Speaker 1: The Armstrong and Jetty Show. Does the administration greeted parents
Speaker 1: upset about their kids curriculums could be considered domestic terrorists? Well,
Speaker 1: let me unravel this a little bit, because the National
Speaker 1: school Board Association is not a part of the U. S. Government.
Speaker 1: Regardless of the reasoning, threats and violence against public servants
Speaker 1: is illegal. When I was at the Justice Department, it
Speaker 1: was focused on going after MS thirteen. Now apparently it's
Speaker 1: going after parents of thirteen year old. Well, attacking school
Speaker 1: board members has always been illegal. But anyway, the the
Speaker 1: battle between parents and school boards and teachers and kids
Speaker 1: and everything, it just keeps getting hotter and hotter and hotter.
Speaker 1: It seems. Rhetoric certainly gets hotter. Indeed. Yeah, and the
Speaker 1: Goldwater Institute has entered the fray. Tim Sanderford, Tim the
Speaker 1: lawyer vice president for Litigation at the Goldwater Institute, joins this.
Speaker 1: Tim is the author of many fine tombs, including The
Speaker 1: Right Turn of Living, The Permission Society, and many other
Speaker 1: fine things. Tim, how are you, sir? I'm great, Thanks
Speaker 1: for having me back. Oh, it's always a pleasure. So
Speaker 1: heard you. I heard George will mention you on the
Speaker 1: podcast the other day, So congratulations on that. That was
Speaker 1: very cool. Thanks. He's always been very kind about my work.
Speaker 1: He called himself a student of yours. I mean, come on,
Speaker 1: it was that that blew me away. I admit I
Speaker 1: had to text my mom when I heard how would
Speaker 1: you not George, Well, wouldn't mention me unless I rear
Speaker 1: ended his car? Wild texting I'm not going to happen.
Speaker 1: So Tim, tell us about this case. How do you
Speaker 1: come to be involved in the whole of Fairfax School
Speaker 1: District versus mom's situation? Well, it happened with here was
Speaker 1: these two mothers in Fairfax County, Virginia filed a Freedom
Speaker 1: of Information Act request to get information about how the
Speaker 1: school board was spending money on lawyers. They think that
Speaker 1: the school boards spent too much money on legal representation,
Speaker 1: so they just asked for to see the receipts, and
Speaker 1: the government turned over the receipts, and then it realized
Speaker 1: that they were a little embarrassing. And by that time,
Speaker 1: these two mothers, Callie and Ebra Kelly, had published this
Speaker 1: information on her website, so the school board sued her,
Speaker 1: demanding that she deleted from her website and not disseminate
Speaker 1: the information contained in the documents that they lawfully acquired,
Speaker 1: which is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. So
Speaker 1: they called us, and we filed a motion just yesterday
Speaker 1: asking the court to throw their lawsuit out and to
Speaker 1: allow them to publish information that the First Amendment allows
Speaker 1: them to publish. Now, clarify a couple of things, as
Speaker 1: I understand that there were no kids names involved, was
Speaker 1: was there a sensitive personnel information of all the names
Speaker 1: and addresses or anything. Well, some of the documents that
Speaker 1: the school board turned over, yeah, they had failed to
Speaker 1: redact some of this information. Calling then went and redacted
Speaker 1: it and posted it on her website. And the school
Speaker 1: board does not claim otherwise their lawsuits. They do not
Speaker 1: actually say that she published any kind of sensitive confidential
Speaker 1: information or anything like that. They've put that in their
Speaker 1: press releases because they're trying to smear her, But in fact,
Speaker 1: she did not do that, and they don't claim that
Speaker 1: she did. Instead, what they say is this information is
Speaker 1: our information, and we want you to return it. They
Speaker 1: say return, which I think is so bizarre because there
Speaker 1: are no physical documents. These are just computer file. I
Speaker 1: don't know how you return a computer file, but anyway,
Speaker 1: So the court has ordered them not to disclose the
Speaker 1: information in these receipts that shows how much the school
Speaker 1: board is spending on its legal representation, which again is
Speaker 1: totally unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in the in the Pentagon
Speaker 1: Papers case said that the nation's leading newspapers had a
Speaker 1: First Amendment right to publish stolen military documents in the
Speaker 1: time of war. Well, certainly, my clients have the right
Speaker 1: to published information that they legally obtained from the school
Speaker 1: district that are just government documents. Well, I find myself wondering,
Speaker 1: and I know, you know, badmounting judges isn't really cool
Speaker 1: if you're you know, having a case before them. But
Speaker 1: what the hell was that judge thinking? Well, a lot
Speaker 1: of the time, judges want to hold things still until
Speaker 1: they get a chance to hear the arguments of both
Speaker 1: sides and things like that. So they and that's really
Speaker 1: unfortunate because it is unconstitutional to forbid Kelly from publishing
Speaker 1: this information. So we've asked the court to reverse that,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna have some briefing on that going forward.
Speaker 1: But this is just another example what you said at
Speaker 1: the beginning of the segment that this is a trend
Speaker 1: of school boards bullying parents and trying to intimidate them
Speaker 1: when they stand up to either challenge what's going on
Speaker 1: in the classrooms that their tax dollars pay for, or
Speaker 1: in this case, just ask questions that they're legally allowed
Speaker 1: to ask. Now, that's what I was gonna ask you about.
Speaker 1: And I didn't know if you know, since you're actually
Speaker 1: involved in the case, if you're willing to go kind
Speaker 1: of mackerel on this, but you just did on what
Speaker 1: is going on nationwide? Is it because it's the first
Speaker 1: time in so long that parents have mobilized and challenged
Speaker 1: these people and they're not liking it. I think that's
Speaker 1: exactly what it is, and we are. We're doing another case,
Speaker 1: similar case in Rhode Island where a parent asked for
Speaker 1: information and the teacher union sued her for simply filing
Speaker 1: the re west and that case is still going on.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I think what's happening is that, especially the unions,
Speaker 1: especially the teachers unions, they see government schools as their fiefdom,
Speaker 1: as their domain. And how dare we mere citizens, mere taxpayers,
Speaker 1: try to control how our tax dollars are being spent
Speaker 1: and what is being propagandized in the government classroom. Well,
Speaker 1: what's that that Canadas? It's likely to win governor over
Speaker 1: there in Virginia who said in one of the debates
Speaker 1: here to Night, we can't have a system where the
Speaker 1: parents are deciding what we teach in schools. Terry Terry mccauliffe. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: the whole vision. You know, the public school system as
Speaker 1: we know it today is largely the creation of the
Speaker 1: progressive movement of the early twentieth century that designed the
Speaker 1: current public school system as a means of instilling in
Speaker 1: children what the government thinks children ought to think and believe.
Speaker 1: As Woodrow Wilson once said, the schools exist to make
Speaker 1: the children as unlike the parents as possible. And and
Speaker 1: I think a lot of public school teachers and the
Speaker 1: teachers unions really take that seriously, and they really don't
Speaker 1: like the idea that parents might be interfering with the
Speaker 1: education of their own children. It's it's really a shocking
Speaker 1: way of of abusing power. But that's what's going on.
Speaker 1: And it's worth pointing out that the teachers unions are
Speaker 1: extremely effective at getting sympathetic school board members elected. So
Speaker 1: many many school boards are are leaning way that way
Speaker 1: you sent toward progressive causes and philosophies. You you saying that,
Speaker 1: tim makes me want to ask you what is your
Speaker 1: feeling about the public school system in general? I mean,
Speaker 1: I know you're adamantly not going to have kids, but
Speaker 1: if you had kids, would you put them in public
Speaker 1: school or not? Oh? Absolutely not, absolutely not and and
Speaker 1: uh and in a lot of the school districts in
Speaker 1: this country, I think the best thing you could possibly
Speaker 1: do for your family is to withdraw your children from
Speaker 1: the government school district. The government schools exist largely to
Speaker 1: propagandize to children what the government thinks they ought to know.
Speaker 1: And although there was at one time a standard of
Speaker 1: quality be that you could find in some government schools,
Speaker 1: I think that standard has just totally collapsed, no matter
Speaker 1: how much money we throw at it. And that's always
Speaker 1: the argument, and they said, oh, we don't get enough money.
Speaker 1: When you actually look at the amount of money it's
Speaker 1: in the public school system, yeah, oh yeah, And it's
Speaker 1: multiples what private schools UH spend to achieve better educational outcomes.
Speaker 1: And we're able to stay open during the pandemic with
Speaker 1: much less money, right, I think it's absolutely tragic and
Speaker 1: heartbreaking New York City schools which have systematically lowered standards
Speaker 1: and past kids head, particularly poor kids, kids of color
Speaker 1: who can't read and write. They've now eliminated their programs
Speaker 1: for gifted and talented education. Now we have completely well,
Speaker 1: New York is completely eliminated the idea of some kids
Speaker 1: who are very bright need to be challenged more. I
Speaker 1: think it's disgusting. I've said I've said before on the
Speaker 1: show that government people think government is our parent, and
Speaker 1: it's not. Government is our child. We pay its bill,
Speaker 1: it's our job to discipline it. And yet we think
Speaker 1: somehow it's okay to turn over to the government our
Speaker 1: youngest citizens, that our future citizens and future generations to
Speaker 1: be taught by the state about what to desire and
Speaker 1: not desire, what to think and not think about our past,
Speaker 1: about economics, about you know that, all the big questions.
Speaker 1: Is it any wonder that so many of them graduate
Speaker 1: thinking that the government is right and and the the
Speaker 1: only solution to our problems as a government. I think
Speaker 1: it's a terrible idea in any democracy to turn over
Speaker 1: the minds of our young would be citizens to the
Speaker 1: hands of the state. Yeah, I don't want to get
Speaker 1: too far off track, and we can get back to
Speaker 1: your specific case if you want to in a second.
Speaker 1: But the podcast as referring to the other day where
Speaker 1: George will of the Washington Post was being interviewed about
Speaker 1: his book when he invoked you, was when he was
Speaker 1: talking about this new move towards equity as opposed to equality,
Speaker 1: and he said, this is the most radical thing that
Speaker 1: has happened in two hundred and forty years of this
Speaker 1: country's history, that we're moving toward wanting equal outcomes for everybody.
Speaker 1: And uh, you know, and that's the sort of thing
Speaker 1: you're obviously teaching in schools, and so forty years ago,
Speaker 1: the big debate among philosophers was what is justice? Does
Speaker 1: justice mean equal outcomes or does it mean the ability
Speaker 1: to pursue your unhappiness and attain it? And nowadays we
Speaker 1: just skipped over that argument entirely. And it says if
Speaker 1: we just assumed that justice means equal outcomes, and so
Speaker 1: we're just going to pursue equity, which means taking away
Speaker 1: from those who have more in giving to those who
Speaker 1: do not, and judging people on the basis of color
Speaker 1: because their ancestors are discriminated against and so forth and
Speaker 1: so on in order to equalize outcomes, because we just
Speaker 1: assume that ask justice. Well, that's not justice, it's injustice.
Speaker 1: Tim Sanderford is on the line, vice president for Litigation
Speaker 1: at the Goldwater Institute. Tim, I want to turn back
Speaker 1: to the topic of schools, at least for a minute.
Speaker 1: The infamous Merrick Garland memo of the other day, in
Speaker 1: which he made it clear that the Justice Department would
Speaker 1: be looking into and it was it was a very
Speaker 1: wishy wash a Lee worded the memo, but in essence,
Speaker 1: any sort of freakas at school board meetings nationwide. What
Speaker 1: do you think of my My test case yesterday was
Speaker 1: I get a little out of hat. I'm piste off.
Speaker 1: I'm at a school board meeting. I get mad and
Speaker 1: I say to somebody who tried to shut me down,
Speaker 1: one of the school board members, somebody ought to kick
Speaker 1: your ass. Do you think the FBI ought to be
Speaker 1: involved in that? You know, the vagueness of the memo
Speaker 1: is the goal, because it is true that there have
Speaker 1: been a few incidents of parents going too far and
Speaker 1: actually you know, threatening or or even harassing or intimidating
Speaker 1: school board members. And of course that's illegal and wrong.
Speaker 1: But the way this memo is written is to allow
Speaker 1: people in the government to smear those who simply, you know,
Speaker 1: get angry or are really passionate about something, to smear
Speaker 1: them as if they're engaged in some kind of violence.
Speaker 1: And we know this has been the rhetorical trick in
Speaker 1: the past couple of years to use words like violence
Speaker 1: or or safety in ways that don't make any sense.
Speaker 1: If you disagree with somebody, now all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: that's an act of violence, and you're you're harming their
Speaker 1: safety and so forth and so on, And that's what
Speaker 1: this meant. That's why the memo is written vaguely in
Speaker 1: order to use it as a club against people who
Speaker 1: simply get angry at the way their school boards are
Speaker 1: misspending their money and mishandling their responsibility. You know, Tim,
Speaker 1: you for me, are one of the mad ones, the
Speaker 1: ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad
Speaker 1: to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time,
Speaker 1: the ones who never yawned or say a commonplace thing.
Speaker 1: I thought I'd hit you with a little caro wack
Speaker 1: poem basically tweet what's going on here? What the hell?
Speaker 1: Are you two up to Yes, I can, I can.
Speaker 1: I can do without the Beat Generation. You know, there's
Speaker 1: a Quilette article out saying the Beat Generations about to
Speaker 1: be canceled, and Tim retweeted that and said, I don't
Speaker 1: think that necessarily be a bad thing. As a fan
Speaker 1: of Jack Caro Wack poetry and Tim being a published poet,
Speaker 1: I thought they'd be a good thing to throw in there.
Speaker 1: I have a book of poetry coming out next spring,
Speaker 1: and guarantee we will love to have you on to
Speaker 1: talk about that. Fantastic all right, And I didn't see
Speaker 1: that coming. Tim the lawyer, Tim Tim Santa for Vice
Speaker 1: President for Litigation of the Goldwater Institute. We will, Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, we need to post a list of Tim's books,
Speaker 1: although if you know how Google works you can find
Speaker 1: them because they're terrific. Tim. We appreciate the time. Thanks
Speaker 1: a million, thanks. All right. You got Tim, as a
Speaker 1: real high falutint poet is not a fan of Beat
Speaker 1: Generation poetry. I got to admit that the Ginsburg Howl
Speaker 1: I've read a hundred times and I don't get at all.
Speaker 1: I don't understand why it's a masterpiece. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: it's not, but I don't get it at all. If
Speaker 1: the proverbial infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of
Speaker 1: typewriters cranked out something and I read one of them
Speaker 1: at random, it would make as much sense to me
Speaker 1: as that thing did. Or William Burrow's Naked Lunch, which
Speaker 1: I've attempted to read many times and can't get more
Speaker 1: than four pages in. But some of the Jack Carouac
Speaker 1: poetry about walking the streets of San Francisco in the
Speaker 1: middle of the night, going from dive bar dive bar,
Speaker 1: as a guy who's done that a thousand times, I
Speaker 1: thought was absolutely just brilliant stuff. The legend Verry Third
Speaker 1: and Howard And if I get drunk, I get. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's some good stuff in there, I think. And if
Speaker 1: you've never checked out Carouac reading those poems with Steve
Speaker 1: Allen playing the piano on the Tonight Show, it's really
Speaker 1: sounds like verbal pornography for drunkards to me. I don't
Speaker 1: approve it. It might be I won't have it. It
Speaker 1: might be actually, um, that was good stuff right there
Speaker 1: from Tim And if you just caught the tail end
Speaker 1: of it on the podcast, you can catch it. Just
Speaker 1: go to Armstrong and Getty dot com art