This afternoon Newton’s Area Councils hosted a debate for all the candidates in the two up coming special elections for Ward 1 and 2 City Council seats. You can see the video here (though it looks like the beginning is missing) I tuned in via Zoom and thought it was a very good debate all around. All five candidates handled themselves well. Moderator Marjorie Arons-Barrons did a great job of keeping it moving along and covering lots of important topics. All in all, it was very well done.
This evening though my wife told me about this post on candidate Bryan Barash’s Facebook page:
“As an LGBTQ+ candidate, I feel compelled to call out something that happened to me at today’s Area Council debate. Several of the organizers of today’s debate demanded, with voices raised, that I remove my rainbow peace flag from my wall. They said it was a political statement which they would not allow.
The Peace Flag Movement seeks to unite the world with a symbol of equity and justice—for every culture, race, spirituality, gender, sexuality, ability, and age. My equality isn’t my politics it’s my basic human right.”
It certainly seems totally out of line to me that the debate organizers would ban the rainbow flag or any other background that a candidate chose for their Zoom debate. Unless there was some clearly articulated ground rules that were communicated ahead of time, it’s hard to imagine where this came from. I wouldn’t have thought a rainbow flag is controversial in any way that would justify the debate organizers making a demand that it be removed.
I am confused. Who is being called out?
I was calling out whoever thought a rainbow flag in the background of a candidate’s Zoom debate was an issue.
So which Debate Organizers objected? This isn’t a trick question. Why do people throw out innuendo?
I would assume Area Councils, enabled and elected pursuant to City Charter, are subject to the limitations of the First Amendment.
@claire – I don’t know. I don’t see any innuendo though. The candidate is clearly saying what happened.
I wonder if Facebook is the appropriate place to post about this.
In the past, all the candidates would have been meeting in one location. I can understand the logic of a rule that nothing political should be on the walls in that location, because it might suggest organizers’ preferences.
Now that each candidate is in their own home, I’d think it would be clear that backdrops represented the individual candidates’ own views. Since they are running for political office, information on candidates’ political leanings is useful information for voters and doesn’t reflect on the organizers at all, so I see no reason why there should be any objections to that.
The area councilors should apologize or be removed.
Zilles and teachers Union announced last night they are endorsing Barash and Madeline. I know Zilles lives in town as I talk to him occasionally but approx 90% of NPS emoloyees do not live in Newton. I was undecided on who to vote for but since Zilles says go with aforementioned candidates I just might. Two weeks to decide. Who have the other unions in the city backed?
This sounds like an honest misunderstanding. (those still exist by the way) While the rainbow flag might be accepted as uncontroversial by the overwhelming majority of people – probably 99% of Newton – it still is a political statement. So it’s understandable if the debate organizers don’t allow any flags or similar, it opens the door to every candidate decorating their backgrounds to the point of resembling a professional racecar. The candidate in question, as many people know, almost always has that flag in his background so I don’t think he was trying to create any sort of specific statement or controversy during this debate. Could this be chalked up to everyone simply not thinking through the logistics of having a virtual debate with the camera in an uncontrolled space?
Maybe the candidate and the organizers could talk and issue a joint statement of resolution?
When debates are held in person, candidates often wear buttons indicating various affiliations and issues. No one would think of objecting to that use of someone’s “personal property.” Posting something on the wall is comparable, as they are broadcasting from their own homes.
But before we jump to removal of area councilors, why not, as Adam B., suggests, just have a calm conversation among the participants and issue a joint statement–but not only from the organizers and Bryan, but all the candidates. It should be possible–and a nice object lesson in civil discourse–for all these well-meaning folks to reach an agreement on this.
If you’re going to restrict banners then you should also not allow books on a bookshelf where the titles/authors are clearly legible.
Of course you shouldn’t regulate either one. The more we can learn about a candidate, not just from what they say, but how the choose to present themselves, the better. (especially in these days when we can’t meet candidates in person)
They must have these rules written down and communicated
somewhere. The organizers should have asked each presenter for sign off (agreeing to rules)
If this was not communicated then its a “mix up” with no controversy. Curious if even the American flag would be allowed.
I hope the organizers can see the error of their ways and issue an apology. A rainbow/peace flag is about as “political” in this time and place as an American flag, which I am sure would have been allowed with enthusiasm.
I agree with @Meredith Warshaw that the rules should be different when the candidates are broadcasting from their own homes. Displaying a political flag in one’s home backdrop — rainbow, #BLM, Italian, Blue Lives Matter, Don’t Tread on Me, Anarchist, Confederate, Qanon — is instructive and should be allowed. I worry far more about candidates who obscure their agendas, as we had in a recent School Committee race.
It’s easy to see how in the pressurized moment of the debate this issue could get amplified. Other candidates may have thought it was unfair that the were “following the rules” (however vague they may have been, and not drafted with COVID era Zoom debates in mind) and didn’t have the chance to hang their own banners. The organizers need to maintain control of the virtual venue and try to be impartial. I also empathize with the candidate in question being told to rearrange his personal space at the last minute, particularly about an item that’s so meaningful, I wouldn’t like being told that either, especially not when I’m mentally trying to focus on winning a debate.
If you take as givens (i) the organizers are not bigots, and (ii) the candidate above has an honest complaint from his perspective…then the parties should hopefully be able to resolve.
What’s the difference between displaying a banner and making verbal statements about the same issues? And isn’t running for public office in itself a political statement?
@Bugek – Here’s the only pertinent ‘rule’ from the candidate’s invitation:
“We ask that you do not display any election materials, signs, and buttons.
(We will use Zoom name tags for each of the candidates.)”
Adam B I do like your suggestion of candidates and organizers sorting this out amongst themeselves and issuing a statement. That will also help clarify things for what is/isn’t considered appropriate for future Zoom based debates.
Here are more details from WGBH
From WGBH Article
“Tarik Lucas, another at-large candidate for Ward 2, had something hanging in the background that looked like an American flag and was asked to remove it, Lipshutz said. Requiring Barash to remove his flag was simply a matter of procedure, Lipshutz said.
“He was not singled out in any way,” she said. “This was a procedure given to all the candidates; a set of rules.”
Claire,
Based on the rules provided by Jerry, Tarik should not have been asked to remove his American flag either.
@Bugek, agreed. To summarize, the organizers misread their own policy to try to force the candidates to take down American and gay-rights flags. A comically bad decision.
Take down that American flag. This is an election debate.
I agree that it was no doubt good faith enforcement of uniform rules …. but a very misguided rule, not agreed ahead of time and sprung on candidates when they arrived for the debate.
That said, I do want to remind everyone that the debate itself was very well run, informative, and civil. If you missed it you can see it here.
The 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution protect the free speech rights of citizens from interference by federal, state and local government. The Newton Area Councils are part of City government, and were therefore prohibited from abridging free speech rights of candidates. While it is true that flags or symbols would not be hanging in the background during an in-person debate in a television studio or auditorium, it is also true that candidates cannot be prevented from wearing symbols, other than campaign swag (which is regulated by election and campaign finance laws), which represent their beliefs.
I have been in many debates, and not once have I seen a candidate asked to remove an American flag lapel pin, or any other lapel pin other than a campaign button. Nor have I ever seen a candidate asked to remove or conceal a cross, crucifix or Star of David. Or a peace sign. Or a pink triangle. Or any color ribbon.
The Newton Area Councils screwed up, and should apologize to Bryan Barash and any other candidate that they asked to remove non-campaign materials from their background. In the alternative, they could have required that every candidate use the same, plain background filter so that all were treated equally. But, as a governmental body, the Area Councils have to live up to a higher standard when it comes to protecting free speech rights.
Be better, Newton Area Councils.
Similar to what Adam said, sadly flags, including those that may have genuinely positive meanings, have become political symbols. I honestly agree with the LWV in asking that it be removed. Lets hear the candidates speak of their beliefs. I’m sure someone would have found it offensive to see a firefighter or police flag, or even the American flag, in the background of one of the candidates. Sadly, the pride flag is falling into this same category. Best set rules that no flag or political symbol, for whatever reason, be shown and let those running speak for themselves.
But…but…but. If you watch the video you’ll see:
1. Barash is displaying an American flag! Explain that contradiction please Sallee!
2. Lucas was allowed to display books on his bookshelf with clearly readable tiltes/authors. If banners cross a line, then so should book titles which also can convey political whatever it is the area councils censors didn’t want to display.
3. And what about David Miley displaying that child digging for worms or whatever that was, was that some subluminal New Green Deal messaging. Sallee?
Of course the answer is none of these backgrounds should have been restricted. And Ted is right, the area councils as an elected body should certainly not be imposing these restrictions.
(Did you guys miss me?)
Bugek, I am not saying that it was right, just agreeing that Barash wasn’t singled out. This is all a distraction
Sorry, area councils, NOT the LWV.
Agree with Ted. The NACs should have allowed all flags. The only thing they should have regulated was campaign literature.
Let’s remember they are all volunteers at the NACs, and mistakes happen. It would be great if the NACs could simply acknowledge it was a mistake to ask for any flag to be removed, and say that next time they run a debate it won’t be an issue. Although honestly the next time hopefully it will be in a studio, there will be no flags except flag pins, which as Ted points out no one ever objects to in any debate.
I was part of the planning committee for this debate. For the record I was just along for the ride or maybe spiritual guidance because the other participants had far more experience putting these events together than I ever will.
First the Flags: One thing I can affirm is that everyone on our planning committee was sensitive to even the appearance of bias or manipulation for or against any of the candidates. We knew that the Area Councils as well as the candidates were being judged on how this all came off. The fact that the planning committee also asked Tarik to remove his flag is evidence enough for me that all of us bent over backward to give equal treatment to all candidates. I didn’t even notice Bryan’s peace flag and doubt that I would have paid much attention to Tarik’s American flag either. What did catch and hold my attention was David’s background picture with a young girl framed by a meandering river and beautiful autumn foliage. I kept wondering if that was David’s daughter, but more subtly I began to see David and that picture quite positively as being one and the same. I’m working overtime for Tarik and John Oliver, but a tip of the hat to David for harmoniously blending a positive message with a positive presentation.
To conclude, I would take the issue of the Bryan’s peace symbol more seriously if there were complaints about how the debate itself was structured, organized and presented. I’ve heard none and suspect that there won’t be any that are serious, particularly with Marjorie-Arons Barrons framing and presenting the questions. We wouldn’t have asked Marjorie to moderate if we were trying to manipulate anything because she simply wouldn’t have tolerated such constraints.
It’s a zoom call from your home; Express yourself however you want. We, the voters, should want to learn as much as we can about the candidates. Whether we agree or are offended with the sentiments represented by flags, pins, or magical underwear, so be it. We are better informed.
What small town, power tripping BS.
OK, which one had the “magical underwear”? Definitely an unfair advantage there.
This statement completely misses the point. I had a rainbow/Black Lives Matter sign on my front door until recently, and I don’t identify as LGBTQ+ or Black. Candidates should be able to communicate their values.
Gail,
… but then you get into a situation where voters may judge a candidate on how ‘cool’ their background is
As superficial as that sounds, all candidates should be on a level playing field
Bugek,
It’s not the place of elected officials (in this case, area councilors) to decide what criteria voters should use when choosing candidates. If I want to vote for someone because I like that she has sports trophies or cool memorabilia or a great book on her bookcase, that’s my prerogative.
Why is it that the three candidates and the organizers can’t agree on a joint statement that would settle this whole misunderstanding. Isn’t the ability to do THAT what we would like from our elected representatives?
@Paul: because the organizers were wrong (for reasons Ted, Terry, Gail and others have articulated) and are the only ones who need to issue a statement.
Sallee’s comments in the WGBH interview were both egregious and not true.
Gail, that was the best post in a while. You win the day.
Greg, the art of statesmanship includes the ability to join with people you believe to have been wrong to present a lesson in civics for everybody. Not seeing that yet here.
Please allow me to be the tin foil hat
wearer here. The debate rules were clear to all candidates. Bryan Barash is no dummy, and he isn’t new to politics. Their debate. Their rules.
I think this kerfuffle played out exactly as it may have been intended to. Ignore rules, hang social statement flag, then debate rules with debate hosters.
Cue indignant, put upon candidate and V14 posters, then voila…
suddenly the debate isn’t about the debate, it’s about denying someone’s
identity. Who would ever support something like that? Why sign up for a debate that has rules you have no intention of following? To create a stir, attract attention or to distract/deflect from the debate.I’m probably way way off the mark here, but its so deliciously cynical and clever idea that only a good political strategist would think of it.
@Paul Green Ding Ding Ding!!!!
But Lucas amd Micley are smart also and haven’t been pulled into the drama
Paul, I would agree with you if the NACs were private nonprofit corporations. They are not. They are the guv’mint. That is why they do not get to set the rules on freedom of speech and expression. They should get out of the debate game.
Ted, with which Paul are you disagreeing? I trust it’s not me, as I wasn’t questioning your legal conclusions.
I will say that I think it would be a shame if the NACs stopped holding debates because of all of this. These two debates were really well done.
I attended the Newton Highlands Area Council meeting tonight. The debates recap was presented as “successful” and the person giving the summary noted “that a candidate had an issue with some rules.” I think it is a ginormous conflict of interest that government organizations – the area councils, leadership of which publicly supports candidates, tries to pull off a fair and impartial debate. This is truly impossible and transparent.
If you mean for everyone to have blank backgrounds you could have required the same blank backgrounds, but you didn’t.
It was an unfair rule to begin with and then it was even not applied according to your own rules…
I agree w/ Tedd Hess-Mann, political debates is not the arena for area councils.