Explore more of the publications in our portfolio here. Explore more of our portfolio.

Top Ad

Sign up for the Daily North Shore Email


  1. To anyone who is “embarrassed”, “appalled”, etc.

    With all due respect, I feel your “horror” and “embarrassment” are misplaced. As Adrienne Fawcett noted in her May 26th article’s comments, “the word “boo” was not used…members of the audience exclaimed “No!” “No!” “No!” …..and “It’s our school!” Since Ms. Fawcett clarified that, I’m not sure why people are still using that word. And even if the word “boo” was used, is that such a terrible word that it requires multiple letters, comments, lengthy discussions, etc.? Does that justify insinuating or calling those who disagree with Dr. Holland’s theories ‘immature, classless, bullies, hysterical, poor example to children, cowards, disrespectful, immature,’ and even ‘racist’? Not only do all those comments have nothing to do with the issue at hand- whether or not Dr. Holland is a good fit to lead LFHS- but they are also ad hominems, which is never good form in debate. People who disagree with Dr. Holland’s theories and assertions do not deserve to have their character and integrity defamed. And people can disagree with the merits of Dr. Holland’s writings without it being rooted in some contrived flaw in their own character.

    It seems that you have set up a straw-man argument, focusing on this issue about the so-called “lack of decorum” at the BOE meeting, when really, no one is advocating rudeness to Dr. Holland or anyone else. But since you want to spend so much time on decorum, I would like to point out that there was nothing “outrageous” or “embarrassing” by Lake Forest residents’ behavior at the BOE meeting (or online, save the ad hominems, previously mentioned) and I think some people might need to lower their sensitivities a bit. If you believe Tuesday’s meeting was “outrageous”, then you probably have never been to a Chicago BOE meeting. Have you ever watched a Parliamentary or Congressional debate on TV? Have you ever seen our own Illinois congress debate in Springfield? Perhaps all juniors should visit Springfield while the Illinois House is in session as part of U.S. History class. There is nothing wrong with spirited, vigorous debate. And in fact, healthy debate helps groups make better decisions than would have been made without that spirited discourse. Imagine anything great in history, ever being accomplished, without spirited debate. Do you think the Founding Fathers required library-like etiquette during the Continental Congress? Can you imagine them chiding each other for saying “No, no no!”? (‘Now, Thomas, don’t talk like that – you’re setting a bad example for the teenagers!’). Can you imagine if Rev. Martin Luther King being told he was a “bully” or a “coward” because he passionately defended what he believed in? – And wasn’t afraid to have an adult conversation about it? Nothing great has ever been done without enthusiasm and we should be grateful to have so many people who are enthusiastic about their community school.

    Kudos to Jennifer Neubauer, and all the other residents who have taken untold hours out of their busy lives to research, write, attend meetings, etc. because of their passion for not only their own children, but all of our children and community at large. Whether we agree with Dr. Holland’s social theories or not, we can all agree that LFHS deserves a thorough, transparent vetting process – which we are one step closer to getting because of some residents’ due diligence. Rather than name-call those we might disagree with and react with “horror”, we should conclude the red-herring decorum issue, and focus on Dr. Holland’s fitness for the position.

  2. Chris and Mike,

    Thank you both for you comments. As for Chris, it’s good to see that you are involved in the process and are opposed to bullying as well as you desire for a constructive debate. However, I do agree with Mike’s point about the concealment issue which I agree with. That being said, Mike, the tone of your point to Chris was unfortunately demeaning. He’s a young man trying to be part of the dialogue and your response, to me, seemed condescending, angry and hurtful. It wasn’t necessary to make your valid point.

    • @John: Perhaps I was a little hard on the young man; on the other hand, his “more on rumor and hearsay rather than intelligent dialogue” peeved me a bit, given I’ve been a frequent commenter on this subject and my wife ws the first to write on this imbroglio, and her comments and mine have been very informed.

      So perhaps we both learn a lesson here? And thanks for you comment, Chris.

  3. Chris:

    You wrote: “I am appalled by the lack of decorum, lack of objective dialogue and the high level of counter-productive emotion that has infected the conversation regarding the questions raised over the candidacy of Dr. Holland.” I congratulate you for participating in the conversation.

    That being said, you have completely missed the point of the dispute here: There is very strong evidence that Dr. Holland deliberately removed her references to her extremely controversial racial and educational views. Absent any contrary evidence, I can only presume she did so because she wanted to conceal these views from her prospective employer and its community.

    Chris, if you had read Mrs. Neubauer’s letters and the other comments in opposition, you (and your supporting commenters) would know this. So, my question is: Did you read the letters and comments? If not, then shame on you for blathering about without having done your research. If you did, then shame on you for not telling the full story in order to make a mere rhetorical point.

    I note that Dr, Holland has had more than ample opportunity to tell the community what happened to her posts and, hence, could have resolved the “rumor and hearsay” that so concerns you. I also note that the fact that her posts have disappeared is not hearsay, if you will bother to read the definition of a word whose meaning was hammered into me during three years of law school. Dr. Holland’s silence only serves to confirm that she tried to conceal her views. Perhaps you’re too young to understand this, Chris–although I doubt it– but this lack of integrity is a complete bar to employment in this kind of position. Which in turn raises the question of why you didn’t mention the crux of this controversy in the first place, a point you may discuss at your leisure.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Daily North Shore encourages comments, but we have specific guidelines that you can find here. A general principle is: Do not state anything in a comment that you would not say in public and do not state anything about another person that you would not say to his or her face.

Post comment mobile ad section