Grievances dating back to 2019 roil campaigns, and candidates say the debate online is nastier
Loren Crowe speaks at City Hall on Sept. 9, 2019. (Photo: Marc Levy)
Online discourse around the year’s City Council race has become increasingly hostile in the run-up to Tuesday’s final voting, with candidates caught in the crossfire calling it more personal and less substantive than in years past. In one of the most prominent controversies of the campaign season, they are just endorsees of an group that itself is under fire for a year-old incident that began with a different organization.
The issue took visual form in a Sept. 25 tweet by resident Elia Robyn Speer of a diagram she’d created showing candidates grouped by which organizations had endorsed them. The attributes for the four candidates endorsed by the Cambridge Citizens Coalition: “homeowners, homophobia, exclusion.” This, and later versions, garnered more than 200 likes and dozens of retweets.
Speer’s charge goes back to a 2020 incident that did not, initially, have anything to do with the CCC, let alone the council candidates it endorsed.
A tweet in September used Medium posts by Loren Crowe as a source.
Her source was a series of blog posts by resident Loren Crowe titled “A fair but partial account of the Cambridge Citizens Coalitions’ activities since 2019.” The third in the series recounts how an East Cambridge Planning Team board member joked last year in a group email list about Crowe’s menswear store on Etsy, attaching a photo to say Crowe looked “ripped in that medieval leather thong.” According to Crowe, Suzanne Blier – president of the CCC – and others in the coalition unnecessarily involved themselves in this incident by “victim-blaming” and using the moment to attack him for his agenda.
Beyond expounding on this personally “painful” incident, Crowe’s blog posts claim that the group and its leadership have spread misinformation, taken donations from someone with a record of racist writings and used exclusionary or racially coded language. Each installment urges readers to withhold their votes from the CCC-endorsed candidates.
“The blog is getting pretty good traffic. The tweets are pretty widely shared,” Crowe said this week. “There are dozens of people who’ve reached out to me saying that they didn’t know about these things and are grateful that they know now. There are candidates who reached out to me who said that they wouldn’t be attending CCC’s candidate forum.”
Reactions by the endorsed
After reading and reviewing the blog posts, Dana Bullister – a first-time candidate endorsed by the CCC – said she felt “really, really crushed.” “I was extremely ashamed that I hadn’t done more due diligence in finding out more on the past history of these events,” she said. “Never in my whole life has it been my intention to promote toxicity or homophobia or ad hominem attacks in public discussion.” She added that the charges of misinformation were especially affronting to her as a policy analyst.
Bullister released an Oct. 2 statement in which she clarified her values and stances as a candidate but did not reject the endorsement, in keeping with a promise she made to the coalition. Crowe lauded her for her “integrity” on his blog and called on the other CCC-endorsed candidates to follow her lead.
None of the others – Dennis Carlone, Patty Nolan and Nicola Williams – have made similar moves to distance themselves from the coalition.
The Cambridge Citizens Coalition posted its own diagram of endorsements on its website.
Carlone maintained that the ECPT incident was irrelevant to the current election, or his acceptance of the CCC’s endorsement. “You will find people throw a bomb into the middle of the campaign on something that was a year or two ago,” he said. “That’s past, that’s history. And it was bad, and it’s over. And to think that that affects an endorsement is just ludicrous.”
He accepts all neighborhood endorsements because he has “helped 15 different neighborhood groups dealing with challenges in zoning and design review and getting more open space. That’s the real issue in this election. Not one person’s vendetta,” he continued. “Who is throwing out these bombs, and why? That’s my question, and it just happens to be before an election.”
Suspecting an organization’s involvement
Carlone’s fellow incumbent Nolan suggested that many who have promoted Crowe’s anti-CCC content are affiliated with the group A Better Cambridge, which opposes the CCC on development strategies.
“There’s a whole attack thread on Twitter going on about ‘Don’t vote for any of the CCC people’ … Several people very closely affiliated with ABC have either promoted it or retweeted or liked it,” Nolan said. “I was not endorsed by ABC, but I don’t trash them … because I think they’re a legitimate organization. Whereas the other side seems to think CCC isn’t even a legitimate organization, when they’re comprised of a lot of people with a long history of working on behalf of the citizens of Cambridge and volunteering their time.”
Crowe noted in an email that he is not a member of ABC, has not attended any of their meetings and has not donated to the group. “I have friends in ABC, along with [Our Revolution Cambridge], the [Democratic Socialists of America], [Cambridge Residents Alliance], the Cyclists’ Union and most groups in town,” he said. “I live here, after all.”
ABC, asked about the clashes, didn’t address the involvement of people affiliated with it.“We value and appreciate the contributions of everyone running, including the candidates we haven’t endorsed. Everyone in Cambridge should be free to express their views, and should be held accountable if that expression is harmful,” Allan Sadun wrote by email for the group.
“Hate and vitriol”
Nicola Williams at a June 17 rally outside City Hall. (Photo: Marc Levy)
Williams, who said she is running on a platform of equity, expressed frustration that as a CCC-endorsed candidate she was being maligned as perpetuating exclusion. And she too saw an organized effort behind the attacks. “As a Black woman, I’ve seen how social media can be a place where hate and vitriol have a place to thrive,” she said. “I have chosen to disengage on Twitter, because if my opinion doesn’t align with the views of an opposing organization, they will feel free to attack me – not just once, but continuously, for days, non-stop. It ends up becoming trolling.”
“I think that some tactics taken by some organizations represented by Mr. Crowe – they’ve always used Twitter as a way to attack people,” she continued.
Right up to the final weekend before Election Day, Blier, said she saw a familiar pattern at play in which Crowe is used as a “surrogate hit man” online with the support of the ABC.
“On this and other issues, Twitter has become a site of striking vitriol and misinformation. But it is not entirely new to the current election cycle,” Blier continued. “This same group of ABC social media provocateurs has also leveled blistering attacks not only at council candidates … but also members of the Planning Board, [Board of Zoning Appeal], Cambridge Historical Commission and private citizens who comment during meetings in ways that counter ABC’s views. This kind of Internet bullying has no place in civil society.”
“The charges against CCC and our endorsees are unfair and based on mischaracterizations, distortions, and factual errors made even more problematic because of their political motivations,” Blier said.
Suzanne Blier, left, at a meeting with Lesley University officials on Sept. 17, 2017. (Photo: Marc Levy)
Sensing an increase
Even if harsh debate online isn’t new, the candidates think this election season has seen an uptick in antagonism. “Last election there were personal attacks directed at me, and others … it seems this election there is more negative campaigning and personal attacks instead of focusing on policy differences,” Nolan said. “And more social media posts that assert positions or stances that are not substantiated, and do not advance civic engagement or debate.”
Williams agreed that “It’s more vicious this year.” Carlone said the campaign season has been “interestingly different,” with more attacks via social media taking the place of “vocal negativity.” “I don’t pay attention to them. I know attacks are counterproductive for any city that desires to move forward. I suspect it is a continuation of the previous president’s approach to politics,” Carlone said.
Crowe, meanwhile, said that “none of the CCC-endorsed candidates’ responses do anything to rebut the facts that I’ve presented. They simply guess at my motives, which are, in truth, simple: these events happened, they are newsworthy in light of the election, they caused a significant amount of pain, and I want my community to do better.”
Back to 2019
This is the first municipal election since the East Cambridge Planning Team incident, although Crowe’s charges against the CCC date back to the summer of 2019.
“This isn’t just about me or one incident,” Crowe contended in an email. “It’s about a pattern of behavior across the life of the organization and around the political activities of a core group of people.”
Still, the starkest allegation against the CCC and their endorsees springs from the Oct. 19, 2020, comment, which Crowe described as a “homophobic and sexually harassing attack.” It led to a council order that would condemn the conduct and begin exploring greater involvement in and oversight of community groups – and an objection to that effort by Blier that the council order “leaves out … that Mr. Crowe frequently attacks others who oppose his radical views.” She accused Crowe of “monetizing this situation” by publishing “the same and other similar photos of himself (and the attire he sells)” on Twitter and elsewhere.
But if some see ABC involvement in Crowe’s advocacy, he says the same of the Citizens Coalition: “Everyone who attacked me personally in the aftermath of this incident, who tried to blame me for my own sexual harassment, was affiliated with CCC,” he wrote in his blog.
Debating an incident
Crowe’s writings keep the year-old incident alive in debate.
In a Friday letter to the editor, the Citizens Coalition leadership wrote that – according to a founding member who belongs to the Massachusetts LGBTQ Bar Association – the original incident “was not homophobic because LGBTQ issues were not involved.” The letter continues that “falsely accusing individuals of homophobia is hate speech that diminishes the real pain of homophobic attacks everywhere. It is time to move beyond this spectacle of political bullying to address the many serious issues facing the city.”
Nolan and Carlone signed on to a council order last year that described the Oct. 19 statement as homophobic, which Crowe suggested was contradictory.
In a tweeted response to the letter, he said Nolan and Carlone “need to clarify their position ASAP. Do they stand with their previous votes condemning obvious homophobia, or with CCC and say that mocking a gay man after finding photos of him wearing gender divergent clothing isn’t homophobic somehow?”
Speer’s diagram of candidates showed Crowe’s critique has the attention of some voters. But Speer did not respond directly to a request to speak with Cambridge Day.
“A certain newspaper sent me an email about my accurately labeled diagram,” she tweeted instead. “Who knew that the ability to draw circles in Inkscape gave me such political influence?”
By Oct. 13, though, she had updated the diagram’s labels. Instead of naming a group of candidates as “homophobic,” the new version said it “tolerates homophobic attacks.”
Feature image of the Twitter logo by Andreas Eldh via Flickr.
I may have more to say later, but for now, I wanted to include my full statement, since part of it was clipped out of the story.
“I have reported multiple incidents of misinformation, bigotry, and toxic behavior over CCC’s two-year lifespan. None of the CCC-endorsed canididates’ responses do anything to rebut the facts that I’ve presented. They simply guess at my motives, which are, in truth, simple: these events happened, they are newsworthy in light of the election, they caused a significant amount of pain, and I want my community to do better. I understand that bringing these issues to light puts the three remaining candidates who still choose to associate themselves with CCC in an uncomfortable position, but they do have options. They can use their platforms to urge CCC’s leaders to reform their behavior, they can condemn CCC’s behavior publicly, as CCC-endorsed Dana Bullister did, or they can continue to endorse CCC’s actions. I suggest they take their concerns up with the people who caused these events, not the person who reported on them.”
Further, what I have done is accurately report actions and events that took place, and, when appropriate, I have criticized those actions. Criticism directed at actions is not a personal attack. Personal attacks involve attacking people for who they are or their personal lives, not for their actions and political choices. Politicians and public figures should know the difference.
Given such a volatile situation which has disproportionally escalated over the past couple of years, I commend the author for about as balanced a report as one could give under the circumstances. I have seen twitter entries mercilessly attacking members of CCC and CCC (perhaps a bit firmly) trying to stand its ground. And neither entities really exercise their finest hour. One side is hurt and the other tending towards self-righteousness. But frankly, the only person constantly keeping this alive is Mr. Crowe and his blog- and now his friends and allies without question. And now a bomb is thrown right before an election. Who gets hurt? The people of Cambridge. This behavior hidden in the shadows of twitter has slowly affected our city government. It most probably drove out one of our most effective councilors while other councilors use it to their advantage.
I don’t doubt that each side believes deeply in their perception. And if you repeat an untruth long and loud enough it sprouts legs. We saw this in the last national administration. And if therapy has taught me anything is that if my reaction is so visceral to where I am “on the floor”, it is time for introspection as to why I am either so hurt, angry and vindictive OR so in need of the last word or upper hand. Have you dared asked “what is my part in this situation?” Every time revenge rears its ugly head, it becomes what one person called a “circular firing squad”. No one deserves being a target for personal choices. I could care less, but it is advertised on line. There was no need for comment, but the offender apologized and resigned from the group.
Likewise, no one deserves the on-slot of vitriol, slander and misinformation in the public arena that has been perpetuated. Something is missing here and it is being played out. People are confused and tired of it. There is enough viciousness and character assassination in Washington DC. Please stop.
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” is a statement attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Trump did it all the time…on Twitter – until even Twitter had enough and shut him down. Just saying.
Since that Venn diagram was created, Tonia Hicks has added her support to the Cambridge Bicycle Safety pledge.
The remaining candidates who have not signed the bike safety pledge are Levy, Moree, McGuirk, Pierre, Simmons, and Toner.
Maybe some should read about Adams and Jefferson! Being more like D.C. could be a good thing…we are not a commune…we are the closest of strangers…
Let’s see … should voters focus on out of control development driving real estate prices that break up neighborhoods and displace residents or Mr. Crowe’s feelings about a 2019 East Cambridge incident involving homophobia where the offending party has apologized. Let’s see … a swiftboat-like last minute political campaign smear initiated by Mr. Crowe attempting to link that drama to his political opponents at CCC who were not parties to the incident. An old trick. Just throw the mud at the right time and hope you scare enough voters. Just off stage, the development loving crew at ABC and their endorsed candidates smile with a slightly guilty conscience and applaud Mr. Crowe for his timely righteousness. See this for what it is Cambridge voters. And consider which political organization and which candidates are involved. CCC endorsed candidates (Nicola Williams, Patty Nolan, Dennis Carlone) have seen through this unethical nonsense and ask for your vote. They deserve it.
I will also point out that every incident that I have written about is backed up by evidence and sources that readers can judge for themselves. The information is credible enough that Dana Bullister saw fit to condemn CCC’s actions after reading it, likely at some cost to her candidacy.
Despite predictable complaints from CCC and their candidates and unspecific attempts to say that the information I’ve provided about many separate events is vaguely false, not one person has reached out to ask for a specific correction or retraction. No one has presented any contradictory evidence that I’m aware of. CCC and Suzanne know how to get in touch with me. I would make a correction if one was warranted and I would apologize for a mistake. These posts have been out for weeks and no one has suggested that anything they contain is incorrect.
And that’s because the events I’ve written about happened. They happened, for the most part, in public. There are emails, posts, and videos that confirm that they happened in the way that they are described. These stores were not unknown to most who’ve been following along closely for the past two years. These aren’t late-breaking surprises, even if you’re just now hearing about them because of the election.
It’s simply not good enough for people unhappy about this specific information coming to light to claim that it’s all false. I’ve shown evidence and details. The people complaining have shown nothing at all. Cambridge voters are smart enough to evaluate the evidence I’ve presented against the unsupported denials made as this information has come to light.
I’m definitely glad that this conversation that we’ve all seen happening is getting reported on, but I do think this reporter is falling victim to “working the ref”, and taking the claims/framing of those candidates who feel attacked for granted.
For instance, the article repeatedly claims that the adjectives on Elia’s diagram refer to the candidates in the Venn diagram bubbles, but I feel like it’s pretty clear from “here’s what the interest groups stand for” that she’s referring to the groups, not the candidates?
And similarly, it claims that ABC “didn’t address the involvement of people affiliated with it” – but gave no examples of people affiliated with ABC being involved? (I don’t doubt that there are some ABC-affiliated people involved in their personal capacities, I just think it’s weird that the claim is made if none are mentioned.)
If what people are upset about is Loren’s blog, that’s understandable, but perhaps they should say so specifically instead of making broad insinuations. Maybe they don’t want to talk about Loren’s blog specifically because it is a faithful and accurate recounting and there’s very little to actually criticize in it.
Both Adams and Jefferson still had the welfare of the country as a goal. D.C. does not have a shared basic moral integrity any more. It is one-ups-manship, lacking civil discourse. Adams could be a lose cannon but people still respected him.
As a former CCC member, I was deeply concerned about Loren Crowe’s accusations against Suzanne Blier and CCC…until I clicked on his links to “substantiating” evidence. He was not attacked at City Council, and there was no mention of sexual harassment or homophobia in the Policy Order that was under discussion. He has repeatedly attacked a person while simultaneously posting (harder to find) evidence that the person did nothing wrong.
Mr Crowe does not seem to understand that people can be completely supportive of gay rights and have no tolerance at all for homophobia, yet still be appalled at the Crowe/ABC practices of harassing, intimidating, and misrepresenting anyone who speaks out against their pro-developer, build-build-build politics.
(I guess I’ll say, since I am personally ABC-affiliated, and here I am “involved” if writing comments on an article counts as involvement, that my second concern is just being cranky about wording, not a real critique of the article. And I do understand that trying to write an objective article about all this is hard and I appreciate the reporter doing a fairly good job. I’m mostly frustrated at the whataboutism of those who object to Loren’s blog but don’t have anything specific to say about it.)
Hi PeterG,
That’s incorrect. Here’s a link to the Policy Order: https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=2694&MediaPosition=&ID=13109&CssClass=
It says, in part, ” board member of the East Cambridge Planning Team (ECPT) directed homophobic and sexually harassing comments at a resident on a public neighborhood email group after that resident wrote an op-ed opposed to an ECPT policy position.”
And, “…we condemn homophobic bullying and intimidation anywhere in the city, and we encourage all neighborhood groups and organizations to enact policies to prevent and sanction such abusive behavior that serves the opposite goal of these groups and organizations.”
Suzanne asked the council not to pass this policy order, which they did unanimously that night.
Here is Suzanne Blier’s public comment from the hearing: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WdtkqnTLmrTNbIksAaBA_HoA5L4cAltA/view
You can clearly hear her ask the council to pass a policy order admonishing “individuals and groups like this individual [Loren]” for what is essentially a description of legitimate political speech and writing that she doesn’t like, after she told the council not to pass the above policy order condemning homophobia.
Heather Hoffman made a similar comment that you can find if you watch the complete video.
It’s interesting to watch groups who have historically used bullshit and attacks on individuals recoil when someone brings up an actual attack rooted in the very type of hate they typically admonish. The ECPT has some really interesting characters on it. I suggested erasing it almost 8 years ago because they’re a crusty bunch of entrenched nativists (I’m paraphrasing my comments) but was quickly slapped down by the powers that be. These neighborhood groups are all out of control. That these same people gave Carlone a pass in 2013 when he likened Central Sq planning to “Pearl Harbor” tells me a lot about the means justifying the ends type of political discourse these groups value. You have kids being shot in the port, I’m dumping 88 gallons of needles every other week in Central Sq, our kids aren’t getting a quality education and some still haven’t been accounted for, and you clowns talk about is whether or not I can build homes next to your home. Ugh x infinity million.