Forcing Stars to Shine

In response to my recent blog item on Jenny McCarthy's now-you-see-it, now-you-don't Indigo Moms site, commenter Mary-Ellen defended the actress for putting herself out there as an advocate for her autistic son, "unlike other celebrities who have decided to hide their child's Autism and not be advocates to help raise money (John Travolta anyone?)"

John Travolta seems to be in some hot water lately for not publicizing the alleged autism of his son Jett, not becoming a high-profile autism advocate, and even for not providing appropriate treatment, according to an acquaintance who has leveled child-abuse charges.

It's always inspiring when a star steps forward to share his or her child's challenges and put a famous face on a condition that needs attention. Toni Braxton tugged hearts while tearfully discussing her son's autism on The View. Greg Grunberg, whose son has epilepsy, has come up with some creative ideas for raising research funds involving his Heroes co-stars. People who never would have heard of Krabbe Disease have been made aware because Pro Football Hall of Fame member Jim Kelly put up a site about his son's struggle.

Given how bright a light stars can shine on a cause, I guess it's only natural to resent stars who fail to blaze, whether due to privacy concerns or denial or different theories of care or just plain old disinterest in being the face of a disability. Can we really obligate celebrities to go public? We already strip them of pretty much any right to privacy; shall we force them to act upon their right of free speech?

I don't know what the story is with Travolta and his son, or why the family has chosen not to become spokespeople. Since they're Scientologists, maybe what they'd spokes for is not what a lot of autism advocates would want to hear, anyway.

But I do think there's a degree to which celebrities really can't win with this stuff. I remember seeing a comment on another blog about Grunberg's work for epilepsy research, and that commenter was ticked off that the actor was supporting a cause that benefited a member of his family. It's hypocritical for celebs to shill for research on disabilities their children have, the commenter felt. They should be completely altruistic and only stand up for charities that benefit them not at all.

Perhaps we can have some sort of celebrity lottery, and everybody beyond a certain degree of fame can pick a cause to represent out of a hat, and support it with all due heart and energy. Maintains the children's privacy, keeps the celeb's image pure, and every charity gets a little lovin'. I smell a reality series!