Executive Director on Flag Burning

On March 20, 2010, at a national march and rally organized by ANSWER in Washington, DC, IVAW Board member Matthis Chiroux spoke from the podium and proceeded to burn an American flag.

Also speaking from the podium and on the stage with him at the time were IVAW member Robynn Murray and MFSO member Elaine Brower.

Following the event, photos and video have been posted on Facebook and Youtube. Matthis Chiroux posted a blog reflecting on his actions here and on Facebook. Since then, members and supporters have expressed their agreement and disappointment with Matthis' actions. Currently, there is no clear consensus one way or the other, but certainly strong sentiments on both sides.

After engaging in dialogue with the Board of Directors and several members, including a direct conversation with Matthis, I offer the following comments:

1) No one I spoke to takes the position that flag burning by an individual in protest is prohibited behavior. Everyone I spoke to accepts this as protected free speech. Whether anyone has a right to do this is not in question.

2) From the perspective of some members the issue is whether it's wise for a board member, an elected representative of the organization, to engage in such conduct. These members feel board members should hold themselves to a certain standard of behavior and be mindful of how their conduct reflects on the organization as a whole. In addition, the issue of how this will be perceived by current and potential members was also a concern. This action was viewed by some as putting our ability to reach service members and veterans in grave jeopardy. So far, one member has resigned in protest despite our efforts to reach out to him.

3) Others feel this was a bold action and needed in order to spark debate in a waning antiwar movement. Some members are very supportive of this action and believe it shows solidarity with oppressed people around the world by challenging the symbols of nationalism. In a few cases, members threatened to resign if any punitive action was taken against Matthis.

4) There is a request before the Board of Directors calling for a letter of reprimand, which is under consideration. Some members at the chapter and regional level plan to draft statements to express the sentiments of local members regarding the situation. I encourage open and honest debate. Disrespect and code of conduct violations, however, will not be acceptable or tolerated.

5) For me, the crux of the matter is making a distinction between what one does as an individual versus being a leader accountable to others when working in an organization. IVAW is a truly grassroots movement with a decentralized, democratic structure. We share a commitment to our points of unity and draw strength from the diversity of our membership. In order to move forward, we need to hold ourselves accountable to each other at every level of the organization. Taking action as an individual without consideration for how one's actions affect the whole only serves to sow distrust among the membership. When we disregard the input of the people we are organizing with the bonds of solidarity are damaged, and if not addressed directly, then severed. Speaking on behalf of an organization sometimes requires highlighting the broader views of the other members and making a clear distinction when one is expressing personal views.

6) I personally have no particular affinity to the flag (especially having Puerto Rican ancestry) and understand that there is a long history of people wrapping themselves in it to support and/or oppose movements at every level of the political spectrum. No one group has a monopoly on what the flag represents, nor should they. American flags have flown over those who fought to abolish slavery as well as those who sought to crush labor and civil rights movements. The flag means many things, to many people.

7) The message Matthis chose to convey represents his views and those of some other members in IVAW. It does not, however represent the position of all members nor the official position of the organization. While we endorsed the ANSWER march, there was no official endorsement of the message Matthis conveyed. Nor was official endorsement sought. Matthis represented his personal views which resonate with some but not all members. Our messaging is important and in the future we should all make an effort to reach consensus with those we organize with in an open way about how we represent IVAW.