Oy! What a huge, unpleasant,
horrible mess this whole thing is.
For those who already detested
Paula’s over the top, sugary, fatty cooking and the bombastic personality that
went with it, the response is easy. Throw her under the bus, say her career is
over and move on to the next thing.
For those who adore her and
don’t want to think about the distressing, underlying issues that this raises,
that’s easy too. Pillory the Food Network for firing her and sign an “I love
Paula” petition.
But for those of us who have
loved Paula’s shtick (whether we actually made her food or not) and enjoyed her
warm and, yes, welcoming personality, this is such a disturbing story. We don’t
want to believe that that this cuddly grandma could be such a bigot. And I had
come around to the notion that the Food Network HAD to fire her UNTIL I READ
ALL ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY NINE PAGES of the deposition
of this court case. Now I’m not so sure.
A handful of lines are being quoted to discredit and
actually ruin Paula, while the story may be more complex. Of course, there is
NO excuse for using racist language. AND Paula is guilty of that. But what is
unclear is exactly WHAT Paula said and WHEN she said it. If she used the N word
20 years ago in retelling a racist joke (which I admit is terrible behavior),
isn’t that different than if she hurled it at someone in a fit of anger in a
restaurant kitchen 12 months ago? After spending all afternoon with this deposition, I definitely feel as if the situation is different than what
is being reported on and reacted to all over the media and social media.
The worst thing in all the pages is what you’ve heard over
and over. Paula is asked if she ever used the N word. In a super-strangely
worded answer, she says, “Of course.” That’s bad, but the actual facts of her
testimony are that it was many years ago. And there were occasions
here and there when she repeated something someone else said, either in a joke
or in an offhand situation. It seemed as if her dirty mouth was as much at issue as specific racist comments, of which there were few. Listen, there is NO defense for ever uttering hate
words, but what was testified to was not a pattern of negative racial
stereotyping by Paula of the employees of this restaurant. In fact, she
testifies that she was only IN the restaurant during the first 6 weeks it was
in existence. After that she felt really guilty but she had to move on to other
things and leave her brother in charge.
What I think is the smoking
gun of this whole case is that the majority of the questions were about her
brother, Bubba, and HIS actions and HIS words. Paula’s biggest offense seems to
be taking the heat for her brother and, in some cases, perhaps covering up for
HIS transgressions. She refused to admit he was an alcoholic, saying he went to
rehab to support his wife. When asked if she knew he was taking cocaine, she
said no. When asked if she knew he was making his employees look at pornography,
she said she couldn’t imagine he would force anyone to do that. And that if he
got that kind of thing on his computer (that is, if SOMEONE ELSE had sent it to
him), it wasn’t his fault if he opened it up and looked at it. She is definitely
guilty of defending her brother, all the way to her own complete downfall.
Maybe it’s the prejudiced Northerner in me that is so ready
to condemn a Southerner named Bubba, but I really believe she’s paying for HIS
sins. AND that she will NEVER denounce him.
Plus there’s this:
Remember that PR person, Nancy Assuncao Sanchez, with whom Paula worked for 6 years and parted ways with after the diabetes
drug deal debacle? She’s given
several interviews to CNN in the last few days saying how saddened she is by all this. She
had no reason to come forward, because she hasn’t talked to Paula in the year
since she left and there’s no benefit to her in coming to Paula’s defense. So what did she say?
She said Paula hired all ethnicities in her organizations
and that people didn’t quit, they stayed on and were promoted. Of course, Assuncao
Sanchez didn’t condone any racist remarks or language, but she wanted to make
the point that she herself, who had worked very closely with Paula and traveled
extensively with her AND had stayed in her home and vice versa, had never heard
Paula utter a racist epithet. She said Paula was surrounded by a very diverse
group of people of different ages and ethnicities. Individuals of every kind of
background were on her team. Finally she said, she never saw that Paula was judgmental.
So what do we do with that bit of knowledge?
Of course, Paula should be censured for horrible language,
whether it was in the present or past, but shouldn’t we give her an opportunity
to rationally explain herself? Those poorly thought out videos did not make a
good case for her. Perhaps her Wednesday interview on the Today Show will make
a dent in the criticism against her. And her two boys being interviewed on CNN tomorrow will make a difference. Maybe a
suspension from the Food Network would have worked just as well as an outright
firing.
My point in all this is that it seems as if this terrible
fallout emerged from a deposition that probably few have read in its entirety. The
heinous things going on in her organization are mainly linked to her brother. That’s
what the initial lawsuit is about. Of course, Paula should acknowledge
wrongdoing no matter who’s doing it, but doesn’t it make you feel just a tiny
bit different about everything, thinking that she’s a big sister defending her
brother and not wanting to accept all the negative things that were being said
about him? Doesn't that make her blind or foolish, but not necessarily a hardcore racist?
She’s more than a big
sister, I know, and as the face of her brand, she has a responsibility to her employees
and fans to conduct herself better. It’s clear that she’s loose with her
language, but I don’t believe she’s a hating type of person. And if there’s one
thing everyone can agree on, it’s how badly she and her people have handled
this entire situation. I heard one media type say THAT was a major factor in
the Food Network decision – that they couldn’t trust her to make good choices in
the future. I just hope she has a future. Hopefully, after she’s apologized
some more, explained more completely and actually appears to have learned
something from all this, she can once again fry some chicken and ice some cakes
and the only flak she receives is when she adds yet another stick of butter to
the pan.