"In fiction, the principles are given, to find the facts: in history, the facts are given, to find the principles; and the writer who does not explain the phenomena as well as state them performs only one half of his office."
Thomas Babington Macaulay, "History," Edinburgh Review, 1828
Showing posts with label it could always be worse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label it could always be worse. Show all posts
As noted in the previous post, a chance historic preservation and genealogy conversation on Twitter some years ago about antiquated New England town offices led me to a humorous piece on the character of town meeting in New Hampshire Magazine. As I also mentioned, the URL for that piece has vanished, a victim of link rot. But, as they say, when God shuts a door, he opens a window: and so, my recent, unsuccessful search for that piece brought me not only further information on weird and vanished town offices, but also more commentary on the institution of town meeting.
The article is entitled, "Town Meeting and Other Relevant NH Government Relics" and moreover has the descriptive and charming subtitle, "Like programs on the History Channel, some civic traditions are profound while others are ridiculous, and just like the folks who preserve them, they all have stories to tell."
As I said last time: to share this material is not to voice an opinion on the move for a "Charter vote" that would conceivably abolish Amherst Town Meeting (and my own prestigious and lucrative position on the Select Board: as former Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe used to say on bad days: "82 cents a day."). The purpose is only to share more comparative material on our civic and political institutions. On the whole, I think Amherst comes off looking pretty good. As I like to say: "it could always be worse."
Still, you may see some things that you recognize here. Take a look at this "Town Meeting Cast and Crew" and see what you think. Any familiar types?
Given that we have launched into the great debate over the proper form of local government, I am hauling pertinent past posts (or parts of them) out of the vaults.
Several years ago, in the course of a Twitter conversation with a fellow historic preservationist about obscure or obsolete New England town offices (the one in question was that of "hog reeve"), I came across this humorous portrayal of a mildly undemocratic, corrupt, and dysfunctional town meeting. It was originally published in New Hampshire Magazine back in 2008, and the URL appears to be a victim of proverbial "link rot," so I am glad I grabbed a portion of the text at the time and can share it here again.
Lest anyone leap to any invidious conclusions: I am doing so simply to illustrate the range of character of and opinion about New England town meetings. As one of the labels for the post should suggest, we in Amherst are fortunate to have a Town Meeting that--whatever one thinks of the views expressed at any given time--is serious, ethical, and managed by skilled Moderators. We should be grateful for that, because: "it could always be worse."
Still, you may see a few traits that you recognize.
Enjoy.
I hate town meeting.
Town meeting is a laboratory sink for psychologists.
Every dreadful facet of human nature reveals itself at these gatherings. One must have the emotions of a sociopath to escape town meeting with one's soul intact.
I remember a town meeting in Temple years ago where the Police Chief, Russ Tyler, was attacked for using his cruiser too much. Poor Chief Tyler used his own car as the cruiser. He saved the town a lot of money using his own car.
But the mob at the meeting was sure he was getting away with something.
I remember thinking, "You people are crazy to be yelling at the Chief like this. He has a gun."
But Chief Tyler also had great heart. He was a straight shooter and a nice guy (although he did look like that sheriff in the old TV ad who says, "Boy, you're in a heap of trouble.")
In the end, the meeting vented itself and the Chief got his budget. But what heroic self-restraint that man showed.
Towns are made up of people who do not trust one another. It is and has always been "us and them."
The "new" people settle here with an idyllic view of living in a small town. They come from places where no one knows each other. Here they expected to find love.
What they find, of course, is resentment. The old Yankees don't trust the newcomers. Usually the newcomers are Democrats.
Some newcomer always stands up at the meeting and says something like, "My name is Ralph Lumpman and Loraine and I moved up here last fall from Darien. We bought the old Cosgrove place on Swamp Road. And I'd like to say that our moderator tonight is doing a bang-up job and I think we should give him a round of applause."
Then all the people, who recently moved to town, clap.
And there is always someone who informs the moderator that the flag is on the wrong side of the stage.
Town meeting gives people license. No one is expected to practice restraint.
Everyone is there to tell it like it is.
For 24 years of my life I was a small-town newspaper reporter and did news on the radio station in Peterborough.
I have attended over three hundred town meetings.
In my 50-plus years of going to town meetings I've seen a lot of changes. Years ago most towns were controlled by the families who owned the mills. In Milford it was Charlie Emerson; in Jaffrey it was D.D. Bean; in Wilton it was the Abbots; in Dublin, Robb Sagendorph.
If you didn't work for these men, someone in your family did. I used to watch D. D. Bean sit in the front of the hall at the Jaffrey Town Meeting.
Mr. Bean owned the match factory, in Jaffrey. When an article important to him came up he would turn and look back over his seat and note who voted "for" and who voted "against" the article.
Robb Sagendorph was the publisher of Yankee magazine and the Old Farmer's Almanac up in Dublin and he had double clout. Robb Sagendorph was also the moderator. If he didn't like an article he would close down discussion.
"We have had enough jawing about this matter," he'd say. "It's time to vote."
Or in our case: 1759. (Well, 1735, if you date the history of Amherst Town Meeting from the time when this was simply the Third District of Hadley.)
Given that a Charter vote to reform our system of government is now on the table (if not yet the ballot), I'll dig up some goodies from the vaults.
As noted recently, one of my favorites is this clip from the classic "Newhart" show in which comedian Bob Newhart plays a man who, with his wife, moves to rural Vermont and fulfills their dream by purchasing a classic country inn. In this 1982 episode--"All Hail the Councilman"--set soon after his arrival, he seeks a stop sign for a dangerous intersection near the inn (more on that in a later post) and is encouraged to run for "town council."
Although the gathering that he attends is called a "town council," it actually functions like a traditional open town meeting except that the members elect one another (what? they couldn't get any real New Englanders to advise them on this?!). Then again, perhaps that confusion or hybrid form is completely apropos, given the choices now (or soon?) before us.
In any case, although one complaint about Amherst Town Meeting is that we spend too much time talking, part of the humor here nonetheless also rings true: the speed with which we approve most budget articles, and our inveterate tendency to take stances on foreign policy matters on which we cannot possibly have any practical influence. Oh, yes: and there is the crank in the back of the room who always brings forward his pet motion (I'll leave it to you to decide whether we have an equivalent here). And a bonus: dress code.
Questioned by Bob as to why the votes on expenditures proceeded so quickly, handyman George Utley (played by real-life close friend Tom Poston; see below) responds:
We’ve been at this since 1780, we kind of have it down by now.
When Bob is surprised that "town council" meets only once a year rather than once a week, George responds:
What would we talk about every week?
Do we "have it down"?
Once (well, twice) a year--or once a week?
What do you think?
Enjoy.
* * *
Fun facts to know and tell:
Tom Poston--said to have "appeared in more sitcoms than any other actor"--was a World War II pilot whose aircraft carried paratroopers on D-Day. In addition, he was married to Suzanne Pleshette, who played Bob Newhart's wife on the predecessor series, "The Newhart Show."
As I mentioned in the previous post, I thought I would resurrect a few older pieces in order to provide some perspective on the new debate that seems to be shaping up around the issue of Town Meeting and Amherst's form of government.
This
first piece, from four years ago, notes the popular frustrations with Town
Meeting but strikes an overall optimistic stance. Some of the details
were intended as historical background. The rest have now become such.
Readers can decide for themselves to what extent any of this is still of
interest or use.
Laughing to Keep From Crying
But there is also some humor, and
that, at least, is enduring. One factor that can make politics so
needlessly unpleasant is people who take themselves and the game too
seriously.
Two lighter pieces on the foibles of traditional New England government in our small towns included in that old post:
1) "I Hate Town Meeting" from New Hampshire Magazine.
2)
A segment from "All Hail the Councilman," an episode from the "Newhart"
show (which some of you may remember--or have discovered through new
media outlets), in which Bob Newhart plays the owner of a Vermont
country inn.
Neither one represents our system of
government--but I'd wager that Amherst residents could nonetheless spot
some resemblances. See whether you can see yourself (or all of us)
there.
As I recently noted, the low turnout in Tuesday's local election gives one pause for thought. At a moment when protests against dictatorship and for participatory government (whatever the complexities of the specific political constellations and possible outcomes) are rocking the Middle East in a spectacle captivating the attention of the world, the vast majority of us here in the safety of Amherst did not bother to vote (a mere 8.47%). Aside from the fact that there were few contested races or hot issues, it is of course more generally true that voter turnout tends to be lower in societies with long-established traditions of democracy and elections.
Still, one wonders about the lack of candidates as much as turnout. It could well be that what Select Board Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe said of that office and contest applies here too: "the lack of challengers either indicates" that the incumbents "are doing a good job or no one else wants to do the job." And yet, it seems more problematic when applied to a 240-person Town Meeting than a 5-person Select Board.
We Amherst residents have something of a love-hate relationship with Town Meeting and our larger political culture (which, if you study Amherst history, seems to have its own tradition [1, 2] ). Twice in recent years (the first time in 2003), voters attempted to scrap our current charter, with its system of Town Meeting and Select Board, in favor of one based on a mayor and council (that's the difference between a "town" and a "city" in Massachusetts law). The second time, in 2005 (1, 2), it was only narrowly defeated in an election that brought out 35.2 percent of the electorate. The so-called Charter Reform attempts arose because of a frustration with Town Meeting: its tone, its slow pace, and its outcomes (or lack thereof).
And yet the issue was complicated. I always recall what one ardent Town Meeting supporter, a refugee from Nazi Germany, told me. He compared the lack of civic spirit and willingness to stand up for justice and democracy (what Germans call Zivilcourage) in his native Germany with his adopted New England's tradition of active participation and debate. He had no illusions about the flaws of Town Meeting but cautioned against abandoning it as earlier generations had overthrown "messy" democracy in the name of fascist "efficiency." Each step away from broad-based democracy, he warned, reduced the opportunities for public participation in government, and in the process, not just citizen involvement but also citizen interest in public affairs. We had already gone from an open town meeting—in principle embracing every adult resident—to an elected town meeting, restricted to 240 members (24 from each of ten precincts), plus the dozen-odd officials. Now to reduce the number of citizens making decisions about the fate of the town by some 96%, to a nine-member council and mayor (with veto power) seemed to him a regression that could not be justified. It was a powerful argument.
I have to say that I think the last Charter referendum squeaker turned out to have a salutary effect all-around. It made clear to Town Meeting diehards just how deep the popular dissatisfaction and even anger ran. It made clear to Town Meeting opponents that, despite considerable popular sympathy for their complaints about the political culture, residents were not prepared to abolish this venerable political institution. And it thus conveyed the message to all: we have to live together, so we'd better get our act together.
On balance, I'd say, we have learned that lesson well: Town Meeting has become more efficient. It manages to get its business done while occupying fewer days on the calendar, thus reducing the demand on members' time (an oft-cited obstacle to greater participation, especially for families with young children). The tone is generally civil, the debate more focused and productive. There has of late been at least hypothetical talk of reducing the size of town meeting, so as to increase competitiveness and thus the actual representativeness of the representatives (empty seats and unopposed candidacies were among the issues that motivated Charter reform supporters), but for the time being that remains just talk. For now, we work with what we have.
This is not to say that Town Meeting form of government (any more than Congress) cannot still be the source of silliness and frustration. The piece from New Hampshire Magazine that I recently cited on the history of the hog reeve happened to be entitled, "I Hate Town Meeting":
I hate town meeting.
Town meeting is a laboratory sink for psychologists.
Every dreadful facet of human nature reveals itself at these gatherings. One must have the emotions of a sociopath to escape town meeting with one's soul intact.
I remember a town meeting in Temple years ago where the Police Chief, Russ Tyler, was attacked for using his cruiser too much. Poor Chief Tyler used his own car as the cruiser. He saved the town a lot of money using his own car.
But the mob at the meeting was sure he was getting away with something.
I remember thinking, "You people are crazy to be yelling at the Chief like this. He has a gun."
But Chief Tyler also had great heart. He was a straight shooter and a nice guy (although he did look like that sheriff in the old TV ad who says, "Boy, you're in a heap of trouble.")
In the end, the meeting vented itself and the Chief got his budget. But what heroic self-restraint that man showed.
Towns are made up of people who do not trust one another. It is and has always been "us and them."
The "new" people settle here with an idyllic view of living in a small town. They come from places where no one knows each other. Here they expected to find love.
What they find, of course, is resentment. The old Yankees don't trust the newcomers. Usually the newcomers are Democrats.
Some newcomer always stands up at the meeting and says something like, "My name is Ralph Lumpman and Loraine and I moved up here last fall from Darien. We bought the old Cosgrove place on Swamp Road. And I'd like to say that our moderator tonight is doing a bang-up job and I think we should give him a round of applause."
Then all the people, who recently moved to town, clap.
And there is always someone who informs the moderator that the flag is on the wrong side of the stage.
Town meeting gives people license. No one is expected to practice restraint.
Everyone is there to tell it like it is.
For 24 years of my life I was a small-town newspaper reporter and did news on the radio station in Peterborough.
I have attended over three hundred town meetings.
In my 50-plus years of going to town meetings I've seen a lot of changes. Years ago most towns were controlled by the families who owned the mills. In Milford it was Charlie Emerson; in Jaffrey it was D.D. Bean; in Wilton it was the Abbots; in Dublin, Robb Sagendorph.
If you didn't work for these men, someone in your family did. I used to watch D. D. Bean sit in the front of the hall at the Jaffrey Town Meeting.
Mr. Bean owned the match factory, in Jaffrey. When an article important to him came up he would turn and look back over his seat and note who voted "for" and who voted "against" the article.
Robb Sagendorph was the publisher of Yankee magazine and the Old Farmer's Almanac up in Dublin and he had double clout. Robb Sagendorph was also the moderator. If he didn't like an article he would close down discussion.
"We have had enough jawing about this matter," he'd say. "It's time to vote."
Of course, the system of mayor and town council is hardly perfect, either. The following episode of the old "Newhart" show seems somewhat confused in that it speaks in places of both "town council" and town meeting, but seems to depict the workings of the latter (perhaps the author was not familiar with the intricacies of New England government). In any case, no matter: the dilemmas and foibles can be universally appreciated. In episode 3 (full video here)
newly arrived innkeeper Dick Loudon (Bob Newhart) complains about a
dangerous intersection in front of his establishment and wants the town
to install a stop sign. Local political honchos persuade Dick that, as
a man of civic spirit who does not only complain but also proposes
solutions, he should run for Town Council. In the clip below, he attends the first meeting:
It's nice to be reminded that things could always be worse.
the light at the end of the tunnel--or just someone's headlights?
Yes, we made it again, as the sign at the High Horse brewery congratulated us Town Meeting diehards. Or did we?
That is, we got through another annual Town Meeting, and it didn't go on for an inordinate amount of time: 22.5 hours vs. 27 last spring, so I am told (though by most reckoning, it could have been at least a day shorter). Admittedly, we were not dealing with multiple complex pieces of zoning legislation, as in some past years, so the increase in "efficiency" might in part just reflect the fact that our tasks were more modest.
But one has to wonder about the fate of the institution. As Amherst residents know, complaints about Town Meeting arise as regularly as the spring flowers and then fade with the same regularity--and yet this year somehow feels different.
One item at last night's Select Board agenda was the annual Town Meeting debriefing: a chance to reflect on our performance and the overall tenor and success of the endeavor.
Our main concerns--above all, wasted time and "incivility"--were not new, but they seemed to acquire new urgency. The coming adoption of an electronic voting system might do a good deal to alleviate the former. The cure for the latter is less obvious. We expressed our regret that, both in formal remarks on warrant articles and in audible background chatter, Town Meeting members repeatedly, and often without reprimand from the Moderator, violated the rules of the body (Section V D, pp. 17-18 [33-34]) by imputing motives to individuals and in particular impugning Town staff, elected officials, and members of citizen boards. At Town Meeting, we heard the repeated insinuation that Town boards and staff were somehow colluding with developers at the expense of the common weal. Only slightly more subtle was the implication that those "at the front tables" (i.e. Select Board, Finance Committee, Planning Board) were somehow the adversaries of Town Meeting rather than partners in a system.
Town Meeting: attendance and attention uneven
It is a shame. A mere four years ago (see the next post), I thought the various factions, having survived a contentious "charter" referendum that sought to eliminate Town Meeting, had accommodated themselves to political coexistence. I am no longer so sure. The discontent expressed by some members as well as citizens at large is the highest that I can recall since that last Charter vote in 2005. Again, it may dissipate, but it is a worrisome sign.
The division of opinion over the merits of Town Meeting was amply expressed in two recent editorials. I won't try to analyze the arguments here and will instead
just offer excerpts with links to the full pieces. Read and judge for
yourselves.
In the first, longtime Town Meeting member Jim Oldham defended the institution against the charge of inefficiency and obstructionism: The wisdom of democracy borne out at Amherst’s Annual Town Meeting
excerpt:
This year’s Annual Town Meeting is a great example of effective democratic government. . . . While many individual members have maintained either pro- or anti-Town Hall positions, the body as a whole produced more complex outcomes, neither acquiescing to, nor rejecting out of hand, all proposals placed before it. . . .
Motions to end debate rarely contribute to better decisions . . .
Worst are suggestions, such as heard early on from a member of the Finance Committee (an appointed body intended to serve Town Meeting), that members shouldn’t second-guess the work of staff and committees. That actually is exactly the job Town Meeting is charged to do. Fortunately the majority of members continue to embrace that responsibility, as recent sessions demonstrate.
In response, Professor Ray La Raja and graduate student Wouter Van Erve of the UMass Political Science Department urge residents,
Don’t romanticize Town Meeting democracy in Amherst
excerpt:
Thin deliberative democracy. Oldham argues that Town Meetings should have lengthy debate. He argues further that it is the job of members to “second guess” the work of policy committees. Both these views are contradicted by what research says about effective representational bodies. The most deliberative American legislatures are highly “institutionalized.” That is to say, when dealing with complex issues — especially those that divide a community — legislative bodies tend to divide the labor and defer to the expertise of policy committees. It is here where dialogue and compromise take place before a bill is sent for a full vote. Most of the time, the “debates” that ensue before a full legislative vote are purely symbolic because a winning coalition has taken shape beforehand.
Debates in Town Meeting appear largely symbolic rather than deliberative. Persuasion and compromise need to come earlier in the process. Otherwise, Town Meeting is simply a forum to affirm individual preferences and make sure allies outnumber the other side.
Funny thing is: these pieces were in many ways a reprise of a similar exchange a year ago:
Ray La Raja and Wouter Van Erve:
How representative, really, is Amherst Town Meeting?
excerpt:
Our data suggests that Town Meeting in Amherst is fairly unrepresentative both descriptively and substantively.
This would be less disconcerting if we had confidence that residents could effectively hold their Town Meeting members accountable. . . .
. . .Town Meeting elections lack even the most basic information that would help voters hold members accountable. Most residents don’t know who is running, what they stand for, or how they voted in previous sessions. So how does the voter make a decision? . . . .
In Amherst, those who vote tend to know those who are running for office. Our analysis shows, not surprisingly, that these voters share the same demographic and preference profile of Town Meeting members. In other words, the voters and members run in the same social circles, while non-voters do not.
Amherst Town Meeting is independent, not unrepresentative
excerpt:
The Around Town column in the June 13 Bulletin reported on the Select Board discussion of concerns about the length of time Town Meeting took this year and the supposed “level of incivility.” They seem to have overlooked that they themselves instigated the most inefficient use of time and the most uncivil behavior at Town Meeting this spring.
Faced with two citizen zoning petitions that could not be acted on for technical legal reasons, and which Town Meeting would have voted to refer to the Planning Board with little discussion, the Select Board chose instead to advocate for dismissal, an action with no practical benefit but more pejorative to the petitioners, thereby triggering close to an hour of unnecessary debate and several counted votes.
But rather then review the wisdom of that choice, they focus instead on raising general concerns about Town Meeting.
Meanwhile, University of Massachusetts professor Ray La Raja and grad student Wouter Van Erve assert that Town Meeting is unrepresentative (see essay, Page A5), based largely on the claim that Town Meeting members do not reflect the population at large.
I must apologize for the recent lack of communication here: to be clear, for my sake, rather than yours (after all, it's not as if I imagine anyone worries or withers away when the posts become fewer and further between).
It can be difficult to stick to a regular schedule under the best of circumstances, but at the beginning of November (in fact, in the early hours of the first day), I had a little accident. It was just a fluke of a domestic accident, but bad enough to injure my back (that went away after a few days) and bang up my head, fracturing my upper jaw and doing assorted other damage, short- and long-term.
Of course, my basic cheerful-pessimistic philosophy is: it could always be worse, so: no biggie. I didn't want this, but it's nothing compared with a bullet in the lower jaw during the night, followed by the guillotine in the morning (above). That sort of puts things in perspective.
My much less serious little episode put me out of commission, in the serious sense, only for a few days, but it has been something of a nuisance, and it will take several months before I can return to full normal. (Not a good thing for a guy who has to speak all the time for his day job, and then again on occasional evenings for our elected political amateur hour.)
It's hard to say what was the most freakish thing about the accident: the thing itself, or the spooky minor parallels to another one. It was just over a year earlier that our newly appointed Town Manager, John Musante, suffered a (far more serious) head injury while walking his dog, not long before the Snowtober/Snowpocalypse hit. Barely had we dodged the proverbial bullet from Hurricane Sandy this fall when I had my accident, likewise involving a good and innocent dog (though mine was a good deal larger: in fact, weighs more than his veterinarian). Sort of makes you wonder.
Again, I went into more detail than I cared, only in order to explain the silence.
Now it's back to normal soon. I hope to have a bunch of Christmas/holiday/New Year posts ready to go in the new future. You have been warned.
Although we here in Amherst love to complain about the complexities of our laws and political process (how often do we hear that this or that proposed measure is "too difficult to understand"?), well, things could always be worse.
Just consider these bizarre Scottish laws:
In Scotland, it is illegal for a boy under the age of 10 to see a naked mannequin
In Scotland the law obliges citizens to allow whoever knocks on their door to use their toilet
The head of any dead whale found on the Scottish coast automatically becomes the property of the king, and the tail of the queen
Any Scotsman found to be wearing underwear beneath his kilt can be fined two cans of beer
It is illegal in Scotland to be drunk and in charge of a cow
In York, it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow
In Carlisle, any Scot found wandering around may be whipped or jailed
Western Massachusetts towns and organizations recently made several lists, not all of which you'd want to be on.
To begin with an older item in the good news/bad news mode: although three New England locales made the list of drunkest cities in America in 2011, we can take solace in the knowledge that, despite all the complaints about students' problem drinking here in Amherst, we don't even rate on the national scale: Boston was #1 in the nation, and the Springfield-Holyoke area was # 2. (Yikes.) By contrast, Las Vegas was only #14, easily eclipsed by the hardy Midwesterners of Chicago and Milwaukee (#6 and # 3, respectively). New York didn't even make the cut. Clearly, it's serious business.
What's in a name?
What's in a name? Plenty, apparently. Just ask our poor friends in neighboring Belchertown:
Genealogy web site FindMyPast.com recently polled thousands of users
across seven countries, and Belchertown came in at No. 6 out of the Top
10 most oddly named places in the United States.
For some, the beauty (or ugliness) of the town's name is all in the eye of the beholder.
"A gentleman from France was here and he had a different attitude. He being French, looked upon it as possibly a French name: 'bel' meaning beautiful, and 'cher' meaning dear," says Belchertown town clerk William Barnett.
Sorry: it's a burp. Hard to think of a better example of wishful thinking and dubious logic (though there was that "Wacky Iraqi" Information Minister). Especially because that "oddly named" in the above story is a euphemism or at best a paraphrase (somebody call a media watchdog group).
Belchertown has, however, made it onto more innocuous-sounding lists. "Unusual, bizarre or humorous names of towns in the U.S."
includes Belcher, LA among "Imaginative or fun town names in
Louisiana," whereas our own Belchertown shows up among "Delightful or
unusual town and city names in Massachusetts."
I do recall that, when we first moved here, my reaction to the name tended toward "embarrassing or unfortunate" rather than "delightful." I was reluctant to live in Belchertown, in part because of the rather unappetizing name as well as the decaying infrastructure and substandard schools. In the meantime, I've gotten used to the name, and the town itself has become a fashionable location for new homes, in part because of larger lots and lower land prices. Things change.
Of course, plenty of people think Amherst an odd or inappropriate name, too. You know: that little plan to use germ warfare against Native Americans and all that. Some loon almost managed to prove the idiotic theory that the extremes of right and left meet when, in the course of the recent flag controversy, he linked our supposed lack of patriotism to the fact that our locale is named after a "genocidal maniac." In at least that one infamous regard, Jeffery Amherst was a morally problematic character, to be sure, though he never set foot in this town. It was named after him as a tribute to a military hero of the Seven Years War, akin to naming a town "Eisenhower" (also, by the way, a master of military logistics) after World War II. Amherst College historian of early America and Native America Kevin Sweeney took care of that issue when he wrote about Jeffery Amherst's career and gave the annual Mabel Loomis Todd lecture for the Amherst Historical Society on the occasion of the Town's 250th anniversary.
None of our honored institutions made it onto "Mashable's List of "Most Social Colleges." Just as well, for it turns out that that the story's content is as inane as the title is misleading. The piece is not about the sociability of college communities, and rather, about social media, but it can't get even that right. The study does not ask how (or how intelligently) colleges and universities use social media, and rather, looks only at meaningless numerical rankings. Shocker: Harvard has the most likes on Facebook and highest Klout score (though it was somewhat surprising that it came in second in number of Twitter followers, behind: University of Phoenix.)
Strategies for Sustainability highlighted Hampshire College's own list of "10 Green Things." Hampshire also made it onto the list of "10 Colleges for Free Spirits," defined as those displaying a "creative atmosphere, flexibility, unusual programs and outdoor living," often emphasizing "social service and environmental responsibility" and "in-depth, independent thinking":
Hampshire College:
(Amherst, Mass.) Learning builds on civic involvement,
multidisciplinary studies and original research driven by student
curiosity. Create an individual program of study working with faculty
mentors. Discussion topics could range from mind, brain and information
to power, community and social justice. The school offers activities
like outdoor leadership, martial arts and yoga, as well as green
initiatives like a solar canopy and sustainable farming. You can also
take classes at other nearby colleges. About 1,500 students are
enrolled, and more than half of all graduating students have completed
advanced degrees.
And last, as well as least, Hampshire came out about midway, at #6, on the list of the Top 10 Hipster Colleges (spoiler: Bard was #1). Take that, Amherst. Pretty respectable (or is that a contradiction in terms?) Sometimes, maybe it's square to be too hip.
Massholes
And finally, "Massshole"
has become a term of derision for residents of our Commonwealth, based
on our general rudeness and, in particular, our bad driving habits, which also bring out the other ones, such as arrogance and, well, rudeness and foul language. (Does that have anything to do with our colleges and heavy drinking?)
Still, in the information age, one is constantly seeking a more fine-grained analysis. One of my academic urban studies and preservation tweeps (by chance, also a transplanted Midwesterner, from my home town, no less) spotted a t-shirt that did just that. Couched in the language of the Department of Homeland Security alerts, it categorizes the danger level of "Masshole" tourists from highest to lowest:
from "The Confession of Golias," No. 5
(medieval student song)
Booze and Brazenness
As the previous post makes clear, boorish (generally: drunken) student behavior has become a real and even critical problem in our town. A while back, in "Stripping, vomiting, and drinking themselves unconscious," I pondered the fact that Amherst seems to face such challenges in this regard, whereas others, with far larger student gatherings and far more lenient liquor laws, are evidently better able to cope. Savannah, which allows open containers of alcohol in public, hosted a million visitors (including thousands of students on spring break) essentially without incident for Saint Patrick's Day.
I said: pondered. I came up with no answers. All I could do was to observe that the problem was to some extent cultural. I am all too aware that such arguments can be problematic in certain contexts, either putting the blame in the wrong place or refusing to place it at all. Still, I think it quite legitimate here, in the sense that it comes down to what the offenders think they are entitled to do and where the community establishes red lines. This is also why I wanted, in the last post, to insist that the many conversations between Town and University were not just window-dressing or wasting time, and rather, part of a serious attempt to articulate enforceable community norms.
Part of the problem is that UMass students are growing up in "a more aggressive drinking culture" in which alcohol is glorified, said Tony Maroulis, executive director of the Amherst Area Chamber of Commerce. . . . "Officers say they've never seen such brazenness, with young people making no attempt to hide beer while walking down the street, he [Police Captain Christopher] said.
Students will always drink, legally or illegally. Some will always drink too much. The Town has the right to enforce the law against both illegal underage drinking and illegal behavior by drinkers of legal age.
In the course of my "drinking and vomiting" post, I also described the extremely heavy drinking that was typical of early American culture, from politicians to clergy to the ordinary folks.
Town, Gown, and Turmoil
Herewith, then, a few further examples drawn from history, just for the sake of a comparative perspective.
Students both long exercised a great deal more power and wrought a great deal more havoc than they do here and now. As I noted in a post last year, students in the Middle Ages in effect were "the university"—an organization or interest group comprising these fee-paying learners, mostly in minor clerical orders (the origins of town and "gown"), rather than faculty and facilities. Accordingly, the students defined the curriculum and monitored faculty behavior, and even set local prices and rents, and generally regulated town-gown relations.
Wouldn't our Town Meeting and landlords just love that?
In the Middle Ages, and beyond (especially in the period of decline of the decline of the universities in the 17th and 18th centuries), students were often decried as hell-raisers.
In 1784, the Prussian educator Friedrich Gedicke praised the University of Göttingen for "attracting students who are more civilized than those at other universities," though he admitted that, if "the crude and wild behavior so often present at other universities is much less evident here," it was because "Here, immorality is masked by a veil of fine manners": "The student here does not frequent beer halls but gets drunk on wine in his room all the more often."
By the way, even raw excesses are not altogether lacking. During the few days that I was there, several drunken students attacked a girl in the street and then pursued her to her home where they mistreated here to the point that her very life was in
danger. [1]
Small wonder, then, that as James Sheehan writes:
After reading a few descriptions of student life in the eighteenth century, one has no difficulty understanding why many families were reluctant to send their sons to a university. Drinking, duelling, and rowdiness were the rule in many places; students were legendary for their eccentric dress, loose morals, and irresponsible behaviour. Any effort to impose discipline was hampered by the fact that universities were eager to defend their boundaries against intrusions from the outside, and were often willing to sacrifice new opportunities rather than endanger old privileges. The endemic conflicts between town and gown—as well as the pitched battles occasionally fought between students and apprentices—were the natural result of the tensions created by autonomous institutions coexisting within the same enclosed space. [2]
In nineteenth-century Amherst, students may have avoided the worst excesses of their forebears and European counterparts, but they were hardly tame. In 1886, the town exploded in joy when Amherst College beat rival Yale in a baseball game. The president of Massachusetts Agricultural College lent his fellow institution of higher learning a cannon, and when his own students stole some of the parts, he rushed to find new ones so that the noisome revelry could take place. In the words of former Jones Library head of Special Collections Daniel Lombardo: "Round after round of blanks were fired from the cannon, as a huge bonfire lit the center of town. . . Fireworks added to the 'indescribably hideous racket.'"
He describes a complaining letter by a resident to the Amherst Record:
The bonfire and horns were acceptable but he drew the line at cannon firing. 'We were compelled to have our nerves torn to pieces by the senseless whim of a few boys' who sought to 'torture those hopeless citizens who happen to live near the village common.' He compared the boys to savages...
Another baseball victory in 1892 brought even greater mayhem, serving as a release for what Lombardo calls weeks of "tension . . . as the townspeople grew impatient with the general rowdiness of students."
There was the customary bonfire, assembled, in the Record's description, in a manner "characteristic of Sherman's foragers." Presumably drunken antics, it turned out, included vandalism of a local store. It got worse. Late that night students assembled at the hated sheriff's house and (again in the words of the newspaper) "indulged in a noisy serenade." As Lombardo relates:
This serenading mob began to throw stones at the house and to hurl insults at the sheriff's wife and daughters. The latter act pushed the sheriff's patience to the limit and he burst forth from the house armed with his revolver and fired a shot into the air.
Charged with disturbing the peace and assaulting the sheriff, students sent an anonymous letter to the paper, "couched, " the Record said, "in the most filthy and indecent language," threatening to burn down his house. Only after eight students pleaded guilty did the situation calm down. [3]
Sound familiar?
On the bright side, at least we have not yet reached the stage of murderous threats.
Butt-Chugging and Social Norming
Still, not all is progress. Inside Higher Ed reports on a possible new fad of “butt-chugging,” in which students take an "alcohol enema." (I know: yuck.) Evidently "Popularized by a scene in one of the 'Jackass' movies," it's potentially highly dangerous or even fatal, as well as highly unappetizing. According to the publication, however, "experts say it’s not too surprising, nor is it any more alarming than other binge-drinking behaviors," and they warn that over-reacting may inadvertently encourage the practice by publicizing it. As the Chair of the American College Health Association’s Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Coalition put it in unhelpfully obtuse jargon and just bad English (is it any wonder no one listens to these folks?):
Alcohol consumption among college students at a high level is not surprising. They’re always trying to dodge appropriate alcohol metabolism… College students that have the invincibility factor may be willing to try and experiment with different modes and amounts of administration.
Admittedly, when a Dean of Students at Marlboro College asked his students about butt-chugging, "most of them 'scoffed and rolled
their eyes.' They said, ‘You have to be an idiot to even contemplate that.’ ”
As we've seen here, though, there are plenty of ways to be an idiot when you consume too much alcohol the old-fashioned way.
According to the article, one approach that experts recommend as having shown some results is so-called "social norming" in which, in the words of the Director of Alcohol Abuse and Impaired Driving Prevention Initiatives for the BACCHUS Network, "students are given real statistics on drinking in their community to demonstrate that most of their peers don’t engage in risky drinking behavior."
That's part of what I meant about changing the culture. In the old days, excessive drinking was the norm; today it is not. Demonstrate that the really bad behavior is marginal—and marginalize those who engage in it.
Not surprisingly, then, things were a lot worse in the olden days, and there's a lot worse to be found in many places today. None of this is to downplay our problems—but as we contemplate how to address them, it's useful to know where we fit on the scale, past and present.
* * *
[1]
Robert and Elborg Forster, eds., European Society in the Eighteenth Century (NY, 1969), 319-20.
[2] James Sheehan, German History 1770-1866 (Oxford, 1989), 137.
[3] Daniel Lombardo, A Hedge Away: The Other Side of Emily Dickinson's Amherst (Northampton, 1997), 79-82.
The normal venue is the central Fire Station, where our first responders mark the loss of both their brethren and the ordinary citizens who perished on that day.
bell readied for the memorial ceremony
Among those of us associated with local or state government and administration were four members of the Select Board, Town Manager John Musante, State Representative Ellen Story, Planning Director Jonathan Tucker, and Director of Conservation and Development Dave Ziomek, as well as other members of Town staff.
residents assemble prior to the ceremony
Town residents also marked the anniversary in their own way.
One here displayed a flag with the names of 9-11 victims.
After the ceremony, blogger and tireless 9-11 commemoration advocate Larry Kelley stood with his flag at the corner in the center of town and then trudged down the street to the intersection of Routes 9 and 116.
at the Fire Station
An unidentified mourner parked a large construction vehicle adorned with multiple flags in front of Town Hall.
And as always, Amherst Town flags flew at half-staff.
Why do they hate us? (douchebags, turds, socialists, Muslims, libtards, Democrats)
Even though, as the previous post explained and the following one shows, Amherst annually marks the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks by lowering its flags to half-staff and holding a ceremony at the Fire Station, people persist in believing that we ignore the date or even that we never fly the American flag.
Strictly speaking, I suppose, Part 1 already explained why they hate us.
Here the question is, rather: How do they hate us?
Let me count the ways.
Along
with those who simply disagreed with the Town's policy were those who
expressed more hostile feelings. Many emphasized the strength of these
emotions by threatening to boycott the town. (How many of them actually
have shopped here as they claim is anyone's guess. I want to see
receipts.) Many called us names. Some suspected we were trying to
establish Sharia (or the Gulag). Some wanted us to move somewhere else
(whether expressed as a general desire, or with reference to specific
destinations, from just south of the border to the infernal regions). Some wished us bodily harm.
When I arrived at Monday's Select Board meeting, I saw uniformed police officers outside the Town Room and thought I had perhaps missed an earlier ceremony or failed to notice a public-safety topic on the agenda. As I later found out, the police were there for our protection: it was September 10, and we were to hear more public comment on the flag controversy. We never felt unsafe, but that gives you a sense of how high the tensions had risen.
The following is a little selection of the angry talkbacks and emails directed at us.
Impeach, hang, or exile the Prius-driving, weed-smoking hippie terrorist sympathizers
•
Maybe the officials of this town secretly believe that the attacks were
false and actually government created...as I have heard from some
people who also feel the government is poisoning us secretly and moving
towards a new world order
• Only figures from a town
named after a genocidal maniac Amherst who by the way infected local
Indians with small pox to steal their land , keep up the good work.....
•I've
stopped doing any business with anybody connected to or in Amherst . . .
. it's just a typical college town full of people full of themselves. I
love all those Prius, Audi, BMW, Mercedes and Lexus owners trying to
portray themselves as Americans.
• Maybe Northampton
[sic] is taking it's cues from the DNC. The convention is starting with 2
hours of muslim prayers... Our country is going to hell.
•
There is a perversion that patriotism, religious beliefs, marriage
between a man and a women, and respect for life at conception is some
how out of date and unpopular. Maybe in places like the people's
republic of Amherst Massachusetts they are. Please Amherst, secede from
the United States of America.
• Sounds like the town officials are oblivious to the pain of the country. May they should go live in Mexico.
•
Speaking for my ancestors who fought for our country dating back to the
Revolution, I am appalled that a minority of self serving small town
politicians would be allowed to dictate to the masses when our US flag
can fly on the town common. Impeach 'em!!
• Amherst is
one of the most disgusting and unpatriotic cities in the U.S. How can a
city not allow to fly the flag of its own country???? I just don't get
it. The city councilors who banned the flag display should all be put on
trial for treason. And then hanged in the city square in place of the
flag display.
• Remember all those hippies from the 60s
who were smoking weed, dropping acid, and denouncing everything that
had to do with the government? Well guess what? Those same hippies got
old and are now in positions of authority.
• HEY TERRORIST, please target Amherst, I'll supply you with a map.
Amherst: it's just un-American; Hell, it's not even in America
•
This is the SAME community that said, pre 9-11, that the red in the
American flag stood for "all of the blood of the innocent victims of
American terrorism all over the world."
Can we really expect anything different from them?
• Thank God I don't live in Amherst.... It is questionable if it is part of the USA
Love it or leave it, you limp-wristed, spineless,
namby-pamby, anti-American jackwagons, gay, Muslim-loving supporters of fluoridation and taxation
• Why would some one want to live in a
country that offends them? I'm not suggesting we run them out of town.
But, these people who find our flag "offensive" should ponder as to why
they want to be here, and whether or not they would be happier
elsewhere.
• I am so sick of the spineless people in
this country and our government who kowtow to every whiner who shows up
with a gripe..We are Americans and our Flag is a emblem of freedom and
pride--don't like that? Then go some where you do like
• GOOD
GRIEF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN AMERICA. IF
SOMEBODY FINDS THE FLAG OPPRESSIVE THEN GET THE HECK OUT OF DODGE.
THERE ARE SO MANY STUPID PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE IN THIS
WONDERFUL COUNTRY AND LORD HELP US THEY ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS. MAROULIS
[Chamber of Commerce Director, who actually wrote in favor of flying the
flags but happened to refer to opposing views]
YOU ARE A PUTZ AND DO NOT DESERVE TO CALL YOURSELF AN AMERICAN.
• I suggest any person or community in
America that finds the AMERICAN FLAG polarizing and a brazen symbol of
might and oppression to pick up, pack up, and head to a country with a
flag they find less polarizing and a brazen symbol of might and
oppression. Any communist country should do.
To think hundreds
of thousands of patriotic Americans died so that limp-wristed,
namby-pamby, anti-American jackwagons could occupy space and vote in
this, the best country ever to have been founded. Disgusting!
• It never fails to amaze me how stupid,
ignorant or naive some people can be. You don't want fly old glory, our
country's flag because you are embarrassed by it. Or is it because it
might offend some Islamic residents of what 9/11 really means to real
Americans. 3000 innocent Americans were murdered by Islamic radicals and
you are afraid to respect their loss to our country by displaying the
American flag. If you cannot respect what the American flag represents,
you should move to a country that agrees with your perspective. Some
suggestions: North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China,
Russia as well as half the United Nations who laugh at us and
disrespects what America has contributed to the world.
• This in the all "inclusive" town where the
flag of Puerto Rico was was torn down because it was mistaken for the
state flag of Texas, home of a republican president. I guess that means
you can be included, welcome, and vital to the community as long as you
agree with the view of the few. Well at least Amherst will be spared
Armageddon, as it was voted a nuclear free zone. No mushroom shaped
clouds, or American flags allowed. The sign at the town line should
read, "Welcome to Laughingstockville"
•Every city official who voted for this idiocy should be hit with a petition demanding they resign immediately.
Vote every single one of them out of office at the earliest opportunity
and replace them with true patriots.
• Do you even consider yourselves Americans? Please drive your
stereotypical green Subaru Legacy hippie wagons off a cliff while you
listen to NPR on full blast.
• Bet they still fly the Muslim flag on Ramadan
• No problem flying the gay pride fag...er...flag on any day of the year though
• what a dumb thing to do. There is a small country in northern south
america that wood love to have people like you. So move and let the flag
fly.I served my country and flag, many have given their lives for it. I
will never visit this town and hope others join me.
• The selectman should be removed from their positions for trying to dictate when and where the American Flag can be flown.
• can we just ban amherst from the states already
• What an abomination.....Amherst is a perfect example of everything wrong
with our Nation. Insane property taxes (to pay for all the welfare), a
police state, fluoride in the water and hippiecrities running around
destroying the Flag that represents our Republic. Shame on you town of
Amherst
• Amherst . . . you all should be ashamed to
call yourselves Americans!! This is why our Country is falling apart.
Disrespectful, ignorant, naive people. They don’t fly our Flag but they
do have aPot Fest every year that forces the Police to let people smoke
Pot and do nothing about it.
Something is wrong here.
• Yup and they are always the first in line for welfare and food stamps
with the amount of people that qualify there. Figures they had [hate??] the
government except when they want that free hand out
• Only in the Socialist Republic of Amherst.
• What a bunch of pretentious d-bags.
• What a bunch of self righteous t*rds.
• Go to H3ll, Amherst.
Dear Assholes: You and your communist, Muslim-loving cesspool of liberals make us sick, you ingrateful spawn of elitist hypocrites
Oddly,
perhaps, some of the nastiest comments came not in anonymous newspaper
talkbacks, but in direct, signed letters to the Select Board. We
certainly cannot complain about reticence:
• I
am dismayed by the report that your town does not see fit to honor the
singly significant event and heroes of that infamous day when we were
viciously attacked by radical muslims. I believe that the 'politically
correct' Massachusetts beliefs have brought a disservice to all
involved.
• Any Board Member who votes not to raise the American
flag in memory of 911 should be sent to Siberia. You people are like
that idiot professor. Why do you liberal democrats have to appease a
few? Doesn't the majority rule?
You idiots should be ashamed. I will make it a point to
circumnavigate your cesspool of liberals the next time I need to pass
through.
• Ever wonder why a lot of our kids show little to no
respect for the flag,well, you sure show them the way.Bet you’d be happy
to fly a Muslim flag everyday.Thanks for ruining our country.
• ARE YOU GOING TO LET A COMMUNIST COLLEGE PROFESSOR
RUN YOUR TOWN?????----MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION FOR US AMERICANS-NOT THE
COMMUNISTS---HISTORY LESSON COMMUNISM HAS BEEN TRIED AND FAILED
(SOVIET UNION).
• It is a blatant and outright disrespectful
statement to this country and the men and women who have served in the
past and continue to serve presently. They are the ones that will
protect your pathetic, spineless self when the rubber hits the road
since all you have done is welcome terrorists and illegals into my
country.
I am personally deeply offended and will not support your personal
agendas....
I am ashamed of each of you, the select board as a whole and the town
that you are supposed to be assisting in managing; representing the town
as a whole and making decisions in the best interest of the community
is a sham. I am disappointed that you all fail to do the right thing,
time and time again.
You sicken me.
• I read your explanation on your ideas
of displaying the American flags every five years to commemorate 9-11.
As usual it's a ridiculous left wing argument....
I
think for the most part the people of Massachusetts are very unfriendly
and cynical. We visited there once and couldn't wait to leave, just the
traffic showed us what nasty people were behind the wheels of the cars
racing around cutting each other off.
I will be
forwarding this to help get the word out that picturesque little Amherst
is just another socialist city like Berkeley, Ca.
•
APPARENTLY THERE ARE ENOUGH COMMUNISTS WHO SIT ON YOUR COUNCIL WHO FEEL
THAT THE AMERICAN FLAG IS A SYMBOL OF OPPRESSION.... IF YOUR SITTING
COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE OFFENDED BY THE SIGHT OF THE AMERICAN FLAG THAN
MAYBE THEY SHOULD PACK UP THEIR SHIT AND GET THE FUCK OUT OF THIS
COUNTRY. LET THEM GO LIVE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY SO THEY CAN LEARN FIRST
HAND WHAT OPPRESSION REALLY IS.
• Hi!
I would like to fly the American flag everyday at my home. Will I be arrested and fined? Is this true?
Thanks
•
You are a disgrace to your office. Your entire board is a disgrace to
the blood that has been spilled by those who have defended this country.
Of course we should not be surprised as it is once again Massachusetts
and the crazy loons on the left that are the disgrace of the nation.
•
your town is a DISGRACE to this country. If your little ''Mayberry'' is
that ashamed to fly the American Flag on 9/11, a symbol of hope and
courage to millions of people around the world, then I strongly suggest
you get the hell out of MY country. Leave it to a handful of hillbillies
in the bowels of the northeast to make waves by your disrespectful
actions.
• What country are you clowns from?.....,,You
are appearing as clowns, trying to be politically correct. I’m not sure
you are true Americans, especially in a state founded as one of the
original colonies, you should have a clearer understanding of the
symbols of this country and their meaning. Shame…
• If you don't fly the American flag every September the 11th it proves
you are communists, bent on the destruction of the remembrance of that
horrible day and wanting to undermine the destruction of America.
To even think of not flying the flag on September 11 of each year shows each of you are a communist.
You need to be proud of America, the greatest nation on earth and drop your communist principles.
We live in a republic form of democracy (just in case you were not taught that in school) and not in a commy country!
• Dear Assholes of Amherst, MA:
So
you think the American flag is a "sign of oppression." Having lived
through 9-11 in NYC -- I lived in Manhattan, I think there is nothing
quite like a hijacked boeing burning in the worlds tallest office
building with innocent people dying for not being deemed worthy to live
and in that to be murdered any less painfully, since they were not
Muslim.... Further, you may find that my US dollars to be derived from
the oppressive American government. So I will keep mine, and you commie
bastards can go fuck yourselves. I will further encourage all I know
and meet to also boycott your little wonderland of derision, utter
disrespect and to reject you, your town and ingrateful spawn of you
elitist hypocrites.
As we keep telling ourselves: 82 cents a day. That's what we earn. At times like this, we feel overtaxed as well as underpaid.
Let's just get a couple of misconceptions out of the way. Contrary to what has been reported in the press and widely believed (mainly, though not exclusively outside the borders of our quaint hamlet):
1) Amherst does not refuse to fly the American flag. It flies every day from the pole on the Common in front of our Town Hall, as well as from police and fire stations. Here's a picture from this afternoon.
Of late, we have also restored the small holder for the flags of the United States and the Commonwealth on the face of the Town Hall's west stair tower.
2) Amherst also marks the anniversary of the 9-11 jihadi terrorist attacks every year:
a) by lowering all flags on major public buildings to half-staff. Here's a photo of the Police Station from last year.
b) with a ceremony at the central Fire Station.
Last year, on the tenth anniversary, there was a larger official commemoration, involving police and firefighters as well as Town officials, on the Common.
Tomorrow, we solemnly mark the occasion at the Fire Station, as usual.
Those are the facts, and no one here denies them.
So why all the lies and misconceptions?
Although the local press for some reason basically ignored the 9-11 ceremony last year, every debate and deliberation about just how to mark the anniversary does seem to get covered. These are then sometimes picked up and distorted by the outside media. . . and thereby hangs a tale. For 11 years now, the question of 9-11 and flags has been the ugly scab that everyone likes to pick at.
The ugly scab that is never allowed to heal
Those who follow Amherst politics are all too familiar with the sequence of events, but to recap in brief:
Over a decade ago, the veterans' agent purchased a set of commemorative flags and proposed to fly them from downtown utility poles at the end of the summer, after the last of the holidays normally marked in this manner. Because, under our Town Government Act, the Select Board has control over the public ways (streets, in common parlance), the issue came before that august body one fine September evening.
Public comment turned not just on the question at hand, but also on attitudes toward "the flag" in general. Some residents spoke favorably of the flag. Some made some rather unfortunate remarks about their view of America and what the flag stood for. The Select Board, as was its right, voted against the additional display of flags. What was most unfortunate was that all this just happened to occur on the evening of September 10, 2001. In the coming days, the media were filled with stories not just about the terrorist attacks, but also about Amherst's alleged refusal to fly the flag, as such—this, at a time when flags became ubiquitous symbols of community and social solidarity.
In response to the catastrophe, residents put up the flags themselves. In fact, in October, the Select Board unanimously voted to leave the flags up till Veterans' Day and then return to the existing policy. Thereafter, the display became the subject of debate. (summary of flag policy, 2001-3) Fifth-generation Amherst native (as he describes himself) and blogger Larry Kelley has made commemoration of 9-11—in particular, through the flying of these flags—his cause célèbre. In 2007, Town Meeting voted down, by a margin of more than 2:1, his article proposing that the Town eternally mark the anniversary in this manner. In 2008, the Select Board approved a compromise policy of flying the flags only every third year, reflecting the split Town Meeting vote. Undaunted, Mr. Kelley has kept his promise to bring the issue up year after year.
Fast-forward to 2010 and the present Select Board, none of whose members, it should be stressed, was in office at the time of the 2001 controversy. Some of us were satisfied with the existing policy as a compromise reflecting the town's divided political opinion, some members found it illogical, and some found the raising of additional flags an inappropriate symbol of mourning. In the end, the only motion seconded and passed was one mandating the flying of the additional flags only on "milestone" anniversaries, that is, every five years. When Mr. Kelley again asked us to take up the issue last month, we held a sustained discussion, in the course of which it became clear that there was not enough support for a revision. No motion was made, so the existing policy remained in place.
Ironically, this year's calm and brief conversation, which simply allowed the previous policy to stand and did not even result in a debate or a vote, got much more attention than the policy under discussion when it was voted in.
It's hard to say exactly why this non-event became such big news, but it doesn't take much to start an avalanche of this sort once the snowball is rolling.
Full press court
Some people legitimately disagreed with the policy (as is their right), while others clearly misread the articles or read too much into what they saw, simply projecting all of their poison and prejudices onto Amherst, and its residents, and above all, its government (thanks; you have a nice day, too). Frankly, poor judgment and wording on the part of the press played a role in the debacle.
For example, local reporter Scott Merzbach's typically careful and balanced story in the Hampshire Gazette began with the accurate statement, "The anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, will be
marked in Amherst with a solemn ceremony at the central fire station and
the lowering of town flags," before turning to the latest deliberation on the additional flags. The equally careful Diane Lederman of the Springfield Republican offered a similarly nuanced piece.
But a casual reader who looked only at the titles of those pieces (usually the creation of the paper or editor, not the reporter)—"Amherst select board rejects September 11 flag display" and "Amherst officials offer perspectives on decision not to fly American flags on 9/11"—might easily leap to the wrong conclusion. And leap mightily many did.
Conor Berry's report in the Springfield Republicangave them a veritable springboard for just such a leap of logic. Taking the "inverted pyramid" model of journalism to its extreme conclusion, it led with the current deliberations (only fair), but left the explanation that Amherst did indeed commemorate 9-11 until the very last sentence. The in principle accurate but in practice entirely misleading headline was like a red flag to a bull (or a right-winger): "Amherst says 'No' to annual downtown flag display to commemorate 9/11 terrorist attacks on America."
It was downhill from there. A turning point was probably Mr. Kelley's interview on Fox News. Although he calmly presented his passionately held views, the interview revived the subject of the rather rancid comments about the American flag from 2001, which have nothing to with the current controversy or the current Select Board, none of whom held office at that time and none of whom holds those views. And the network, which boasts of its "fair and balanced" coverage, fanned the flames of popular anger with the (as Mr. Kelley, to his credit, acknowledged) misleading title, "Town won't fly American flags on 9/11," and equally manipulative subtitle, "Amherst: flags fly only 6 days of the year."
Further distortions followed, including a hopelessly addled piece of what passes for reporting by Anaridis Rodriguez of WWLP-TV. Although she proudly describes herself as a practitioner of "multi-platform journalism," she only managed, in the space of a very few lines, to make multiple errors, for example, claiming that Town Meeting rather than Select Board had crafted the current flag policy, and above all, quoting Mr. Kelley as impugning the patriotism of the Town Manager and Select Board (which he never did). The story has since been taken down and replaced with a cleaned-up version (though it still contains bizarrely irrelevant emphases in its coverage of the 2010 debate). In both cases, again, an inflammatory headline did neither the Town nor the truth a service: "Amherst won't fly flags this 9/11."
So, let's recap. Look at a sample of those headings:
• "Amherst select board rejects September 11 flag display"
• "Amherst says 'No' to annual downtown flag display to commemorate 9/11 terrorist attacks on America"
• "Amherst officials offer perspectives on decision not to fly American flags on 9/11"
• "Town won't fly American flags on 9/11"
• "Amherst: flags fly only 6 days of the year"
• "Amherst won't fly flags this 9/11"
Is it any wonder that people hate us? that so much of the commentary was hostile, even vicious?
To be sure, Select Board Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe issued a thorough explanation of the Town policy and moreover responded personally to every complaint or query that we received.
"Never mind!"
Surprisingly, perhaps, some of the outraged epistolarians, upon learning the truth, suddenly became more contrite versions of Gilda Radner's famed "Saturday Night Live" character Emily Litella, who would go off on a total rant based upon a complete misunderstanding, and upon being corrected, simply said: "Never mind." Others continued to disagree with the current policy (as is their right), but admitted that they now understood it better and had been hoodwinked by bad reporting or succumbed to sloppy reading.
For example:
Thank you for your kind attention to my “epistle” of the other day. I want to apologize to you and the Select Board, I very obviously “jumped the gun” on reading a report from a “rabble rouser” . Sadly, there are lots of so-called “journalists” who are taking advantage of our present tumultuous time, in order to sway the public’s opinion (and sell newspapers)
and
OMG!!! Stephanie I am so sorry I wrote that letter to you. Word was that you were not flying the American flag. After some research of which I should have done in the first place I now find that not to be the case.
Yep, same instructions I give to my students: do the careful research and reading in the first place—then tell me your opinion.
Clearly, the town remains divided over the issue of the—how many: 25? 26? 28? 29?—commemorative flags (the press can't even agree on the number). Yet I think almost all of us would agree with Larry Kelley's recent statement:
Now this flying-the-25-commemorative-flags-on-9/11-once-every-five-years
story has taken on a life of its own. And the real loser is the town.
