Opinion

School board meetings show only that freedom is messy

Twenty years ago, Paul Carson said he never would have hesitated to speak out at a school board meeting about any issue affecting his children’s education.

But one day, that changed. “I just don’t do it,” Carson told me. A physician who practices medicine in an urban Pittsburgh hospital, Carson said it has nothing to do with his being 20 years older. “It has everything to do with the culture we are navigating.”

Anyone, he said, can take a video of what you say, edit it to his or her advantage, then post it on social media. Or they can just simply claim on social media that you are racist or extremist because you express an opinion outside the sensitivities of the cultural curators who define what is acceptable and what is not in our country.

When Carson used a media platform in discussions about school district issues, as he did last year when the children in the Pittsburgh public schools went for months without in-person education, he said he had to be “profoundly cautious” in expressing his views.

School board meetings have been around forever, and they have always had the potential to become raucous.  Emotions often ran high, as they should when children’s welfare is involved. Good parents never lose sight of the fact that the people who educate their children spend more of the day with them in a classroom setting than parents themselves do.

No one should accept threats or physical violence at a school board meeting or anywhere else. But such conduct is fortunately rare. The question today is, can we trust our government to distinguish between the actual threat of violence and the passionate expression of viewpoints by parents?

That question became a reality this week when Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo suggesting a nationwide federal crackdown on parents at school board meetings. And the answer from parents like Carson is, “Absolutely not.”

Garland made his decision under pressure from the National School Boards Association. Its interim director responded by saying Garland’s memo sends a “strong message to individuals with violent intent who are focused on causing chaos, disrupting our public schools, and driving wedges between school boards and the parents, students, and communities they serve.”

Freedom is messy. Our discussions about things that matter to us, such as our children, are chaotic, disruptive and, yes, divisive. They drive wedges — that’s a feature, not a bug.

In the past few months, parents across the country have become frustrated with extremist curriculum choices that their school boards are making. In response, they have done what Americans have done for generations — show up at school board meetings to voice their concerns.

Garland is now using the FBI against parents on the grounds that school board members feel threatened. But what does “threatened” look like? Is it someone yelling at you? Disagreeing with you? Holding an opposing opinion? Who is defining those threats?

Eighty years ago, dairy farmer Jim Edgerton stood up at a town hall meeting in his hometown of Arlington, Vt., to voice his disagreement with the town councilors’ decision to build a new school. Edgerton was the only objector to the proposed building.

His opposition was mostly unremarkable, but he held his ground, nonetheless. No one would have known about it had not Norman Rockwell, a newcomer in town, been there.

As he watched Edgerton exercise his freedom of speech, the famous illustrator of Americana could not stop thinking about the State of the Union address President Franklin D. Roosevelt had delivered on Jan. 6, 1941, in which he warned that the values and liberties the public took for granted were under attack. Rockwell would go on to illustrate that moment, making Roosevelt’s words relatable by depicting them in use in small-town America.

 Garland seems to be making the calculation that the Jim Edgertons of this world will cower under the concern the government is watching them.

In the beginning, maybe they will. But in the long run, the air of intimidation probably won’t last. There comes a point when those feeling the threat go from being on the fringe of society to being the majority.

 Salena Zito  is  a staff reporter and columnist for the Washington Examiner.