This will be shorter as it's a continuing conversation our society is having. It's nothing new, and I'll probably end with a thoughtful question to ponder. I know it'll open a can of worms with (if I had readers) commenting anecdotes and examples about what I'm overlooking. So, this isn't meant to be comprehensive.
The thought initiated this week when I saw that SNL hired three new cast members. One is a white female, Chloe Fineman, one an Asian male, Bowen Yang, and one a white male, Shane Gillis. SNL prided itself on having an Asian man as a regular for the first time. Apparently, two other cast members have had partial Asian ancestry. Full-blooded Asian hiring is apparently a cause for celebration. I have to confess I only read headlines of these stories, but I don't imagine the articles went into anything substantial about these new hires. Maybe it had links showcasing their resume or maybe a short biography about their childhood and career. Certainly, there wouldn't have been an essay, much less a paragraph, about what it will do for the show to have an Asian cast member. In part, this announcement conceals the truth that there had not yet been an Asian cast member. What took them so long? Was it racism by the hiring staff? Did full Asians not apply to the show? Was there no need in the sketches? If Andrew Yang stays in the presidential race any longer, did SNL have to have someone to portray him without committing yellow-face? That wouldn't be new; Fred Armisen's skin complexion has allowed him to play Barack Obama, Osama bin Laden, a Scandinavian, and others. The instant headlines proclaiming the first full Asian cast member distract from the fact that he is the first full Asian cast member in 2019. Secondly, the headline of Bowen Yang's ethnicity reduces him to his ethnicity. There's little talk of his merit and resume.
Soon after seeing articles about these new cast members, I saw one (again, I did not read or search out articles) discovering racist videos and tracking past tweets containing hateful slurs by Gillis. I had to wonder why these surfaced against him. I know allegations such as these are not confined to white men. Kevin Hart stepped down (read: was removed) from being offered to host the Oscars. I haven't read these tweets or watched the videos in question. I do have to question, though, why it was Gillis that was investigated this thoroughly. Fineman and Yang may have clean Internet histories. I agree with Andrew Yang in recognizing that comedy should be received differently than speakers on platforms. Yet, I am not excusing hateful humor. But we must recognize the speed at which the social conscience changes. Steve Carell has acknowledged that an Office reboot wouldn't succeed in today's climate (although the show is still available on Netflix). Buzzfeed authors have become increasingly aware of the "problematic" scenarios that occur in Friends. At the risk of being accused of "white privilege" and the biases that come from being a man, I will admit that I can do more research in reading these articles fully, watching Gillis' videos for myself, recognize actual bias in my viewpoint before claiming slander against all white men. On the whole, however, there is an obvious epidemic in questioning and tearing down a person's current career trajectory based on what occurred years ago. If anything specific comes to mind when you read that last sentence, recognize the generality of its phrasing and see that it can apply to sexual harassment, financial fraud, and racist acts. Again, I'm not supporting the actions and sins that those in question have committed, the ones that truly occurred. But how does it fit into their current role and place in society? The abundance of this epidemic is most prevalent with celebrities and politicians. But take it to a personal scale - would you want to be fired because you smoked dope in high school or crossed sexual boundaries with someone years ago, or made a joke in the locker room? I consider all these sins; bad mistakes to avoid any religious connotations. People can and do change. Very few people are the same as they used to be. Instead, let's consider people for positions based on as they are now and what historical background is relevant to the job.
Now, this last bit will be much quicker than it deserves so it may get its own essay. Once these people's past crimes are "exposed," the expectation is legal justice (depending on the severity of the crimes) or a public apology. It quickly slides into the deterioration of the person's reputation and sometimes a loss of career success. Rarely have I read these apologies and thought, "Wow, this person really recognizes their mistake and regrets making it because it hurts people." The expectation of a public apology will not result in a sincere apology. The phrases of these apologies are so similar and formal that there is no sincerity to them. It seems as though they are more sorry they got caught. If I signed my name to a statement such as these public apologies, it would be insincere and more of an apology that this is what the culture accepts as payment for wrongs because of hyper-offensiveness. It would be more of a lamentation that the public is satisfied by these half-hearted, insincere copy and pasted statements to make up for something that did not necessarily need to be brought to light in the first place or was taken out of context.
We can agree that Bill Cosby's actions are more harmful than Gillis's statements. Cosby's actions affected a smaller group more traumatically. Gillis's words merely offended a large group. It's unfair to pressure anyone into an apology. It won't be sincere, and it won't cover the faults if they actually happened. Let's consider the person for where they are now, where their past faults have brought them, and what makes them qualified for whatever reason they're being questioned.