Note: A slightly shorter version of this article ran in print last week. Christine Ebersole and others replied to it; to see my response, and clarifications of some of the points made below, please click here.
The most important theater story of the week has been unfolding in, of all places, Sacramento. By now, perhaps, you have read all about it: How Scott Eckern, artistic director of Sacramento’s California Musical Theatre, was outed online for contributing $1,000 (of his personal money) toward the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which stripped gay couples of the right to marry in the state; how progay artists including actor Susan Egan and composer Marc Shaiman spoke out angrily against him; and how Eckern resigned in the face of significant protest and boycott threats to the CMT.
Pink, it seems, is the new blacklist. After the devastating passage of Prop 8, gay people throughout the country have reacted with outrage and anger. I understand their—our—feelings very well; I spent many weeks lobbying hard against the proposition, and felt punched in the gut when I learned that it had been approved. But there is something very troubling about the frankly McCarthyist timbre of the backlash. The new absolutism about gay marriage strikes me as reductive and unfair. (The inevitable comparison to miscegenation laws ignores several important differences, including the centrality of religious faith to the marriage question—Eckern is a Mormon—and the relative newness of gay-marriage support as a litmus test for bigotry. Eckern’s stated position on the question, i.e., that he supports full civil-union rights for gay couples, would until quite recently have been considered a progressive stance. It is not so different from Barack Obama’s public position on the matter.)
It is especially regrettable that this bullying should have taken place within the world of the theater, which—for all its native tendency toward hysteria—should also have a deeper grounding in the values of diversity and free speech, and a more humane understanding of the complexity of people’s actions. The most poignant moment of the whole sorry episode, for me, comes in playwright Jeff Whitty’s ambivalent account of his telephone conversation with Eckern: "Mr. Eckern kept bringing up the artistic perspective, that theater is a forum where people of opposing views can come together and air them and everybody can learn. I was less starry-eyed about the power of theater: ‘Well, then you walk out of the theater and the world still sucks.’"
Now Eckern has been hounded from his professional home of 25 years. Several of the leading players in this drama have expressed forgiveness for Eckern (including Whitty, before the resignation) or regret over how things have turned out. (“My actions have caused him harm, just as his actions caused harm to people he loved,” Egan told The New York Times. “We’re all guilty.”)
If we are wise, we should take this dispute as an opportunity for soul-searching. As a recent Times article explored, there is an obvious paucity of right-leaning voices in theater. There are many reasons for this, but it is to the detriment, I believe, of the community as a whole. My own political posture leans distinctly to the left. But we will not, in the long run, benefit from casting out all those whose opinions offend us. And there are sure to be many tests of tolerance ahead.
Consider the case of Christine Ebersole. Largely lost amid the Eckern brouhaha was an interview that the talented Grey Gardens star gave to Bloomberg.com this week, in which she shared her idiosyncratic opinions about recent economic history. The terrorist attacks of September 11, she claimed, were the work of the "international banking cartel,” in cahoots with the American government. Their goal? "To me it’s a systematic collapsing of the economy in order to usher in the amero," Ebersole explained. "That’s the new currency. It’s going to be introduced, and we’ll join with Mexico and Canada." Although she knows that espousing such views might "destroy" her career, she said, "This is my duty as an American citizen and a child of God to speak truth to power." (A registered Republican, Ebersole favors Ron Paul; everyone else, she said earlier this year, is "owned by the bankers.")
To anyone familiar with the history of anti-Semitism, these quotes set alarm bells ringing furiously. Although Ebersole insists that her take on 9/11 and the amero is "not some crazy conspiracy theory," many of its most prominent proponents come from the darkest abysses of the Jew-hating radical fringe. "The Amero Cometh," warns realjewnews.com, for example. Last year, the white-supremacist blogger Hal Turner claimed to have acquired an actual amero; it turned out to be a collectible coin from a D.C. engraver. (When the website Snopes.com debunked his tale, Turner responded that “since it is Jew bankers who have the most to gain by perpetrating the amero switch…the kikes at Snopes have every reason to spin this story.”)
Not so many degrees of ideology separate Ebersole from this ugly crowd. But this does not mean that she is an anti-Semite. It seems likely, in fact, that she is merely very gullible. If she understood the lineage and connotations of her theory, Jewish audiences might then be justified in boycotting her shows. But what if she is just inadvertently parroting paranoia whose anti-Semitic codes she doesn’t grasp? [For further explanation of the history behind Ebersole's views—and an elaboration of my conviction that she is not, in fact, anti-Semitic—please click here.]
It seems to me that in judging whether someone is a bigot, we must be fair-minded about people’s differences, however silly or repugnant we may find them. Do Ebersole’s opinions make me think less of her as a person? Yes, they do. But she has a right, up to a point, to be wrong. And so did Eckern. Those of us who disdain their views must work to change their minds and resist the temptation to merely purge them from our programs. The theater world was a refuge, in the 1950s, for actors and writers blacklisted from Hollywood. That is a tradition worth keeping alive: the decency of the left.
Mr. Feldman,
Your essay concerns me deeply, especially in the subtextual argument that Mr. Eckern was somehow forced from his job by equal rights supporters…a ludicrous supposition and one wholly ignorant of the facts. Mr. Eckern quit his job after artists and patrons — who have the right, after all, to support any theatre they wish with their art or money — made the decision to no longer support Eckern’s theatre. You cannot truly be suggesting that this was not a legitimate act taken by free-minded consumers in this society.
Publicly, Mr. Eckern made the decision to resign on his own, although your essay suggests he may have been pushed out by the board of directors. But in any case, HE left. That is between him and his employer. As far as I can tell, no LGBT organization made a call for his resignation, nor did any angry mob pull him, like Marie Antionette from Versailles, out of his office. You demonize the gay community for their anger, but let Mr. Eckern off the hook for his bigoted financial donations. (And the argument that gay marriage is too “new” for him to have known better is as specious a justification as I’ve ever heard. There is an intrinisic, basic, innate understanding of the nature of equality — religious bias or history aside — and a man as smart as Mr. Eckern definitely knows the difference between equal and separate-but-equal.)
Your other excuse made on Mr. Eckern’s behalf — that he has religious views as a Mormon — ignore the fact that there are tens of thousands of Mormons across the country that DO support gay marriage equality. Many of them spoke in protests this weekend. Religion is not a monolith, not does it require groupthink. If you and Mr. Eckern choose to hide behind the false premise of religious orthodoxy, be my guest. But the rest of us know that hiding behind your church is a flimsy excuse for personal bigotry.
Mr. Eckern has spent his career making money from LGBT artists; it is right, fair, and proper that when he chose to spend that money in a fashion that denied and restricted the free rights of those same artists, that they be upset about it, and speak out against it. Should they have swallowed their anger, accepted their fate, and never stood up for the equality Mr. Eckern worked to make sure they never received? You invoke McCarthyism…but how dare you, when Mr. Eckern’s rights as an American have NEVER been restricted or denied, and yet the LGBT remains legal second-class citizens?
As for Ms. Ebersole…well, you seem to be conflating two complex sets of issues together without much sense of either. That’s not a defense of her actions, but a statement that your articles reads like a feint-and-dodge. I hope in the future that Time Out New York will give fair and just treatment to both issues…and not blame the victims of bigotry when they speak out against it.
Best,
Gabriel Shanks
Thank you Adam for a reasoned and informed response to the matter. Not only did the campaign against Eckern smack of the type of behavior we liberals claim to disdain, I think it had the unintended effect of giving fuel to the Prop 8 supporters. At least the people involved have had the integrity to later question their actions which gives us hope for the decency of “our side”.
Horseshit.
Equating the political action of those fighting bigotry with the political action of McCarthyism is absurd. The greatest offenses of McCarthyism were that the US Government sponsored the silencing of voices and forced artists to testify against each other. In the case of outing donors who gave money to write discrimination into the California constitution so that people can decide whether or not they want to provide them with additional resources with which to legislate against their civil rights is completely fair game.
Theses two forms of political action are not at all analogous. To equate the two is to set up a false moral equivalency that is shameful.
Theatre can certainly focus on diversity but it’s primary aim is excellence and entertainment. Theatre is not a grand kumbaya social experiment in false moral equivalency. It is an art and a business that rises and falls on its own merits.
Eckern was not “cast out” by anyone. He acted politically. Others exposed his political action. Eckern and his board of directors decided it was best for their theatre for him to resign. He could have stayed and taken the heat and the theatre was free to take the risk. The resignation was reactive. Politics is public behavior. That is why donors to propositions are required to state their name, profession, and employer (there are no money limits). To paint him as a victim is offensive especially in light of the underlying political act.
I agree with you that Eckern and Ebersole are both probably idiots. But their idiocy is a ridiculous basis to grant them the status of “suspect class” worthy of inclusion and special consideration in the name of diversity. Why don’t you try to raise a budget and sell tickets to a theatrical endeavor based on the diversity of its participants rather than the merits of the material and talent and then let us know how well you do. This community diversity argument is bogus.
Just wanted to clarify how I am quoted in the NY Times and here (from the Times quote). It’s a little misleading and makes it sound as if I regret sending my letter out about Scott Eckern.
I spoke with the Times reporter (very nice guy) for more than 20 minutes, gave him all my postings, and every reason why I spoke up and the complications of the situation. I believe it’s a good article, but he chose a quote of mine and placed it in a context that alters the meaning somewhat. Let me be clear, I do not regret informing the community, but neither am I doing a victory dance. Causing harm to anyone does not agree with me, but I understand the necessity of it at times. My point was that all actions have consequences … and these apparently are the consequences for Scott. But I also must take responsibility for my role in ruining a man’s reputation and career. Not a fun day at the office …. however much it may serve the greater good.
I also believe in making statements very carefully and do not view this as McCarthy-ism, but rather a civil rights issue. I believe in the decency of the left — and honestly, I’m fairly conservative politically. I am simply choosing not to lend my artistry or ticket-buying dollars to a producer who would use those dollars to repeal the civil rights of individuals in my state. I similarly don’t buy fuel from gas stations profiting Venezuela. This is a non-violent means for making a statement with my wallet.
Let one famous person get caught donating money to pass laws that would take civil rights away from black, Jewish or female Americans and see if the entertainment industry, and the public, wouldn’t turn on them in a heartbeat.
The only statement in Adam Feldman’s article that doesn’t show him to be a gay Uncle Tom, is his comparison of Eckern’s views to those of Obama. Many gay people have given Obama a pass on his “separate but equal” stance on gay rights … many are arguing that Obama couldn’t stand by us in this election. He needed to get into office and then he’ll show how gay friendly he is.
This has been why gays have become the only minority in American history to continually lose rights, instead of making progress like most other groups. We are much too willing to accept second class citizenship, to forgive the Democratic party for treating us like dirt and for apologizing for being who we are. Obama should be taken to task, as Eckern was. Obama’s utter silence (one letter in June of 2008 indicating he was against Prop 8 was in not nearly enough) on this matter contributed to our losses not only in CA, but gay rights issues throughout the country on November 4th (esp. in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida and Michigan). 75% of black voters voted Yes on Prop 8 becaus the YES campaign LIED and said Obama was asking them to vote YES. That the Obama campaign made no effort to clarify his position was DEVASTATING. When I personally called the campaign headquarters 2 weeks before the election to appeal for him to help us, a paid representative of Barack Obama said,(and this is an exact quote), “WHATEVER. You’re gay and you’re in California; your vote doesn’t matter. We’ve won there already.”
For the record, I still ended up voting for Obama as he was the least terrible choice. I am still hoping against hope that he will prove me wrong and show that he is gay friendly after all.
There are too many people who just don’t get it, including Adam Feldman. Most gays are very angry and the feeling in the air is that we’ve reached a tipping point … we’re tired of trying to appease those who hate us and belittle us. How can you expect people to accept employment from Scott Eckern if he’s a known homophobe and a known supporter of the Mormon hate group? Could Nathan Lane accept a job there any more easily than Will Smith accepting a job from a producer who has donated funds to the KKK? A musical theatre like the Calitornia Musical Theatre has a very high percentage of gay employees and jobbers. As the main representative of that company, Mr. Eckern is a dangerous man to work for. Any gay person who would collaborate with him or accept a paycheck from him would necessarily be sacrificing their very dignity and self-respect … something Mr. Feldman seems more than willing to do.
And please be clear. Mr. Feldman was not fired. He resigned his job after realizing he created substantial damage to the theatre company he was leading. It was the right thing to do. We’re all entitled to our opinions, our faith and our political positions. We are entitled to donate to groups we support and stand up for what we believe in. But with Democracy and “Free Speech” comes responsibility. And if you aren’t strong enough to take responsibility for your positions, then you shouldn’t participate. Mr. Eckern, and many other contributors to Yes on H8, are learning this the hard way.
I’d just like to address one comment Adam made that is factually and historically inaccurate:
“The inevitable comparison [of the fight for gay marriage] to miscegenation laws ignores several important differences, including the centrality of religious faith to the marriage question.”
Adam, you shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the legitimacy of this comparison. Religion was used regularly by both anti-miscegenation groups, state politicians, and even Federal judges in the 20 years preceding the Loving V. Virginia decision in 1967. The most often cited rationale against interracial marriage–including in court decisions!–was the idea that God ordained the separation of races by placing them on separate continents when he created the earth.
Having deep religious conviction does not place you in a special class in which your well-financed attack on a minority group should be treated with more respect because it’s attached to some spurious notion of faith.
And nobody’s been blacklisted. Eckern had the right to spend money to make the lives of gay people worse. Gay people had the right to say “We don’t want to work with you anymore.” And the theater had the right to decide that Eckern was worth less to them than the many people he affronted. Yes, I’m sure it sucks for Eckern to find his life made worse by a large and well-organized campaign. All I have to say to him is, now you know how we feel.
Fascinating to read the comments here. They are, to a one, smart and well-reasoned. Feldman’s article left me a little cold when I read it, as a former theatre professional, first as an actor and then as a casting director, I never thought that anything I was involved in had some touchy-feely higher calling. Good God, we were all too busy learning lines, the choreography, and how long to hold for laughs. Eckern is a bigot, pure and simple. Saying that you are a bigot because your religion told you to be is asinine. Ebersole is one of those folks who becomes fascinated by conspiracy theories because they certainly are more fun, more interesting, more deliciously titillating than boring old reality. Most people can’t keep a secret for 10 minutes and yet there’s this huge worldwide secret cabal that been running the planet for nearly one hundred years and nobody ever got drunk and spilled the beans to someone who knew someone who knew someone? That’s why the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory thing is so lame. Whistle-blowers and disillusioned former Bushies are coming out of the woodwork to talk about their time in the administration but no one has come forward to talk about the big 9/11 coverup? It’s so disappointing to think that 9/11 happened because a bunch of incompetent, arrogant, careless, foolish people were in charge. Again, much more interesting to think it was a secret worldwide conspiracy. And seriously, join with Canada? They wouldn’t have us if we begged on bended knee.
I am an ex-Mormon (born and raised in Utah) studying musical theatre in Wyoming. Close friends of mine from my college auditioned for the upcoming Music Circus season at California Musical Theatre.
When I asked one girl about her audition, she told me the choreographer referred to her as “Wyoming” during the dance audition. He was surprised to be working with someone of her talent who came from the state of Wyoming. I asked her if she mentioned that really she is from Utah, and she informed me about this Eckern story. She is an active Mormon, but said that she did not want those in charge of casting to know that fact.
Does anyone else find it upsetting that a talented Mormon actress feels she has to hide her religion out of fear that she won’t be cast because of it? Have gay rights activists become so blinded by their demands that they want to force an entire group (Mormon theatre artists) into a closet?
Thank you, Adam Feldman, for having enough vision to see that despite your personal views on Prop 8, what happened to Scott Eckern is alarming.
Marc Shaiman and all those who shared in his egocentric whiney temper tantrum should reconsider their “anti-discrmination” fight. The voice of the California public voted “yes” on Proposition 8. Gay activists who discriminate against a man for exercising his constitutional rights have only hurt their own cause even further.