Introduction
At the March 20, 2025 Jericho Board of Education meeting, a statement from parent Gina Levy called for strict new rules limiting public comment and correspondence only to “verified” Jericho residents. Her target? The anonymous group behind Jericho Voice, a website critical of board policy and the school district’s increasing insularity. Levy condemned the site’s anonymity and questioned whether the authors even lived in Jericho.
But what Levy and her PTA-aligned peers conveniently ignore is that Lighthouse Jericho—a political website created in 2023 to attack sitting board members and shape the election outcome—was also anonymous at its launch. Worse, it engaged in overtly partisan tactics and published defamatory personal attacks against trustees, all without a whisper of criticism from those who now demand “transparency.”
The Double Standard on Anonymity
Gina Levy’s March board statement, submitted as Agenda Item 5.8a and published on official district letterhead, repeatedly equates anonymity with illegitimacy. She calls for new restrictions that would reject any public comment, email, or petition unless the author’s full name and residency are verified. Levy argues that speaking or writing without attribution “reflects cowardice” and “undermines transparency.”
But this outrage is selectively applied.
When Lighthouse Jericho launched in early 2023, its content included targeted hit pieces against sitting board trustees—labeling them as political radicals, disseminating misleading claims, and mobilizing voters against them. These articles were initially unsigned. The website’s creators remained publicly unidentified for months, yet none of the current critics of Jericho Voice stood up at BOE meetings to denounce Lighthouse Jericho‘s anonymity.
Where were the calls for verification then?
Where was Gina Levy?
Political Alignment Over Principle
The reason is simple: Lighthouse Jericho aligned with the political goals of Levy and her PTA-aligned allies. It sought to replace independent trustees with those who would rubber-stamp district decisions and silence dissenting viewpoints. And it worked—the group boasted about its electoral influence and coordinated volunteer campaigns to “flip” the board.
Compare that to Jericho Voice, whose content questions district discipline policy, BOE procedures, and equity of voice. It is this critique—not the anonymity—that so enrages district loyalists. Their demand for names and verifications is not about transparency. It’s about control.
The Call to Censor Dissent
Levy’s proposed policy changes, outlined clearly in her statement, aim to:
- Ban all public comment, letters, or emails unless from “verified” Jericho residents;
- Prohibit anonymous contributions entirely—even if accurate or well-argued.
This would disqualify whistleblowers, teachers fearing retaliation, and even alumni or parents of students on the margins of residency boundaries. It’s a clear attempt to gatekeep public discourse in favor of the loudest, most institutionally backed voices—primarily the PTA leadership and their network.
By contrast, Lighthouse Jericho operated without such scrutiny—because it was part of that very network.
Why This Matters
This double standard isn’t just hypocritical—it’s corrosive. When a community insists on transparency only from its critics while shielding its own operatives, it loses the moral authority to lecture anyone about accountability. When public meetings become echo chambers where only approved viewpoints are welcome, democracy suffers.
The truth is, anonymity has long been a protected form of speech—enshrined in the Federalist Papers, whistleblower protections, and Supreme Court precedent. What matters is the content of the argument, not the identity of the speaker. Levy’s fixation on names is a distraction from the uncomfortable truths that Jericho Voice and others are surfacing.
Conclusion
If Gina Levy and her allies truly cared about consistency and transparency, they would have condemned Lighthouse Jericho’s anonymous attacks in 2023. They didn’t—because the real issue isn’t anonymity. It’s dissent. And in Jericho, dissent is only welcome when it comes from the “right” people.
This article reflects the author’s opinion based on publicly available facts.
