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.

Voters Will Have to Write in Mount Greylock School Committee Candidates

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — Voters in Lanesborough and Williamstown will need to write in candidates' names in the Mount Greylock Regional School Committee race on Nov. 3. 
 
Six residents qualified to be on the ballot for four positions on the seven-person committee that are at stake in the biennial election. 
 
But none of those six names will appear on the ballots voters take into the polling booth. 
 
"Due to a series of clerical and technological issues, ballots for Mount Greylock Regional School District's School Committee for each of Lanesborough and Williamstown will have blank spaces instead of names," current School Committee Chair Julia Bowen wrote Tuesday in an email to local media.
 
Instead of simply filling in an oval next to the candidate of their choice, voters will need to mark that oval *and* write in their preferred candidates' names and addresses on each line next to the marked ovals.
 
As always, voters in both the school district's member towns vote for candidates for all School Committee positions.
 
In the current election cycle, two seats designated for Williamstown residents and two seats designated for Lanesborough residents are on the ballot. 
 
View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories