Grey’s Anatomy:
Washington vs. Knight. Again.

**UPDATED**

01.19.07 5:10 PM

As most of my regular readers know, I am not one to follow the Page Six/Jossip/Gawker/Perez Hilton gossip fests. But the formerly cooled-down and now re-heated debate over the outing of T.R. Knight has ignited my outrage.

As a fan of the New York Times’ blogs, especially Tom Zeller, Jr.’s “The Lede,” I have been watching and listening to the Gay Slurs at Grey’s Anatomy debate. It seems that there is actually some odd subset of society that thinks this whole thing was a “publicity stunt,” or staged, or, even worse, acceptable. It is not. Washington should be fired. Knight should sue him - not for defamation or libel, as it was neither. Simply as a hate crime. because that’s exactly what is was. And it’s high time we start holding “celebrities” and those in the public eye, to a higher standard than we do currently. Which, in many companies, would be still lower than the average working person is held to. Answer me this: Could you, at your job, call someone a “faggot” and not be in jeopardy of losing your job?

Read The Lede’s story, Gay Slurs at Grey’s Anatomy, and my comments (”posted by davidinmanhattan.”) and weigh in here or there. Also, as usual, Towleroad has a slew of info and discussion. You can also read my comments here, after the jump.

(First Post)
“The producers of “Grey’s Anatomy” have a responsibility to the network’s shareholders, and to the cast, crew, and viewers of the show: Fire Mr. Washington. Once is inexcusable. Twice is reprehensible.”

(Second Post)
“So, let’s look at the facts:

(1) Initially, in October, Washington, on the set (which means, in the workplace,) while engaged in an argument with his co-worker, Patrick Dempsey, referred to Knight as a “faggot.”

(2) Subsequently, Knight was essentially forced to pubically acknowledge his sexual orientation. It was a highly-publicized incident. Knight had 3 choices: (1) deny his orientation, (2) acknowledge his orientation, or (3) ignore the situation and allow rumors to fly. Knight made a good, honorable, brave choice and acknowledged his orientation. (This acknowledgement, unfortunately, may impact his ability to get other work, e.g., “leading man” roles, in an industry that is not especially open and supportive of homosexuals. So, there is a financial implication for Knight as well.)

(3) The situation calmed down, until this week, when, at a backstage news conference after The Golden Globes, (a work-related event,) Washington - unprompted, and having to move to get to the microphone - grabbed the mic and said, “No, I did not call T.R. a faggot. Never happened.”

(4) ABC has since condemned Washington’s actions and statement as “unacceptable.”

(5) Washington’s publicist has issued an apology. The apology acknowledges Washington’s actions.

These are the facts. In many other industries, this would be called sexual harassment, and, were it to happen in any company I have worked for, Washington would have been fired, and Knight could easily sue Washington (personally) and ABC (for allowing this to happen and continue in the workplace.)

The opinion that this is just a publicity stunt is unrealistic. Grey’s Anatomy does not need any more publicity; certainly not publicity of this type.

Washington was not “clearing up a reported rumor.” And even if he were, it is not his place to. Who is he to announce that someone - who has not publically acknowledged his homosexuality - is homosexual? He certainly is not Knight’s spokesman. And he certainly did not do it in a respectful or supportive manner. And we can assume he did not do it at Knight’s request.

And, as far as having the right to defend himself, of course Washington has that right. But not at The Golden Globes. There is a time and place for this type of discussion. That was not it. And Heigl’s comment that Washington “should not speak in public,” meant that she was offended and embarassed by her coworker.

Those are the facts.

Anti-gay speech, in any form, forum, or format is unacceptable. Just as is any other hate crime.”

(Third Post)
(In response to another reader’s comments. See the Times’ blog mentioned above for context.)
Well, I confess that I am new here, so I’m not quite sure how things work. But, I’m pretty sure that attacking members is probably not a good idea, and not within the bounds of “active discussions” or “heated debate,” (as stated in the NY Times Member Agreement.) I certainly hope I am not part of the problem, whatever that problem happens to be. And if posting my views and/or opinions are outside the member agreement, I hope specific identification of any inappropriate conduct on my part would be made in a supportive and educational manner.

That said, and in the spirit of intellectual debate, I submit that Mr. Washington has acknowledged his missteps and has issued a public apology for his comments, both the comments he made in October, and the comments he made earlier this week. I am not certain if citing other news organizations or providing links is acceptable here, but the L.A. Times posted an article yesterday quoting Washington as stating “I can neither defend nor explain my behavior,” and “I can also no longer deny to myself that there are issues I obviously need to examine within my own soul, and I’ve asked for help.” Lastly, Washington is also quoted in the same article as stating, “With one word, I’ve hurt everyone who has struggled for the respect so many of us take for granted”. So, I think that about wraps up the fact that Mr. Washington admits his missteps and use of inappropriate language.

I absolutely agree with the game of telephone analogy. It’s a good one. Especially in today’s society, words and recollections are twisted or quoted out of context - sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. And that is unfortunate. But, also unfortunate is calling someone a “homo,” or a “faggot.”

With all my heart, I wish anyone who believes they are homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual, transgendered, or just not sure (I hope I have not left out anyone,) were free and comfortable enough to publicly identify their orientation. Sadly, I have to admit that, in my 44 years, I have hidden my orientation at times, for fear of losing a job. Fortunately, it has been many years since I’ve felt that need, but I have. (Somehow, in the ethics of fair play and full disclosure, I feel obligated now to mention that I am gay.)

There is absolutely a part of me (let me stress only a part) that somewhat agrees that “the gay community should be offended that Knight, a public figure, was not more open with his orientation.” But, consider Knight’s words, “whatever your journey is…” and “it’s not my thing to, like, call up People magazine and be like, “Hey, you want to know something about me?”" It is a private choice, and I think we should all respect each others’ choices.

I was not under the impression that the response was prompted. A more appropriate response then would have been, “I’m sorry, I don’t think it is appropriate to discuss that here and now, but we can speak later.”

I’m not sure what actions the gay community has taken that have led to people being “anti-gay.” But I am sure that the “gay community,” like any other community, should not have to work for greater acceptance. That’s tantamount to saying that every person has to earn all the rights mandated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The way it works is that we all have those rights from birth, and, unless you do something criminal to loose them (say, being convicted of committing a felony, going to jail, and losing your right to vote,) those rights are the basis of our “social contract.”

Yes, currently Mr. Washington’s job could be threatened, and it should be. In these situations, and others, everyone makes choices, and hopefully wise ones. But wisdom is learned. Poor choices hopefully lead to wiser ones. Like not using derogatory terms, and challenging ideas, not people.