THE FOLLOWING LETTER APPEARS IN THE GAZETTE
To the editor:
Words mean something, but sometimes what they mean is the opposite of what is on the page. People are a lot more perceptive than we give them credit for, especially in formal public situations. The “Statement of Inclusivity” (Proposed Resolution #202-2023) is controversial not because of the language of the resolution; it is controversial because people know the history of the Village Board of Trustees.
Croton is not a place that welcomes diverse viewpoints, especially on matters of political dissent. In my entire life I have never before lived in a place that actually changed their law to target a citizen who supported the “wrong” candidate for office. That happened in Croton, and the target was dragged through the process and had to retain legal counsel. The matter was only dropped because it was a rare instance in which the municipality would likely be ordered to pay the target’s legal fees, which could easily exceed six figures. Even then, the Board of Trustees never apologized or even exhibited awareness of their unconstitutional abuse of power.
Another recent incident involved our high school, which had classroom instruction discussing how boys could set a girl’s pubic hair on fire for sexual pleasure. When a few parents and students objected to the “chazarding” lesson plan, they were opposed by local politicians. One of them—the Mayor of Croton-on-Hudson—called the objecting residents “prudish.” The Board of Trustees never put out any Statement of Inclusivity urging understanding of the objecting parents.
What does the Board of Trustees seek to accomplish with this Statement of Inclusivity? Does it mean the village government will do anything differently? Will the Croton police do anything differently? If nothing is going to change, then what is the governmental purpose of passing the resolution?
Technically this is a Board of Trustees resolution which adopts a “Statement of Inclusivity.” There are two “Whereas” clauses. The first one says that the Board is ensuring that people falling into seven specific enumerated categories “may live free from violence, harassment or prejudice.”
I am old enough to remember when Americans aspired to see that all people lived free from violence, harassment and prejudice. Now it is just certain specific categories of people. I wasn’t aware that any people in Croton are being subjected to violence or harassment. If there is violence being done, then what action has the Croton Police Department taken to arrest those responsible? As to harassment, the Penal Law section 240 sets forth the criteria for prosecution of those harassing people in Croton.
The Board’s opposition to prejudice is noble. They should be applauded for saying that prejudice is a bad thing. But unlike violence or harassment, “prejudice” is a subjective concept. I realize that position will shock the village trustees, but it is true. Moreover, using the power of the government to stop prejudice can run up against individual rights.
Let’s say that I don’t like veterans. Let’s say that I don’t like Trump supporters. Am I being prejudiced? Our village government would say that I am not prejudiced but rather a font of enlightened wisdom. Our village government would say that it is in fact the Trump-supporting veteran who is prejudiced and has no place in our village.
If someone says “I don’t like Jews” that is prejudice. But the government cannot stop someone from making that statement. On the other hand, if someone says “I refuse to hire Jewish job applicants” that is prejudice which the government can take action to punish. The punishment is not because of viewpoint but rather because of a specific action taken against a particular person which violates a specific law.
In the actual Statement of Inclusivity, the Village Board says it condemns “acts of unlawful discrimination, violence and intimidation.” Well, duh. Another brave stand by our politicians. I would say we should give them a pat on the back, but they already spend so many hours patting each other on the back that it is a wonder they find time to run the village.
In the Statement, there are nine enumerated categories of covered persons; the Board has added sex and political viewpoint to the categories specified in the “Whereas” paragraph. Reasons for the difference are not clear, but a better question is: Why doesn’t the Board condemn acts of discrimination, violence and intimidation against all persons?
At best, this Resolution is meaningless feel-good virtue-signalling. And I hope that is all that is intended. If there is violence or actionable harassment going on in Croton, then the police and village court should be dealing with that.
If this is something more, then the Board of Trustees should be honest and specify what they intend to do differently. To my knowledge, the only instance of discrimination based on political viewpoint was the un-Constitutional action taken by the Board of Trustees itself. None of the trustees has pointed out an instance of discrimination against anyone, let alone a member of the seven (or nine) enumerated categories of protected persons.
There are residents who believe that the purpose of the resolution is to provide a basis for ticketing or arrest of persons exercising their Constitutional rights by protesting outside the bookstore in the UpperVillage. That is not an unreasonable belief in light of Croton history, but there has been no indication that the Croton PD has violated anyone’s free speech and I highly doubt that is going to change because of a Board of Trustees resolution.
The people protesting and the people counter-protesting are both protected by the same legal standard. Much as the Board of Trustees may disagree with the First Amendment, they cannot abolish it by Resolution.
Personally I think Croton residents should mind their own business. If parents want to take their toddler to see a guy in a dress looking like Anna Nicole turning tricks on Tenth Avenue, that is their right. It may be misogynist man-splaining of what it means to be a woman, but that is how some parents want toteach their kid. And much as I support the right to protest, I am uncomfortable with protesting events for toddlers. It puts parents who want to go to drag queen story hour in the position of either abandoning their principles or taking their toddler through a scrum of screaming adults. There are some people who are stirring the pot, and seem to be hoping for an incident. That is a story for another day. If the Board of Trustees is determined to stir the pot, they should at least start being mindful about the legal and reputational consequences for the Village.
--Paul Steinberg, Croton-on-Hudson
%20(1).jpg)
%20(1).jpg)
%20(1)%20(4).jpg)
%20(1)%20(4).jpg)
