There has been some hullabaloo around the National School Board Association’s (NSBA) recent letter to the Biden administration about protecting school boards and school board members from threats of violence. I have found the backlash against this to be so unreasonable as to be clearly bad faith.
The question at and is whether NSBA’s use of the term “domestic terrorism” was over the line, was inappropriate and/or perhaps entirely misleading.
First, let us just agree that terrorism is not just about Muslim extremists. It is not not just about events that happen in far away lands. Terrorism is the use of violence — and even credible threats of violence — to achieve political ends. The idea that violence can be a form of addressing political concerns is not a new one. Henry Kissinger spoke of "war [as] a continuation of political activity by other means,” an idea rightly credited to Karl von Clausewitz. Today, when it is asymmetric warfare, we generally call it terrorism.
While there have been many heated — though still non-violent — debates at school board meetings this year, there have also been many threats of violence, too. The fact that most disagreements — and even yelling, shouting and interrupting meetings — do not constitute threats of (or actual) violence does not at all undermine that fact that such things have happened.
Some people have made those who agree with them look bad, as most do not resort to violence or threats of violence. But blaming those who cite reality for being inflammatory or dishonest simply for citing reality cannot be taken as good faith objections.
I don’t need to address the question of what to call intentional efforts to disrupt school board meetings to recognize that some are resorting to violence (and threats of violence) to achieve political ends that they have not been able to further at the ballot box.
That is domestic terrorism. And there is nothing wrong with calling it out as such.