Great Barrington — A letter on the recent Great Barrington Proclamation proposed by a selectboard member has been shelved until discord over its strong language can be worked out.
Selectboard member Leigh Davis, who had put out a statement earlier this month indicating she was going to write the letter, proposed it at Monday’s board meeting. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to the other board members, town manager Mark Pruhenski and board chairman Steve Bannon wrote a separate letter to the editor of the New York Times expressing “dismay” at the town’s name being used in the title of the controversial document. As of Wednesday afternoon, the letter had not yet been published on the Times’ letters page.
See video below of the Great Barrington Selectboard discussing a proposed letter to AIER. Fast forward to 35:30 to see the discussion:
It was a strange and slightly chaotic day for a town still reeling from the proclamation issued by the American Institute for Economic Research, a free-market think tank on Division Street. The AIER held a private forum on the COVID-19 pandemic on Oct. 3 that included epidemiologists, economists and journalists.
The result was the Great Barrington Declaration, a document of more than 500 words that endorses a controversial concept called “focused protection,” better known as “herd immunity,” the virus-fighting strategy that relies on a large portion of a community becoming immune to a disease, thereby making the spread of disease from person to person unlikely. AIER says the declaration was signed by more than 600,000 people, including dozens of medical professionals.
While there are physicians and other medical professionals who have embraced the herd immunity strategy, in the absence of a vaccine, the only way to achieve herd immunity is through infection. Many epidemiologists have cautioned against that strategy. Dr. Anthony Fauci, who advises President Trump on the coronavirus, has said if that strategy went into effect, “The death toll would be enormous.” Fauci has also branded the strategy “ridiculous” and “total nonsense.”
See video below of Dr. Anthony Fauci being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Oct. 15. Fast forward to 4:20 to see his assessment of the Great Barrington Declaration:
After a public uproar on social media, the town subsequently issued a press release rejecting the association of Great Barrington’s name with the declaration, condemning the strategy and insisting it jeopardized the town’s own COVID-19 safety protocols. Pruhenski confirmed that the town hired Business Wire for $1,160 to circulate the release.
Davis came to Monday’s meeting with a strongly worded letter to AIER — and the three scientists who sponsored the declaration — condemning “the despoiling of our town’s good name” and adding that “the notoriety you have courted will deter regular and future visitors who support our economy.”
“While we cannot be certain why your pro-herd immunity agenda was named for our town, it is clear that your decision to do so has damaged our reputation,” Davis wrote. “The callousness of that decision mirrors the callousness at the heart of your philosophy. We denounce any association your manifesto brings to our town as it reveals a reckless disregard for our citizens, who have overwhelmingly expressed to us their opposition to it.”
Board members Ed Abrahams and Bill Cooke, while they agreed with the spirit of the letter and the strategic flaws it cited in the declaration, were nonetheless concerned about the letter and its strong language. Abrahams was critical of the “harshness” of its tone.
“I would not vote in favor of this,” Abrahams said. “I don’t share some of the concerns about it being an open invitation for tourists to come here and fling off their masks.”
Abrahams said he had edited Davis’ letter into what he thought was an acceptable form and offered to share it. Abrahams has compared the use of the town’s name to other agreements named after cities and regions, such as the Paris Accords, which was named after the French capital withouts its residents’ approval. He also raised concerns about a government body objecting to speech in a free society.
Davis disagreed, noting that the Paris Accords weren’t “about putting people’s lives at risk” and “putting the most vulnerable at risk, isolating a portion of our population.”
“I don’t think it really is an assault on our town,” Abrahams replied. “I would rather they didn’t use our name and if there’s anything we can do about it, I would love to do that.”
“It’s strongly worded for a reason is my answer,” Davis said. “But I hope the rest of the board can get on board with this.”
“I’m a little concerned,” added Cooke. “Do we really need to condemn their morality? I’m still in favor of what you’re saying here and I think what’s proposed is ridiculous, but my real concern is that they affiliated their document with Great Barrington.”
Board member Kate Burke thought the tone and language were not of concern to her because it’s unlikely AIER would pay much attention anyway.
“I would be surprised if they even read this at all,” Burke said. “It just seems like they have no regard for us as a community at all.”
Davis said if the board did not want to endorse the letter, she could take it to other parties, such as news media outlets.
“It’s not the same tone I would have written the letter in but you and I are two different people and that’s what makes the world go around,” Bannon told Davis.
Davis’ motion to accept the letter as written failed to get a second. She subsequently agreed to work with Abrahams on a compromise letter and return with it to the board’s meeting on Nov. 2.
This afternoon, Davis sent The Edge the following statement:
As part of the normal collaborative process, I will be working in comments from the board on a revised letter that I hope will reach a unanimous agreement at our next meeting. What’s most important to me is that the board step up and take leadership in addressing residents’ concerns without tiptoeing around the issues of AIER’s exploiting of our town’s name and promotion of a risky premise that puts the health of our citizens at risk.
Asked by The Edge for comment on Davis’ letter, AIER editorial director Jeffrey Tucker gave the same response as the last time we contacted him: “Once again, the statement from the scientists speaks for itself.”
