The affluent suburbs of Northern Virginia, just outside Washington, DC, are quite fond of their prominent garden signs promoting various causes.
While many across the nation have been figuring out how to reopen schools and return to a sense of normalcy after lockdowns, one neighborhood decided to express gratitude with a sign that reads, “Thank you, Forsey!”
Currently, these well-off families are displaying signs that say they are “standing with federal workers.” This phrase suggests that career civil servants, who provide essential services, face job losses that ultimately affect all of us. But in reality, some federal employees may not be serving the interests of taxpayers or the general public, and this is especially clear in the context of the Director of Civil Rights at the Department of Justice.
Civil Rights Attorney General Halham Dillon noted that few were willing to stand against anti-Semitism, and many employees at the Justice Department chose to resign rather than engage in this fight. Some of these attorneys—hailing from historically left-leaning backgrounds—seem to think Jews don’t merit defense and would rather be jobless than combat anti-Semitism.
Interestingly, many of these same DOJ employees expressed enthusiasm for taking over local police departments, citing “consent decrees.” This approach often diverts attention away from core essential functions that help prevent crime and maintain public safety.
It’s not surprising, however, when recalling Dillon’s predecessor, Christine Clark. An article from Newsweek highlighted her philosophy of “strategically” funding police departments, which in practice complicated their ability to operate effectively.
While Clark’s strategy aimed to support police, her past writings—if turned around—might have pleased some of the more radical elements, like the KKK. She once made a controversial claim that “melanin enhances” abilities within black individuals, a statement that, if flipped in racial dynamics, would certainly be condemned.
During her time at Harvard, she notably hosted Tony Martin, a scholar known for anti-Semitic views, describing him as a “savvy black intellectual.” The implications of such affiliations raise concerns about how she viewed Jewish people compared to others, often aligning with narratives that diminish their humanity.
Efforts to expose the issues with Clark’s nomination faced apathy from the left, who appeared unwilling to confront any criticism directed towards her, especially given her race.
The current left’s stance reflects a radical departure from earlier definitions of racism, which neglected to include anti-Semitism until pressured by backlash over comments from figures like Whoopi Goldberg.
Moreover, various progressive politicians have shown consistent support for Clark’s agenda at the DOJ, favoring policies that could dismantle police work while overlooking rising sentiments against Jewish people.
This backdrop explains why the Justice Department now has employees who appear more fixated on undermining police efforts rather than addressing violent anti-Semitic acts.
As many Americans start questioning the trust they place in certain professional institutions, it’s worth considering how federal workers at the Justice Department are navigating their roles.
How many individuals would proudly display signs in support of civil rights lawyers who choose to walk away from their positions rather than confront the rise of anti-Semitism in society?
