Effort Is Misdirected

Reading [“House Ethics Panel Dismisses Complaint From Vermont Abenaki,” February 16, online] got me thinking. I wondered if Rep. Troy Headrick (I-Burlington) would engage his “policy advocacy” energy on matters that didn’t involve already oppressed groups of people who fought so hard to just get a semblance of recognition from a state that colonized and tried to delete them? I would urge him to spend that energy on housing shortages or the mental health or drug epidemics, perhaps.

I appreciate his respect and diligence for policy, but I’m afraid it is misplaced. I also appreciate his mustache. It’s what caught my attention to stop and read this article … which got me to work my brain this morning!

‘Hate and Ignorance’

[Re “DCF Issues New Foster-Parent Licensing Guidance as Part of Legal Settlements,” February 23, online]: When I first came upon Alison Novak’s article on the new Department for Children and Families guidelines on LGBTQ+ youths in Vermont, I was perplexed, then incensed — not at the journalist but at the content presented within. 

How is this even an issue? Parents who are transphobic should not even want to foster a trans kid. The only reason they would want to do so (and under the laughable exception of “religious beliefs”) is to impose conversion therapy on the child and strip away their support system and their personal expression. 

As a transgender person myself, I know full well the importance of having parents who accept and allow you to transition and express yourself as you truly are — and what it does to a child when it is not given to them. These court cases that twist the ideals of a truly progressive state are absurd.

Depression and ideations of suicide are climbing for trans youth at 68 percent and 47 percent, respectively, as reported by the Trevor Project. And the DCF would like to increase these numbers?

I ask: When did it become a matter of religion to hate and discriminate? Why is it your God-given right to despise someone for existing? I applaud the reporting of this issue, and I condemn these guidelines for forcing politics into parenting. 

No, Grazie

[From the Publisher: “Maple Milanese,” March 11]: Just read Paula Routly’s piece about trying to sell maple syrup in Italy and was reminded of my own experience — not on a commercial but on a familial level. When I visited my maternal relatives in Campagna, back around 2000, I brought syrup in one of those pint bottles shaped like a maple leaf. Five years later, when I went back, I saw that the unopened bottle had achieved a place of honor in their China cabinet. Twelve years after that, there it remained. I don’t doubt that it stands there today. The bottle of bourbon I brought my cousin? That was gone before I left.

On Guard

The Seven Days article “The Vermont Guard Is Redeploying — Likely to the Middle East” [February 7] is a critical rejoinder to the recent election of our state adjutant general, commander for the Guard. While both candidates, Deputy Adj. Gen. Henry “Hank” Harder and Col. Roger “Brent” Zeigler, were questioned about following illegal or unconstitutional orders, no mention was made of the Vermont Air National Guard and its deployment first to support military action against Venezuela in January and more recently to the Middle East as part of an “armada” to confront Iran.

Make no mistake, the U.S. attack on Venezuela and apprehension of that country’s leader are both crimes under international law, as is the killing of “alleged drug traffickers” in the open sea. They were also unconstitutional, given there was no prior Congressional approval. Our current unprovoked war against Iran is likewise unconstitutional and a gross violation of international law and human rights, whether or not the U.S. Congress ever chooses to vote on it, and is involving significant civilian deaths.

The path ahead is fraught. But it’s clear that if Vermont is going to keep its National Guard from engaging in illegal, immoral or unconstitutional actions ordered by an out-of-control president, it will take more than simply posing questions in a legislative hearing.

‘More People on the Street’

Seven Days’ 2025 investigation into homeless deaths documented what happens when people lose shelter [“Vermont Doesn’t Track Homeless Deaths. So We Did,” February 5, 2025]. That story is about to repeat — at scale — and the policy choices driving it are being made right now in Montpelier.

Recent letters in Seven Days, including “‘Vermont Way’ Forward” [Feedback, February 18] show that readers remain deeply concerned about homelessness, particularly people without shelter. Their concern is warranted.

On April 1, winter eligibility for emergency housing will end, and hundreds of households will lose their placements. Unlike prior years, this year’s Budget Adjustment Act includes nothing to prevent this mass displacement.

At the same time, the governor’s proposed budget cuts half the funding for emergency housing starting July 1, 2026, with no alternative in place. And the House Committee on General, Housing and Military Affairs just voted out a bill to increase both the speed and number of evictions — with no plan for where people newly made homeless should go.

Vermont’s rental vacancy rate is 2.1 percent, and it’s 1 percent in Chittenden County. There is no soft landing in a market that tight. Faster evictions combined with a collapsing emergency housing program isn’t housing policy. It’s a guarantee of more people on the street.

The April 1 cliff, the proposed deep cuts to emergency housing funding and the eviction bill together will cause a sharp increase in unsheltered homelessness.

Vermonters should know what’s being decided in their name before it happens, not after. This deserves serious coverage.

March Mêlée

Credit: Daria Bishop

Seven Days was on the scene on March 11, when the botched pursuit of an undocumented immigrant turned a stretch of South Burlington’s Dorset Street into a violent standoff. Protesters clashed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and local law enforcement outside a home in which they believed the suspect was holed up — all day. In the end, he wasn’t there, and three other people were arrested.

Our reporters produced four stories about the conflict [“Chaos Breaks Out at Scene of ICE Arrests in South Burlington,” March 11; “Man Sought by ICE Wasn’t in Besieged South Burlington Home,” March 12; “Questions Raised Over Local and State Police Actions at ICE Raid,” March 12; “South Burlington ICE Raid Triggers Large Protest,” March 13]. Our readers had a lot to say about it:

On March 11 in South Burlington, I was witness to one of the largest and most violent police operations I have seen in my 37 years as a Vermont citizen. State police in tactical gear coordinated with dozens of local police and dozens of ICE/DHS soldiers to violently attack peaceful protesters and help kidnap a scared family for whom they did not have an arrest warrant. I saw citizens tackled and hurled to the ground, pepper sprayed, hit by moving police vehicles, and attacked with concussive or tear gas grenades. There is video available of a Burlington police officer violently throwing a peaceful citizen to the ground, their back striking the curb, potentially causing grievous injury.

The citizens of Vermont need the following questions answered: Who requested Burlington Police Department assistance? Who authorized said assistance? Who authorized BPD to carry crowd-control weapons? Who authorized state police? What was said between local, state and federal police to inspire such a large military-style operation? Was the Burlington mayor or Vermont governor involved in this decision-making? What I saw was a clear violation of the promises made to Vermont citizens about how our law enforcement would engage with ICE operations.

Free Camila, free Jissela, free Christian!

I am appalled Vermont State Police assisted ICE agents on March 11 in quelling the First Amendment rights of citizens in South Burlington. And I am equally appalled Vermont State Police used chemical sprays against protesters and, apparently, assisted in smashing open the door of a private residence.

I support law enforcement that works to serve and protect people. I do not support domestic law enforcement that destroys and conquers as though it is a military unit in a foreign operation. ICE agents should be arrested, not assisted.

Credit: Daria Bishop

The recent headlines regarding the intervention by Vermont State Police and ICE have focused almost exclusively on the moments of escalation and the tactical response by authorities. As someone who was there, I find this coverage frustratingly incomplete. It overlooks the most significant part of that day: the astounding display of community solidarity.

Almost immediately after the rapid-response alert, our neighborhood transformed. The mutual-aid response wasn’t just organized, it was beautiful. Community members arrived with hot beverages, hand warmers, med kits, umbrellas, blankets and more. Twenty Leonardo’s pizzas appeared alongside a grill for a community barbecue. Neighboring houses opened their doors to strangers, and musicians brought guitars to lead us in songs that kept us both warm and calm, all while arm in arm as a community. I even saw a grandmother walking through the crowd, passing out hard-boiled eggs that were still warm from her kitchen.

These magical details represent the true spirit of Burlington. This care and coordination made up the vast majority of the day, yet it has been overshadowed by the misleading headlines from the media calling community members “protesters” and insinuating violence was committed by anyone other than local, state and federal law enforcement.

We must not let the violence of the state’s response erase the story of our community’s exemplary support for our neighbors. That care is what actually makes Burlington special, and it deserves to be a part of the public record.

I was at the protest all afternoon, until shortly before the gas began. I was saddened by the occasion and by the behavior of some of my fellow protesters. Screaming in someone’s face that they’re a Nazi, and ranting at them and taunting them, makes it hard for them or for a watching bystander to believe that you’re really on the side of love and humanity. A protest is not an occasion for venting your anger and frustration. It’s for standing clearly and strongly against wrongs and injustices. Gandhi demanded that his followers engage the authorities from a place of love and respect. Maybe we don’t need to go quite that far, but this much is true: The cops are just people.

Feeding violent emotions increases the danger to yourself and to those around you and does nothing for those you’re trying to protect, except maybe make things worse for them. The state and local police I spoke with all were miserable, scared, depressed and didn’t want to be there.

We chose to be there. They didn’t.

You might say, “They shouldn’t obey such orders,” and you’re right, they shouldn’t, but unless you’ve personally faced the prospect of losing your career and livelihood (on which others may depend) in order to take a moral stand, you’ve no right to judge. It’s hard.

You might also say, “So, they were miserable — serves them right,” but if creating misery is your purpose, then aren’t you really just President Donald Trump’s tool?

Credit: Daria Bishop

The ICE operation in South Burlington and the police response around it require accountability from Gov. Phil Scott.

Scott has criticized aggressive federal immigration tactics and suggested Vermont should push back where it can. Yet when this operation unfolded, Vermont State Police and local police assisted ICE, and videos circulating online indicate they hurt peaceful protesters. Scott is the governor. State police answer to his administration. Even if he cannot stop ICE from operating in Vermont, he can draw a clear line against state participation that helps legitimize or facilitate these operations.

Vermont State Police and local police stated they were present for public safety and crowd control. Vermonters deserve a full account of the role state and local law enforcement played and under whose direction.

Scott too often responds to controversy by emphasizing constraints on his power or shifting blame elsewhere, such as to the legislature. He has done so again, blaming the results of the day on ICE and “those there to agitate.” We need more from a leader. If peaceful protesters were met with force while state police supported a federal immigration operation, then the consequences are Scott’s burden to address.

I read the recent March 11 letter to the editor titled “AI Helped Write This” with great interest. The writer or AI — I’m not completely sure which — raised an important point about the growing presence of artificial intelligence in journalism.

From my point of view, the real issue isn’t simply that AI can help write something. It’s that AI can produce very different versions of the “truth” depending on how a question is asked. The same prompt, rephrased slightly, can yield a different emphasis on facts. That might be fine for a book review, but when it comes to the news, that can have a definite impact on how the situation is viewed. As an example, ask AI for “a synopsis of the recent ICE incident in South Burlington” and see what you get. Then ask the same question appending “from right’s point of view” and then “from left’s point of view.” The results are remarkable.

AI doesn’t “know” the news; it assembles it based upon how it is asked. In this day of opinionated reporting, I find AI refreshing when the facts are given in an unbiased manner. But AI can be wrong, especially if the information that is being gathered is outdated, incomplete or just plain wrong. It can also be steered in a particular direction, simply by how something is phrased.

That’s why human reporters, editors and fact-checkers remain essential. It is their adherence to the facts and unbiased reporting that allows AI to apply those same qualities to its arrangement of information.

Corrections

In last week’s food news headlined “Vermont Farmer Corie Pierce Featured on PBS’ ‘Women of the Earth,’” the show release was incorrectly described. The episode went live on pbs.org and on the PBS Terra YouTube channel on March 12.

Last week’s From the Publisher column, “Maple Milanese,” misidentified a key ingredient in a fast favored by Italians. It is cayenne pepper.

This article appears in The Food Issue • 2026.

Got something to say?

Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!