|Debra Smith|
The Ad Hoc Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Committee appointed by the Select Board last spring was to review town policies through the lens of diversity, equity and inclusion, recommend changes and draft a DEI statement for the town. The timeline was short: six months. The report and statement were discussed by the Select Board at its December 5 meeting. Two committee members spoke during public comment, while three members had not endorsed the report and submitted letters of dissent. The board thanked the committee for its work and voted to accept the statement and report as “first steps” in the work to address DEI. “This work is hard and uncomfortable,” stated board member Dustin Ward.
The committee was polarized from its first meeting last spring. Four committee members whose comments in meetings appeared to reflect shared, deeply held religious and political beliefs, quickly nominated and elected two of their group as chair and vice chair, thus managing the process from the outset. The three other members who brought strong backgrounds in diversity, equity and inclusion, were in the minority and were outvoted on motions that would have had the committee: coming to agreement on definitions early on; bringing in speakers with experience to help guide the committee in drafting a DEI statement; and recommending substantive changes to policies to reflect DEI principles and state law.
It isn’t surprising that the DEI statement is rather generic compared to other examples the committee reviewed, and that the report submitted (see p. 7 in agenda packet) to the Select Board contained only a list of motions that passed for technical edits to town policies, such as adding a heading here, revising the font size for readability on a particular policy, striking the WHO (World Health Organization) from the list of recommending organizations regarding Covid. There were no references to the fifty-year-old Maine Human Rights Act that defines groups protected by law, which municipalities are bound to comply with. There were no explanations of discussions of votes taken, and no mention of motions that didn’t pass or of dissenting views.
The chair, Julie Tajonera and vice-chair Adam Lee defended the report during public comment, stating the large number of motions that did pass, and questioning the motives of the three dissenting members who had sent letters explaining their objections to the board.
Tajonera and Lee both stated that the committee had carried out its charge. Tajonera said that most motions passed unanimously, and she cited numbers and percentages: 84% of motions passed: 131 of 159 motions passed unanimously, and 12 motions passed with only one member opposed. 13 motions failed. “Considering the group’s diversity, this was remarkable,” Tajonera added. Five of the failed motions were about the use of gendered language. “Those who did not support removing gendered language said they could compromise and take it on a case by case basis… but there was no attempt to alter motions to try to reach compromise,” she explained. Tajonera summed up the two major differences in perspective between her and three others who comprised the committee’s majority, and the dissenting three members, as differences in terminology, and, understanding DEI and how it fits with our laws and constitution.
Lee found the votes against accepting the report “on the very few things we couldn’t agree with” to be “shocking” and “staggering.” He went on to state that “most of those people promoting a DEI agenda really don’t want true diversity.” Lee claimed that there have been many “slanderous” communications on social media and the NGXchange that “make it sound like me and others on the committee are not in favor of DEI…These writings are deceitful and they take words and phrases out of context to paint us like we’re terrible people.”
The three dissenting committee members, Cam Dufty, Greta Atchinson and Joanna Caouette, submitted letters to the board explaining their reasons for not supporting the report. Atchinson had requested that hers be read aloud during public comment.
Atchinson wrote: “The report does not further the work the Municipal Officers tasked us with. What is being presented is a list of the motions that passed. What (if any) was the framework used in making these motions? There is no analysis, no discussion, and no depth and no accountability in the report submitted to you. There was little attempt to look beyond the words in front of us, no questions at the root of DEI, not even how can the work we are doing in the committee foster a more inclusive and equitable New Gloucester?”
“There is also no inclusion of motions that did not pass. As an example: gendered language is rife throughout the existing policies of the town of New Gloucester, yet in the report, you’ll rarely see any changes to pronouns or other gendered language. Eliminating exclusive language is in the charge of the committee and yet we were unable to recommend removal of gendered pronouns, or using the masculine gender as the default.”
Atchinson continued: “I had hoped that with the composition of the DEI Committee, that the committee would be a space where people of different backgrounds and beliefs could work together for the good of the town and could listen to one another and compromise. This was not the case, instead, it became a stage for airing one’s ideologies, and even ad hominem attacks.”
“From the personal attacks lobbed in meetings, disbelief of the existence of systemic racism, committee members speaking out to disqualify another committee member based on citizenship status, and harmful and misleading views on gender identity given a repeated platform, the committee did not foster an environment of compromise and goodwill.“
Letters from Dufty and Caouette described similar concerns, and more specifics.
Cam Dufty wrote, “As you look through what we submitted, I expect you will have many questions as to how the recommendations reflect DEI; and I, for one, would say the answer is often: they don’t.”
She went on to describe many examples of ways in which committee members views and statements had run counter to the goals of DEI; such as Lee’s saying that nonbinary individuals are “confused,” and need to be led to “guideposts of truth.” Member Rachel Carll had compared non-binary people to “children pretending to be animals on the playground.” Lee also claimed that transgender people are “predators in bathrooms.”
“It is counter to any true DEI to insult and dehumanize the self-identity of anyone in these ways. It is harmful and discriminatory,” Dufty wrote. “Making such statements should not have been part of decision-making practices in our discourse nor in our policies. Even ignoring these basic values of respect and decency, gender identity is a protected class in Maine, and it is not within the role of anyone on a volunteer town committee to take it upon themselves to try to keep residents from realizing the rights afforded to them by that law (which happened several times in the DEI committee, as equal rights amendments were seen as “unnecessary” to make known in policies).”
Joanna Caouette, a certified DEI professional with a focus on Human Resources and Policy Development, said she “was appalled to see how unprepared some members of the committee were and how many held harmful views that are not aligned with the tenets of DEI: some members denied the existence of systemic racism and considered bias training at work a harmful practice… As a Black person it certainly was difficult to hear my experience of systemic racism be denied, downplayed, and to be asked to prove that it was real. As uncomfortable as it was to share a personal encounter with racism in such a public setting, I obliged, in hopes that this would ultimately encourage fellow committee members to inform themselves. Unfortunately, the issue of systemic racism came back several times. … I became concerned with the statements from some members of the committee, many of which were against protected classes and could be considered hate speech. I wondered about the ramifications of having such statements broadcasted publicly and preserved in the archives of the Town of New Gloucester.”
Having heard and read the perspectives of committee members, Select Board member Dustin Ward thanked them for their work, but asked “if there was such unanimity, why is there such division right now?… DEI and the conversations that surround it are difficult. It’s okay to call out harmful rhetoric and discriminatory behavior in conversations, but we must also call in. This committee has shown that we need more education.”
Other board members agreed, voting to accept the report and statement as a “first step” toward making New Gloucester an equitable, inclusive community that invites diversity.
