I hoped that Chris Hardwick’s forced hiatus would have lasted for a lot longer, but it turns out that two months was all it took. Two months after his ex-girlfriend Chloe Dykstra published her essay about being in an emotionally abusive relationship with an older man (Hardwick, though she didn’t name him), Hardwick’s name has been “cleared” by AMC. He will be returning to Talking Dead and Talking with Chris Hardwick next month. AMC released this statement:
Following a comprehensive assessment by AMC, working with Ivy Kagan Bierman of the firm Loeb & Loeb, who has considerable experience in this area, Chris Hardwick will return to AMC as the host of Talking Dead and Talking with Chris Hardwick. We take these matters very seriously and given the information available to us after a very careful review, including interviews with numerous individuals, we believe returning Chris to work is the appropriate step.
“Given the information available to us after a very careful review” is a careful way of saying that Chloe Dykstra apparently chose to NOT speak to AMC. Dykstra published her own statement following Hardwick’s reinstatement:
I have been adamant since I came forward with my essay that I never set out to ruin the career of the person I spoke about. I could have provided more details, but chose not to. I have said what I wanted to say on the matter, and I wish to move on with my life. For that reason, I chose not to participate in the investigation against the person I spoke of. I do not believe in an eye for an eye, and therefore I have only shared my evidence with those who I felt should see it.
What I wanted was for the people around me who heard a false narrative–one that was created to hurt me and my career–to know the truth. More importantly though, I know how insidious emotional abuse is and felt compelled to share my story so others might not feel so alone.
Regarding closure, I wish I had been able to have had a private conversation with the person I spoke about in my essay. Reaching out to him over text made me vulnerable, and ultimately ended up in a tabloid article where said texts were chopped up and spun to discredit me.
With the circus moving out of town, I intend to focus on the subject I originally wanted to shed light on: emotional abuse. I plan to continue this conversation and intend to work with institutions like RAINN and other support groups for survivors.
I hope that the hatred, the name calling, the death threats can go away and we can return to productive discourse. My love to everyone.
[From Dykstra’s tweet, transcribed by Vulture]
I understand what she’s saying and it’s truly her call: she says she wants to move on and clearly, by not participating in AMC’s investigation, she’s shown that she’s not “out to get” Hardwick. She published the Medium essay for herself, for her own closure, to tell her story and to hopefully allow her future employers to know that she was being gaslighted by an abusive ex who then bad-mouthed her to everyone in their industry. I’m fine with what she did. But I’m not fine with AMC deciding to put him back on the air even without Chloe’s participation in their investigation.
I originally wrote my essay so I could move on with my life, and now I intend to do so. Thank you, again, to those who have supported me during this. pic.twitter.com/sjBEKGpY7v
— Chloe Dykstra (@skydart) July 26, 2018
Photos courtesy of WENN.
I am a Coprorate Investigator, so speaking from my experience anyone can make a claim about anyone they like, companies will investigate. That being said if the victim didnt want to particpate in the investigation it puts AMC in a difficult position. They cant fire someone without evidence or else it leaves them open to wrongful dismissal lawsuits. I have done hundreds of investigations, we get an accustation, we collect evidence and we speak with vuctims and suspects but without evidence or at least direct testimony what can they do?
Since you are the expert here……. Based on her initial essay, even if she had been willing and able to prove her claims, would that be grounds for sacking him from a company with which she had no involvement?
I am curious about this too.
Clearly, the guy is a complete #$%^. But if he didn’t practice his #$%^ery AT work, can the company fire him without making themselves vulnerable to wrongful termination suits?
Since he was on air personality i would assume he would have had to sign a morality clause which they could use as grounds. Morality clauses used to be just for people in the public eye (atheletes, tv stars etc) but bc of social media its actually becoming common for regular jobs too.
Not everyone signs morality clauses, either. Remember when CBS had to pay Charlie Sheen for firing him? Because there was no morality clause in his contract.
@bridget i think Sheen is why morality clauses were invented
Thanks for sharing your experience, that’s interesting.
I figured the same, without evidence or workplace accusations, the network was vulnerable to being sued if they canned him. Plus she still has not named him directly.
I find it odd that a “Coprorate Investigator” would have so much trouble with English, unless it’s not their first language, and that they would share this attribute with “Steve”, down-thread, who claims to be a democrat while talking about “liberal shit show”s and denigrating women.
In other words, the Putinbots appear to be swarming.
Putinbots in a nonpolitical comment section about a no-name actor and his ex-girlfriend? Yes! That makes so much sense.
I have to agree. Steve sadly isn’t a bot. He’s a real life AWM who feels entitled to unearned privilege and resents that anyone else gets to have rights in this country.
Unfortunately for Dykstra, no one else came forward to corroborate her story. Being an a-hole is not grounds for termination.
Plenty came forward online to echo experiences with his abusive behavior. Nobody was willing to go on legitimate record about it was the problem – or at least, any that could provide significant evidence. And knowing the Internet, she’s likely been fielding a shit ton of ugly threats from the Red Pill types, so I imagine she really does want to move past it.
All his former long term girlfriends came out in his favour putting their careers on the line.
Not saying anything either way, or siding with him. Just pointing out that none of those were reported on this blog and im sure they formed a big part of the investigation.
I believe her but if people don’t want to go on the record, that’s problematic.
“But I’m not fine with AMC deciding to put him back on the air even without Chloe’s participation in their investigation.”
Huh? What are they supposed to do if the woman who started all this doesn’t even talk to them? I’m not saying if I believe her or not, but I do find it shady that she thought it was ok to start this, but not ok to participate in an investigation.
So she’s shady because she told her story of abuse, didn’t name the guy when doing so and refused to help ruin his career by engaging with his employers and giving them information that could lead to his permanent termination. You think she’s the problem?
Sure Jan.
That asshat got damn lucky and he doesn’t deserve the grace she gave him.
#Ibelieveher
@yellowrocket I believe her too. She didn’t name the guy in her essay nor did she go to AMC so I’m not sure of how she “started” anything.
This is the reason so many are afraid to come forward because they are not the perfect victim. It seems she just needed a platform to tell her story. I’m sure if she really wanted to destroy his career she could have and that was not her goal here.
She “didn’t name names” but there is such unanimous finger-pointing Hardwick’s way that the dude lost his job. Hardwick was likely everything Dykstra said he was, but let’s not give her credit for her discretion after leaving a trail of bread loaves that led straight to Hardwick’s door. We’re all smarter than that.
There’s nothing shady about it. It’s extremely common for abuse victims to walk away from further investigation because it essentially turns into a strip down of their own character and background, which can feel like a whole new violation and retread of the abusive behavior. My sister could have destroyed the career of the man who beat the shit out of her for three years – but that would mean having to get near him, be in the same room with him, re-experience all those feelings of fear and intimidation all over again, having to be told that it was her own fault for tolerating it, etc, etc.
As a society, we really need to do better on educating people about the realities of PTSD and abuse, particularly the long-term emotional damage. Blaming victims won’t stop it happening to any of us. Predators choose and groom their victims carefully.
@veronica, co-sign
Thank you. Plenty of companies find all kind of shady ways to fire people, it’s just not often to adhere to values and ethics, but the opposite. They landed where they feel comfortable. I support her not going further.
Being a Native woman, schools often tried to make my children the Native expert in class, instead of doing the work themselves. It was harmful, to say the least, and I’d put my foot down. This expecting the victim to carry the entire load, at the expense of their wellness, reminds me of that.
@veronica, so well said. Thank you.
I get why they re-instated him, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to watch that show anymore. The stories that his current and former colleagues came out with about him were just as awful and definitely eye-opening. He can suck it–I have no use for abusive people.
Exactly. I believe her, and those who stood up for her with their own accounts, and will be avoiding anything he does (I already kind of did that because he’s super annoying on TV and I lost interest in his podcast).
He may keep this gig, but we’ll see if they renew his contract, and who is willing to hire him for anything else, given this story will surely follow him around.
Actually, he is getting a lot of support on social media.
There is a group of people who campaigned for him to be rehired. I’m sure they’re happy about it.
My point is next time he tries to get another job (and he has like 50) a different company may be hesitant to hire him, as any announcement will surely mention the accusation and suspension, and that’s not really great PR for launching a new project.
She is absolutely full of shit we’re living in a society where women now are taking full of vantage of destroying man for no good reason other than jilted love
umm….
Yeah sure, that’s exactly what’s going on here…🙄🙄
It’s a horrible time we live in when men aren’t able to abuse women without having to deal with the consequences. 🙄
He’s a white male in the USA, I’m sure he will be fine.
She’s one of the ones I don’t believe either.
One I don’t believe is Nicole Eggert.
At blue sky. Please explain to me when it became a crime to be a white person male or female this is one more liberal shit show created by the liberal media that’s it. I’m not going to apologize for my race my religion or my gender
@steve so sorry if I hurt your feelings. Never said anything about apologizing for being white. You and I see the world differently and always will.
@steve bluesky said that “he’s a white male in America, I’m sure he will be fine.” Which seems to refer to the systematic privilege he has in his race and sex. That privilege means that people his position are generally perceived to be credible and will be hired again. That’s true even in cases of abuse or violence that go to court with ample documented evidence.
Bluesky referring to privilege = / = bluesky demonizing people for their privilege
Blue sky. I love the non-apology apology. You’re absolutely right on The fact iwe will never see the world is the same way
Trump supporter?
Most likely Russian Bot what with the breathtaking grasp of English.
Steve – what do you have against punctuation?
I think I am ok with the way things turned out for both of them. She got her story told (and she never named names) and he got outted as a dbag. Even with his job back we all know what kind of person he is.
It’s her choice whether or not to move forward. She quietly released the essay on Medium and it blew up in ways that I can’t imagine she anticipated, and I don’t blame her for wanting to move on.
Also, on a superficial note, she is just gorgeous.
I read that the law firm that was in charge of the “investigation” also represents the Herst family. THAT sounds shady. People get so wound up about how an accusation “could ruin his whole career”, meanwhile it’s usually the accuser that never recovers.
Being a shitty boyfriend and a douche is not grounds for firing a person.
I have to agree. That stuff was in his private life. It’s not like Weinstein who used his position to hurt women in a professional setting. In Chloe’s accusation, he talked bad about her, which costed her opportunities, but without anyone to corroborate that claim, there’s no way AMC has the grounds to fire him. As someone said above, maybe they won’t renew his contract (maybe they will), but the undue burden is on the accuser to prove their claims. If it isn’t, then punishing the accused is unjust. That is why in our country, we go by “innocent until proven guilty” not “guilty until proven innocent”. Do I believe her? I do. But that’s not enough to get someone fired. This is something that is handled maybe as a domestic or civil matter. His job has nothing to do with her.
In normal work settings, you go to HR, file a complaint and that gets investigated. In domestic matters, you file a report with the police. Although I’m not sure how emotional and psychological abuse gets handled by third parties. This was her way to finding justice in the end: court of public opinion.
That wasn’t her point or reason for the essay.
If there is one thing that this has highlighted is how easily people don’t want to believe women. Do you know a thing about AMC’s investigation? Who did they interview? What questions were asked? Nope. Nope. Nope. Yet, their brief paragraph holds more weight than Chloe’s entire essay to so many folks. Weinstein is a case study in how self invested corporations can and will cover for these men. Are we just forgetting how victims are often revictimized by the police, folks that are supposed to take this seriously, when they report their crimes? Why would a company standing to lose millions punish a man for past behavior, that they believe won’t come to light again, if all the public needs to move on is a crafty worded PR statement?
Nothing that AMC has done can be refuted in the manner that Dykstra’s essay can because they haven’t released sh*t. Not a single investigatory document.
It’s not that I didn’t want to believe her. It’s the way this whole thing came about. The not-so-anonymous blog post, her running for the hills as soon as her blog post went viral, and now this. I don’t subscribe to the creed that we HAVE to believe ALL the women. Doesn’t mean that all claims should be ignored. On the contrary, they should all be investigated before the social media torches and pitchforks come out.
I never believed this one. And her refusal to support her claims even though she says she has evidence is just making it harder to believe her. This is someone who has no problem chronicling every part of her life for her YouTube followers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3iafmv7zhM) but now suddenly she’s clamming up?
If, as she claims, Hardwick has been purposefully “sabotaging” her career (which is what, exactly? YouTube videos? Game reviews? Cosplayer?), and she has evidence of that, she can certainly present to AMC or anyone else. But she has not. Simply claiming to have evidence is not the same as actually having it!
When I think about the brave women who put their lives and careers on the line to fight back against the Weinsteins, Ray Moores and Cosbys of the world, this “Me Too” moment just seems empty and attention seeking. If that makes me a bad feminist, so be it.
AMC = A Mans Channel now – in my world #cancelled what a bummer
I just don’t understand why, if she was so abused, she sent him text after text begging to get back together. He showed proof of those texts. Maybe she didn’t cooperate because she didn’t want more damning evidence to get out. I try to believe women first and foremost, but not every story if true. Lack of cooperation with investigations when there is no threat to a persons safety are always red flags for me.
I mean, there’s a wealth of information out there about the complexity of the psychological and emotional impacts of domestic violence, if you’re genuinely interested.
*eyeroll* Nice laziness. What Kit said.
In her statement, that was right in the OP, she said that her aim was to open a conversation about emotional abuse. She didn’t want to get involved in an investigation because that wasn’t ever her aim. Public outcry is why he was even investigated. They saw she wasn’t a threat to their PR, and that they didn’t really have cause to fire him so he was reinstated. Also, where did she ever say he was currently a threat to her safety?
As for trying to go back to an abuser, that is textbook behavior of an abuse victim.
It’s really not that hard. She never named him, she didn’t know it would blow up like this. Also, she’s getting death threats, who the hell wants to deal with crap like that? She’s being subjected to online abuse and she also has a public image to think about, you know? She has a career too, but let’s all cry for the abuser.
Celebitchy moderators, is there a way to deal with the influx of bots? Though they claim to be people, the views they espouse make them highly unlikely to be regular readers/participants.
“Lack of cooperation with investigations when there is no threat to a persons safety are always red flags for me.” This is not what a thread on this site normally looks like and the insightful, funny commentariat is why a lot of folks engage with Celebitchy.
There are attorneys and others who are knowledgeable about legal matters who comment on this site from time to time. One goes by “Bearcat Lawyer,” I believe. If you are such a regular reader I’m surprised you didn’t know that. (I don’t post much but I do read here regularly.)
She’s a famous person dating a famous person. If she’s going to write and publish the essay, I personally can’t see the reason that she wouldn’t mention his name and/or participate in the investigation. People are going to be able to deduce about whom she is writing. Of course it’s going to seem like she wanted to out him, but not directly, in order to escape culpability in the event of the demise of his career. I don’t disbelieve her, and I am sure she had her reasons for both publishing the essay and not taking part in what followed, but in my mind follow-through would’ve been reasonable.
My unpopular opinion is that getting fired from your job for being a shit partner is a bit of a stretch.
Really depressing how many times on this thread abuse has been called ‘being a shit partner’ like someone that never does the dishes or something
deleted, oops
@LisaAnne- I mean, I agree? The fact there are regular commentators who are knowledgeable is why I love this site. Which is why I’m frustrated by the obvious bot situation. The tone of this thread is not indicative of the usual level of discourse here.
Either way, If you go back to older posts you’ll see some of my comments. Really confused as to why you’re getting a snarky tone and implying I don’t belong here.
I know this is a late comment but I still feel compelled to make it. From what I understood, Hardwick went out of his way to make sure that she was denied job opportunities in their industry. He supposedly went so far as to threaten recourse against companies if they chose to hire her (aka Nerdist won’t work with you, I have pull, etc.) type of crap. Is that not illegal? Or at the very least, extremely unethical and frowned upon? If not, then it should be. I expected AMC to care more about their image, if nothing else. They could have replaced him as host of Talking Dead with Yvette Nicole Brown in a heartbeat, to fans delight. Instead, they choose this? I won’t be watching the show anymore.