Emails show Brady said he didn't know what to do about anti-Asian remarks

Delaware state Rep. Gerald Brady was cleared by a House ethics committee last week for an email he sent where he used an anti-Asian slur and joked about human trafficking.

The panel ruled that no laws were violated and Brady's comments were protected under the First Amendment.

Brady has apologized for the remarks and announced he will not seek reelection when his current term expires.

But emails obtained by Delaware Online/The News Journal showed that in the weeks before Delaware Online published a story revealing Brady's remarks, the state House member was debating whether to tell the public about them.

In the end, the eight-term legislator tried to push the onus of making public his use of the slur and joke onto the out-of-state advocate to whom Brady had inadvertently sent the email.

For about two weeks, the advocate encouraged Brady to publicly apologize, while Brady – who has served in the House since first winning election in 2006 and has at least one spokesman at his disposal – shifted between wanting to make amends and writing that he didn't know how to do so. 

Brady hired attorney Thomas Neuberger, who, in Brady's defense, sent a letter to House attorneys. The letter chalked up the whole incident to “out of state organizations” that had spent weeks “planning their assault” on Brady for opposing legalized prostitution.

On Sept. 13, the day the House ethics panel dismissed a complaint filed against Brady by a colleague and four days after Neuberger’s letter, Brady said in a statement that Neuberger no longer represented him, that he was “sickened” by the letter.  

That letter provoked the advocate to share the full email exchange between himself and Brady with Delaware Online. He also shared the exchange with House attorneys. 

INITIAL REPORTING:Wilmington lawmaker uses anti-Asian slur in email sent to wrong recipient

The letter’s accusation of a “kabal of out-of-state prostitutes that spent three weeks plotting his [Brady's] downfall, and that I apparently also have the AFL-CIO in my pocket is completely absurd,” the advocate said in an interview. The News Journal has agreed not to disclose the advocate’s name.

“He [Brady] declined the opportunity to go public with it himself, which was the purpose of the two-week conversation,” the advocate said.

“He ultimately invited me to just do it for him, because he, I think not unreasonably, felt awkward about disclosing his message verbatim in the same op-ed in which he would be apologizing for it.” 

The emails

It all started with one email.

The advocate sent dozens of them to lawmakers on June 27 in response to legislation intended to protect sex workers. The email included a summary of a study outlining the relationship between adult entertainment establishments and reduced sex crime rates in New York City.

Brady wrote a reply that included the anti-Asian slur and joke, but instead of forwarding the email to a friend, he sent it to the advocate.

Over the next two weeks, Brady and the advocate exchanged emails and phone calls. When they first spoke, Brady blamed the message – which included punctuation errors and capitalized letters – on voice-to-text. 

“If you wish to accept responsibility and express remorse for referring to Chinese people by ethnic slurs, making light of human trafficking and repeating harmful stereotypes of Asian women as sex objects, which motivated the recent shooting of six Asian women in Atlanta and have justified immigration restrictions against Asian women since 1875, then I am still available to hear this apology,” the advocate wrote on June 27. 

“But with all due respect, you owe a bigger apology to your constituents, particularly from the Asian community, and I hope this will be forthcoming,” the advocate wrote. 

Brady called his email “egregious,” and begged for forgiveness. 

“My actions were frivolous, shameful and despicable,” Brady wrote on June 28. “My quest to accept full responsibility and understand my action has begun.”

As the days went on, the advocate continued to ask Brady if he would issue a public apology for his use of a slur and making light of human trafficking. 

But Brady was unsure of what medium to use, and how to frame a public apology for speech that the public was not yet aware of. 

“I am wrestling with how to deliver my message to an audience that is unaware of an offense,” Brady wrote on July 1. “I am not dodging the commitment, yet wrestling with the notion that if I repeat the statement I could do more harm than good.” 

“I think coming clean would demonstrate a lot of maturity and personal responsibility, but I take your point,” the advocate replied. 

By July 7, Brady debated submitting a letter to the editor of the newspaper, stating his “fault and lapse of judgment,” and also expressing a “commitment to work against bigotry and stereotypes.” But that day, he still wavered in how to proceed, asking the advocate for advice on how to frame a message, and where he should publish any statement. 

In an email sent at 3:31 a.m. that day, Brady decided to hold off. 

“In that case, I will wait until you have released the statement (quote) and then I will respond,” Brady wrote. 

Three days later, the advocate shared the initial email exchange with the News Journal.

“I felt like he had wronged his constituents, particularly those from the Asian American community, by insulting them in private, but particularly in his official capacity as a state legislator responding to a legislative email,” the advocate said in an interview with the News Journal. “I felt like they deserved to have this information.” 

Brady apologized via a House spokesman on July 19, when asked about the email by the News Journal.  

A matter of transparency

When news of a potential ethics investigation broke in August, the out-of-state advocate offered to share the email conversation with Brady with House attorneys. But they were told that because of the confidential nature of ethics investigations, the committee would not accept documents, evidence or witness interviews until after preliminary steps were completed. 

House attorneys told lawmakers that Neuberger’s letter would also not be taken into consideration by the committee. 

House Ethics Committee proceedings – of which there have been none since 2007 – begin with a confidential process. House members are barred from even confirming a complaint has been filed until the committee completes its preliminary investigation. 

The committee’s findings do not become public until it submits a report to the full House on whether or not the complaint merits further investigation. On Monday, the committee announced that the complaint did not. 

The lack of transparency doesn't work in the public’s favor, said John Flaherty, a board member for the Delaware Coalition for Open Government. A more transparent process would give both the complainant and the alleged lawmaker a space to make their case before the committee.

ETHICS INVESTIGATION:House Ethics Committee will not investigate Brady further, after use of anti-Asian slur in email

“Rep. Brady made these very, very offensive and demeaning comments,” Flaherty said. “But to his credit, he apologized very soon after that. I personally think having an open hearing and allowing him to address the concerns publicly would have been to his benefit and to the benefit of the public.”

Whether or not Brady or any other lawmaker has used offensive, racist speech in emails sent from their official government account will remain unknown, since lawmaker emails are not considered public record in Delaware, Flaherty said. 

Brady’s email being shared by the advocate set off months of backlash, largely from the Asian American community and labor organizations. A handful of lawmakers called for Brady’s resignation. 

“It’s kind of like these old horror movies when somebody takes the curtains down and the sun shines in and the vampire cringes,” Flaherty said. “Having your actions held up to the light of day in a newspaper is probably some of the best medicine that can be administered to an offending legislator. And I think that’s what happened in this case."

Natalia Alamdari is The News Journal's social issues watchdog reporter. Got a story idea? Reach her at nalamdari@delawareonline.com.