A Sad Day for Milton

No one who cares for our community could have felt anything other than sadness upon opening the Boston Globe this morning and reading Matt Carroll’s story. For those of you who missed it, it can be read here:
http://snipurl.com/1fd4n

The beginning of the story is not new. Last September, at the end of a report by the Co-Chairs of Milton’s “No Place For Hate” committee, Chair of the Board of Selectmen James Mullen attacked one of the Co-Chairs for a letter to the Globe she had written-- two years prior-- disagreeing with Mr. Mullen on an issue of voter registration. Mr. Mullen claimed this political disagreement was an example of “hate”. He equated it with the type of hate being combated by the “No Place for Hate Committee” For more information:

http://miltonview.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html

A few weeks later, two members of the Milton clergy requested a private meeting with the Selectmen, obviously concerned about the impact of the actions by Mr. Mullen and Mr. Shields. A private meeting for this purpose violates Massachusetts law. Therefore, Mr. Mullen announced to the public that a private, “Executive Session” would be held at the end of a regular meeting to discuss “"the deployment of security personnel and devices." This was not the purpose of the session. Mr. Mullen knew this was not the purpose of the session. How does Mr. Mullen square this with his statement before the League of Women Voters last night that he has never lied to the residents of Milton?

What transpired at the meeting, held after Selectman Marion McEttrick reminded the other two Selectmen that it was an illegal meeting and then left, is reported by the Globe. The only disputed point is whether John Shields said the attack on the No Place for Hate member would actually help Mullen and Shields politically in some parts of town. He claims that was not what he said. David Colton, in a memo recap of the meeting written afterward, and Rev. Parisa Parsa both agree that those were the words used.

As bad as all of this is, it gets worse. Also at the private meeting a hate letter sent to the leader of the No Place for Hate committee was shown to Selectmen Mullen and Shields. Part of the letter read: "Your committee is nothing but reverse discrimination against the white people in this town. We totally support Jimmy Mullen and John Shields 100%. Why don't you get out of the kitchen and take the blacks in Milton with you??? "

During the Globe investigation Mullen was asked about the hate mail and responded that people have been known to perpetrate hate crime hoaxes. "People themselves did these things to get sympathy." Mr. Mullen went on to say that he wasn’t accusing the recipient of the hate mail of writing it herself. Of course that raises the question of why he said it.

Mr. Mullen’s response should have been an unqualified condemnation of the letter’s contents and whoever sent it. Instead, he raised the specter of a hate crime hoax. Certain extremist groups in this country have long exaggerated the phenomenon of such hoaxes. They often use it in their ideological wars to support their, er, antiquated views on race in America. For Mr. Mullen to resort to it in an attempt to distance himself from his role in the whole affair is at the very least an example of a deaf ear with respect to real hate in society.

Jokes about Jews and Blacks are no longer tolerated in decent society. But the true bigots are still among us, as the writer of the hate letter proves. They’ve been driven underground, often spewing their venom in anonymity. They must do so because society for some decades now has used one of its most powerful tools against intolerance and prejudice –social ostracism. Society now considers these views to be so dangerous that people of all political stripes treat those expressing them as social outcasts.

Occasionally they surface. Some event triggers a response. Someone in a position of authority says or does something which rightly or wrongly convinces them that they’ve found a kindred spirit. Emboldened, they act from the perceived safety of anonymity. I think this is what Rev. Arthur Wright meant when he urged Mullen and Shields, according to David Colton’s memo, "to take some responsibility for a response to the hate letter since the author had mentioned their names in it and since it followed the exchange they had initiated". And yet sadly, both men seem more concerned about carrying on their petty political antipathies.

Hatred and intolerance of people who are different from us is a devastating menace which, in its public and most dangerous form, we have been able to restrain like the proverbial Genie in a bottle. It is the responsibility of leaders to act decisively and unambiguously whenever they see a revival of this scourge. And when they do not, it is up to the rest of us to do so. Mr. Mullen and Mr. Shields should want to let the writer of the hate letter know that they do not support him 100%.