The Bow School District (Bow) tried to get away with intimidating parents and denying them their constitutional rights, and the Concord Monitor (CM) attempted to provide air cover.
Ann Marie Banfield visited this on Sunday. Bow thinks it can suppress the constitutional right to peaceful protest. The School District is in a court battle and could find itself climbing the judicial ladder at great expense to the district, its insurer, and taxpayers. In its defense, it has made some claims that the CM rubber-stamped without without any protest. No contest. No challenge, nothing.
The School District’s premise is that the mere presence of an unsympathetic faction “is hostile to the educational setting of the event.” They can’t honestly believe that.
Isn’t that the definition of a public school for religious and conservative kids? They don’t have safe spaces on a range of issues of which they are encouraged not to speak. Are there white kids? NH is full of them, and so is Bow, which means any CRT-inclined leaning is hostile to them, and I don’t think the progressive indoctrination center doing business as the Bow School District is planning on a system-wide reboot of how it conducts whatever passes for education to support the premise.
Your “education setting” is hostile by design, especially to anyone who might challenge its orthodoxy.
Sources and Methods
We could applaud Bow and the Monitor for their Alinsky tactics. Targeting Moms for Liberty to isolate them as bad actors. The old media is good at that, but unlike other peaceful protests supported by the Concord Monitor and (very likely) the people running the Bow School District), Moms for Liberty didn’t burn any local business down, and there was no rape, assault, or murder. No one even shouted a colorful epithet.
Local companies likely benefited from the extra consumers in the area.
And I have more bad news for Bow. There is video evidence that the alleged mob, including Mom’s for Liberty supporters, was polite, respectful, and encouraging of parents and players. WMUR was there reporting live. We interviewed someone on the ground who was there.
Did the Monitor have to ignore this evidence or not care?
We know the Bow School district allows Pride Flags and has likely permitted BLM paraphernalia. Inapproitaley familiar topics on sex and gender at grades below High School? Climate fearmongering. Off-topic rants on politicians or issues and modules in classes that are undoubtedly partisan and political in nature? In the cloistered environment of a public school classroom whose overseers are easily offended when parents dare to suggest they have a right to know what’s “taught” or for opposing viewpoints to be permitted.
Can we presume that this has made some kids uncomfortable? That it is hostile to the educational setting. That the schools don’t give a shit about any of that. We can.
And Mom’s for Liberty was not asked to comment, which, given the illusion of journalism spun by the paper and its proxies, seems like its own injustice. They didn’t even include a “request for comment disclaimer.” Aren’t reporters ‘sposed to do that? How about editors? Hey, this is setting up Moms for Liberty as some sort of hate group. Shouldn’t we get their thoughts on that?
No. I’m surprised they didn’t just call them a hate group. Mom’s for Liberty is on the super partisan SPLC wall of fame (so are we, by the way).
And while the Monitor’s staff writer does not appear to take a side the way it is written, it already has. Some “protests” and forms of protest are more equal than others.
That’s very Orwellian of You.
