The DOJ Targets Parents — and the First Amendment

When parents confront school officials about their children’s curricula — at school board meetings designed for such debates — it’s not only improper and unacceptable. It’s also apparently domestic terrorism. By Aaron Kliegman When left-wing protesters recently followed Sen. Kyrsten Sinema into a bathroom, cornering her and filming the incident, the media treated the encounter as normal. President Biden said “it happens to everybody” and is “part of the process.” Some commentators even argued Sinema deserved the harassment for not being progressive enough. But when parents confront school officials about their children’s curricula — at school board meetings designed for such debates — it’s not only improper and unacceptable. It’s also apparently domestic terrorism. That’s at least what the National School Boards Association (NSBA) and Biden’s Justice Department seem to think. Two weeks ago, the NSBA sent a letter to Biden asking his administration to investigate threats against public school officials. In the letter, the NSBA specifically references parents who’ve protested mask mandates and the teaching of critical race theory in the classroom, suggesting such actions should be classified as “domestic terrorism.” The NSBA then requests the Justice and Homeland Security departments probe and prosecute these “crimes” under “the Patriot Act in regards to domestic terrorism.” In other words, the NSBA wants the feds to use laws designed to stop al Qaeda from carrying out attacks to stop concerned parents from speaking their minds at school board meetings. Less than a week later, Attorney General Merrick Garland put the FBI on the case. Specifically, Garland sent out a memo warning that the Justice Department is “committed to using its authority and resources to discourage” the “threats” described by the NSBA, “identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate.” The memo then directs the FBI to work with each U.S. attorney to convene meetings nationwide to discuss strategies for addressing these threats. He also mentions his intent to launch additional efforts in the coming days which, according to the Justice Department, will “determine how federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute these crimes.” That’s right: The Justice Department is mobilizing against parents who oppose mask mandates and critical race theory at their children’s schools. When asked last week whether the FBI should use the Patriot Act to surveil parents upset about their kids’ curricula at school board meetings, White House press secretary Jen Psaki offered a non-response: “The attorney general has put out a letter. They will take actions they take, and I would point you to them for more information.” Psaki, who speaks for President Biden, could’ve shut down any notion of using federal counterterrorism laws to suppress domestic political dissent. She didn’t. Of course, critics will say those concerned about the FBI targeting parents are misguided, paranoid, or dishonest. After all, they argue, the NSBA and Justice Department were talking about stopping threats of violence and intimidation — not parents airing grievances. Indeed, the media quickly dismissed opposition to Garland’s memo as lies and conspiracy theories. Here’s the problem: As Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, explains, the NSBA “misrepresents debates at school board meetings as ‘threats’ and sometimes-vociferous and angry speech as ‘violence.’” An angry parent raising his or her voice and causing a disturbance is, at worst, a matter for local law enforcement. In fact, of the numerous examples of so-called threats against school officials provided by the NSBA, only one involved actual violence. And none warranted federal intervention, let alone a national domestic terrorism investigation. Yet, Garland’s memo appears to be a direct response to the NSBA’s request. Plus, neither the memo nor the Justice Department’s full press release cites a single specific, credible threat. So, what exactly is the FBI supposed to be targeting and why? Even more troubling, as Rufo exposed recently, the FBI has created its own CRT training program for agents. Add this to all the above, and there’s a serious risk that the Justice Department, which is part of an administration influenced by the woke left, could wield its power arbitrarily to monitor, if not suppress, parents who simply oppose COVID-19 restrictions and CRT in schools. We could be facing a crackdown on our rights to free speech and assembly. This is also a campaign to federalize education policy — really to combat parents seeking a voice in their children’s education. Consider how Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe recently said, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” Or how Education Secretary Miguel Cardona refused to say that parents are the “primary stakeholders” in their children’s education. Democrats and leftists want the federal government to control education, not local communities — and certainly not families. The Justice Department’s plans will advance this agenda. In short, we’re witnessing a coordinated effort to portray concerned parents protesting school policy as bullies and harassers who must be stopped. But as for the people who actually bullied and harassed Sen. Sinema, well, they were just exercising their First Amendment rights — which of course must be protected at all costs. More from Aaron Kliegman: