Latest news with #Apology
Daily Mail
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Patti LuPone breaks silence over brutal swipes against Broadway stars Audra McDonald and Kecia Lewis
Broadway star Patti LuPone has now apologized for the swipes she made about Audra McDonald and Kecia Lewis. In a statement obtained by and posted to her social media accounts, LuPone said she regrets the 'flippant' and 'emotional' responses she offered when asked about McDonald and Lewis during her recent interview with the New Yorker. LuPone, 76, called Lewis, 59, a 'b***h' and said McDonald, 54, was 'not a friend' during her controversial profile. The actress was especially remorseful over the insult she threw at Lewis, which she admitted was 'demeaning and disrespectful' and expressed hopes that she would be able to speak with both of the actresses 'personally' to make amends. 'For as long as I have worked in the theatre, I have spoken my mind and never apologized. That is changing today,' the statement began. 'I am deeply sorry for the words I used during The New Yorker interview, particularly about Kecia Lewis, which were demeaning and disrespectful. I regret my flippant and emotional responses during this interview, which were inappropriate, and I am devastated that my behavior has offended others and has run counter to what we hold dear in this community. 'I hope to have the chance to speak to Audra and Kecia personally to offer my sincere apologies. 'I wholeheartedly agree with everything that was written in the open letter shared yesterday. From middle school drama clubs to professional stages, theatre has always been about lifting each other up and welcoming those who feel they don't belong anywhere else. 'I made a mistake, I take full responsibility for it, and I am committed to making this right. Our entire theatre community deserves better.' has reached out to representatives for McDonald and Lewis for comment but did not immediately receive a response. LuPone has faced much backlash since her controversial interview with the New Yorker was published, and her remarks even drew the ire of her own Broadway peers. Over 500 people have signed an open letter from Broadway's theater community condemning the slights Lupone made about McDonald and Lewis during her now infamous interview with the New Yorker. The letter, which is addressed to the American Theatre Wing, The Broadway League, and 'the greater theater community', claims the comments LuPone made about McDonald and Kecia were degrading, misogynistic, and a 'blatant act of racialized disrespect.' Among those signing the letter is rock star Courtney Love. 'This is a call for accountability, justice, and respect — rooted in love for the art form and for the people who make it possible. We believe our community can do better. We believe it must do better — especially when harm is done to those who have given so much to this industry,' the letter said. While the letter insists they do not intend to 'shame', 'isolate', or 'punish' LuPone, they have recommended that she and others who have used 'their platform to publicly demean, harass, or disparage fellow artists' be excluded from future industry events such as the Tony Awards. The letter described LuPone's comments as 'deeply inappropriate and unacceptable' a form of 'bullying', 'harassment', and 'is emblematic of the microaggressions and abuse that people in this industry have endured for far too long, too often without consequence.' 'To publicly attack a woman who has contributed to this art form with such excellence, leadership, and grace—and to discredit the legacy of Audra McDonald, the most nominated and awarded performer in Tony Award history—is not simply a personal offense,' the letter said. 'It is a public affront to the values of collaboration, equity, and mutual respect that our theater community claims to uphold. Let us be clear: this is about more than one person. It is about a culture. A pattern. A persistent failure to hold people accountable for violent, disrespectful, or harmful behavior—especially when they are powerful or well-known. 'This is not about differing opinions. It is about public actions that demean, intimidate, or perpetuate violence against fellow artists. It is about the normalization of harm in an industry that too often protects prestige over people.' They called her remarks a violation of the American Theatre Wing's core values, which consist of 'champion creative expression', 'support growth and create connections' and to 'make excellence known and inspire artistic greatness'. The letter insists they are not calling on 'cancelling' Lupone nor intend to signal her out, but over concern for their industry. 'This is not about 'canceling' anyone or condemning them — it is about care. Care for our artists, our values, and the future of our shared craft. We write because we want this community to thrive — not just in box office numbers or critical acclaim, but in integrity, safety, and mutual respect,' the letter says. 'We envision a theater industry where all artists — including Black women — are protected, valued, and celebrated. Where excellence is met with recognition, not hostility. Where harm is addressed, not ignored. Where no one is forced to choose between their artistry and their dignity.' They did recommend several repercussions - which included excluding LuPone from future events such as the Tony Awards. 'Individuals, including Patti Lupone, who use their platform to publicly demean, harass, or disparage fellow artists— particularly with racial, gendered, or otherwise violent language—should not be welcomed at industry events, including the Tony Awards, fundraisers, and public programs,' it said. The individual can return back into the community following completion of 'comprehensive anti-bias or restorative justice programs.' 'Participation, recognition, and attendance at high-profile events must be contingent on conduct that reflects community values. This includes completion of comprehensive anti-bias or restorative justice programs before re-entry into publicfacing spaces,' they wrote. 'Theater institutions must adopt and enforce clear, transparent policies for addressing harmful behavior—regardless of an individual's fame or tenure in the industry,' it also suggested. 'This would not be tolerated in other industries. In 2021, the NFL fined the Washington Commanders $10 million and removed Dan Snyder from day-to-day operations after a toxic workplace culture came to light. Will Smith was banned from the Oscars for ten years after slapping a fellow artist during a live broadcast. These organizations acted swiftly to preserve their values and the integrity of their communities. Why should Broadway hold itself to a lower standard?' it continued. They also offered support to Lewis and McDonald, whom were on the receiving end of LuPone's barbs. 'To the Kecias and the Audras of our past, present, and future: You are the soul of this community. We honor your brilliance, your resilience, and your impact. You deserve more than applause. You deserve protection. You deserve respect,' the letter says. 'We are calling for action — not to punish, but to protect. Not to divide, but to strengthen. A stronger, healthier, more equitable Broadway is possible — one where all artists are treated with dignity, safety, and respect,' the letter also states. LuPone has been making headlines ever since she made various swipes against McDonald and Lewis in an interview with the New Yorker. While addressing comments Tony-award winning Kecia Lewis made last year, LuPone called her a 'b***h'. (LuPone had complained about the noise levels of Lewis' show Hell's Kitchen, which neighbored LuPone's own show, and the fallout led to Lewis making a video statement accusing her neighbor of being a bully and making 'racially microaggressive' comments). 'Oh, my God,' LuPone said when the conflict Lewis was mentioned. 'Here's the problem. She calls herself a veteran? Let's find out how many Broadway shows Kecia Lewis has done, because she doesn't know what the f**k she's talking about.' 'She's done seven. I've done thirty-one. Don't call yourself a vet, b***h,' she said. (The publication noted that Lewis has done 10 and LuPone 28.) The publication noted that McDonald showed her support for Lewis' video by dropping several supportive emojis in the comments of the post, which LuPone also took issue with. 'Exactly,' she told the New Yorker when the emojis were raised. 'And I thought, You should know better. That's typical of Audra. She's not a friend,' she said, with the publication noting she emphasized friend with a 'hard "D."' Patti also seemed to deliberately avoid answering a question about McDonald's performance in Gypsy, a show she also starred in. Michael Schulman of the publication wrote: 'When I asked what she had thought of McDonald's current production of 'Gypsy,' she stared at me, in silence, for fifteen seconds. Then she turned to the window and sighed, 'What a beautiful day.'' McDonald was asked about Lupone's comments during a CBS Mornings interview with Gayle King, which is set to air in full next week. A sneak peek of the interview showed McDonald insisting she was unaware of any issues between her and Lupone when the New Yorker interview was raised. 'If there's a rift between us, I don't know what it is,' she replied. 'That's something that you'd have to ask Patti about. 'You know, I haven't seen her in about 11 years, just because we've been busy just with life and stuff. So I don't know what rift she's talking about, but you'd have to ask her.'
The Wire
29-05-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
Ali Khan Mahmudabad Has Fulfilled the Task of a Political Scientist
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Politics Ali Khan Mahmudabad Has Fulfilled the Task of a Political Scientist Neera Chandhoke 4 minutes ago Ali has been penalised because our society has been taught to distrust intellectuals. It should realise that intellectuals are the lifeblood of our society because they advocate the thinking human being. Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court extended the interim bail granted to the political scientist Ali Khan Mahmudabad till the third week of July. He had been arrested on May 18, because a couple of people finding his social media posts during Operation Sindoor objectionable had filed first information reports against him. Initially, the court had instructed him not to post any opinion related to the events preceding and during the Operation. A day ago, these restrictions were reiterated. 'We do not want him to run a parallel commentary on the issues under investigation,' stated the honourable Supreme Court. Many learned commentaries have been published on The Wire on the legal and political implications of the arrest of Mahmudabad. It is perhaps time to ask some fundamental questions of the entire issue, because they relate to the way we think and conceive of our right to freedom, and the way it is threatened by coercive politics in the country. Plato's Apology – 'apologia' in Greek stands for defence speech – represents the trial of Socrates conducted in 399 B.C.E. When he is accused of practicing subversive modes of philosophy known as Socratic questioning, Socrates stands before the jury of wise men in ancient Athens raising significant philosophical issues. His accusers allege that the method 'makes the worse argument the stronger' and 'corrupts the young'. Socrates asks the jurors a loaded question. What, he asks, 'do I deserve to suffer or to pay because I have deliberately not led a quiet life?' 'I did not follow the path that would have made me of no use either to you or to myself, but I went to each of you privately and conferred upon him what I say is the greatest benefit, by trying to persuade him not to care for any of his belongings before caring that he himself should be as good and as wise as possible, not to care for the city's possessions more that for the city itself, and to care for other things in the same way. What do I deserve for being such a man?' 'What do I deserve for being a such a man?' This question can be asked by, and on behalf of Ali Khan Mahmudabad of the political science department in Ashoka University. What has he said that any sane, rational human being will not believe in? That war is evil. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had famously said to President Vladimir Putin of Russia that this is not an era for war. May I with full respect remind the prime minister that there never can be an era for war. War devastates, it kills babies, it destroys cities and villages, it demolishes hospitals and houses, it annihilates the environment for decades to come, it is the ultimate curse that can befall a people. We just have to look at our screens to see what military aggression has done to Palestine and Ukraine, how many lives have been destroyed, how many psyches have been deranged, how many people have been denied basic goods like drinking water, food, and medicines, and how they died hungry, tired, and exhausted. Do we really have to be told what horror has been unleashed by war? When Ali foregrounded the dangers of war in his social media post, he was warning hotheads who have been baying for blood to not defend war as it is the ultimate dreadfulness that confronts human beings. Whose interests are served by war? The poet Amrita Syam scripts an imaginary conversation between Subhadra, one of the wives of the hero of Kurukshetra, Arjuna, and Krishna in the poem Kurukshetra. Fought in the name of justice, the human costs of the war were unimaginable. Generations were wiped out as two branches of a family confronted each other over property. Subhadra whose young son Abhimanyu was brutally slain asks Krishna to account for these losses: The war was, after all, a fight for a kingdom Of what use is a crown all your heirs are dead When all the young men have gone …And who will rule this kingdom So dearly won by blood A handful of old men A cluster of torn hopes and thrown away dreams. The poem should make us think. What is society left with when the grisly play of violence is over? Yudhishtir is convulsed with grief. What he, wonders, in volume eight of the Mahabharata, is the value of power, if the path to this goal is drenched with the blood of his own people? 'This heavy grief however is sitting in my heart, that through covetousness I have caused this dreadful carnage of kinsmen'. Ali reminded us of these costs when he spoke against war. He is a political scientist, and the task of a political scientist is to remind young people that there is a world we should strive for, a world of values, a world of humaneness, a world of solidarity, and a world without war. This the task of the social scientist and of humanities, to teach students to think beyond the foolishness of rabid nationalism towards a world of civility and of civilisation. This is the obligation of the political scientist. And I speak as a political scientist. A university without the humanities [and social sciences] wrote the celebrated Marxist literary critic, Terry Eagleton, is like a bar without beer. Without these two academic components, we will not have universities, we will have technical training institutes. Ali was writing as a political scientist, but above all as an Indian citizen who was concerned about the effect of warmongering on our society and our country. Listen to the message, do not shoot the messenger. Is our country so fragile? One of the two cases filed against Ali by a BJP functionary is on the basis of his post in which he urged his fellow citizens to also feel for minorities who have been lynched. So, one Yogesh Jatheri complained that Ali's post promoted hatred, was prejudicial to national integration, and endangered the sovereignty of the country. Really? The sovereignty of a great country like India is going to be compromised by a social media post? The mind boggles. Is our country so fragile? I would request professional filers of complaints against this or that sane and eminently reasonable academic, to remember our history and understand what our constitution is about. Even as independence came to India drenched in blood spilled by the Partition, the Constituent Assembly, which had met in December 1946, was drafting a constitution for the country. The Partition raised fresh challenges to the project of social and political transformation. Cavalcades of Hindus left from what had become Pakistan for India. Caravans of Muslims left India for a newly minted Pakistan. A substantial number stayed behind in the home of their ancestors. Also read: The Lost Art of Thinking in an Age of Manufactured Outrage Consider the mammoth task confronting the assembly. Indians who had been divided along the lines of politicised religion had now to accept each other as fellow citizens in a democratic political community that was being fashioned by the Constitution. They had descended to the lowest level of humanity during the Partition of the country. Utter chaos in northern and eastern India had begun to resemble Thomas Hobbes' state of nature; war of all against all. But the solution that Hobbes proposed in his 1651 Leviathan, a powerful state, was simply not enough. Society had to be transformed and social relations had to reworked and strengthened. The makers of the constitution had to introduce a modicum of sanity in a society that had been wracked by insanity. A new society had to be created out of the wreckage of the old, it had to cluster around norms that were as far removed from religious mobilisation and enmity that marked pre-partition and partition days of the 1940s, as possible. The political community had to be reinvented. Seeking to lay down principles that could serve as the fulcrum of a democratic political .community, the makers of the constitution institutionalised the normative precepts of political theory-freedom, equality, justice, and fraternity or solidarity. These principles had to bring Indians together on issues that concerned themselves and their fellow citizens. And progressive poets tried their best to further this project. In 1961, Sahir Ludhianvi, writing the lyrics for B.R Chopra's Dharamputra (1961) which was directed by Yash Chopra, and in which N. Dutta gave the musical score, asked a significant and shattering question in: ' Yeh kiska lahu hai, kaun mara? '. Whose blood is this? Who died? The moment we ask this question we realise the promise of fraternity in the Preamble of the constitution. The makers of the constitution, many of whom were well versed in political liberalism were aware that democracy falters if people do not care about others, about their ill health or poverty, or who do not raise their voices if a particular community is subjected to rampant injustice and the rest are indifferent. Without fraternity we remain a mere bunch of individualised self-interested rights bearers. Without fraternity, we continue to live in Thomas Hobbes's state of nature, isolated and cut off from civic virtues that complete us as human beings. Fraternity enables us to come together in networks of shared concerns and establishes a dialogical relationship with our fellow citizens so that we can think out the distinction between what is and what can be. This is what Ali was reminding us of. He reminded us of the Preamble of the constitution. Was he therefore arrested for upholding the constitution? Let me end by returning to Socrates' defence. 'Perhaps someone might say: But Socrates, if you leave us will you not be able to live quietly, without talking?' Socrates' reply is memorable. 'Now this is the most difficult point on which to convince some of you' he said. 'If I say that it is impossible for me to keep quiet because this means disobeying the god, you will not believe me and will think I am being ironical. On the other hand, if I say that is the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day and those other things about which you hear me conversing and testing myself and others, for the unexamined life is not worth living for men, you will believe me even less.' But examining our lives means that we must learn to think. We however live in an environment that dissuades and discourages thinking. This is perhaps understandable from the perspective of the ruling class. For as Julius Caesar remarked in Shakespeare's immortal play bearing the same name: 'Let me have men about me that are fat; Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o' nights: Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.' Ali has been penalised because our society has been taught to distrust intellectuals. It should realise that intellectuals are the lifeblood of our society because they advocate the thinking human being. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us The Sole Reason Behind Ali Khan Mahmudabad's Arrest Is That He Is a Muslim Supreme Court's Bail Condition on Ashoka Professor Mahmudabad: Has Dissent Become Disorder? Watch | Does the SC Have the Power to Gag Ali Khan Mahmudabad or Has it Overreached Itself? Learning Against The Grain: Perspectives from Ali Khan Mahmudabad's Former Students 'Seeking Justice for Lynching, Demolitions Not a Crime': Former Civil Servants Group on Mahmudabad Ali Khan Mahmudabad's Arrest Raises Critical Questions on Free Speech, Liberty and the Law Ashoka Prof Arrested For 'Endangering Sovereignty' Over Post Criticising Jingoism, Sent to Custody Till May 20 Who Gets to Think in India? View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Forbes
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
How Philosophy Can Help With The Endless News Cycle
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 30: U.S. President Donald Trump calls on reporters during a press ... More conference about the collision of an American Airlines flight with a military helicopter near Ronald Reagan National Airport in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on January 30, 2025 in Washington, DC. Officials said they believe that all 64 people on the commercial jet and the three service members on the U.S. Army helicopter perished when they collided in midair and crashed into the Potomac River airport outside Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. (Photo by) In the relentless chainsaw coming out of Washington, every headline, opinion, and policy decision seems more polarizing than the last. Each of these events and decisions have vast implications. If you hope to accurately understand an issue, then you must widen your view beyond just that issue. For example, to fully form an opinion on recent tariffs, then you need to have at least an elementary grasp of international relations, supply chains, employment, and the financial markets, as well as the more immediate areas of trading and taxes. While this is not distinct to the current administration - now nearing its first 100 days - the sheer barrage of news does seem unique. It leaves you without much time to focus on anything else if you do want to form a thoughtful opinion on current events. Is there a dependable way to not get overwhelmed? Is keeping up with current events even worth it? These questions become even trickier for people in leadership positions. A leader who is well-versed on the issues of the day can back up her own decisions with real world examples, relate to others with topical conversation, and more generally have a better understanding of the world. However, it is likely not necessary to succeed. Furthermore, the current political and market volatility can become distracting, or even isolating. Philosophers are in a unique place to solve this riddle as current events are largely trivial in their work. Let's look at three notable philosophers and how they might address the never-ending news cycle. We will find out that you can't know everything, you can't control everything, but you can't ignore the most significant issues of the day. What may be the most famous quote in the history of philosophy appears in Plato's Apology. In response to an overly confident interlocutor claiming he can define whatever metaphysical concept thrown his way, Socrates says, 'the only thing I know is that I know nothing, and I am not quite sure that I know that.' The two ideas behind this famed Socratic statement are that you can never fully understand anything, and there is always more to know. By this logic, an authentic opinion of current events is only possible by first acknowledging how little you know. This will take some pressure off. Stream the news to learn more, not to look for some confirmation of bias. Another philosopher who shares values similar to Socrates is Seneca, born in Ancient Rome about a half century after Socrates was put to death. Along with Marcus Aurelius, Seneca is likely the best known of the Stoic philosophers, and his Letters From A Stoic continues to be a relevant essay almost 2,000 years after publication. The crux of the argument for Seneca and the Stoics is to understand what you can and cannot control. Having this frame of mind can be a shield against the constant panic in the news. Most of us have no material influence over the swirl of current events. Stoicism in action means it is foolish to think otherwise and get distressed over them. Importantly, this does not mean they should be ignored. Instead, by digesting current events through the lens of a Stoic is to remove feelings from your response. Why are you doomscrolling? Is it just to elicit certain emotions? Self-reflection can be beneficial for those unable to pace themselves on social media, cable news, and podcasts. For a different point of view, we turn to 96-year-old philosopher and linguist Noam Chomsky. According to Chomsky, removing emotions from current events is objectionable. It is necessary for anyone who can form an opinion to do so and let it be known. For Chomsky, it is a question of morality. He has frequently and harshly criticized the U.S. throughout his career, and has actually implied that he would have preferred to have written less on this topic but felt he had a moral compulsion to do so. 'It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies,' he wrote in a 1967 essay. None of the ideals that these philosophers have set forth are right or wrong. It is a personal decision on how you confront the polarizing events of the day. When making the choice, it is beneficial to know that whatever you choose, you will be on the side of some of the greatest thinkers in history.
