A number of times during my tenure at Parker, student conversations have centered around “conservative voices at Parker.” In these conversations, often in Student Government Town Halls, many students argue that there isn’t enough conservative (or Republican) speech allowed or shared at Parker. Additionally, the point has been made that students hesitate to share conservative opinions out of fear, and there are no means to address that. This is a false premise.
One does not have to look far to find counter examples. A quick search finds an article from “The Weekly” arguing conservative ideas like we should “hyper train police.” Student organizations like Parker Republicans and Salute to Service Club, which are centered around conservative ideas, have had regular meetings and send all school emails. In our classes, we regularly read speeches from conservative historical figures and explore conservative ideas about economic and social policy.
In fact, I suspect that it is students who have more “leftist” views who feel more afraid to speak out. There are no student groups in support of Democratic Socialists or anti-capitalistism that call for major structural change in this country, or that are in opposition to U.S. foreign policy. If students were really afraid of being ‘attacked’ for their conservative views, would they feel bold enough to express that feeling.
There is no longer a Parker Democrats club at Parker that serves forums even for status quo democratic views which has been replaced by a Politics Club which prioritized a conversation about “political violence, specifically Charlie Kirk,” in their first meeting.
Moreover, Parker is, as a private school, an institution whose continued existence is built on top of massive wealth, including a sizable endowment. Because of this, Parker has inherent conservative qualities in that it must conserve the status quo for its continued existence. Though Parker is a ‘progressive’ school in educational philosophy, that does not extend to politics. At no point in my years as a student has Parker endorsed a political candidate, bill, or policy and, in fact, has remained largely silent on political changes, particularly in the second Trump era.
Parker in fact would jeopardize itself by doing so. Not only because it is a 501(c)(3) with specific regulations on how it can operate but also because of its position as a private school.
The way that most families access private school is by paying. Full price annual tuition and fees at Parker are nearly fifty thousand dollars, a sum most families in Chicago cannot afford. Parker offers some families financial assistance, but most families have the wealth to afford full tuition. Although the politics of wealthy families varies, wealthy families often have conservative views, certainly on things like wealth taxes, capitalism and whether or not private schools are positive or negative forces in education generally. So some Parker families benefit significantly from subscribing to conservatism and voting accordingly. In this way, Parker is an institution that benefits from conservatism because in order to keep the revenue stream open, it must court these kinds of families.
The idea that Parker does not support conservative voices may come as a reaction to the implementation of a progressive education which inherently advocates for “progress” and not the status quo. The 19th century progressive education movement focused on open mindedness, change, critical thinking, collaboration, and cooperative learning. These ideas compliment positive change and thus progressivism in the most literal sense—progressing society to be more open and honest. Some students object to some of the curriculum of that nature because they perceive it as some kind of bias or indoctrination. Parker often has to make a choice between commitment to its founding principles, or keeping a revenue line open. This is the same reason Parker often fails at its mission. The school’s commitment to progressive education is secondary to the “status quo” ideals that keep cash flowing into the school.
This is also why the argument that Parker students need to be exposed to conservatism falls flat for me. Parker students are exposed to conservative ideas regularly by way of going to a school that stands as a testament to wealth disparity and power imbalance in our society. Parker also emphasizes current events in its curriculum, which currently are dominated by conservative voices. That is doing plenty to expose Parker students to conservative ideas.
Given all this, what I believe many students are really saying when they say that they want to see a “more conservative voice” at Parker is that they want to be able to be conservative without judgment. The ‘nervousness’ around being conservative at Parker stems from the notion that one should be able to say whatever political statement they want and no one should be allowed to dislike them or judge them for it. There are no systems in place to censor or silence conservative speech so this nervousness can only stem from a fear of social consequence. However, social consequence is a part of sharing a belief with the world, and even if conservative students think they should be exempt from consequence, it is the reality of being in a community, especially when some members of the community are under attack by the dominant conservative voices.
If Parker truly wants to live up to the idea that it is a model home, part of allowing everyone at Parker to have a home is that no one should have to endure having their safety questioned. The school must consider Karl Popper’s ‘paradox of tolerance.’ A tolerant space can’t tolerate intolerance. If Parker wants to be inclusive to every member of the community, it must not allow those members to tout hateful speech. The modern “MAGA” conservatism moment is built on attacks on marginalized communities, and we cannot tolerate speech that makes students feel unwelcome, unsafe, and marginalized.
The oldest of students at Parker were around ten years old when Trump first took office, which stands as a useful benchmark for the shift in what conservatism means. Though bigotry and hatred had always been a part of politics, in the Trump era it dominates. Given all the conservative speech Parker does allow, one wonders what students mean when they begin conversations about a greater conservative presence at Parker. Is the conservatism that these students want more of at Parker the same current conservatism that believes that women should submit to their husbands, or that, according to Texas Representative Ronny Jackson, “we have to get [trans people] off the streets, and we have to get them off the internet, and we can’t let them communicate with each other.” The bigotry and hatred that has come to define American conservatism in the 2020s shouldn’t have a place at Parker if it is to remain a safe space for all community members.