Actions of Parents for Privacy not compassionate

In a March 13 letter, a representative of Parents for Privacy felt compelled to stand up for the ethics and mission of the organization, emphasizing their compassion. The week before, they said they do not believe that sharing the names of minors is appropriate.

Regardless of where readers stand with regard to LGBT issues, understanding more about the actions of this organization, with which a slate of candidates running for the District 211 school board affiliates itself, can help when deciding who to vote for on April 4.

The current P4P federal lawsuit against District 211 has cost the district $170,000 in legal fees since May 2016, and these costs continue to mount. A member of this organization outed Student A, the minor at the center of the District 211 controversy, by name at a Glenbard High School District 87 meeting last spring.

Over the last year, P4P members have turned the public comment portion of District 211 board meetings into a preacher's pulpit, using the Bible to condemn board members and those with differing beliefs.

Student A received an "anonymous" package that was mailed to her at her home with those same Bible verses. This child and her family perceived this action as a threat, which said, 'I don't like what you're doing and I know where you live.'

In my view as a human being, a parent, an educator and a resident of District 211, these are not compassionate acts that support "all". We need a board of education that respectfully represents diverse views, and supports the outstanding educational mission of District 211 that led me to purchase a home in this community.

Vote Klimkowicz, LeFevre and Yung on April 4 to support continued educational excellence for District 211.

Kim Cavill

Palatine