Letter: Response to Article on Flag

Letter to the EditorPrint Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

Re: your recent article about the proposed Progress Pride flag in Williamstown, there are two statements that call for a response.

A well-intentioned interviewee is quoted as saying:

"Some people say it's obvious that Williams is accepting and there's no need [for a flag]," he said. "They also, in the same post, say the flag is divisive and controversial. Well, which is it?" (I assume that "Williams" is meant to be Williamstown. Editor: this error was fixed.)

The answer to this either/or thinking is that it is of course possible that two things are true at the same time. A person or place can be entirely welcoming to all but not be in agreement with the wishes and ideologies of all. That placing the Pride flag on equal footing with the USA flag is controversial, emphatically does not mean that those who oppose this are bigots.

The interviewee goes on to say:



"You can say this isn't about the flag and that it's about flags in general. But I think we all know it's not. Only people who have a problem with this flag are going to make that argument. And it's your right to be upset about [the Progress Pride flag]. But I don't appreciate the veiling."

This is particularly offensive in its ad hominem implication that people who are opposed to the Pride Flag's elevation to a status equal to that of the Stars and Stripes, are veiling an agenda that's biased against what the Pride Flag stands for.

Personally speaking, I dislike it when people presume to read my mind when they haven't an inkling as to my history, my work, and my causes. For 35 years I taught and directed theater at Pittsfield High School in a program known for its diversity. By their own testimony, it was also regarded as one of the safest and most accepting places for members of the LGBTQ community within the school. I even had the temerity to produce "The Rocky Horror Show" — despite objections from some city residents. That production had an enormous impact on the climate of the school.

Actions, not flags. And, honestly, I'd rather look at trees as opposed to any flags.

Ralph Hammann
Williamstown, Mass. 

 

 

 

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Williamstown Select Board Plans Off-Camera Evaluation of Town Manager

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Select Board plans to take extraordinary measures to avoid having its discussion of the town manager's performance recorded by the town's Public, Educational and Government cameras.
 
At its Sept. 28 meeting, the board decided to hold a special meeting in a room not covered by WilliNet cameras to complete its annual evaluation process of Town Manager Robert Menicocci.
 
Chair Peter Beck said that while the evaluation is "absolutely" to be conducted in an open meeting, the board could follow a process similar to the off site, unrecorded meetings that past Select Boards have characterized as "retreats," a term not contemplated by or included in the commonwealth's Open Meeting Law.
 
The current board met on June 29 for what it characterized as a "planning session" where no formal votes were taken. That meeting was held outside of Town Hall, at the new fire station on Main Street, in a room equipped with audio and video recording equipment that the Select Board chose not to use.
 
At the Sept. 28 meeting, one board member indicated that an unrecorded meeting was preferable to discuss the annual evaluation of the one town employee supervised by the board.
 
"I'd like to do it without all the Willinet stuff," Stephanie Boyd said in a discussion toward the end of a two-hour meeting. "I think it's more conducive to conversation."
 
With the board expected to meet just once in October — its "regular" meeting date coincides with Indigenous Peoples Day on Oct. 12 — Beck suggested that the panel could find a date for a special meeting, suggesting the third Monday of the month, Oct. 19.
 
View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories