"No, let's give the fried chicken commercial to Donny Osmond. I don't think Mormons even like fried chicken..."
My theater company did a production of the Depression Era comedy “Stage Door,” about a group of young actresses who stay in a boarding house. There are two roles for “domestics” in the play; the female of the two has quite a few lines. The director felt that it would be perpetuating a stereotype to cast African-Americans in these roles, though that is what the characters were supposed to be, so she cast white actors in both parts. The bottom line is that African-American actors were not cast because of their race, in parts written for actors of their race. No offensive stereotype..and no jobs.
This seems counter-productive and foolish to me. Another example: I was once told by the EEOC specialist at a New York law firm that he never took female associates on travel to meet with clients, because he didn’t want to be vulnerable to sexual harassment claims. “So you’re discriminating against women in your firm to avoid harassing them?” I asked. “Well, I suppose you could say that,” he replied.
Which brings us to Mary J. Blige. The singer was hired by Burger King to sing in a fried chicken commercial, and the result has been attacked as racist stereotyping by several black publications and critics. Burger King has pulled the commercial, muttering some cover-story, along with Blige, about the ad being released “prematurely.” How that would change the fact that she is singing “Crispy chicken, fresh lettuce, three cheeses with dressing!” I don’t really grasp. Anyway, Burger King has officially apologized, which, I suppose, means that just as you can’t use the term “chink in the armor” in discussing anything to do with Jeremy Lin, you can’t hire a black singer to promote fried chicken….even if a black singer wants to promote fried chicken and needs a job.
Why isn’t it discrimination to refuse to hire black performers for a job that they have the qualifications to do and do well, if they agree to do it? I’d say it is definitely discrimination. Or does political correctness justify racial bias? That seems strange. Hire the actor, be guilty of racial stereotyping. Don’t hire the actor, and be guilty of racial discrimination in employment. Al Sharpton is likely to show up on your doorstep whatever you do.
What is the rule here? My guess: whatever gives race grievance hucksters the first opportunity to complain, that’s what matters most. If Burger King had refused to hire Blige because she was black and Blige complained, you can bet the company would be under fire for that, too. And you can also bet they’d apologize. Companies will apologize for anything. It’s fun to make them apologize.
None of this is fair, responsible, or reasonable, of course. As long as such no-win nonsense is the rule when dealing with race, the United States will remain tragically divided on the subject.
Ethics Alarms 
Then Jesse Jackson shows up for a “contribution”.
Along these lines, I remember that actor Morgan Freeman very much wanted the Hannibal Lector role in Silence of the Lambs, but everyone knew there was no chance the studio would cast a black man as a cannibal because of the backlash they’d get.
In the books, Lector was white, so the filmmakers at least had that excuse.
Now imagine replacing sand Nazi terrorist villains with neo-Nazis, just to avoid offending sand Nazis.
I am so tired of ethics degradation by way of politics of race and ethnicity. Jack, would you possibly have more creative breathing room, and more potential for critical acclaim, if every production you led turned every possible manifestation of negative stereotyping in the original work on its head? “Enots Revilo” conspiracy-mocking comes to mind (that’s probably already cliche’ itself, too, allowing for my lack of imagination). You could start with Obama in the GM Theater, with Juan Williams as “Mr. Booth”…
Again, great post that addresses the many paradoxes of this particular existence we all share. However, the one thing I want to point out which is the standard right wing talking point is “Al Sharpton will show up” –
yes, he and Jesse Jackson can be annoying – and sometimes they jump in and accuse first without knowing all the facts.
But if not them, then who will stand for the oppressed? Maybe former athletes who are politically active? How easily is their silence bought, because I really can’t think of anyone who is out there saying their peace who was a famous black athlete. There might be – but you don’t hear about them in the MSM. It’s just like broadcasting over and over of “Tea Pary ‘Ralies’” with the same 100 people and seeing that constantly on the ‘news’ but never hearing about the tens of thousands marching for Gay Rights nationally. The will of the masses can and are being suppressed, period.
And who is guilty of this on the so-called “white/right”? That guy who is the lone member and spokesman for some “Catholic Family Society” or whatever is constantly on the news regarding assorted anti-gay, anti-women, anti-Islamic agendas. Anytime that guy wants to get on the Tee Vee and beltch his fear and hate mongering, he’s always accomodated, even though he only speaks for a very small % of people.
Fear fear fear, You, the viewer, feel hopeless – that’s just the way the world is, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Hopefully Social Media is changing this, much to the ruling elite’s chagrin.