Last month on Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher talked with his guest panel about the abrupt departure of actor Geno Segers from the Broadway musical Hadestown. Being a theater director and arts educator in New York City, I was interested to hear what Maher and his guests had to say.
Creativity doesn’t happen without freedom. Probably why American creative genius, once so obvious, has shriveled into a husk of itself. May the pendulum swing. Someday creative people will just go ‘fuck this shit’ and make something new.
DEI and cancel culture hasn't disappeared , just been repackaged with word changes to protect the guilty. We are a very long way from this being over , and that's assuming it ever will. If you look at who's coming out of institutions of higher indoctrination , and moving into places of influence , that's not a solid bet..
I agree. What’s frustrating is when I try to explain what’s going on in the arts to people who I expect to be understanding I often hear, “DEI is over” or “Hollywood is realizing DEI doesn’t pay.” I see an ongoing problem and, unless there is some action (like a survey), it’s not going away anytime soon.
It is staggeringly naieve to think we have hit peak woke. THere are battalions being continuously churned out by institutions of higher indoctrination just staying below the radar and waiting for Trump to leave office. The arts in particular have always leaned left , liberal and you don’t need outside forces to enforce a party line , people learn to police themselves.
My wife and I have volunteered for theater and film festivals in SF for years as it’s the only way we can afford it. When the pronoun nonsense first blew up every place started with giving your pronouns. American Conservatory had a 2 ½ hr orientation where we were drilled on how to act , we were never to say Sir or Madame , and always “your child” , never “son or “daughter”. They were full blown disciples spreading the gospel. They were the most bizarre. Haven’t had to do that for some time , but we still get emails from managers and co-ordinators with their pronouns given.
Yup. I don’t know if it’s naïveté or people shoving their heads in the sand because they want to believe it’s over, but I don’t think it is by a long shot.
The arts along with so many other formats ,professions , and industries have been captured by the social justice gang and are essentially under inquistion scrutiny; ever on the lookout for heritics. I’m afraid “liberal” has lost it’s meaning , but I would also apply that to “conservative”. There seems to be a predictable sameness , blandness, that adhers only to the party line with the risk of losing out if you refuse to do so; devestaing in so many areas.
I've run into so much of this at even the community college level. My professors are relatively chill about my political views, mostly because I've known them for years and I'm not really a "bomb-thrower" type. But even still, I feel the need to constantly self-censor around all my (younger) classmates in the department just to avoid conflict. And that approach has only been semi-successful.
The pronouns thing is a big one for me too. Perhaps it's because I have the "endearingly grumpy old man" factor playing in my favor (since I'm in my early 30s), but I have always simply refused. It gets under a couple of people's skins, but whatever.
I don't know how this fell into my algorithm, but I truly enjoyed reading it! Very relatable!
Thanks so much Will! I’m so sorry to hear that about your community college. Hopefully you can get the degree and move on to a school that is more open to viewpoint diversity. Thanks for reading and the thoughtful response.
Hard to believe that the trans nonsense has so thoroughly infiltrated almost every aspect of American cultural and educational institutions. For such a “marginalized minority” they sure do have a lot of sway.
Here is an example of NYC theater in the 1950s, which could have been seen for the prior forty years, that gravitated to television, before that medium became the trash receptacle of the 1970s. Superb monologue, exquisite diction, sophisticated content, requiring the audience member to think about what is really going on.
Haha well there we will have to agree to disagree. I love the Little Foxes film and I do like The Children’s Hour. But I grant she was a complicated person.
There hasn't been any theater of any merit in the United States for at least fifty years.
By 1970, the quality of writing had begun to deteriorate; the trained and capable acting talents grew ancient and the new crop was less literate and less skilled.
Private, self-sustaining theatrical production companies were supplanted by government redistributions to political groups, masquerading as theatrical companies.
Revivals still could, at times, succeed, both as productions and commercial vehicles. But the end of real theater, always a goal of the Left, succeeded long ago.
I wasn’t born until after 1970 so I wasn’t able to see any of the original productions you’re talking about. I’ve had seen many productions in NYC from 1991 onward that I thought were magnificent and moving. What work before 1970 do you especially appreciate?
You ought to read about the history of the American theater and the plays, many of which are now public domain and easy to find. You will see the great difference in quality even after just a few hours of reading.
The prime of American theater was the period 1890-1955 or so. The first half of that period was full of dramatic and musical successes. That’s when theaters were privately owned and received no government redistributions of tax moneys (pay-offs) to stay in business.
Manhattan was the center of the American theatrical world, with audiences of 3,000-5,000 nightly for many performances and smaller shows seating 500-1000. The audience there was literate and sophisticated. NYC set the trend for the nation in theater. (Yes, they tried out new plays in New Haven and Philadelphia, but they brought the best successes to Manhattan.) Off-Broadway was still a trend setter and off-off, though shunned by some, were like AAA and AA baseball farm leagues for talent. They were still the major league.
Until vaudeville was destroyed by the movie industry by 1930 or so (though burly-Q lasted until the 1950s), the big and little wheel fanned out throughout the nation, giving live theatrical and variety performance even into very small towns. You can still see the ads for the commercial establishments like actors’ hotels and drama teachers, piano tuners and the like in old theater magazines.
In the late 40s, the anti-theater movement pressed into NYC, with the vanguard of destruction led by Ionesco and Beckett and the like. But even then, as drama became ever more fetishistic (Oh, Calcutta) and bizarre (Charles Busch’s loathsome, Vampire Lesbians of Sodom), the musicals were still tip-top, A-1 affairs into the 1970s, with revivals of No No Nanette and Sugar Babies.
By the 1990s, NYC theater was truly moribund. Disney invaded with their garbage and the audiences were less civilized, educated and first-rate. Thereafter, the childish, foul and scurrilous nature of the productions became more emphasized, like Legally Blonde, or Leftist, like Newsies. The music became far less complex and sophisticated, and ever more repetitive, loud, hyped and immature. There were occasional exceptions, like the Nth revival of South Pacific with Paulo Szot, who was really marvelous when I saw him in it in 2005, I think.
The past 20 years, I scan the theater pages in various cities and there has been nothing new of any substance or value. It is all ideologically Leftist, devoid of aesthetic value — and while there is great dancing talent in our country, especially in the classical ballet, the stage acting is exceedingly trying. But then, the parts are thin caricatures. I mean, generally — of course, there will be exceptions. But once mighty Manhattan theater is now like Taco Bell, compared to Michelin 3 star.
Haha. I’m not sorry I missed Oh, Calcutta but I have seen similar shows for gay male audiences—the novelty wore off in about 30 seconds.
Yeah I have read the history of theater. In fact I had to read it three times, in undergrad and during both masters degree programs. What interests me is the theater didn’t seem to learn from the disaster of the FTP. Theaters received federal funding but quickly used it for propaganda so it was taken away. They could have used that money to build and grow theaters producing work inspired by universal themes but they chose activism instead. Seems like it’s happening again.
I was in NYC when Disney came to town and I remember people saying this was going to change the game, and it did.
Maybe it’s just my personal taste but I did thoroughly enjoy musicals like The Secret Garden, Light in the Piazza, Caroline or Change, Hedwig (off Bway), Kiss of the Spider Woman, Spring Awakening, Avenue Q and even Wicked. The Sam Mendes revival of Cabaret was stunning. Mary Zimmerman’s Metamorphoses and Terrance McNally’s Love! Valor! Compassion! and the 2019 production of The Inheritance were all wonderful plays (in my view.)
But I was mostly curious to hear what plays resonated with you.
I sit on the board of a regional theater company, and I am very sympathetic to the author’s broader concern that the range of acceptable perspectives within the theater community has narrowed. I also agree that artists shouldn’t be shunned or lose employment simply because they hold unpopular views.
Where I part company with the author is over pronouns. I understand the distinction between voluntarily providing one’s pronouns and being required to do so, particularly in something as consequential as a job interview. But I’m not persuaded that the practice necessarily amounts to an ideological test.
I’ve had many interactions with artists where someone’s gender—and therefore the appropriate pronouns to use—was anything but obvious. For those of us, like me, who present as obviously male or female, adding “he/him” or “she/her” to an introduction seems a pretty modest accommodation if it creates a convention under which nobody has to be singled out.
The practical case is even clearer online. I’ve had substantial correspondence with people without knowing their gender at all. Plenty of names cross genders, cultures, and languages in ways that make assumptions unreliable. In those circumstances, including pronouns is simply useful information.
None of this requires me to endorse a comprehensive theory of gender. It requires me to acknowledge the fairly unremarkable fact that I know my own pronouns and that other people sometimes don’t.
In fact, I think this gets at something important in the author’s larger argument. A genuinely diverse and inclusive theater community ought to make room for people with different political, religious, and philosophical views—including people who question prevailing ideas about gender. But inclusion also requires some practical conventions for navigating those differences.
There is a worthwhile conversation to be had about when such conventions cross the line into compelled ideological affirmation. I’m just not convinced that asking me to say “Zach, he/him” crosses it.
Had I been given the option to state my pronouns that would have been fair. The employer could have said “If you would like to share your pronouns, we welcome that.” But that is not what happened. I felt compelled to comply. Do we live in a free society if a job applicant can’t say, “I’m sorry I don’t want to participate in this practice because my sex and gender are not relevant to my ability to do this job.” Why can’t job applicants have the option to opt out of this ritual? Employers who compel speech regarding sex and gender during a job interview may be wading into troubled waters.
I don't disagree with you, but I'm confused about why you didn't just say, "Hello. My name is Kevin, and I don't feel comfortable sharing my pronouns." It seems like you could have said that and maybe been okay?
An arts education organization I used to work for not too long ago decided to have all the teaching artists state their names and pronouns at the beginning of a workplace professional development. They had never done that before. When it was my turn, I just said my name. I was then directly asked to add my pronouns. I politely explained adding pronouns to my name is not the authentic way I introduced myself. The supervisor pushed further, saying, “We are doing this to make people feel included.” I said, “I know you are, but you just made me feel excluded.” He became visibly upset. Other teaching artists who introduced themselves after me, thanked me for saying something, and acknowledged they don’t want to add pronouns either.
On the second day, one of the facilitators who was gender non-conforming, began the workday with a long speech explaining that pronouns are a “spiritual practice” for this person. After the lecture, everyone complied. I know I certainly felt pressured at work to do something I was not comfortable with. As an employee in New York State I should not be compelled to participate in anyone’s spiritual practice at work. If I said I don’t consent to something relating to my sex or gender, that should be the end—full stop.
Although I had worked for that organization for many years, after the pronoun infused professional development, they never contacted me with work offers again. While no one ever told me that my refusal to participate in the pronoun ritual was the reason they stopped hiring me, given the timing and my history with that organization, I have good reason to be suspicious. Many others in the theater have had similar experiences, I linked to one actor’s shunning over pronouns in the essay, but there are more examples.
This behavior should stop. Not just because I don’t personally like it—but because it can cause legal exposure. Whether an employer considers compelling certain speech to be acceptable could become relevant if a current or prospective employee were to file an EEOC charge alleging an adverse employment action because they refused to comply with that requirement—particularly where the compelled speech concerns sex or gender. Employees and job seekers have legal rights that aren’t determined by whether employers consider particular speech justifiable to compel.
Kevin, thank you for taking the time to share that. It gives me a much clearer understanding of what happened, and I’m sorry that you were pressured to participate in something that made you uncomfortable.
And I’m sorry that’s the way your relationship with that organization ended. While we can’t know their perspective on why the relationship ended, I certainly understand why you feel your objection played a role in that.
What strikes me most here is that a practice that was intended to promote inclusion left you feeling excluded. In my view, that’s a real problem and something that is worth deep reflection. Diversity and inclusivity are critical values for the theater community, and in that respect, your colleagues failed you.
I continue to believe that sharing pronouns can be a useful and meaningful activity, but there must be room to decline. Pronouns are a personal and individual reflection of the people around us, and so we must respect the choices that those people make.
I appreciate the opportunity to better understand your experience. Thank you for your willingness to be public about this.
The compelled declaration of pronouns has nothing to do with inclusion, and everything to do with loyalty oaths.
It is a test to see, first, who has already joined the forces seeking to undermine our basic freedoms, which as a part of 1A include freedom from compelled speech; and second, to see who can be forced to deny reality: there are only two sexes. There are no genders; there are personalities, and they don’t need pronouns.
Deny reality, and you can be sold anything; have shown you will give in to anything.
Those who capitulate or feel empathy, pity or sympathy for those who feel he/she simply won’t do for their unique and special case will be sadly used by the interests using this tool.
Because you see, none of this is about what it seems to be about. It’s never about what it seems to be about. It’s always about the revolution.
You can't educate willful ignorance, nor can willful error be corrected. I think the problem here is that the ignorance / error is driven by a moral concept and deviating from that concept is seen as becoming immoral / evil. Given the social costs of being out of step on being publically moral, too many people choose to be ignorant / in error.
I'm wondering if they're wondering why fewer and fewer people are going to the theater? If so, this isn't the way to reverse it. I hear that about Hadestown, I immediately commit to never seeing it, never attending the theater where it was performed, never supporting any of the people who sacked Segers. Bam, crossed those off my list. And I won't attend anything with even a whiff of wokeness now. I believe the last play I saw was Jerusalem, which I saw three times in New York and almost a fourth time in London. I have not seen Hamilton.
What we need is more freedom to explore any and all perspectives. As long as DEI is still dictating theater, I will be staying home. Unless it's to see a great non-woke UK play with one of my favorite older actors. I had not heard of the Frigid Fringe Festival, but I wouldn't attend it after hearing that. I have an iron discipline now when it comes to denying money and energy to the censorship crowd.
As playwrights, directors, theaters, and actors keep shrink-shrink-shrinking themselves to fit into tinier ideological boxes so as not to offend anyone, so does the size of the theater going audience shrink. It's going to be down to a few woke non-binary clapping seals eventually.
Creativity doesn’t happen without freedom. Probably why American creative genius, once so obvious, has shriveled into a husk of itself. May the pendulum swing. Someday creative people will just go ‘fuck this shit’ and make something new.
I think it's progress that Real Time reported on the pile-on instead of joining it. Which shows what an abysmal bottom there is to rise from.
DEI and cancel culture hasn't disappeared , just been repackaged with word changes to protect the guilty. We are a very long way from this being over , and that's assuming it ever will. If you look at who's coming out of institutions of higher indoctrination , and moving into places of influence , that's not a solid bet..
I agree. What’s frustrating is when I try to explain what’s going on in the arts to people who I expect to be understanding I often hear, “DEI is over” or “Hollywood is realizing DEI doesn’t pay.” I see an ongoing problem and, unless there is some action (like a survey), it’s not going away anytime soon.
It is staggeringly naieve to think we have hit peak woke. THere are battalions being continuously churned out by institutions of higher indoctrination just staying below the radar and waiting for Trump to leave office. The arts in particular have always leaned left , liberal and you don’t need outside forces to enforce a party line , people learn to police themselves.
My wife and I have volunteered for theater and film festivals in SF for years as it’s the only way we can afford it. When the pronoun nonsense first blew up every place started with giving your pronouns. American Conservatory had a 2 ½ hr orientation where we were drilled on how to act , we were never to say Sir or Madame , and always “your child” , never “son or “daughter”. They were full blown disciples spreading the gospel. They were the most bizarre. Haven’t had to do that for some time , but we still get emails from managers and co-ordinators with their pronouns given.
Yup. I don’t know if it’s naïveté or people shoving their heads in the sand because they want to believe it’s over, but I don’t think it is by a long shot.
And yet, Left isn't Liberal anymore. Liberal used to mean embracing avant-garde shows and dangerous topics.
The arts along with so many other formats ,professions , and industries have been captured by the social justice gang and are essentially under inquistion scrutiny; ever on the lookout for heritics. I’m afraid “liberal” has lost it’s meaning , but I would also apply that to “conservative”. There seems to be a predictable sameness , blandness, that adhers only to the party line with the risk of losing out if you refuse to do so; devestaing in so many areas.
I've run into so much of this at even the community college level. My professors are relatively chill about my political views, mostly because I've known them for years and I'm not really a "bomb-thrower" type. But even still, I feel the need to constantly self-censor around all my (younger) classmates in the department just to avoid conflict. And that approach has only been semi-successful.
The pronouns thing is a big one for me too. Perhaps it's because I have the "endearingly grumpy old man" factor playing in my favor (since I'm in my early 30s), but I have always simply refused. It gets under a couple of people's skins, but whatever.
I don't know how this fell into my algorithm, but I truly enjoyed reading it! Very relatable!
Thanks so much Will! I’m so sorry to hear that about your community college. Hopefully you can get the degree and move on to a school that is more open to viewpoint diversity. Thanks for reading and the thoughtful response.
Hard to believe that the trans nonsense has so thoroughly infiltrated almost every aspect of American cultural and educational institutions. For such a “marginalized minority” they sure do have a lot of sway.
Here is an example of NYC theater in the 1950s, which could have been seen for the prior forty years, that gravitated to television, before that medium became the trash receptacle of the 1970s. Superb monologue, exquisite diction, sophisticated content, requiring the audience member to think about what is really going on.
https://youtu.be/HJgjbHJNR6M?is=RBTTghuYM7B6UXT-
I wish there was video of her in Little Foxes. I’ll bet she was electric in that role.
Yes, she was electric in anything — reading a laundry list, even! But Lillian Hellman was the the worst!
Haha well there we will have to agree to disagree. I love the Little Foxes film and I do like The Children’s Hour. But I grant she was a complicated person.
There hasn't been any theater of any merit in the United States for at least fifty years.
By 1970, the quality of writing had begun to deteriorate; the trained and capable acting talents grew ancient and the new crop was less literate and less skilled.
Private, self-sustaining theatrical production companies were supplanted by government redistributions to political groups, masquerading as theatrical companies.
Revivals still could, at times, succeed, both as productions and commercial vehicles. But the end of real theater, always a goal of the Left, succeeded long ago.
I wasn’t born until after 1970 so I wasn’t able to see any of the original productions you’re talking about. I’ve had seen many productions in NYC from 1991 onward that I thought were magnificent and moving. What work before 1970 do you especially appreciate?
You ought to read about the history of the American theater and the plays, many of which are now public domain and easy to find. You will see the great difference in quality even after just a few hours of reading.
The prime of American theater was the period 1890-1955 or so. The first half of that period was full of dramatic and musical successes. That’s when theaters were privately owned and received no government redistributions of tax moneys (pay-offs) to stay in business.
Manhattan was the center of the American theatrical world, with audiences of 3,000-5,000 nightly for many performances and smaller shows seating 500-1000. The audience there was literate and sophisticated. NYC set the trend for the nation in theater. (Yes, they tried out new plays in New Haven and Philadelphia, but they brought the best successes to Manhattan.) Off-Broadway was still a trend setter and off-off, though shunned by some, were like AAA and AA baseball farm leagues for talent. They were still the major league.
Until vaudeville was destroyed by the movie industry by 1930 or so (though burly-Q lasted until the 1950s), the big and little wheel fanned out throughout the nation, giving live theatrical and variety performance even into very small towns. You can still see the ads for the commercial establishments like actors’ hotels and drama teachers, piano tuners and the like in old theater magazines.
In the late 40s, the anti-theater movement pressed into NYC, with the vanguard of destruction led by Ionesco and Beckett and the like. But even then, as drama became ever more fetishistic (Oh, Calcutta) and bizarre (Charles Busch’s loathsome, Vampire Lesbians of Sodom), the musicals were still tip-top, A-1 affairs into the 1970s, with revivals of No No Nanette and Sugar Babies.
By the 1990s, NYC theater was truly moribund. Disney invaded with their garbage and the audiences were less civilized, educated and first-rate. Thereafter, the childish, foul and scurrilous nature of the productions became more emphasized, like Legally Blonde, or Leftist, like Newsies. The music became far less complex and sophisticated, and ever more repetitive, loud, hyped and immature. There were occasional exceptions, like the Nth revival of South Pacific with Paulo Szot, who was really marvelous when I saw him in it in 2005, I think.
The past 20 years, I scan the theater pages in various cities and there has been nothing new of any substance or value. It is all ideologically Leftist, devoid of aesthetic value — and while there is great dancing talent in our country, especially in the classical ballet, the stage acting is exceedingly trying. But then, the parts are thin caricatures. I mean, generally — of course, there will be exceptions. But once mighty Manhattan theater is now like Taco Bell, compared to Michelin 3 star.
Haha. I’m not sorry I missed Oh, Calcutta but I have seen similar shows for gay male audiences—the novelty wore off in about 30 seconds.
Yeah I have read the history of theater. In fact I had to read it three times, in undergrad and during both masters degree programs. What interests me is the theater didn’t seem to learn from the disaster of the FTP. Theaters received federal funding but quickly used it for propaganda so it was taken away. They could have used that money to build and grow theaters producing work inspired by universal themes but they chose activism instead. Seems like it’s happening again.
I was in NYC when Disney came to town and I remember people saying this was going to change the game, and it did.
Maybe it’s just my personal taste but I did thoroughly enjoy musicals like The Secret Garden, Light in the Piazza, Caroline or Change, Hedwig (off Bway), Kiss of the Spider Woman, Spring Awakening, Avenue Q and even Wicked. The Sam Mendes revival of Cabaret was stunning. Mary Zimmerman’s Metamorphoses and Terrance McNally’s Love! Valor! Compassion! and the 2019 production of The Inheritance were all wonderful plays (in my view.)
But I was mostly curious to hear what plays resonated with you.
I sit on the board of a regional theater company, and I am very sympathetic to the author’s broader concern that the range of acceptable perspectives within the theater community has narrowed. I also agree that artists shouldn’t be shunned or lose employment simply because they hold unpopular views.
Where I part company with the author is over pronouns. I understand the distinction between voluntarily providing one’s pronouns and being required to do so, particularly in something as consequential as a job interview. But I’m not persuaded that the practice necessarily amounts to an ideological test.
I’ve had many interactions with artists where someone’s gender—and therefore the appropriate pronouns to use—was anything but obvious. For those of us, like me, who present as obviously male or female, adding “he/him” or “she/her” to an introduction seems a pretty modest accommodation if it creates a convention under which nobody has to be singled out.
The practical case is even clearer online. I’ve had substantial correspondence with people without knowing their gender at all. Plenty of names cross genders, cultures, and languages in ways that make assumptions unreliable. In those circumstances, including pronouns is simply useful information.
None of this requires me to endorse a comprehensive theory of gender. It requires me to acknowledge the fairly unremarkable fact that I know my own pronouns and that other people sometimes don’t.
In fact, I think this gets at something important in the author’s larger argument. A genuinely diverse and inclusive theater community ought to make room for people with different political, religious, and philosophical views—including people who question prevailing ideas about gender. But inclusion also requires some practical conventions for navigating those differences.
There is a worthwhile conversation to be had about when such conventions cross the line into compelled ideological affirmation. I’m just not convinced that asking me to say “Zach, he/him” crosses it.
Had I been given the option to state my pronouns that would have been fair. The employer could have said “If you would like to share your pronouns, we welcome that.” But that is not what happened. I felt compelled to comply. Do we live in a free society if a job applicant can’t say, “I’m sorry I don’t want to participate in this practice because my sex and gender are not relevant to my ability to do this job.” Why can’t job applicants have the option to opt out of this ritual? Employers who compel speech regarding sex and gender during a job interview may be wading into troubled waters.
I don't disagree with you, but I'm confused about why you didn't just say, "Hello. My name is Kevin, and I don't feel comfortable sharing my pronouns." It seems like you could have said that and maybe been okay?
That’s a great question.
An arts education organization I used to work for not too long ago decided to have all the teaching artists state their names and pronouns at the beginning of a workplace professional development. They had never done that before. When it was my turn, I just said my name. I was then directly asked to add my pronouns. I politely explained adding pronouns to my name is not the authentic way I introduced myself. The supervisor pushed further, saying, “We are doing this to make people feel included.” I said, “I know you are, but you just made me feel excluded.” He became visibly upset. Other teaching artists who introduced themselves after me, thanked me for saying something, and acknowledged they don’t want to add pronouns either.
On the second day, one of the facilitators who was gender non-conforming, began the workday with a long speech explaining that pronouns are a “spiritual practice” for this person. After the lecture, everyone complied. I know I certainly felt pressured at work to do something I was not comfortable with. As an employee in New York State I should not be compelled to participate in anyone’s spiritual practice at work. If I said I don’t consent to something relating to my sex or gender, that should be the end—full stop.
Although I had worked for that organization for many years, after the pronoun infused professional development, they never contacted me with work offers again. While no one ever told me that my refusal to participate in the pronoun ritual was the reason they stopped hiring me, given the timing and my history with that organization, I have good reason to be suspicious. Many others in the theater have had similar experiences, I linked to one actor’s shunning over pronouns in the essay, but there are more examples.
This behavior should stop. Not just because I don’t personally like it—but because it can cause legal exposure. Whether an employer considers compelling certain speech to be acceptable could become relevant if a current or prospective employee were to file an EEOC charge alleging an adverse employment action because they refused to comply with that requirement—particularly where the compelled speech concerns sex or gender. Employees and job seekers have legal rights that aren’t determined by whether employers consider particular speech justifiable to compel.
Kevin, thank you for taking the time to share that. It gives me a much clearer understanding of what happened, and I’m sorry that you were pressured to participate in something that made you uncomfortable.
And I’m sorry that’s the way your relationship with that organization ended. While we can’t know their perspective on why the relationship ended, I certainly understand why you feel your objection played a role in that.
What strikes me most here is that a practice that was intended to promote inclusion left you feeling excluded. In my view, that’s a real problem and something that is worth deep reflection. Diversity and inclusivity are critical values for the theater community, and in that respect, your colleagues failed you.
I continue to believe that sharing pronouns can be a useful and meaningful activity, but there must be room to decline. Pronouns are a personal and individual reflection of the people around us, and so we must respect the choices that those people make.
I appreciate the opportunity to better understand your experience. Thank you for your willingness to be public about this.
The compelled declaration of pronouns has nothing to do with inclusion, and everything to do with loyalty oaths.
It is a test to see, first, who has already joined the forces seeking to undermine our basic freedoms, which as a part of 1A include freedom from compelled speech; and second, to see who can be forced to deny reality: there are only two sexes. There are no genders; there are personalities, and they don’t need pronouns.
Deny reality, and you can be sold anything; have shown you will give in to anything.
Those who capitulate or feel empathy, pity or sympathy for those who feel he/she simply won’t do for their unique and special case will be sadly used by the interests using this tool.
Because you see, none of this is about what it seems to be about. It’s never about what it seems to be about. It’s always about the revolution.
You can't educate willful ignorance, nor can willful error be corrected. I think the problem here is that the ignorance / error is driven by a moral concept and deviating from that concept is seen as becoming immoral / evil. Given the social costs of being out of step on being publically moral, too many people choose to be ignorant / in error.
That I believe theater should have the freedom to be moral, immoral or neither does not depend on anyone's definition of the words
I'm wondering if they're wondering why fewer and fewer people are going to the theater? If so, this isn't the way to reverse it. I hear that about Hadestown, I immediately commit to never seeing it, never attending the theater where it was performed, never supporting any of the people who sacked Segers. Bam, crossed those off my list. And I won't attend anything with even a whiff of wokeness now. I believe the last play I saw was Jerusalem, which I saw three times in New York and almost a fourth time in London. I have not seen Hamilton.
What we need is more freedom to explore any and all perspectives. As long as DEI is still dictating theater, I will be staying home. Unless it's to see a great non-woke UK play with one of my favorite older actors. I had not heard of the Frigid Fringe Festival, but I wouldn't attend it after hearing that. I have an iron discipline now when it comes to denying money and energy to the censorship crowd.
As playwrights, directors, theaters, and actors keep shrink-shrink-shrinking themselves to fit into tinier ideological boxes so as not to offend anyone, so does the size of the theater going audience shrink. It's going to be down to a few woke non-binary clapping seals eventually.