EDITOR’S NOTE: The Gazette received the following responses to coverage of tweets by Tara Ganguly, who was confirmed by the City Council to serve on Northampton’s Human Rights Commission but after a Gazette article on the tweets declined the post.
After I finished reading Amanda Drane’s front page article regarding one of Northampton’s newest Human Rights Commission appointees, I said “Good grief.” No I didn’t. I am maturely self-censoring here; something Tara Ganguly appears to be incapable of doing.
A quick review of her Twitter account revealed a person I would best describe as a self-entitled individual who had already decided that, boo-hoo, poor me I am being picked on, I want nothing to do with the commission now.
Wednesday’s subsequent article served as a further indictment of Ms. Ganguly’s immature attitude towards many of her fellow citizens. In my opinion, you post it, you own it. For her to say that she doesn’t “believe the people in the community are going to be able look past a sensationalist, cherry-picked story …” is condescending at best.
I applaud the Gazette for running the articles and I applaud Ms. Drane’s journalistic abilities. And the kicker was, of course, Ms. Ganguly’s final instruction to Ms. Drane, which I shall not quote here. Yes, definitely someone we don’t want on a city-sponsored commission.
S. B. Boucher
Florence
Regardless of whether you believe Tara Ganguly was “cut off at the knees” by the Gazette, as she does, or think she shot herself in the foot, posting on Twitter is a choice, Tourette’s is not. Bill Dwight’s comment that venting on social media “allows Tourette’s moments when we speak in unfiltered ways” does a disservice to those who face the challenge of living with Tourette’s.
Deb Jacobs
Leeds
I concur with your editorial about the disturbing elements regarding the nominated candidate for Northampton’s Human Rights Commission, Tara Ganguly. Chairwoman Natalia Muñoz and Ganguly seem ridiculous on top of the de-humanizing words from Ganguly’s tweets when they over-simplify the responses as being from “white progressives” or the “white men who run the Gazette.”
What one puts out on social media is public. These one-way missives are the modern day version of the person with the megaphone who put out his or her truth to anyone who would listen within earshot. This style is rife with arrogance and self-reverence How absurd that Ganguly sees herself as a victim, and that Muñoz blames white men. What happened to the concept of regret?
Being half-Indian does not give Ganguly a free pass. And it is perverse to blame “white men” for standing up against racist and sexist ideas. And the mayor is simply ignoring it all? There is regret to go around here.
Ms. Ganguly, you have an ally in Donald Trump. He, too, says that his vitriol is taken out of context when he is just being “sarcastic.” What you do and say in the privacy of your home is your business. The words you put out to the universe, on the other hand, are strong indicators that you do not have the temperament or compassionate ideals to serve on anything that resembles a human rights commission. How is this a debate?
Technology is amazing in many ways; however, the combination of social media and reality TV have led to this snarky and toxic era of our society. When you are in a room with people, you are accountable for your actions in the moment. When you vomit onto the internet, there is a propensity to be thoughtless about effect. I do not know what is in Ganguly’s heart, but it sure would be healing for her and for those of us who were exposed to this debacle to hear from her about some lessons learned – with humility and an open spirit.
J.M. Sorrell
Haydenville
I followed the stories about Human Rights Commission appointee Tara Ganguly with great interest as they raised important and relevant questions: How should social media posts be considered in the context of public positions? Should social media “screening” be a standard part of the vetting process? I was disturbed and disappointed to see these conversations derailed by the interjection of destructive identity politics by Chairwoman Natalia Muñoz. Her references the race and gender of the “white men” running the Gazette and Ms. Ganguly’s “half-Indian” heritage as the real problems. Racism and misogyny are huge issues in our society, and I cover them on my national TV and radio program, and I consider it a great responsibility not to accuse of racism and misogyny where I don’t actually have evidence for those phenomena. The race and gender of the men running the Gazette, and the “half-Indian” heritage of Ms. Ganguly are not in and of themselves evidence of any racial or gender bias.
I encourage and welcome a full and specific explanation from Ms. Muñoz as to how the race and gender of the individuals involved was a factor in the Gazette’s reporting. I hope that my perceived identity – in spite of me being an immigrant from Argentina who came to the U.S. speaking no English – will not be used in the same style to discredit my opinion at its face. Using these terms in the absence of real evidence is not only disrespectful to actual victims of discrimination, but can also predispose others to disregard future claims in the style of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”
David Pakman
Northampton
A couple of thoughts regarding the recent controversy at the Human Rights Commission in its selection of committee members. Here’s a pretend scenario. Several people are being considered as members of the committee in a “blind” search, meaning you don’t know in advance the sex, race, profession or political leanings of the applicants. The only thing you are looking at is their Twitter feed. Based on that, I believe the present members of the committee would think long and hard on someone who is venting on Twitter.
Would you want that person venting about some possible issues that arise as a member of the commission? And why would the current Human Rights Commission chairwoman make a blanket generalization about the “white guys at the Gazette?” That sounds like a carelessly made, biased statement to me!
Ellen Augarten
Northampton
I was relieved to see that Tara Ganguly had resigned from the Human Rights Commission in Northampton, since I thought her Twitter comments were indefensible, especially for someone who was supposed to defend the rights of others.
However, your article Thursday, “Panel member steps off,” raises other issues about standards of community discourse and “political correctness.”
Unlike Commission Chairwoman Natalia Muñoz, I did not find the Gazette at fault nor did I find Ms. Ganguly’s alleged “edgy humor” in her tweets funny or respecting of other people. I found them offensive and inhumane and resent Munoz’s Trumpian sentiment that when one objects to the verbal abuse of others, even anonymous others, that one is committing the social crime of “political correctness.” Astonishingly, Commissioner Muñoz uses this very defense of Ms. Ganguly.
When Donald Trump and his followers sneer at “political correctness,” I see them undermining respectful public address. We should not be abusing each other with racial/ethnic, gender and class slurs. It denigrates the speaker and debases public discourse.
I do not think that we can have public dialogue on any topic if we are free to say anything about anyone at anytime.
One might defend Ms. Ganguly by saying her privacy was violated by reporter Amanda Drane and the Gazette, but I think the nature of Twitter is that it is a public forum. Ms. Ganguly was speaking in public, not communicating privately with friends, so the rules of discourse are different. And, yes, we have all had those moments, but hopefully we have also had friends who would listen and help us regain emotional balance and perspective.
I think this is a new problem with social media and with people who now express themselves exclusively through various forms of social media. They seem to conduct themselves with minimal restraint or for any appreciation of how words can wound others.
Our political discourse only adds to the problem. Our college campuses are now inflamed by intemperate, rude and hostile comments that students anonymously direct toward one another through various social media platforms.
This sounds like a good topic for the Human Relations Commission forum: in a democracy today, what constitutes a “public forum” and what are the social conventions under which we should express ourselves in ways that are respectful of others? The rules have clearly changed.
Susan J. Tracy
Amherst