# Met Opera Fires Stage Director



## ldiat (Jan 27, 2016)

The Metropolitan Opera fired the veteran British stage director John Copley this week after receiving a complaint about what the company described as “inappropriate behavior in the rehearsal room.”

Mr. Copley, 84, has been one of the opera world’s foremost directors for decades. He was at the Met directing a revival of his 1990 production of Rossini’s “Semiramide” when a member of the chorus reported that Mr. Copley had made him uncomfortable at a rehearsal on Monday with a sexually charged remark, according to two people familiar with the complaint.

The Met said in a statement that “following a complaint from a chorister about inappropriate behavior in the rehearsal room that was received on Monday, Jan. 29, John Copley is no longer directing the revival of ‘Semiramide’ that will open on Feb. 19.”


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

He was 84. What's he going to do??? Of course, I wasn't there.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

What amazes me most is, _why now_, seem like a bit of fashions to come "clean " after 20 years or more. I mean in general not just this case.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Oh, for goodness' sake.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Political correctness gone crazy. To quote Stephen Fry,



> "It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f***ing what."


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Pugg said:


> What amazes me most is, _why now_, seem like a bit of fashions to come "clean " after 20 years or more. I mean in general not just this case.


Because people are actually listening now. Complaints have been made over the years, but were hushed up, ignored.

People in the orchestras he worked with knew that Charles Dutoit, as an example, was harassing and assaulting women. The organizations tried to work around this, pushing out women that complained too much, or at least making it more difficult for them to do their work if they didn't want to put up with it.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> Political correctness gone crazy. To quote Stephen Fry,


It's one thing to be offended by an article in a newspaper, or say a play - when you're not an actor, stage crew, etc. - even if you are in the audience. You can put down the newspaper, you can walk away. It doesn't affect your livelihood.

It's quite different when you're trying to do your job, as this chorister was. The director (and conductors, etc.) typically have much more power than a chorister; they're controlling what is going on. That power is supposed to be used to present the opera, not to ogle/abuse/belittle the people you're working with.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Seattleoperafan said:


> He was 84. What's he going to do??? Of course, I wasn't there.


Physical assault isn't the only way to exert power, to make someone feel powerless.

Harassment and even sexual assault are rarely if ever about sex. They're about control, possession. Power.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

The Met is under a microscope due to James Levine. So now they are bending over backwards to be correct


----------



## davidglasgow (Aug 19, 2017)

Link to article on Slipped Disc regarding this story
http://slippedisc.com/2018/02/exclusive-why-peter-gelb-fired-uncle-john-copley/



> Here's what happened. In a rehearsal, male choristers they were told to show different reactions to the 'ghost' of Assur (sung by Ildar Abdrazakov, who was not present). They were asked for a range of ideas. John Copley jokingly said 'if it were me I'd like to see him naked.'
> 
> One chorus member reported this joke upward. Peter Gelb fired John Copley. He caught the next plane home.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

So now any passing or joking reference to anything related to sex or sexuality that makes anyone "feel uncomfortable" is enough to get you fired.

I would tell the poor uncomfortable baby that if he's so unsettled by a humorous reference to nudity he might quit the opera and join a church choir, where everyone is robed from neck to ankles.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Triplets said:


> The Met is under a microscope due to James Levine. So now they are bending over backwards to be correct


A rather funny (but nasty) remark suggests itself in reply to that. But I will forebear... :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> A rather funny (but nasty) remark suggests itself in reply to that. But I will forebear... :lol:


That's the spirit. Forebareance and backbareance go together.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> That's the spirit. Forebareance and backbareance go together.


I think you may have guessed what I had in mind... Oh, forbear, not forebear. Sorry!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

I think we are all getting harmless banter confused with actual sexual assault. I know John Copley a little. He's very sweet and completely harmless. When I was younger I might well have been the subject of some of his harmless banter myself. I can honestly say it didn't bother me in the slightest, nor did I feel threatened or uncomfortable. If this chorister is so thin skinned, he's in the wrong business. 

I suppose the next stage in our new puritanism will be to ban all Restoration plays, which abound with sexual innuendo and ribaldry.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

post deleted..........................


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

More on John Copley's sacking. It seems Peter Gelb is the one left with egg on his face.

https://slippedisc.com/2018/02/exclusive-why-peter-gelb-fired-uncle-john-copley/

https://slippedisc.com/2018/02/the-met-must-apologise-to-john-copley/


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Triplets said:


> The Met is under a microscope due to James Levine. So now they are bending over backwards to be correct


:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

The Met's statement is quite different from what Norman Lebrecht is pushing, per a new story in the NYT



> It all began on Jan. 26, when John Copley, 84, a distinguished opera director, addressed a member of the Met's chorus during a rehearsal of Rossini's "Semiramide." Mr. Copley was accused of telling the chorister: "I'm thinking of you in my bed with your clothes off," the Met said in a statement. The Met said that the chorus member was left feeling "extremely ill at ease due to this sexually demeaning remark," and that he "requested to leave the evening performance of 'Il Trovatore' in which he was performing because he felt upset and distressed."
> 
> After the chorus member complained to the Met's human resources department on Monday, the company said, he and a fellow chorus member who had witnessed the encounter were interviewed. The company said that Peter Gelb, the Met's general manager, then spoke with Mr. Copley, who "did not deny the incident." It said that the chorus member "felt unable to continue working with Mr. Copley because of the hostile, sexually charged environment that had been created," so "Mr. Copley was asked to leave the production."


The article has statements from the union (that represents both choristers and directors), the Met disputing those statements, and so on.

Before the James Levine thing came out I have no doubt that the Met would have stood behind John Copley and that this chorister would have been yet another powerless person discarded and ignored because they didn't want to put up with this kind of unprofessional nonsense.

No one is mixing this up with sexual assault; "better than sexual assault" is a low, low bar.

And one can be professional when presenting racy/sexually charged works. I see no reason to say, well, we're performing _Lulu_ so we have to be awful to each other. What part of being in the chorus for a _Semiramide_ where Assur spending much of the second act bare-chested (assuming they've kept that part of the production and assuming that was at all related to what went on) means that you have to put up with the director being crude?

I'd even argue that there's that much more reason to keep things strictly professional when including nudity, depicting assault, and so on. (In film, many directors will have a closed set when filming nudity).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

So we have now, what? Three versions of what what was said, to whom, and about whom or what? Pretty hard to base a discussion on that, I'd say.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> And one can be professional when presenting racy/sexually charged works. I see no reason to say, well, we're performing _Lulu_ so we have to be awful to each other. What part of being in the chorus for a _Semiramide_ where Assur spending much of the second act bare-chested (assuming they've kept that part of the production and assuming that was at all related to what went on) means that you have to put up with the director being crude?
> 
> I'd even argue that there's that much more reason to keep things strictly professional when including nudity, depicting assault, and so on. (In film, many directors will have a closed set when filming nudity).


I'd touch your butt.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> So we have now, what? Three versions of what what was said, to whom, and about whom or what? Pretty hard to base a discussion on that, I'd say.


Sure, better to sweep it aside and pretend there is nothing to be concerned about.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

mountmccabe said:


> The Met's statement is quite different from what Norman Lebrecht is pushing, per a new story in the NYT
> 
> The article has statements from the union (that represents both choristers and directors), the Met disputing those statements, and so on.
> 
> ...


Well stated
I'm with you


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sonata said:


> Sure, better to sweep it aside and pretend there is nothing to be concerned about.


We don't know what there is to be concerned about unless we know exactly what occurred. Reserving judgment is not "sweeping aside." There is too much rushing to judgment every time someone "feels uncomfortable" about something someone else says or does.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I'm not saying people rush to judgement. I'm saying I disagree that there's nothing to have a discussion about.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sonata said:


> I'm not saying people rush to judgement. I'm saying I disagree that there's nothing to have a discussion about.


I didn't say that either. I said it's pretty hard to talk about an uncertain incident. Until we know exactly what happened, we can only talk about abstract questions.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> I suppose the next stage in our new puritanism will be to ban all Restoration plays, which abound with sexual innuendo and ribaldry.


I have said for a while that we are entering a new Victorian era as far as morals go. I have a theory that if you look back at history you see periods of moral freedom and permissiveness (not just when it comes to matters of sexual mores, but they are, of course, strangely often the main focus of those who wish to impose their own views on morality on others) alternating with periods of moral restrictions. The exact rules and modes aren't the same in those periods, but the tones and trends are similar. I therefore see loose connections between the puritanism of the 17th century and the bourgeois values of the 19th. The social freedoms of the 20th echo those of the 18th.

Worryingly there are other trends that may be resurfacing the Enlightenment of the 18th century has parallels with Modernism and Post Modernism. Are we entering a puritanical dark ages?

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

P.S. Opera houses should take complaints from staff seriously and there is no place for obviously inappropriate sexual comments. Any organisation should look after all its staff. Not knowing what happened in this particular instance we can't really make a judgement.

That said, you aren't really anybody in the opera world if you _haven't_ been told a blue joke by John Copley!


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Reports of abuse need to be dealt with on an individual basis. Whatever happened regarding Copley, the response shouldn't be dictated by recent headlines. At the same, even if you don't see merit in this particular complaint, that shouldn't lead to taking other reported abuses any less seriously.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> So now any passing or joking reference to anything related to sex or sexuality that makes anyone "feel uncomfortable" is enough to get you fired.
> 
> I would tell the poor uncomfortable baby that if he's so unsettled by a humorous reference to nudity he might quit the opera and join a church choir, where everyone is robed from neck to ankles.


Well, at least most of the time...


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

amfortas said:


> Reports of abuse need to be dealt with on an individual basis. Whatever happened regarding Copley, the response shouldn't be dictated by recent headlines. At the same, even if you don't see merit in this particular complaint, that shouldn't lead to taking other reported abuses any less seriously.


Absolutely and taking seriously any flippant, light-hearted innuendo could lead to true cases of sexual assault being played down.

Incidentally, only surmisal of course, but I have a feeling that if John Copley had been a young attractive woman, then no complaint would have been made. I wouldn't be surprised if a certain amount of homophobia was involved.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

elgars ghost said:


> Well, at least most of the time...


Hmmm... What sort of church do you belong to? Does it meet in the forest at midnight?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Absolutely and taking seriously any flippant, light-hearted innuendo could lead to true cases of sexual assault being played down.
> 
> Incidentally, only surmisal of course, but I have a feeling that if John Copley had been a young attractive woman, then no complaint would have been made. I wouldn't be surprised if a certain amount of homophobia was involved.


Yes, young, straight women are attractive and amusing, while 80-year-old men are terribly threatening, and gay 80-year-old men are...?

Ah, these double, triple, and quadruple standards. It's so complicated.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Ah, these double, triple, and quadruple standards. It's so complicated.


True, life isn't fair: some people get away with being a @#$%^&*, others don't.

But if you're one of those who doesn't, don't complain. After all, you were being a @#$%^&*.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> True, life isn't fair: some people get away with being a @#$%^&*, others don't.
> 
> But if you're one of those who doesn't, don't complain. After all, you were being a @#$%^&*.


The question is: who gets to define @#$%^&* ?

Quite often, I fear, it's the real @#$%^&*s.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> The question is: who gets to define @#$%^&* ?
> 
> Quite often, I fear, it's the real @#$%^&*s.


Sometimes it's a problem of definition, sometimes not. For some of the behavior revealed over the past few months, @#$%^&* is too kind a word.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> Sometimes it's a problem of definition, sometimes not. For some of the behavior revealed over the past few months, @#$%^&* is too kind a word.


True enough. As a culture, we need to sort this out. Meanwhile, prejudices reign, and injustices are done. The devil needs advocates until it's determined what's really devilish.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> True enough. As a culture, we need to sort this out. Meanwhile, prejudices reign, and injustices are done. The devil needs advocates until it's determined what's really devilish.


I would only add that, as a culture, we have needed to sort this out for decades. If we sometimes see a rush to judgment now, it's because injustice has gone unchecked far too long. Hopefully, things will eventually settle down, and we'll end up in a better place than before.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

amfortas said:


> I would only add that, as a culture, we have needed to sort this out for decades. If we sometimes see a rush to judgment now, it's because injustice has gone unchecked far too long. Hopefully, things will eventually settle down, and we'll end up in a better place than before.


And in the meantime, poor, sweet, old John Copley gets it in the neck for what was simply a rather ribald remark.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I have said for a while that we are entering a new Victorian era as far as morals go. I have a theory that if you look back at history you see periods of moral freedom and permissiveness (not just when it comes to matters of sexual mores, but they are, of course, strangely often the main focus of those who wish to impose their own views on morality on others) alternating with periods of moral restrictions. The exact rules and modes aren't the same in those periods, but the tones and trends are similar. I therefore see loose connections between the puritanism of the 17th century and the bourgeois values of the 19th. The social freedoms of the 20th echo those of the 18th.
> 
> Worryingly there are other trends that may be resurfacing the Enlightenment of the 18th century has parallels with Modernism and Post Modernism. Are we entering a puritanical dark ages?
> 
> N.


Western culture contains contradictory traditions, and in my own country, the USA, the contradictions are intense right now. It appears that certain groups with considerable influence would be happy to obliterate every trace of Enlightenment thought, as exhibited in a disrespect for knowledge in every field. An irony - pertinent to the present topic - is that some of the traditional defenders of conservative and repressive moral codes are now willing to support a blatantly immoral political leadership, while certain of the supposedly more free-thinking "liberal" types are urging drastic punishments for actions deemed intolerable for no reason other than that they've "offended" someone. Both contingents end up obscuring real and important differences in both kind and degree. Some standard of actual harm, which makes distinctions based on significant consequences rather than broad categories of behavior and vague grievances, is badly needed. A fine person's brilliant career should not be ended by an off-color joke, an impulsive hug, an unwanted compliment, or a clumsy overture. People shouldn't need Big Brother to draw simple boundaries for them, and the world can't be made a "safe space."


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

This entire disgusting episode speaks of The Salem Witch Trials to me. 
I do believe what Sarah Connolly referred to in a "Slipped Disc" article about the offender who only has a certain awareness of the English language, being of another culture, and was appalled when he realized the situation and should immediately step up to Gelb and tell him so.
And Gelb! Shame on him for taking this step again, out of "Levine fear", that something unpleasant could happen to the Met(forget the innocent human being who is forever scarred by this reprehensible and rash decision.)


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I think we are all getting harmless banter confused with actual sexual assault. I know John Copley a little. He's very sweet and completely harmless. When I was younger I might well have been the subject of some of his harmless banter myself. I can honestly say it didn't bother me in the slightest, nor did I feel threatened or uncomfortable. If this chorister is so thin skinned, he's in the wrong business.
> 
> *I suppose the next stage in our new puritanism will be to ban all Restoration plays, which abound with sexual innuendo and ribaldry.*


well, Carmen is phuqued.

PS: "ribaldry", I learned a new word today


----------



## Metairie Road (Apr 30, 2014)

I've stopped listening to my Thomas Beecham recordings, just to be on the safe side.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

ldiat said:


> Mr. Copley, 84, has been one of the opera world's foremost directors for decades. He was at the Met directing a revival of his 1990 production of Rossini's "Semiramide" when a member of the chorus reported *that Mr. Copley had made him uncomfortable* at a rehearsal on Monday with a sexually charged remark, according to two people familiar with the complaint.


Firing a person just for making someone feel _uncomfortable_... wow... just wow... This actually sounds worse than Stalinist Russia. In the latter there was just a small group of people at the very top that you should not be discussing or making jokes about. This situation at the Met is like entering a world where everyone is a little Stalin to each other and can ruin another's life just for a few words. Truly scary, that is.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> A fine person's brilliant career should not be ended by an off-color joke, an impulsive hug, an unwanted compliment, or a clumsy overture.


Probably not. But they might well receive a warning if such behavior is not welcomed by their co-workers.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> Probably not. But they might well receive a warning if such behavior is not welcomed by their co-workers.


Maybe. But people's "comfort zones" are individual things. Exactly what behavior - the very word easily takes on judgmental overtones - are we to be warned against? We are always in danger of placing absolute values on things which are personally, culturally and situationally relative. It's ironic that it's often the self-proclaimed advocates of tolerance who want to prescribe fine-tuned, rigid, and proliferating criteria of acceptability to protect those who they decide are incapable of dealing with the discomforts of life. But the toll that enforcing such fear-based attitudes can take on the psyches of human beings, and on social interaction, is real. Isn't it healthier to encourage a culture in which human individuality (which is not necessarily the same as "diversity") is esteemed and people are not all expected to agree and act the same, and to establish situations where people feel secure in setting their own boundaries and speaking up when the words or actions of others are actually problematic? Most people, most of the time, will take "no" for an answer, and real problems (as opposed to "discomforts") arise mainly when they won't.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Maybe. But people's "comfort zones" are individual things. Exactly what behavior - the very word easily takes on judgmental overtones - are we to be warned against? We are always in danger of placing absolute values on things which are personally, culturally and situationally relative. It's ironic that it's often the self-proclaimed advocates of tolerance who want to prescribe fine-tuned, rigid, and proliferating criteria of acceptability to protect those who they decide are incapable of dealing with the discomforts of life. But the toll that enforcing such fear-based attitudes can take on the psyches of human beings, and on social interaction, is real. Isn't it healthier to encourage a culture in which human individuality (which is not necessarily the same as "diversity") is esteemed and people are not all expected to agree and act the same, and to establish situations where people feel secure in setting their own boundaries and speaking up when the words or actions of others are actually problematic? Most people, most of the time, will take "no" for an answer, and real problems (as opposed to "discomforts") arise mainly when they won't.


People's comfort zones are indeed individual things. But I think the presumption in the workplace has to be that people are there to do their jobs while observing a degree of professional decorum. It would never occur to me (except in rare cases of well-established intimacy) that I had license to do the things you mentioned--off-color jokes, hugs, overtures, even questionable compliments--with or around my co-workers. All of them, by the way, are either superiors or at my same level. It becomes even more problematic when someone presumes on their position of power to behave that way around subordinates.

And yes, I understand that people are more than just workers--they also like to socialize, let their hair down, loosen things up. But I would suggest, as a rule of thumb: When in doubt, save it for Friday happy hour at the bar. And even there, don't be a dick.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> People's comfort zones are indeed individual things. But I think the presumption in the workplace has to be that people are there to do their jobs while observing a degree of professional decorum. It would never occur to me (except in rare cases of well-established intimacy) that I had license to do the things you mentioned--offer-color jokes, hugs, overtures, even questionable compliments--with or around my co-workers. All of them, by the way, are either superiors or at my same level. It becomes even more problematic when someone presumes on their position of power to behave that way around subordinates.
> 
> And yes, I understand that people are more than just workers--they also like to socialize, let their hair down, loosen things up. But I would suggest, as a rule of thumb: When in doubt, save it for Friday happy hour at the bar. And even there, don't be a dick.


Agreed, work situations do require limitations on behavior. This too will vary depending on the sort of work and the way things are organized and managed. Someone who has worked mostly in the arts, for example, will inhabit quite a different work culture than someone in a government office or a science lab. There are innumerable subcultures in the world of work, as elsewhere. And always there are differences between individuals. As much as possible, it should be individuals who work out the terms of their interaction.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Agreed, work situations do require limitations on behavior. This too will vary depending on the sort of work and the way things are organized and managed. Someone who has worked mostly in the arts, for example, will inhabit quite a different work culture than someone in a government office or a science lab. There are innumerable subcultures in the world of work, as elsewhere. And always there are differences between individuals. As much as possible, it should be individuals who work out the terms of their interaction.


Having spent considerable time in both artistic and more mundane work environments, I agree absolutely about the different cultures. And yes, when possible, it's best if people can work things out for themselves. That said, in any work situation, if he wants to make it more personal while she wants to keep things professional, there should never be any doubt about who prevails--even if it requires taking the issue higher up the chain of command.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

I think it's quite ironic that slipped disc, which led the prosecution against Levine and Dutoit, should now lead the case for the defence for Copley. I must confess that if a heterosexual male director told a young female chorus member something like he would like to see her naked in bed then she would have cause to complain at the remark, however lighthearted. I don't think we can judge the incident in question because we were not there but in the present climate people must remember (rightly) to watch what they say and do.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

GregMitchell said:


> Absolutely and taking seriously any flippant, light-hearted innuendo could lead to true cases of sexual assault being played down.
> 
> Incidentally, only surmisal of course, but I have a feeling that if John Copley had been a young attractive woman, then no complaint would have been made. I wouldn't be surprised if a certain amount of homophobia was involved.


You're adding not one but three different factors in their. What if John Copley had been an 81 year old female? Woud you have called it "age-ist" if a complaint had been filed? Not that I'm saying the guy needed to be fired, but overusing the term homopobia can also lead to real homphobia being played down...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sonata said:


> You're adding not one but three different factors in their. What if John Copley had been an 81 year old female? Woud you have called it "age-ist" if a complaint had been filed? Not that I'm saying the guy needed to be fired, but overusing the term homopobia can also lead to real homphobia being played down...


When Greg Mitchell qualifies a thought so carefully - "incidentally," "only a surmisal," "a feeling," "I wouldn't be surprised," "a certain amount" - he is hardly "calling" this incident anything specific, or overusing a term. Besides, what is "real homophobia"? Discomfort with homosexuality comes in many forms and degrees. The underlying point is, people apply different standards to identical behavior when it comes from people of different genders, ages, races, social classes, religions, etc., etc. The double standard is something gays have learned to expect as a matter of course.

An 81-year-old woman, by the way, would probably have been found delightfully amusing for saying whatever Copley said. Double standards...


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> An 81-year-old woman, by the way, would probably have been found delightfully amusing for saying whatever Copley said. Double standards...


I do think women (81-year-old women in particular) get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to matters of sexual misconduct. I'm not sure that status is entirely unearned.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> I do think women (81-year-old women in particular) do get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to matters of sexual misconduct. I'm not sure that status is entirely unearned.


I agree. I'd only make that a little more specific and say "the presumption" of misconduct. On the whole, sexual offenses - I mean harmful ones, not joking references to sex - are more often committed by men, as are most crimes. But that easily leads to stereotypes and to actions being interpreted in accordance with them. And as for gay men, stereotyping may allow them to get away with more because they're considered amusingly outrageous, or less because they're considered threatening. None of it is a win for social rationality.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I agree. I'd only make that a little more specific and say "the presumption" of misconduct. On the whole, sexual offenses - I mean harmful ones, not joking references to sex - are more often committed by men, as are most crimes. But that easily leads to stereotypes and to actions being interpreted in accordance with them. And as for gay men, stereotyping may allow them to get away with more because they're considered amusingly outrageous, or less because they're considered threatening. None of it is a win for social rationality.


Agreed, we should guard against stereotypes. As a straight man, I will never cede my right to be considered amusingly outrageous.


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

amfortas said:


> People's comfort zones are indeed individual things. But I think the presumption in the workplace has to be that people are there to do their jobs while observing a degree of professional decorum. It would never occur to me (except in rare cases of well-established intimacy) that I had license to do the things you mentioned--off-color jokes, hugs, overtures, even questionable compliments--with or around my co-workers. All of them, by the way, are either superiors or at my same level. It becomes even more problematic when someone presumes on their position of power to behave that way around subordinates.
> 
> And yes, I understand that people are more than just workers--they also like to socialize, let their hair down, loosen things up. But I would suggest, as a rule of thumb: When in doubt, save it for Friday happy hour at the bar. And even there, don't be a dick.


Your use of the word dick makes me very uncomfortable and I demand that you be sacked, summarily and forthwith.

:tiphat:

George


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Barelytenor said:


> Your use of the word dick makes me very uncomfortable and I demand that you be sacked, summarily and forthwith.


Your use of the word "sack" . . .


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

For what it's worth, if it was a single comment and nothing more, I don't think a full firing was warranted, a warning would have been sufficient.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Sonata said:


> For what it's worth, if it was a single comment and nothing more, I don't think a full firing was warranted, a warning would have been sufficient.


That isn't really looking at the full situation though.

Imagine you're in Human Relations at the Met. A chorister complains about sexual harassment during rehearsals. They say that they're uncomfortable working further with this director. The director does not deny that he made this comment. And you know from his reputation that it is likely that he did, which also means that the Met was in a position of hiring someone known to make crude comments, thus knowingly creating this environment in the first place.

You suggest the director write an apology, but this is not deemed sufficient. There are laws against firing the chorister (who, by the way, is also in the already running _Il Trovatore_).

So what do you do, as HR for the Met? Do you break the law and fire the chorister? Or do you remove the harassing director?

An HR department, management, and on-stage staff that is functioning well may well have been able to convince the chorister that they were safe, and that the Met was supporting them without having to fire Copley. But that comes from a culture of being supportive, for example everyone acknowledging that this was inappropriate right from when it happened. It's not something you can start on AFTER the complaint.

At least this time the Met acted before the story became public. They were actually responding to the incident in question, not the press/public outrage raised over it.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Did John Copley already have a reputation for this? I didn't see mention of that


----------

