Glenbrook South Yearbook Incident

Quotes From:  INVESTIGATION OF 2024 GLENBROOK SOUTH YEARBOOK PUBLICATION

June 24, 2024
by: Justino D. Petrarca District 225 retained counsel

EIC = Editor In Chief
Advisor = Brenda Field
Student 3 = Student who was quoted in yearbook

Page 10
Consistent with past practice, the content for the 2024 Yearbook was determined by the student editors, specifically the EIC group.  Their decisions on content, according to the Advisor, were based upon “things that impacted them.”  Current events became an area of interest.  The Advisor explained that because 2 of the 3 EIC students were Jewish, the war in Gaza was of great interest to them.

Page 12
The Decision to Publish the Quote from Student 3
As part of a lengthy interview with the Advisor, she explained that upon seeing the quote before a final decision was made to use it, she had “several conversations” with the EIC about printing it.  However, she did not tell them not to use it.  She made

Page 13
no recommendation, allowing the EIC to make the decision.  She explained that when raising the issue with the EIC, they insisted on using the quote because:

1. Two of the 3 EIC were Jewish and thought it was important to share the point of view: and
2. The EIC decided to secure a second quote, printed on the same page and in the same area, from a Jewish student. The EIC believed this quote provided “balance” on the issue, thereby justifying use of both quotes; and
3. The EIC did not believe the Student 3 quote was antisemitic. When asked if she thought to check on the well-being of Student 3 after the controversy erupted, the Advisor admitted she had not. She acknowledged that she never considered the impact of printing of the quote on Student 3.

Page 15
The Student 3 quote has clearly caused material and substantial disruption.  This should have been enough to trigger a prior review of the material by the GBS Administration before printing, as allowed by the Illinois law and GBS Handbook.  Instead, the Advisor reported that in her more than 20 years in that role, she has “never consulted with the principal.”

This statement defies credulity because the Advisor admitted that before printing the yearbook, she had “several conversations” with the Editors about the use of the quote.  It is reasonable to believe that she had some level of concern about the quote if it was the subject of several discussions.  A reasonable person might have paused to questions the impact the use of the quote might have on school operations, community reaction or, most importantly, the impact on a sophomore who was identified by name in the yearbook.

Page 16
Nonetheless, the Advisor allowed the editors to make the decision.  She gave them no advice nor did she make a recommendation.  Instead, she believed their decision was made based upon the fact that:
a) Two of the 3 EIC were Jewish and did not believe the quote was anti-Semitic; and
b) They had secured a quote from a Jewish student, which they believed “balanced” the view in the quote from Student 3.

Interestingly, the yearbook has a full page spread devoted specifically to the Gaza war.  Included are 2 lengthy quotes from students.  However, Student 3 is not one of the students.  Instead, the editors decided to use her quote, seemingly and totally out of context, in a separate section near the back of the yearbook and related specifically to “October 7”.  Clearly the Advisor was not aware of any of the circumstances around the tape-recorded quote or its misuse.

Page 17
The actions of the Adviser and the editors are not in conformance with their own, self-professed ethical standards as noted on page 8 of this Report.  They also arguably are in violation of Board policies noted earlier in this Report on pages 3-4.
The concerns discussed with the Advisor should have been sufficient to solicit Principal involvement, as contemplated by the Illinois law and Student Handbook.