MANCHESTER, Conn.

Another front has opened in Connecticut's flag war, this time in Stonington, where, responding to a complaint and acting on legal advice, the school superintendent determined that the "rainbow" or gay pride flags teachers had placed in their classrooms are political and told teachers to remove them.

Whereupon students and others complained that the flags are necessary to show the school system's egalitarianism, and the teachers union asked for a private meeting with the state Board of Education's labor committee to discuss "inclusion." Maybe only a teacher union and a school board would miss the irony of excluding the public from a meeting about "inclusion," but then Connecticut has seen many other indications that some of public education actually despises the public and much prefers to make and implement policy in secret.

After being subjected to this political pressure, the superintendent reversed herself on the rainbow flags, decided that they are not political after all, and withdrew her order to remove them from classrooms.

But of course the rainbow flag is political and propagandistic, lending itself to various uses and interpretations, and so doesn't belong in government settings. If the flag signifies the acceptance and equality of people regardless of sexual orientation, so do the national and Connecticut flags, insofar as federal and state law prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

But the rainbow flag goes farther. To some it also means the right of biologically male students to use women's restrooms and participate in women's sports, thereby nullifying Title IX of federal civil-rights law. To others it means the right of school systems to treat the gender dysphoria of students and even facilitate their gender transition without the knowledge of their parents. The flag is used in various controversial contexts. There is and can be no official interpretation of it.

Municipal governments lately have been discovering that their endorsement is being sought for many flags, and that allowing some to fly on government property but not others raises a First Amendment issue. Some municipalities have decided, wisely, to stay out of the flag wars and confine themselves to government's own flags.

Of course, every school system and government agency should follow the laws against discrimination by sexual orientation. But a rainbow flag is not necessary to establish and publicize such a policy. Schools can act just as employers act at government direction and post notices of the policies required by law. If students of minority sexual orientation are really as timid as claimed by the advocates of putting the rainbow flag in classrooms and can't be comfortable in school without the flag being displayed, notices of non-discrimination policy can be posted in every classroom, even on every student's desk.

But neither such notices nor rainbow flags themselves are any defense against bullying, abuse, and other misconduct. The only defense is strong public administration, and Connecticut's schools are notorious for their lack of standards and discipline for students and employees alike.

Stonington's school administration has just shown itself to be another pushover.

xxx

Campaign commercials are often nasty and sometimes brutal and even deceitful. But Connecticut has seen few as disgraceful as one being aired by Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat seeking re-election.

The Lamont commercial depicts a bunch of people making fun of the name of the governor's Republican opponent, Bob Stefanowski. They call him "Stefa-nasty," though the Republican has maintained a softer and more informed tone than when he ran four years ago.

Name calling used to be considered childish and stupid, but apparently no longer at the highest level of state government.

Commercials for the re-election of 5th District Democratic U.S. Rep. Jahana Hayes have been attacking her Republican challenger, former state Sen. George Logan, signifying that the Democrats consider that race unusually competitive. But now commercials for the re-election of Democratic U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal are attacking his Republican opponent, Donald Trump devotee Leora Levy, implying that Democrats think that even Blumenthal, who has been in elective office for 38 years, may be in trouble too. Could it be?

Chris Powell is a columnist for the Journal Inquirer, in Manchester, Connecticut. (CPowell@JournalInquirer.com)