Justice Department Addresses Violent Threats Against School Officials

Teaching students about structural racism has become a political flashpoint across the country. Here's my interview with one of Virginia's leading activists, Patti Hidalgo Menders -- a mother of six who's fighting the state's equity and inclusion curriculum. Via @Sho_theCircus: pic.twitter.com/qQlopoYd3j

— alexwagner (@alexwagner) October 26, 2021

I have written about critical race theory (the last part is by the teacher who runs the website). Some applications, including some distrust about the good faith of those in power and results that burden others, very well might warrant push back at times.  At least, a reasonable argument. But, this woman is all over the place. She has more of a shall we say "ethos."

But, she speaks for many, and many Republicans (including the person running for governor of Virginia; he is also "stop the steal" curious) are loathe to challenge them.  We saw this when Attorney General Garland was in front of the Senate and Republicans kept on harping on a legal memorandum concerned about an uptick on harassment of school officials. 

Sen. Sasse suggested the main concern was some offensive "yokels." Repeated attempts were made to suggest it would threaten mere criticism at school board meetings.  That is was an offensive invasion of local control. Some ideological / partisan takeover of the Justice Department.  They laid on it real thick, including Sen. Kennedy who was more offensive than usual (he usually does a Mr. Haney from Green Acres shtick).

The NYT article touched upon what is involved here:

But news accounts over the past year have detailed physical fights, arrests, charges of disorderly conduct and threats made against board members, faculty and administrators stemming from arguments over topics that have animated the right, such as mask mandates, gender issues and curriculum that deals with racism.

And, Sen. Cory Booker (who is so doggone earnest) also eventually [the first rounds basically covered various Democratic concerns, though one Twitter thread flagged the newbie from Georgia as usual was diligent with oversight type questions] flagged the real concerns involved. 

The press release (linked with the memo cited) explains what is involved and references how the Justice Department will ensure that threats are "communicated to the appropriate authorities."  The memorandum itself is entitled a "partnership" with local and federal authorities. It starts reaffirming "spirited debate" is protected.  Meetings are sought out to determine the proper path.  If localities do not want the federal government's help here -- there is all the same a whole Department of Education for these purposes -- they need not accept it.   

The level of offense, hysteria, and partisan attacks by Republicans regarding a serious issue is very offensive.  I speak both as a citizen who cares about these issues and someone with a sister and niece who are teachers.  I don't like to personalize things -- that seems the road to subjectivity -- but hey, I linked my CRT piece and the teacher who runs the website at one point outs me as her brother.  I commend her for her honesty.

The high dudgeon that the memorandum is proof positive that the Justice Department has been taken over by partisan forces is a tad much from the Trump Party.  But, we can move past that.  I do not know the level of uptick here, but it would not be surprising. There has been an increase of heat in recent years by those who feel left out, having the world pass them by.  It is both a bit ironic and understandable they call others "LOSERS" so often.

The bottom line is the need to safeguard basic civic institutions, including schools, voting, and the courts.  Sen. Sasse, who puts himself out as a civics minded type, especially comes off badly here.  Not that I have a high opinion of him by now, even if he voted to convict in the second impeachment trial.  And, again, it is just a legal memorandum with caveats and ultimately proposing meetings!  

One side is coming off as totally unserious here.  And, we are supposed to block basic things like voting rights to protect bipartisanship with them?  As I said in the past, that at the very least requires a level of willingness to be credible partners that is not being shown.   

ETA: This bit of hysteria was cited by Senator Cotton.  

A more general thing about Attorney General Garland.  People are upset about how the Justice Department is handling investigations of Trump and other matters.  I do not know how that will turn out yet though it is reasonable to think it will not go as far as warranted.  If you are upset, however, it probably goes to the top.  This roughly matches the wishes of President Biden.  He chose Garland advisedly.  

While discussing this, people still bring out his nomination to fill the Scalia seat.  People are still critical of the nomination.  I still find that rather misguided.  It still bothers me when people flag it.  Given the full reality of the situation, including the fact the Republican controlled Senate was not going to even provide a hearing to anyone (even someone as mild as Garland), opposing his nomination is even more asinine.  

In general, re-litigating things tends to be tiresome, especially when the same arguments are made, in the same confused way.