I've had a harrowing correspondence with The Weekly Dig over the past couple of days, and it got me to wondering if all the adults were finally voted off the island, or worse: eaten alive by the savage kids running amuck over there!

It all began innocently enough. The Weekly Dig ran a social justice piece a couple of weeks ago about Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) reform, to which a Dig reader responded:

I guess that makes sense. Who KNOWS what kind of smack you could grow?

The letter was given a heading "Gated Gardens" by the Dig editorial staff, suggesting, to my mind, elitism. This was apparently the only letter they received about what was a rather interesting article. Either that or it was the only one they felt was worthy of publishing. The Victory Gardens were not mentioned in the original article, nor are CORI checks mentioned in the Fenway Garden Society's applications, so the topic of the LTTE seemed sort of out of left field.

Anyway, I couldn't let it slide. So, clickety-clack, I got on my own little hobby horse and wrote my own little letter, which was, of course, five times longer than the one to which I was responding! Ha! Take that!

As a proud member of the Fenway Garden Society (FGS), I’d like to respond to the reader, Andy, who laments that potential gardeners are being “discriminated against” when applying for what he calls “a public garden” in the Fenway, and the implication that asking whether applicants have been “convicted of a felony in the past five years” is “ridiculous” or means that an organization is discriminatory or elitist.

Andy’s characterization of the Fens as a “public garden” may be a little misleading. The gardens are on land whose jurisdiction falls under local, state and federal authorities, but the FGS is a private non-profit, membership-run and -funded organization, made up of folks of all backgrounds, ages, and incomes from all of Boston’s neighborhoods—from Beacon Hill to Savin Hill. The cost to rent a plot ($30 a year, $15 for seniors) is designed to allow anyone, regardless of financial means, the ability to garden there. Hardly a hallmark of elitism.

The FGS is also engaged in community outreach. The Victory Gardens include a sizable Special Needs section, and the FGS, in conjunction with Boston Natural Area Network (BNAN), currently sponsors a garden for at-risk youth. In the four years I have been a member I have found it to be a generous and accepting community which seeks out and fosters diversity. It is called a "community garden," not a "public garden," for a reason: community is central to its mission, basic upkeep, and continued existence as a garden.

But anyone who has done any community gardening in an urban setting knows that it presents all sorts of unique challenges, chief among them maintaining a safe and hospitable environment for all gardeners and for those visiting the gardens. Members have to take the possibility that gardens may become derelict or sites of criminal activity seriously, especially in a large, centrally located parcel like the one the Victory Gardens occupy.

Many factors go into the approval of applicants for plots in the Victory Gardens, among them residency and gardening experience. As for criminal background, the exact wording on the application is: “in the past 5 years have you been convicted of a felony? If yes, please describe.” For the record: nowhere is it indicated that a “yes” means the applicant will be refused a garden.

I received a very prompt response from a certain Jeff Lawrence:

Mike,

You have a great challenge before you and one that we at the Dig fully support; best of luck, by all means!!

That being said, we at the Dig have also chronicled and will continue to fight for CORI and other post- incarceration reform so that when an inmate integrates back into society the barriers of entry aren’t such that they get pushed unwittingly back to a life of crime vs. a life of redemption and rectitude.

Therefore, any questions regarding “felonious” backgrounds on an application whereby the position does not involve other humans well being (bus driver, Sherpa) we feel are discriminatory because they punish the criminal twice. It should not be a criterion for employment for most releases, never mind for an application of a potential gardener.

By simply asking the question, you create an environment for discrimination.

-Respectfully yours…

"A life of crime vs. a life of redemption and rectitude"? Nice Victorian touch there!

It was a little strange to get a response like this from a letter to the editor. You don't expect it. It's not personal correspondence. But it's The Dig. I figured they handed it off to an intern with nothing better to do. All I wanted was to register my displeasure at my garden society being casually dissed on the letters page for no good reason, and to clarify any misconceptions that might've resulted from it.

The response bugged me on two levels, then. One: the break with convention I just mentioned. And two: the substance and style of the response itself. It's hard to argue with declaratives like "By simply asking the question, you create an environment for discrimination," so I intended to leave off further correspondence on the issue with the kids at The Dig, since it promised to go nowhere. I figured I'd done my part for my garden society.

There are whole vistas of controversy here one could explore, but just as I told the twitchy little fifty-something clipboarder with some sort of skin disease outside Shaw's who demanded to know why I would not sign his coyly anti-Semitic petition: "if you were about thirty years younger, a foot taller, tan, wearing a yarmulke (so sexy!), and wanted to go back to my place for some Hebrew Nationals, I would, but, unfortunately for both of us, you're not" — I'm not one to argue for the sake of arguing.

Arguments themselves may be compelling or not, but when coupled with a lack of good looks and charm, the best argument in the world will persuade no one. The opposite is, unfortunately, too true, as well. I don't know anything about Jeff Lawrence, but I probably wouldn't sign his petition, either.

As for the argument. You'll note I limited myself in my letter to the implication that asking about recent felony convictions was "ridiculous" in an application for a community garden plot, and whether it's inherently unfair, or elitist. I didn't address myself to the wider issue of whether felony conviction should be classed among age, race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation.

I see an obvious case of "which one of these things is not like the others," but I am not oblivious to the sleight of hand that was used to fit sexuality into the litany at the last minute. There is a reason "sexual preference" is out of fashion. And this cuts to the core of many people's objection to adding a criminal past to the list of protected classes.

The idea that CORI reform is a no-brainer totally ignores the powerful logic of this list. "Discrimination" based on one's past actions, rather than one's cultural inheritance or genetic predisposition, is a form of character judgment that is arguably necessary in society. We are actually seeing our vetting process played out on the national stage this campaign season. The struggle not to judge according to race or gender, instead discriminating according to bowling scores and whom we would most like to have a beer with.

There is still the issue of what types of actions society labels criminal. Again, homosexuality has been criminalized in the past, and still is in many places, in some of which it's punishable by death. I know: yikes, right? Besides a society's shifting definition of "criminal," many factors, from social and economic conditions to educational opportunities, to mental illness and a propensity for substance abuse, may be partly to blame for criminal behavior. Sometimes society labels as criminal people or things that just rub it the wrong way.

Is CORI reform the answer? I don't know. But the more I thought about it, the more this Jeff Lawrence's cavalier dismissal of my garden society as "creating an environment of discrimination" irked me. And I knew this letter was going to have to be five times longer than my first one to properly make my point!

So, clickety-clack!

Just so that we're clear: I am not a member of the FGS board. I don't speak for the FGS. My opinions are my own.

You joke about bus drivers and sherpas, Jeff, but our membership is skewed toward very vulnerable populations: elderly and single women. We have 300 gardens, and a large percentage of them are maintained by seniors whose safety in that setting is by no means a given. That's the reality. The Fens is an area where many activities, of varied degrees of legality, go on without much incident, but a lot goes on behind the scenes to maintain the balance.

If gardening in the Fens were just about gardening, Andy's curdled criticism of the FGS, and your defense of it, would be more valid. Your assumption seems to be that the FGS is concerned about members growing pot in their gardens (which would be patently foolish for obvious reasons). But much more important than anything you might grow in your garden is your willingness and ability to be an active and contributing member of a community in which a great many of your fellow members are from vulnerable populations.

The question of whether asking about felony convictions on an application for a community garden is an effective way to address this is valid, but, with all due respect, your less-than-nuanced response, with its clichés about criminals "being punished twice" and oddly Victorian-sounding sentiments about "the life of crime vs. redemption and rectitude" indicate to me a lack of interest in a nuanced discussion not about abstract concepts of justice but the reality of implementing them.

My guess is that you don't have much practical knowledge of or any real interest in organizations like the FGS, or the everyday issues they confront. And why should you? But without that knowledge and interest, you're a less effective advocate for your cause, I can assure you. Cudgeling folks with your CORI reform! mantra may be more fun, but it won't lead to CORI reform.

My old friend Joe Finn, who's quoted in the article, has a more nuanced view. He talks about resources, and how desperately they're lacking for ex-felons. And I agree. The "CORI problems" mentioned by Aaron Tanaka are only one part of a constellation of challenges ex-felons face. There's nothing wrong with focusing on CORI checks, but doing so at the expense of the other challenges also does little to advance real social change.

I haven't seen much insight from The Dig, as committed to reform as you claim to be, into the difficulties of actually integrating convicted felons into a society in which many have been marginalized all their lives, lack education, and have not had the opportunity to develop the social skills to integrate effectively without long-term support and mediation.

If you look at Housing First, you'll see that that long-term intensive support and mediation is vital to the solution for homelessness. It's no different for ex-felons, many of whom end up in the shelter system as well. Many of whom have similar mental health and substance abuse issues. Many of whom need long-term transitional assistance they are not being offered, and which institutions like the FGS simply don't have the facilities to take up the slack on.

Acknowledging the wrongs of society in perpetuating a criminal class does not neutralize the profound practical difficulties of integrating folks who have likely never felt a part of mainstream society into it in effective ways. They need support. Even in things as silly and frivolous as being part of a community garden. Again, CORI is only the tip of the iceberg.

Thinking seriously about CORI reform means taking the complexities of reform seriously, rather than dismissing organizations that struggle to function effectively in an urban setting as "discriminatory," when the concerns they're confronting, and the populations they serve, are as real and valid as any you're advocating for.

CORI laws do speak to fears in the community, some of them hysterical, some of them real. But until more comprehensive transitional programs are developed that rather than seeking to hide criminal convictions in a don't-ask-don't-tell manner, acknowledge them, treat them openly, and bring convicted felons into the community with a conscious sense of their special needs, with appropriate long-term support and mediation, you can't ask organizations without access to resources to take on the role of dealing with a process they are simply not equipped for.

In the absence of effective programs designed specifically to integrate ex-felons into the community, asking for voluntary disclosure of felony convictions in the past five years has its logic for organizations like the FGS (although, again, I do not represent the FGS and can't speak about its policies in any official capacity). You may not belong to any such organizations — your email could have been written by a CORI spam algorithm – but I encourage you to get out into your community and join some. Then you may see why your cavalier insinuation of "an environment of discrimination" at the Victory Gardens is mistaken.

I appreciate your time, Jeff.

I thought, OK, done and dusted. It was a little strange to have gotten that email from this uppity intern, but I thought I'd really said my piece now.

Shortly thereafter, this gem arrived in my inbox:

Please don't talk about things you do not know. A diatribe does not make a point by its own girth alone.

The Dig has for your years covered the issues you seem to think we haven't and a simple google search ought to reveal that for the non-reader. Whether it's housing issues or CORI reform, we've given it serious coverage because we think it's important.

As for me personally, being a convicted felon has taught me first hand the injustices that exist. While i'm not as presumptious as you to claim your ignorance, I find your retort and accusations of me to be a typically uneducated response from someone who doesn't understand the topic at hand.

The pleasure sir, has been all mine.

Jeff

A little dressing down. One good turn deserves another. And then some emotional blackmail in The Reveal! You don't know anything! I'm a convicted felon! So there! I have had similarly deep dialogues with my nine year old nieces. Both of whom are also convicted felons (go figure). But: "A diatribe does not make a point by its own girth alone"? Not even a nine year old hardened ex-con could come up with that one. But then, how much time could a five year old have done? And what was his crime? Pulling the cat's tail? Biting grandma's ankles? I was intrigued.

But I decided to reply as an adult, since I had written in as one. I felt that for the sake of my garden society I should maintain my overall tone of seriousness. But I really had no idea what was going on. Why was this unorthodox exchange taking place? Was I being punked by the punks at The Dig?

Clackety-clack:

As I said, Jeff: a lack of interest in a nuanced discussion.

Please pass on our correspondence to your editor. I wrote a response to a letter to the editor which I believed misrepresented an organization I'm a part of. I was responding to you as a member of the Dig's editorial staff.

One last thing. Take it from someone who knows: you wanted "length," not "girth".

Thank you again for your time, Jeff.

I'd had enough, and just wanted my original letter to get to the proper authorities.  This ex-con intern was getting as tedious as my nine year old nieces. 

I took a break from work to spend some time in the garden, and take a ride along the Charles, on the Boston side of the bike path, where you get the best little show in town at the BU jungle gym on a sunny afternoon.  This afternoon was no exception.  It's painful to look at some of these lads for too long.  Squinting through that viewfinder.

When I got home I had almost forgotten the whole affair with all those dreadful emails and fur flying back and forth.  But when I checked my inbox after a little nibble and some Situation Room, I discovered this shocker:

No, you sounded bloated. Girth was right.

Beyond that... I am the editor so the letter will run, and I do appreciate your letter, but please reread it. It was bitter, somewhat personal against me when it didn't need to be, and while attempting to at the end to be balanced and measured, still seemed angry.

Best regards regardless...Jeff

I dove into the waste bin, found my copy of The Dig, and turned frantically to the masthead.  Turns out this Jeff Lawrence was being modest.  He is not only the editor, but the President/Publisher, too! I almost swallowed my tongue!  How marvelous! I felt so honored!

And suddenly it all made sense.  Of course he thought my letter to the editor was personal. He's the editor! Still and all, critiquing your reader's letters — ""wah wah wah! you were mean to me when you didn't need to be! You said mean things about ex-cons! I'm an ex-con!" seems like micromanaging to me.

But what do I know?  I'm no President/Publisher/Editor-In-Chief. I'm not even an ex-felon. 

And I guess I should probably apologize to my readers for the girth of this diatribe.  I keep forgetting that "a diatribe does not make a point by its own girth alone."

Forgive me.