October 25, 2021

AG Garland Refuses Ethics Review of Ties to CRT Curriculum

  • Executive

By: Konrad Holden

In Brief: 
On Thursday, Attorney General Merrick Garland was grilled by Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) on whether or not he would seek an ethics review of his recent actions regarding critical race theory in schools. Garland released a memorandum directing the FBI to work with local law enforcement to address frustrated parents issuing so-called “threats” against their school boards over CRT curriculum in schools. Garland’s son-in-law is the founder of a firm that sells CRT curricula and collects information on students for school administrators.

The Background: 
Parents across the country are finding Critical Race Theory, gender identity, and the equivalent of child pornography in their children’s school curriculum.

Many parents are putting healthy pressure on their school boards. One mayor even threatened to bring charges against a school board.

But the school boards are getting unfair help from the federal government.

US Attorney General Merrick Garland is in hot water after he issued a memorandum directing the FBI to look into threats against school board members from parents concerned about their children’s education.

Not only did this come 5 days after a school board advocacy group asked for it, but Garland’s son-in-law is financially invested in the spreading of CRT curriculum.

And Rep. Mike Johnson pressed him about it in a House Judiciary Committee meeting on Thursday.

“Did you have the appropriate agency ethics official look into this? Did you seek guidance as the federal regulation requires?” Johnson asked.

“There are no conflicts of interest,” Garland replied.

Johnson replied by saying that Garland does not get to determine that and he should have an objective third-party look into the matter.

Garland never directly answered the question, but it was clear he does not plan to seek ethics counsel on the matter.

Notable Quotes: 

“With due respect, that’s the purpose of the federal regulation. We need objective third parties to review our activities. You don’t get to make that decision yourself. It doesn’t matter. You’re the chief law enforcement of this country, this raises questions in the minds of millions of Americans. And your impartiality is being called into question. Why would you not submit to a simple ethics review?” - Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA)
 

What do you think?
You Might Like