Parent Testimonials

My Family No Longer Belongs at Lab

I have been part of Lab since 1971, funded it generously, served on its “board” and when I had kids there was only one place that I wanted to send my kids. Lab is a unicorn, one of one. A progressive, ethnically diverse school with an elite education supported by dedicated and highly trained teachers who put the child first in everything they do. This is not the natural state for a private school and requires nurturing, recognition and a responsibility to preserve that diversity. Paul Alivasatos has unilaterally decided that Lab’s 130 year run as a beacon of education excellence must end, enthusiastically embracing the ideology of Trump White Supremacy and Grievance.

The Viewpoint Neutrality education outlined in the Standards and Guidelines is pedagogical drivel, a rightwing influence op funded by Charles Koch and an openly racist attack on the students and parents of color that Lab is so proud of touting. The University has made no attempt to justify this pedagogically because this is not about what is best for our children. This new curriculum has been crafted by people driven by ideology lacking any early childhood training and without any input from our teachers, students or parents. It is not a serious academic exercise, certainly not “child centered” and not an education that any of us would want. It is as desecration of the Dewey legacy. 

My great grandfather had a cross burned on his law by the KKK which has instilled in me a notion that we do not sit quietly when confronted with racism. That Ethan Bueno de Mesquita has declared nearly any black identity ideology or association political, and thus “should be taught at home”, is deeply racist. That Ethan does not consider being gay a protected class and openly calls for a religious exemption for gay hate is unconscionable. That the fears that large swaths of Lab feel from ICE are verboten to be discussed is a lack of empathy that is not suitable for our community. And though Ethan has studiously avoided expounding on antisemitism one has to imagine that that too would be a Contested Topic. The new Lab could not even teach the Holocaust as it should as the core concepts of “Never Again” and “They Came For…” run counter to the ban on applying moral lessons to the present day and their stance on the Upstander. This is a most insidious form of antisemitism and not one that can be present at my children’s school. Ethan doesn’t even blanche on the idea of banning student art and presumably the banning of books. Ethan’s notion of civics is based upon Charles Koch’s desire to limit regulation on his businesses. It wants children to not challenge the status quo. Who wants their child’s education written by the oil industry? I am sure if pressed to fully explain his list of Contested Topics, Ethan’s casual racism would spill out repeatedly. It’s why the University has decided not to bother engaging with students and parents on any of this. It’s indefensible.

An education without values is worthless. “Teaching children how to think and not what to think” is an empty and dangerous concept. Nearly everything we teach has a moral component; it’s often the most important part of “why”. I want my kids to know right from wrong and stand up against injustice. They need to be taught that because they are kids not adults. Where Ethan declares politics I see intellectual depth, rigor, empathy and love. That the University is devising a Chinese style censorship structure where Ethan must vet and approve all curriculum is insane. It’s not a school that talented teachers will want to work, not a place the fosters diversity, not an elite education. And after 55 years Lab is no longer a place for me and my family. 

-------------

Neutrality is a fiction created to defend privilege.  Forcing the people who teach my children to take advantage of that privilege only (a) buttresses the privileged class, and (b) broadcasts to the world that Lab school is NOT, in fact, a place that cares about critical thinking. These neutrality guidelines broadcast that Lab is a joke...[and come from] no experience teaching kids, no experience running a school...

--------

As a university teacher, I generally try to keep my own political views out of the classroom and am especially mindful of ways that asserting my views from a position of authority can disrupt the pedagogical environment. However, a dictate from above that bars teachers from sharing their own political views or teaching lessons that are framed by moral urgency puts undue pressure on the process of teaching difficult materials, and it risks forcing teachers into into positions that students will inevitably perceive as rigid, hollow, morally vacant, and inhuman, precisely at a time when young people (who encounter more and more of the world mediated through their screens) need real models of engaged citizenship and real engagement with the humanity that connects us--all the more so while navigating difficult issues. To be sure, as a Lab Parent, I think lab could do a better job of standardizing and coordinating learning goals across grades (especially to reduce unevenness in ESH and the Lower School), but the effort to create a rigid standard prohibiting moral position-taking strikes me as highly misguided.

----

I don’t write any of this out of opposition to Lab, but out of love for it. Lab shaped who I am — not just academically, but morally and socially. It taught me to sit with difficult history, to listen across difference, and to understand that education is not about shielding young people from the world but preparing them to move through it with empathy, critical thought, and courage. The lessons I carry most vividly were never about neutrality in the sense of silence; they were about responsibility — to truth, to context, and to one another.

As a parent now, watching these proposed shifts toward a more rigid interpretation of “neutrality” feels disorienting. I understand the pressures facing the University and the realities of our current cultural climate. But when neutrality risks becoming disengagement — when teachers may hesitate to provide historical framing during moments that shape students’ lives — it begins to feel less like protection and more like capitulation. The Lab I knew did not avoid complexity; it trusted educators to guide students through it thoughtfully. Whether we were learning about Hiroshima, slavery, the Holocaust, or the Civil Rights movement, our teachers met the moment with honesty and care. That approach didn’t indoctrinate us — it prepared us to live in a diverse, complicated world.

Hyde Park has always been part of that education — a community rooted in diversity, debate, and a deeply human sense of place. Lab at its best reflected those values, even while navigating tensions with the broader University and the changing social landscape. I recognize that Lab has never been perfect; many alumni, especially Black alumni, carry experiences that complicate the story. But the solution to imperfection has always been deeper engagement, not retreat from the conversations that matter.

Today’s students are growing up in a world more visible and immediate than the one we experienced. Social media, global crises, and local realities shape their questions in real time. Meeting them where they are is not advocacy — it is education. Teachers who offer historical context, empathy, and intellectual honesty are not abandoning neutrality; they are fulfilling the very mission that made Lab a place of inquiry and growth.

My hope is not to return to an imagined past, but to preserve the spirit that made Lab meaningful to so many of us: a school confident enough to hold many viewpoints, trusting enough to empower its teachers, and brave enough to face the world as it is — not as something to be navigated cautiously through flowcharts, but as something to be understood together.

-------------

As a Lab parent whose children participate in cultural affinity groups, I enrolled by children at Lab expecting that their school experience would include meaningful learning about their own identities and valuing the identities and dignity of others. That is not ideological advocacy, it is foundational to belonging, development, and democratic education.

The current neutrality framework feels like a ham-fisted application of UChicago’s collegiate level free-speech principles with zero nuance for (or expertise in) a K-12 setting. I believe they will result in more uncertainty, self-censorship, and a chilling effect on the thoughtful engagement that should define a laboratory school.

If this shift is being driven by survey data, the community deserves transparency. Families have not been shown the evidence used to justify such a consequential change. More broadly, what was the process for developing these guidelines, and where were faculty expertise, child-development knowledge, and shared governance meaningfully incorporated? And if community sentiment truly matters, why not also account for the perspectives of the many families who are choosing to leave Lab?

A school grounded in inquiry should meet our concerns as parents with openness, not opacity. We expect clear reasoning, transparent processes, and for the discussion to be grounded by trust in our K-12 educators. 

------

I'm concerned that the interim director, who admits he has no background in K-12 education, is fundamentally impacting teacher student relationships at Lab based on some idea of institutional neutrality. He seems to have written the standards and guidance entirely on his own and is mandating that teachers follow them. There is no methodology for how he came up with these standards. The school has also not communicated the standards with either parents or students. 

I believe the idea of institutional neutrality in these documents does not comport with the Kalven Report. Based on the Kalven Report, teachers and students are entitled to academic freedom and their own opinions about a range of controversial topics. It's the institution of the University of Chicago that is supposed to be neutral. But these standards and guidance for Lab teachers are telling teachers that they cannot take positions that are controversial. These standards are therefore resulting in a divergence between the University's stated policies and Lab's. 

Because of this divergence, it appears clear to this parent that the goal of these standards and guidance is to censor teachers for their leftist politics. It's almost like the standards and guidance are repeating talking points of conservative think tanks like FIRE and the Trump administration's critique of academia. 

There is harm here. When you censor teachers and tell them they cannot have Black Lives Matter signs or Pride Flags in their classrooms or on their person and make them take them down, that is a sign to black students and LGBTQ students that they are not valued members of the community. The act of taking down the messages tells them that they do not matter. My daughter has two moms. I want her to feel supported at school. 

I was a student at Lab in the 1980s and 90s. I attended K through 12 and graduated from Lab. It was a tough place to be queer. I believe it was even harder to be black. Years of work have been done to make Lab a more welcoming environment for black students, and this administration is dismantling that work in one fell swoop. I also do not think that the University was any more involved in my schooling in the 1980s and 90s. So this idea of mission creep is entirely fabricated. 

There are real issues at Lab related to consistency of the academic experience. The Lab administration should working on creating a consistent experience for kids, not on censoring teachers.     

------