Juror in Cosby trial says Cosby’s 2005 deposition on Quaaludes sealed the deal [Part I]
[NOTE: I feel like I might be belaboring this Cosby situation, since I already wrote a post describing some of the miscarriages of justice I noticed about the Cosby trial. But I continue to learn new things about that trial that bother me, and so I’ve written this 2-parter to describe two of them. Whether Cosby is guilty or innocent (and on the whole I think he’s probably guilty), I don’t think he got a fair trial, and I find that very disturbing.]
This is interesting:
[Cosby juror] Harrison Snyder said in an interview aired Monday on ABC’s Good Morning America that Cosby’s deposition ”” in which he admitted giving women drugs to have sex with them ”” was the evidence that made him believe Cosby was guilty [of assaulting Constand]…
The 22-year-old said it “wasn’t an open-and-shut case” but that he had no doubt the jury made the right decision in convicting Cosby Thursday on three counts of aggravated indecent assault.
Why was that 2005 deposition allowed into evidence in the first place in the criminal trial? This article from a month ago indicates the judge originally seemed to be leaning against it. But the testimony was allowed, and in the articles I’ve found about that decision (for example, this one) I haven’t seen much explanation of the judge’s reasoning behind it.
What was the 2005 deposition about? Remember as you read this that the recent criminal trial and the 2005 civil trial were both about an act alleged to have occurred in 2004, although the questions in the deposition and the act or acts admitted to therein occurred during the 1970s [emphasis mine]:
Cosby apparently obtained quaaludes [legally] through a prescription, the AP reported.
In the deposition, which stemmed from a sexual abuse case against Cosby filed by a former Temple University employee [Constand], Cosby was asked by a lawyer, “When you got the quaaludes [in the 1970s], was it in your mind that you were going to use these quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?” Cosby answered, “Yes.”…
“There is no acknowledgement that he gave the quaalude to someone underage, or to a woman who wasn’t consenting,” Brafman told TIME. “Quaalude was the love drug of choice in those years. Doctors were lawfully prescribing it in those years.”…
Quaaludes, the brand name for methaqualone, were a popular sleeping pill in the 1960s and were used in the 1970s and ’80s as a club drug, particularly to help people come off of a cocaine high…In 1984 President Ronald Reagan signed a law banning the production of the drug, making it illegal. Cosby’s admission concerns a period during the 1970s, when quaaludes would have been legal with a prescription.
Philip Jenkins, a professor of history at Baylor University and the author of Decade of Nightmares: The End of the Sixties and the Making of Eighties America, who spoke generally about the use of quaaludes in the ’70s and not specifically about how Bill Cosby may have used them, said that drug was indeed believed to be an aphrodisiac that consenting adults could use to have sex. “Quaaludes were something that was meant to send you to sleep,” Jenkins told TIME. “But it was also supposed to be the world’s greatest aphrodisiac. It was meant to knock you out, but also give you an overpowering sense of sexual urge.”
Cosby has said that the pills he gave Constand were Benadryl, by the way, and Constand has claimed the pills were blue in color. But quaaludes apparently never came in blue.
A bit more detail about Cosby’s actual testimony in the 2005 deposition can be found here:
In the civil deposition, Cosby acknowledged obtaining seven different prescriptions for Quaaludes during the 1970s, and said he’d used them with a woman named Theresa at the Las Vegas Hilton sometime during that decade.
“Did you ever give the Quaaludes to any other female but Theresa?” Constand attorney Dolores Troiani asked him during the 2005 deposition.
“Yes,” he replied.
“Did you ever give any of those young women Quaaludes without their knowledge?” Troiani asked.
“I misunderstood. Woman, not women. Just her,” he responded.
So, he admitted to using quaaludes with one woman and contemplating their use with others in the 70s. He never answered the question about consent because his lawyer objected to the question and the objection was apparently sustained. Here is Therese’s (that’s the proper spelling) description of what happened [emphasis mine]:
Therese Serignese, now 57, was 19 (and known by her maiden name, Therese Picking) and standing with her younger brother and sister outside of a gift shop of the Las Vegas Hilton in 1976 when, she says, a man approached her from behind, slowly slipped his left arm around her shoulder, and said in a teasingly playful voice, “Will you marry me?”
She says she turned to face Cosby, the hotel’s headline act.
He offered her ”“ and only her ”“ a free ticket to his show, she says. And when she was escorted backstage afterward to the green room, she remembers feeling that she was meant to stay as the 10 or so other people there made their goodbyes. Alone with the entertainer, she claims he approached her on a couch, held out his hand, “and he had two pills there, and a glass of water, and he told me to take them,” she tells PEOPLE.
The pills, she says, were Quaaludes. “He identified what they were; that’s how I knew,” she says. “At that point I didn’t know what to do, so I just obeyed. I just did it.”
She then remembers having intercourse without having given consent.
If Therese Serignese is telling the truth (and let’s say she is) there is no excuse for Cosby’s behavior. He was 42 and she 19, and he was predatory and exploitative of her youth and inexperience. Was it rape? I would say there’s a strong case for it.
But as far as her consent to just the pill-taking goes (not the sex, but the pill-taking), she did give consent, even by her own admission. I wonder—I really wonder—whether that detail was ever introduced into the recent criminal trial.
The fact that a juror such as Snyder was influenced to believe Cosby was guilty by Cosby’s admissions in that deposition shows why that testimony should most likely have been excluded, in my opinion. I’ve seen no indication that the deposition dealt with the question of consent to the pills, which was very important. The other party in that incident with the admitted use of quaaludes (Ms. Serignese) was apparently not questioned during the criminal trial on that issue (or on any other issue). I don’t know how much testimony was allowed in the criminal trial about the fact that quaaludes were commonly used as party drugs back in the 1970s, but it seems to me that that should make their use back then irrelevant to an incident alleged to have occurred around thirty years later. A juror such as Snyder, who is 22 years old, would have had no context in which to place the 1970s acts described in the deposition, and I wonder whether he was given any such context.
I don’t know if this entire situation troubles you, but it troubles me. And—as I indicated in my previous post—this sort of thing disturbs me whether or not Bill Cosby is guilty. I happen to think that the evidence on the whole indicates that he is guilty, but from what I know so far (without having been on the jury and heard all the evidence, of course) I would say his guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And yet he was convicted, apparently because of evidence like that deposition, which seems to have made the difference for at least one juror.
[Part II is coming soon. It concerns an agreement that may or may not have been made with Cosby in that civil trial, a deal that would have barred his deposition from being used in a criminal trial.]
It certainly troubles me and for exactly the same reasons.
We are witness to the crumbling away of the American system of justice.
“NY Judge rules that bars and restaurants can refuse to serve Trump supporters”
‘N.Y. Federal Judge rules that the CIA can selectively divulge classified information to selected reporters in emails, yet withhold that information from other reporters and members of the public, even when they seek the same information under the Freedom of Information Act’…
It’s troubling how easy it is to convict a person once they are identified by the mob as guilty. I don’t like anything about that. It becomes a foregone conclusion. Then it becomes reality.
This is not a comment on whether or not I think Cosby is guilty of drugging women and raping them. It does seem likely, but that’s not the standard in a criminal trial.
Why was that 2005 deposition allowed into evidence in the first place in the criminal trial?
when women are involved in court there are a whole bunch of separate rules and so on now (unequal treatment to have equal outcomes said the feminist constitutional scholars!)
hearsay is evidence, which is why everone has to testify that they told their girlfriend or someone soon after the ‘incident’ in question..
in fact. its formulaic… you tick off each of the items, making sure that anything there is no evidence of innocence, you check done… its ok if you dont actually remember it
evidence as to the nature of the person or so on, including actual acts they have done – generally aren’t allowed… it would prejudice things going forwards
guys been complaining for decades…
If an asymmetry means X in parlance, what about a constant 90% 10% one? nope, they have a canned excuse that maligns at the same time everyone nods they know, and poof… its meaningless
from psychology today
Interestingly, while in most instances a non-equality of outcomes is construed as a manifestation of endemic sexism, racism, or other “ism” in other cases to merely point to a non-equality of outcomes is itself construed as “bigoted, phobic, and racist.” Can you think of such an example?
[the one that came before those three was deadbeat]
if you think this isn’t so, then explain why a child who is a victim of molestation has to pay child support to the older woman that did that to them? (the canned excuse: boys must like it, so even if victims, they have to pay child support)
From Psychology Today:
but you cant get a degree in a major area in which women have entered and dominated without agreeing with it… including now MSATs…
“She then remembers having intercourse without having given consent.”
I think giving consent in the late 70s vs consent today are entirely different things. Of course, consent is always important, but these days, consent has to be stated explicitly.
This is another situation where late 70’s behavior is being judged through a 2018 lens. That doesn’t mean he’s not guilty, just that everything about consent has changed in the years since this happened.
the ladies are finding the men are returning to the era of chaperones..
many in states that its legal, are turning on cameras and more
there are a lot more innocent men who would never do a thing who will make sure they are protected, and the kind that would do that thing? will not… they will be protected by the plethora of innocent in a short time who will come out with tapes of meetings and who now refuse to meet alone with any lady
they aren’t going to scare the deviants from doing their thing…
but that’s for the guys that choose that, there is a whole other wave that is taking a second look at religions like Islam (a lot in the black community), which, if taken up (a lot more), would end up with Hegel watching feminism vs Islam to see what comes out of that process. And it doesn’t have to be even more than a voting fight.. eventually the side that does mate – wins… (they win faster if the side that doesn’t mate wants to save them)
The ladies think they put the fear of god into the men and now what?
its not quite playing out that way… and it wont…
Pandora will out… Cassandra is running for the hills
we are finding out that women were not oppressed by men but by each other and their actions!!!! We are finding out what kind of things happened in the past that, refusing to keep in check, lead to all those things that they complain about – chaperones? lack of freedom? appointment cards? never going anywhere alone man or woman. reputation becomes everything again and no one wants to risk it, etc… streets getting too rough for lack of decent upbringing…
how many have read the hold books of people explaining things or is everyone diet mostly of what other people tell you other people say? saves time, i know…
from wiki:
A chaperone (also spelled chaperon) in its original social usage was a person who for propriety’s sake accompanied an unmarried girl in public: usually she was an older married woman, and most commonly the girl’s own mother.
the MEN had more to lose if they lost too – committing suicide was not uncommon… Even Shakespeare writes of it… in Othello
IAGO: A good reputation is the most valuable thing we have–men and women alike. If you steal my money, you’re just stealing trash. It’s something, it’s nothing: it’s yours, it’s mine, and it’ll belong to thousands more. But if you steal my reputation, you’re robbing me of something that doesn’t make you richer, but makes me much poorer.
Chaperones for young men were not commonly employed in Western society until the latter half of the 20th century….
Careful families secured an escort for young servants if they had to travel any great distance. The social chaperone (as opposed to the chaperone who supplied protection on the street) had another role. In addition to making sure that men treated her young charge with respect, the chaperone took her out in society… Daily Life in Victorian England – Page 152
yes, in the Victorian era, reputation became everything just as dissing someone in the inner city could result in getting killed..
THOSE with the most to lose, instead put up walls.. they invent gates, they hire others to be foils…
Welcome to the new old era…
anxiously watched by their matronly chaperones who had to be present at balls or dances, where etiquette was very strict.9 Married women were specially protected in law from husbands who failed to support … Men who abandoned their wives and children to public charity ‘will be declared rogues and vagabonds’. The Jamaican People, 1880-1902: Race, Class, and Social Control
We have even gone back to the beards for the men of this period, the dandy (metro-sexual), etc… (But thats just after the period of le pouf in french court, wigs, and makeup)…
yeah that was a pretty oppressive period, but to study it in detail is to see spheres of power, not one power and nothing else.. the ladies may have had sex bottled up, but through the men… and even in their own spheres (there are a lot of contradictions the proselytizers always have problems with, like the black slave holder named natty, and women who were business leaders like the one chase bank came from)
Blame the men, but who were the police of prudery? who would destroy people IF these social rules were violated and the ladies saw a chance to destroy using rumor? innuendo? etc? the ladies were by no means powerless, they just topped from the bottom… (my boyfriends back is not a song about a helpless girl without means)
Let me tell you something Toula; the man is the head, but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head any way she wants. (and the head will always be blamed)
that’s true.. that’s always true, unless your going to chain people to a wall to have children… even in places where she had no say, someone did and the say wasn’t have at it, and who cares…
from Lysistrata to Victorian norms, to wild Wiemar, to big fat Greek wedding… most of the time, the guys are accommodating to the women of their society, even if they want things that will end that society… they just hope that they end before it does… then they got away free and clear..
all the smart people who train all the others who come after and others, have trained them all to love Marx… even the times announced he was right…
so anyone who thinks otherwise..
you lost.. no one defended anything (anyone who might wasnt where it counted to defend it, in academia) except among the choir and in your heads…
all this Cosby thing means is turn up the steam and really get this locomotive moving… i has no brake handles, it does not slow down that’s a feature not a bug…
each item that might slow it down, is not allowed
go ahead, try one logical brake and see!!!!!
I think Cosby is very likely a dog who did some terrible things. However, I’m reading things about the trial that make me wonder about how conviction was achieved.
How can a deposition from a civil case be used as evidence a criminal cases, unless the person deposed is dead and cannot be cross examined on their testimony? I also thought pro bad acts were admissable if they involved a conviction. I had always thought that parading a string of people testifying to provide bad acts without some independent corroboration of the bad act was inadmissible.
Curious to read your follow ups.
I remember when Quaaludes were popular but somehow I never had any before they became scarce. Many young women of that time preferred to have sex while on one drug or another — marijuana, but as its use lessened during the 1970s cocaine (with alcohol) was seen as “cool.” The negative factor was the come-down, which could be quite unpleasant if the cocaine was adulterated and cheap. Hence, ‘Ludes, which supposedly made you feel pleased with yourself and warm.
The unasked question for me here is: Did Cosby also take a Quaalude or 2, along with the female? If he did, his behavior looks from afar far less sinister than if he did not.
(Remember in ANNIE HALL how Diane Keaton’s character only wanted to have sex if she was stoned. In her case, by smoking a joint. No doubt she would also have readily taken Quaaludes or, later on, Ecstasy.)
I heard about Bill Cosby and his Magic Medicine Cabinet (yes, that’s exactly how it was stated) more than 30 years ago. According to the person who told me about him, this was widely known in Vegas and other places where he performed. I was told there was a regular procession of women who went to his apartment or hotel room to do drugs and have sex with him. The person telling me this was a woman who had lived in Las Vegas and worked in the entertainment industry, and the context of the conversation didn’t seem to be inclined toward motivating her to lie.
I agree with Neo, that without further exploration of the “sex for drugs” or the “consent” issues, that partial deposition testimony should never have been admitted.
Of course, what I was told is rank hearsay, and utterly inadmissible. Nor does it in any way preclude Cosby’s surreptitiously drugging an unsuspecting woman, or using force, to rape her. Obviously, I could never be on his jury knowing what I know, but pretending women don’t have sex with stars to advance their careers or just to have screwed a celebrity or to trade for drugs doesn’t lead to justice, any more than disregarding the victim’s complaint does.
There were other brands of methaqualone besides Quaalude. One was Sopor. Sopor tablets may have been blue, or one of the other brands. I remember a young female hospital patient, when I was a pharmacy student, around 1978, telling me that she had taken a “big blue Sopor.” I don’t remember actually dispensing any. They were already under a cloud by then, even though they were still legal.
“pretending women don’t have sex with stars to advance their careers or just to have screwed a celebrity or to trade for drugs doesn’t lead to justice, any more than disregarding the victim’s complaint does.”
Both are illusions, and justice is ultimately about reality.
And now for something completely…..the same (almost):
http://slippedisc.com/2018/04/james-levine-is-wiped-off-24×7-met-opera-radio/
More virtue signaling (though perhaps, in this case, with an eye to fund raising, or the lack thereof—producing operas is not cheap….).
Liberal society is making same pretty bizarre choices.
(Actually, they’re acting as badly as, or even worse, than the evangelicals they profess to despise….)
Some of the Protestants circle claim to be Saved by Grace, not Works. Which is to mean, a child molestor is saved by Grace no matter what he does in the future, but a child that is not saved or given grace is condemned to the fires of everlasting hell. That theology becomes rather unsustainable as time passes on.
In Hollywood, you are saved by grace until you fall out of grace. Then you get wiped out and your fame and fortunes taken away. You have a get out of jail free card, a diplomatic immunity to prosecution, until it is rescinded by your god. This is similar to the Vatican usage of indulgences to buy souls out of purgatory. As soon as the silver clinks into the priest’s coffers, your loved ones will be sprung out of purgatory to avoid the condemnation and pain.
That theology gets unsustainable as time goes on.
Hell was intended for the angels of Lucifer, as mentioned by Peter and Jude, quoting from 1st Enoch. I can understand why Lucifer and his legion would fear hell, but why would mortals and the House of Israel or goy fear hell.
The Church of Lucifer has a number of beliefs about hell.
1. Whatever mortal pleasures you experienced the most in life, will be reproduced for you endlessly in Hell, your just reward.
2. You will rule in Hell, as kings and queens with your own world, status, wealth, sorta like a permanent larger Hollywood.
3. Lucifer’s paradise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Bible
These are actual organizations, with 30 page membership entrance examination forms.
Aleister Crowley is renowned, even in the East, for his Workings and Western occult magic craft. LaVey seems more of a combination of Ayn Rand philosophy with religion: Do What Thou Will.
If a person does whatever they want, won’t they be punished?
Not if their god grants them immunity to the Law, Justice, and Prosecution. Isn’t that what many religious faithful claim, that they are no longer under the law. The “law” was so onerous, that the freedom to do what you will was much better. However, they live under US law that is so heavy that all of it would kill them if physically stacked on them.
That is not an example of a Light Burden.
As for Cosby, I was not put in a position of judge for him. That’s what Americans hire corrupt lawyers for. The way people misinterpret “judge” is pretty ironic.
Don’t judge me, you Judge.
I judge you in Contempt of the Court.
How can you call yourself a Christian and judge me!?
Good is called evil and evil good. Light is called darkness and vision is called blindness.
The USA has a law about freedom of religion. I have to wonder how many of these religions when they become the State Religion, will still honor freedom of belief. Southern Religion reinforced the morality of Slavery 2.0 before Lincoln came on the scene and left soon after. Wilkes and others were Catholics and apparently very strong pro slavery and pro South Catholics. A Catholic killing a Protestant leader of a Protestant country, that is cheered as righteous anti tyranny by a Protestant Southern Majority of slave totalitarians…
We don’t have nearly as many Christians killing Christians now a days. But we do have religious conflicts, debates, and attempts to convert people. Judaism to Christian, Christian to Judaism.
The Essenes often sound like a sect from some Chinese cultivation novel, complete with Yehashua closing up in his immortal cave, cultivating godlike techniques, keeping secret tomes not given to the masses, and marrying within the sect or staying celibate like Buddhist monks. That actually looks like a real Abrahamic Religion. Ascetic, Spartan like, endurance.
Justice requires that people get what they deserve, no more and no less. Meanwhile in the US, we have get out of jail free cards for immunity. Sin all you can cards. Just got to join up and pay your donations. That is a law all right, but not quite the law given to Adam, Enoch, Abraham, or Moses. Once Hollywood or DS drops your immunity, the system then slams down. But don’t worry, the House of Israel and the goyim believe they are not under the Law. Judaism doesn’t do Leviticus and the goyim doesn’t care about any of the Torah, except for a fake 10 commandment list to be put in the courts to make it look good.
Barry – I haven’t followed any of the Levine controversy (and don’t listen to SiriusXM and don’t buy Opera CDs ) but I did scroll through the comments, which were pretty much aghast at the purging, because (they argue) the morals of great artists are distinct from their works — a point that seems to get lost when discussing the legacies of Southern or antebellum notables.
I point out that most Met aficionados hardly fit the stereotype of the VRWC deplorables (that’s a stereotype as well, of course), although some are certainly conservative — I know a few of them myself.
Shoe on the other foot; sauce for the goose; etc etc etc.
* * *
A brace of good ones (edited somewhat – mostly names and timestamps removed, but opera lovers are almost as wordy as some of us):
* * *
Does every decision made have to come with a comparison to Hitler or Stalin? As far as I’m aware, Levine hasn’t been arrested, sent to a gulag, or been shot. Can we tone down the hyperbole?
REPLY
NO! There can never be enough hyperbole!
REPLY
he has not been arrested or shot because he did not commit any crime. To suppress the existence of a politician or an Artist is pure undiluted Stalinism .
REPLY
Maybe we should stick to Orwell – the unperson. …when Nureyev and Baryshnikov, and no doubt others along the way, defected from the Soviet Union, the Mariinsky Theatre removed every photo of them or reference to them and everyone was forbidden to mention their names …
REPLY
People who try to suppress comparisons to Stalin are like Hitler!
REPLY
I think Godwin’s Law just imploded.
* * *
Levine has been accused, but not charged, tried, found guilty or sentenced. It’s all hearsay, innuendo, speculation and gossip. And even if he is guilty it in no way effects his astonishing legacy. This is wrong. His recordings should be played and his name announced. If he’s no angel, he’s not alone. There have been many, many male conductors with questionable behavior whose recordings and work we still value and cherish. And if Levine is someday brought to court, found guilty as charged then yes, he should be punished in accordance with the law. But it still won’t erase his enormous contributions to music.
REPLY
Very well said. Bernstein was a great abuser but escaped accusation and being dragged through the mud. But of course anyone familiar with the musical world would just cringe…. This is just destroying American musical legacy, but didn’t we just destroyed [sic] politically incorrect monuments? Appalling.
* * *
This is pure Bolshevism — the Russians routinely banned the broadcast of (and frequently also destroyed) the recordings of the artists who were suspected of being disloyal to the Commie-land. Gennady Rozhdestvesky tells how the Soviet Ministry of Culture ordered that the faces of the Jewish musicians who applied to emigrate be cut from the filmed performances of his orchestra. That couldn’t be accomplished without cutting a portion of the soundtrack as well, so the films were destroyed.
Also, I wish people understood that “sexual predator” or “harsser” are legal terms defined in criminal laws, and as such, only have meaning in the case of a finding of fact having been made by impartial adjudicator (i.e. a jury and/or a judge).
Throwing such words around at the drop of a hat only renders them meaningless.
* * *
[my personal favorite]
Now, do you have to state on your bio and resume that you never performed when Levine conducted?
* * *
This is idiotic beyond belief. Levine was surely a predator, but everyone who has had even the slightest connection with the music business in New York has known about this for many years. As far back as the 1970s, when I was just an ordinary music student in NYC, I heard many stories about Levine from friends who worked at the Met, so it is impossible for me to believe me that nobody in any position of power had any idea of his history. Of course, this is just hypocrisy of the the most opportunistic and nauseating type. The real fact is that the Met conveniently ignored and swept under the carpet the unseemly details of Levine’s private life while he was making money — and great music — for them and for New York music lovers. But once it became public knowledge, the Met management suddenly was suddenly shocked! SHOCKED!! to learn that that their star conductor and music director of the past 40 years was a pedophile predator. …
+1. I too was a music student in NY in the late 70s, heard the same stories from people at or close to the Met, and worked with a tenor years after who told me stories from first-hand experiences. And so what! So he was gay, a predator, etc. He will be tried and if convicted will pay his debt to society. Music history — and all history — are full of flawed people who also made large contributions to the world. And if we start whitewashing these lives, where do we draw the line, and who gets to draw it? Should we include philanderers? Composers who committed violent crimes with deadly weapons? Musicians who exploited sex workers? If so… Somebody had better start destroying the scores and recordings of Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven!
REPLY
+1. BTW those inconsistent “instant solutions” which look good but which also create an unnecessary collateral damage while solving nothing seem to illustrate well how the world works today.
* * *
I believe this has more to do with Levine suing the MET than his alleged behavior.
REPLY
Bingo. This is all about the lawsuit.
I’m not saying anyone has to agree with it, but at least acknowledge the Met’s perspective here: you fire a sexual predator, but still play some of his recordings on your radio station (likely providing him a royalty of some kind with each one), and then he has the gall to sue you for his termination, and you’re supposed to keep playing his music and paying him for it? No thanks.
And those – including NL – comparing this to Stalin or other statists need a real reality (and history) check. A private institution deciding what it will and will not play on its radio station is in no way akin to the censoring, blacklisting, whitewashing, etc. of a repressive government. Anyone else is free to start the James Levine Radio Network. The Met isn’t required to play Levine any more than they are required to play any other recording in their catalog.
* * *
This is a pretty shabby story, Norman. The NY Times investigation uncovered over 30 years of “sexually abusive and harassing conduct.” The Met’s own investigation “uncovered credible evidence that Mr. Levine engaged in sexually abusive and harassing conduct toward vulnerable artists in the early stages of their careers, over whom Mr. Levine had authority” and was based on interviews with over 70 people. Presumably those people should just get over it — and maybe avoid the Met on SiriusXM? Leaving Levine’s ‘legacy’ intact, especially on a channel that’s actually owned by the institution in the shelter of which he’s said to have conducted the abuse, and where some of his victims may still find work — now that would be ridiculous (as well as hurtful, dismissive and disrespectful to the survivors). The fact that practically everyone in this comment thread seems to be happy to prioritise the integrity of the Met’s recorded repertoire over the well-being of an abuser’s victims is jaw-dropping.
[and sounds a lot like the response of Hollywood to Polanski’s crime — BTW, he was charged and convicted — but Cosby isn’t getting the same treatment]
REPLY
Cultural cleansing, which you’re advocating, is a slippery slope. If, as you suggest, we should accept the removal of artworks—recordings, or paintings (“Degenerate art” of 1938), or sculptures, or buildings or ancient temples (Palmyra in 2013)—from public view because “we” are offended by their creators (either individual or collective), then we’re assigning some breathtaking values to our opinions. Sure, “we” are appalled with what Levine did. But does that mean “we” should decide that no-one can hear the artworks of 40 years created by a company of artists called the Metropolitan Opera? Wow, that would be a terrible thing. Yet it has happened.
So, Steve, before labeling a dialogue “shabby”, and declaring that OMG this subject is beyond discussion because it involves our taboos OMG, get beyond name-calling and think deeply about what is at stake here. Cultural cleansing is a terrible terrible idea, and yet it is happening in New York in 2018. At the Met. (And you think it’s a good idea, apparently. I gé²t some degenerate art for you to burn btw, it’s at a place called MOMA. Look for “Picasso” or “Klee” on the nameplate). Serious issue, worthy of reflection. That’s why all these people are posting thoughtfully (mostly thoughtfully, thanks, gang) about this subject.
* * *
Would witholding the Levine conducted broadcasts now help those who were victimized so many years before? I don’t know.
What it WILL do is hurt anyone else involved in those performances who are receiving royalties or depend upon the publicity generated by the broadcasts which include all current Met employees. One of the main purposes of the broadcasts is to encourage audience attendance at the opera house itself, as well as donations, which will both decrease if people are exposed to mainly older broadcasts of poorer technical quality.
* * *
The entire Judeo Christian heritage has been purged and white washed. I am not all too bothered by Americans doing it again to modern events and culture.
Now if they turn their sights on the stuff I like, that’s a different issue.