Share your views
Submit letters to the editor via email to suburbanletters@tribpub.com. Please include your name and town of residence for publication. Please include your phone number and email address for confirmation. Letters should be no more than 250 words.
Is D113’s culture enabling anti-Israel bias?
The recent controversy surrounding Deerfield High School teacher Brittnee Kenyon has opened our eyes to a deeper issue in our beloved District 113: an ideological shift that is quietly reshaping the culture of our district.
In the aftermath of the October 7th attacks on Israel, Kenyon shared an Instagram post by author Ibram X. Kendi accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing,” and another accusing it of “genocide.” Many in our community were outraged, the district reprimanded her for other board policy violations and Kenyon filed a lawsuit. This past week, amid intense public debate, the board approved a monetary settlement with Kenyon.
This incident did not occur in isolation. It appears to be the product of well-intentioned but flawed DEI programming. Through these expensive initiatives, District 113 has unfortunately created a permission structure for educators, like Kenyon, to espouse radical views.
Kenyon’s actions are a sign that District 113 needs to look inward. Her embrace of Kendi’s worldview appears to trace directly back to 2019, when Mirah Anti, the district’s DEI officer (also a school board member at Evanston Township High School), organized a teacher book club around Kendi’s “How to Be an Antiracist.” In it, Kendi promotes an overly simplistic framework reducing individuals to their group identities and arguing that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.”
While his ideas may initially seem progressive, they foster a culture where people are no longer seen as individuals, but as representatives of narrowly defined identity groups — either oppressed or oppressors — where discrimination against oppressors is required.
In this paradigm, Jews, who comprise a significant portion of our district’s community, are often cast as oppressors, making it okay to falsely accuse us of being “white supremacists,” “colonizers” and “baby killers.” This view overlooks the centuries of oppression of the Jewish people and inevitably extends to the Jewish state, where Israel is depicted not as a nation with complex realities, but as a one-dimensional evil oppressor.
It’s no wonder Kenyon promoted Kendi’s views demonizing Israel. She was only doing what she thought was expected of her in the context of the district’s DEI training. There’s no doubt of the influence this ideology wields throughout Chicagoland schools.
During public comment at a recent school board meeting, droves of teachers from outside the district entirely beholden to this ideology descended upon our town to rally in Kenyon’s defense. Among them was Evanston Township High School teacher Andrew Ginsburg, who is also suing his district after he failed to maintain classroom neutrality on the contentious issue of the Israel-Gaza conflict.
These educators, though few in number, exert a disproportionate influence in shaping our schools’ cultures. And they appear to have lost sight of the core mission of teaching: fostering critical thinking through balanced discourse.
The cultural shift is palpable. Where educators once maintained neutrality — never sharing their personal or political views with students on controversial topics — some educators now see it as their duty to guide students toward a particular agenda that they view as morally correct. In such an environment, students may fear expressing differing opinions, worried about retaliation or ostracization and ultimately being denied the opportunity to consider alternative viewpoints and develop critical thinking skills.
Of course, teachers have the right to say whatever they want in their personal lives. But when a teacher steps into the classroom, we expect them to uphold their professional duty — to provide an inclusive learning environment — by leaving their personal politics at the door. And the schools in which they teach should reward teachers who respect those boundaries. Unfortunately, the reigning ideology within DEI programming is making it increasingly difficult for even the most well-intentioned teachers to resist the institutional pressure to conform.
We urge District 113 to critically assess its teacher training and DEI initiatives to ensure it is not promoting division or ideological bias. In so doing, it should commit to institutional neutrality, ensuring the district enables balanced discussions on controversial topics. The district should prioritize training that supports teachers in leading nuanced, inclusive lessons that welcome diverse perspectives. Texts like Kendi’s should be paired with alternative viewpoints, like those in Coleman Hughes’ “The End of Race Politics.”
District 113 has long been a beacon of educational excellence. But the Kenyon controversy shows what can happen when DEI programming takes priority: ideology replaces education, and division replaces community. The board now faces a choice. Will it continue to push teachers toward activism, or will it restore the district’s commitment to neutrality, inquiry and academic integrity?
As members of this community, we urge the district to prioritize providing our children with an environment that champions critical thinking, respectful discourse and impartiality.
Josh Weiner, North American Values Institute chief strategy officer, and Sharon Sorkin, North American Values Institute director of community engagement
