By now you have probably heard about the September 29th letter the National School Boards Association sent to President Biden (I wonder how many people ever heard of the NSBA before? I certainly didn’t, although it has been around since 1940; more on that later). In the letter, the NSBA contended that “America’s public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat.” The letter requests the federal government’s help to protect students, school board members and educators “who are susceptible to acts of violence affecting interstate commerce….” (interstate commerce??)
Providing no examples, the NSBA asks that “the federal government investigate, intercept, and prevent the current threats and acts of violence against our public school officials… to ensure the safety of our children and educators, to protect interstate commerce [there it is again], and to preserve public school infrastructure and campuses.”
The letter further states that these “acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials”… “could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”
Footnotes at the end of the letter detail meetings disrupted, a Nazi salute given, anti-mask protesters swarming, critical race theory roiling and more protesters disrupting.
People even went so far as shouting to disrupt meetings.
In Virginia, “an individual was arrested, another man was ticketed for trespassing.”
This is the “form of domestic terrorism” the NSBA wants the federal government to take action against.
Well… the letter certainly worked. In only five days-FIVE DAYS!!-Attorney General Merrick Garland released a memo to the FBI, US Attorneys across the nation and DOJ’s Criminal Division’s head attorney. In the October 4th memo, he directed those law enforcement entities to meet with federal, state and local law enforcement partners to discuss strategies to address threats against school administrators.
Garland’s memo does not describe any specific events, criminal actions or protests that require this coordinated undertaking by the country’s federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.
But Now We Know Why the NSBA Letter Got So Much Attention
On October 7th, the American Legal Foundation sent a letter to Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General for the DOJ. The ALF is a non-profit founded by former Trump administration official Stephen Miller.
The letter requests that Horowitz’s office investigate the circumstances of the NSBA letter and the AG’s subsequent directives to federal law enforcement.
The ALF letter details a series of meetings in early September among DOJ personnel, White House staff and Biden administration “stakeholders.” The letter describes the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association as Biden administration stakeholders in a preceding part of the letter; not clear if they were the ones at the September meetings.
At the meetings, Biden administration stakeholders and administration officials discussed taking action against protesting parents. Those officials included “a key Biden Domestic Policy Council official (Jane Doe #1) and White House staff (John Doe #1)… [and] at least one political appointee in the [DOJ’s] Civil Rights Division (Jane Doe #2).”
The ALF letter continues: “Jane Doe #1, John Doe #1, and others in the White House separately expressed concern regarding the potential partisan political impact of parent mobilization and organization around school issues in the upcoming midterm elections.”
There you have it. The Biden administration is concerned about the “partisan political impact” of vocal parents opposed to teachers indoctrinating children in critical race theory, how to pick your gender, etc.
Those pesky parents may affect the outcome of next year’s midterms!
The Biden Administration Acts
The administration and its allies then decided “to use a letter from an outside group (‘not the usual suspects‘) as pretext for federal action to chill, deter, and discourage parents from exercising their constitutional rights and privileges.”
Enter the NSBA. You know, the one you probably never heard of before.
According to the ALF, work began on the Attorney General’s memo in mid-September. They crafted the memo, says the ALF, notwithstanding the DOJ’s staff’s concern that no federal crimes were being committed (Aha! So that’s where interstate commerce comes in!).
The staff was also concerned about the constitutionally protected nature of the parents’ protests.
Never mind being worried whether this proposed course of action was constitutional: “Jane Doe #2 made it clear this was a White House priority and a deliverable would be created.”
We’ve Seen This Before
This is not the first time “stakeholders” have used the Biden administration to get their way. The Center for Disease Control was to announce re-opening guidelines for schools on February 12th. Emails got by a conservative group showed extensive communications between the CDC, White House and Randi Weingarten’s American Federation of Teachers.
According to the New York Post, the “powerful teachers union’s full-court press preceded the federal agency putting the brakes on a full re-opening of in-person classrooms.”
Is There a Leaker in the Biden Administration?
Talk about a quick turnaround. It took the Attorney General five days to prepare his October 4 memo. But it only took the ALF folks three days to send a letter to the DOJ’s Inspector General about the Garland memo. A letter that refers to specific people taking part in meetings (Jane Does # 1 and #2, John Doe #1). A letter that has direct quotes (“not the usual suspects”).
Moreover, the letter describes an October 5th phone call among Jane Doe #2 and unnamed Biden administration officials. A phone call during which they discussed equity initiatives and how to avoid Freedom of Information Act disclosures of those initiatives.
Does the release of the ALF letter in proximity to the Garland October 4th memo, and the detail in that letter, suggest that someone in the Biden administration reached out to the ALF in September to let them know what was coming down the pike?
Let’s hope so.
Backlash for the NSBA
And all is not well with the NSBA. So far, 11 state school board associations have criticized the NSBA for the September 29th letter. Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee (who is not a member) and Virginia were openly critical of the letter.
School board associations in New Hampshire, Texas and Pennsylvania complained that the NSBA did not consult them prior to the publication of the letter.
The Florida School Boards Association is really miffed. The state association objected to the NSBA appealing for help from the federal government. One Florida school board member, who sits on the board of directors for the NSBA, complained that the entire board of directors should have been consulted before they sent the letter out.
Moreover, the Florida School Boards Association reminded the national body that they have withheld payment of their 2020-2021 dues, which were due in July. Florida is reassessing its membership because of the NSBA’s “failure to embrace non-partisanship.”
What’s Next?
Well, for starters, the Garland memo directs the FBI to convene meetings within 30 days among federal, state and local law enforcement in all federal districts (there are 94). Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall in those meetings?
It will be interesting to see how many local officials tell the FBI to stick to organized crime, terrorist and Trump/Russian collusion investigations.
Conversely, there may be some boards that request that FBI SWAT teams be on standby during meetings.
60 Republican members of Congress have written a letter to the Attorney General questioning his actions. The letter requests the Attorney General to identify specific acts of violence, what is the criminal conduct the DOJ is investigating and what federal statutes have been violated by protesting parents.
A former FBI agent, a 24-year veteran, cautions the FBI here to not let politicians use it to settle scores with political opponents of the Democrats.
Of course, violence against school officials, or threats of violence, cannot be condoned. But who says local law enforcement cannot effectively police that?
And raucous public meetings, board members being shouted at and meetings disrupted rise to the level of federal crimes? Comparing parents upset with CRT indoctrination, biological boys using girls’ bathrooms and competing against them in sports and opposing questionable mask mandates to domestic terrorists? Sounds more like the Biden administration’s “stakeholders” are trying to intimidate and suppress people who oppose key parts of the progressives’ agenda.
And parents are fighting back. To use a phrase popular after November 2016, they’re “resisting.” And it looks like they’re not going to stop.
UPDATE:
October 15, 2021
Pennsylvania school board association has withdrawn from the NSBA
October 29, 2021
So has New Hampshire
UPDATE:
November 10, 2021
Montana and South Carolina have withdrawn from the NSBA
As predicted, I am not familiar with the NSBA. I am aware of threats against school board members, particularly, though not exclusively, in Florida. Seems to be a lot of sturm und drang on both sides, finger pointing but little in the way of facts. Garland, you state, “ directed those law enforcement entities to meet with federal, state and local law enforcement partners to discuss strategies to address threats against school administrators.” He called for a discussion and later you say, “ 60 Republican members of Congress have written a letter to the Attorney General questioning his actions.” Questioning the AG’s call for a “discussion”? 60! I know little of this but seems to be some form of brush fire that has republicans worried.
Well, the point is “stakeholders” want this administration to jump in the middle of local disputes. A little overreach, especially comparing protesters to domestic terrorists.