Saturday, March 27, 2021

Minnesota theater cancels production of Cinderella because the cast is 'too white'

A local Minnesota theater has cancelled a production of Roger & Hammerstein's Cinderella because its cast was 'too white'.

Chanhassen Dinner Theatres was scheduled to stage the show later this year before its artistic director stepped in to slam its lack of diversity.

'It was 98 percent white, ' the artistic director, Michael Brindisi, told the Pioneer Press on Wednesday after looking at who had been cast.

However, Chanhassen - located southwest of Minneapolis - has a population that is overwhelming white, and the racial demographics of the cast were not strikingly different from the city as a whole.

According to the most recent census, 92.5 percent of people in Chanhassen are white. Less than 3 percent of residents are Hispanic, while 1.1 percent are black.

No photos of the Cinderella cast were officially released before the show was scrapped.

In a statement released on Monday, the theater stated: 'After careful consideration and with our ongoing commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, we have made the decision to cancel our upcoming production.

'In addition to changing future programming, we are establishing new pre-production protocols. We will be inviting (and paying) BIPOC artists to analyze the production with our creative teams through a new Diversity, Equity and Inclusion lens... This conversation will happen before the design and casting process has begun.'


For the People?

Democrats sure do have a way of twisting words to hide their true intent.

I’m so thankful for those in Washington, DC, who are concerned about us and want to take care of us. What would we do without them?

Nancy Pelosi is so concerned about us that she came up with HR 1, the “For the People Act.” The question is, just “who” are those people she’s worried about?

If you thought the last presidential election process was the smoothest ever, you’ll love this legislation. The rest of us? Well, not so much. I’ve talked about how words once had meaning. Bills passed by Congress, especially ones crafted by Democrats, are masterpieces of disinformation. Anyone remember Pelosi’s monstrous ObamaCare legislation? “We have to pass it,” Pelosi said, “to find out what’s in it.” How’s that working out?

HR 1 is another huge pile of legislative dung. It’s only 800 pages compared to ObamaCare’s 900-plus pages, which no one read. If any Republican senator votes for this bill, he or she needs to be voted out of office. I can’t go into all of the serious problems it will cause, but I’ll hit some highlights.

This bill will basically mean DC will control all voting law from here on out. It is designed, as I understand it, to override state legislation passed to ensure voting integrity. Democrats have to do this because, well, all you Red State residents are bigots and racists, so leftists will make the right laws for you. No worries!

No voter ID will be required. I could walk into a polling place and say “I’m Alfred E. Newman” (you have to be of a certain age to know who he is) and vote. Apparently anywhere.

The handling of absentee ballots will be so sloppy that there will be no chain of custody and no witnesses of signatures, all while states will make them available to anyone for any reason.

Voter rolls cannot be purged of people who have moved or died. We all know of states where dead people vote every election. Noncitizens would be able to vote with no problems. You don’t have to decide whether or not you want to register to vote — the government will do that for you. This will result in people with multiple registrations. But hey, you can never have too many ballots coming to you, right? Online registrations would be a blessing to hackers and cybercriminals.

HR 1 imposes onerous regulatory restrictions on political speech, including online and policy-related speech by candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. It would authorize the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions on nonprofit organizations when they apply for tax-exempt status. What could possibly go wrong?

It would set up a public funding program for candidates running for Congress. Your tax dollars could go to support candidates the Left chooses to fund. And we’re just barely scratching the surface.

The time of putting our heads in the sand is over. Every conservative Patriot needs to let their senators know what they think of this legislation. Don’t assume you know how they feel about this. It’s amazing how, when push comes to shove, the backbone completely disappears from some politicians.

Doing nothing will mean the Democrats won and we have surrendered our liberties! This legislation is NOT for “We the People.” It’s a leftist gift bag.


If Categories Like Women and Men No Longer Matter, Why Bother with Equal Pay Day?

Many progressives today insist that gender is fluid and that American law should abolish any distinctions between the sexes. Yet, ironically, many of these same people point to overly simplistic statistics derived from binary male-female categories to claim that women are the victims of wage discrimination and to demand more regulation, more government monitoring, and many, many more lawsuits.

Surely, such a binary approach to categorizing workers and comparing wages is woefully outdated in our new woke world!

According to progressive activists, sexism is the reason that the average woman earns only about 80 cents for every dollar earned by a man. This logic has never held up to scrutiny. Commonly used wage gap figures simply compare the average full-time working woman’s wages to the wages of the average full-time working man. Such raw statistics don’t account for occupation, specialty, years of experience, or even hours worked.

That last factor alone explains a large chunk of what’s often referred to as the wage gap. According to the Department of Labor, the average female full-time worker logs several fewer hours per week on the job than the average male. It’s hardly surprising—or evidence of discrimination—that someone who works ten percent less each week also earns less. When factors such as these are controlled for, the unexplained differences between male and female earnings shrink to just a few percentage points.

Progressives like to claim that the differences between men and women’s work-lives are the unsavory fruit of our innately sexist society that pushes women to sacrifice their careers and earnings to take on the lionshare of caregiving. To raise awareness of this alleged inequity and push policymakers to make it easier for workers to sue their employers, they created the pseudo holiday “Equal Pay Day” to mark the day that women will have earned enough to catch up with men’s earnings in 2020.

This year, Equal Pay Day fell on March 24. But it seems that in 2021, Equal Pay Day didn’t get the attention it once did. And not just because of COVID. The truth is, progressive groups that used to champion women’s interests just aren’t that interested in women anymore. In today’s woke world, women take a back seat to other “oppressed groups.”

This actually makes sense: Women aren’t a victim class at all. Women make up a majority of the population and a majority of registered and actual voters. Women are an increasingly educated and powerful segment of society. Women today dominate universities, earning 6 out of 10 bachelors degrees, and a solid majority of professional degrees. Women are a near majority of workers, and though they are still less likely than men to be CEOs, they are a growing share of business owners and making hiring and compensation decisions. Indeed, if employers are overwhelmingly discriminating against women, then women are doing a lot of the discriminating. Efforts to paint American women broadly as a victim class have long been a stretch.

It’s strange to witness the Left’s absolute reversal when it comes to their concerns about women. Those who just a few years ago insisted that sexual harassment and violence against women are ubiquitous, openly scoff at the notion that opportunistic male predators would claim a different gender identity to gain access to female-only prisons, locker rooms, domestic violence shelters, and women’s and girls’ bathrooms, in order to do them harm.

Watching Congress talk about “women” in recent weeks is enough to cause mental whiplash: After replacing the term “women” in the “Violence Against Women Act” (VAWA) with words like “people,” “adults,” or “youth; redefining “sex” in our nation’s civil rights laws to mean “gender identity;” and, trying to resurrect the misnamed “Equal Rights Amendment” to outlaw any legal protections or programs (like VAWA) aimed specifically at women (even when these protections make sense), the same body wants to pretend to care that women as a group make less than men as a group. Never mind that sex-based pay discrimination has been illegal in the United States since the 1960s. The logical fallacies, self-serving hypocrisy, and two-tongued virtue-signaling when it comes to women is too much to watch. Women should take note.

I had once hoped that we would stop fixating on the wage gap because it isn’t a helpful tool for measuring workplace discrimination. I had hoped that we would come to respect that women and men make different choices and recognize that it’s ok if these choices impact earnings. Sadly, that’s not why Equal Pay Day is irrelevant today. But I’d still take its elimination as a win.


Court Rules Professor Can’t Be Forced to Endorse an Ideology Against His Beliefs

Dr. Nicholas Meriwether enjoys a spirited debate. As a philosophy professor at Shawnee State University, there is plenty of that to go around in his classroom. And he is not afraid to voice his disagreement or bring up an entirely different viewpoint.

That’s part of what makes him a great professor. In his class, students are exposed to new ideas and opposing viewpoints. They have the opportunity to grapple with what they believe and why they believe it.

Most people think that’s what universities—the “marketplace of ideas”—are supposed to be!

But not according to Shawnee State officials. Now, Dr. Meriwether finds himself involved in a very different kind of debate—on the opposite side of the courtroom from his university, after it tried to shut down the free exchange of ideas by forcing him to endorse an ideology that he does not believe.

And, today Dr. Meriwether got some great news from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

Let’s take a deeper look at his case and the freedoms at stake.

Who: Dr. Nicholas Meriwether

Dr. Meriwether has served as a philosophy professor at Shawnee State University for over 20 years with an unblemished record. He is serious about creating an atmosphere of mutual respect in his classroom.

Dr. Meriwether is also serious about his beliefs. As a Christian, he strives to live and work consistently with his faith. In fact, his core beliefs are why he’s devoted his career to education.

Many of Dr. Meriwether’s students appreciate how he challenged them in the classroom and brought ideas to the table that were different than their own. As one student wrote:

You and I saw eye-to-eye on very little and that made those arguments all the more valuable to me. If you had only made a half-hearted attempt at a counterpoint or (far worse) neglected to even mention an opposing position in order to spare my feelings, you would have been fundamentally undermining my education. I thank you for showing me enough respect to bring your "A-Game" to every in-class debate.

Unfortunately, not every student felt the same way about encountering differing viewpoints in Dr. Meriwether’s class.

What: Meriwether v. The Trustees of Shawnee State University

One day, a male student approached Dr. Meriwether after class, informed him that he identified as transgender, and demanded that Dr. Meriwether refer to him as a woman, with feminine titles and pronouns. When Dr. Meriwether did not immediately agree, the student became aggressive, physically circling him, getting in his face, using expletives, and even threatening to get Dr. Meriwether fired.

The student then filed a complaint with the university, which launched a formal investigation.

As a philosopher and as a Christian, Dr. Meriwether believes that God has created human beings as either male or female, and that a person’s sex cannot change. To call a man a woman or vice versa endorses an ideology that conflicts with his beliefs. So Dr. Meriwether offered a compromise: He would refer to this student by a first or last name only. That way, he would not call the student something the student did not like, but he would also not say anything that contradicts what he believes is real and true.

This compromise was not enough for university officials; they formally charged Dr. Meriwether—claiming he “created a hostile environment” and discriminated against the student. Later, they placed a written warning in his personnel file that threatened “further corrective actions” if he does not refer to students using pronouns that reflect their self-asserted gender identity.

That’s why Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit on Dr. Meriwether’s behalf.

ADF filed a lawsuit on Dr. Meriwether’s behalf in November 2018. In February 2020, a federal judge dismissed the case, but we appealed that decision. In November, ADF attorneys argued Dr. Meriwether’s case before the 6th Circuit.

And today, we got some great news! The 6th Circuit issued its decision in favor of Dr. Meriwether, ruling that he shouldn’t be forced to speak a message that violates his beliefs.

Where: Portsmouth, Ohio. Shawnee State University is a public university in Portsmouth, Ohio.




No comments: