Good morning.
Thursday in Whitewater will be sunny with a high of 75. Sunrise is 7:16 and sunset is 6:01 for 10 hours 45 minutes of daylight. The moon is a waxing gibbous with 84 percent of its visible disk illuminated.
On this day in 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy, after consulting with former President Eisenhower, announces that American reconnaissance planes have discovered Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba, and that he has ordered a naval “quarantine” of the Communist nation.
Today’s post follows yesterday’s oblique reference to a portion of the Whitewater Common Council session from 10.20.2026. See FREE WHITEWATER, A Norwegian Expression That’s Actually Japanese (“the nail that sticks up gets hammered down — Deru kugi wa utareru“). That council discussion fundamentally concerned a communication between a council member and Whitewater Pride (a local LGBTQ+ group), city officials, and the responsive concern from another council member.
Today, I’ll go through Tuesday’s meeting. This post is organized into several sections: Sources, Bottom Line Up Front, Preliminaries, Central Argument, Original Arguments from the Email Chain, Performance Allegations, the Pride President’s Email Answers, Background Checks, The Unequal Burden of Private Discussion, and Other Issues.
Sources: Two municipal public documents: Amended Agenda Packet (P) for 10.20 and Video (V) of that Common Council Session. A case is cited citation where appropriate. Asides labeled JA within brackets.
Bottom Line Up Front: The best practice for a majority of the Whitewater Common Council would be to reaffirm, at the earliest opportunity, the equitable offering of City of Whitewater facilities for Whitewater Pride and other organizations.
Preliminaries:
(1) I'm not a member of Whitewater Pride, nor of the Whitewater Common Council, nor have I discussed any part of this topic with either. This libertarian blogger is deliberately detached, so much the better to render assessments free from political acquaintances' expectations. I do not speak for local organizations or the government; they do not speak for me.
(2) No one who knows me would suggest that I have a strong understanding of the queer community, but then neither would anyone who knows me suggest that I've the least worry about the conduct of that community. They are Whitewater residents, Wisconsinites, Americans. [JA: As I am ideological (a libertarian), this is my outlook, a result of both nature and schooling.]
Central Argument (as implied in my 10.21 post):
(3) Fair and equal treatment from the City of Whitewater does not — cannot — depend on personal approval. Whitewater Pride's participation on city property cannot depend on satisfying an official’s religious or cultural objections. See P 543–546, 557–561. [JA: Of religious belief specifically — there are many of us who worship in liberal or progressive parishes. We do not accept the interpretation that some in this community insist all believers or all residents must have, no matter how stridently they insist upon it. Formation is difficult; selective quotations are much easier.]
(4) This dispute includes an express demand for exclusion. An emailer's request included confinement to a private venue and prevention of similar future events. See P 547–548. This emailer's demand was that some members of this community be required to withdraw from the public square, thereby reducing those members wrongly and unlawfully to a lesser legal status.
(5) Answering a council member's questions does not — must not — require that Whitewater Pride's president accept disparagement. Nor does it require her to pretend that disparagement is not, in fact, disparagement. Neither Orin Artsmith (Council) nor Camden Harlan (Whitewater Pride) is required to concede that their community somehow merits heightened suspicion.
Weakness of Original Arguments from the Email Chain:
(6) The resident emailer's claim that “By allowing it, you are also condoning it” reduces the administration of public access to approval of a message. This would establish only a monocultural society. The Whitewater city manager's reply correctly holds a different standard: consistent treatment. See P 546–547. A monocultural society that excluded from access those of varied beliefs would enmire this community in litigation.
(7) The resident emailer's claim about an “All ages” event does not establish harmful targeting. Welcoming families does not show an “assault on our children.” Her conclusion requires evidence about actual conduct. There is none.
(8) Dictionary definitions of indecency are not controlling legal definitions in this or any other jurisdiction in America. Whitewater's city attorney is correct in his description of the controlling law on this point. See P 547, 557–558.
Performance Allegations:
(9) There has been a Whitewater Pride Fest for some years now, and I believe it's grown bigger over time (perhaps it was originally at Flat Iron Park? — it's now by Cravath). My family and I were out of state in early October and were unable to attend this year's event. The few pictures that I've seen on social media suggest that the event was well-attended, and attendees — including families — had a good time. [JA: A photograph from the recent Whitewater event on social media shows several attendees, including one attendee second from the right wearing an aqua and pink dress with pink shoes. I'm where fashion goes to wither and die, yet even I can see that it's a nice color combination.]
(10) An old photograph from Fort Atkinson does not show harm in Whitewater (and no offense was charged in Fort Atkinson).
The Pride President's Email Answers:
(11) Camden Harlan, president of Whitewater Pride, described programming, songs, an emcee’s duties, children’s activities, and conduct the performances would exclude. She also welcomed reasonable questions. See P 543–546. Council member M. Smith conceded on 10.20 that "those points address the factual questions that were asked." See V 1:19:23–1:20:03. Council member Smith's calling an objection “victimhood” does not refute that objection. His discussion of DEI materials or advocacy techniques does not demonstrate that Harlan’s information was inaccurate or her objection to stereotyping unfounded. See V 1:17:44–1:20:48.
Background Checks:
(12) A coaching analogy omits important differences. Coaching is not like attendance at a fair. Coaching involves ongoing authority and opportunities for private access that are different from performing before the public in Whitewater's setting. P 551, 559 and V 1:33:38–1:34:34.
(13) Future screening (there's more than one kind) requires an actual policy justification. Of more than one kind of screening see P 560-561. On the need for a policy justification see P 557, 561.
The Unequal Burden of Private Discussion:
(14) From the October 20 meeting, private accommodation would mean Council member Artsmith discussing this matter privately with Council member Smith. See V 1:13:15–1:13:56, V 1:26:21–1:26:59, and V 1:35:29–1:38:18.
(15) Council member Artsmith gave, however, a specific and weighty reason for declining. Artsmith connected the decision to disparagement of a community to which Artsmith belongs. That supplies a substantial justification far beyond ordinary reluctance to discuss a disagreement. See V 1:36:34–1:38:18.
(16) Council member Artsmith chose, reasonably, another form of dialogue. Requesting a discussion with council colleagues, initially in closed session, constitutes engagement through a different, legitimate process. It does not support a simple refusal-to-talk narrative. See V 1:07:30–1:09:01 and V 1:38:19–1:39:00.
(17) There were no "missed" steps — there was a request for a private group forum that the council did not afford. Having declined that request, the council can hardly fault Artsmith for "skipping" a private step. I can find no governing rule in Whitewater that requires a council member to meet alone with another, opposing council member to discuss accusations involving, of all topics, these fundamental matters.
[JA: Here, especially, I speak for myself. In effect: Why won't you sit with someone who (falsely and arrogantly) implies your ruin by divine judgment? (The passage quoted was Matthew 18:6.) I am religious, would never apply the passage as was done here, and find it telling (in either a secular or a religious way) that someone would be expected to meet privately under those conditions.]
There was also a failure to maintain a fair and neutral council proceeding, with applause at one point neither remarked upon nor rebuked.
(18) Council member Hicks's congenial relationship with Council member Smith does not address, let alone settle, Council member Artsmith’s concerns. It's partly obtuse, partly trivializing, for Hicks to believe that someone (someone else, by the way) should set aside these fundamental differences for ... what? A game, a dog, and a beer? Honest to goodness.
Other Issues:
(19) Constitutional protection does not establish that a statement is accurate, respectful, or beyond condemnation by elected peers. V 1:09:31–1:11:50 and V 1:28:36–1:29:57.
(20) There was no request for censure, and yet a warning against being censured ignores controlling American law. See V 1:10:56–1:11:50. In Houston Community College System v. Wilson, a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the First Amendment claim arising from the purely verbal censure before it. The decision distinguishes criticism among elected peers from impairment of office functions or privileges. See Houston Community College System v. Wilson, 595 U.S. 468, 477–80 (2022).
(21) Calling something defamatory does not establish defamation. Council member Smith's warning does not itself demonstrate a particular, actionable falsehood.
People choose freely: sometimes well, sometimes poorly. Some participants in these discussions, at least, acquitted themselves well. Some responses did the community credit: (a) Council member Artsmith raised important concerns, (b) the Pride president supplied information, (c) the city manager described consistent permitting, (d) the city attorney identified policy limits, (e) the police chief declined unsupported screening yet offered appropriate records and investigative options, and (f) Council member Kelleher replied persuasively to others' claims. See P 543–546, 557–561, V 1:07:30–1:09:01, and V 1:28:36–1:29:57.
There was no specific outcome from this agenda item, but, again, the best course for this city would be to reaffirm, at the earliest opportunity, the equitable offering of City of Whitewater facilities for Whitewater Pride and other organizations.
That right and sensible course, however, is in others' hands.