Passing inclusion declaration — no brainer

The Charlotte Selectboard should go ahead and endorse the declaration of inclusion. Short of that, the selectboard should at least put it on the ballot and let the voters decide if their town will stand up for inclusion and make a commitment to being a welcoming community.

At the Aug. 12 selectboard meeting, the Rev. Kevin Goldenbogen of Charlotte Congregational Church said he assumed everyone agreed with the declaration and that supporting it is “a no brainer.” To take his thought one step further: Not supporting it is sort of heartless.

The notion that there is some secret message encoded in the declaration’s three sentences is grasping at straws. The words of the declaration all speak to condemning racism and discrimination and welcoming people of all races, religions, nationalities, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status. Passing the inclusion declaration would commit the town to fairness and equal treatment. All of these are values that every individual in town should already espouse and stand up for.

There is nothing in the declaration that would commit the town to economic development of any sort. And lawyers have confirmed, as if they needed to, that there is nothing in the declaration’s 101 words that would bind the town to any sort of financial obligation.

The convictions laid out in the declaration of inclusion echo a foundational declaration in the history of our country — the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

As the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson eloquently argued that all men are created equal and born with basic rights. As Jefferson said, these truths are “self-evident.” Or as Goldenbogen framed it, endorsing these rights is “a no brainer.”

The one thing the town of Charlotte would be committing itself to by approving the declaration of inclusion is being nice.

Voting for the town of Charlotte to be nicer isn’t controversial, and the selectboard should not be reluctant to vote for being nicer.

There is a school of thought that holds that legislative representatives should always vote for what their constituents want. In reality, representatives should usually vote for what their constituents want. But there are exceptions.

Moments come, usually of great historical impact, that call for representatives to vote for what is right instead of what is popular.

In 1920, the passage of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote was deadlocked in the Tennessee state legislature. The youngest legislator, 24-year-old Harry Burn, was a conservative from a conservative district. The debate in Tennessee became known as the War of the Roses because supporters of the amendment wore yellow roses and those opposed wore red roses.

On the day of the crucial vote, Burn came wearing a red rose. It looked as if the measure would fail. But Burn came to the vote also carrying a letter from his mother in his breast pocket. In her letter, his mother admonished him to be “a good boy” and vote for the amendment. He did and the rest, as they say, is history.

History also tells of votes approving the Emancipation Proclamation, Civil Rights or other crucial votes taken when many of the voters represented did not want these motions to pass. Thank goodness that legislators have sometimes cast difficult, possibly even heroic, votes in such moments, voting for what was right but maybe not popular.

Let’s hope our selectboard does as well.