To the editor:

Town Hall's flagpole fetish fortunately is ending.

In 2020 the Town Council adopted a blatantly discriminatory, unconstitutional policy of allowing private flags on the town flagpole only for organizations that the council and the former town manager annointed. Initially the manager decided which flags to approve or reject without any ordinance or standards -- i.e., in totally arbitrary fashion. When that stance was challenged, the council superficially pivoted 180 degrees, by adopting a window-dressing ordinance that just ratified their longstanding abuses of the flag-flying privilege.  

My letter published on September 14, 2020 explained that "the Town cannot arbitrarily allow a flag to be flown by a particular organization and deny that right to another organization that the Council believes is not as worthy." The manager responded that challengers to the flagpole fiasco were simply "loudmouths."

But the United States Supreme Court has just unanimously struck down Boston's denial of a flag permit where the city had granted one to many other organizations (just like in Barrington). The court ruled that "when the government encourages diverse expression ... the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint". Sound familiar?

That ruling should not have surprised the council. Opposition to Boston's (and therefore Barrington's) discriminatory flag-flying brought together a diverse coalition of respected organizations that included the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, the liberal ACLU, the American Legion and Notre Dame Law School, among others. With concerned parties from Left to Right demonstrating that Barrington likewise was acting illegally, the Council should have abandoned its bunker mentality and stopped wasting Town resources.

Let's hope that the town finally gets the message, and doesn't try to escape the Supreme Court's ruling on the basis that Boston's flagpole is wood but Barrington's is bronze; or that Boston's was "private speech" but Barrington's is "government speech"; or some other, equally specious distinction.

Unless Barrington exits the private flag business entirely, a court, if asked, will order Barrington to fly flags of the Proud Boys, a Confederate battle flag or, worst yet, a swastika flag. How will the good citizens of Barrington feel about seeing such a flag waving proudly in the breeze?

The latest twist in this woeful saga has been the unveiling of a "generic" BLM flag apparently conceived by Councillor Brier in an effort to undercut opposition to the Council's illegal discrimination. But that sleight of hand simply demonstrates that if you ask the wrong question, you get a useless answer. The question is not whether one particular flag in the abstract is "acceptable", but instead whether Barrington can discriminate against other legitimate charitable organizations that do not happen to be "pets" of the current Council members.

Drive around Barrington and you will see a robust exercise by our well-informed and engaged citizens, in the form of lawn signs, flags and otherwise, that identify causes we support.  We don't need or want the heavy hand of Government imposing that choice upon us.

Methinks the Council is presumptuous to claim that it knows the wishes of our 17,000+ residents, as to whose flags should be excluded from the flagpole.  If valid survey results existed in support of that mind-reading, I'm sure they would have surfaced by now.

Apart from its illegality, there are other reasons to end this sorry history. This has been the most divisive, mean-spirited action by the Council in the 45 years I have lived here -- even trumping the Town's 2019 illegal plan, now abandoned, to discriminate against certain homeowners by selectively amending their real estate valuations annually, and then tormenting those who dared to object ("loudmouths" again).

The Council's fomenting of divisiveness prompted a recent letter to the editor from a religious group allied with the Council that falsely accuses those of us who seek to uphold the Constitution as being "white supremacists" for opposing the flying of the BLM flag. WHITE SUPREMACISTS! Are the council members proud that their flag antics predictably spawned such vile vitriol in our community?

When did Barrington voters elect the council to serve as "thought police," approving "flavor of the month" organizations and rejecting those not fortunate enough to be cozy with a current Council member? Barrington residents deserve better from their government than such insulting discrimination.

Why is the Council so afraid of equality?

TO THE COUNCIL: please stick to your knitting; end your gratuitous obsession with private flags; you've done too much harm already. Stop dividing and start healing. Concentrate on your governance responsibilities under the Town charter documents (which contain nothing even remotely authorizing the hopeless flag morass). Get out of the business of picking "winners and losers" of free speech in the public square and creating needless political controversies. Put away your flag publicity gambits, designed to pander for votes. Freedom of speech and equal protection of the law demand no less.

Matt Medeiros

Barrington