What's in a name? That question was central to a recent debate in Pittsfield, where city leaders have opted to rename the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion department to the Office of Equity, Access and Opportunity. WAMC's Andrew Waite spoke with The Berkshire Eagle's Tara Monastesse about the rationale that Mayor Peter Marchetti and Chief Diversity Officer Michael Obasohan gave for the name change — and the community discussion that ensued.
Monastesse: In the beginning, Director Obasohan was, you know, going to these meetings and saying that it was, this was not a step back from the department's mission. Which the department still has maintained that they're going to be dedicated to, you know, solving inequities, addressing inequities in the city. Mayor Peter Marchetti later said at a meeting that at least part of it was to avoid heightened scrutiny from the Trump administration, who's you know sort of been targeting the DEI acronym, and that while the mayor said that that's not the only reason, that's one of the reasons why. And I think generally just what both the mayor and the DEI director are concerned about is people seeing this highly politicized DEI acronym, and immediately jumping to a conclusion about what the department is or what it does that doesn't actually reflect what they intend to do. So I think they wanted to move away from that association.
Waite: And so, what was some of the resistance against making that change?
Monastesse: So Councilor Cameron Cunningham has expressed some concerns about the department. Mainly, as pretty much every city is all the time, budgeting is hard, and a lot of councilors are really concerned about where the money is going, where they can maybe cut some costs here and there to create a less frightening budget picture. Cameron Cunningham has really been pushing for the DEI office — the recently renamed DEI office — to more strongly articulate what their goals are and what problems they're seeking to address. And basically, during these meetings, Councilor Cunningham was objecting to, was calling for the department to, essentially prove like that it can justify the amount of funding is currently receiving about $200,000 for Fiscal Year 2027. His main concern was that the department isn't proving essentially that it's accomplished enough to receive that amount of money, and so he is essentially contesting the name change in an attempt to call attention to the department and whether or not it even should exist in its current form.
Waite: Well, and just curious, how does Councilor Cunningham react to somebody saying that he's trying to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion activities, or you know to minimize them in the city?
Monastesse: Yeah, Councilor Cunningham has maintained that he is not against the mission of DEI, like that ethos of you know trying to expand equity in the city. And he has said that his goal isn't to get rid of the department. Some of his tactics on the City Council, though, raise some questions about what his intentions are. For example, he recently filed an ordinance that is going to go to a committee, basically proposing that the DEI office is effectively eliminated and a remaining officer position would be kind of put into the existing Community Development office, which would slash more than half of the DEI department's funding. So basically the stance that he has maintained is that he supports the mission of DEI, but is worried that it might be taking in its current form taking resources away from other city departments.
Waite: What have residents had to say about this?
Monastesse: So at the most recent City Council meeting, a lot of residents — I think over a dozen residents — came to public comment just to speak about how important DEI programs were to them, and to life in the city, to ensuring that people have access to opportunities. At least one that I can remember said they were concerned that Councilor Cunningham didn't seem to, you know, appreciate DEI initiatives at least in the the way the city is doing them. So people in the community, at least the ones who have spoken at City Council meetings, are very passionate about this issue and think that the department does a good service for the city.
Waite: Have people said that this is sort of giving in to federal pressures about DEI initiatives? I mean, has that conversation come up that like this is kind of cowering in the face of these attacks we've heard on DEI? Or, I'm just I'm just wondering, how this kind of national conversation and the ebb and flow with DEI initiatives has factored in explicitly to this debate in Pittsfield.
Monastesse: Yeah, so right out of the gate, the stance that the DEI now the EAO director has maintained was that this wasn't, the name change wasn't, any type of acquiescence to the Trump administration that the mission was going to stay the same. My understanding is that the the core mission is going to stay the same, but the initial stance you know that the director had was that this has nothing to do with trying to evade the Trump administration. This isn't sort of a dodge or an attempt to kind of like said, caving in any way. The cat kind of came out of the bag a little bit later. Where when Mayor Peter Marchetti did say at one of the council meetings, one where Councilor Cunningham charter objected, the mayor said, "If you want me to go on record to say that it takes us out of the federal guidance of DEI, you got it, Councilor. I don't want the city jeopardized for funding. I don't want to change what we've done." So by saying that the mayor is, and what I've asked him about this, you know, in follow up questions, he said that he's not going to back away from that. Like it is trying to evade, you know, the crackdown on federal funding for cities that have DI programs. Trying to avoid that is part of it, but both the mayor and Director Obasohan have maintained that that is far from the only reason, and it's not the main reason why they've been doing this.
Waite: Yeah, I mean, it just seems interesting if they're still maintaining that they're going to offer a lot of the same services, but then they're going to change the name. It just seems like that name is important, right? And the name and and changing it away from initials that have been targeted feels like it is part of what the what the decision making was here, and it seems like you have at least some explicit acknowledgement from the mayor in that regard.
Monastesse: Yeah, I think that's a great way to sum it up, and I know that Director Obasohan has said that this has been a discussion that's been a long time coming. I think he said it's been about a year or so since this discussion started, but I mean that does coincide with you know the start of the second Trump administration, so it definitely is at least situated in the context of that. And I think what you said is yeah, there's been at least some partial acknowledgement that this is tied to that. Though, as I said, you know the director and the mayor maintain that that is far from the only or the main reason.
