A recent Shaw Local article summarizing an interview with Representative Brad Fritts at an August 21 “Coffee and Conversation” event reveals a number of disturbing comments that expose an unsettling political bias in Fritts’ representation of his district. I also spoke privately with Representative Fritts on August 21; the commentary below draws upon both these sources of information.

Both the Shaw interview and my conversation with Representative Fritts centered on the annual “Steak Fry in the Country” scholarship fundraiser, an event sponsored by the Sauk Valley Chamber of Commerce (SVACC) along with its Agribusiness subcommittee.

Attendees at this event represent multiple faith traditions; despite this, Fritts strongly asserts that a Christian prayer is appropriate. In my conversation, he argued that since the event was held on private land, the host had the right to demand a Christian invocation. Fritts failed to note SVACC’s long held and transparent policy regarding the use of non-secular terminology at public events they coordinate. This was not new information for the host.

An invocation was prepared before the event that did not include the words “God” or “amen,” but contrary to Fritts’ assertions, these words were not maliciously removed. In my conversation with him, he also omitted the fact that those angered by the invocation were explicitly demanding a reference to Jesus specifically. This fact tilts the frame.

Fritts, who did not attend the event, publicly withdrew his affiliation from the SVACC and openly decried SVACC’s website, which includes a DEI statement, because an explicitly Christian prayer did not open the event. Fritts has accused SVACC of inserting politics that distract from the focus of the event. In actuality, his rhetoric and actions have infused a divisive, ugly political sludge into what was meant to be an uplifting and unifying event.

Fritts argues that he is calling “for a level playing field” in defending the umbrage and behaviors directed against SVACC. Asserting a belief in religious freedom for all, he nevertheless frames the issue as a matter of majority values, placing the responsibility on those who might object to overtly religious content to opt out of events where their sensitivities might be injured. He explicitly states it is not the job of organizers to create inclusive spaces. He states, “If you don’t feel comfortable, step outside for the prayer . . . We all have that prerogative.” However, “stepping out” deprives attendees of equal access to events and opportunities afforded to the “majority.” I cannot imagine a field less “level” than one you must opt out of, allowing the majority to romp over the rights of the minority.

Furthermore, his assertion of “majority values” implies he knows what the “values” were of the majority of attendees at the Steak Fry. I would argue he does not. There is a swagger and bullying tone to the “opt out” statement that is indefensible, and the sentiment is abhorrent and obsolete.

His disparagement of the DEI statement is additionally troublesome. First, in his interview on August 21, he wrongly conflates merit-based hiring, often associated with DEI policies, to the hullabaloo associated with the Steak Fry. The Steak Fry had nothing to do with hiring – why is he ranting about it? Additionally, his reference to DEI is a clarion call to the MAGA extremists who decry “woke” ideology. When I spoke with Representative Fritts, he denied any connection between publicly referencing SVACC’s DEI statement to pandering to the extreme right, yet one has only to scroll through his FaceBook site to see that this is patently false, at least in outcome, if not intent. He accuses SVACC of pandering to Washington by displaying a DEI statement. What he fails to understand is that a DEI statement is a simple and elegant way to frame an organization’s mission of promoting inclusivity and equal opportunity for everyone.

I want my elected representative to support and promote equality, to help create this level playing field. He could have used this moment to bridge differences and mediate a common ground. Unfortunately, his one-sided words and actions attacked a vibrant community organization’s credibility and viability. Shame on him.