The irony of the head of a civil rights subcommittee being ousted for speaking out about a civil rights issue is stunning to behold.
But that's exactly what happened to Curtiss Reed Jr. after the conservative majority sitting on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) objected to a commentary about the racial undertones of a political slogan used by Republican candidate Brian Dubie in the recent Vermont gubernatorial election.
The commission recently voted to renew the charter of Vermont State Advisory Committee (SAC), but without Reed as its chairman.
The commentary that got Reed in hot water, “'Pure Vermont' is pure invalidation,” appeared in the Brattleboro Reformer and on VTDigger.org prior to the election. These were the words Reed wrote that apparently led to his ouster:
“Brian Dubie's 'Pure Vermont' brand is another example of cross-cultural blundering. Presumably, the slogan refers to Vermont's agricultural products and environmental legacy. But for many Vermonters, these words denote racial, religious, and cultural oppression.
“Dubie's brand resurrects the horror of the Eugenics Survey and the 1931 passage of An Act for Human Betterment by Voluntary Sterilization. This measure codified the practice of racism, harassment, and the sterilization of the Abenaki people. 'Pure Vermont' raises the specter of Hitler's Aryan Nation and the Khmer Rouge where the purifying agent was genocide.”
The central thesis - that Dubie's campaign slogan amounted to what Reed called “pure invalidation” of the growing non-white population in Vermont - was shared by other political observers around Vermont. Some also felt the slogan brought up echoes of the “Take Back Vermont” campaign during the bitter civil union debate in 2000.
* * *
The 17 members of the Vermont State Advisory Committee - whom Reed described as “a motley crew, if you look at us on paper” - represented a broad range of races, ethnicities, and political views. To the credit of the Vermont panel, all its members stood behind Reed.
In a letter to Gerald Reynolds, then-chair of the USCCR, the members wrote that “it is our view that to deny an individual the right to speak out, without retribution, as a private citizen regarding a matter that he perceived to be harmful to civil rights, seems not only 'wrong' but antithetical to the mission of the Commission.”
Unfortunately, the USCCR didn't want to hear that argument.
By all accounts, most of the commissioners focused on one passage of Reed's commentary, out of context, and not the bigger issue of cultural sensitivity and a perception that a candidate for governor would choose a slogan that might be profoundly hurtful to some of his would-be constituents.
That is a far cry from calling Brian Dubie a Nazi sympathizer.
Even more unbelievable than the commission sacking Reed for speaking out about a civil rights issue was USCCR commissioner Gail Heriot saying that Reed lacked the “temperament” to deal with “complex and difficult issues,” and that she was looking for “someone who actually has some expertise on civil rights.”
As head of the Vermont Partnership for Fairness and Diversity, formerly the ALANA Community Organization, Reed has dealt with many difficult issues with tact and precision - no small task, since much of his job has been to engage the community in uncomfortable conversations.
Even those who do not always see eye-to-eye with Reed have to be dumbfounded at the layers of ignorance in Heriot's comment.
* * *
Brian Dubie, a decent public servant and a good man, ran a campaign that emphasized his family's long family lineage in Vermont. Over and over, in his interviews, debates, and stump speeches, Dubie positioned himself as a more authentic choice because of that lineage.
Whether that tactic was a naked strategy to get votes or simply political tone-deafness, Reed was not off the mark in his comments about invalidation.
When a significant number of newcomers are not caucasian, this type of political marketing veers - we hope inadvertently - into an us-versus-them realm. As Reed wrote, the campaign certainly did not promise to unite Vermont at a challenging time in the state's history. It went out of its way to highlight differences.
On any number of right-wing blogs, commentators ridiculed Reed's interpretation of Dubie's “Pure Vermont.” To them, to take the logical leap from campaign slogan to oppression was beyond the pale and beyond any realm of reason.
But that's what civil rights and diversity advocates like Reed do.
If civil rights were universally acknowledged and afforded to all citizens, if minority populations were treated with parity, there would be no need for the USCCR or its state subcommittees to exist. If the majority of us in this society perceived “Pure Vermont” as an inflammatory and hurtful phrase to potential constituents, politicians with common courtesy wouldn't touch it.
Organizations like the Vermont Partnership exist to engage the community in frustrating, difficult, awkward conversations - effecting positive change by arguing from the very edge of popular public sentiment.
And, at its best, organizations like Reed's can turn difficult, traumatic events - like the unrest surrounding the students calling themselves the Nigger Hanging Redneck Association in 2008 - into a community-wide conversation and an opportunity for forgiveness and redemption for the perpetrators.
You can't have those conversations by mincing words or avoiding an uncomfortable truth. The truth sometimes hurts, and truth tellers are rarely treated well.
And even by that standard, what happened to Reed is outrageous and wrong.