can’t be reformed. The only antidote to a colonial government is to end the colonial government.”

In a speech given in another context, Waziyatawin argues that Minnesota’s celebration of its sesquicentennial was “really a rationalization for pretty horrific crimes” including “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.”

Since I’m a District 113 taxpayer, I emailed the administration with a few questions about district participation in this conference, and demonstrating their usual commitment to transparency, the administration told me I would have to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to get my questions answered. I complied.

What I learned is that District 113 applied for a grant through the federal “Title II Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund” which provides “funds to increase student academic achievement by elevating teacher and principal quality through recruitment, hiring, and retention strategies and to hold local educational agencies and schools accountable for improvements in student academic achievement.”

In the application, Diversity Director Andrea Johnson wrote that the district’s goal was to “work toward eliminating the racial predictability of which students fall into the highest and lowest achievement categories by continuing our Equity and Excellence work.”

In answer to the question on the grant application regarding how the district will evaluate the success of the programs on which they spend federal funds, Johnson wrote: “Through classroom walk-throughs, equity audits, and focus groups, we will assess our progress toward this goal. Additionally, we will administer the Intercultural Development Inventory assessment and collect data on the cultural competency of our staff who have gone through the training.”

Remarkable. The administration received a grant to increase student achievement, and yet there is no evaluation of student achievement whatsoever. Instead, they will test staff on their “cultural competency.” For the uninitiated, that means the district will test staff to determine their ability to regurgitate Critical Race Theory/Critical Pedagogy assumptions.

They will also walk through classrooms, perform equity audits (whatever that means) and have focus groups in which they will “assess” their progress. In the 1970s, I think that was called navel-gazing.

My FOIA revealed that the district received $10,000 for “Equity Staff Development Stipends” and $7,227 for “Equity Conferences” like the “White Privilege Conference.” It also revealed that one of the four district employees who was sent to the White Privilege Conference in Minnesota was the secretary for the Counseling Department, Judy Tentes. Someone needs to explain how — even in theory — having a secretary — who has no instructional responsibilities — attend a White Privilege Conference will improve student academic achievement.

Since District 113 has over the course of a decade spent well over $100,000 of taxpayer money on Critical Race Theory — I mean, “equity and excellence” — isn’t it about time to provide some objective data to prove it has closed the racial achievement gap? The administration doesn’t need to test employees for their “cultural competency.” The administration needs to prove that the money they’ve spent promoting Critical Race Theory and Critical Pedagogy through Peggy McIntosh’s SEED program, Lee Mun Wah’s Stir Fry Seminars, Glenn Singleton’s Courageous Conversations, and the White Privilege Conferences has had a measurable impact on student achievement (I can’t help but wonder what the Hispanic parents of District 113 students would think of the district spending over $100,000 of money that is intended to help their children score better on standardized tests to instead teach staff and faculty that whites, males, and heterosexuals are oppressive and often genocidal).

It should come as no surprise that a district so enamored of Critical Race Theory and Critical Pedagogy that it would annually ship employees all over the country to attend the White Privilege Conference would also have a teacher who presents at it. Deerfield High School English teacher and Critical Race Theory disciple Christine Saxman has been a presenter at the 10th, 11th, and 12th White Privilege Conferences.

To my knowledge, none of Deerfield’s or Highland Park’s many well-educated community members demand any evidence to justify years of expenditures on workshops, conferences, seminars, meetings, and “diversity” consultants. Thousands of dollars of public funds have been swallowed up by efforts to convince district employees that the racial achievement gap is centrally caused by the whiteness of white people. While skipping along the primrose path to “equity and excellence” Nirvana, our Critical Race Theorists stuff their pockets with the hard-earned money of people whom they accuse of being racist, sexist, homophobic oppressors.

One curious phenomenon continually overlooked in District 113 — a district that prides itself on fostering critical thinking, tolerance, diversity, and intellectual rigor — is that not once has the administration offered a professional development opportunity to staff and faculty in which they study the work of scholars who criticize Critical Race Theory, Critical Pedagogy, or the intellectual assumptions of what’s euphemistically called “teaching for social justice.”

“If a million people believe a foolish thing,
it is still a foolish thing.”
~ Anatole France

Forward this email to a friend.

I’ve said it countless times, but maybe hearing it from the horse’s mouth will convince the fearful or naïve that we’ve got to grow spines and boldly oppose every resource, activity, and policy in public schools that affirm homosexuality as ontologically and morally equivalent to heterosexuality.

Attached are excerpts from the recent and repugnant revelation by a homosexual blogger at queerty.com of the hopes, plans, and goals homosexual activists have for public schools:

Click HERE to read these disturbing and offensive excerpts.
(WARNING: OBSCENE CONTENT TO FOLLOW)

We can sit around whining about the state of our schools and nursing our cowardice more attentively than we care for children–or we can do something to protect children and preserve truth.

Bold truth-telling and action will be personally costly. It may cost us favor among friends and colleagues or even cost us our jobs, but those who are followers of Christ should not be surprised. Nor should we retreat from such persecution. Instead, we should remember, “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5: 11-12).

The “comprehensive” sex education bill that we alerted you to in March has been re-written and re-introduced as HB 3027 and will soon be heard in the Illinois State Senate.

Background

HB 3027 is completely unnecessary and an intrusion into local control. Public schools in Illinois already have the ability to teach “comprehensive” sex education if they wish. Local public school administrators do not need a mandate from Springfield telling them they must teach comprehensive sex education when the preponderance of evidence suggests that authentic abstinence education is successful.

Our own Laurie Higgins identifies a number of significant problems with the bill:

• HB 3027 requires that “course material and instruction shall place substantial emphasis on both abstinence… and contraception…” First, “substantial emphasis” is vague, ambiguous language open to interpretation, Second, typical “comprehensive sex ed” curricula give short shrift to abstinence teaching both in terms of amount of material and tone. Typical sex ed subordinates abstinence to contraception.
• Three different sections of HB 3027 require that sex education “material and instruction shall be developmentally and age appropriate, medically accurate, and complete.” The word “complete” is ambiguous and potentially opens the door to the inclusion of deeply problematic material. For those districts that want to teach about methods of contraception, the term “complete” is unnecessary in that elsewhere in the amendment is wording that requires contraception to be taught.
• HB 3027 defines important terms, but “abstinence” is not defined. What will students be taught to abstain from? Will they be taught to abstain from just vaginal intercourse — or will they be taught to abstain from all erotic interactions. Does abstinence education include abstaining from oral sex, mutual masturbation, anal sex, bestiality, and paraphilias?

What is “Comprehensive” Sex- Education?

“Comprehensive” or “Abstinence Plus” sex education refers to sex-education curricula that emphasize and encourage contraception use, rather than abstinence. In fact, a study of the most common “comprehensive” or “abstinence-plus” programs found that a mere 4.7 percent contained any reference to abstinence at all. (Comprehensive Sex Education vs. Authentic Abstinence: A Study of Competing Curricula by Shannan Martin, Robert Rector, and Melissa G. Pardue, Special Report, August 10, 2004.)

Moreover, the requirement that sex education material and instruction be “developmentally or age-appropriate” is problematic because there is no societal consensus on what constitutes developmentally and age-appropriate content.

SIECUS “Age-Appropriate” Guidelines for Sex Education The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States’ “Comprehensive Sexuality Education Guidelines” recommends teaching 5-8 year-olds about masturbation and homosexuality; teaching 9-12 year-olds about cross-dressing; and teaching 12-15 year-olds about abortion and sexual fantasies. (See IFI’s Addendum.)

SIECUS is the national go-to organization for content guidelines for comprehensive sex-ed curricula.

The evidence that comprehensive sex educators provide for their dismissal of abstinence education is poor. For example, they criticize abstinence curricula by saying that virginity pledges are ineffective. But virginity pledges do not constitute abstinence curricula. Virginity pledges are part of some abstinence curricula.

Comprehensive sex educators also assert that abstinence education is a failure because students who have been through abstinence programs are no more likely to be abstinent than are students who have been through comprehensive sex ed programs. The problem lies with the logic in this argument. If both groups of students are equally sexually active and, therefore, abstinence curricula are failures, then so too are comprehensive sex ed curricula failures.

Contraception-centered sex-education curricula encourage children and youth into early sexual experimentation. They mislead youth and create a false hope that condoms will provide sufficient protection from the physical, emotional and social consequences of early sexual activity. Authentic abstinence education programs provide youth with life and character skills, not condom skills. Sexual activity among youth is far too costly for adolescents, families, society and taxpayers.

Passing HB 3027 would mandate the teaching of curricula that most parents and taxpayers would find objectionable.

Anyone who has spent any extended period of time in a public high school, either as an employee or student, knows that discrimination exists in these purported bastions of tolerance and diversity. Just ask any conservative Christian teen — especially those teens who take their faith seriously. For example, ask the members of the extracurricular club “Growing in Faith Together” (GIFT) at Glenbard South High School in the Chicago suburb of Glen Ellyn.

Members of GIFT have experienced resistance from the administration, particularly from Principal Terri Hanrahan, for the better part of this school year. Among other things, Principal Hanrahan initially told students that they could not put up posters promoting their club, something that all other extracurricular clubs can do. Then she prohibited students from spelling out on their signs what the acronym GIFT stands for, saying that students cannot include the word “faith” on their posters. GIFT students accommodated that inappropriate request, got approval for their new posters which they put up around the school only to have the administration remove them.

More recently, Glenbard South had a freshman orientation night for next year’s incoming freshmen. GIFT was excluded from the materials that listed extracurricular clubs and activities. While the gay-straight alliance P.R.I.S.M. is included on the Glenbard South’s school activities webpage for students, GIFT is excluded.

Glenbard South parents have repeatedly told Ms. Hanrahan that she is in violation of the Equal Access Act which requires schools to treat all extracurricular clubs the same, but to no avail. Ms. Hanrahan is either troublingly ignorant of the Equal Access Act or she is deliberately violating it. In either case, her decisions may prove costly to District 87.

Here is a recent letter that a family sent to Superintendent Michael Meissen about this issue:

During the school year 2009-2010 a group of Glenbard South Christian students began meeting in the same room and with the same school sponsor as a previously existing student Bible club. The students wanted to meet for the purpose of getting to know each other better and to grow in their Christian faith together. Over the course of time, these students decided to refocus their meetings and to begin to call their group, Growing In Faith Together. The club grew. The two leaders of the club were seniors and graduated in 2010.

My son and another student were selected to be leaders of the GIFT club for the present school year 2010-11. When school began last fall, my son and others began to resume meetings for GIFT. They made posters to post in the hallway to give meeting information. The posters included the name of their club, Growing in Faith Together. These students were told by the school administration that they could not put up their posters, because the word “Faith” was on the poster. They were told that “because of separation of church and state,” their poster could not be allowed. They were told they could use only the acronym GIFT.

Subsequently, the students made a new set of posters. This time the posters used the acronym GIFT to advertise the club. They took the new posters to the administration and the new posters were approved for posting. The students put up the posters, but after school a few days later, the posters were removed from the walls, presumably by the administration. The students were not contacted.

Several parents contacted the school administration, Ms. Hanrahan in particular, and asked for some explanation of what had happened to the posters and why. This time, I and other parents were told that the posters were removed because they implied “faith formation” was happening at Glenbard South. We were told that South could not be considered in any way to be aligned with spiritual formation.

I contacted Ms. Hanrahan and asked her to reverse her decision that the name GIFT could not be used. I found her decision to be in violation of the Equal Access Act. I got no response at all from Ms. Hanrahan until three weeks later when I told her I would contact the superintendent unless she responded before the upcoming Friday afternoon. Late that Friday afternoon, I received a note from her that she would allow the acronym GIFT to be used (but only the acronym).

Recently, at the incoming freshmen orientation and during the registration process, I learned that all incoming students received registration materials that included a list of Glenbard South activities and clubs that they could participate in as new high school students. However, the GIFT club was not included on the list. When a parent contacted Ms. Hanrahan for the reasoning behind this, she indicated that GIFT was not a school-sponsored club despite the fact that GIFT had been meeting for over a year on Glenbard South’s campus, has a faculty sponsor, and is student-led.

Based on my understanding of the Equal Access Law, Glenbard South is engaging in discrimination and violating the Equal Access Act. I would like to see the situation rectified immediately. I would like the Glenbard South administration to demonstrate by word and action that they will allow the GIFT student club to be treated exactly the same as other student clubs at Glenbard South. I would like the school to refrain from censoring the name of the student-led club. I would like their posters to be allowed up, including the name they choose-not just the acronym. I would like the school to include the GIFT club in any materials in which other student-led clubs are listed, including the school’s web site. Other Glenbard high schools do list Christian groups among their club listings on their school web sites. I would like the school to allow GIFT to make student announcements as are other clubs and also to be allowed to be included in the school year book.

Thank you very much for your attention to this serious matter.

If we hope to repair the damage done to public education by “progressive” ideologues whose views dominate not only school administrations and faculties but also schools and departments of education that train future teachers, we need an army of parents like these parents. We need parents who have the wisdom to recognize error and the courage to do something about it, even if the necessary action is personally costly. We need parents and community members who understand that we must not ignore or dismiss problems because they seem trivial. It is the slow accretion of little offenses like this one at Glenbard South that has resulted in huge, systemic problems. And we have to persevere. We must not continue to be short-sighted, weak-willed, fearful, or lazy while the other side perseveres tenaciously with the long view always in mind.

*Illinois Family Institute contacted both Principal Hanrahan and Superintendent Meissen for comment, but our calls were not returned.

State Representative Dan Burke (D-Chicago) is the lead sponsor of House Resolution 254 that, as of today, Friday, May 13, states the following:

RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETY-SEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we recognize that the programs listed in this resolution are all qualified to teach character development, and that we acknowledge that the Good Choices Program, by virtue of the fact that it teaches common sense guidelines covering specific tools to help children evaluate situations and make good decisions that will improve life for themselves and others, is one example of a program fully in compliance with Section 27-12 of the School Code, as it seeks to enhance the character development and potential future moral judgment of the children of this State and, therefore, encourages its use and the use of similar programs by educators, coaches, mentors, and other community service leaders.

There are several problems with this resolution.

First, spending valuable work time offering formal kudos to particular curricula seems a waste of the salaries we taxpayers pay our legislators.

Second, apparently some of our legislators, like some school board members, curricula review committees, and department chairs, don’t bother to research carefully the curricula they endorse. Fortunately, we have leaders like State Reprepresentative Jerry Mitchell (R-Sterling) who discovered that one of the curricula Dan Burke is seeking to endorse is the “Good Choices Program” which is based on the writings of the controversial founder of the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard. My concern is less with Resolution 254 and more with the Good Choices Program.

Integral to the Good Choices Program is Hubbard’s book, The Way to Happiness, and a video presentation of the 21 moral precepts which are found in his book. Many of the ideas in the Good Choices Program are critical to the healthy functioning of any society, but those ideas are not exclusive to the Good Choices Program or to self-actualization guru L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard has merely repackaged some of the moral truths revealed to man by God through both general revelation (truths written on men’s hearts) and special revelation (the Bible). In fact, many of Hubbard’s moral precepts, which are central to the Good Choices Program, correspond to Bible verses. Unfortunately, the Good Choices Program does not attribute these truths to the God of the Old and New Testaments. It attributes them to L. Ron Hubbard.

The Good Choices Program posits that moral rectitude and good works are the “way to happiness.” While moral rectitude makes for a healthier society and prevents a great deal of suffering, a life of good works and moral rectitude alone cannot bring real happiness. Real happiness can be found only in submission to the will of God.

And there are yet more troubling ideas promoted in the Good Choices Program. Here are a few:

• “What is true is what is true for you… . Think your own way through things, accept what is true for you, discard the rest.”This raises the question: if truth is subjective, as this statement asserts it is, then are the 21 moral precepts objectively true? This statement is also antithetical to the Bible, which teaches that “Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered” (Prov. 28:26).
• “Happiness lies in engaging in worthwhile activities. But there is only one person who for certain can tell what will make one happy–oneself.” These teachings reveal both the primacy of works and the primacy of self in Hubbard’s false religion, both of which are incompatible with a Christian world view.
• “Respect the Religious Beliefs of Others” Scripture has this to say about other religions: “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works” (2 John 7-11). Christians have no obligation to respect, which means “to regard with honor or esteem,” ideas that are false and destructive.
• “Flourish and Prosper: the real way to defeat [your enemies] is to flourish and prosper…. if one flourishes and prospers, one certainly will wind up the victor. And, hopefully, without harming a single hair on their heads.” Here’s what Scripture says about dealing with our enemies, about God’s sovereignty, and about prosperity: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt.5:44-45).
• “If one does not survive, no joy and no happiness are obtainable. …Any individual or group seeks to obtain from life what pleasure and freedom from pain that they can. Your own survival can be threatened by the bad actions of others around you. Your own happiness can be turned to tragedy and sorrow by the dishonesty and misconduct of others…. Such wrongs reduce one’s survival and impair one’s happiness. You are important to other people. You are listened to. You can influence others…. It is in your power to point the way to a less dangerous and happier life.” The assertions regarding pleasure and pain suggest an Epicurean view of life, which is also incompatible with Christianity. Scripture teaches, for example, that “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

This is not the first time Scientologists have fomented controversy by trying to get Hubbard’s ideas into public schools, and the Good Choices Program is currently used in many school districts. The problem is not just with some of the ideas present in the curriculum, however. The problem is also with the potential for this curriculum to lead children to “The Way of Happiness” website and thereby expose them more deeply to the false religion of the Church of Scientology. *

If a character-building curriculum based on the teachings of the founder of the Church of Scientology is acceptable in our Illinois public schools, then I assume a character-building curriculum based on the teachings of the “founder” of Christianity would be equally acceptable.

If moral precepts derived from the religious beliefs of L. Ron Hubbard’s Church of Scientology are acceptable in public schools, I assume the moral precepts of the Old Testament and New Testament — and from which Hubbard derived those of his precepts that have value — are equally acceptable in public schools.

The final troubling aspect of this mini-tempest concerns the maturity and judgment of some of our lawmakers. Scientologist Nancy Cartwright, the actress who provides the voice of Bart Simpson, came to Springfield to promote the Good Choices Program. The Chicago Sun Times reported that Representative “Burke said he became enthusiastic about backing the resolution because it would be ‘fun to have Bart Simpson’s voice down there,’ (in Springfield). And the Chicago Tribune reported that Burke said “he couldn’t resist the novelty of a celebrity endorsement.” Seriously? We have a lawmaker who endorses a resolution because he’s bedazzled by celebrity? Is this the message we want our leaders to convey, either in word or deed? Do we want our leaders to encourage the cult of celebrity that so besots American society? Do we really want leaders who are so besotted? I think not.

* For more on Scientology, click HERE.

Thank you for your emails and calls!

We have some very good news to report. Superintendent Michael Meissen of District 87, which includes Glenbard South High School, just sent a gracious letter to the parents who expressed their concern about the violation of the federal Equal Access Act regarding the Christian club “Growing in Faith Together” (GIFT).

In this email, he acknowledged that the school “erred…when asking the GIFT club to use exclusively the GIFT acronym, instead of allowing the group to use the full name of Growing in Faith Together.” That apology was not exactly accurate in that Principal Terri Hanrahan did not ask students not to use the full name; she forbade them to use it. Nonetheless, the acknowledgement of error is a good thing.

Dr. Meissen also stated that “prior decisions regarding the GIFT club were not made with the intent of disadvantaging the group, although it is clear that we created at least that appearance.”

He explained that “Public school districts face a very difficult obligation to balance the rights of students of faith, while trying to avoid entanglement with ‘church and state’ issues raised by those who seek to keep schools free of any reference to religion.” In regard to non-school-sponsored clubs, however, that balancing problem was solved in 1984 with the passage of the federal Equal Access Act, of which Ms. Hanrahan was apprised by parents last fall and which she ignored. The Equal Access Act requires schools to treat faith-based, non-school-sponsored clubs exactly like any other non-school-sponsored club regardless of whether that bothers secularists and atheists.

Dr. Meissen further explained that going forward GIFT “may have the full name of the group displayed on posters put up in the school….We will also include the GIFT club where other non-school sponsored student groups are listed. As for the website, we will be working on a unified practice for all schools (in District 87) as it appears the schools are inconsistent regarding which clubs are listed on their respective websites. [T]he GIFT club will be permitted inclusion in the school yearbook consistent with the level of inclusion provided to other non-school sponsored student groups.” Dr. Meissen also said that he “will continue to monitor this situation to make sure that going forward the GIFT club is given the same consideration as other non-school sponsored student groups.”

All of this turmoil could have been avoided if seven months ago Principal Hanrahan had responded as wisely, fairly, graciously — and in accordance with the law — as Dr. Meissen did today.

IFI would like to thank all of our subscribers who took the time to express their concerns to Ms. Hanrahan, Dr. Meissen, and the District 87 Board of Education.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

In Part 1 of this two-part article about a recent dust-up at Prairie Ridge High School in Crystal Lake, I discussed English teacher Christine Wascher’s decision to teach meditative techniques as a means of helping “students forge a deeper connection to the text.” The text she was teaching was Paul Coelho’s The Alchemist. As reported in a Trib Local article, Superintendent Jill Hawk said, “In this case, we had a teacher using a creative activity to engage her students in good literature.”

This statement confirms what I have previously written about the teaching of English: the beauty of teaching English is that teachers can always find ways to rationalize the teaching of whatever they want to teach, including controversial texts and activities that undermine traditional values. They just assert that these texts or activities cultivate higher order thinking skills, or critical thinking skills, or research skills, or the teaching of literary terms, or that they connect thematically to other texts being taught, or they help engage students, or they’re creative. We’re dupes. Virtually any piece of writing could be used to fulfill those purposes. English curricula, like the pants I prefer to wear on Thanksgiving, are delightfully expansive because justifications for it are marvelously elastic.

I bet someone as creative as Ms. Wascher could come up with other activities to help students forge a deep connection to The Alchemist, perhaps some that are less religious and alchemical than TM.

Educators are masters of rhetorical manipulation — or in many cases poor thinking. For example, when Hawk says “creative,” she likely means unusual, which doesn’t necessarily mean effective, appropriate, or substantive. And what she refers to as “good literature,” Joe Queenan described as “mind-numbing kitsch” in the New York Times “Sunday Book Review.”

A blogger wrote this piquant review of The Alchemist. I’m posting almost the entire review in the hope that parents will pay closer attention to the substandard caliber of literature that many English teachers are choosing, particularly contemporary texts:

The Alchemist is the bastard child of…the Self-Help And Actualization Movement (SHAM if you like, a movement exposed well in a recent book of the same title by author Steve Salerno, which I ironically just happened to read about a week before starting The Alchemist, and which I highly recommend you read instead of the Alchemist). It is SHAM cross-pollinated with Antoine de Saint Exupery’s The Little Prince and the fundamental plot structure of a particular story from Jalal al-Din Rumi’s Mathanawi entitled “In Baghdad, Dreaming of Cairo: In Cairo, Dreaming of Baghdad.” Unfortunately, it lacks both the charm and originality of The Little Prince, and while the simplicity of Rumi’s story had a certain appeal, that was way back in the 13th century when it was originally written. Here, today, in the 21st century, The Alchemist comes across as nothing more than a calculated but clumsy fable, largely plagiarized from other sources and overly reliant on cheap cliche, written to appeal to the sort of hazy quasi-mystical sense of self and “higher purpose” that many people seem to find so appealing.

When I say it is clumsy, I mean that only in a literary sense. What he lacks in literary skill, Coelho makes up for in an ability to read the mentality (and literacy level) of the modern consumer and gauge exactly what it is they want to hear about themselves. He is as good at it as Tony Robbins, Tommy Lasorda, Deeprak Chopra, and all the other peddlers of “personal empowerment” who have grown tremendously rich despite having just about nothing of actual substance to offer. He is a miserable writer, but a tremendous businessman, and has done a marvelous job of making himself a millionaire without offering anything of any real worth at all.

The story is thus – a nomadic shepherd boy in Spain has a dream about a mysterious treasure. He consults a fortune-teller about his dream, who tells him he needs to go to the pyramids in Egypt. He then conveniently bumps into a Wise Old Man (who we know is a Wise Old Man because he talks about Personal Legends), who randomly bequeaths upon him the Stones of Uma Thurman, which I guess vibrate with Force Feedback or something when you are near hidden treasure (Coelho may have cribbed a bit of this from the Legend of Zelda as well). He then goes on a long journey through Africa, encountering just about every fantasy, religious and bedtime-story cliche that has ever appeared in the world of literature. Eventually he winds up finding out that the treasure was right back where he started from, but of course, he meets the Love Of His Life along the way and all ends with sunshine and roses and fairy kisses for everyone involved.

As summarized by the back of the book jacket, the main message of the story is that “One’s only obligation in life is to pursue one’s Personal Legend”. Playing perfectly off the alienation, lack of spiritual and communal fulfillment, lack of real culture and tradition, and inherent selfishness and consumption-based acquisitiveness of the vast majority of his readers, Coelho delivers a message and a fable that tells you simply to do whatever you want to do – so long as you really, really-weely believe, the Universe will magically make it all work somehow (I suppose we can presume, then, that Ken Lay was merely following his Personal Legend when he bilked and defrauded everyone involved with Enron, and that perhaps Hitler was merely Following His Heart when he gassed legions of Jews as well).

Unexplained is whether selfish or amoral Personal Legends are granted by the Universe (the ultimate goal of the shepherd boy’s journey is in fact a pile of actual gold, leading one to wonder if Coelho is claiming that materialism and wealth is all that really matters in the end). And what happens when two Personal Legends directly conflict with or contradict each other? Also unexplained. How is the worthiness of a Personal Legend judged, and by who or what exactly? Coelho’s flimsy structure blows over like a paper shack when faced with any sort of serious scrutiny or critical examination. It was not designed to withstand intelligent investigation. It was designed for people who will accept whatever feel-good nonsense they read unquestioningly. It was designed for people who want to take whatever whim they are currently experiencing, be it the desire to Be An Actress or the desire to Start A Business, and invest it with some Deeper Mystical Meaning that also, conveniently, gives them license to act in a selfish and inconsiderate way in pursuit of their goal.

Amongst other gems of doublethink in the story, Coelho claims that “the universe protects drunks, the elderly and children” … well, except when it doesn’t, I guess, which happens all the time, such as the recent earthquake in China which did not seem to discriminate a bit in it’s victim-taking.

And if something goes wrong in your Quest to fulfill Your Personal Journey? Well, as with all other forms of SHAM, you failed to Follow Your Heart properly. It’s your fault. You need further study – may we suggest by starting with Warrior Of The Light: A Manual, Coelho’s “companion” work to the Alchemist?

The book would be easily dismissed as utter nonsense, and its adherents as getting what they deserve, if there were simply not so many of them, and if they were not so rabid and cult-like in their worship of the book. Indeed, this book seems to have become a sort of new quasi-religion for many people. Check out the Amazon reviews for it – not the best source of quality literary criticism, I grant you, but an excellent place to take the general pulse of how the average reader is responding to a work. The positive reviews, which outweigh the negative by nearly one thousand, often contain some variant of “If you don’t like this book, or are critical of it, it’s because you JUST DON’T GET IT.” I would offer a counter-argument. If you like this book, it is because you do not get it. You are apparently not equipped to realize you are being thoroughly snowjobbed…. note that the author professes to be a “black magician” in the tradition of that other famous Latin-American huckster author, Carlos Castaneda.

The Alchemist’s ultimate contribution to world culture, ultimately, is not literary. It is that it serves as an exemplary sign of how overwhelmingly many people there are who are poorly read, who are incapable of even basic critical thought, and how easy it is for even a clumsy snake-oil salesman to become a “guru” in this idiotic and under-educated era.

This incident raises the question, should parents and other taxpayers have any input on curricular choices? Many teachers firmly believe they should not. Certainly, parents should not dictate curricula, but should they have no input? Some argue that taxpayers have input through the election of school board members, but is that accurate?

School boards have virtually nothing to do with curricula. It’s teachers, department chairs, and curriculum directors who decide curricula. But, some counter, taxpayers hire school board members who then hire teachers. The reality, however, is that school boards for the most part merely rubber stamp the hiring recommendations of department chairs.

To summarize, taxpayers have the ability to hire school board members who have nothing to do with curricula and virtually nothing to do with hiring, therefore, taxpayers have virtually nothing to say about the most important aspects of education. The only influence taxpayers have on curricula is remote to non-existent.

So, how can taxpayers ensure that teachers promote shared community values or prevent activist teachers from using curricula, taxpayer money, and their coveted autonomy to try to shape the moral and political beliefs of students? And how can taxpayers ensure that teachers are choosing literature for its literary value rather than whether it treats race, gender, class, homosexuality, and “spirituality” in politically correct ways? I would argue that the politically driven, intellectually vacuous, and morally bankrupt leadership of many contemporary educators who view themselves as “agents of change” necessitates a diminution of their autonomy. Because academic ideologues have exploited their roles as public employees and lost sight of their roles as public servants, they should lose the autonomy they have arrogantly abused.

One way to prevent teachers from exploiting their access to public money and other people’s children is to establish three district policies regarding controversial topics:

• Curricular parity policy: such policy would require teachers who choose to teach resources that address controversial topics (e.g., feminism, abortion, premarital sex, reproductive technologies, homosexuality, Gender Identity Disorder, climate change, Critical Race Theory, and “social justice”) to spend equal time having students study resources that present opposing, competing, or dissenting ideas.
• Staff/professional development parity policy: such policy would require that if staff development opportunities are provided in which resources on controversial topics are studied (e.g., “enumerated” anti-bullying curricula, “teaching for social justice,” Critical Race Theory, or Critical Pedagogy), equivalent staff development opportunities must be provided in which opposing, competing, or dissenting views are studied.
• Professionalism policy for teachers: such policy would explicitly prohibit teachers from expressing their moral, political, or philosophical views on controversial topics. This policy will likely be met with vociferous opposition primarily from teachers who hold “progressive” views and see themselves as “agents of change.” Most conservative teachers would welcome such policy.

The good news is that thanks to the vigilance and courage of two wise fathers, neither the Vagina Dance nor meditation techniques are being taught at Prairie Ridge High School.

Forward this email to a friend.