STLPR0%

Justice Department probes O’Fallon, Illinois schools; State Dems call it a ‘sham’ 80%

By Madison Lammert0%

5/1/2026, 8:46:38 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 27% saturation with 140 hits. Analysis detected 1,230 faulty-reasoning hits from 518 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.8% and a BS Rank of 80% (4,575 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.10% of the article peer group.

The U.S. 
Department of Justice is investigating O’Fallon schools for potentially including sexual orientation or gender ideology material in their curriculum and violating parental rights, but Illinois Democrats are calling the probe a “sham.” 
O’Fallon School District 90 and O’Fallon’s Central School District 104 are among 36 Illinois school districts under investigation, according to a release from the Department of Justice. 
District 90 Superintendent Carrie Hruby and Central 104 Superintendent Gabrielle Rodriguez issued identical statements in response to requests for comment from the Belleville News-Democrat. 
“At this time the District is unable to provide additional comment. 
We will cooperate with the review and will share more information when appropriate,” the statements say. 
If districts teach such content, the department will investigate whether parents were notified they can opt their children out of “sexual orientation and gender ideology” teachings, the release states. 
It adds the investigation will also consider whether the districts limit access to spaces like bathrooms and locker rooms and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex. 
“This Department of Justice is determined to put an end to local school authorities keeping parents in the dark about how sexuality and gender ideology are being pushed in classrooms,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. 
Dhillon in the Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement. 
The release said schools that teach such material and do not allow parents to opt their children out of these teachings violate Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972  which prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding  and recent case law. 
“Supreme Court precedent leaves no doubt: parents have the fundamental right and primary authority to direct the care, upbringing and education of their children,” Dhillon says in the release. 
“This includes exempting their children from ideological instruction that contradicts their values or decisions about their children’s health and best interests.” 
The Justice Department declined to answer questions about the probe, including why these 36 districts in particular are being investigated. 
In a statement to the Chicago Tribune, Gov. 
JB Pritzker said this is a “sham investigation” being used to punish states that President Donald Trump deems unfavorable, not one to uphold the law. 
Illinois U.S. 
Sen. 
Dick Durbin echoed Pritzker’s sentiments in his own statement, suggesting efforts would be better spent elsewhere. 
“If the Trump Administration truly cared about supporting Illinois students and their education, it would reverse the decision to dismantle the Department of Education, finally support Head Start programs, and stop attacking Title IX funding and the rights of LGBTQ+ students,” Durbin says in his statement. 
The office of U.S. 
Rep. 
Nikki Budzinski, D-Ill., said it is aware of the investigation, but has yet to make a statement. 
U.S. 
Rep. 
Mike Bost, R-Ill., and U.S. 
Sen. 
Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., did not respond to requests for comment. 
Editor's note: This story was originally published by the Belleville News-Democrat. 
Madison Lammert is a reporter for the BND, a news partner of St. 
Louis Public Radio. 
St. 
Louis Public Radio's Will Bauer contributed to this report. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.1%Madison Lammert: 6.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 4.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Madison Lammert: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic1.9%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 27.0%Madison Lammert: 18.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect27.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 5.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 4.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.5%Madison Lammert: 10.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias20.5%This article: 8.9%Madison Lammert: 7.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias8.9%This article: 1.9%Madison Lammert: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error1.9%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 20.5%Madison Lammert: 5.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias20.5%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 6.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Madison Lammert: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect5.4%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.9%Madison Lammert: 6.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority19.9%This article: 13.7%Madison Lammert: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma13.7%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.8%Madison Lammert: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization4.8%This article: 3.1%Madison Lammert: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring3.1%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 26.8%Madison Lammert: 13.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion26.8%This article: 14.7%Madison Lammert: 5.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question14.7%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.9%Madison Lammert: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof8.9%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 4.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 21.0%Madison Lammert: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.0%Madison Lammert: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote10.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.1%Madison Lammert: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice9.1%This article: 10.2%Madison Lammert: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination10.2%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Madison Lammert: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

518 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers58%attributed speech220writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageCarrie Hruby • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Justice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Justice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageHarmeet K. Dhillon • 35 words • 100.0% coverageHarmeet K. Dhillon • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Justice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageHarmeet K. Dhillon • 29 words • 100.0% coverageHarmeet K. Dhillon • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJB Pritzker • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageNikki Budzinski • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Dick Durbin

100%flagged-word coverage
46 attributed words15% of attributed speech44% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Indoctrination-14.5 ptsWriter: 14.5%Dick Durbin: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Dick Durbin: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Dick Durbin: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.