In response to the Republicans鈥� controversial parental rights bill, House Democrats plan to introduce alternative legislation Friday that will call for 鈥渋nclusive鈥� schools and oppose efforts to censor curriculum.

Led by Oregon Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, the resolution follows Wednesday鈥檚 marathon education committee session, which stretched 16 hours into Thursday morning and further clarified the partisan split over parents鈥� role in their children鈥檚 education. 

While the GOP鈥檚 approach emphasizes accommodating parents鈥� requests for information, the Democrats鈥� version focuses on ensuring schools provide a high-quality education and don鈥檛 discriminate against students. 

Republicans say their , which passed 25 to 17 and now moves to the full House, would increase transparency into curriculum, school funding and safety efforts. But Bonamici said during the committee meeting that it has 鈥渄iscriminatory undertones,鈥� because parents could use it to remove materials about topics they oppose, and would 鈥減it parents and families against their kids鈥� teachers and schools.鈥� 

For a month, her staff has worked with the National PTA, the National Parents Union, an advocacy group, and others on the Democratic 鈥淏ill of Rights for Students and Parents.鈥� The resolution says 鈥渟tudents benefit from opportunities to learn in diverse, well-funded 鈥� schools alongside peers who have had different life experiences鈥� and calls for schools to use materials that are 鈥渉istorically accurate鈥� and 鈥渞eflect the powerful diversity of the nation.鈥�

The passionate debate this week, which at times turned argumentative, was likely a preview of what鈥檚 to come in the full House. Democrats characterized the bill as an effort to weaken public education and micromanage how schools operate. Republicans, however, said schools have silenced parents, excluded them from discussions of their children鈥檚 gender identity and prioritized teachers unions鈥� demands during the pandemic.

鈥淭his bill is about one simple and fundamental principle 鈥� parents should always have a seat at the table,鈥� said Louisiana Rep. Julia Letlow, lead author of the Republicans鈥� bill. 鈥淩ather than opening the doors to welcome parents as partners, [schools] would rather slam them shut and have government bureaucrats make all the decisions.鈥�

Along those lines, the House Judiciary Committee is investigating a past incident that contributed to why the GOP thinks such legislation is needed. On Monday, committee Chair Jim Jordan of Ohio former leaders of the National School Boards Association to revisit the controversy surrounding a September 2021 letter asking for federal law enforcement鈥檚 help in addressing threats of violence against school officials. 

Republicans argue the letter prompted Attorney General Merrick Garland to in assessing whether some parents 鈥� angry about school closures, masking and curriculum issues 鈥� posed a threat. The association .

Democrats said school districts were never trying to stifle parents鈥� legitimate concerns. They argued Wednesday that the Republicans鈥� Parents Bill of Rights is unnecessary because states and districts already have policies in place that allow for and welcome parent input. 

Rep. Jamaal Bowman, a former Bronx, New York, teacher and principal, described past situations when parents were uncomfortable with books taught in a course. He met with them and they opted to remove their children from those lessons. 

鈥淯s sitting here, having this conversation is a waste of taxpayer time and money,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e are dealing with an issue that is already on the books.鈥�

Other Democrats asked the majority how such a law would be enforced and whether it would lead to withholding funds from schools if there鈥檚 a violation.

Debate over curriculum

Members of both parties introduced a wide array of amendments that would significantly expand the bill 鈥� topics ranging from cyberbullying and teacher pay to third-grade reading and charging parents fees for copies of curriculum. Two of the 30 amendments Democrats proposed were accepted, one that supports all students having internet access and another prohibiting the federal government from getting involved in curriculum and school administration issues. All 15 of the Republicans鈥� amendments passed. 

An amendment from New York Republican Brandon Williams, which says it鈥檚 important for schools to teach students about the Holocaust, was among those approved. But Republicans rejected amendments from Democrats that would prevent schools from excluding Black, Latino, LGBTQ and Asian American/Pacific Islander history, saying that the federal government has no place in curriculum. Democrats called it a double standard.

鈥淚t is highly hypocritical that the argument can be made for the history that affects you and your family yet the history that affects me and my family is unwanted, unaccepted and oftentimes offensive on this committee,鈥� said Rep. Jahana Hayes of Connecticut, a one-time National Teacher of the Year. 鈥淚f we are in fact saying that the federal government has no place in dictating curriculum, either we teach it all or we don’t teach anything.鈥�

Democrats opposed other amendments that they said target transgender students, including one from Rep. Bob Good of Virgina that would require schools to notify parents if their student鈥檚 gender identity is inconsistent with their sex assigned at birth. 

鈥淲e have legislators who want to make trans kids a problem in this country,鈥� said Rep, Primala Jayapal of Washington, who has a trans daughter. 鈥淪top doing this to our kids.鈥�

During the same meeting, the committee passed that would prohibit students identified male at birth from competing in girls sports.

鈥楳ore bureaucratic requirements鈥�

Despite the committee devoting so much time to parental rights, some experts note that there鈥檚 no legal basis for the Republicans鈥� law in the first place because education is a state matter and is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

鈥淭his is not constitutional and would mainly create more bureaucratic requirements, not truly empower parents,鈥� said Neal McCluskey, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. 

Keri Rodrigues, president of the National Parents Union, who worked with Bonamici on the resolution, said parents could use such a bill to tie educators鈥� hands by suing in federal court.

鈥淚t鈥檚 going to make it incredibly messy for anything to happen in classrooms at all, because literally everything will be challenged,鈥� she said. 

At the same time, she said Bonamici鈥檚 resolution would better define a high-quality education and offer a legal recourse for parents when states don鈥檛 adequately fund schools.

鈥淭he only way we have ever started down the path toward equity in education in large-scale, meaningful ways has been when parents have been able to sue for justice in federal court,鈥� she said, naming desegregation cases Brown v. Board of Education and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education as examples. 鈥淲e need to strengthen our federal laws to continue down that path.鈥�

McCluskey said Republicans could more productively spend their time focusing on school choice, adding that states have made 鈥済reat strides鈥� in passing education savings accounts. Other parent advocates would like to see the federal government guarantee students a high-quality education, but argue the debate over parents鈥� rights misses the mark.

鈥淏oth parties have swung and missed on post-pandemic parent empowerment,鈥� said Ben Austin, founder of Education Civil Rights Now, which has been working in states to pass laws requiring students to receive a high-quality education. “Transparency is necessary, but it鈥檚 far from sufficient. Just because [parents] can see a budget doesn鈥檛 mean [they] can do anything about it.鈥�

But censuring a board member for criticism of the board violates that person鈥檚 First Amendment rights and has 鈥渟ignificant chilling effects,鈥� responded Michael Kimberly, attorney for former trustee David Buren Wilson, who sued the system after he was censured.

During their questioning in Houston Community College System v. Wilson, the justices asked whether there should be limits to censure. Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan asked if censure can include fines or even imprisonment. But Richard Morris, attorney for the community college system 鈥� and for hundreds of school boards in Texas 鈥� said he didn鈥檛 think incarcerating a member for something they said was 鈥渨ithin the history and tradition of this country.鈥�

Chief Justice John Roberts asked Kimberly whether agreeing with Wilson would open the door to lawsuits. 

鈥淚f you prevail, then whenever there’s a censure resolution, the response is going to be a lawsuit against the board for defamation, libel, and that would then go to the courts and they would have to resolve that,鈥� he said.

While the case pertains to a community college, it鈥檚 impact is likely to be far broader. It is playing out as school board members across the country confront multiple divisive issues, from requiring masks to teaching students about racial discrimination. While boards this year have faced public protests and sometimes verbal and physical over their positions, disputes among members 鈥� sometimes 鈥� are happening as well. The court鈥檚 decision could limit efforts to rein in members who use social media or other platforms to air complaints against the board. Supporters of the community college board, including the , argue that a ruling for Wilson could bring the actions of elected boards 鈥渟quarely within the purview of federal district courts, crippling a public body鈥檚 ability to self-govern.鈥� But free speech advocates argue elected boards can go too far.

鈥淪ometimes when the government speaks, it can violate First Amendment rights,鈥� said Will Creeley, legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. He said a broad ruling by the court in favor of the college system 鈥渃ould impact decision-making both in higher ed, K-12 and beyond.鈥�

Wilson, who has long been at odds with his fellow board members, served from 2013 to 2019, and could return to the board if he is victorious in a Nov. 2 election. In 2017, he disagreed with the board鈥檚 decision to fund a campus in Qatar. In protest, he programmed robocalls to constituents of other trustees, went on local radio stations to discredit them and hired a private agency to investigate their actions, according to court documents. He also launched a website to publicize his concerns. 

In , the college system said its rebuke 鈥渄oes not suppress or impermissibly chill the member鈥檚 own speech, compel him to espouse the majority鈥檚 views, or prevent him from doing his legislative job. The circumstances here thus provide no basis for a First Amendment claim.鈥� 

But David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, which co-authored a 鈥渇riend of the court鈥� brief in support of Wilson, said even if his behavior was 鈥渆xtremely obnoxious,鈥� the censure crossed the line because it tried to control what he was saying outside of his official duties. 

The board of trustees 鈥渧iewed him as a gadfly, but that doesn鈥檛 mean gadflies aren鈥檛 right about some things,鈥� Keating said.

Wilson鈥檚 brief argued that the board made unwise decisions regarding its partnership with Qatar and had a 鈥渉istory of corruption鈥� that resulted in pleading guilty to bribery and serving time in federal prison.

鈥楾he criticisms of government鈥�

Keating added it wasn鈥檛 just the trustees鈥� censure resolution that infringed on Wilson鈥檚 rights 鈥� it was the additional penalties attached to it. The censure made Wilson ineligible for board officer positions, cut off reimbursements for college-related travel and required him to seek approval before accessing funds in his faculty account. 

Those penalties received considerable attention at Tuesday鈥檚 hearing. In its ruling, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Wilson had a First Amendment claim because the censure itself reprimanded him for speaking out on an issue of 鈥減ublic concern鈥� 鈥� not because it included penalties. But the justices wanted to know why they shouldn鈥檛 also consider those sanctions.

Morris argued that prohibiting a body from using censure would have a 鈥渄estabilizing鈥� impact and that even private citizens 鈥渉ave to be able to endure the criticisms of government.鈥�

The college system holds that the public 鈥� not the courts 鈥� should weigh in on disputes between elected officials at the ballot box.

鈥淎s with all political speech, the ultimate audience is the people,鈥� their brief said. 鈥淒isputes like the one between respondent Wilson and his legislative colleagues must be resolved by the voters.鈥�

Some recent conflicts between board members involve the same COVID-related issues or racial equity initiatives 鈥� linked to the umbrella of critical race theory 鈥� that are prompting public demonstrations and shouting matches. In a Texas district, for example, there is two members who left a September meeting because of social distancing rules that limited the number of people who could attend.

In , board member Jeff Church, who is facing censure, sees parallels between the Houston case and his of the board and the district. 

鈥淭heoretically, I may not be losing tangible benefits, but the free speech issue remains,鈥� he said.

According to board President Angela Taylor, Church has , including spreading misleading information and communicating with constituents by email without copying her.

Church, a conservative who opposes what he labels 鈥渙utrageous so-called social justice education,鈥� the district鈥檚 policies are 鈥渟o vague that you can censure a ham sandwich.鈥� 

But Joy Baskin, director of legal services for the Texas Association of School Boards, said censure protects the rest of the board鈥檚 free speech rights. If the 5th Circuit court鈥檚 ruling stands, 鈥渂oards will be so afraid of litigation that they will stay away from what should be course correction,鈥� she said.

Some experts anticipate the court will issue a limited ruling. Ethan Ashley, co-CEO of School Board Partners, which trains and supports 鈥渆quity-minded鈥� board members, said he expects the justices to be 鈥渟ensitive to the concerns of speech that can impede a board’s ability to operate,鈥� such as leaking confidential information discussed in an executive session.

But it鈥檚 important for board members to be able to 鈥渧oice their own opinions in order to hold the system accountable, especially if the needs of their constituents have been perpetually minimized,鈥� he said. 

Keating said a legislative body is akin to a workplace, where there are expectations for behavior. But he added that whether members should be censured for what they say or do outside of official proceedings is a more difficult question.

鈥淭his case has enough variables and moving parts that it’s really hard to predict what sort of guidance might come out of this,鈥� he said.

鈥淵ou better grow eyes in the back of your head,鈥� she said one person wrote in an email. 鈥淵ou鈥檙e going down,鈥� wrote another.

Toy-Dragoni said the vitriol began to intensify after the pandemic shuttered classes at the Pennsbury School District in Bucks County. What began as anger over school closures and mask mandates quickly turned 鈥� amid national pushback to critical race theory 鈥� to outrage over the district鈥檚 diversity and equity efforts. A barrage of hateful and violent emails left Toy-Dragoni, the school board president, feeling harassed and threatened, including by people who lived in other states.

鈥淚t鈥檚 unnerving because someone is saying they want nothing but harm to come to you and they鈥檙e emailing you 30 times about it,鈥� she told 社区黑料. 鈥淵ou start to think 鈥榃ell, how long are they going to wait for this harm to come to me?鈥欌��

As public education leaders from across the country come forward with stories about receiving death threats amid political strife over the pandemic and classroom lessons on systemic racism, a partisan feud has coalesced around the free-speech rights of infuriated parents. In a recent letter, the National School Boards Association warned of an 鈥渋mmediate threat鈥� against school leaders and called on the Biden administration to clamp down on what it referred to as 鈥渄omestic terrorism.鈥� In a follow-up memo, Attorney General Merrick Garland instructed federal law enforcement to create a plan to combat a 鈥渄isturbing spike鈥� in threats against school board members. Republican lawmakers and conservative advocacy groups, meanwhile, have accused the Biden administration of stifling frustrated parents in violation of the First Amendment. 

The issue has highlighted a tension between ensuring school board members are safe while protecting the free-speech rights of aggrieved citizens.

Because of the Justice Department memo, parents are afraid to speak up at school board meetings due to a 鈥減oisonous chilling effect,鈥� Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said during a Senate hearing Wednesday. And while the national school boards group has since used in its letter, Garland didn鈥檛 back down on efforts to investigate what he called an increase in violent threats against educators and other public servants. 

As the Senate hearing was underway, activists held a rally outside the national school board group鈥檚 headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia.

A spokesperson for the national school boards group declined to comment. Several state school boards groups, including the one in Pennsylvania, over the issue.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a rising tide of threats of violence against judges, against prosecutors, against secretaries of state, against election administrators, against doctors, against protesters, against news reporters,鈥� Garland said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 the reason we responded as quickly as we did.鈥�

A 鈥榯rue threat?鈥�

The Constitution doesn鈥檛 guarantee 鈥渁 dialectical free-for-all,鈥� and the Supreme Court has long held that true threats of violence are not constitutionally protected speech, said Clay Calvert, the director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida. But the issue at hand, he said, isn鈥檛 鈥渂lack and white.鈥�

鈥淭here鈥檚 a difference between how we colloquially think of a threat versus the legal standards for what really is a threat, which are going to be much higher,鈥� he said. 

Parents have a First Amendment right to criticize government employees through offensive speech, he said, and officials must analyze on a case-by-case basis whether someone鈥檚 speech goes beyond protected dialogue.

鈥淎 true threat is a statement that would place a person in fear of imminent bodily harm or death,鈥� he said, but does not include 鈥減olitical hyperbole.鈥� In a 1969 case, the Supreme Court who was arrested after he said that if he were drafted into the Vietnam War and forced to carry a rifle, 鈥渢he first man I want to get in my sights鈥� is then-President Lyndon B. Johnson. The statement was crude political hyperbole rather than a true threat, the court ruled. The line between true threats and hyperbole, Calvert said, are not always clear and the Supreme Court has yet to offer a concrete definition. He said that police often err on the side of silencing speakers in the interest of public safety and debating the issue in court later.

Meanwhile, police departments are 鈥渁lways walking the tightrope鈥� when investigating whether someone鈥檚 statements go beyond those permitted by the Constitution, said attorney John Driscoll, a former New York City police officer who served 11 years as head of the NYPD Captains Endowment Association. Officers are in charge of preventing immediate threats and most departments employ legal experts who determine whether someone broke the law, he said.

鈥淵ou can voice your opinion, even if you鈥檙e the only one who thinks that way, but you don鈥檛 have the right to physically threaten and intimidate people,鈥� said Driscoll, who taught constitutional law at NYC鈥檚 John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He said the tense political environment has made it more difficult for officers to do their jobs. 鈥淏ecause of social media, the schism in the country has gotten a lot more extreme on both sides. There doesn鈥檛 seem to be too much moderation and police, as usual, are stuck in the middle trying to navigate this and protect people at the same time.”

But Toy-Dragoni, the Pennsylvania school board president, said the statements she鈥檚 faced reached the bar of being considered death threats and were clearly designed to incite intimidation. Among the messages, she was warned to 鈥渟leep with one eye open,鈥� and that 鈥渨e will never stop until you are done.鈥�

鈥淚t鈥檚 a level of hate, it sets you on edge,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut did they straight up say 鈥楴ext week I鈥檓 going to kill you?鈥� No. But I鈥檝e never heard of anyone saying that to anyone ever, even when they do get killed by that person.鈥�

Threats reported nationwide

The messages delivered to Toy-Dragoni are part of a national trend. School board members have reported receiving threatening letters, being followed and screamed at in board meetings. 

After Las Vegas school district employees were mandated to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the school board president saying she should be hanged or shot. In New Jersey, two board members in the mail with their photos in the crosshairs of a gun.

Sami Al-Abdrabbuh, chair of the Corvallis Board of Education in Oregon, also highlighted several incidents this year that he perceived as death threats. On the same day his campaign sign was discovered at a local shooting range with bullet holes, he said a man showed up outside his friend鈥檚 house and asked 鈥淲here is Sami? I want to kill him and I鈥檓 going to kill you if you don鈥檛 tell me where he is.鈥�

Local police were notified of the incident but have not arrested a suspect, Al-Abdrabbuh told 社区黑料, and a friend who served in the Navy helped him develop a safety plan.

鈥淢ake sure, before you leave the house, look from the window and make sure you can go to your car,鈥� he said. 鈥淏efore I enter my house I have a way to make sure nothing has been tampered.鈥�

Protests in other communities have grown so raucous that they prevented school boards from conducting official business. That energy and activism is being harnessed by conservatives and Republicans, particularly Virginia gubernatorial candidate Glen Youngkin, who has with Democrat Terry McAuliffe in next week鈥檚 election.

In , Calvert of the University of Florida called public comments at government functions like school board meetings 鈥減erhaps the purest form of citizen political expression鈥� 鈥� the precise speech the First Amendment sought to protect. The Constitution doesn鈥檛 enshrine a public platform before school boards and other public bodies and they can impose certain rules so long as they鈥檙e 鈥渃ontent neutral鈥� and apply to all speakers evenly. For example, 鈥渢ime, place and manner鈥� restrictions can limit how long speakers occupy the podium and can prohibit people from restricting government bodies from carrying out business. 

鈥淚nterrupting does nobody any good,鈥� Calvert said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 the heckler鈥檚 veto notion that the audience should not have the ability to heckle or drown out the speaker.鈥�

During Wednesday鈥檚 Senate hearing, Republican lawmakers repeatedly noted a concern that the Justice Department memo could have a chilling effect on parents鈥� free-speech rights and that federal intervention was unnecessary. Those concerns mirrored a letter from 17 state attorneys general earlier this month, accusing the Biden administration of 鈥渟eeking to criminalize lawful dissent and intimidate parents into silence鈥� in violation of the First Amendment.

Garland maintained that his memo only focused on threats and violence and drew a clear distinction between such messages and constitutionally protected speech. 

鈥淚t makes absolutely clear in the first paragraph that spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution,鈥� he told lawmakers. 鈥淭hat includes debate by parents criticizing school boards.鈥� 

Education activist Keri Rodrigues, president of the National Parents Union, said it鈥檚 important for parents to remain engaged and they must not shy away from making themselves heard at school board meetings. In just the last six weeks, Rodrigues has attended a dozen school board meetings across the country where parents didn鈥檛 focus on mask mandates or critical race theory. Instead, she said they were concerned about unreliable school transportation and food shortages in cafeterias. Yet those voices, she said, are being drowned out by 鈥減eople who are behaving badly and who are exercising their anger in ways that are really unproductive.鈥� 

鈥淧arents have really deep, serious concerns about what is happening right now with our kids that have nothing to do with the culture war,鈥� she said. 鈥淧arents are showing up to have that conversation but it鈥檚 sexier to show white parents that are losing their minds at a microphone. It鈥檚 heartbreaking because we have real, serious and sober work to do to help our kids recover from this pandemic.”

For Toy-Dragoni, parent outrage during the pandemic forced her to reconsider her place in education policy. She said she sought her seat on the school board because she鈥檚 a mother who wanted to create additional afterschool activities in her community but will no longer serve on the board after this year. She decided not to run for reelection after the pandemic prompted parental uproar in her community. But now, after the situation has gotten even worse, she said she regrets the decision to step aside. 

鈥淗aving gone through all of this, I would have run again so that they wouldn鈥檛 feel like they ran me out of town,鈥� she said. 鈥淭his is 100 percent part of a national agenda to get decent people out of local office by making it absolutely miserable for them.鈥�

鈥淭hreats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation鈥檚 core values,鈥� Garland wrote in a media release Monday. 鈥淭hose who dedicate their time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper education in a safe environment deserve to be able to do their work without fear for their safety.鈥�

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

The move comes less than a week after the 90,000-member National School Boards Association urged the Biden administration to act swiftly to protect public school leaders who face 鈥渁n immediate threat鈥� of violence as school board meetings nationwide grow increasingly volatile. The group cited more than 20 instances of threats, harassment and intimidation during board meetings in recent months amid tension over mask mandates and classroom instruction on critical race theory. The school board group referred to the violent threats as 鈥渄omestic terrorism.鈥�

In , Garland called on the federal agencies to meet with local law enforcement in the next month to create a plan to combat the 鈥渄isturbing spike.鈥� The Justice Department also announced plans to create a new task force focused on prosecuting people who threaten school leaders. The task force will include the FBI and the Justice Department鈥檚 criminal, security and civil rights divisions.

Officials also said they would create training resources that help school boards and administrators understand behaviors that constitute threats, how to report dangerous conduct to police and how to preserve relevant evidence.

Chip Slavin, the school board group鈥檚 interim executive director, said in a media release that the Justice Department鈥檚 response sent 鈥渁 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.鈥�

In one recent incident, police arrested an Illinois man for allegedly hitting a school official as he was being escorted out of a board meeting and, in another, an Ohio school board member received a letter in the mail warning threatening that she would 鈥減ay dearly鈥� for requiring students to wear masks on campus. While some speakers have used board meetings to spread conspiracy theories and hate speech, other critics who frequently clash with their school boards to the national association鈥檚 assertion that their actions constitute 鈥渄omestic terrorism.鈥� Among them is activist and former Wall Street Journal reporter Asra Nomani, who tweeted that the school board group should apologize to parents.

Conservative lawmakers and activists, including Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, were quick to accuse officials of trampling on the free speech rights of parents who speak up at school board meetings. On Twitter, the Biden administration of using 鈥渇ederal law enforcement to punish dissent from the ruling class.鈥�

Read the Justice Department memo here:

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

In , the National School Boards Association said the country鈥檚 schools and educators are 鈥渦nder an immediate threat鈥� and urged the federal government to 鈥渋nvestigate, intercept and prevent the current threats and acts of violence against public school officials through existing statutes,鈥� including the Gun-Free School Zones Act and the PATRIOT Act. The group called for a 鈥渏oint collaboration鈥� between local and federal law enforcement agencies to halt what it referred to as 鈥渄omestic terrorism鈥� carried out at school board meetings, through the U.S. Postal Service and on social media.

鈥淎s the threats grow and news of extremist hate organizations showing up at school board meetings is being reported, this is a critical time for a proactive approach to deal with this difficult time,鈥� which includes tumult around mask mandates and classroom instruction on critical race theory. The group cited more than 20 instances of threats, harassment and intimidation during school board meetings that targeted education officials in recent months.

鈥淐oupled with attacks against school board members and educators for approving policies for masks to protect the health and safety of students and school employees, many public school officials are also facing physical threats because of propaganda purporting the false inclusion of critical race theory within classroom instruction and curricula.鈥�

The White House didn鈥檛 immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.

School board meetings have become ground zero for political unrest in recent months as conservative groups and former Trump administration officials have against school officials as a campaign strategy. Though news articles have highlighted outrage that include divisive and at times violent rhetoric, it鈥檚 unclear if any education leaders have been injured.

In one incident, on aggravated battery and disorderly conduct charges for allegedly hitting a school official as he was being escorted out of a school board meeting. In Ohio, a school board member was mailed a letter that warned 鈥渨e are coming after you鈥� and threatened that the school official would 鈥減ay dearly鈥� for requiring students to wear masks. In a recent story for 社区黑料, school leaders discussed how they faced online threats and vandalized campuses. Candace Singh, who leads a school district near San Diego, said she was threatened with warnings like 鈥淵ou better watch out鈥� and 鈥淲atch your back.鈥� Such language, she said, has become 鈥渁ccepted in the public discourse, where it never would have been tolerated before.鈥� Some districts, like the Rockwood School District in suburban St. Louis, resorted to hiring private security earlier this year to protect staff.

Earlier in the month, the National Association of Secondary School Principals to 鈥渄o more to protect school leaders from rampant hostility and violence that disrupts our schools and threatens the safety of our educators and students.鈥�

In , the school boards association and AASA, The School Superintendents Association, called on the public to stop using violent threats to express their opinions about pandemic-era school reopening decisions.

鈥淲e oppose the increasingly aggressive tactics creeping into board and community meetings, and we cannot let frustrations and tensions evolve into name calling and intimidation,鈥� Daniel Domenech, AASA鈥檚 executive director, said in the statement. 鈥淲e will never back down from the importance of freedom of speech, but we cannot 鈥斅燼nd will not 鈥� tolerate aggression, intimidation, threats and violence toward superintendents, board members and educators.鈥�