Why We Should Be Suspicious of D112 Referendum: Letter

The following letter was written and submitted by Brad Greenspan, MD.

I'd like to share a lesson I learned during my Psychiatry residency in hopes that those District 112 voters still on the fence might maintain an open mind and consider a different plan. My classmates and I were honored to have been taught a class on Freud by a world renowned expert and author. At the end of our reading on one of Freud's famous cases the instructor commented “And now we know how Little Hans was cured.” From the back of the room one of my older classmates responded “I can give you at least five possible explanations.” We gasped. Heresy! We trusted that the instructor knew the one correct answer. He was, after all, the expert. But there was my classmate, older than the rest of us, with a background in engineering before he'd attended medical school, listing five theories, any one of which actually sounded intriguing and with merit.

That event, as well as studying Stanley Milgram's 1960's experiment in which ethical individuals could be convinced to perform potentially monstrous acts under the direction and assurance of a supposed authority, helped me to take a jaundiced view of authorities telling me there's no reasonable alternative to the idea or plan they've created.

In particular, my suspicions were raised when the conclusion of the District 112 community forum I attended (that we wanted a two 6-8 middle schools) was reversed by private committee meetings with no minutes taken. Their conclusion was to eliminate both west Highland Park elementary schools, build a mega-middle school in its place (with serious educational and developmental consequences for 5th graders, as I've written before, a disastrous traffic problem and busing issues) at a cost that would represent the largest educational tax increase per capita in Illinois history.

I've heard from both an architect who served on the committee examining the transition to a new educational plan and a financial expert who also was engaged for a long time in the process, and both have given clear warnings regarding what is destructive about this plan. That is not to say that a plan isn't needed. If the Referendum fails we will need to come together quickly as a community in a completely transparent and community-engaged fashion to create another plan. And we can do this. But first, we have to be suspicious of the current threats and warnings of the so-called experts who are pushing this plan. As I learned from my Residency there's almost always another idea to be heard. I hope there will be a “no” vote so a financially responsible, less disruptive, destructive plan can be considered.

Brad Greenspan MD