"Pepe [Le Pew] was set to appear in a black-and-white Casablanca-like Rick’s Cafe sequence. Pepe, playing a bartender, starts hitting on a woman at the bar..."

"He begins kissing her arm, which she pulls back, then slamming Pepe into the chair next to hers. She then pours her drink on Pepe, and slaps him hard, sending him spinning in a stool, which is then stopped by LeBron James’ hand. James and Bugs Bunny are looking for Lola, and Pepe knows her whereabouts. Pepe then tells the guys that Penelope cat has filed a restraining order against him. James makes a remark in the script that Pepe can’t grab other Tunes without their consent...." 

From "Pepe Le Pew Won’t Be Appearing In Warner Bros’ ‘Space Jam’ Sequel" (Deadline Hollywood). 

The actress, Greice Santo, is unhappy to have her big scene cut: "Even though Pepe is a cartoon character, if anyone was going to slap a sexual harasser like him, Greice wished it would be her. Now... she doesn’t have that power to influence the world through younger generations who’ll be watching Space Jam 2, to let younger girls and younger boys know that Pepe’s behavior is unacceptable."

If I remember the old cartoons correctly, the other cartoon characters always let Pepe know his behavior was unacceptable... though I think that was mainly because they were cats and he was a skunk.

I don't know if that read as racism — Was the problem that he was a different species? —  or were we to think their objection was simply that he smelled bad — which really was, I think, an insult intentionally directed at the French.  

As for this new movie, maybe instruction about sexual harassment didn't fit the mood of whatever the story was or maybe LeBron James doesn't have the acting chops to pull off a sincere warning against sexual misdeeds.

From the Wikipedia article on Pepe Le Pew, under the subheading "Reputation":

Pepé's reputation suffered in later years. Comedian Dave Chappelle, in his 2000 stand-up film Killin' Them Softly, called him a rapist. In a 2021 column in The New York Times, Charles M. Blow wrote that Pepé "normalized rape culture". Amber E. George, in her essay "Pride or Prejudice? Exploring Issues of Queerness, Speciesism, and Disability in Warner Bros. Looney Tunes", characterized Pepé's actions towards Penelope Pussycat as "sexual harassment, stalking, and abuse" and noted that Pepé's qualities mock the French people and their culture. On March 7, 2021, it was announced Pepé Le Pew have been removed from Space Jam: A New Legacy.

If you're interested in reading that Amber E. George essay, it's in "The Intersectionality of Critical Animal, Disability, and Environmental Studies: Toward Eco-ability, Justice, and Liberation." That will cost you $73 even just to download it in Kindle!

As for Charles Blow, the Le Pew bit is just a line in his column about the Dr. Seuss problem: "Six Seuss Books Bore a Bias/Racism must be exorcised from culture, including, or maybe especially, from children’s culture."

Racism must be exorcised from culture, including, or maybe especially, from children’s culture. Teaching a child to hate or be ashamed of themselves is a sin against their innocence and a weight against their possibilities.

Exorcised?! I think the word he was looking for the word "excised." Or are we possessed by an evil spirit that can be driven out by performing some ritual? If you're talking about editing things out of the culture — which is what is really going on — the word is"excised."

"Democrats have bollixed up every sexual harassment scandal I’ve covered."

"Joe Biden truncated the Hill-Thomas hearings in the name of comity. The Clintons had henchmen smear Lewinsky. Democrats vainly hammered Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh on sexual misconduct, hoping to stop judges they opposed on ideological grounds. Now, some Democrats are feeling regret over forcing out Al Franken, and for all those statements by prominent Democrats about how we must start with the presumption that women are telling the truth — an absurd standard.... 'Probably enough Democrats feel it no longer makes sense to hold your own side to serious ethical standards if Republicans won’t, so it’s possible to tough out things like this,' Ron Brownstein, a senior editor of The Atlantic, told me. 'I wouldn’t look at this as evidence that #MeToo is losing momentum; it’s more the sense that a red-blue cold war is gaining momentum. I think there’s less and less willingness to unilaterally punish your own side. Why take your own piece off the board if they won’t?'"

Writes Maureen Dowd in "Cuomo Discovers #MeToo Means #HimToo/Democrats agonize over the fate of a falling star" (NYT).

I kept the Brownstein quote in my excerpt not because I think he's sharp and getting it right. I kept it because it is such ripe bullshit, and I thought you might enjoy a laugh.  He wouldn’t look at this as evidence that #MeToo is losing momentum? Well, I sure as hell would.

"The last thing I would ever have wanted was to make her feel any of the things that are being reported."

Said Governor Andrew Cuomo, quoted in "Cuomo Is Accused of Sexual Harassment by a 2nd Former Aide/The woman, 25, said that when they were alone in his office, Gov. Andrew Cuomo asked if she 'had ever been with an older man'" (NYT).

[Charlotte] Bennett said she had disclosed the interaction with Mr. Cuomo to his chief of staff, Jill DesRosiers, less than a week later and was transferred to another job, as a health policy adviser, with an office on the opposite side of the Capitol, soon after that. Ms. Bennett said she had also given a lengthy statement to a special counsel to the governor, Judith Mogul, toward the end of June. Ms. Bennett said she ultimately decided not to insist on an investigation because she was happy in her new job and “wanted to move on.” No action was taken against the governor.... 

The governor did not deny that he asked Ms. Bennett personal questions; he said in the statement that he would have no further comment until the review concluded.... 

After seeing Ms. Boylan detail her accusations against Mr. Cuomo, Ms. Bennett shared Ms. Boylan’s account on Twitter, suggesting that people read it if they wanted a true picture of “what it’s like to work for the Cuomo” administration. The Times contacted Ms. Bennett, and she agreed to relate her own account of harassment. She said she felt an obligation to other victims of sexual harassment and wanted to counter the way Mr. Cuomo “wields his power.”

Good work by the NYT. 

"Why is Tara Reade’s official complaint against former Vice President Joe Biden so hard to find?"

"Possibly because the system for lodging it was opaque and challenging for accusers. Reade, a onetime Biden staffer, says she filed a complaint against him in 1993 when he was in his fourth term in the Senate representing Delaware. The process would have subjected her to a system that did little to protect Capitol Hill staffers from retribution and offered little recourse if they were not satisfied with the outcome. It would take a 1995 overhaul of congressional personnel laws to bring Congress in line with federal labor and anti-discrimination laws. Even almost 30 years later, the alleged complaint — the secretary of the Senate won’t even confirm or deny whether there is one — may never be released because of strict disclosure rules.... Four in 10 women who responded to a 2016 CQ Roll Call survey of congressional staff said they believed sexual harassment was a problem on Capitol Hill, while one in six said they personally had been victimized. 'Unfortunately, due to the system that Congress created to protect itself from being exposed, there has been no accountability,' [said Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif.]. Between 1997 and 2014, the U.S. Treasury paid $15.2 million in taxpayer dollars toward 235 awards and settlements for Capitol Hill workplace violations...."

From "The opaqueness of Congress’ workplace rules hangs over the Tara Reade allegations about Biden/Secretary of the Senate says law prohibits disclosure of any complaint" (Roll Call).

When Jake Tapper asked Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer to explain her belief in Christine Blasey Ford and not Tara Reade...

... she really got desperate. Let's look at the transcript from last Sunday's "State of the Union." Tapper asks a completely fair and well-stated question:

TAPPER:  You have said that you believe Vice President Biden. I want to compare that to 2018, when you said you believed Dr. Christine Blasey Ford after she accused now Justice Brett Kavanaugh of assault. Kavanaugh also, like Biden, categorically denied that accusation. And Blasey Ford, to be honest, she did not have the contemporaneous accounts of her view of what happened that Tara Reade does. You have spoken movingly about how you're a survivor — survivor of assault yourself. Why do you believe Biden, and not Kavanaugh? Are they not both entitled to the same presumption of innocence, regardless of their political views?

WHITMER: You know, Jake, as a survivor and as a feminist, I will say this. We need to give people an opportunity to tell their story. But then we have a duty to vet it. And just because you're a survivor doesn't mean that every claim is equal. It means we give them the ability to make their case, and the other side as well, and then to make a judgment that is informed. I have read a lot about this current allegation. I know Joe Biden, and I have watched his defense. And there's not a pattern that goes into this. And I think that, for these reasons, I'm very comfortable that Joe Biden is who he says he is. He's — and you know what? And that's all I'm going to say about it. I really resent the fact that, every time a case comes up, all of us survivors have to weigh in. It is reopening wounds. And it is — take us at our word, ask us for our opinion, and let's move on.

Let's move on?! The question does ask her to answer as a survivor, and she began her answer "as a survivor and as a feminist." She didn't object to being asked as a survivor until after she'd answered, though she did begin by expanding her status from "survivor" to "survivor and... feminist."

But after quickly answering, she registered her objection: She resents that her survivor status makes her a target of questions about sex assaults. It reopens the old wound. But she does want to be asked. She wants to get the question, to answer it quickly, and to be believed as a commentator on the things that happened to other people: "take us at our word, ask us for our opinion, and let's move on."

I certainly believe it's her opinion that Kavanaugh did what Blasey Ford said he did and Biden did not do what Tara Reade said he did, but why is that her opinion? Is it only because of what political side Whitmer is on? If so, I can understand telling us to move on. Don't look too closely at that.

Notice how Whitmer stopped herself in the middle of her explanation of why Biden's denial is more believable than Kavanaugh's: "I'm very comfortable that Joe Biden is who he says he is. He's — and you know what?" She decided not to go on about her reason why but to switch to attacking Tapper for asking the question. You know what? I resent the question! Let's move on!

That seems to give the game away. Her reason was that she's on Biden's side. It's like the way Bill Clinton was treated back in the 90s — complete with the old "move on" catchphrase.

Tapper defended himself:

TAPPER: Well, just for the record, the reason I'm asking you is because you're the only Democrat on the show today, not because you're a survivor, and not because you're a woman. But thank you so much for your time. I want to...

Well, he did present her survivor status as a basis for authority on whom to believe. He said "You have spoken movingly about how you're a survivor... of assault yourself: Why do you believe Biden."  She may have been "the only Democrat on the show today," but why was she  the only Democrat on the show today? Looking at the whole transcript, I think it was because of the protests against the lockdown in Michigan. I can see how maybe she felt ambushed by that extra question.

She responded to his self-defense:

WHITMER: Yes. No, and it's not a criticism of you, Jake. It's not a criticism of you. You're doing your job, and I appreciate that. I'm just sharing, I think, some of the simmering anger that we survivors have every time that we have got to confront this from someone else's behavior that we weren't a party to, that we weren't even a part of the reality in the moment. What I think is this. We owe it to every woman who has a story to listen to that story, and then to vet that story, ask the questions and be critical thinkers, and then make a judgment, based on all of those pieces. I have done that in this instance. And I will tell you this. I don't believe that it's consistent with the Joe Biden that I know. And I do believe Joe, and I support Joe Biden.

There is no further question, but here are the questions I would ask:

Does it all depend on who you know? If someone you know is accused, you disbelieve the accuser, but if someone you don't know is accused, you believe the accuser? Or does that depend on whether you like that person you know or the person you don't know? Seriously, what is the rule going forward as these accusations arise — especially in the context of a nomination for a high office, where there is the temptation to try to find a shortcut to bring someone down? We can't make it easier and easier to destroy a candidate, and it can't work — it shouldn't work — to stand up for the candidates we support and to participate in the destruction of the candidates we oppose, so don't you need to reexamine your position on Brett Kavanaugh if you want fair-minded people to accept your vouching for Joe Biden? You say we need to listen to every story, vet that story, and be critical thinkers, but where is the critical thinking in your distinction between Brett Kavanaugh and Joe Biden?

ADDED: Rereading this post, I noticed a point where Whitmer deviated from supporting Biden and said something that I think is properly respectful of the problem of due process to the accused. In her response to Tapper's self-defensiveness, after she rejected the idea that she was criticizing him, Whitmer talked about the "simmering anger" that survivors feel as they are called upon to look at the evidence and weigh in on whether the accused is guilty or innocent. She doesn't like having "to confront this from someone else's behavior that we weren't a party to, that we weren't even a part of the reality in the moment."

I'm not sure exactly what that meant. Maybe it's the idea of reopening the wound. To judge what happened you have to hear the evidence and imagine the entire scene, the events, and put yourself inside of it and to use your own personal experience to form a belief about whether it is true. That's a painful ordeal, and those who impose it on the survivor ought to be more aware of what they are doing.

Maybe it's the idea that fact-finding is truly difficult. It's difficult in a courtroom trial, with all of the safeguards of cross-examining witnesses under oath and a judge excluding improper evidence and meticulously instructing a sworn-in jury about the legal standards. And it's all the more difficult when we've got allegations passed along in newspaper articles and amplified by political partisans. Whitmer may have been saying — just in that one sentence — that she is in no position to give the accused the due process he deserves.