Attorney General Garland and the “Unobstrusive” Federal Monitoring of School Board Meetings

In the 1946 move, “Terror by Night,” Sherlock Holmes assures Lady Margaret that, while he and Dr. Watson would be hanging around, “we’ll be as unobtrusive as possible.” Lady Margaret correctly responds “That would be a novelty from a policeman.” That scene came to mind when Attorney General Merrick Garland testified in Congress to assure members that he does not believe that parents protesting at school board meetings are domestic terrorists. He insists that there was nothing to be worried about because the FBI would simply be monitoring what these parents say or do at school meetings. Promises of such “unobtrusive” investigations or operations ignore the obvious: any national enforcement or monitoring effort is by definition obtrusive, particularly when it comes to free speech.

Garland’s testimony came after the Justice Department announced that it would be creating a national effort to “address threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff,” including “open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.” It came shortly after the National School Boards Association asked for such action, including the possible use of the Patriot Act against individuals deemed threatening to board members. While the Justice Department memo itself does not mention domestic terrorists or the Patriot Act, the Justice Department’s press release pledged to include the National Security Division in the effort.

Garland repeatedly assured the members that he knows of no basis for alleging domestic terrorism in these school board meetings. He further pledged that he will not use such laws against parents objecting to critical race theory or other issues at these meetings. However, those answers only begged the question of why the Justice Department has pledged this broad effort to monitor and respond to threats at these meetings. If these are not matters of domestic terrorism, why is the Justice Department implementing this effort? The letter does not cite any pattern of criminal threats or their interstate or federal profile.

There is no question that any such threats need to be aggressively prosecuted.  Moreover, some threats using interstate communications or interstate conduct can satisfy federal jurisdiction, but such local threats are rarely matters of federal enforcement. Indeed, I raised the same concerns when the Justice Department took over rioting cases in Wisconsin, Washington, and other states.

When asked about alleged sexual assaults in Loudon County, Virginia in school bathrooms involving a transgender student, Garland insisted that such violence sounds like a “local case” and the Justice Department would not be involved. Yet, the Justice Department just announced it would get involved with any such threats or violence in school board meetings. These meetings involve core political speech on issues that are deeply dividing the country. If the Justice Department is going to launch a national effort to address possible crimes in such meetings, it has a heightened duty to explain the basis for an effort based on federal criminal conduct.

State and local laws offer ample means to address criminal threats or violence. Only a handful of such cases have been cited, largely cases of unruly or disruptive conduct in the meetings. While General Garland pledges fealty to the First Amendment, there is a fair concern over the impact of his memo on such free speech activities. First Amendment cases are often more concerned with the “chilling effects” on free speech as opposed to direct government action. Recently, the Supreme Court struck down a California law requiring the reporting of charity donors. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court that “When it comes to the freedom of association, the protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions on an individual’s ability to join with others to further shared goals. The risk of a chilling effect on association is enough.”

Telling parents that the Justice Department is monitoring school board meetings creates an obvious chilling effort on speech. It is like a police car following you on the highway for miles just to see if you violate any law. It has an impact on how you act. Indeed, the purpose of the National School board letter seemed designed to have that effect. The Justice Department then amplified that effect by quickly announcing it would carry out the national effort and released a press statement referring to various departments being brought into the fight, including the National Security Division. While Garland may pledge to be as “unobtrusive as possible,” it would be quite a “novelty” to succeed.



235 thoughts on “Attorney General Garland and the “Unobstrusive” Federal Monitoring of School Board Meetings”

  1. I’m more concerned that our Attorney General seems to be, frankly, an idiot! He actually said he had heard nothing about leftist climate terrorists committing an insurrection at the Interior department at which over 50 people were arrested. The notion that somehow someone has to recommend Anthony Fauci be investigated for lying to Congress when he did it in front of the entire nation live on TV is beyond bizarre…unless Garland straight up takes orders from the DNC. The fact he had no knowledge of any cases going on as part of the “Summer of Love,” in which 3 dozen people lost their lives, billions in damage was done, shole city blocks held hostage, and a federal courthouse attacked on a nightly basis while our now Vice President donated money to bail criminals out is beyond stupid.

    The only credit I can give him is that when some Democrat tried to talk about eliminating the filibuster you could see him fight back the urge to tell her that the filibuster is a Senate thing and that they needed a civics class because that had nothing to do with him. There was also the moment when someone else said something about the DOJ only going after Georgia for election laws. There too I could almost see him wanting to say that while some of the voting laws other states may not be his preferred ones they are within the bounds of the Constitution.

    Democrats have plain lost their minds and now think any laws they don’t like means they violate the Constitution, are illegal, or are some bizarre humans rights violations. If you are the party that wants to take guns away from people you might not want to be the party that has lost their minds at the same time…

  2. Two things please:
    One, I am embarrassed to say that I actually bought into the Obama lie that Garland was a “moderate”. I try to follow the Supreme Court but I admit that I have never followed the D.C. Circuit very closely. I was glad that McConnell held up his appointment, but I did think the guy was a moderate. The guy is no moderate and in fact he seems to be a corrupt partisan hack. Corrupt because his daughter’s husband make millions off of CRT and a partisan hack because he was probably in cahoots with the WH in deciding to have the DOJ release the now famous memo. He also says he didn’t know about the rape in the VA school, didn’t know about the INVASION of Interior Dept by climate radicals and never seems to have an opinion about the border. Garland will surely go after Bannon for the contempt of Congress charge, which leads me into my second point.

    Two, if anyone thinks that Bannon should be indicted then please tell me how you felt about Eric Holder and his CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS.

    1. Both Holder and Barr were referred to the DOJ for contempt of Congress, and the DOJ apparently has a policy not to pursue a sitting AG for contempt of Congress and didn’t pursue either one. It’s not a partisan policy, and I have to wonder why you mention Holder but ignore Barr.

      That is completely unlike the situation with Bannon, who was not even an executive branch employee during the time that Congress wishes to ask him about, much less the sitting AG.

      I believe that Bannon should be indicted.

  3. The FBI and DOJ will be unobtrusive only as long as the school boards want them to be. As long as the parents stay in their place.

    This is the grownup version of the pleasure that was interacting with the middle school vice principal: “The choice is yours Epstein. You can follow the rules or you can lose your lunch privileges. Conduct yourself accordingly.”

    1. The issue will be resolved by the next school board election. To bad the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have paid bribes to voters out of the public treasury, fixed the voting population by importing hyphenates, fixed the voting procedures and fixed the elections. It’s hard to win in a one-party communist state that has abrogated the Constitution by omission of the Supreme Court and judicial branch.

  4. OT.

    Jan. 6 Committee: “The House has adopted the bipartisan H.Res.730, finding Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a Congressional subpoena. The Speaker of the House will send the report to the Department of Justice for prosecution.”

    The House Select Committee vote and full House vote in favor were both bipartisan.

    Here’s hoping the DOJ chooses to prosecute. Steve Bannon should not be above the law, and despite Trump’s desire to claim executive privilege, Bannon wasn’t even an executive branch employee during the period that he is being subpoenaed about.

    1. Next up: Hillary with her perjury, mishandling of classified materials, illegally e-mailing then-president Obama (who illegally used a pseudonymous account while using Hillary’s illegal servers and mishandling classified material), and destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice by Bleach-biting 30,000 e-mails from her illegal servers.

    2. Has the legal process played out yet where Bannon gets to challenge the Subpoena in the Courts and upon a final Court Order to comply….if he then refuses….the Congress could refer the matter to the DOJ for criminal prosecution….or did I miss all of that somehow?

      1. Bannon didn’t challenge the subpoena in court. He wrote one or more letters saying that he would not comply and that Trump was asserting privilege — (image of the letter atttached in the tweet) — and he didn’t show up for his deposition and didn’t produce the requested documents.

        So the House has voted to hold him in contempt, and it will now be sent to the DOJ, for the DOJ to assess whether to prosecute.

        Trump may believe that he can order Bannon not to comply, but Bannon was not an executive branch employee during the events the subpoena applies to, so there is no privilege here. It’s now in the DOJs hands, and I hope they prosecute him.

    3. What happens If Bannon shows up. Schiff asks,” it is reported you said Jan 6th was going to be violent, is that true?
      Bannon, “That’s none of your business”.
      Schiff, “Well, What did you say to the President of the United States?
      Bannon, “thats between me and him”

      This could go on for days.

      Congress cant investigate crimes, What legislative interest can be furthered by Bannon is a mystery.

      1. Bannon already refused to show up. The House already voted to refer him to the DOJ for contempt. You’ve chosen not to look up the answer to your question and instead consider it a mystery.

        1. Its called a hypothetical. Get that stick out of your backside.
          But the Hypothetical illuminates the fecklessness of congress attempting to abuse its power. Bannon has nothing to offer congress in its only constitutional enumerated power. Examining evidence while endeavoring to craft legislation.

          1. Even though there are documents that you could read to understand how it’s relevant, you apparently don’t want to read them. Keep your hands firmly over your eyes.

            1. Bannon is a private citizen.
              President Trump is a private citizen.
              Congress has no jurisdiction to investigate a crime.
              Congress cannot force private citizens before their tribunal and interrogate them…without cause.
              All congress can do is investigate events in their only Constitutionally enumerated power to craft legislation.
              Steve Bannon has nothing to offer in the arena of writing legislation.

              1. Why do you keep lying that “their only Constitutionally enumerated power [is] to craft legislation”?

                It’s been pointed out to you before that they have other Constitutionally enumerated powers (e.g., certification of the EC vote, confirmation of judges). Are you willfully ignorant or just dishonest?

                “Steve Bannon has nothing to offer in the arena of writing legislation.”

                You seem to be implying that Jan. 6 didn’t involve any existing laws and has no implications for future legislation or for the certification of the EC vote, and if that’s what you believe, it only underscores willful ignorance.

      2. King George, “It has been reported that you assembled an army of misfits, is that true.”

        George Washington, “Penetrate thee, My Lord, that’s none of your royal business.”

        King George, “I have a Bill of Attainder here with your Family Crest on it.”

        George Washington, “That Bill will be paid by you, My Eminence, at the price of your colonies and your sanity.”

    4. Eric Holder WAS the Attorney General at the time he was found in Contempt of Congress……and thus an employee of the Executive Branch tasked with ensuring the Rule of Law was implemented… your point is?

      My view is the self proclaimed “Wingman” for President Obama got off scot free for the same offense that you are calling for Bannon to be prosecuted for.

      Care to explain why you have such an acceptance of a double standard in the Law?

      1. As I’ve now pointed out more than once, Congress referred both Holder AND Barr for contempt of Congress, and the DOJ declined to prosecute BOTH, apparently because they do not believe that they should prosecute a sitting AG for contempt of Congress.

        Bannon is not a sitting AG, so it would not be a double standard to prosecute him.

        Care to explain why you believe it to be a double standard?

  5. Just came into my email account.

    The National School Board Association communicated with the White House before releasing a letter requesting federal intervention to investigate whether alleged threats leveled by parents against school-board members qualify as domestic terrorism under the Patriot Act.

  6. “Unobtrusive” means “undercover” and if the past is any guide, agents provocateurs as well, I would rather they obtrusively make themselves known so innocent people would’ve able to judge how to act.

    I am supposed to feel better that the FBI and DoJ attorneys will be undercover? Good Lord they think we are all idiots!!

  7. Prof Turley’s remark about the monitoring itself being chilling in terms of suppression of free speech reminds me of a series of incidents during William Donald Schaefer term as governor of Maryland. He was elected in the 1980’s in a landslide election and we all had a fairly high opinion of him, being very good at fiscal matters. But he turned out to have a thin skin. When some people criticized him for some policy he would send a photograph of that person to the person in the mail at their home. These were closeups of the individual who irked him when they were in public, especially at meetings and at demonstrations. There was no explicit threat to that person in the letter, just the picture said enough: “We are watching you who are criticizing us.” Prof Turley’s following police car example is a good comparison, and having the FBI staring at you is an even more intimidating than Schaefer’s photographs. I think I remember that when enough people alerted the public to this subtle harassment, Schaefer curtailed the behavior.

    1. Schaefer also had Maryland State Troopers gather photos of license plates of “dissidents” to monitor their travel and intimidate them. He was a good Mayor but became increasingly paranoid as Governor.

  8. There are parents who are making violent threats against school board members. Violence or threats of violence to push a political goal is the definition of terrorism. So there is validity to this.

    1. Like the guy who’s daughter was raped by the “trans” boy who was protected by the school and transferred to another school where he raped again?? That guy who got arrested, and they used to so they could call parents Domestic terrorists?? WOW. Get your head out of your butt, and see what is really going on here.

      1. Rape? She was sodomized (i.e. sexual), bur was she rape-raped (i.e. sex)? Sustaining the pride of the transgender spectrum through a handmade tale for social justice is more important than his daughter’s dignity, agency, and life. That said, forward-thinking people control the vertical, the horizontal… This may, in fact, be an episode of The Outer Limits.

        1. I live in Virginia. It has been reported here that the girl was sodomized both orally and anal -y ( not sure of spelling?).

    2. List a date and name or your post is a mere shiny object obfuscating Garland’s boot-jack methods of returning political favors to the USA’a #1 DNC voting block, the teacher’s faculty unions. .

      1. OMG!

        Anything but the lazy, greedy, boot-jack, teachers union thugs, with school boards as accomplices and complicit facilitators, the bane of America’s existence.

  9. This case of DOJ getting involved in such a local is issue is troubling. What is even more so, is that large chunk of the media, charged with critically reporting on the government, has largely ignored the story. Suppose a GOP administration had dispatched the feds to monitor parents demanding CRT be taught or pushing for an expansion of transgender rights, would we have the same level of media silence?

  10. Vandalize and cause thousands of dollars of damage rioting and you are labeled a “peaceful protestor”.
    Passionately and non violently voice concern about your childs education and you are labeled a terrorist.

    This country is barely recognizable any more.

  11. Oh come now nothing to see here. Pay no attention to that G-man behind the curtain. What a bullet we dodged when the Senate wouldn’t consider this schmuck for SCOTUS.

  12. Professor Turley,
    Could you include the relevant link to AG Garland’s testimony in which he acknowledges the FBI would be monitoring what these parents say or do at school meetings? I am having trouble finding it on my own. I think I might have found it, but I want to be sure we’re on the same page.

        1. You’re welcome. Happy to help good faith discussants like you. If only more of the commenters here were in this category.

  13. One Loudoun County man who was held up as an example of a “domestic terrorist parent” is Scott Smith, who showed up to a Loudoun County school board meeting to let the board and fellow parents know his 9th grade daughter was raped in the girls’ bathroom by a supposedly “gender-fluid” boy in a skirt. Scott Smith went to the meeting to voice his concerns about the schools’ dangerous transgender bathroom policy, which allows males into female-only spaces, as well as the fact that the school had covered up his daughter’s rape. The school and the district superintendent apparently covered up the rape not just to protect themselves from criticism but also to push the transgender bathroom policy through the approval process. Scott Smith was arrested before he could speak and consequently labeled a domestic terrorist, while the rapist was moved to a different high school in the district, where he raped another girl. From CRT to boys in the girls’ bathrooms, to the covering up of rape, to allowing the rapist to remain in a regular school with other students, the Loudoun County school district is the eiptome of what’s wrong with public schools today.

    1. “It’s the [treasonous Supreme Court], stupid!”

      – James Carville

      The goal is the full imposition of communism.

      “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

      – Barack Obama, Community Organizer (Communist Party USA)

      The communist institution of public schools cannot be attacked; the uninterrupted continuation of its mission is imperative.

      “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”

      – Vladimir Lenin

      The language is changed by communist media from local “disturbance of the peace” to the federal “domestic terrorist,” ostensibly legally enabling the communists to deploy the full force and weight of the federal government against the people. Of course, it is an actionable unconstitutional act to deny constitutional rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities to citizens. The threat to America is communism. If Congress were steadfastly American, the AG would have been impeached, convicted and penalized, commensurate with defection and treason and with extreme prejudice, for subversion, insurrection, dereliction, abuse, and usurpation of power.

      Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

      The singular America failure is the judicial branch and Supreme Court whose sole duty and charge is to assure that actions comport with the literal “manifest tenor” of statute and fundamental law.

      “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

      “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

      – Alexander Hamilton

      1. Leninists always lie. It is their value system. Remember, when you hear communists say ridiculous and absurd things like “CRT isn’t taught in schools” you know immediately it is a lie. Because they always lie. Unless people realize this then they will continue to be confused and attempt to debate and reason with these people. You cannot reason with communists. You can only defeat them.

      2. CRT isn’t being taught in K-12 schools. It’s a topic in some college courses and research.

        That why the teachers unions are up in arms. Strange the Teachers unions would defend teachers, since CRT is not in not in schools

        This comes as the American Federation of Teachers announced it is prepping for a fight of its own in defending teachers and educators who teach CRT.

          1. But don’t let facts get in the way of your opinions.

            So the American Federation of Teachers is nothing but mindless idiots that have no clue about what teachers are teaching?

            I’m not the one claiming CRT is being taught in elementary and High school. The Teachers Union is the one making the claim. Who am I to second guess teachers

            But its the same leftist charade, arguing opposing ideas at the exact same moment.

            1. “The Teachers Union is the one making the claim.”

              Actually it isn’t. Do you often confuse the author of the article and the union? Did you notice that the only “quote” is a single phrase, and even that wasn’t accurately quoted from the original?

              1. I knew when I commented, your Humpty Dumpty persona would emerge and definitions of words would become so fluid, so as to lose all meaning.
                I did some research and found more than a dozen reports of elementary, middile school and high school teachers sounding the alarm about being forced to teach CRT.
                But the simple approach was to just show the Teachers Union has promised to fight for teachers if they are disciplined for not teaching CRT. Strange the Union is so energized about something that doesn’t even exist…according to you

              2. In an interview, Weingarten said the union is adding $2.5 million to an existing legal defense fund in anticipation of local fights over the teaching of race.


                1. Iowan,
                  You’re being Faucied. Or Clintoned. Take your pick. Anonymous is lying and you’ve proven it. When I say lying, I mean he knows exactly what your point is regarding teaching CRT and he’s dodging by semantics.

                  1. Semantics studies meaning. Whenever someone dismisses a real difference as “semantics,” it tells us that the person is trying to avoid what words and phrases actually mean.

                    Only a willfully ignorant person thinks that CRT is a synonym for race.

                    Every state has curriculum standards, and I bet that all of them require social studies teachers to teach about slavery and the Civil War. Are you seriously going to say that they cannot mention race in discussing slavery and the Civil War? Are you trying to rule out teaching about Jim Crow laws? …

                    Teaching about these things is not teaching CRT.

                    EdWeek: “The core idea [of CRT] is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.”

                    Now you tell us how you’re defining CRT.

                2. Teaching about race is not CRT.

                  Apparently the problem is that you do not understand what CRT actually refers to. You are the Humpty-Dumpty here, wanting to change the meaning of CRT to what you personally prefer.

          2. Critical Racists’ Theory is taught under the diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment) umbrella, not limite to racism, sexism, that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, and normalizes color blocs (e.g. the racist designation “people of color”), color quotas (e.g. Jew… White privilege), and affirmative discrimination.

      3. Critical Racists’ Theory presumes diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment), not limited to racism, that normalizes, among other things, color blocs (e.g. the racist designation “people of color”).

      4. “CRT isn’t being taught in K-12 schools.”


        It’s injected into K-12 curricula at districts throughout the country. (Look it up.) There are lesson plans on how to teach CRT in K-12 classes, complete with paid consultants. (Look them up.) There are numerous *children’s* books pushing CRT’s noxious racism (e.g., “Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness”).

        1. Sam, to assess whether CRT is being taught, you first have to understand what “CRT” does and doesn’t refer to. Most discussions of race and racism aren’t discussions of CRT.

          As I said in my earlier response to Olly:

          Every state has curriculum standards, and I bet that all of them require social studies teachers to teach about slavery and the Civil War. Are you seriously going to say that they cannot mention race in discussing slavery and the Civil War? Are you trying to rule out teaching about Jim Crow laws? …

          Teaching about these things is not teaching CRT.

          EdWeek: “The core idea [of CRT] is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.”

          1. “[Y]ou first have to understand what ‘CRT’ does and doesn’t refer to.”

            Since I taught for 17 years at a hotbed of CRT research, and wrote general public and academic essays on CRT, I’m well-schooled about its noxious ideas and destructive consequences — far more so than is a keyboard warrior who copies a sentence fromEdWeek.

            And since I started my teaching career in “K”, then “12” — I am well-versed in how academic ideas filter into the K-12 system.

            (I have already written an essentialized summary of CRT elsewhere on this blog, and am not going to repeat it here.)

            1. If you can’t be bothered to link to whatever other comment of yours you’re referring to, OK. I’m not going to go hunting for it.

              You aren’t even attempting to present a contrasting definition here of what you believe CRT to be.

              1. “You aren’t even attempting to present a contrasting definition here of what you believe CRT to be.”

                Apparently, you don’t like parenthetical comments:

                “(I have already written an essentialized summary of CRT elsewhere on this blog, and am not going to repeat it here.)”

                And, once again, I prefer naked twister with a leper, over debate with a skeptic/sophist.

                1. You are the one engaged in sophistry when you pretend “Apparently, you don’t like parenthetical comments.”

                  I read and responded to your parenthetical: If you can’t be bothered to link to whatever other comment of yours you’re referring to, OK. I’m not going to go hunting for it.

                  We cannot make progress unless you present your definition. You could choose to link to the comment of yours where you defined it, but you are choosing not to.

                  1. “You are the one engaged in sophistry . . .”

                    You are good at three things: copying and pasting, hair-splitting, and imitating.

                    (Though in your world, that probably is really four things — “copying” is a thing; “pasting” is a separate thing. So I apologize for confusing you by lumping them into one thing.)

                    1. Again: We cannot make progress unless you present your definition. You could choose to link to the comment of yours where you defined it, but you are choosing not to, and instead you’re choosing to continue insulting me. Your choices here are counterproductive.

                    2. “Again: We cannot make progress unless you present your definition. “

                      Then you can insist a comma was missing and insist that is not what was under discussion. It is wrong. You are a time waster that uses deception and lies.

                    3. “Let’s go Allan!”

                      What is that all about, ATS? Do you want me to help you find a comma?

            2. I am sure you are better informed than these left wing cretins.

              But the entire CRT thing is a red herring.

              The Left seeks to claim – correctly or not that what is being taught is not EXACTLY CRT.

              While Parents use CRT as a symbol to stand for the offensive racist idelogy their kids are being indoctrinated into.

              Both uses are to some extent technically inaccurate.

              But the parents error in labeling the hateful nonsense their children are being taught CRT is harmless.
              Whatever label is used – what is being taught is vile and has no place in our schools.

              Further even if those on the left disagree – that is irrelevant.
              The parents in these school districts do not want it taught to their kids.

              MacCaulffie defined the conflict quite well, while taking the wrong side.

              This is a conflict between the state and parents over the education of their kids.

              Anyone expecting the state will win in the long run is an idiot.

              1. “Whatever label is used – what is being taught is vile and has no place in our schools.”

                Good point. That’s where the focus should be.

              2. ATS is being dishonest and deceptive in his arguments about CRT and its use. There are many definitions, but all mean essentially the same thing. If Sam gave a definition that was identical to that of Anonymous the Stupid’s definition, except that one had a comma and the other didn’t, ATS would yell and scream that the other person is a liar since the definitions weren’t exactly the same.

                That is the nature of ATS who uses deception rather than straightforward debate.

              3. John, on a different topic. I have sent you some cryptic remarks about brokenwindows. Did you decode what was being said?

          2. It is not necescary to assess whether CRT is being taught.

            All that matters is that these parents are very unhappy with what their kids are being taught.

            As is typical with those on the left – you seem to think that there is a means of escaping all logical errors using word games – there isn’t.

            This does not hinge on CRT.
            It does not even hinge on students being taught to be racists – which self evidently is happening.

            All that matters is that parents find the curriculum offensive.
            You can not word game your way out of that.

          3. I would note that debate over CRT as a legal theory is independent of this.

            That said CRT is a ludicrously stupid and obviously fallacious legal theory.

            Anglo law arguably starts with the Magna Carte.

            How many blacks do you think were in england in 1215 ?

            At the start of the 19th century there were about 15,000 blacks in all of england – none slaves
            This is part of why it was easy for England to end slavery before the US.
            For the average Englishman slavery existed only in its colonies.

            When the leaders of the scottish enlightenment were constructing modernity – how many of them do you think had even met a black person much less a slave ?

            If there is even the slightest racism in the foundations of western anglo law and government it is predjudices against celts by anglo saxons.

            I would further note that 1776 was a pivital moment – in the US and the world regarding Slavery – it was the begining of consequential abolutionism. much of the north ended slavery shortly there after.

            Contra leftist nonsense – the West – the influences of the scottish enlightenment, of the angle sphere LEAD the world in abolishing slavery.

            Anglo slavery continued after 1776 in the south and in the caribean until the civil war, and in the rest of the world until the end of the 20th century.

            Historically the most consequential affrican slavery was NOT between north american and Africa – but between Africa and the mideast.
            More black slaves died being castrated on the way to the mideast than were ever sent accross the atlantic.

            Contra CRT – western political and legal foundations have nothing to do with race or slavery.
            In fact the opposite is true – the west is the first political and legal system to strive to resolve issues of race.

            Through to today – the anglosphere – and particularly the US are the only nations in the world to manage significant racial and cultural diversity. No nation in the world has either the numerical diversity nor the wide range of racial and cultural diversity of the US.

            The US has made mistakes regarding race – our treatment of blacks and chinese at times has been abysmal.

            But at those very same times – other nations did not allow people – even of the same race to immigrate.

            Outside of the anglosphere there has been negligable racial diversity in most of europe until the 21st century.
            And the rest of the world is worse. Racial religious and even tribal differences still result in war and genocide throughout the world.
            In the 90’s the Hutu in Rwanda mudered 800.000 Tutsi’s in about 90 days mostly with machettes.

            China today has about 90 ethnic minorities – all asian. But Hahn Chinese make up 98% of the population.

            Race is mostly absent in the political and legal systems of the rest of the world – because those nations were racially homogenous.

            The foundations of Western law were established BEFORE the founding of the US – in homogenously white England.
            While the adaptation of law to pluralistic society has been exclusively an anglosphere development lead by the the US.

            As pioneers we made many mistakes along the way.

            But Contra CRT – the US lead the world in developing pluralistic society.

            I would further note that pluralism is a fundimental american value.

            In the US it started with religious pluralism, followed by resolving issues of pluiralistic national origen.

          4. RT is like much of leftism ahistorical nonsense.

            The slightest familiarity with actual history destroys it.

            This idiocy requires being willfully blind of the most important elements of actual western history.

        2. This is a fight over labels. Some of those on the left are correct – the “legal theory” that is technically CRT is not being taught in public schools.

          That is not the point. Racism IS being taught in public schools. Students are being taught they are inferior because of their immutable characteristics – or because they have not chosen mutable traits like incongrously identity that are presumed to be favored.

          More important still – whatever labels you place on what is being taught – it is offensive and undesireable in the view of the parents.
          A significnat portion of the protesting parents are minorities – they are not objecting to using Harvard Law Review articles to teach their kids – they are objecting to their kids being taught the material in the texts actually used in their schools – whatever you wish to call it.

          What is the purpose of schools ? Political or cultural indoctrination ?
          Or to produce adults capable of surviving and thriving ?

          Adults with poor skills in reading, writing, and arithmatic are incredibly disadvantaged. Theyt will see lower standards of living.
          Society will be worse off.

          Those should be our primary goals for education.

          History is important – as it tells us what worked and what did not so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.
          And so that we understand what has worked.

          But in history it is important to get the facts right or the lessons get distorted. Further it is not possible to teach the complete history of everything.

          One of the fundimental problems with leftist history is that it constantly strives to present as workable systems that have repeatedly and universally failed in the past.

          It is proper for history in the US for emphasize the successes and failures of this country. But we should not distort history by pretending that the failures of the US were unique, or that we did not lead most of the world in correcting them. The US often lagged the rest of the anglosphere in addressing sexual and racial equality – though we still lead most of the world. At the same time for most of 250 years we have lead the world in freedom – with obvious benefits acruing to nearly everyone. In 1492 North america was between 2000 and 15,000 years behind the rest of the world. Today there is no nation larger than New York with a higher standard of living and very few nations at all.

          Those on the left like to tout the accomplishments of these nordic social democracies – while it would be wise for them to actually learn about those places, at the same time – norway is about as significant as conneticutt or Rhode Island – with a much lower standard of living.

          1. Racism IS being taught in public schools. Students are being taught they are inferior because of their immutable characteristics – or because they have not chosen mutable traits like incongrously identity that are presumed to be favored.

            That is correct. And to further prove the point, if the Left was solely interested in teaching all of American history, instead of teaching our kids to be racist towards their classmates, then they wouldn’t be Talibaning any of our history.

          2. “Some of those on the left are correct – the “legal theory” that is technically CRT is not being taught in public schools. ”

            So no one should pretend that CRT is being taught in public schools.

            Racism is discussed in public schools because it is impossible to teach about things like slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow, the Trail of Tears, the Chinese Exclusion Act, etc., in social studies without discussing racism.

      5. “CRT isn’t being taught in K-12 schools”

        Anonymous the Stupid is either being Stupid or lying.
        “We will silence the opposition … without realizing the firestorm my words would cause … My intention was and is to have the voices in support of equity in education be heard and supported, and I was actually thinking ‘hopefully those voice will eventually ring louder and drown out those against equity.’ ” __Chairperson Keaira Jennings

        Judicial Watch gets docs appearing to show coordinated effort to advance CRT in Va’s Loudoun Co show a coordinated effort to advance Critical Race Theory initiatives in the county’s public schools, despite widespread public opposition to the curriculum.

      6. “CRT isn’t being taught in K-12 schools. It’s a topic in some college courses and research.”

        How truthful does anyone believe ATSs is trying to be. In the future he will blame this comment on another anonymous.

        Among other important points listed:

        “Incorporation of racism, racial equity and social justice in the Standards of Learning;

        “The watchdog group Judicial Watch said Friday that it has received 3,597 pages of records from Virginia’s Loudoun County that show a coordinated effort to advance Critical Race Theory initiatives in the county’s public schools, despite widespread public opposition to the curriculum.”

    2. This is a great article that puts that sexual assault into proper perspective. It’s appropriately titled: When Did Sexual Assault In Schools Become A Partisan Issue?

      Ensuring the safety of young girls — in their places of learning and elsewhere — should not be controversial. But the loudest voices on the left, the same ones who screamed “Me Too” from the rooftops of their Hollywood mansions, are too allegiant to the fringe demands of transgenderism to speak up. Many voices in the middle, even, seem too cowardly to come to the defense of young women like Smith’s daughter.

      In a widening partisan divide, if we can’t agree that young girls being raped at school is an outrage, what can we agree on? Does the left hate conservatives with such vitriol that, once voices on the right speak up for a young girl’s right to bodily safety, that issue is suddenly anathema, tainted by the fingerprints of concerned parents slandered as domestic terrorists?

      Plenty of other common-sense perspectives that any Democrat nominee would have supported up to a couple of years ago have suddenly become “radical” conservative positions too: funding police departments, not segregating kids in school based on race, having international borders, or allowing people to make their own medical decisions without government coercion. Any of these should have been enough to make Americans stop and wonder why the rules of the game are changing so drastically — and who is changing them.

      1. We should be outraged by rape of both boys and girls, regardless of who the rapist is: another boy, another girl, a man, or a woman.

        Rape is not caused by allowing trans people to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. Rape has existed for our all of human history. Anyone who focuses on “Ensuring the safety of young girls” while not ALSO focusing on ensuring the safety of young boys is not someone who puts the interests of children at the fore.

        1. Of course boys must be safeguarded just as girls must be safeguarded, but mixing boys and girls in high school bathrooms and locker rooms is not the way to safeguard students, especially not girls, as an estimated 91% of victims of rape & sexual assault are female and nearly 99% of perpetrators are male. If boys who identify as girls do not feel safe in boys’ school bathrooms or locker rooms, safe accommodations for them must be made that do not involve placing male students in girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms. School officials must not be cowed into believing that separating male and female students in bathrooms and locker rooms is some sort of hateful act. Rather, it is safeguarding at its most basic — pure and simple. It keeps out those boys who would pretend to be trans in order to access female victims where females are unsuspecting and vulnerable. Additionally, for some teen boys who identify as girls, there is an erotic element to identifying as a girl (autogynephilia) and these boys must not be allowed in girls’ private spaces, as well.

          Any school board member or educator who promotes mixed-sex bathrooms and locker rooms must be removed from their position, as it goes against the most basic child safguarding practices.

        2. anyone who thinks that males should have the right to self-identify as a female is a psychopath. Is that how you identify, comrade?

  14. There are also Constitutional issues here: Since when does the Federal government have any authority to interfere in local events? The answer – it doesn’t.

        1. There aren’t any applicable federal laws to protect school boards, while there are several that protect the students and parents.

          1. There aren’t any applicable federal laws to protect school boards, while there are several that protect the students and parents.

            Am I correct that the DOJ got involved because some people expressed feelings that they were threatened with violence? Has there been any evidence provided that proves these threats exist beyond what would normally be incidents handled by local law enforcement? Conversely, there is evidence of sexual assault, pornography and curriculum that parents are legally trying to be heard to protect their children. If the DOJ was actually concerned about equal justice, at a minimum, they should be monitoring the school boards and schools for these violations of civil rights.

        2. If federal laws are being broken,

          The question is WHAT FEDERAL LAW? The DoJ has no constitutional jurisdiction.

    1. Answer: Never.

      Now see? You’d have an elementary case were the Supreme Court to ever do its sworn duty to support the “manifest tenor” of the U.S. Constitution.

      The Constitution not supported but abrogated by the Supreme Court and judicial branch.

      Congress has the power of impeachment for this very transgression; Congress won’t impeach because it is in complete agreement.

  15. How on earth did this mediocrity of a man come to be supported for elevation to the Supreme Court?
    Many scholars spoke so highly of him. He is everything they accused Barr of being and more.

  16. prime example of the Lefty’s attitude towards free speech.

    You can say anything that you want to say, but we will monitor your speech, and if we don ‘t like what you say, we are here to act on it.

    Imagine if the Lefties have the “Justice” Department for a few years.

    We have to stop them.

    1. what you described about speech is classic Leninism as described by Gary Saul Morson in his article “Leninthink” on the New Criterion magazine website.

  17. Each school district needs a connection with the Mafia. If some person poses a threat to the kids, teachers, board members, staff, then have the person punished.

  18. I often wondered why this guy wasn’t appointed to the Supreme Court, after listening to part of his testimony I now understand why. His was asked several times about his daughter and son-in-law’s making money pushing CRT in schools and completely ignored the question.

Leave a Reply