Who we choose to include defines us, not them

I don’t know how much context is necessary.

There’s a candidate running for Equity Council in the Eastern Region who, over a roughly month-long period of time across December 2016-January 2017 made the following statements in tweets (perhaps among others, these are the ones I’ve seen myself):

“What’s not funny is the terror group BLM”

“…when you have an Islamic state hellbent on infiltrating us here, as they did in Europe. Caution is necessary”

“The only whores I see are the whining lib whores”

He deleted his twitter account within hours of these comments beginning to surface a week ago, after first warning friends on Facebook of a “derogatory, mean-spirited” campaign to sabotage his candidacy, full of “distortions and lies”. He reportedly deleted comments from people asking him about specific tweets.

He has since posted an apology, expressing remorse for the hurt caused and says those statements no longer reflect his views, and has stated “emphatically” that he no longer considers Black Lives Matter to be a terrorist group. He also describes his words as “careless, out-of-context comments” “uttered without thought or in jest”.

He also apparently was one of the people not pleased by the casting of Idris Elba as Heimdall in the various Marvel movies, tweeting more than once in Aug 2016:  “…last time I checked Norse mythology was inundated with blonde or white mostly male people.”

Just days ago he defended that stance on his Facebook page, saying, “As far as comics. I am a purist. I am [an] avid collector. I love the characters of all races. I don’t want Storm, Black Panther, Luke Cage, or Falcon swapped out either. Keep the originals.”

Some candidates and sitting Councilors initially leapt to his defense, perhaps out of loyalty, perhaps out of collegiality, perhaps out of friendship, perhaps before seeing the words that eventually surfaced.

Some have since accepted his apology, and credit his years of experience and service to the union. Some have said nothing further.

Some of these people I have respected enormously, and frankly their actions haven’t heartened me. But I am not close to most of them, and can’t speak to what’s in their minds.

Some have also endorsed and supported my own candidacy, and I have to leave room for the possibility that some part of my impulse to comment more publicly stems from a political cynicism – a need to dissociate myself from him – and not solely because I consider it the right thing to do. I hope it’s otherwise.

The candidate posted his apology on his own page, and in the Facebook group “Unofficial AEA Candidates for Council.” Here was my response to him in that group.

****************************

As instinctual animals, we are all wired to raise barriers, define what is “us” and what is “other”, and protect “our own”.

As rational humans, we get to choose how we define “other”.

And where we land on that choice and how we make it does more to define who *we* are than who “they” are.

Theatre at its best is not merely entertainment. It’s an exercise in empathy, and an invitation to recognize that the differences between us aren’t as important as the similarities that bind us together.

There is room in our industry for political disagreement. There is room in our union, and in its elected leadership, for political disagreement.

There is no room for bigotry or its self-defense. There is no room for fundamentally hind-brain-driven, reactionary beliefs that serve only to harden those barriers that our very art form exists to make permeable.

Lofty poeticizing of the primary issue aside, look, I don't believe anyone of us is just one thing. Decades of effective service to others -- and in my own admittedly privileged good faith I’d like to assume that’s what your friends and initial defenders leapt to recognize -- can theoretically exist side-by-side with damaging, hurtful, private beliefs.

And however fundamentally someone may have been “carefully taught,” there should always be room for them to “learn and evolve” and be given an opportunity to demonstrate that.

BUT…

The job we candidates here are asking to do involves more than simply being representative voices. To my mind it requires a certain amount of self-awareness, recognition of one’s own biases, and openness to discourse.

And when harm has been done, and it’s pointed out… the next steps someone takes are a window into their character and their judgment.

So when the primary immediate responses are deflection, denial, and defensiveness -- perhaps *especially* if driven by an emotional reaction to being forced to reckon with one’s past comments -- it’s legit to question whether that person should be in a position of leadership.