Could Somerville mayoral hopeful Willie Burnley fairly represent Zionist constituents?
Courtesy David Lichter
Burnley told me he left not to insult Engel but to protect the protesters after council chair Judy Pineda Neufeld threatened to have police remove them if they continued chanting. 'I stood up to use my presence as a city councilor to potentially protect many residents who were expressing their political beliefs,' Burnley said. (According to
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Advertisement
To Engel, Burnley's actions epitomized his approach. 'My experience with him has been he wants to pander to his people and doesn't necessarily want to work with anybody who disagrees with him,' Engel said in an interview.
Burnley is running for Somerville mayor against incumbent Mayor Katjana Ballantyne and Councilor Jake Wilson in the Sept. 16 preliminary election.
Burnley's been compared to New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. Both are democratic socialists. Both are raising fears among many Jewish, Zionist constituents who worry that amid
Advertisement
In a recent
Burnley said he would implement the ballot question if it passes.
Many Jews see the measure as discriminatory against Israel and local businesses with Israeli ties. How broadly it applies would depend on interpretation, but there are concrete impacts. For example, divestment supporters
Two photographs of Burnley at pro-Palestinian protests amplify some voters' fears. In one, which Burnley posted on social media, Burnley poses at a Washington, D.C., rally while in the background, someone holds a sign with a Nazi swastika flag next to an Israeli flag. In another, at a 2024 Tufts University encampment, Burnley poses in front of posters reading 'Glory to the martyrs,' 'Zionist tactics were used to kill Eric Garner, George Floyd … ' and other victims of police violence, and a picture of American and Israeli flags on fire.
Advertisement
Burnley has a right to protest. But those signs are offensive.
A swastika represents the Nazi regime that killed 6 million Jews and millions of others. 'Glory to the martyrs' extols political violence, since Islamist terrorist groups
Burnley said he didn't create the artwork or know who was holding the swastika sign. He removed the swastika photo from his social media last year, after some people asked him to. But he wouldn't disavow the sentiments.
Because some US police officers have
He suggested 'martyrs' could refer to 'all people murdered by Israeli genocide,' including children. Burnley said the swastika sign was a 'comparison about two governments' actions, two governments that many … view to have committed a genocide.' (The genocide accusation itself is
Anti-Zionism isn't always antisemitism, and Burnley says he's
I spoke to nearly a dozen Jewish Somerville residents, including some acquaintances from my time living in the area. Many moved there seeking a liberal, diverse, welcoming community. Now, they feel unwelcome and ostracized.
Advertisement
Brian Sokol, a Somerville human rights commissioner speaking for himself, said his pro-Israel lawn sign
After the Somerville City Council
Group members told me they often see anti-Israel graffiti in public spaces. Some expressed discomfort with protests that block access to public places. In a letter to the state's antisemitism commission, Shalom Somerville said an Israeli child had his locker vandalized with pro-Palestinian graffiti his first day at a Somerville public school. Teachers posted pro-Palestinian signs in classrooms, according to Shalom Somerville and a photograph one member emailed me.
'I don't want to live in a community where I have to worry if my mayor or city council will all of a sudden say if you're Israeli, you're not welcome here, or if you work for an Israeli company, you're not welcome here,' resident Bruce Kaplan told me.
Elana Bloomfield, a Somerville physician, told me she feels like almost every public city event becomes a platform for pro-Palestinian signs and rallies, and she worries about electing a mayor who encourages that activism. 'It's really hard to live like that. It's not a comfortable environment,' she said.
Advertisement
I asked Burnley if he could represent Zionist constituents. Burnley said he has neighbors with different political views, and Zionist constituents 'might not always agree with my analysis, my decisions, my approach, but they will always know where I stand.'
Somerville residents need to know their mayor will clean graffiti; enforce time, place, and manner restrictions on protests; take harassment seriously; and ensure events are welcoming to all residents, including Jews, Zionists, and Israelis. Voters must decide if they believe Burnley can.
Shira Schoenberg can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
34 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: Op-ed writer gives Hamas a pass for what's happening in Gaza
I read with great interest Seth Lavin's opinion piece 'What Israel is doing is harming Jews' (Aug. 6). As a Jew, I care very much about Israel and what happens to the Jewish people around the world. The writer is correct in that Israel must change course immediately and do much more to enable Palestinians in Gaza to eat. That's a basic human right. But he misses the larger point. Lavin mentions Israel more than 25 times in his op-ed, almost always to accuse and to blame. But he mentions Hamas only once. In doing so, he fails to mention the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre that provoked Israel's war against Hamas. And he fails to mention how Hamas continues even today to hold hostage up to 20 innocent people. I acknowledge that Israel bears some responsibility for the Gazans' current plight, while Hamas bears much more. But Lavin gives Hamas a complete pass here. That's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who faced corruption charges before Hamas' despicable 2023 hostage-taking attack, said his objectives include defeating Hamas, releasing the remaining hostages and ensuring Gaza never again threatens Israel. His retaliation has killed more than 60,000 people and continues killing through starving Palestinians, bombing hospitals and reducing Gaza to rubble. This is no longer an eye for an eye. It is the whole body and soul. Netanyahu is creating more terrorists, not eliminating op-ed by Seth Lavin is well meaning but misguided. Anti-Israel protests and celebrations of the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre by Hamas started before Israel even got its pants on. Although Oct. 7 was the most heinous of Hamas' terror attacks, it was far from the first. Hamas started wars against Israel in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2021. Each time, Israel's military weakened Hamas' terror capacities, so-called 'mowing the lawn,' and each time Hamas used a ceasefire to regroup, arm itself to the teeth and fortify Gaza with hundreds of miles of tunnels, while planning its Oct. 7 massacre for years. Israel's leaders finally realized that half measures only kick the terror can down the road. Lavin needs to more closely examine the reason why this war gets a million times more attention than all the other wars in progress today. It's not because Israel is doing anything worse to Gazans than combatants in other wars are doing to each other. Rather, it is because Israel is the only Jewish state. People don't hate Jews because of Israel — they hate Israel because they hate Jews. Thus, Israel has two choices: Repeat the same mistakes from prior wars against Hamas, ensuring future massacres and wars, or do what it has to do and deal with public opinion later. It's better to be an unpopular live Jew than a popular dead did the war between Hamas and Israel start? Yes, it is unconscionable that the Palestinian people are being killed and their land destroyed. But what right did Hamas have to gun down innocent people with no weapons who just wanted to enjoy a concert?The Democratic National Committee must change its focus from texting us 15 to 20 times a day for donations and signatures and focus on organizing and scheduling a day of mourning. Mourning for the inhuman deportation of immigrants, the pardoning of the Jan. 6 rioters, the firing of essential government employees, the rise of the anti-vaxxers, the support of coal and gas, the defunding of public television and universities — we could go on and on. Millions of Americans are ashamed of our country and our president but are either cowed or silent about stopping the eroding of our democracy. We need help from the DNC and our elected Democrats. Organize a march like the Million Mom March of 2000, the 1963 March on Washington and the Million Man March of 1995, allowing us to demonstrate our opposition to the current government and show the world that there are decent voices in our country and hope for the future.I hope that one day the Tribune and its editorial staff will fairly acknowledge the accomplishments of the Donald Trump administration, rather than continuing their relentless criticism. Under Trump, the southern border has become more secure than ever, significantly curbing illegal immigration and reducing the flow of illegal drugs. Inflation and energy prices are under control. On the global stage, Trump has curtailed escalating conflict in the Far East and slowed Iran's nuclear ambitions. These are not minor achievements; they are substantial successes that deserve recognition, especially when contrasted with the policies and outcomes of the Joe Biden there anyone else out there who wants to be like Howard Beale in the movie 'Network' and go to a window to shout, 'I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' What am I not taking anymore: giving a convicted sex trafficker and child abuser a more cushy prison to live in; cutting millions of dollars from vaccine and other scientific research by a nonmedical person; cutting millions from food pantries while spending millions on renovating a White House ballroom; allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to grab up people to take them to God's knows where; and so much more. I am ready to go to my window. How about you?I was both astounded and appalled to learn that 500 of food, earmarked for starving children and their families by the U.S. Agency for International Development, has been incinerated, reportedly due to the fact the biscuits were about to expire. I understand that federal workers had warned the administration for months that these biscuits would go to waste if not sent to the people for whom they were earmarked. In addition, warnings were provided to the administration of the ongoing effects of malnutrition, malaria and a possible polio outbreak due to the elimination of USAID. Marco Rubio was the acting administrator of USAID during this time. The fact that the potentially lifesaving food was destroyed appears to be due to incompetence, a lack of prioritization or worst of all — cruelty. The administration reportedly also has plans to incinerate potentially lifesaving contraceptives instead of delivering them to impoverished women overseas. While acknowledging that people have different beliefs, wasting vital resources that had already been purchased and were awaiting distribution, makes no sense and has caused unnecessary suffering to some of the most vulnerable people in our world. I would hope the people of the USA do not turn a blind eye to these horrific decisions by our government.
Los Angeles Times
34 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
‘Uncharted territory': Newsom and UC go to battle against Trump's UCLA sanctions
Two weeks ago, UCLA was optimistic. For months, it had successfully avoided clashes with President Trump as university leaders declined to publicly criticize him by name over his battle to remake American higher education, first raging against several Ivy League schools. The morning of July 29, UCLA announced it had settled a federal lawsuit with students who accused it of discrimination, paying more than $2 million to Jewish civil rights groups and millions more in legal fees. University leaders hailed the action as 'real progress' to combat antisemitism. Privately, they pointed the Trump administration to the agreement, eager to convince federal officials they had made good with Jewish communities. The high lasted just a few hours — and touched off an extraordinary 14 days of rapid-fire accusations, investigative findings and a massive federal freeze of UCLA's research funding. It culminated Friday afternoon when Gov. Gavin Newsom unleashed furious comments in response to a federal demand that UC pay a $1-billion fine over a host of allegations against UCLA: antisemitism on campus, illegal use of race in admissions and policies that allow transgender athletes to compete according to their gender identity. 'He has threatened us through extortion with a billion-dollar fine, unless we do his bidding,' Newsom said, adding that California would sue. 'We will not be complicit in this kind of attack on academic freedom on this extraordinary public institution.' Spokespeople for the Justice Department did not respond Sunday to a question about Newsom's comments and legal threat. The escalating events lead up to decisive moments this week, starting with an emergency meeting of the UC Board of Regents on Monday afternoon. On Tuesday, a federal court hearing will unfold in a preexisting case that could result in some — but not all — UC grants being restored. The developments bring the fight over America's higher education institutions — which has roiled elite private East Coast universities for months — to the nation's most powerful and lauded public university system. 'We are in uncharted territory,' said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, which represents more than 1,700 colleges and universities. 'We have seen the government come after Columbia, Brown, Harvard and others. But this, now, is a test. Will UCLA be the defender of public universities? Will it strike a deal? And what role will money — taxpayer money — play?' California is facing off against a president who has been relentless in his aims to rein in what he calls 'Marxist' universities that in his view are bastions of liberalism that have done too little to protect Jewish students, have been too soft on pro-Palestinian protests, and rely too heavily on international student dollars. His administration has accused a host of elite colleges nationwide — Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Stanford and three UC campuses — of illegally considering race in admissions and programming to the detriment of white and Asian American students. In response to pro-Palestinian protests, Trump has said colleges have enabled 'jihadists,' saying demonstrators are 'pro-Hamas' terrorists. 'UCLA is not a random selection,' Mitchell said. 'The administration has had issues with California, with the governor, for some time. This is part of a larger battle between the administration and the state of California.' Since July 30, when UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk began receiving notices from the federal government announcing grant suspensions — totaling nearly half a billion dollars — UCLA leaders have scrambled to assess the effect on what they describe as life-saving, groundbreaking research. Deans and departments have been told to be prepared for layoffs if the cuts last. Science and medical professors, whose research labs would not exist without federal funding, have solicited private donations. Doctoral and postdoctoral students, whose tuition and living expenses are often funded by grants in exchange for lab work, are rushing to speed up their graduation plans before stipends become depleted. 'The federal government claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons. This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination,' Frenk said about the messages from the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health and Department of Energy. UC as a system and UCLA in particular have been under multiple federal investigations for months: The ongoing investigations were launched by the Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services departments. UCLA leaders thought they were being cooperative by sharing internal records over the months with government lawyers and making progress in quiet negotiations over the accusations, senior UC officials said. They hoped the government took notice of efforts that could appease the president: a new campus initiative to combat antisemitism, the banning of Students for Justice in Palestine groups, a UC-wide ban on student government boycotts of Israel, quick shutdowns of pro-Palestinian campus protests, and strict discipline of pro-Palestinian students accused of time, place and manner violations during demonstrations. But the federal government's stance is now clear: It believes UCLA is guilty of all allegations. The NSF letter said that UCLA 'engages in racism, in the form of illegal affirmative action, UCLA fails to promote a research environment free of antisemitism and bias; UCLA discriminates against and endangers women by allowing men in women's sports and private women-only spaces.' Federal lawyers want UC to pay the billion-dollar fine against UCLA in installments and contribute $172 million to a fund for Jewish students and other individuals affected by alleged civil rights violations. The settlement demands include ending scholarships that focus on race or ethnicity, forcing UCLA to share more admissions data than it already publicly releases with the government and changes to campus protest rules such as a ban on overnight encampments. In addition to the sticker-shock fine, some requests have puzzled UCLA leaders — as the UC system has already significantly overhauled many practices outlined by the federal government. It has ended the use of 'diversity statements' in hiring. Last fall, UCLA declared a 'zero-tolerance' policy for encampments. The government wants transgender women off women's sports teams. But as a member of the National Collegiate Athletics Assn., the university is already required to follow new association rules that bar transgender players from women's teams. 'It feels like a cut-and-paste job,' said a senior UC official about Trump's proposal. The official was not authorized to speak publicly about negotiations. 'It's like they took a parts of letters to the Ivy Leagues, cobbled them together and added the words 'UCLA.' ' The 24-member UC Board of Regents, which must approve of any settlement or payout to the federal government and would be involved in a suit, has called an emergency, closed-door meeting Monday afternoon. It's unclear whether Newsom, who is an ex-officio member of the board, will attend. Another pivotal moment comes Tuesday in San Francisco's federal district court. There, Judge Rita F. Lin has ordered the Justice Department to explain why the UCLA cuts are not a violation of a June order in which she blocked certain science grant terminations for all of UC. The case, filed by UC Berkeley and UC San Francisco researchers, is being argued by Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley law school dean and constitutional expert. If the judge rules in UC's favor, it could apply to NSF cuts that account for about half of those in limbo at UCLA. In an interview, Chemerinsky said actions against UCLA were 'clearly illegal' because 'the president lacks constitutional authority to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress.' He outlined what would likely be California's argument in a suit: The government's actions violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which restricts the president's ability to halt spending that Congress has authorized. 'The cutoff of funds has been without the due process required by federal laws and the Constitution,' Chemerinsky said. 'Agencies cutting off funds, like NIH and NSF, are violating the Administrative Procedures Act in that the actions are 'arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.' Many of the cutoffs of funds violate the 1st Amendment for being based on viewpoint.' But California faces a risk if it files a suit against the administration's orders. When Harvard pushed back against billions in similar cuts earlier this year, the Trump administration hit the university with additional costly funding clawbacks and a termination of its ability to host foreign students, an issue it further sued over. Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said time — and politics — is not on UCLA's side. 'At some point you have to be ready for fall classes and international students coming in and the campus trying to deal with the uncertainty and losing all your grants,' said Tobias. Litigation can take months, if not years, he said. California 'might do well in the district courts and then in the 9th Circuit, but I don't know what would happen in the Supreme Court.' After Newsom threatened a suit, UC Regents Chair Janet Reilly told The Times that negotiation is still on the table — but not on the current 'unacceptable' terms. 'The university remains willing to engage in a constructive and good-faith dialogue with the federal government but the University of California will always stand firm in protecting the integrity and values of our institution,' Reilly said. Mark Yudof, a former UC president who led the system from 2008 to 2013, believed negotiations were still likely. 'While litigation is certainly a possibility, my sense is that both sides will first try negotiating a settlement,' Yudof said. He said the settlement UCLA came to with Jewish students in late July is 'likely to be the initial framework for those discussions. Hard to say where it goes from there. The fact that UC is a public university system adds to the complexities.' Mitchell, the American Council on Education president and former top administrator of Occidental College, said a quick resolution would benefit both sides. He said a months-long process — as it's been between Harvard and Trump — would have the potential for 'great harm.' 'These things, the longer they go on, the worse they get,' he said.
Chicago Tribune
34 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Thomas Stapleford: The Bureau of Labor Statistics has always been political
Founded in 1884, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has faced many controversies over its history. In 1932, President Herbert Hoover forced its commissioner to retire rather than waive a newly created age limit for federal employees, a decision that critics attributed to the bureau's unemployment estimates being higher than Hoover's preferred figures. During World War II, labor unions bitterly attacked the bureau's acting commissioner, accusing him of failing to adequately measure wartime inflation in order to preserve lower wage rates. And in the 1970s, Richard Nixon's administration secretly investigated the bureau because Nixon was convinced a group of Jewish civil servants was manipulating federal statistics against him. But on Aug. 1, Erika McEntarfer became the first BLS commissioner to be fired. Many have jumped to McEntarfer's defense, and the Friends of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a joint partnership of multiple professional organizations that use BLS data, accused President Donald Trump of politicizing the agency. The anger is understandable, but the charge is misaimed: The bureau can't be politicized because it has always been political in a basic sense. The bureau was created by Congress; its budget is controlled by Congress; Congress can tell it what to measure; and the president can legally fire its commissioner. Like any government agency, the bureau is a thoroughly political entity. And yet the administration's critics are right to be worried. On social media, Trump claimed without evidence that McEntarfer had 'faked the job numbers' prior to the election and that the recent payroll statistics had been 'RIGGED.' Other staff members were more tempered but insisted the firing was based on the bureau's faulty methodology. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer cited a 'string of major revisions' that 'raised concerns.' Speaking to CBS News, Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, said that BLS payroll data had been subject to 'massive revisions' and needed a 'fresh set of eyes.' Although payroll statistics are routinely revised as new data becomes available, the recent revisions were indeed large, and one might reasonably wonder why and if the process could be improved. But the White House's actions don't seem to match its stated justifications. If the Trump administration's primary goal was to address concerns about BLS methods, it could have asked the agency for a public account. It could have started an independent review or explained why the payroll revisions were flawed and how they could be improved. It could have referred the matter to the academic experts on the bureau's advisory committees —except that the administration dissolved those committees in March, declaring that they had 'fulfilled their intended purpose.' Instead, on the day that disappointing payroll numbers were released, the president immediately fired the commissioner. That disconnect between words and actions points to the deeper problem. It suggests to critics that the administration isn't seeking 'fair and accurate' numbers, as Trump declared on Truth Social, but ones that reinforce his conviction that the economy is 'BOOMING.' Official statistics, in this view, aren't an external check on the beliefs and claims of the politically powerful; they should merely reflect that power. American legislators created federal statistics for specific political ends. Yes, they would be useful for administrative power. But they were also to inform citizens, to create a public set of facts owned by, and accountable to, the people themselves. The push to establish the BLS itself came primarily from 19th century labor unions and workers organizations, which felt that only the publication of accurate facts about the conditions of capital and labor would enable the country to grapple with the dramatic social and economic changes of industrialization. As one union leader put it, creating a national labor statistics bureau was 'one of the primary objects of our organization.' Creating such facts, of course, is hard work. There are disagreements about what to measure, how to measure it and how to interpret the results. The way we choose to handle those disagreements is a political choice. In one approach, disagreements about statistics should be part of public, reasoned arguments in which the assumptions, limits and aims of competing choices are interrogated, weighed and debated by those who have a commitment to the truth and not simply to what is expedient. If that ideal is rarely reached, it remains something to strive for and connects official statistics to a broader vision of American democracy as a republic in which reasoned persuasion remains the ultimate goal. Despite challenges, that ideal has held sway throughout most of our history, supported by both Republicans and Democrats. But it is not the only political vision for official statistics. In another, competing approach, government data should merely reflect the whims of whoever happens to be in power. As part of the executive branch under the authority of the president, federal statistical agencies are entirely at the president's disposal with no external accountability. There is no need to provide evidence for alleged misconduct, or to conduct independent reviews, or to give detailed justifications for methodological choices. Of course, such arbitrary exercise of power undercuts citizens' trust in official data and their ability to assess the consequences of government action. In doing so, it undermines a key support for reasoned democracy. The trouble with the Trump administration's decision to fire McEntarfer is not that it politicized a government agency. It's what that decision suggests about the administration's understanding of American political life and the place of shared empirical knowledge within it.
