fashionguru_23 said: "barcelona20, you beat me to it. Although, I feel like MTC won't have a problem finding someone. LaTanya Richardson Jackson, perhaps?"
Doubt that. If Rashad is indeed let go, they'll need another "name."
GlindatheGood22 said: "fashionguru_23 said: "barcelona20, you beat me to it. Although, I feel like MTC won't have a problem finding someone. LaTanya Richardson Jackson, perhaps?"
Doubt that. If Rashad is indeed let go, they'll need another "name.""
LaTanya Richardson Jackson is already a "theatre" name. She's also very well-liked within the theatre community.
Just so everyone knows, all seven appellate judges believed his conviction should be overturned.
The vote was 6-1 with the dissenting justice believing he should be retried without the testimony that was illegally obtained.
I know everyone wants him in jail, but what you should decidedly not want is for prosecutors to be legally allowed to offer defendants a deal and then renege on the deal after they get what they want.
It was an actual miscarriage of justice. He should have been convicted on the merits, not because he was basically lied and duped into damning testimony.
I wonder if Rashad understands what justice was meted out by the court today. The court did NOT rule on Cosby's guilt. Nor could it: Cosby admitted that he gave her quaaludes etc. The ruling was based on a denial of due process. A prior prosecutor (Bruce Castor, who many of you will remember for his embarrassing performance as one of Trump's lawyers at his 2nd impeachment) had entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Cosby (to facilitate his testimony in the civil case). The ruling today was simply that the new prosecutor could not try Cosby because of the prior agreement. Is that what she thought was unjust? If so, her PR people had better start spinning or her goose is cooked. TBH I think we can stick a fork in both of them.
This is still America. She should be able to say and express her opinion .. whatever it is. She is fabulous on stage . And if they let her go for this as some of you suggest; she should sue.
MTC doesn't absolutely NEED a name for Skeleton Crew. This is a non-profit prestige piece. I'm sure they'd like to have a name - it definitely wouldn't hurt. But they would be ok without one.
In general I have mixed feelings about the practice of "cancellation by association," because it's a game of rapidly diminishing returns. This is pretty rough though.
If she was, in fact, referring to the legal process, there are MUCH better ways she could've communicated that, especially given her personal ties to Cosby (in other words, her personal ties to Cosby give people reason to easily assume that she's defending him, not defending the legal process).
SmokeyLady said: "This is still America. She should be able to say and express her opinion .. whatever it is. She is fabulous on stage . And if they let her go for this as some of you suggest; she should sue."
and she should win that suit (as despicable as her viewpoint is given what we know, and how offensive it is to the forty+ victims here).
JBroadway said: "MTC doesn't absolutely NEED a name for Skeleton Crew. This is a non-profit prestige piece. I'm sure they'd like to have a name - it definitely wouldn't hurt. But they would be ok without one.
In general I have mixed feelings about the practice of "cancellation by association," because it's a game of rapidly diminishing returns. This is pretty rough though.
If she was, in fact, referring to the legal process, there are MUCHbetter ways she could've communicated that, especially given her personal ties to Cosby (in other words, her personal ties to Cosby give people reason to easily assume that she's defending him, not defending the legal process)."
she wasnt referring to the legal process. shes professed her belief in his innocence for years. this is nothing new and given that incontrovertible fact, the producers couldn't possibly even feign shock/outrage pursuant to some clause buried in her contract. she holds a very unpopular opinion that makes it hard to respect her, but its an opinion everyone who has hired her/worked with her in the recent past knows about.
People are saying here that if they don't like a person's opinions, then that person isn't "liked" by "Broadway" and shouldn't be allowed to work there. So much wrong in that.
joevitus said: "People are saying here that if they don't like a person's opinions, then that person isn't "liked" by "Broadway" and shouldn't be allowed to work there. So much wrong in that."
By my estimate, no one in this thread has said that.
barcelona20 predicted that nobody will want to work with her after this, and fashionguru_23 and Hogan agreed. JSquared2 made an isolated comment about LaTanya Richardson Jackson being "liked" by theatre community as one reason that she might be considered for this role, even though she's not a huge name. PlayItAgain and Vernon said that they would personally choose not to support the production if she's in it.
Nobody said that she shouldn't be allowed to work, just that industry people will likely not want to work with her, and audiences may not want to see her.
Sure, she has a right to express her (WRONG) views.
People also have a right to be disgusted by her views and not support anything she is involved with.
If an employer gets wind of this (people not supporting her) it seems like the best decision for them would be to cut ties if possible. Aren’t most states at-will employment anyway? Do Equity contracts ever have a morality clause or something similar?
She’s also been named Dean at Howard University….people are going to want a response.