from nytimes.com/gothamist.com
In case you were wondering, Judith Regan is still making news. Let's catch up, shall we?
(1) Apparently she has a history of anti-Semitic comments, including a reprimand via HR three years ago for bragging/joking that she once went around her apartment building and replaced all the Torah scrolls in the mezzuzahs with torn-up dollar bills. She also allegedly once compared Jews to rodents.
(2) Yesterday, a segment on Judith Regan's radio show at Sirius involving publishing blogger Ron Hogan of GalleyCat (pictured) was mysteriously cut from her show (we say "mysteriously" because no one seems to know why, including Hogan). His account of the spot is here, notable for his assessment of how the criticism for the impugned Mickey Mantle-talkin'-dirty-about-sex book seemed way out of whack, and, more importantly, for his report that Regan claimed that "backstabbers" at HarperCollins were out to get her. Recall that this taping occurred before she was fired. At any rate, apparently it's just a hop, skip and a jump from "backstabbers" to "Jewish cabal!" (NB: Hogan has clarified that the use of the word "backstabbers" was his clarification. Wish we coulda heard the broadcast to see what she did say!)
(3) As the Galleycat aces point out, all these rumors are, in fact, sourced back to "two top executives at HarperCollins," who apparently feel very chatty when the press comes a-callin'. HarperCollins made a choice in making this firing a public affair, with the dirty laundry airing wide, and specifically playing the anti-Semitism card. So, all of this will be relevant in Regan's case for defamation. As ETP pointed out earlier in our crack legal analysis of the case, the defense to here would be truth, so if Regan did brag about the mezzuzahs, as Gawker previously reported, then that is obviously relevant. However, that's only relevant insofar as that statement was released. Why? That brings us to...
(4) There are two issues here: (a) Whether Regan's firing for cause — the first reported "anti-Semitic comments" to HC lawyer Mark Jackson — was really out of line with the accepted standards at HarperCollins where Regan was concerned; and (b) Whether, contextually, they were anti-Semitic. These are both going to be hard to prove, and harder to prove the more outrageous statements that Regan allegedly made come pouring in. Why? Because that proves that Regan was known to make outrageous, offensive statements, and that it was accepted at HarperCollins as the norm. The New York Times reports that Regan had an HR reprimand three years ago. An HR reprimand, three years ago. That says "slap on the wrist, now please resume raking in boatloads of cash" if anything does. The more evidence there is that Regan talked trash like this all the time, the harder it will be for HarperCollins to suddenly claim that they were shocked — shocked! — that she would dare speak that way.
(5) Which of course brings us to the anti-Semitism charge. Sure, she may have said it, but were they slurs or just outrageous trash talk from a woman who was known to be offensive as hell — and tolerated for same? The same logic applies here as above, in the sense that if Regan was known to fling slurs about indiscriminately — about Jews, gays, blacks, whoever — then that lack of specificity accrues to her favor (i.e. the more awful she can prove she was, the better it will be for her case). It's interesting to note, as GalleyCat does, that Regan did not have a reputation as an anti-Semite, according to Jewish newspaper The Forward. Unlike Mel Gibson, Regan had no history of anti-Semitism (or perceived anti-Semitism), which is why the dropping of such a loaded charge made such waves (which is one of the reasons we went down this admittedly wrong path). And, as Jacob Sullum says on the Reason blog, such a loaded and serious charge had the effect of totally distracting from the fact that the O.J. Simpson deal had been confirmed and greenlighted by Regan's higher ups at HC and NewsCorp — which, of course, made firing her for that impossible (hat tip: GC).
(6) ...and that is relevant because it means that HarperCollins couldn't use that as a reason to fire Regan, and as a result had to find something else. So they picked anti-Semitism. How suddenly convenient, Bert Fields will no doubt say. HarperCollins made the charge, so it's up to them to prove that it wasn't. As more details emerge, it seems clear that that will not be easy. Rupert Murdoch and Jane Friedman may yet wish that they'd done this quietly, behind closed doors, with a juicy settlement to Regan and a bland "exploring other opportunities" statement to the press. It's too late for that now, of course, and as the story unfolds, it's important to remember that the choice, when made, was theirs.
p.s. As previously disclosed, I am writing a book called "Jew-ish" for HarperCollins, for which, by the way, I am totally going to recruit GalleyCat's Hogan and Sarah Weinman, who are apparently Biblical scholars to rival Jon Meacham. Meacham, we're totally coming for you.
