sarahAntisemitism in Vermont is Real
To the Editor:
I am writing with great alarm in response to a recent letter to the editor by Scott Penney, published in the latest issue of The Bridge, in which he mocks and erases Jewish fear.
In his letter, the author sneers at the idea that Jews might worry about antisemitism in Vermont, and he brushes our concerns off as a “claim of victimology.” That accusation is not new. It has been used against Jews for centuries to cast doubt on us and invalidate our experiences with antisemitism.
And while a basic understanding of the Weimar Republic is helpful, relying only on past constructs to define and identify antisemitism now ensures you will only see it in the rearview mirror. After the damage is done. Because it doesn’t start with a swastika. It starts with contempt, exclusion, a shrug. It starts with a letter to the editor that sounds almost reasonable if you are not the one being marked by it.
It is juvenile at this point to think that only people who consciously harbor hate can perpetuate hate. Antisemitism, like many other forms of hatred, rarely announces itself. It moves swiftly through indifference. It moves through deflection. It moves through the comfort of plausible deniability. Remember implicit bias? Yes, that’s a factor here, too.
The level of contempt the author shows for a community simply trying to name its own marginalization is astounding. He treats the act of calling out antisemitism as a greater offense than antisemitism itself. He ridicules Jews, flattens our identity, and demands that political conditions be met before we are even allowed to speak about our experiences with antisemitism.
The Jews the author is berating are not demanding a free pass for Israel. They are asking Vermont to take Jewish safety and dignity seriously, especially where our students are concerned. That this request enrages the author says far more about his values than about the people he is attacking.
Maggie Lenz, Montpelier
‘You’re Fired’
To the Editor:
Of all the brainless things the legislature did in recent years when there was a supermajority that freely overrode Gov. Phil Scott’s vetoes, perhaps the most senseless was the provision in the Global Warming Solutions Act that allows absolutely anybody to bring suit against the state, at state expense, for failure to attain the arbitrary and unattainable mandates established in the Act.
The Conservation Law Foundation, which is proficient in bringing lawsuits, has taken the state up on its offer. The case is pending while lawyers on both sides run up their bills with discovery and motion practice. And once the lawyers have milked the case for whatever it’s worth, the result is clear: if it actually goes to trial, the state will lose, because the state has not fulfilled its mandates as of this year; more likely, the parties will enter into a settlement in which the state agrees to “do better” and the Conservation Law Foundation walks away with a few million dollars of taxpayer money.
All this … is one of the reasons why Republicans gained 19 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate last year. Clearly, the voters sent a message. Among other things, they wanted this expensive and needless provision repealed. But did the Legislature get the message? Did they even vote on repealing the provision in question? Of course not! But why not?
The simple answer to that question lies in the fact that the Senate Natural Resources Committee chair, Sen. Anne Watson of Washington County, refuses to take up any bill that proposes to repeal the “sue us, please” provision. In fact, she has recently defended it as being useful “where you have a governor obstinate against climate goals.” She blames the state’s failure to attain the pie-in-the-sky mandates on Gov. Scott and suggests the Conservation Law Foundation is actually helping us to save the world!
In November 2026 the voters need to give Sen. Watson a personalized message that reads “You’re fired!” Maybe she’ll understand that message.
Tom Koch, Barre Town
Letters to the editor represent the opinions of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of The Bridge. Submit your letter by email to editor@montpelierbridge.com. Preference is given to submissions by those who live in central Vermont, should not exceed 300 words in length, and may be edited for brevity and accuracy.
