On Thursday, Attorney General Merrick Garland testified before Congress. He faced tough questioning from Republicans on a variety of issues including the memo he just sent to the FBI directing them to investigate alleged intimidation of school board members by angry parents who have been showing up at school board meetings. Many are angry over the indoctrination of their children by schools and teachers. In particular, many are incensed by the teaching on Critical Race Theory.
This article first appeared in New English Review.
As one who has gone to a couple of school board meetings in Southern California and participated in the public comments time, I would like to weigh in. I also should note that I am retired from the US Department of Justice, which Garland leads and has directed to get involved in this matter.
Public school board meetings, like county and local
government board meetings, have certain sessions open to the public, who, in
turn, may ask questions or give their opinions-with time limits, of course.
Naturally, there are rules of decorum, and threats of violence or violence
itself are unlawful. Violators are subject to arrest by local police. I myself
would never condone a parent or other member of the public engaging in violence
or threats. That is not the point. The point is that we have appropriate local
laws and local police to deal with such instances. We don’t need the federal
Justice Department getting involved. The only exception, as I see it, would be
if there were some conspiracy across state lines to disrupt or do harm to school
board meetings and members. I do not see that here. Parents and/or community
members showing up to express their anger at the way their children or being
taught is fully protected speech as long as they adhere to the guidelines and
do not engage in violence, disruption, or threats.
The most notorious case is the recent arrest of a parent in
Loudoun County, Virginia, who showed up to accuse the school board of covering
up his daughter’s rape. The video I have seen of his removal and arrest
indicates to me that the arrest is highly questionable, but I stress that I
have only seen a video clip.
Unfortunately for Garland, there is also a possible conflict
of interest for him since he has a son who is reportedly involved with the
Critical Race Teaching movement. But that is a side issue. The main issue here
is whether there has actually been a wave of violent or threatening incidents
at school board meetings around the country-other than parents merely
expressing their anger. If so, that is a matter for the local police to handle
not the US Justice Department-except in the case in which there might be a
nationally coordinated effort across state lines to disrupt or engage in
unlawful behavior. Then the DOJ can get involved. Again, I don’t see that here.
There may or may not be a nation-wide attempt to organize parents to oppose CRT
or the teaching of the “Woke” dogma.
That’s OK too as long as it doesn’t encourage lawbreaking.
In my view, Garland’s actions here only add to the growing
concern that the federal government under President Joe Biden is trying to
criminalize dissent. Garland is the same man that former President Obama
unsuccessfully tried to put on the Supreme Court. He should know better and
should use more restraint before he injects federal law enforcement into local
school board controversies. School boards are, indeed, answerable to their
constituents.
4 comments:
Okay, here's the thing about CRT - whether you're for it, against it, or indifferent to it.
It is NOT being taught at the elementary, middle, or high school levels.
That's the problem with this hysteria that's being ginned up by right-wing media. CRT is a specific thing, but it becomes whatever its opponents want it to mean whenever they need it to mean that. People can't even properly define it, yet they know that they're against it. (Much like the hysteria over socialism.)
" It is NOT being taught at the elementary, middle, or high school levels."
Each state is dealing with CRT in its own way, and some states are not allowing it. What I can tell you is that in my state, California, Governor Newsom has recently signed it into law, and it will be taught in secondary schools. Many Jewish groups opposed it because it contained teaching that Israel is oppressing Palestinians, that whites are inherently racist and privileged, and that Jews are simply privileged whites. While certain things were removed from the original draft, which Newsom had refused to sign, each district has leeway to insert the things that were most offensive. I earlier sent you a link that explains this better than I could.
No, he did not sign the teaching of CRT into law. You are proving my point - CRT means whatever its opponents want it to mean.
You are simply factually incorrect.
Here is what Legal Insurrection says about it. Technically speaking, we are both partly right and partly wrong.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/10/gavin-newsom-signs-bill-requiring-critical-race-related-ethnic-studies-for-all-high-school-graduates/
Post a Comment