Part 4: A fair but partial account of the Cambridge Citizens Coalitions’ activities since 2019
For those just joining us today, welcome to Part 4 of this ongoing series. You can find Part 1 here, Part 2 here, and Part 3 here.
Today’s entry cataloguing Cambridge Citizens Coalition’s (CCC) toxic and polarizing impact on Cambridge politics over the past two years includes a recent story, but I believe it will be told here in greater detail than it has been before.
CCC is no stranger to racial insensitivity, or downright racism for that matter. But this summer, the group sank to what many considered a new low when it tried to unilaterally appropriate a cause and rally organized primarily by POC activists in the city.
This incident took place in August of this year, before CCC announced its slate of endorsed City Council candidates in mid-September. That means that Dennis Carlone, Patty Nolan, Nicola Williams, and Dana Bullister all knew about this incident before they accepted CCC’s endorsement, and yet they neither said nor did anything in response, except for Dana who has since denounced CCC’s actions in response to this series.
If we elect CCC’s candidates, we’re guaranteeing that CCC will continue with its campaign of misinformation and its racial and classist divisiveness. CCC must not have their actions rewarded with positive reinforcement.
If you disapprove of what you’re reading about in this series, I implore you to send polite emails to Dennis, Patty, and Nicola and respectfully ask them to condemn CCC’s actions and reject CCC’s endorsement. And don’t vote for them. That is how we’re going to bring about real change in this city.
But without further ado, on to today’s entry.
CCC Tried to Appropriate a POC-led Rally Against Youth Violence — In August 2021, CCC, along with Mothers Out Front and other groups, planned to hold a rally in front of City Hall to support a tree conservation ordinance. Independently, leaders from My Brother’s Keeper (MBK), an organization founded to address persistent opportunity gaps faced by boys and young men of color, along with others representing Cambridge communities directly affected by a recent wave of shootings, organized a separate rally that would take place at the same place and time in order to bring attention and action to the gun violence and murders that their community was gripped by this summer. Many recognized that one of these causes was far more urgent than the other, and encouraged the tree rally and CCC to stand down in favor of the rally calling for action against violence against children. But the tree rally organizers chose to go ahead in spite of public pleading. In fact, not only did CCC not heed calls to gracefully step aside in favor of My Brother’s Keeper and their coalition, CCC president Suzanne Blier dialed up the insensitivity and announced that she had turned the two rallies into one “joint rally”, appropriating MBK’s promotional materials and rally topic for her own.
However, Suzanne made her claim to ownership over My Brother’s Keeper’s rally without first consulting with My Brother’s Keeper, whose leaders immediately asked her to stop.
But CCC did not stop, and while Suzanne later deleted her Facebook post following widespread criticism after the rally, the claim that CCC would be co-sponsoring both rallies remains unaltered on CCC’s Facebook page.
White appropriation of Black labor and organizing is not new, and this is far from the first time we’ve witnessed appalling racial insensitivity from CCC, a group composed of mostly older white homeowners. More than one resident tried to convince Suzanne that equating the issues of hypothetical tree losses with actual murders was inappropriate, tone deaf, and not a little racist, but no one was able to get through to her or divert her from her agenda.
On the day of the rallies, the appalling way that tree rally participants conducted themselves caused friction with even more members of the community who felt that the attempt to equate the importance of trees and violence against primarily Black youths and other children of color was condescending. According to one attendee, while the mother of Xavier Louis-Jacques was speaking, people on site for the tree rally felt compelled to heckle the grieving mother who had recently lost her son to violence. Some even made a point to hold up their tree signs in defiance while she explained what it was like to see her son’s blood on the neighborhood basketball court.
Elizabeth Peters, the grandmother of another victim of this summer’s gun violence, put this whole sad episode into a perspective that was entirely lost on tree rally goers: “You could plant a tree, you can cut down a tree, but I can’t plant my grandson or any other kid in this city and have them come back. That’s the priority right now: our kids.”
A number of tree rally participants were angered rather than chastened by the criticism they received for their racial insensitivity and selfishness before and after the rally, but instead of learning from their mistakes, many lashed out at the POC community. According to a source with firsthand knowledge, many of MBK’s leaders and organizers were harassed by CCC affiliates in-person, over the phone, and through email over the next days and weeks. Many of the messages included insults, racial slurs, and misguided stereotypes.
I have seen a collection of the emails sent by tree rally goers to City Councillors and others following the rally, and they are truly awful. Almost unimaginably so. They are not mine to share, however, and I have only published what I have here after clearing this content with a leader from MBK. There is more to this story, but it is up to others closest to the pain to decide what may come out another day.
But I ask again, why is it that CCC, and one CCC leader in particular, has so often been at the nexus of racially insensitive incidents in Cambridge over the past two years? Why do City Councillors and candidates continue to engage and legitimize this group and make them a part of our civic discourse? Why don’t CCC-endorsed candidates stand up and condemn this kind of behavior by some of Cambridge’s most prominent activists and residents?
Well, one CCC-endorsed City Council candidate finally has. On October 2nd, Dana Bullister, a first time Council candidate, condemned CCC’s actions after learning about them through this ongoing series:
In light of my CCC endorsement, I would like to publicly clarify some things. I figure here is as good a place as any.
As many know, I am a first-time candidate. My background is in data, economics, tech, and evidence-based policy, not politicking. I’m running because I want to help empower diversity and access in our city and to do well by all residents.
I supported and continue to support the Affordable Housing Overlay and other initiatives like the proposed 2072 Mass Ave development. I was surprised to be offered the CCC endorsement, since the organization was created largely in opposition to the AHO and many of its members opposed the 2072 Mass Ave development. As someone new to the political sphere, I did not realize accepting an endorsement meant implying support for all of the group’s past decisions. So I saw no reason not to take it and give them my word that I would see it through the election. It was afterwards that I was more deeply and concretely enlightened to the misinformation surrounding the AHO and other behaviors.
It has never been my intention to legitimate incidents of misinformation or toxicity. That is, in fact, the very opposite of what my campaign hopes to do. In the wake of any confusion, I would like to clarify my views:
- Spreading political or other misinformation is inexcusable.
- Ad hominem attacks in public discussion are not acceptable.
- Homophobic behavior is never appropriate under any circumstances.
- Racism and racist rhetoric are never appropriate under any circumstances.
I have always, every day, strived to live by these values. The idea that an action of mine might be seen to undermine them is egregious and terribly sad.
I promised not to reject this endorsement. It may seem like a small thing to some, but I wish a promise of mine to mean something. But I will do everything else I can to combat misinformation and toxicity. My heart goes out to all the true victims of such behavior. I believe we all need to do everything possible to make our city the welcoming, inclusive, and innovative place we know is possible.
I am deeply grateful to Dana for her strong statement and for her integrity. I believe her when she says that she did not know what CCC was or how it conducts itself. Most people don’t know, and wouldn’t guess given how much legitimacy and credibility CCC receives from a handful of politicians currying favor. I also accept, respect, and even somewhat admire Dana’s choice to criticize CCC while not rejecting their endorsement after she gave them her word that she would not disavow it. Integrity matters, and is something we’ll always need in local government. Her choice isn’t going to make many people happy or earn her many votes, likely as it is to simultaneously anger CCC’s members and fail to satisfy CCC’s critics who think that more is called for.
The other three candidates endorsed by CCC, on the other hand, know better. Dennis Carlone, Patty Nolan, and Nicola Williams were all endorsed by CCC in 2019 and have been witness to the groups’ actions since then. Dennis and Patty even accepted donations from CCC’s PAC. They should be at least as brave as Dana and condemn CCC’s actions and reject CCC’s endorsement, given all three candidates have deeper ties with CCC than Dana did.
We’ll be back soon with Part 5. In fact, though I’d planned this as a four part series, CCC continues to add new offenses every week as it flails in response to this series’ revelations. There are new incidents that have occurred since I published Part 1 that will be incorporated into Part 5, and perhaps more entries as needed.
