Letters: Call out disinformation and hateful rhetoric against people of color and the LGTBQ community

Dear Editor:

The Princeton Community Democratic Organization (PCDO) and the Princeton Democratic Municipal Committee (PDMC) have always maintained a hands-off policy when it comes to school board elections, which are non-partisan. As organizations, we do not financially support, endorse, or hold debates for school board candidates. Further, we hold dear our right to free speech, including political speech. That said, we are writing today to call out hateful rhetoric aimed at our communities of color and the LGBTQ+ community that emerged within the school board race.

We urge residents to use credible sources for their research for this, and every, election and candidate. Please read the candidates’ public statements, watch their debates, and reach out to the candidates themselves. There are profiles on the candidates in almost every local publication in town, all of which provide free digital access. Importantly, do not allow yourself to be influenced by coded messages or veiled bigotry.

Princeton residents have worked hard to create a community that welcomes those who have historically been marginalized. We stand for policies that support diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging for all Princeton residents, most especially children. We value all candidates who espouse these tenets and dedicate themselves to working to ensure a brighter future.

We have an important election this year, and these topics will not go away after Election Day. Please continue to stay informed, attend local meetings, and call out disinformation when you hear it.

Owen O’Donnell for the Princeton Democratic Municipal Committee


  1. Princeton is a single-party town, with all the political diversity of a totalitarian state. Actually, even in Soviet Union one could vote “for” or “against” a single candidate. We don’t even get that choice when it comes to municipal elections. But at least there is the chance to increase the intellectual diversity of the school board.

  2. This letter from Princeton woke elitists is itself a prime example of disinformation. It imputes racism and homophobia without giving specific examples. It’s virtue signaling at its worst. But, of course, the Democratic machine controlling all areas of Princeton governance considers any deviation from woke pieties to be a transgression worthy of suppression.

  3. Mr. Chen, who put the banner, talked to another local media Tapinto. To me, Mr. Rein did a more balanced reporting. To the editor at Planet Princeton: 1) Please improve your reading skills, the banner was not antisemitism by nature yet you somehow felt the need to add that into your reporting; 2) You closed the comments section when there were different voices that is not the same as your false assumption; 3) Your work on that article is not journalism. You become the story itself and did very biased reporting. Do better. 4) Don’t be a part of propaganda, do journalism.

  4. Wait, is the hateful rhetoric being flagged here the criticism of the school board incumbents for having hired an unpopular superintendent, or the startling imputations of anti-Semitism that have been made against Asian-American critics of the school board? Princeton, please calm down. We are grown-ups. We can handle having five candidates for three open slots, even when those candidates mildly disagree with one another.

  5. Wow, comparing Princeton to the Soviet Union, McCarthyism is alive and well in 2022. As far as i know, Princeton holds free and open elections to all its residents. People are free to vote for whomever they want, you won’t be sent to Siberia if you vote for the GOP.

    1. Exactly, McCarthyism is indeed alive and well ! In Princeton people can vote for literally whomever they want using “write-in” column, but not for any real candidate without a (D) behind their name. And if they express conservative views they are automatically called racists and can be punished up to and including being fired from their jobs.

  6. While the banner is too in-your-face for many and its wording is unfortunate, the main text on nobkk.org isn’t. It’s critical of Dr. Kelly’s track record as the superintendent at Oak Park Elementary School District 97 and our school board’s hiring decision. But it’s not offensive.

    I’m dismayed by how quickly the banner message was branded as hate speech and anti-Semitic. If a member of our community had to take such a drastic measure to air his grievances, it seems to suggest that the public space where open and legitimate discussions about race and gender issues in our schools can take place has disappeared.

    Instead of condemning this incident as a bigoted act (or laughably by some as fascism), our school board and community should engage in some deep self-reflection and ask ourselves whether the school environment has become so politicized that it is hostile to those who are on the “wrong” part of the ideological spectrum. Are those families allowed to live in this town and send their kids to school without having to conceal their beliefs? Shouldn’t the diversity we champion include diversity of viewpoints? Shouldn’t the safe space we create be safe for those with different opinions as well? If not, the difference between our public schools and religious schools is simply the religion being taught.

    1. Freedom of thought is not encouraged here in Princeton. Lord knows the elected leaders (and self appointed leaders) of this community don’t.

      Luckily we promote that concept in our home and teach it our children.

  7. It is both inclusive and morally courageous to speak and act as if “An attack on Black people is an attack on all of us. An attack on LGBTQ people is an attack on all of us.”

    To say “An attack on incumbent school board members running for re-election is an attack on Black people. An attack on incumbent school board members running for re-election is an attack on LGBTQ people.” looks syntactically very similar. But it doesn’t carry the same moral weight – quite the opposite in fact.

    1. That’s not what they are saying. The gender confusion and reverse racism stuff is dog whistle language used by the far right. The banner website links to Fox News propaganda and another conservative website. Dog whistle terms like this have the power to express negative racial undertones while claiming the message is racially neutral. Also, the state determines the sex eduction curriculum, not the local school board. Parents can opt their kids out if they want to do so.

      1. “Fox News” and “Conservative” are not curse words. Some people watch CNN “propaganda”, some watch Fox New “propaganda”. Some (if not most) parents hold conservative views on sexual ed (shocker!!!). Since the beginning of times, people on the spectrum from “Far Right” to “Far Left” have been in agreement on one thing – sexualizing kids in kindergarten and elementary school is wrong. Only recently, the woke leftists decided that an assault on young children is such a great progressive idea. That’s why common sense progressives and liberals are distancing themselves from this crazy ideology.

        1. Democrats sexually assaulting young children is fake news promoted by the far right. Are you going to say next that you believe Pizzagate actually happened and the Clintons were running a pedophile ring out of the joint? The sex education curriculum isn’t about sexualizing kids. It’s about preventing abuse, among other things. Or should we stick our heads in the sand and pretend about the abuse by some Catholic priests and others, as well as teens being sexually active? Also as stated before, any parent can opt the child out of sex education if it is not in line with their beliefs.

    1. What’s your point SZ? If you don’t want your children to learn this curriculum that’s is mandated by the STATE, opt them out.

  8. Dear Committee Chairs,

    Adam here, PDMC district 13. Shouldn’t the PDMC members have voted on sending this letter before having Planet Princeton printed it? Why are you speaking for the rest of the 40 odd elected PDMC members? Then, implying that all PDMC members were on onboard with your opinions? Concerning the banner on recalling the BOE incumbents, to me your comments represent a lot of moral self righteous certainty , devoid of nuisances or really much thought. We should stay out of BOE election! Also , why are we also aligning with PCDO, a private organization? If any other PDMC members are reading this , what are your thoughts?

  9. Is this letter some kind of coded message? It claims to call out disinformation and hateful rhetoric. But then it fails to call out any specific disinformation or hateful rhetoric. Even to many of us aligned with the political viewpoints of PDCO and PDMC, this letter comes across as meaningless virtue signaling.

Comments are closed.