Contact Sen. Maloney and your State Senator ask them to drop this unwarranted expansion of government.

A deeply troubling bill (SB 136) has been proposed in the Illinois General Assembly by State Senator Edward D. Maloney (D-Chicago) that will affect all children in non-public schools, including home schools.

Existing school code permits the voluntary registration of non-public school students with the state. If SB 136 were to pass, it would compel all parents or legal guardians of home or privately schooled students to register with the state. Registration that is now voluntary would become compulsory. The arguments used to justify such compulsory registration are specious and reveal underlying flawed assumptions.

Sen. Maloney has expressed concern that those who homeschool their children are not accountable to anyone — and by anyone, he clearly means any government employee. Does Sen. Maloney actually believe that the state has proved itself better at educating children than parents who homeschool?

What Maloney fails to acknowledge is that many of these parents know that they are accountable to a much higher authority than the state. They know that they are accountable to God for the manner in which they educate, train, and nurture their children as well as how they steward their time, talents, and resources.

Proponents of mandatory registration fail to address the serious problem of requiring parents to register with a government entity that is actively engaged in undermining their political, moral, and theological beliefs. At significant personal costs, these families are trying through homeschooling to avoid the subversive ideological indoctrination in which many public school teachers increasingly engage.

Proponents fail to acknowledge that bias and censorship pervade public school curricula. The problems in public schools involve not merely what troubling ideas are being promoted to students but what ideas students are never exposed to because of systemic bias and censorship.

Proponents of this bill fail to address the likely, if not inevitable, slippery slope from registration to regulation. While SB 136 requires parents only to register their children with the state, it’s naïve to think that our bloated and still ravenous state bureaucracy will not expand its purview to dictate curriculum, administer tests, monitor or evaluate student progress, require certification of those who serve as teachers, and/or mandate home visits by state officials — all in the service of protecting children, of course.

Those in favor of mandatory registration fail to provide any evidence for the need for such registration. Such evidence would need to be something far more substantive than anecdotal accounts of a few homeschool parents who have failed to educate adequately their children. And such evidence would need to prove that homeschooled students are failing at higher rates than students in public schools. If there were evidence, for example, that homeschooled students have poorer test scores; higher rates of suicide or drug and alcohol use; greater involvement in gang activity; feel less safe; have lower admission rates into colleges and universities; or have lower college retention and graduation rates than public school students, then perhaps there would be a case for mandatory registration.

Since current research suggests that homeschooled students actually score higher on average than public school students, the effort to mandate registration must be driven by the baseless assumption that government bureaucrats are inherently more effective at protecting and educating children. If this assumption weren’t so gallingly presumptuous, it would be laughable.

Let’s take a moment to clarify for hubristic politicians and public educators (which does not mean all public educators) what some current research reveals about homeschooled students.

The following statistics come from a 2009 study that explored “academic outcomes of home school students attending a medium sized, doctoral institution located in the Midwest”:

Homeschool students ACT Composite score 26.5–Public school ACT Composite score 25
Homeschool students ACT Reading score 28.2–Public school ACT Reading score 25.6
Homeschool students ACT English score 27.8–Public school ACT English score 24.5
Homeschool students ACT Science score 25–Public school ACT Science score 24.5
Homeschool students ACT Math score 24.6–Public school ACT Math score 24.7

The college retention rate for homeschool students was 88.6 percent as compared to 87.5 percent for public school students.

First year GPA for homeschool students was 3.41 as compared to 3.12 for public school students.

The four-year graduation rate for homeschool students was 68.7 percent as compared to 58.6 percent for public school students. (For more information on the academic success of homeschool students click HERE.)

Problems like poor test scores, high dropout rates, teenage pregnancies, teenage suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, and gang activity are not common problems within the homeschooling community as they are in many government schools. Unmotivated teachers too are uncommon among home schools.

So, Sen. Maloney believes that all homeschool and private school students in Illinois, including those who fare better than public school students, should be forced to register with the state that has demonstrably and miserably failed countless students over many years?

Has anyone calculated the additional costs to our bankrupt state that will be incurred if unwarranted compulsory state registration becomes the law for all non-public school students?

Government bureaucrats and educators like Bill Ayers and his “agents of change” see themselves as academic experts nonpareil and the ultimate protectors of children. As a result, they arrogate to themselves the right to intrude without warrant into family business.

Illinoisans should oppose this unjustifiable and needless expansion of governmental authority. This is especially important now as Illinois public schools stand poised to expand their advocacy of radical beliefs regarding homosexuality into every public elementary, middle, and high school, which IFI hopes will result in more families exiting public schools.

There are approximately 180 days in a typical school year, and it appears that homosexual activists and their ideological compatriots would like to spend part of each and every one on homosexual indoctrination.

We’ve got the Day of Silence, which is sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN); Spirit Day sponsored by Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD); Ally Weeksponsored by GLSEN; National Coming Out Day sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC); the Transgender Day of Remembrance sponsored by the HRC; and GLBT History Month, which is endorsed by virtually every homosexuality-affirming organization. It might just be easier to have a Federal law mandating Daily Homosexuality Affirmations. They can replace the ever so unpopular nano-moments of silence.

Although, homosexual activists and their “allies” are inveterate propagandists, they aren’t stupid. They know they can’t come straight out and say, “Our learning objective is eradicate the belief that homosexual acts are immoral or to humiliate conservative kids into silence.” So, instead they exploit bullying and suicide to achieve that goal without ever telling taxpayers what moral mischief they’re up to.

This week is “No Name-Calling Week,” a devilish creation of — surprise surprise — GLSEN, that is being promoted by GLSEN and Barnes and Noble. Here are just a few of the activities they’ve concocted to “end bullying” (nudge nudge, wink wink):

Lesson Four (recommended for K-5)

Explain to students that they will hear a number of different scenarios read aloud one at a time, and that for each scenario they hear it will be their job to decide how they think they might act if they were the witness or bystander in the situation.

Scenario #3
Shelly brings her two dads to parent night to show them around her classroom and to meet her friends and teacher. The next day, Rachel turns to Masha and says she doesn’t want to be Shelly’s friend anymore because her family is “weird.” Shelly comes over to color with Rachel and Masha, and Rachel says “Eew, we don’t want any weirdos over here. Go sit somewhere else.” What can Masha do?

Scenario #5
Antonio and Sabine are good friends, and sit together every day on the bus to and from school. Shomi sometimes sits near them, but has stopped recently because a group of students who also ride the bus have started sitting behind Antonio and Sabine and throwing balls of paper and other garbage at them for the whole ride. Shomi also hears the group calling Antonio gay and saying Sabine must really be a boy because otherwise she would have friends who are girls. What can Shomi do?

Lesson Five (recommended for K-5)

Part 1 – Guided Fantasy (10-15 minutes)

Ask students to make themselves as comfortable as possible, and to find a position in which they can relax and close their eyes. You may want to clear space for students to lie down or dim the lights for this portion of the lesson.

By reading directly from the Bully-Free School Guided Fantasy supplement, lead students into a quiet visualization session in which they spend time picturing in detail the way a school without name-calling would look, sound, and feel. Read slowly and pause in between sections of the guided fantasy so that students really have time to make clear pictures in their heads that they will be asked later to flesh out more completely…

“I want you to find a comfortable position that you can stay in the whole time I am reading. When you are comfortable, I want you to close your eyes. Take a deep breath – breathe in, and now breathe out. Let your body begin to relax, and as you breathe deeply in and out, let all the noises around you fade into the background. We are going to use our imaginations to take a journey to a school. This school is a lot like our school, but it is special because in this school there is no name-calling and no bullying at all. I am going to help you walk through this school, but it is up to you to decide what this school looks and sounds like, and how it feels to be there. We’ll talk later about what you see, but for now, let’s start our trip…”

Middle School Lesson

Read the poem below by a theatre troupe that uses it at performances about harassment and homophobia in schools. Think about and discuss the questions that follow.

Ask students to make themselves as comfortable as possible, and to find a position in which they can relax and close their eyes. You may want to clear space for students to lie down or dim the lights for this portion of the lesson.

By reading directly from the Bully-Free School Guided Fantasy supplement, lead students into a quiet visualization session in which they spend time picturing in detail the way a school without name-calling would look, sound, and feel. Read slowly and pause in between sections of the guided fantasy so that students really have time to make clear pictures in their heads that they will be asked later to flesh out more completely.

I AM THE ONE (1ST READING)
I am the one
I am the one who is subject to whispers
I am the one who is always being told to be different.
I am the one who has to pretend, the one who can’t tell my family, the one who walks alone in the hallway. The one who isn’t sure anymore.
I am the one who is afraid I will be the victim of a hate crime.
I am the one you are afraid to be seen with.
I am the one who is quick to point fingers and laugh, whose friends are on both sides of the line, who conjures assumptions and spreads rumors.
I am the one who is surrounded by people who are all the same. Who wants to stick up for people but doesn’t know how, who wants to say something back.
I am the one who just wants to be accepted
I am the one who feels powerless
I am the one who wants to be set free
I am the one who wants my parents to love me for me
Who cares inside but is afraid to speak up.
Who always wanted to have the perfect life, but doesn’t know what that means anymore.
I am the one who is threatened by difference.
I am the one who disagrees with my parents, I am the one who is never safe, who doesn’t know who I can talk to, who avoids the ones that call me names.
I am the one who is outraged at the harassment I see in my school.
I am the one.

I AM THE ONE (2ND READING)
I am the one
I am the one who calls you a fag
I am the one who gets called a fag
I am the one who gets called a fag for the way I dress, who is unsure, is questioning
Who stays home sick, who doesn’t care,
I am the one who wishes it was different
I am the one who is making it different.
I am the one who is invisible only when I lie, is out of the closet, who holds my head high-
I am the one who is vocal about my beliefs, who stands alone but is not lonely.
I am the one who craves acceptance
I am the one who defends gay people and gets ridiculed for it.
I am the one who knows that homosexuality is against God’s will.
I am the one who tries to be someone else in order to be accepted, who hates because I don’t know, who hates because I don’t care
Who hates because my friends do.
Who stands silently and watches, the one who is afraid to tell my friends I might not be straight.
I am the one who doesn’t care what others think, the one willing to risk, the one not afraid to be different.
I am the one who is vulnerable. The one who is openly, happily gay
The one who is incorrectly labeled as gay
I am the one who has no one
I am the one who doesn’t know how, or why, I am the one…alone

High School Lesson Plan

Have students break into groups of 4‐5 and distribute copies of the LGBT Terminology 101 handout to each group, ideally such that every student has a copy. Ask students to spend about five minutes reading and reviewing the terms in their group, and then have each group write down one or two questions they have about the terminology on a piece of paper.

Collect students’ questions, bring students back together as a large group, and read each question out loud (without revealing which group asked which question). Facilitate discussion of the questions, encouraging students as much as possible to answer each other’s questions. Emphasize that it is not wrong to not to know everything about another person’s identity, and that asking respectful questions is often the best (or only) way to find this information out.

LGBT Terminology 101 Handout

Bisexual: A sexual orientation and/or identity of a person who is sexually, erotically and emotionally attracted to some males and some females.

Biological Sex or Sex: This can be considered our “packaging” and is determined by our chromosomes (such as XX or XY), our hormones (e.g., estrogen, progesterone, testosterone) and our internal and external genitalia (e.g., vulva, clitoris, vagina, ovaries, penis, testicles). Typically, we are assigned the sex of male or female at birth.

Coming Out: Declaring one’s identity, specifically, being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, whether to a person in private or a group of people. To be “in the closet” means to hide one’s identity. Many LGBT people are “out” in some situations and “closeted” in others.

Gay: A sexual orientation and/or identity of a person who is sexually, erotically and emotionally attracted to some members of the same sex. Although gay can refer to both gay males and gay females, many gay females prefer the term “lesbian.”

Gender Expression: Refers to an individual’s physical characteristics, behaviors and presentation that are linked, traditionally, to either masculinity or femininity, such as: appearance, dress, mannerisms, speech patterns and social interactions.

Gender Identity: This is how we identify ourselves in terms of our gender. Identities may be: male, female, androgynous, bigender, transgender, genderqueer and others.

Heterosexism: Applies to attitudes, bias and discrimination in favor of heterosexual sexuality and relationships. It includes the presumption that everyone is heterosexual or that male/female attractions and relationships are the norm and therefore superior. It is the belief that everyone is or should be straight.

Heterosexual: A sexual orientation and/or identity of a person who is sexually, erotically and emotionally attracted to some members of another sex (specifically, a male who is attracted to some females or a female who is attracted to some males). Often referred to as “straight.”

Homophobia: An irrational fear of, aversion to or discrimination against homosexuality or lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

Lesbian: A sexual orientation and/or identity of a person who is female‐identified and who is sexually, erotically and emotionally attracted to some other females.

Transgender: An identity of a person whose gender identity is not aligned with their sex assigned at birth and/or whose gender expression is non‐conforming.

Transphobia: An irrational fear and/or hatred of those who are perceived to break or blur societal norms regarding gender identity or gender expression. Usually directed at those who identify as transgender or defy stereotypical gender norms, regardless of their actual gender identity or sexual orientation.

No, Toto, we’re definitely not in Kansas any more.

These activities manipulate emotions while never exposing or critiquing the assumptions embedded within the activities. Some people may hold all of these assumptions to be true, but public school teachers have no right to teach them as if they are, indeed, factual, objective, or true.

All of the activities listed above are laden with embedded, unproven, non-factual assumptions that have no place in public education. For example, the “LGBT Terminology” handout teaches students that “heterosexism” is an attitude in favor of heterosexuality and in favor of the presumption that male/female relationships are the norm and superior. By identifying the traditional and common belief that only heterosexual behavior is moral sexual behavior with the pejorative term “heterosexism,” the handout teaches that it’s bad and wrong to believe that heterosexuality is the moral norm. It should outrage taxpayers that any public school teacher would teach other people’s children that conservative moral beliefs are wrong.

In addition, Orthodox Judaism, Islam, the Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations believe that heterosexuality is morally superior to homosexuality. The public should not tolerate publicly funded government employees teaching other people’s children even implicitly that their religious beliefs are erroneous or problematic.

Homosexuality should not be discussed in public elementary or middle schools at all. Gender Identity Disorder–or what homosexual activists like to refer to with their invented euphemism, “transgender”–should not be discussed in public elementary or middle schools at all.

If homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder are discussed in public high schools, students should study resources written by the best scholars on both sides of the philosophical spectrum.

Schools should be prohibited from using the term “homophobia” in that homosexual activists use it to refer not just to name-calling and physical harassment but also to conservative beliefs on the nature and morality of homosexuality. In addition, high school teachers should be required to use the correct term for those who experience confusion about their gender: Gender Identity Disorder.

Schools are able to teach students not to bully without specifically addressing homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder just as they are able to teach students not to bully without specifically addressing a whole host of other moral and psychological disorders. For example, schools can teach students not to bully without specifically mentioning or affirming Body Integrity Identity Disorder, paraphilias, polyamory, or promiscuity.

No public school teacher has the right to teach either implicitly or explicitly that homosexuality is normative or moral (or equivalent to race). Those are unproven beliefs–not facts. Hold your local public school educators to their commitments to honor all voices and to respect diversity. Conservative voices are entitled to be honored, and conservative beliefs are an integral part of a diverse community.

Educators also say they want parents to advocate for their children. Have the courage to be pro-active advocates for your children. If you have children in public schools, notify your children’s teacher/s immediately that under no circumstances are your children to be exposed to any resources, activities, or teacher commentary–including anti-bullying resources and activities–that address homosexuality or Gender Identity Disorder. Then ask them to confirm via email that they will honor your request.

Here’s one of the many truths that GLSEN doesn’t want you to know: You can oppose both name-calling and GLSEN’s propagandistic “No Name-Calling Week.”

---

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form.

If a monthly pledge is not feasible at this time, perhaps you could send a one-time, tax-deductible gift. Click HERE to donate today!

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

Caution: Article includes a graphic description of the “dance.”

I had hoped never to write about the “Vagina Dance” again, but in light of last week’s media coverage, the response of district administrators, a letter to the Northwest Herald from a Crystal Lake health teacher, and a troubling number of ugly emails and Facebook postings by Prairie Ridge students, it seems a follow-up article is in order.

First, District Spokesperson Jeff Puma was quoted in the Northwest Herald as saying, “There is no ‘Vagina Dance.'” I guess that depends on what one’s definition of “is no” is. Here is an excerpt from an email that Principal Humpa sent on Dec. 9, 2010 to the father involved. In it, Humpa refers to the purportedly non-existent “Vagina Dance” four times:

Mr. King:
…
In early November, we had a phone conversation regarding your concerns about the Vagina Dance activity in Health class. At the close of that conversation, I made a commitment to speak to Ms. Loeding, the PE department chairman, and Ms. Levin, your son’s Health teacher, about alternative strategies to teach the female reproductive system. That day, I spoke with both of these individuals about the potential demeaning nature of the Vagina Dance, especially in name, and the desire for alternative instructional strategies to be explored. Everyone was in agreement.

Later that week, you stopped by my office for an update. I shared with you the information detailed above. While I don’t recall the specific series of questions that you asked me, the essence of our conversation was that we would be seeking to discontinue the Vagina Dance activity. We would explore other options.

Let me further clarify my point of view. My request of Ms. Loeding and Ms. Levin was to investigate a variety of alternative instructional strategies to be used to present the female reproductive system in lieu of the Vagina Dance.

Sincerely,

Paul Humpa
Principal

Shortly after the Northwest Herald article appeared, WGN-TV ran a story on the “Vagina Dance.” What’s interesting is that Mr. Puma couldn’t even bring himself to say the word “vagina.” He mentioned “fallopian tubes, ovaries and so on.”

Then a female student began to demonstrate the non-existent “Vagina Dance” that she too had learned in class. Visibly uncomfortable, the student stopped before even arriving at the uterus, let alone the vagina. In addition, she acknowledged feeling “awkward” in class.

Mr. Puma has claimed that the “Vagina Dance” is a nickname given to the dance by students and further claimed that my description of the dance was an “inaccurate misrepresentation,” so in an attempt to be accurate, I will describe it with laser-like precision:

Ms. Levin, who identified the activity as the “Vagina Dance,” told her students that “the ‘Vagina Dance’ is like the Hokey Pokey. It goes along similar to the Hokey Pokey.” She then told her students to stand up with legs apart. She demonstrated the dance; then she did it again with the students; and then she had the students do it two more times, while she observed.

• First, she raised her arms parallel to the ground and rotated her hands (which represent ovaries) in circles, saying in a sing-song-y rhythm like the Hokey Pokey, “You’ve got the ovaries.”
• Then, she started doing arm circles, saying rhythmically, “You’ve got the fallopian tubes.”
• Then she placed both palms against her belly button and sliding them up and down her mid-section, she said “You’ve got the uterus.”
• Then she placed both palms against the groin area and sliding them from side to side, she said rhythmically, “You’ve got the cervix.”
• Then, with her legs apart, she placed her hands on her inner, upper thighs and sliding them up and down to the knees, she said, “You’ve got the vagina.”
• She concluded by putting her weight on her heels and moving the toes of her feet in and out, saying, “You’ve got the labia.”

Funny Mr. Puma didn’t mention “vagina” and “labia” during his WGN-TV appearance.

Crystal Lake Health teacher Helene M. Duda wrote a troubling letter to the Northwest Herald in defense of the “Vagina Dance.” It was troubling for a number of reasons. First, she said that,

The “Vagina Dance” is a learning activity designed by Deb Tackmann…and is included as one of her activities in Glencoe’s “Hands On Health” textbook.

So, clearly “Vagina Dance” is not a nickname that students have given the “dance,” as school spokespersons stated on multiple occasions.Further, Duda said that the

“activity is simply a kinesthetic learning activity that is effective to help students remember the location and attributes of the reproductive system in a scientifically accurate manner.”

Really? Does Duda really believe that the activity detailed above teaches the location and attributes of the reproductive system in a “scientifically accurate manner”?

In addition, neither IFI nor the father involved objected to the “Vagina Dance” on the basis of inefficacy. We objected to it on the basis of its potential to make some students uncomfortable and its undermining of modesty.

Then Duda expressed her view that

Those who deem the activity to ‘take away modesty and [be] disrespectful to women’ obviously have not seen the demonstration. The real disrespect to women here would be to not accurately educate young people about what and where these parts are and how they can be damaged by unprotected sex.”

Duda here implies that those who object to the “Vagina Dance” oppose the accurate teaching of female reproductive anatomy and the risks of unprotected sex. Where, pray tell, is her evidence for that peculiar claim? I was quite clear that it was the manner in which the material was presented that was the issue–not the content.

Finally, Duda refers to IFI as a “prejudiced religious group” that writes articles devoid of credible facts. I’m not sure what precisely she means by prejudiced, since she provides no evidence for that claim. And I don’t know what credible facts can be produced when making the case either that the “Vagina Dance” is inappropriate and may undermine modesty or that it’s appropriate and does not undermine modesty. Apparently, Duda’s belief about the appropriateness of the “dance” is a credible fact and IFI’s belief that it is inappropriate is a prejudice.

There are other aspects to the story that I omitted from last week’s article. The student who did not want to do the “Vagina Dance” asked Ms. Levin for permission not to participate. She told him that he had to do it and that it was required. The father contacted her to discuss his concerns, but she never responded. How do those responses reflect a respect for diverse views?

IFI has been told by Prairie Ridge students that not a single student has found this activity problematic, which I find not believable. But even if it were true, so what? With all due respect to teens, they do not and should not determine curricula for a number of reasons.

First, many teens lack both knowledge and wisdom; that’s why adults run schools.

Second, teens hate limits. No matter how inappropriate, obscene, or politically partisan a text or activity, if it’s challenged by concerned community members, incensed teens will react with unrighteous indignation and often with obscene emails and Facebook messages. IFI has had to spend considerable time removing obscene messages left on our Facebook page by Prairie Ridge students.

In addition to reading a boatload of obscenities and epithets, I learned some interesting things from Prairie Ridge students about their school. Apparently, unconventional mnemonic devices are a specialty among some teachers at Prairie Ridge. One student, self-identified as “Gomorrahmetal,” told me that his psychology teacher used a mnemonic device to help students remember “encoding, storage, retrieval.” That mnemonic device was “Everybody Shoots Rappers.” “Gomorrahmetal,” in a state of high dudgeon about my article, asked rhetorically, “Should we fire my Psych teacher for that violent reference?”

Another student shared that one of his teachers expresses his political opinions in class, particularly his ardent support of President Barack Obama. I don’t know what District 155’s policy is regarding teachers expressing their political views in class, but in many school districts such political advocacy is frowned on — in theory if not in practice.

School districts all over the country should be critically thinking about the kinds of comments teachers make; the resources they choose; the activities they lead; and the degree of commitment they have to honoring the diverse views of all families — even conservative families.

Policy should be established that strictly prohibits teachers from expressing their own political or moral views either directly through their classroom, comments, or the resources they choose. And these policies should be communicated clearly to teachers and enforced by administrators.

In addition, administrators and teachers should critically think about whether modesty is a value; whether teachers have any responsibility to cultivate it; and whether their language, resources, and activities may contribute in small or large ways to undermining it.

Is the “Vagina Dance” the most significant issue facing public schools? Of course not. Is it emblematic of the increasingly vulgar resources and activities that students are exposed to in public education? You betcha. It offers a glimpse into the kinds of curricular and supplementary resources that remain concealed from taxpayers behind schoolhouse doors. And the ensuing “misrepresentation” or dishonesty on the part of the District 155 administration reveals another troubling yet all too common problem in public schools.

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form.

If a monthly pledge is not feasible at this time, perhaps you could send a one-time, tax-deductible gift. Click HERE to donate today!

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

A couple of months ago Crystal Lake’s Prairie Ridge High School Health teacher Jacqulyn Levin decided that the best way to teach her co-ed class of sophomore students the parts of the female reproductive anatomy was to use something she called the “Vagina Dance.” To the tune of the Hokey Pokey, Levin led her class in a puerile dance that involved pointing to and singing about reproductive body parts while prancing about the classroom.

Her selection of this inappropriate instructional activity demonstrated a lack of empathy for those who may have a degree of modesty and self-respect that Levin does not possess. Did she consider that some students might feel uncomfortable participating in or even watching this dance and that they might fear being ridiculed if they chose to opt-out?

Her decision to use this dance as a teaching tool also reveals that she has no commitment to fostering modesty (please don’t be deceived by the attempt of “progressives” to conflate essential modesty with some kind of priggish, neurotic prudery). The very fact that a teacher would consider such an activity reflects how debased and immodest a culture we have. And it reveals that she has no regard for the values of all the families who have entrusted their children to her tutelage.

When a father complained about the dance, she defended it as a “kinesthetic” device to help students memorize body parts. The “kinesthetic” argument is simply a rationalization, an obvious and foolish attempt to conceal the inappropriateness and silliness of the activity with a patina of pedagogical legitimacy. Somehow few teachers in math, science, literature, or social studies feel the need to employ “kinesthetic” activities to facilitate memorization. If ever there was a subject in which “kinesthetic” activities would be inappropriate, it would be seem to be female sexual anatomy in a coed class.

Sounding a wee bit like Professor Irwin Corey, Principal Paul Humpa wrote the following non-sense to the concerned father:

I made a commitment to speak to Ms. Loeding, the PE department chairman, and Ms. Levin, your son’s Health teacher, about alternative strategies to teach the female reproductive system….My request of Ms. Loeding and Ms. Levin was to investigate a variety of alternative instructional strategies to be used to present the female reproductive system in lieu of the Vagina Dance. Through their efforts, I expect that thorough research of effective instructional strategies and activities designed to address different learning styles will be conducted. These strategies would certainly not exclude the potential use of kinesthetic methodologies.

So, Humpa is going to talk about alternative strategies, investigate a variety of strategies, and expect that thorough research of strategies would be conducted. Concerned District 155 parents must feel better knowing that Humpa is going to talk, investigate, and expect research to be conducted.

This is the kind of rhetorical runaround conservative parents regularly experience when challenging inappropriate activities and resources.

Principal Humpa also made the same irrelevant comment to this father that so many administrators tell parents who question the appropriateness of an activity or resource. Humpa told him that he hadn’t received any other complaints. It’s a common strategy on the parts of administrators to say with feigned wide-eyed incredulity: “By golly, Mrs. Smith, yours is the only complaint I’ve received.” It’s an administrative attempt to marginalize and embarrass parents into silence.

It’s irrelevant how few the number of complaints, and here are some reasons why it’s irrelevant:

• Many teens don’t share with their parents what takes place in their classes, so it could be that very few parents know about the “Vagina Dance.”
• Some parents lack the discernment to know which activities and resources should be challenged.
• Some lack the courage to challenge inappropriate activities and resources. Many parents are afraid to address problems because they don’t want to be labeled as puritanical or prudish.Conservatives all too often will not speak truth unless they’re guaranteed that doing so will be cost-free.
• And many parents are afraid to address problems because they fear their children will suffer repercussions from teachers.

Parents often rationalize their silence by saying that an offensive activity, or scene in a film, or passage in book is too trivial to address. They fail to realize that cultural change rarely happens through dramatic single events but rather through the slow accretion of little occurrences we ignore or dismiss.

It’s also important to understand that sometimes an administrator’s claim that he or she has received no complaints is a bald-faced lie as was the case with District 113 Superintendent George Fornero several years ago.

A controversy blew up in Deerfield over the teaching of a wildly obscene, homosexuality-affirming play entitled Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes. At least three different mothers called Fornero to express their opposition to the teaching of the play, and he told each mother that her complaint was the first he had received.

Perhaps Ms. Levin should make a video of herself and her class performing the “Vagina Dance,” which she could show on Parent Night each Fall. Then she, a paid public servant, could post it on YouTube–all in the service of transparency and accountability.

I wonder what public school teachers would do differently if all of their classes were taped and posted on local access television just like school board meetings. I suspect that many of their resources, activities and classroom commentary would change significantly.

There once was a time when teachers were mature, wise, modest, discreet, respectful, intelligent, dignified, and apolitical enough to deserve the kind of autonomy they enjoy, but no more. So many public school teachers demonstrate such a lack of maturity, wisdom, modesty, discretion, intelligence, dignity, political neutrality, and respect for the values of parents as to warrant greater community oversight.

“Progressive” teachers whose moral compasses have gone awry and who hubristically view themselves as “agents of change,” count on their nearly absolute autonomy, public ignorance, and conservatives’ fear of ridicule. These “educators” must lose all three.

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form.

If a monthly pledge is not feasible at this time, perhaps you could send a one-time, tax-deductible gift. Click HERE to donate today!

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

In early November 2010, suburban St. Charles North High School became embroiled in a controversy during yet another public school event designed to affirm homosexuality.

In response to “Ally Week,” a pro-homosexual week sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), three students wore t-shirts that said “Straight Pride” on the front and had a verse from Leviticus on the back that read, “If a man lay with a male as those who lay with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and shall surely be put to death.”

Administrators asked the students to cross out parts of the verse, but the next day when two students wore shirts that simply read “Straight Pride” with no Bible verse, administrators asked them to cover their shirts with sweatshirts because they deemed the phrase disruptive. Space does not permit a discussion of First Amendment speech rights, diversity, tolerance, fairness, or disruptiveness, all of which deserve a full discussion.

Instead, I want to respond to an editorial by homosexuality-affirming demagogue, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn, who wrote the following:

“Gay Pride” is an antidote to gay shame – the sense of alienation and otherness in adolescence that prompted writer Dan Savage to start the It Gets Better project to reduce the incidence of suicide among gay teens; kids who kill themselves in part because they’re treated unmercifully by the sorts of peers who would wear shirts to school consigning them to being murdered at the command of an angry God.

…the expression “Straight Pride” can only be read as a gratuitous and contemptuous response to the suggestion that gay people not be marginalized.

…Most of us long ago got our minds around the idea that “Black Power,” a slogan calling for dignity and opportunity for historically oppressed African Americans, is not the bland mirror image of “White Power,” a slogan employed by bigots clinging fearfully and often violently to the vestiges of Caucasian prerogative.

School administrators have not just the right but also the obligation to quell such hate speech within their walls.

Before responding to Zorn’s comments, I want to say that the verse from Leviticus was unnecessarily provocative. For a proper understanding, this verse requires context and theological exposition–two things in which liberal journalists seem little interested even as they pontificate on things theological.

Also, I hope readers will research the man to whom Zorn refers: Dan Savage is a homosexual writer and speaker who uses sophomoric, hateful, and obscene rhetoric to promote sexual perversion and denigrate Christians.

Zorn is wrong in asserting that “Straight Pride” can “only be read as a gratuitous and contemptuous response to the suggestion that gay people not be marginalized.”

Although “gay pride” may signify a proclamation against shame, it also implies that conservative views are wrong, hateful, and must be silenced. Zorn implicitly affirms this when he compares those who hold conservative moral beliefs about homosexuality to hateful, fearful, violent, bigoted oppressors. That’s a lot to impute to teens who wear “Straight Pride” t-shirts. And it’s a message they don’t need to hear from Mr. Zorn, because they likely hear it repeatedly at school.

“Straight pride” is not contemptuous of the message that homosexuals should not be marginalized. “Straight pride” rebels against the idea that only pro-homosexual messages have a right to be spoken in public schools. “Straight pride” conveys the idea that conservative moral beliefs are right, true, and entitled to a place in public discourse, including schools.

Adolescents don’t take kindly to authoritarianism or censorship, which is what many conservative teens rightly perceive in the endless implicit and explicit criticism of traditional moral beliefs in public schools. Again and again, conservative kids hear that their moral beliefs about behavior constitute hatred of persons and must be silenced. The phrase “Straight pride” is not a contemptuous message of hatred for persons who identify as homosexual; nor is it a threat. It is an act of non-conformity that conveys the message that conservative students have as much a right to express their moral beliefs as liberal students and teachers have to express theirs.

Teens can see what many taxpayers don’t want to see: activist ideologues inside and outside public schools are imposing their unproven political, moral, and philosophical beliefs on students.

And some teens have had enough.

If taxpayers would oppose this sustained and systemic propaganda, teens wouldn’t feel the need to.

Those who truly love children–parents, grandparents, public school teachers and administrators, church leaders, and legislators–should no longer tolerate government employees preaching homosexuality-affirming dogma in schools that their taxes subsidize.

In schools that purport to care about diversity, the free exchange of ideas, and critical thinking, students are entitled to study competing ideas about, for example, whether homosexuality is analogous to race; whether disapproval of homosexual acts constitutes hatred of persons; whether homosexuality is biologically determined; whether homosexuality is fixed; whether interracial marriage is analogous to homosexual marriage; and whether children have an intrinsic right to a mother and a father.

Don’t avoid discussions about homosexuality. Talk to your neighbors, friends, teachers, and church leaders. Write letters to your local press and elected legislators. Ask your pastors and priests to speak up in the communities in which they live. Ask them to teach adults and teens in your church how to think through the secular arguments used to normalize homosexuality. Don’t flee from persecution. Persevere for the sake of our children, our schools, our freedom, and truth.

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form.

If a monthly pledge is not feasible at this time, perhaps you could send a one-time, tax-deductible gift. Click HERE to donate today!

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

By now many have read about the incident that took place in a suburban Detroit high school. Teacher Jay McDowell expelled a student from his economics class because the student said that due to his Catholic faith, he does not accept homosexuality. This took place during one of the many homosexuality-affirming events that take place in public schools. This one, “Ally Week,” is sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, as is the Day of Silence.

Not only did McDowell expel the student from his class, but according to written student accounts to the administration, McDowell shouted at the student; slammed the classroom door; called an administrative office in front of the entire class to say that the expelled student had engaged in “discrimination”; spent class time expressing his personal philosophical, political, and moral beliefs; and showed an “anti-bullying” film, rather than use his period to teach economics.

As a result of his actions, McDowell was disciplined.

So, what does discrimination, harassment, and bullying look like to the teacher of tolerance, Jay McDowell?

According to an Associated Press (AP) report, McDowell is filing a complaint with the district over his discipline, saying “I want to force adults to look at what situation we’ve created…I would really like us to be more aggressive in our policing of harassing and bullying.”

There, McDowell has said what those of us who are familiar with the beliefs and goals of the Left have been trying to warn the public about: Homosexual activists and their ideological allies in public schools believe that expressing conservative moral beliefs about homosexual acts is harassment and bullying.

As a result of their expansive view of harassment and bullying, they presumptuously and self-righteously believe they have the right to try to change the moral beliefs of other people’s children and to censor the expression of them.

Here is what McDowell had to say on a Detroit television program regarding free speech:

I think it was a teachable moment. And it was a teachable moment to show that you can have whatever religious views you want, which is very important, but there are certain things that we don’t say in the classroom. And there a certain things that we still don’t say in the public sphere.

Although this a remarkable thing to hear from anyone, from a government-employed educator who is supposed to foster critical thinking, respect for diversity, and the free exchange of ideas, it is also deeply troubling.

And it’s a view so extreme that even the ACLU disagrees. According to the same AP report, “Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan’s LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Legal Project” says that “‘those statements (of the expelled student)…were protected speech….The only way we’re going to create a better environment in schools is to start talking about this.'”

McDowell’s apparent belief that homosexual acts are moral is neither factual nor proven. His apparent belief that homosexuality is a condition analogous to race is neither factual nor proven. His apparent belief that disapproval of homosexual acts is equivalent to racial bigotry is neither factual nor true. And his belief that conservative beliefs should not be spoken in the “public sphere” is frightening.

Is it all expressions of moral disapproval that have no place in the public sphere or just those with which Jay McDowell disagrees? In Mr. McDowell’s moral universe, do expressions of disapproval of polyamory constitute discrimination, harassment, and bullying? Do expressions of disapproval of Catholic beliefs constitute religious discrimination and bullying of Catholic students? Perhaps Mr. McDowell could enlighten the rest of America as to which moral statements can be spoken in the public sphere.

In educational contexts, the study and free exchange of ideas is essential. Advocacy of personal beliefs on controversial topics by teachers must be explicitly prohibited. And discipline, ridicule, or excoriation of students who express beliefs with which teachers disagree must be punished. If anyone is guilty of harassment, discrimination, and bullying as well as unprofessionalism, it is Jay McDowell. McDowell’s punishment, a one-day suspension without pay, is insufficient.

Mr. McDowell and many other activist ideologues in public schools all around the country, including here in Illinois, should have mandatory training regarding how to demonstrate respect for intellectual diversity; how to foster critical thinking by having students spend equal time studying the best writing from the best scholars on both sides of controversial topics; and how to demonstrate professionalism by concealing personal values, beliefs, and biases.

Moreover, taxpayers should demand that school districts write policy that requires all of the above.

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form.

If a monthly pledge is not feasible at this time, perhaps you could send a one-time, tax-deductible gift. Click HERE to donate today!

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

Parents who wonder how much more aggressive sex education can get should be concerned about guidelines which the United Nations is concocting, inspired by Alfred Kinsey. “Promoting sex education to the youngest of the young has drawn harsh criticism to a UN agency and its interpretation of age-appropriate education,” Terrence McKeegan, J. D. reported in an update for the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute on November 4, 2010.

“It is never too early to start talking to children about sexual matters,” the guidelines issued by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization proclaim.

Please bear in mind, the notion of a UN-inspired U.S. public school curriculum is not such a far-fetched one. The International Baccalaureate program is one such widely accepted course of study in American schools.

Although sex-ed is hardly as rarefied a course of study as the IB, taxpayers who crowd school board meetings to complain about their local school’s often expansive guidelines might be startled to see how the UN ups the ante. “Once highly respected for its independence and integrity, UNESCO now works in partnership with the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US (SIECUS), an educational arm of the controversial Kinsey Institute,” McKeegan writes. “Last September, a torrent of criticism greeted new UNESCO guidelines on sexuality education for promoting legal abortion and masturbation for children as young as five.”

Yet and still, the revisions themselves are hardly family-friendly, at least in the traditional sense of the phrase. “UNESCO removed some of the most explicit language in the revised guidelines, but retained an appendix with ‘guiding principles’ that includes a Kinsey-inspired sex education curriculum for children from birth to age five,” McKeegan notes. “This curriculum instructs parents to provide anatomically correct dolls for young children to play with, inform them of diverse sexual relationships, and to be supportive of masturbation.”

The UN’s connection to the work of controversial sex researcher Kinsey is fairly explicit. “UNESCO acknowledges a former director of SIECUS is one of the principle authors of its sexuality guidelines,” McKeegan observes. ” The guidelines are cited authoritatively as a model of age-appropriate sex education in a new UN report on education rights that was roundly denounced by UN members last week.”

The sage of Bloomington would probably feel vindicated. “Infamous sexologist Alfred Kinsey founded his institute at Indiana University,” McKeegan recounts. “Kinsey reached prominence in the 1940s and 1950s for his work in documenting human sexual behaviors.”

“Critics accused Kinsey of promoting pedophilia, pointing to his research that documented adults bringing children and infants to orgasm. The Kinsey Institute created SIECUS in 1964 as its educational arm. Its first director was Dr. Mary Calderone, the former medical director of Planned Parenthood. A recent government report revealed that SIECUS received $1.6 million dollars in federal funding between 2002 and 2009.” That would make them a beneficiary of government largesse during the Bush years.

“Table 34 in Kinsey’s book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, published in 1948, lists the number of orgasms of children, some as young as two, performed within a 24-hour period,” the Liberty Counsel notes. The Liberty Counsel is providing legal advice to a woman, using a pseudonym-Esther-who alleges she was one of those children.

“Kinsey had befriended Esther’s grandfather in college, who encouraged his son to join in on the experiment,” the Liberty Counsel alleges. “Esther says she witnessed both her father and grandfather personally receiving checks from Kinsey for their sexual acts.”

“She also found a checklist of her father’s that listed what he was doing to her, which would be given to Kinsey for research.”

Malcolm A. Kline is the Executive Director of Accuracy in Academia.

Our public schools are under assault by activist ideologues both in administrations and on faculties. This activism is quickly invading even our elementary schools.

Teachers and administrators are exploiting legitimate anti-bullying sentiment to introduce homosexuality normalizing resources to all children using public money.

They are exploiting legitimate concerns for the less fortunate to promote controversial “critical race theory” and “critical pedagogy” by euphemistically calling it “teaching for social justice.”

They are exposing students to ever more profane and obscene resources by calling parents who object “book banners” and “censors,” all the while hoping no one will notice their astonishing censorship of conservative resources.

There are many things concerned taxpayers can and should do, including running for school boards. School board members are critical in the battle — and it is a battle — to rid public education of subversive curricula, presumptuous educators, and politicized professional development activities.

A prerequisite for running for school boards is to be willing to endure scorn and ridicule. We need courageous men and women who care more about truth and virtue than they do about their own comfort. We desperately need men and women who understand that “if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” IFI is pleading with those who feel the full weight of those words to consider running for school boards.

As I have said many times, activist ideologues both outside and inside public schools know that it’s easier to capture the hearts and minds of 16-year-olds than 26-year-olds and easier still to capture the hearts and minds of 6-year-olds.

If courageous, wise men and women do not step up to help restore integrity to public education, we bequeath a legacy of tragic ignorance and cultural oppression to our children. Whether you have children or not, whether you have school-age children or not, you should care about public education, because the children in school today, will very shortly be our culture-makers.

Far too many feckless, partisan administrators and teachers have been allowed to run our schools with almost complete autonomy because of the ignorance, passivity, and cowardice of community members. Please prayerfully consider standing for truth by running for your local school board.

For all parents who want their children to attend a Christian college, take note of this follow-up to my article two weeks ago about a small Lutheran college in Minnesota. Pay attention because what is taking place at Gustavus Adolphus College is taking place at many colleges that claim to have a Christian heritage.

Several weeks ago I wrote about the obscene and sophomoric freshmen orientation presentation put on by upperclassmen at a small Lutheran college in Minnesota. The Oct. 15 issue of the student newspaper, The Gustavian Weekly, further illuminates how far from its “Lutheran heritage” Gustavus has wandered.

The first story concerns a recent dust-up about the “rock,” a large boulder on campus that students or student groups paint for all sorts of events. Recently, “Queers & Allies,” the college LGBT club, painted it with rainbow colors, following which some students painted it over with the Bible reference “Romans 1: 27,” which says, “and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Gustavus Adolphus president, Jack Ohle, described the painting-over incident as “‘openly disrespect[ing] others by painting over the rock that had been painted this week to express support for those celebrating ‘Coming Out Week.'”

Ohle evidently believes that painting over the rock with a verse from Scripture–the Scripture that Martin Luther deeply revered–constitutes a far graver moral offense than does celebrating homosexuality. One wonders if Ohle finds the celebration of homosexuality problematic in any way at all.

The Gustavus Student Senate went even further in their efforts to promote “tolerance” through rhetorical trickery, saying that they “denounce the act of hate that was performed against GLBT people and Q&A. We maintain that hate, in any form, has no place in our community.'” The fact that they view painting over a rock with a Bible verse as an “act of hate” exposes the truth about which Christians are being deceived.

“Queers” and their allies conceal that they believe the expression of orthodox Christian beliefs about homosexual acts is hateful. Homosexual activists believe that traditional and widely held theological understandings about homosexuality constitute hatred and cause both bullying and teen suicide. The only solution, therefore, becomes either the eradication of traditional theological beliefs or the silencing of their expression through both name-calling and censorship.

Homosexual activists seek to eradicate tradition Christian beliefs by getting homosexuality affirming resources into public schools via curricula, especially anti-bullying resources. They seek to silence Christians by calling them haters, homophobes, and bigots. And they also seek to silence them through legal means like “enumerated” anti-bullying policies; anti-discrimination laws that include the terms “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression”; and through “hate crimes” legislation.

Gustavus alumnus (and in the service of full disclosure, my daughter), Easten Niphakis, sent this letter to editor of The Gustavian Weekly:

As a relatively recent Gustavus graduate I am not unaware of the sexually permissive, left-leaning, increasingly secularized campus culture that students encounter despite the college’s purported mission to be a “community where a mature understanding of the Christian faith and lives of service are nurtured…” While at Gustavus I learned of professors who undermined or even disparaged orthodox Christian beliefs, and I attended chapel services stripped of any reference to Christ or traditional biblical teaching. And yet, when I read about the sexually explicit freshmen orientation program and watched a video excerpt of it, I was shocked.

While many assume that most college students will be sexually active and therefore seek to minimize the consequences of such behavior by educating about STI prevention and birth control, Gustavus encourages not only sexual promiscuity but sexual deviance in the form of sadomasochism, pornography, and masturbation.

Institutions of higher learning were created to educate and mold the leaders of the future by teaching students academic content and holding them to high standards of character and integrity. Gustavus has not set the bar high for incoming freshmen but has lowered it to such a degree that it seems no topic is too base or vulgar to be used as fodder for comical skits. It seems that Gustavus considers its students to be incapable of self-control or anything other than blind obedience to animalistic desires and instincts.

If Gustavus has chosen to abandon its Christian heritage and mimic the debauched practices of secular colleges and universities in order to be “progressive,” so be it. But to maintain a façade of Christian commitment (especially to older, more conservative donors and naïve, unsuspecting parents) while promoting hedonism and unchecked sexual promiscuity is unconscionable.

Perhaps Gustavus should show this video of their freshmen orientation program at their next alumni, donor, or prospective student meeting to demonstrate how they are educating incoming students about the complicated sex life of a college coed.

My hope and prayer is that many other alumni will write to the paper, the administration, and the board of trustees to express opposition to Gustavus’ departure from its Lutheran heritage. Unless that happens, Gustavus will remain a place hostile to Scripture. It’s unlikely that students who hold theologically orthodox views will find them affirmed in any context at Gustavus.

For example, The Gustavian Weekly also has an article about the theater department’s upcoming radical production of Romeo and Juliet in which the star-crossed lovers are two homosexual men.

It’s not just on the topic of homosexuality, however, that Gustavus has gone awry. There’s another article in The Gustavian that reveals the sacrilegious ways in which the Gustavus Chapel has been appropriated to affirm ideas and practices from Eastern mystical traditions, which Luther would view as false religions. Here’s a description of what is deceptively called “Sacred Space”:

“It’s just a place where we offer [activities for] people to explore their spirituality, whether it be Buddhism, Christianity or even if you’re just searching,” Chaplain Rachel Larson said. Sacred Space is a monthly service offered in Alumni Hall, usually on a Sunday…. labyrinth, a big piece of canvas that one can walk upon in meditation…. There is a whole array of things offered at Sacred Space, including mats where you can do yoga….

Something that Larson recommends everyone take advantage of is Reiki, which is a Japanese word meaning “universal life force.” It is a holistic, light touch, energy-based healing art that balances the normal flow of energy throughout the body. It can enhance and accelerate the body’s innate healing abilities and heals on all levels-physical, emotional, mental and spiritual. “Everyone who comes almost always takes advantage of the Reiki practitioners,” Larson said.

Despite their claims to the contrary, Gustavus is not firmly rooted in its “Lutheran heritage.” Gustavus Adolphus has abandoned any substantive connection to their Christian heritage and as a result a climate has developed in which false religions, premarital sex, and homosexuality flourish.

Parents, if you want your child to have a Christian education, carefully research the colleges and universities that your children are considering. And remember that’s it’s not just what ideas and experiences your children are exposed to that matter, but what ideas and experiences your children are not exposed to in college that matter as well.

For more information about college and university life as well as particular colleges, check out this month’s issue of First Things.

Several weeks ago, libraries across the country sanctimoniously participated in the ironic “educational” campaign: Banned Books Week, which should be called Disinformation Week.

The Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association (ALA), which sponsors Banned Books Week, has a Library Bill of Rights that states the following:

Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.

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

In a 1995 interview with Beverly Goldberg, the highly respected Judith F. Krug, decades-long president of theALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, had this to say about the importance of intellectual diversity in library book collections:

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

…

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

According to Krug, intellectual diversity is of such paramount importance that it trumps even quality of material. And if resources are scarce, Krug believes it is the obligation of librarians to ask for them.

In light of Krug’s comments, consider the topic on which libraries have virtually no books. Community and public high school libraries carry dozens of books, both fiction and non-fiction, on the topic of homosexuality and “transgenderism,” almost every one of which espouses or embodies liberal assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality. There can be found nary a one that espouses or embodies conservative assumptions about homosexuality.

If questioned about this untenable disparity, librarians will likely say what Deerfield High School’s head librarian, Lucy Kempton, said to me, which is that libraries adhere to “Collection Development Policies” when deciding what books to purchase. Collection Development Policies require that a book be positively reviewed by at least two “professionally recognized” journals. Strangely, none of the “professionally recognized” journals had positively reviewed even a single book by a conservative author on the topic of homosexuality. This raises the obvious question whether the professionally recognized journals are staffed by professionals who hold diverse views and who are committed to intellectual freedom and impartiality.

And in light of Krug’s comments, it raises the question, why are book purchases determined by Collection Development Policies. Krug stated that it is the obligation of librarians to identify gaps in their book collections and request materials to fill in those gaps. Further, if the only materials available on a certain topic are “not high-quality,” librarians still need to “get them into the library.”

I wonder if Krug’s philosophical heirs have identified the dearth of materials in both fiction and non-fiction on the topic of the “ex-gay” or “post-gay” phenomenon. And I wonder if they’re requesting such materials.

I wonder if they’re asking for materials pertaining to the serious intellectual challenges to the ontological, moral, and political claims of homosexuals and their ideological allies.

I wonder if they’re requesting materials pertaining to the negative impact of legalized same-sex “marriage” on the culture.

I wonder if Krug’s disciples are requesting materials that depict the pain of children who are created to be fatherless or motherless.

It is long past time that taxpayers demand that the hypocritical ALAfulfill its own commitments and the ideals of Judith Krug when it comes to materials that reflect conservative views of homosexuality. Intellectual diversity should trump Collection Development Policies. If ALAmembers spent less time at their annual conferences endorsing same-sex marriage, they might have more time to examine critically their own de facto censorship practices.

Taxpayers can request that libraries start filling the holes in their book collections by ordering the following books, and if the library staff brings up Collection Development Policies, taxpayers should quote Judith Krug and theALA’s Library Bill of Rights above:

• Out from Under by Dawn Stefanowicz
• Called Out by Janet Boynes
• Divorcing Marriage edited by Daniel Cere and Douglas Farrow
• The Gay Gospel by Joe Dallas
• The Bible and Homosexual Practice by Robert A.J. Gagnon
• Light in the Closet by Arthur Goldberg
• Ex-Gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse
• The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian
• Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.
• Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage by Peter Sprigg
• Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting by Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier
• The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten
• Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk by Matthew D. Staver
• Homosexuality and American Public Life edited by Christopher Wolfe
• Same-Sex Matters: The Challenge of Homosexuality edited by Christopher Wolfe

For more on Banned Books Week or Collection Development Policies click here and here.

On Friday, October 15, 2010, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the mandatory Illinois”Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act” passes constitutional muster.

Circuit Court Judges Kenneth F. Ripple and Daniel A. Manion overturned U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman’s previous judgment that Section I of the act violated both the Establishment and Due Process clauses of the Constitution.

In 2007, Section I of the decades old “Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act” was amended to make the moment of silent reflection mandatory in public schools. This moment of silence, which was as brief as seven seconds in some schools, was intended to be “an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.”

But the thought of public schools providing even seven-seconds during which students could pray was too much for inveterate atheist Rob Sherman who, through his daughter, sued State Superintendent of Education, Christopher Koch, and Township High School District 214, alleging that Section I of the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act violated the Constitution.

Judge Gettleman granted a summary judgment in favor of the Shermans, and On Feb. 20, 2009, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan appealed this ruling to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that “laws requiring a moment of silence have been found constitutional in other states,” and that “the legislature debated this issue and, by an overwhelming majority, voted to enact this law (the Senate voted to enact this law by a vote of 58-1 and the House by a vote of 86-26).”

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed an amicus curiae (i.e. “friend of the court”) brief, in this case on behalf of IFI. We would like to thank the ADF for their excellent work, and congratulate them and Attorney General Lisa Madigan on this victory.

The Illinois Family Institute (IFI) supported the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act, believing the legislation constitutes an affirmative step toward recognizing religious freedom in the public square which is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

And we are thankful for the wise decision of Judges Ripple and Manion which stands in stark contrast to some deeply troubling recent court decisions that exposed both the judicial activism and poor constitutional thinking that plague our courts.

Read more:

ADF’s Press Release on this victory

Lisa Madigan Appeals Moment of Silence Ruling by IFI’s Laurie Higgins

The following is a reprint of an editorial in The Daily Targum, the student newspaper for Rutgers University (and one of the longest-operating student newspapers in the country). Clearly, those (non-homosexual-activists) closest to the scene recognize that “gay” groups are cynically exploiting this tragedy – even before all the facts are in – to advance their political and cultural agenda. Per the usual, it’s all about the Homosexual Lobby (see this shockingly arrogant release redefining morality by the homosexual lobby Human Rights Campaign). Even homosexual- and “nonmonogamy” advocate Dan (‘Three-Way”) Savage [his blog HERE] is in on the act. (God help us if the twisted, Christian-hating Savage becomes a role model for America’s youth.) Stay tuned as we address Exodus International’s stunning and incredibly ill-timed capitulation on the Day of Truth. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
_________________________________

Media exploits University tragedy
Editorial
By The Daily Targum
Published: Tuesday, October 5, 2010

The death of University student Tyler Clementi might have been properly mourned if it were not for the massive rallies and aggressive news coverage that altered the nature of the situation. The truth is that an 18-year-old boy killed himself – he was a student just like the rest of us, someone just trying to receive an education. Yet people’s relentless agendas took his death and turned it into a cause based on false pretenses.

A crowd of more than 20 people ended up lying outside the entrance of the Rutgers Student Center on the College Avenue campus the first night of the news breaking. The chants were, “We’re here. We’re queer. We want safety in our homes.” The mistake was that Clementi’s death should not have been turned into a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender protest for gay rights and safe spaces at the University. Robert O’Brien, Department of Anthropology assistant instructor, led the rally as he chanted, “Not safe in dorms, not safe at Rutgers.” Essentially, an angry mob fending for their rights turned the death of a young boy into a cause for “safe spaces” for gays across the University – all the while, these spaces already existed. We have groups across campus that deal with students’ psychological difficulties – 17 Seconds is one that deals with suicides – as well as groups that address their sexual orientation. We have these spaces, and the University community is diverse enough to provide students with whatever it is they need.

The focal point of Clementi’s tragic death should have been a boy’s inability to deal with the hardships of life. And yet the news and certain organizations picked this up and carried it into the ranks of general causes for major social groups – for their profit. Did Tyler really feel unsafe after all? Do we know the reason behind his suicide? Do we know if he, himself, would take part in the movement behind his death – the push for safe spaces?

It is disappointing that everyone from news to celebrities picked up the story. Actress Brittany Snow and actor Neil Patrick-Harris are just two of the many celebrities belittling Clementi’s death – forcing his remembrance into a cause rather than a proper mourning.

We did not know Tyler. It was barely three weeks into his first year at the University, and most of his neighbors in his residence hall barely knew him. Turning his death into a push for gay rights is a fallacy. Homosexuality is not the only reason for which people kill themselves. In this case, it might have pushed Clementi over the edge, but the fact that he was gay should by no means turn his death into a march for safe spaces. These groups want to be heard. They want the attention. They want their agendas to shine in the limelight.

Instead, we should address that the signs of a suicidal 18-year-old kid were unseen and went unnoticed, not “We want safety in our homes.” We have the safety, or as much of it as we together as a University community can in today’s world. What we need is to notice those of us who need help and help them. Entertainers stay away. O’Brien leave the issue alone. Let us – family, friends and the University together – mourn for Clementi, and just for him, rather than using him as a martyr for a cause that has yet to be proven.

Editor’s Note: Reader Discretion Is Advised

Two videos of a freshmen orientation presentation at Gustavus Adolphus College, a small Lutheran College in St. Peter, Minnesota, have come to light that expose the repugnant ideas and images that college students at a purportedly Christian college think are funny. I have a personal connection to this story: One of my daughters graduated from Gustavus six years ago.

We learned from her four years there that Gustavus is Christian in name only. In response to these videos, my daughter wrote this to me:

I suppose this should come as no surprise from a college that invited a transgender speaker to give the daily chapel message during National Coming Out Week over six years ago and that celebrates and affirms such behavior without even an acknowledgment that they are departing from a biblical understanding of sexuality.

The climate at Gustavus was predominantly secular in the classroom, in dorm life, and on sports teams with only the empty trappings of Christian tradition hanging on in the form of daily chapel services led by a chaplain who affirmed sexual deviance and other such “spiritual” activities.

The first video begins with a couple having sex in their dorm room (complete with sound effects) and joking about putting a hat on the door to warn the boy’s roommate to stay out — for the fourth time in one week.

Here are the dramatis personae of the next skit with which upperclassmen welcomed freshmen:

• Betty Birth Control who says, “Pop me in, so you don’t pop one out.”
• Captain Condom who says, “Use protection for your erection.”
• Sidekick Spermicide with Lube who, while in the arms of Captain Condom, says, “Together we make safer sex even better.”
• Waiting Wanda who says, “I need a ring before you can play with this thing,” (indicating her pelvic area).
• Vicki Vibrator who enters the stage buzzing and shouting, “You can play with this toy.”
• Libby Lube who says, “Caution, slippery when wet.”
• Nina Nuva (the vaginal contraceptive NuvaRing) who says, “Slide me in easy, and then you can please me.”
• Debbie Dildo who says, while dressed all in leather, “Sex can wait. Masturbate.”
• Premature Pete who runs in panting, groaning and holding his crotch. He is announced with these words: “Premature Pete is coming…”
• Right Hand Rick who says, “My right hand is my one-night stand,” while dropping a tissue on the floor.
• Billy Blueballs who enters with blue balls dangling from his crotch and says, “I never come.”
• Bushy Brenda who enters with a long, bushy, black beard hanging from her crotch and says indignantly, “I trim. I don’t mow.”
• Bondage Bob who says, “Tie me down, gets me up.”
• Porno Paul who says, “Surfin’ the net, gets my undies wet.”
• Role-Play Ryan who enters with a gigantic shepherd’s staff, which looks like a Christmas play prop. He says, “I’m pretty good with my wood.”
• Faking Fiona who says amidst panting and screaming, “And…you…might…think… I’m…coming…but…I’m… not.”

When this offensive and idiotic skit concludes, all the characters appear on stage to announce, “We’re the Sex Pistols. Welcome, Class of 2014!”

The second video begins with this whimsical rhyme: “Follow along and listen quite clear to learn of the wonderful world of the queer.” It again features ignorant, irresponsible upperclassmen, this time defining the terms lesbian, gay, pansexual, bi-curious, bisexual, transgender and transsexual for freshmen, explaining, for example, that lesbian women “make love quite beautifully,” and that the term “bi-curious” refers to “testin’ the waters, seein’ what’s attractive.” (This should help dispel the lie promoted by homosexualists that “sexual orientation” is biologically determined and fixed.)

Next a boy waxes romantic about his male lover and a girl proclaims, “I happen to be a lesbian — a big one. And my, oh my, I love it. All the women, the flowy hair, the sweet perfume, mmm, mmm. I like sex. I love sex.”

This spectacle — I mean, event — took place in an auditorium and was apparently on the college calendar, which means the students must have received administrative permission. Here are just a few questions I would pose to Gustavus administrators and trustees:

• Is this the kind of information that parents of Gustavus freshman want their children to receive?
• What kind of role do supposedly more mature upperclassmen have in the lives of younger students?
• Do any upperclassmen — who, by the way, are actually adults –or Gustavus administrators view modesty as a virtue to be respected and cultivated?
• Does anyone see how the exhibitionism, voyeurism, and promiscuity which this freshman orientation presentation embodies and promotes relate to the Tyler Clementi tragedy atRutgersUniversity?
• And how does their irresponsible and vulgar presentation created by upperclassmen for freshmen comport with Gustavus’ mission statement:

Gustavus Adolphus College is a church-related, residential liberal arts college firmly rooted in its Swedish and Lutheran heritage…. The College strives to balance educational tradition with innovation and to foster the development of values as an integral part of intellectual growth…. The College aspires to be a community of persons from diverse backgrounds who respect and affirm the dignity of all people. It is a community where a mature understanding of the Christian faith and lives of service are nurtured and students are encouraged to work toward a just and peaceful world.

The purpose of a Gustavus education is to help its students attain their full potential as persons…

• What values does this freshmen re-orientation presentation foster? Does it demonstrate respect for the dignity of people, or does it degrade people?
• Do Gustavus administrators actually believe this presentation is “firmly rooted” in the heritage of Martin Luther?
• Is sex sacred?
• Is sex for marriage?
• Is marriage a picture of Christ and the church?
• Does any Gustavus faculty member, administrator, or trustee serve God first? If so, how do they reconcile the ideas that Gustavus has for years promoted with the following ideas that the Gustavus community has apparently long forgotten:

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Rom. 1:24-32)

Do the upperclassmen recognize that one of the most important forms of diversity in life-philosophical diversity-is missing from their puerile production? There is no representation of the view that modesty matters. There is no representation of the view that pornography is evil and the use of it destructive to the moral imaginations, lives, and marriages of men and women. There is no representation of the view that homosexuality and sadomasochism are perversions.

Perhaps the key to this moral miasma can be found in the concluding soliloquy in which a boy says the following:

I have a fire inside me: a burning passion and a love for something beyond myself — a very real, yet intangible beauty that permeates every cell in my body. It’s my atheism.

I came to Gustavus a white, middle class, Lutheran boy, and I stand here before you as a white, middle class, atheist man.

Once fidelity to Scripture and submission to Christ take a back seat to satiation of human desire and reliance on human “wisdom,” sin prevails.

On more than one occasion, during my daughter’s freshman year — a decade ago — she had to sleep on a beanbag chair in a friend’s room because her roommate’s boyfriend was “sleeping over.” Since co-ed sleepovers violated dorm rules, and since we didn’t pay room and board fees so that my daughter could sleep in a beanbag chair, I suggested she talk to her resident assistant. My daughter’s response: “There’s no point: my RA has her boyfriend sleep over.”

Gustavus administrators and trustees should either make some dramatic changes in the Gustavus climate or strip from its mission statement any references to values, dignity, Christian faith, and its Lutheran heritage.

If you have any connection toGustavusAdolphusCollege, especially to parents who may be considering sending their children there and to alumni donors, please pass this article on to them.

Perhaps you’ve already heard about the most recent assault on citizens’ freedom of conscience, which happened right here in the Midwest. The owners of the Just Cookies bakery in Indianapolis, David and Lily Stockton, politely declined to fill a special order for rainbow-decorated cupcakes from a group of students from Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) who wanted to purchase them for a celebration of the shameful “National Coming Out Day.”

The student who ordered the cupcakes, Heather Browning, is “IUPUI’s coordinator for social justice education in the Office of Student Involvement.” It is reported that she was ordering these cupcakes ironically “to honor the diversity on the campus of IUPUI.” Clearly she was not interested in honoring the diversity of moral views regarding homosexual acts that is found at IUPUI and everywhere else in the world. I assume that the IUPUI community includes some Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and Protestants who believe homosexual acts are immoral and who couldn’t in good conscience use their skills, time, and resources to create and profit from a product that promotes ideas that violate their religious convictions.

This troubling incident epitomizes the problems with “social justice” as conceived by contemporary universities. Social justice proponents seek to eradicate diversity when it comes to moral beliefs about volitional behavior with which they disagree. They want to render it illegal for people to act upon moral convictions regarding what constitutes a moral act.

The city of Indianapolis is now considering evicting the Just Cookies bakery from the location in the City Market where they have operated for twenty years.

Homosexual bullies and their heterosexual accomplices are now speciously attempting to turn this into an issue of “discrimination.” They are claiming that the Stockton’s refusal to fill this special order constitutes a violation of the city’s troubling anti-discrimination policy which prohibits businesses from “discriminating” based on “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” (i.e., cross-dressing).

That claim is specious for multiple reasons. 

First, homosexuality is a condition centrally defined by desire and volitional acts that many people of faith and those who follow no faith tradition believe are disordered and immoral. Homosexual activists have been successful in both duping Americans into believing that homosexuality is analogous to race and in bullying them into silence. This does not mean, however, that those who hold conservative beliefs are prohibited from acting on their conviction that homosexual acts are immoral.

This utterly absurd charge is based on a deliberate conflation of two meanings of discrimination. There is an important distinction between appropriate or ethical discrimination and unethical discrimination. Discrimination can refer to making judgments or discriminating between right and wrong in which case it is a good, healthy, and essential personal and civic process. Illegitimate discrimination, on the other hand, refers to unfavorable treatment of others based on ignorance. As such, opinions about behavior–even negative opinions–formed after careful consideration do not represent illegitimate discrimation. 

Conflating or deliberately obscuring the different meanings of discrimination, or asserting that all negative judgments reflect prejudice, plays on our country’s racial guilt and depends on acceptance of the false analogy that homosexuality is analogous to race. 

Principled opposition to homosexuality no more represents illegitimate prejudice or discrimination than does principled opposition to polyamory (aka euphemistically referred to as “ethical non-monogamy), adult consensual incest, pedophilia (euphemistically referred to as “intergenerational sex”), or cross-dressing (euphemistically referred to as “gender expression”).

Second, those who have either lost the capacity to reason or who are deliberately misleading others are claiming that the refusal of the Stocktons to make rainbow-colored cupcakes constitutes discrimination against people because of their “sexual orientation.” But the Stocktons did not refuse to serve the IUPUI students. They refused to use their time, skills, and resources–all of which are gifts from a holy God–to create and sell a product that symbolizes and promotes ideas that they believe are immoral and destructive. 

There has been no indication whatsoever that the Stocktons refused to sell other products to these students or that the Stocktons even knew the “sexual orientation” of the student who ordered the cupcakes. The IUPUI students were free to purchase plain cupcakes and decorate them with rainbow flags, clenched fists of defiance, or hammers and sickles, if their little tolerant hearts desired. 

But that’s not good enough for the disciples of diversity. They want to compel the bakery owners to provide a special creation for them and in so doing violate the Stocktons’ consciences. 

In order to think rightly about homosexuality, conservatives should always substitute an appropriate analog for homosexuality; polyamory is a much closer analog to homosexuality than is race. If a group of polyamorists were to request cupcakes decorated with five intertwined wedding bands to celebrate National Polyamory Day–a day which is surely in our future–would a baker be acting within his rights to decline such a request? 

Organizations like IFI, Family Policy Councils, and American Family Association affiliates and Christian legal organizations like Liberty Counsel, Thomas More Law Center, Alliance Defense Fund, and the American Center for Law and Justice have tried to warn conservatives about the serious threat posed to First Amendment speech and religious liberty by allowing the terms “sexual orientation,” “gender identity” (i.e., Gender Identity Disorder), and “gender expression” (i.e., cross-dressing) into anti-discrimination policies. The inclusion of these terms in anti-discrimination policies promotes two lies:

• It promotes the lie that homosexuality is like race. 
• It promotes the idea that moral disapproval of homosexuality or acting on the belief that homosexual acts are immoral is wrong.

Conservatives need to oppose boldly and vigorously the inclusion of these terms in any anti-discrimination policy. It is as legitimate to make moral distinctions about homosexuality as it is to make moral distinctions about polyamory, adult consensual incest, or paraphilias. 

In this story of the homosexuals who stood at the door demanding, we can see a glimpse of the oppressive future that our silence and cowardice will bequeath to our children and grandchildren.

The Daily Herald is featuring articles highlighting the annual Banned Book Week across America – Sept. 25 thru October 2 – and how our local libraries have special events to celebrate their “Freedom to Read” policies. Click HERE for The Daily Herald article.

Banned Book Week is a farce and an insult to the intelligence and goodwill of the taxpayers who pay for local public libraries and staff salaries. Neither the American Library Association [ALA] nor the local community library is a “governmental” agency. It is the taxpayers who own their community library and should have the freedom to determine the policies that regulate this community service institution. The ALA, a private, non-governmental group of associated librarians, has incrementally usurped the freedoms of clients – especially parents – to determine which books should be selected for their library shelves.

If anyone bans books, it is the radical American Library Association, which has run rough shod over our libraries for too many years and now solely determines which books are or are NOT ordered for display.

It has been proven that books that have been banned from library shelves are those that the ALA “selection process” does not allow. Example: Go to your local library and see how many books available are pro-homosexual propaganda and how many express a Christian or opposing point of view. Check out the religious books section. Do you see more books on cults, New Age, and non-Christian religions? So who’s censoring what and why?

Following is Mitchell Muncy’s article appearing in the Wall Street Journal in September, 2009, which in my opinion points a finger at who are the real “zealots, bigots and false patriots.”

Arlene Sawicki

Finding Censorship Where There Is None

By MITCHELL MUNCY

‘To you zealots and bigots and false patriots who live in fear of discourse. You screamers and banners and burners. . . .” These are the opening lines of the official Manifesto of Banned Books Week, which starts tomorrow. This annual “national celebration of the freedom to read” is led by the American Library Association (ALA) and co-sponsored by a number of professional associations and advocacy groups. Events and displays at “hundreds” of libraries and bookstores will “draw attention to the problem of censorship” in the U.S.

As the tone of the Manifesto suggests, the sponsors are more interested in confrontation than celebration. The Banned Books Week Readout in Chicago will feature “wildly successful” and “incredibly popular” authors who will “share their experiences as targets of censors.” The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression has produced posters, based on a graphic-novel adaptation of “Fahrenheit 451,” to help “publicize the hundreds of attacks on books that occur every year in the United States.” The ALA has launched an online U.S. “censorship map” to show how pervasive the threat is.

In the common-law tradition, censorship refers specifically to the government’s prior restraint on publication. None of the sponsors claim this has happened; the acts they have in mind are perpetrated by private citizens. Yet the cases on the map almost all involve ordinary people lodging complaints with school and library authorities. Before Banned Books Week began in 1982, such behavior was known as petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

The problem of loose language aside, we can still ask whether books are banned in this country. The obvious answer is no, if banned means something like “made dangerous or difficult for the average person to obtain.” Many books that have drawn critics’ attention have been best sellers (the Harry Potter books and Philip Pullman’s “His Dark Materials” trilogy), classics (“The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and “To Kill a Mockingbird”), or the work of acclaimed authors (Toni Morrison and Margaret Atwood). If a book isn’t available at one library or bookstore, it’s certainly available at another. Not even the most committed civil libertarian demands that every book be immediately available everywhere on request-though in the age of Amazon that’s nearly the case.

The ALA would surely consider these objections irrelevant. Yet its case isn’t very compelling even on its own terms. One doubtful sign is the censorship map’s title, “Book Bans and Challenges, 2007-2009” (my emphasis). By this definition, censorship includes not only the actual removal of books, but complaints about books as well.

And it’s clear why complaints must be counted. In only 10% of the 186 cases on the map was a book permanently removed from a library. (If we add books removed from individual classrooms, we reach 16%.) If the criterion of book banning is that a book be banned-anywhere-the incidence of censorship drops about 90%. The ALA grants on its Web site that “most of the books featured during [Banned Books Week] were not banned.”

Moreover, to read the ALA’s own accounts, the petitioners, losing nearly six times out of seven, accepted the adverse judgments peaceably. Those “who live in fear of discourse,” as the Manifesto has it, were evidently satisfied with the opportunity to make their case. For the ALA, what makes them censors is that they spoke up at all: “True” patriots, presumably, would have kept quiet. Who, then, is afraid of discourse?

More telling is that 80% of challenges-and all but one removal-took place at schools. The remaining 20% of challenges, brought at public libraries, all concerned the exposure of children to possibly inappropriate material. The Manifesto indirectly acknowledges this: “You say you’re afraid for children . . . [but] ignorance is no armor.” (Could we agree to censor stale imagery?)

What inflames the ALA, in other words, are attempts by parents to guide their children’s education. One of the “frequently asked questions” on the ALA’s Web site is: “Can’t parents tell the librarian what material they don’t think children should have?” The Manifesto’s answer is clearly “no.”

There’s something odd about a national organization with a $54 million budget and 67,000 members reacting so zealously against a few unorganized, law-abiding parents whose efforts, by any sensible standard, are hopelessly ineffective. The ALA’s members have immeasurably more power than the “censors” they denounce to decide what books are available in our communities, but this power is so familiar it’s invisible. Why do parents’ public petitions constitute censorship, while librarians’ hidden verdicts do not? A spokesman for the ALA once tackled this question in the Boston Globe: “The selection criteria that librarians use may not always be what everybody wants. I don’t see that it’s a real problem.” Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

The ALA repeatedly emphasizes that public and school libraries are “government bodies.” Is Banned Books Week a celebration of free speech, or is it a way for government employees to bully ordinary citizens by stigmatizing those who complain (“bigots,” “false patriots,” “screamers,” “burners”)? They clearly hope future challenges simply won’t be brought. Does that make Banned Books Week an attempt at prior restraint on speech by the government-an act of censorship?

Early in 1774, Benjamin Franklin reported the British government’s harsh reaction to a petition he had presented on behalf of the Massachusetts Assembly: “Grievances cannot be redressed unless they are known; and they cannot be known but through complaints and petitions: If these are deemed as affronts, and the messengers punished as offenders, who will henceforth send petitions?” Franklin, the founder of American libraries, understood that threats to freedom are much more likely to come from those in power who won’t hear criticism than from private citizens who want a hearing.

Mr. Muncy is chief operating officer of the Institute for American Values. From 1996 to 2008, he was editor in chief of Spence Publishing.

Arlene Sawicki is a co-founder of VoteLifeAmerica.com. Arlene Sawicki is a long-time pro-life and pro-family advocate, defending and promoting traditional values. She served on the Board of Directors of the Chicago Archdiocesan Council of Catholic Women as Chairperson for Family Concerns, Morality in Media and Legislation.