Gillette took a step back, but it could take a step forward in the future
There is a saying that I love, that, despite some effort, I doubt I will ever be able to trace the true origins of. The oldest mention that I could find comes from a colorful account in 1920s Texas that is a bit too particular and uses language I doubt I could get past the editors so I will paraphrase:
“If one man says it’s raining and the other says it’s not, it is not the reporter’s job to quote both, it is to look out the (darn) window.”
Personally, I think the saying loses some charm without the expletives, but it gets the point across.
I am not a natural columnist. I prefer to focus my time and energies on breaking down the issues for the readership based on fairness and facts rather than providing my own personal opinion on a given matter.
That being said, I do not feel I could look certain friends, both old and new, in the eye if I said nothing about my disappointment in the city council’s final vote to repeal the malicious harms ordinance.
Two disappointments in particular have stuck with me since the vote.
After covering the repeal for a couple of months, I have dug into the arguments made by both sides of the issue. I see little reason to repeat them all here. What I will say is that, in my view, the evidence provided by each side of the issue is far from equal.
For three sessions, Councilwoman Heidi Gross asked her fellow council members and the dozens of audience members to provide a single case where the ordinance had led to a tangible instance of division or hate that those in favor of the repeal claimed it spread. Following Tuesday’s vote, she confirmed that not one had been provided to her.
Members of the community against the repeal spoke on a multitude of tangible moments, incidents of harassment and bullying, some leading to attempts at suicide, that have happened to themselves, family members and friends, of those close to them leaving this community because of how this community has treated them.
They argued that, even if it had not yet been used in the past two years, the malicious harms ordinance was at least a step by the city to make clear what they stood for. For them, those words meant that violence and destruction or incitement to the same due to who the person is, whether straight or gay, black or white or any of the numerous other categories laid out in the code, is antithetical to what the community should stand for. That the community saw the intimidation such actions seek to cause as uniquely unacceptable and worthy of an additional charge.
Wyoming is one of only three states to not have laws targeting hate/bias-based crime, if it is to be implemented, if the community is to stand up and point to such actions as uniquely harmful to both the individuals harmed and the communities around them, it will have to start at the local level.
Secondly, responding to the argument that many outside the community see this as a step back for Gillette, some community members urged the reporting to recognize the good intentions of those looking to repeal the ordinance, that neutral, non-sensational, reporting would help ease that particular trouble for Gillette’s image on the broader stage.
While the irony of asking me and other reporters to take the intentions of their actions in working to repeal a law that worked to do the same for perpetrators of malicious harms is not lost on me, that isn’t what I am here to talk about.
I am here to share my disappointment in the outcome, given the difference in the weight of evidence provided by the two sides, and, apparently, to explain what my actual job is.
My job is to report the facts. If the facts seem weighted to one side, then go get some better facts, don’t expect me to ignore the other guy. My job is to report the news, not massage messaging or make one side seem more reasonable than they are through some false equivalency.
That is not to say I do not strive to be impartial, to make a good faith effort to be fair to everyone involved and to do my best to keep my own personal feelings out of it as I weigh what is presented by both sides, but, again, that is not neutrality, because the truth is not neutral.
Neutrality is the coward’s position. Neutrality is a refusal to get into an argument. Neutrality is a shaky but polite nod and a tug on the collar as you stutter and move on to the next question rather than confront what has been said and done.
And Gillette deserves better than to just move on from this.
On Tuesday, I believe Gillette took a step backward, one that may lead to harm to vulnerable members of this community and embolden those who wish to downplay those harms, but this step does not have to be permanent.
Even if this decision has consequences — consequences that should not be downplayed nor forgotten — I think, with a fair look at the issue, through conversations and understanding, whether it be in one year, five or nine, Gillette will take that step forward again.
If the sentiments of Gillette are in line with the majority of the people who spoke at the podium, wrote letters and made phone calls, it might not be long before this issue is brought back up again.
And on Election Day 2026, I have no doubt that this will be on the minds of many in this community.