The Deerfield SD 109 public comment period on May 15 drew lengthy testimony from residents, parents and students about outside activist groups and a recent locker-room dispute at Shepherd Middle School.

Several residents said national groups that they said are working in multiple districts have harmed the community and driven litigation and harassment. Tom Dennison, a longtime resident, said he and other parents reviewed public materials from those groups and that they have caused “rampant online harassment” and “hostile threats,” and he said FOIA requests showed $44,000 in legal costs tied to defending the district. Dennison said, “They do not live here. They do not pay taxes. They do not have a vote. They should not have a voice.”

Other commenters echoed that view. Mark Presley described what he called a coordinated five-step playbook used by those organizations and urged residents to “keep this kind of politics out of District 109.” Alan Rosenfeld and David Weisberger also criticized outside groups and said the community should not bear legal and social costs caused by outsiders’ campaigns. Student speakers, including an eighth-grader from Shepherd Middle School, described curriculum and instruction that affirm student identities; one student said, “Students are not your political pawns, and Deerfield will not be made into your political battleground.”

At the same time, other commenters told the board they remained concerned about locker-room access and student privacy. Joseph Kopsik, who addressed the board during the comment period, described his view that girls had been pressured and used language asserting that the school had failed to provide alternatives; his remarks characterized some staff actions as coercive and called for investigation. Lane, who identified as a member of Gays Against Groomers, urged the board to “test the spirit” behind messages and argued against policies they view as validating gender ideology.

Speakers on both sides framed their remarks as protecting children: those opposing outsider activity urged the board to defend inclusive policies and to hold external actors responsible for costs; others urged stricter privacy protections in locker-room policies and investigations into staff conduct. Board members did not take formal action during public comment; the public-comment period is recorded in the transcript and shows a sustained, often emotional exchange of views across the community.

What was presented as fact vs. allegation: many commenters described litigation, social-media campaigns, or FOIA results; those claims are presented here as attributed statements by speakers. The board did not make any independent findings during public comment in this portion of the meeting.