As a Democrat, I stand for everyone’s right to be heard. I support immigrants, members of the queer community, the economically disenfranchised, and other demographics cast outside the Eden of privilege.

Naturally, I should love Oak Park politics. I ought to feel at home amidst the sea of lawn signs and anti-Trump dissent – but Oak Park, as blue as we are, doesn’t advocate for the equal representation of all voices the way we claim to.

On the contrary, we are waging a war on perspectives that don’t agree with ours: specifically, those of Oak Park’s conservative citizens.

It’s easiest to spot in our schools. Most OPRF students can probably recall an incident of a teacher making some sort of anti-Trump quip to a roomful of students, or an obviously left-leaning comment. The influence of teachers’ own political biases has become unnervingly preponderant, to an extent that edges on propaganda – and is present outside the classroom.

“Hate has no home here” has become an Oak Park mantra, drilled into many lawns (and brains) for miles around. Ironically, when it comes to differing political stances, this statement doesn’t seem to apply.

For more evidence, look no further than Oak Park’s equity statement. The first version, written in 1973, says Oak Park “encourages the contributions of all citizens, regardless of race, color, ethnicity, ancestry, national origin, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital and/or familial status, mental and/or physical impairment and/or disability, military status, economic class, political affiliation, immigration status, or any… other distinguishing characteristics.”

Today’s updated statement is identical in certain spots, and it communicates the same sentiment. However, very noticeably, the grocery list of bases on which Oak Park refuses to discriminate has altered.

As of 2019, Oak Park “encourages the contributions of all people, in all our rich variety by race, color, ethnicity, ancestry, national origin, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital and/or familial status, language, mental and/or physical impairment and/or disability, military status, economic class, immigration status, foster status, body size, criminal history, or any of the other characteristics that are used to divide people.”

At a glance, it’s easy to see how many categories were added, like “foster status” and “body size.” But at the cost of these factors comes the removal of “political affiliation,” making readers wonder how Oak Park – the land of “all people’s contributions” – confronts ideas that may not be widely accepted.

Of course, I’m not advocating for the acceptance of hateful ideas like white supremacy or misogyny. To be tolerant, a certain degree of intolerance is required, such as the renunciation of ideas aligned with the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups, but this is not the case in Oak Park.

What I’m seeing is a refusal to accept different schools of thought: a closed-mindedness that directly threatens the values for which Oak Park claims to stand.

Excess in any form is bad. As in a healthy diet, an exercise routine, and a mutually respectful relationship, balance is essential. So is the case with a thriving democracy: to continue growing and strengthening as a whole, we must have a homeostasis of political alignments.

Moreover, the word “democracy” comes from the root words “demos,” meaning “the people,” and “-kratia,” meaning “power” or “rule.” It literally means “the people rule,” because the entire party was founded on the belief that the people’s voice is that of the country.

It is in that same spirit to grant all beliefs the opportunity to be heard, whether or not we agree with them. A functioning society is fed, not threatened, by ideological integration.

Oak Park’s hostility toward conservatives is a threat to the fundamental values of democracy and the free expression of ideas within communities, even if we don’t initially find them appealing.

If we want to prove “hate has no home here,” it’s time to start acting the part and show conservatives some tolerance. The absence of hate (and a loyalty to democracy) isn’t shown only in accepting people we deem fit for society, but in expressing compassion and granting a voice to those with whom we disagree.