Bob Chapek's response to Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill

[Hakunamatata]

I hope we get this settled soon so Disney can focus on getting its biggest business partner, China, to start providing equal protections in its country.

 

[Andrew C]

But again, think about what a nonsensical position that is to take. It means the author is bad at writing legislation but very good at public presentation. How does that follow? If you were working to convict someone of a crime and you heard your boss the prosecutor going on about he’s going to get that dirty [insert group] would you not be bothered by that?


It is the language that explains the reason the bill was created. Why be associated with that?

THE reason? Ok. There are many reasons why this bill came to fruition. It doesn’t live with just one person or one line in a moment in time.

With that being said, I still stand by my previous statements that this is a poorly written bill that doesn’t properly address the concerns of the people who I feel have legit concerns.

 

[DisneyHead123]

That said, this bill is very similar in my eyes. Many people do not feel that way (the majority)... but if people feel something is wrong to teach (in a developmentally appropriate manner) to K-3, they are really in a round about way saying it is "wrong". We teach children in Disney movies it's ok to fall in love with a prince, what's the difference saying sometimes people can fall in love with a princess. Unless deep down you really have an issue with that philosophy.

I can see how you'd conclude that. However, there are many topics that people don't think are "wrong" that they don't want taught in schools - political ideology, religion, heck, even veganism - and so on. And there are other topics that people probably don't mind being discussed at some level, but don't want actively promoted. For example, some kids will go on to college and some will go on to a vocational track. That's fine. No one thinks that college or vocational careers are 'wrong' - quite the opposite, most parents hope their children will grow up to have a productive career. But parents all around would probably be angry if there was a sense that the teacher was actively pushing the entire class, at a young age, to go one track or the other. Kind of softly disparaging college or vocational work, for example.

I have said from the start of this debate, I think one of the biggest problem is that parents really don't have good information about what is actually happening in classrooms. Both sides have a narrative but really there's not solid data on this. Both sides defer to their narrative as self evident, but again, neither really have data to support it. So my stance has been a need for increased transparency, not laws that may be too vague or address 'problems' that don't even exist. I think our society is trending this way all around and this is the obvious solution for education.

 

[Casper Gutman]

For the 1,000th time, that language was rejected.

And in this big, long thread I don't remember seeing a credible attempt to explain WHY that language was rejected. As far as I can tell only one of the bill's defenders (broadly defined) has even acknowledged it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And in this big, long thread I don't remember seeing a credible attempt to explain WHY that language was rejected. As far as I can tell only one of the bill's defenders (broadly defined) has even acknowledged it.

I know there’s a lot of emphasis and identify based on how people identify with old French seating arrangements but I still just can’t fathom continuing to support something when I learn the motives are so troubling. If it is a good and popular idea, then what harm is there in starting anew without that baggage? If it has a good point but is poorly constructed, what is the rush instead of taking the time to refine and actually make it good? Why do something important so poorly? I’m aware that the legislative session recently ended, but it’s not like the issue it supposedly tackles just popped up or that a special session could not have been called to review a more finely crafted work.

 

[Sam Magic]

I want to contribute my perspective as a gay man who was part of the last generation of folks to grow up pre-marriage legalization (I was in high school when the Obergefell decision was made).

Growing up, I thought that gay people were abnormal, didn't exist near me, and were shunned members of society. I ignored my preferences because I thought acknowledging them would make me a freak and ostracize me. I felt isolated, hurt, and frankly lost. It wouldn't be until I got to high school that I started having crushes on guys. I began noticing and genuinely feeling my emotions.

Many on the left are pushing for greater gender/sexual identity acknowledgment to prevent the shame, guilt, and confusion I felt growing up from being inherited by the next generation. This, I think, is a noble goal. The question is how young such topics should be introduced for some; the younger, the better. For others, specifically supporters of the Florida legislation; the older, the better. For better or worse, that is the central divide.

Where waters get muddy is when folks on the fringe left, and right get involved. It seems to me that some on the fringe right are still operating from an assumption that being gay is a choice. Therefore, any discussion of sexuality or gender identity is equivalent to grooming. For those on the fringe left, Florida's legislation is just a first step on a long road towards the reversal of progress society has made in the LGBTQIA+ rights arena. Unfortunately for all of us, these fringes are the most vocal in public discourse.

Regrettably, Disney has waded into this fight. I believe Disney's response was based on good intentions, but they've underestimated how contentious and unsettled this fight is becoming. Disney is more than just any other company; Disney is arguably the most important company in America because it is the perceived guardian of American culture and identity. No other company is as intertwined with America's sense of itself or the image it promotes to the world like Disney. TWDC owns nearly every significant pop-culture IP that has come to define America's cultural identity over the past century; Marvel, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Fox, The Simpsons, Disney itself, etc. Millions of Americans feel a deep sense of ownership over the company that doesn't translate to other corporations. I would argue that some Americans feel a more profound notion of ownership over Disney than they do for their government. With great power comes great responsibility, and Disney has a tremendous responsibility beyond profit; for this reason, it's imperative that Disney act with prudence and caution at all times.

Disney has failed to act with prudence or caution in this situation. Under Bob Chapek, TWDC has limped from misstep to misstep, burning through public goodwill and confidence. To be frank, the larger public's trust in TWDC began to erode and falter under Iger. Chapek, however, has made a bad situation worse. Disney has taken a side on an issue where public opinion is split 50/50, and no house can stand for long when half its foundation is knocked out from under it.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I want to contribute my perspective as a gay man who was part of the last generation of folks to grow up pre-marriage legalization (I was in high school when the Obergefell decision was made).

Growing up, I thought that gay people were abnormal, didn't exist near me, and were shunned members of society. I ignored my preferences because I thought acknowledging them would make me a freak and ostracize me. I felt isolated, hurt, and frankly lost. It wouldn't be until I got to high school that I started having crushes on guys. I began noticing and genuinely feeling my emotions.

Many on the left are pushing for greater gender/sexual identity acknowledgment to prevent the shame, guilt, and confusion I felt growing up from being inherited by the next generation. This, I think, is a noble goal. The question is how young such topics should be introduced for some; the younger, the better. For others, specifically supporters of the Florida legislation; the older, the better. For better or worse, that is the central divide.

Where waters get muddy is when folks on the fringe left, and right get involved. It seems to me that some on the fringe right are still operating from an assumption that being gay is a choice. Therefore, any discussion of sexuality or gender identity is equivalent to grooming. For those on the fringe left, Florida's legislation is just a first step on a long road towards the reversal of progress society has made in the LGBTQIA+ rights arena. Unfortunately for all of us, these fringes are the most vocal in public discourse.

Regrettably, Disney has waded into this fight. I believe Disney's response was based on good intentions, but they've underestimated how contentious and unsettled this fight is becoming. Disney is more than just any other company; Disney is arguably the most important company in America because it is the perceived guardian of American culture and identity. No other company is as intertwined with America's sense of itself or the image it promotes to the world like Disney. TWDC owns nearly every significant pop-culture IP that has come to define America's cultural identity over the past century; Marvel, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Fox, The Simpsons, Disney itself, etc. Millions of Americans feel a deep sense of ownership over the company that doesn't translate to other corporations. I would argue that some Americans feel a more profound notion of ownership over Disney than they do for their government. With great power comes great responsibility, and Disney has a tremendous responsibility beyond profit; for this reason, it's imperative that Disney act with prudence and caution at all times.

Disney has failed to act with prudence or caution in this situation. Under Bob Chapek, TWDC has limped from misstep to misstep, burning through public goodwill and confidence. To be frank, the larger public's trust in TWDC began to erode and falter under Iger. Chapek, however, has made a bad situation worse. Disney has taken a side on an issue where public opinion is split 50/50, and no house can stand for long when half its foundation is knocked out from under it.

Well said. Right now, Disney is being propped up by Marvel Studios and ESPN (specifically the NFL) and, to a lesser extent, Lucasfilm and the classic animation film library. They are making profit from the Marvel films and the Mandalorian, but these outside IPs can only sustain themselves for a certain amount of time before the public loses interest and moves on to something else. Simultaneously, they are burning through decades of good will at an alarming rate. Agree or not, as you said, 50% of the public does not want ideological intrusion into their entertainment options (this includes politics and indoctrination of all kinds). And as you said, Disney has been viewed as a gatekeeper of traditional American culture since the 1950s. Disney is already killing themselves with the park price increases; I don't think they realize that once a member of the fanbase says "That's it, the cost is too much now. I'm done," THEY ARE NEVER COMING BACK. That's because the good will is gone too - 50% of the public does not perceive Disney (the company) to be on their side anymore; they do not perceive that the company shares their values.

That's why companies with an ounce of intelligence in their senior leadership know instinctively to stay completely out of political battles like this. A ton of them have blew it in the last two years because they had so much good will built up that they started to believe they were successful because they were smarter than everyone else. Once they burned through a portion of the good will, people started to notice the emperors had no clothes. ESPN is probably the biggest example in the country. The NFL is another. The NBA is lost to almost half the country; the WNBA is in even worse shape. To date, Marvel Studios has done a magnificent job of providing content without pushing politics, but the comic book division has destroyed itself by picking sides in its books (that's a longer conversation for a different day). Lucasfilm went overboard on feminism and put a dagger in the heart of its billion dollar intellectual property.

My point is that I agree with you that there is no guarantee that just because people have been loyal to Disney in the past, that they will continue to do so in the future.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I believe this to be an inescapable problem for all corporations in the future, but Iger and Chapek were dumb enough to speed it up to an immediate problem. Ultimately, I believe we're headed to a country where you have red companies and blue companies and every big store or brand will be forced to choose a side (and basically only be patronized by 50% of the country). We're already there with news outlets. We're getting there with sports (NBA, WNBA, US Womens Soccer, MMA, etc). The states themselves are basically there (there are like 5 swing states left and 50 competitive House of Representative seats out of 435). Disney could have (and should have) used all of that good will that it spent 70 years accumulating and just sat on the sidelines of the cultural arguments of the day. They were best positioned of any company in the world outside of Coca-Cola and McDonalds to do so.

EDIT #2: And before anyone asks, I haven't been inside a Disney park since 2013 (and before that 2006), so don't blame me. My family was a once-a-year patron from the mid-70s until the late-90s. No more (for a variety of reasons).

 

[WDWJoeG]

Well, as the pace of this thread, like the "controversy" about this bill, slows and fades into memory, it will be up to the people of Florida to speak in the upcoming election.

That's the great thing about our Republic - the people in that state voted for their representatives, those representatives pass legislation, and if the people disagree they can vote them out.

Let's check back in November to see what the people that actually matter really think about this bill.

 

[crawale]

I can see how you'd conclude that. However, there are many topics that people don't think are "wrong" that they don't want taught in schools - political ideology, religion, heck, even veganism - and so on. And there are other topics that people probably don't mind being discussed at some level, but don't want actively promoted. For example, some kids will go on to college and some will go on to a vocational track. That's fine. No one thinks that college or vocational careers are 'wrong' - quite the opposite, most parents hope their children will grow up to have a productive career. But parents all around would probably be angry if there was a sense that the teacher was actively pushing the entire class, at a young age, to go one track or the other. Kind of softly disparaging college or vocational work, for example.

I have said from the start of this debate, I think one of the biggest problem is that parents really don't have good information about what is actually happening in classrooms. Both sides have a narrative but really there's not solid data on this. Both sides defer to their narrative as self evident, but again, neither really have data to support it. So my stance has been a need for increased transparency, not laws that may be too vague or address 'problems' that don't even exist. I think our society is trending this way all around and this is the obvious solution for education.

I think since remote learning that parents now actually DO have an idea of what is being taught and they don't like it. School used to be a place where children went to learn to read, write and do math - not a place where social engineering theories were imposed on children. America ranks so low against other countries of the world that we can least afford to deviate from academics. Let schools concentrate on that and stop teaching controversial subjects.

 

[GimpYancIent]

This is well said, but you seem to be assuming that the properties you name - and, indeed, Disney itself - are not political already. They are. The entire idea of "Disney" comes laden with a host of political associations - American triumphalism, a celebration of corporate capitalism, etc. - that many academic authors have spent many, many words illuminating. The figure of Uncle Walt himself, comforting and familiar, is loaded with political connotations.

The properties you list are the same. The original Star Wars trilogy was heavily inspired by the war in Vietnam. Revenge of the Sith was largely a commentary on the post-9/11 War on Terror. As I said above, Marvel has always been explicitly political - it surged to prominence on the radical college campuses of the 1960s. While Lee and Kirby infused their creations with a New Deal liberalism, the generation of creators that followed in the 70s were openly radical - in one famous storyline, President Nixon frames Captain America as a villain, attempts to take over the United States, and, when unmasked by the Captain, kills himself. Imagine the consistent howls of outrage if that storyline played out today.

All of this is to say that entertainment is political, and the notion that there was some golden age of innocent, apolitical media is a nostalgic fantasy - or more often, the result of the fact that people don't notice political bias when it aligns with their own, because then its just "normal." Great responsibility does come with great power, but its the responsibility to push, however gently, for what creators at perhaps the world's most powerful entertainment conglomerate feel is right. This legislation is understood to be a direct attack on many of Disney's employees or on people they care about. Based on the sponsor's comments, the rejected amendments, and the unusual way the bill is written, I'd argue that they are correct. Disney absolutely has a responsibility to stand up to such attacks.

We should also be clear that this was not a fight Disney could have escaped. The "culture war" waxes and wanes in America, but it is now at a height not seen since the 60s. Large swathes of the country see Disney as "woke," in many cases merely because they are featuring more and more characters - in Marvel, Star Wars, and animation - who aren't straight white males. Because of their cultural centrality - the very subject of your post - and because of this perceived "wokeness," Disney is an incredibly inviting target for ambitious politicians seeking to create a demonic villain to fight in the "culture war." That's exactly what happened here.

Business is business. For Disney to emerge from the swamp it has entered and hose itself off of at least most of the slime Lex Luthor his cronies and minions need to unceremoniously be shown the door. Conversations and debate have now devolved to incomprehensible noise with everyone talking over each other. A regime change and return to the core business of clean entertainment for all is becoming very necessary.

 

[crawale]

Also, Disney’s proper role here should be: absolutely nothing.

If you truly believe that corporate money or influence shouldn’t be in government, you shouldn’t be making exceptions simply because you agree with said corporation’s stance.

It’s either all okay or none of its okay.

So right. Disney should have no comment whatsoever. To come down on one side or the other is to offend and the side they decided to come down on has resulted in offending many.

 

[GimpYancIent]

So right. Disney should have no comment whatsoever. To come down on one side or the other is to offend and the side they decided to come down on has resulted in offending many.

Individuals within the Disney organization are absolutely correct in expressing themselves and their views openly without fear or concern. I emphasize "express themselves" as individuals! Speaking for the company NO. There was and is no reason for the company to comment taking sides on political issues that actually do not impact the conduct of business. Leadership fail.

 

[Turtlekrawl]

Both sides of this issue are claiming moral superiority. Both sides have tens of millions of passionate supporters. Neither side is going away quietly. Regardless of what I think on the issue, this is a total fail by Chapek, etc. to pick a side (and still manage to infuriate many people on the same side!)

Now the company has boxed itself into a corner. Will they stop sailing DCL ships to Antigua, Dominica, and St. Maarten, where homosexuality is illegal? How will they respond to the criticism regarding China?

It is only a matter of time before all companies are dragged into these debates. Disney is providing a lesson for all on how not to do it.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I think since remote learning that parents now actually DO have an idea of what is being taught and they don't like it. School used to be a place where children went to learn to read, write and do math - not a place where social engineering theories were imposed on children. America ranks so low against other countries of the world that we can least afford to deviate from academics. Let schools concentrate on that and stop teaching controversial subjects.

As someone who literally had to sit next to my child for every second of a full year+ of virtual learning, there were absolutely no social engineering theories being imposed on her (she was in 3rd grade at the time, so within the context of what we're talking about in this thread).

As has already been shown in this thread, much of the "outrage" being raised as though it is coming from parents is actually coming from political operatives, actually being funded by political money, many of whom do not have children in the schools. That is certainly the case in my local area, as I shared here previously.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

As someone who literally had to sit next to my child for every second of a full year+ of virtual learning, there were absolutely no social engineering theories being imposed on her (she was in 3rd grade at the time, so within the context of what we're talking about in this thread).

As has already been shown in this thread, much of the "outrage" being raised as though it is coming from parents is actually coming from political operatives, actually being funded by political money, many of whom do not have children in the schools. That is certainly the case in my local area, as I shared here previously.

Same for us - nothing even remotely close to what's being bandied about as happening.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Regrettably, Disney has waded into this fight. I believe Disney's response was based on good intentions, but they've underestimated how contentious and unsettled this fight is becoming. Disney is more than just any other company; Disney is arguably the most important company in America because it is the perceived guardian of American culture and identity. No other company is as intertwined with America's sense of itself or the image it promotes to the world like Disney. TWDC owns nearly every significant pop-culture IP that has come to define America's cultural identity over the past century; Marvel, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Fox, The Simpsons, Disney itself, etc. Millions of Americans feel a deep sense of ownership over the company that doesn't translate to other corporations. I would argue that some Americans feel a more profound notion of ownership over Disney than they do for their government. With great power comes great responsibility, and Disney has a tremendous responsibility beyond profit; for this reason, it's imperative that Disney act with prudence and caution at all times.

I have to say I am a little bit angry at how Disney has handled this as someone who opposes the legislation itself. The one thing Chapek got right in his initial statement was that "corporate statements... are often weaponized by one side or the other to further divide and inflame. Simply put, they can be counterproductive and undermine more effective ways to achieve change." That is a reasonable point that does suggest Disney should think carefully about its response. Instead, Disney has stumbled about spectacularly and managed to, at least in my view, play a counterproductive role for those who want the legislation repealed even though this response involves them saying they want to do exactly that.

Disney has failed to act with prudence or caution in this situation. Under Bob Chapek, TWDC has limped from misstep to misstep, burning through public goodwill and confidence. To be frank, the larger public's trust in TWDC began to erode and falter under Iger. Chapek, however, has made a bad situation worse. Disney has taken a side on an issue where public opinion is split 50/50, and no house can stand for long when half its foundation is knocked out from under it.

Sure, parks fans didn't like Iger much, but was the general public's impression of Disney as a whole really eroding when he left? If anything, they seemed to be riding high as by far the most successful studio in Hollywood in the process of launching a highly-anticipated streaming service. The company seemed to be firing on all cylinders and, as far as I can tell, was generally held in the public's affections beyond the usual objections to giant evil corporations, from some on one side of politics, and liberal Hollywood, from some on the other. Their mishandling of this issue is on a completely different level.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

So right. Disney should have no comment whatsoever. To come down on one side or the other is to offend and the side they decided to come down on has resulted in offending many.

I generally agree but there are situations where it’s appropriate for a company to show support for their employees and guests, they just need to be smart about it and not take a side, the problem is Disney is currently ran by buffoons who made their comment political when there was no need for it to be.

If the management team wasn’t so incompetent they’d have given a non political comment highlighting how they support the LBGT community, as they have for decades, and left the politics out of it. Chapeks original comment was close, he just didn’t have the backbone to stick to it, when people demanded more he should have simply doubled down on the original comment that they’ve supported LBGT rights for years and will continue to do so.

IF the leadership team is incompetent it’s probably best to stay silent though, that way they don’t stumble and bumble through it like Chapek has while managing to make both sides mad.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I have to say I am a little bit angry at how Disney has handled this as someone who opposes the legislation itself. The one thing Chapek got right in his initial statement was that "corporate statements... are often weaponized by one side or the other to further divide and inflame. Simply put, they can be counterproductive and undermine more effective ways to achieve change." That is a reasonable point that does suggest Disney should think carefully about its response. Instead, Disney has stumbled about spectacularly and managed to, at least in my view, play a counterproductive role for those who want the legislation repealed even though this response involves them saying they want to do exactly that.


Sure, parks fans didn't like Iger much, but was the general public's impression of Disney as a whole really eroding when he left? If anything, they seemed to be riding high as by far the most successful studio in Hollywood in the process of launching a highly-anticipated streaming service. The company seemed to be firing on all cylinders and, as far as I can tell, was generally held in the public's affections beyond the usual objections to giant evil corporations, from some on one side of politics, and liberal Hollywood, from some on the other. Their mishandling of this issue is on a completely different level.

Unfortunately, this was a perfect storm of conditions that made Chapek's original comment fall flat for those it's most important to. Don't forget that as this bill was written and worked it's way through the legislation, Disney has been forcing a decent chunk of employees to either relocate to Florida or lose their jobs.

 

[Sam Magic]

Sure, parks fans didn't like Iger much, but was the general public's impression of Disney as a whole really eroding when he left? If anything, they seemed to be riding high as by far the most successful studio in Hollywood in the process of launching a highly-anticipated streaming service. The company seemed to be firing on all cylinders and, as far as I can tell, was generally held in the public's affections beyond the usual objections to giant evil corporations, from some on one side of politics, and liberal Hollywood, from some on the other. Their mishandling of this issue is on a completely different level.

To the casual observer, that might very well have been the case. However, it must be noted that Gen Z viewed Disney's acquisition of Fox negatively, and many people were beginning to lose trust after the Star Wars debacle. Disney has a habit of going through ten-year cycles where things will be great for a decade and then take a rough turn for the next ten years. If Iger's 2010-2020 run was a good decade, it makes sense that this next decade will be more arduous.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Do people really not remember the Southern Baptist Convention boycott of Disney? The thing where the second largest denomination in the US didn’t like Disney’s gay agenda over 20 years ago?