Kerby Anderson

Attorney General Merrick Garland may have tipped over a string of dominos when he issued his memorandum concerning protesting parents at school board meetings. That is the argument Roger Kimball makes in a recent article. He says the Attorney General wants to “mobilize the entire police power of the state against parents” because they “have suddenly woken to the wokeness haunting their schools.” Parents don’t like what is happening and rightfully believe they should have a voice. “They pay for the schools. The school board (in theory) works for them.” Instead, the National School Board Association called them “domestic terrorists” and accused them of “hate crimes.” At this point, let’s state the obvious. A true threat or act of intimidation should be dealt with by local law enforcement. On the other hand, parents who say they will defeat a school board member in the next election should not be conflated with physical threats or intimidation. The Attorney General wants to forge a “partnership among federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement.” This isn’t constitutional and is perhaps a conflict of interest given the fact that his son-in-law is a president of a company that sells to schools some of the controversial material parents are protesting. Roger Kimball’s article details how much of this was coordinated behind the scenes. And one letter suggested that the Patriot Act should be cited as justification for dealing with protesting parents. In case you forgot, the Patriot Act was enacted twenty years ago to protect innocent Americans from terrorists. It was not implemented to go after angry and frustrated parents at a school board meeting. One concerned mother talked about “the domino effect.” She observed that “when one parent speaks out, another parent feels like it’s safer for them to speak out.” The sound you are hearing is the sound of dominos falling.