People “Energized Like Never Before” After DOJ Attack On Parent Protest Movement

People “Energized Like Never Before” After DOJ Attack On Parent Protest Movement

(If player doesn’t load, click here)

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT

(Autogenerated, may contain transcription errors. Timestamps approximate.)

Tony Katz (1:28) …. And right now, William Jacobson joins us from legal insurrection.com Cornell law professor. And he is one of these people. Christopher Rufo pointing out that there’s a group, a critical race theory activist organization, which has created a strategic plan to mobilize teachers and left-wing media. And they’ve got a list of frontline people who they want to go after. And one of them, Sir, is you, you’re a frontline spokesperson for discussing against critical race theory. Congratulations. I don’t know if I’ve got an award for you, but what does it feel like to know that you’re pictured prominently as somebody who is the problem?

William Jacobson (02:08):

Well, I’m the solution. I’m not the problem. They are the problem. Meaning it’s really surprising. I guess it’s not surprising that the people who control academia, who control the media, who control now corporations. still feel the need to try to single out and isolate and attack individuals like myself and several others. Many of whom on their literature are non-white. In fact, most of them on the page you’re talking about are nonwhite people, professors, authors, activists who are against the racialization of education. And so I I’m honored to be on that list, but it also just shows how pathetic these people are that despite all the money they have, all the power they’ve accumulated, their message still isn’t resonating

Katz (03:00):

As Christopher Rufo goes through this, the language withintheir handouts discusses, disinformation, McCarthyism, January 6th, big lie, alt right, Steve Bannon and the Koch brothers make the list. Fringe element, extremist voter suppression, and right-wing attacks. Christopher Rufo’s point, Christopher Rufo from City Journal, that this isn’t a sign of confidence. As you see the pushback against parents speaking out against what they’re seeing in the schools, which is not about being opposed to discussions of race, but rather indoctrination of students and teaching them that they’re guilty based on the color of their skin or they’re oppressed based on the color of their skin. What do you get when you see a guide filled with this kind of language?

Jacobson (03:48):

Well, it’s not the first time that I’ve seen it. The people pushing the CRT are highly organized, highly well-funded, and I’ve seen other messaging guides. They like to produce guides and talking points for their supporters and their activists as if they are incapable of coming up with it on their own. So I’ve seen these sort of guides. There’s a group called Future of Learning. That’s a coalition of over 300 pro CRT educational groups funded by major foundations, and also seems to be under the thumb of the National Education Association, which is one of its funders. They have a messaging guide, they have talking points. They have things that are literally called talking points and they hire strategic consultants.

And they create these red herrings, these false arguments that, oh, you know, people opposed to the racialization of education, they just don’t want us to talk about history. But I don’t know anybody who says you shouldn’t teach history. But why don’t we teach history in history class? Why do we have to inject this racial element into math class and into physics class? And why must every single aspect of a child’s life and education now be forced to revolve around the color of skin? That’s what people are objecting to. Nobody serious is objecting to teaching about slavery or teaching about Jim Crow. Those things are already taught in school. It’s really the fact that they make skin color the singular focus of a child’s life,

Katz (05:20):

… Now people have yelled. People have gotten angry…. And the next thing you know, no other parents are allowed to speak as if somehow that was the only reason they would have prevented parents from speaking out. You see parents pushing back all day, they’re reaching out to you, they’re talking to you. How do you suggest they go about engaging these conversations? Or is it just full on keep the pressure on until they learn that the parents are in charge?

Jacobson (06:44):

I think you have to keep the pressure on. The people running the school boards, not every school board, but certain school boards, are activists. They view their role to be activists. They want to indoctrinate your children in an ideology that most Americans of all colors and all ethnicities do not agree with. And I think the pressure needs to be kept on, but people need to do it peacefully. They need to do it lawfully and they need to be extremely careful because there is a lot of money and a lot of power behind these groups. And it just takes one person to create a news distraction.

Tony, you probably remember the Tea Party movement. We followed it very carefully. You could have 4,000 people at a rally with 1500 signs and they would find the one person in the crowd with the sign that was offensive. And that would now become the entire media focus. And there were documented instances where they actually planted people in crowds to say nasty things and to carry rude signs so that they could publicize it. So you need to keep the pressure on, but it needs to be done lawfully.

You have a constitutional right to express your opinions to public officials and you have the constitutional right to do it in a tone of voice that is above a hush. Okay? You don’t need to speak in soft tones. The constitution doesn’t say free speech only for people who do not talk above a hush.

Katz (08:15):

But we hear that at school boards right here in central Indiana, where, uh, you, you, you’re not allowed to make a threatening tone or you’re not allowed to raise your voice. They’re putting limits that limits on speech. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work.

Jacobson (08:28):

When have you ever heard that limit placed on left-wing protesters? When did you ever hear a public officials say, oh, well, the Black Lives Matter protest can’t happen in our city because you know what, they’re shouting. No, that doesn’t happen. That only happens to parents who were objecting to the indoctrination of their children, to parents who are asserting their parental rights.

So don’t go for this, keep the pressure on, but again, do it lawfully and do it in a very smart way because there are, the media is not your friend. The mainstream media is not your friend. Any slip up. Any single incident will be portrayed as indicative of the entire movement. And we know that it’s not

Katz (09:09):

Before I let you go, sir, is the Department of Justice from the school boards association request, basically labeling parents as domestic terrorists…. Are you hearing anything about the DOJ making moves to make it harder for parents to be able to speak out about their child’s education and advocate for their kids?

Jacobson (09:37):

DOJ already made its move. That memo was intended to intimidate people. That memo was intended to give school boards and left-wing activists the ability to accuse people who are not violent of being potentially violent or being potential domestic terrorists. So the DOJ already made its move. And I think it’s going to backfire. From what I’m seeing, there is enormous energy in reaction to that and enormous defiance.

The fact that they had to go to DOJ, and this is all appearing to be a setup that this is, they needed an excuse for the DOJ to go after people or to at least demonize them. And that school board letter was phony as anything, that was a set up.

And I’m hearing from people that they are energized like never before. And the fact that they have to go to DOJ and they have to try to criminalize political disagreement, shows you they don’t have confidence in their argument.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.