FX’s renewal of "English Teacher" sends a dangerous message

There are quite a few ways to describe what we’re living through right now: a coup, a fascist takeover, a nightmare. But one way to see it is as a series of gleeful violations of consent, courtesy of some of the worst people in the world.  

Did any of us consent to having the current regime allegedly rummaging around in the databases belonging to the Treasury Department — you know, the people we pay our taxes to? I doubt it. Without the permission of Congress or much of the populace, whole departments and divisions of the government are being shut down. The autonomy of all kinds of people, especially trans folks, is being targeted in ever more cruel ways daily. 

But this intentionally induced fear and suffering are features, not bugs. Like all abusers, the current DC administration glories in doing what it wants, how it wants, other human beings be damned. It is, unfortunately, the heyday of the harmful sociopath and the abusive clinical narcissist. Not that some didn’t have power before, but right now, in many centers of authority and influence, they are the only people that matter. I did not foresee a government or business community in which having engaged in violence or having assault allegations on one’s resume would be regarded as a plus, not a minus, but here we are. 

Just for the record, I do not believe this is right. I do not accept this. 

And I reject the idea that the reporting many have done in the past decade – on Hollywood misconduct, abuse, assault, monstrous behavior and the enabling of same – simply does not matter, despite all indications otherwise. 

On Friday, FX announced that it had renewed the show “English Teacher” for a second season. In December, the man who created the show and stars in it, Brian Jordan Alvarez, was the subject of an exhaustive Vulture story that contained allegations of assault, misconduct, boundary crossing and deeply unprofessional behavior. 

Brian Jordan Alvarez in "English Teacher" (FX)As critic and professor Myles McNutt pointed out, FX’s press release announcing the renewal quoted nine critics’ praise of the show — positive words that were written many months before the story about Alvarez came out. McNutt’s analysis of this bizarre and poorly handled situation is worth reading, especially this part: “Put simply, it is a press release from an alternate dimension where the Vulture story was never published. I know of at least one critic whose review is quoted in the release who would absolutely not co-sign this decision, and I have to imagine that others feel the same way.”

So that happened. A network that has long depended on members of the media to spread the word about its programs used critics’ words to tout a project and a person that many of those writers would not have, at this moment, even remotely endorsed. But hey, what’s the point of respecting the unusual nature of the situation or asking permission? It’s the “do whatever you want” era.  

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Before I get to the most serious allegation (among many disturbing allegations) in the story on Alvarez, I’d like to address a question I’ve gotten a lot, especially after the 2023 release of my book “Burn It Down,” which examined how Hollywood has long enabled all manner of awful behavior. Usually, the questions go something like this: “But this person’s behavior or actions took place years ago — why does it matter now? Maybe they’ve changed?”

My book contains a whole chapter about how I hope people can evolve, and the rigorous ways in which they can demonstrate they’ve changed, and how communities can keep themselves safe from people who say they’ve changed, but potentially haven’t. So I forcefully reject the idea that myself and other journalists on this beat don’t take nuance, complexity and the passage of time into account. E. Alex Jung’s piece on Alvarez is commendable for many reasons, but in particular for its commitment to examining the histories of the people involved with clarity and thoughtfulness.  

The thing is, most people can’t help but tell on themselves. 

This is a dynamic that has happened to me many, many times in my long reporting career: I reach out to someone accused of heinous, damaging or even criminal behavior — events that may have happened months or years ago. And in the present day, that person’s responses tell me everything I need to know about whether they’re still a toxic leader or an abusive person. 

The way these people frame, explain or ignore their patterns of behavior – all those excuses are offered up right now, not months or years ago. Many times I’ve thought, “This person has had multiple opportunities to make amends and become better, and, based on their current responses and actions, it very much looks like they’ve turned down every one of those chances.” 

There are many upsetting things in the Vulture story, but one moment on the set of the indie series “The Gay and Wondrous Life of Caleb Gallo” is the worst. The script called for Caleb (Brian Jordan Alvarez) to perform oral sex on Billy (Jon Ebeling) under a blanket. Per Vulture, Ebeling said that “when Alvarez went under the covers, he pulled down Ebeling’s underwear and began sucking his penis. ‘I am assuming nobody on set knows what’s going on under the comforter, and I’m just frozen,’ [Ebeling] says. ‘I didn’t know what to do. I’m on set with my director, who is assaulting me. It was a horrible feeling.’” Ebeling texted another co-star, Stephanie Koenig, “We were shooting and Brian took a huge godd**n liberty. I’m so f**king upset. I feel like I was raped. Literally, I was raped.”

This was on set. They were at work — on a project Alvarez created. This was during a sexual scene, which is among the times that artists should feel most protected, heard and cared for — but as we’ve frequently seen, that is often very much not the case. 

When confronted with Vulture’s questions about this, Alvarez’s response, through his reps, was really something. His lawyer told Vulture that “Ebeling’s reaction was overblown and that he was ‘pretending to be upset,’ writing, ‘This was the performative Kabuki theater of a self-described manipulator, who was distorting the situation to ingratiate himself to [Koenig].’ He does not dispute the act but argues that because their previous sexual encounters were consensual, Alvarez assumed the same would be the case here.”

He does not dispute the act. Read that again. He does not dispute the act. 

It’s just my two cents, but it sure looks to me like Alvarez, in that situation, decided unilaterally that consent existed. Find me one expert on consent or sexual violence who would agree that, in any situation, personal or professional, one person gets to decide, on their own, that consent is present. According to the story, Alvarez and Eberling had engaged in sexual activity before. In what world would that mean he consented to what Alvarez allegedly did while cameras rolled? 

For those who may still be unclear on this: Past sexual activity is meaningless when it comes to consent. Consent must exist at the start of and throughout every sexual situation, every time. One person does not get to decide they have consent and consequently do whatever they want. This is not up for debate. If you think it is, get help. 

According to Alvarez’s reps, all of his sexual interactions with Ebeling were consensual, and later in the piece, those reps added that, regarding that “Caleb Gallo” scene, Ebeling “‘consented verbally’ to doing it ‘for real’ beforehand.” (And that leads me to have a lot of questions about the fact that Alvarez’s reps described two very different scenarios: He didn’t need to ask for consent because he assumed he had it, and he did know he needed to ask for consent and got it.) For his part, Ebeling strongly denied that he ever gave consent to the alleged assault that occurred. “Produce the evidence,” he told Vulture. “No way in hell would I have ever consented to that.”

The broligarchs bending the knee to the current administration continue to do their level best to destroy the media, but there are still people in the press that, I’m sure, have questions about all this. These are some of the queries I hope come up in future coverage of this show and the decision to renew it.

How does FX allow its creative personnel to define consent? Are those with power allowed to define it however they want? If those with power have broad leeway regarding consent and conduct, how does that make people who work at FX or on FX projects safe? Why would anyone filming a future sex scene on "English Teacher" feel protected? 

What does FX plan to do if something unprofessional, harassing or dangerous happens on any of their productions after Alvarez was rewarded with a renewal of his show? What is the plan to deal with the moral consequences and the legal liabilities of any potential situation where a worker was harmed by someone who decided that the network’s actions constitute a behavioral free pass? And what about the network’s backing of Alvarez will encourage those who encounter unacceptable behavior to come forward? 

And finally, FX has, on multiple fronts, held itself out as something special, something better, in the industry. Yet the message this sends to viewers, to the creative community and to survivors is that nothing matters. Credible allegations of serious misconduct and assault don’t matter. How is that special? How is that not exactly what the industry has usually done for the last century — sweep the inconvenient and the abused under a very toxic rug? 

Legally, ethically, morally and from a PR standpoint, this is a tin-eared, baffling, short-sighted and abhorrent decision. Why is this guy, and this show, worth it? 

A more broad question for the industry at large to ponder: How is Alvarez’s response to these allegations any different from that of Neil Gaiman, who responded to multiple allegations of assault and abuse by saying “I don’t accept there was any abuse.” This a very common technique, and it’s quite forcefully back in fashion: Survivors and the reporters who tell their stories are just liars. The powerful get to determine what happened, and the rest of the world doesn’t have a voice. It’s true that most of Gaiman’s TV and film projects have been canceled. But given the current climate, I wonder if it’s only a matter of time before Gaiman’s I.P. proves to be too strong a lure for the industry to resist — and, as in so many other cases, everything will just go back to a pre-MeToo version of “normal.”  

The Daily Beast spoke to Ebeling, who said he was “heartbroken and devastated” about the renewal, and he added that “I’m in fear for the people who have to work with Brian and continue to work with Brian.” 

Ebeling noted that there had been several “off the record” accusers in the Vulture story, “one of whom claimed he had to take out a ‘no contact’ order against Alvarez, and another who alleged Alvarez ‘groped his groin’ when they were students at USC—and [Ebeling] claims to have heard from more individuals still.” Even before the FX renewal, Ebeling spoke of a chilling effect: “There’s a huge fear of people not being believed.”

Yeah, that tracks. Why, in this dismal climate, would people risk so much by coming forward? Why would anyone fight for the idea that consent should always be honored, that industry workers deserve respect at all times, and that perpetrators of harm should face meaningful, ongoing consequences for their actions?

But there are, and always have been, courageous people in this industry. Jon Ebeling is one of them, and I’m more sorry than I can say that he’s had to go through a decade of nightmares thanks to his former friends and collaborators. Who have just been very publicly rewarded by the system. 

I’d have thought that the network that went through a massive crisis regarding the depiction of rape on “Rescue Me,” that shoveled millions at Charlie Sheen to make a deeply misogynist sitcom, that made Louis CK extremely famous, would perhaps not want to send this particular message to every survivor, not just in the industry, but in the world. I was wrong. I was very wrong. 

“I honestly had more faith in FX before this,” Ebeling said Friday. “The way they handled this is just, I think, unforgivable.”