Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum Controversy Teacher Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and advocacy groups clash at District 207 meeting over curriculum and calls to protect teacher
Summary
At the Feb. 13 Maine Township District 207 board meeting, public commenters from CAIR Chicago and the Chicago Jewish Alliance exchanged contrasting views about an English assignment and urged opposing responses from the board; no board action was taken during public comment.
At its Feb. 13 meeting, the Board of Education for Maine Township High School District 207 heard competing public comments about an English assignment and calls for the district to protect a teacher, Dr. Salsan Jaber.
Speakers representing the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Chicago urged the board to defend the teacher from what they described as a coordinated campaign of outside attacks. Maggie Slavin, operations manager and school support coordinator for CAIR Chicago, told the board that “the attacks by the Chicago Jewish Alliance on doctor Jaber are intellectually dishonest and lack critical thought,” and urged a “firm declaration of the schools and the district's sacred right to protecting its educators and students from coordinated external campaigns.”
Josh Weiner, representing the Chicago Jewish Alliance and the North American Values Institute, said he and others had met with district staff and raised concerns about an English assignment described as a “dehumanization” exercise. Weiner said activist educators were influencing curriculum and argued the district should “listen and reconsider concepts which sound virtuous but are not.” He warned that certain approaches to anti‑racism and decolonization could be divisive in K–12 classrooms.
A second CAIR speaker, Joseph Milbern, criticized what he called a campaign to “demonize” the educator and asked whether many complainants live in the district and pay district taxes. Milbern said teachers should be judged by their classroom merits and by students’ experiences, not by external pressure campaigns.
The board’s public‑comment procedures, read at the start of the period, state that board and administration will listen but will not respond to questions during the meeting; administrators will follow up with individuals who provide contact information. The public‑comment period produced no formal motion or board action on the matter at the meeting.
The difference in public testimony reflects an ongoing local dispute over curriculum and external advocacy groups; board members did not take formal action during the meeting and did not respond during public comment. Administrators indicated they would follow up with individuals who provide contact details after the meeting.
