Jump to content
unicorngabby

Peter Martins Sexual Harassment Allegations

Recommended Posts

The only defense of Martins that reminds me of the defense of Joe Paterno's is from the dancers and people affiliated with the company, like Perry Silvey and the Board members who've spoken, ie, from people who are invested.  I think that's a different argument than thinking there's no proof that Martins has done much wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
On January 6, 2018 at 4:34 PM, balletforme said:

Wow!  This has really stirred up. . . Peter Martins was known to sleep with dancers (MANY of them).  Kathryn Morgan states this. I am sure Gelsey did as well.   

It would not be odd.  It was company tradition, Balanchine did it. So why not him? 

 

Ummm... .I take issue with this.   Where is the evidence that Balanchine slept with his dancers?  As far as I understand, with the exception of Danilova with whom he was understood to have a common law marriage, he married his dancers before he slept with them...   

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Amy Reusch said:

 

Ummm... .I take issue with this.   Where is the evidence that Balanchine slept with his dancers?  As far as I understand, with the exception of Danilova with whom he was understood to have a common law marriage, he married his dancers before he slept with them...   

I agree, Amy R.   I don't think trial by the press or blogosphere of Balanchine/Robbins/insert a name  works posthumously. 

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Amy Reusch said:

 

Ummm... .I take issue with this.   Where is the evidence that Balanchine slept with his dancers?  As far as I understand, with the exception of Danilova with whom he was understood to have a common law marriage, he married his dancers before he slept with them...   

According to the old Bernard Taper biography,  Balanchine married his first wife Tamara Geva when he was a teen at the urging of her father,  who knew they were having sex and was concerned that they would get "in trouble",  an old euphemism for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.  If he didn't have sex with his subsequent wives before marrying them,  it probably wasn't because he became more moralistic as the years went by.  Maybe they insisted on it,  maybe he was largely impotent by then.

I am intrigued by the notion that adults in a company somehow lack the capacity to enter into consensual sexual relationships.  Generally only the mentally-incapacitated and incarcerated prisoners are considered unable to consent.  It may be unwise or against company policy,  but in any hothouse environment of healthy  people with a median age of twenty-two,  sex will happen.  There are numerous people in NYCB who could be said to be in supervisory positions,  even dancers who just occasionally teach company class.  Is it totally forbidden for them to act on any attraction they may have to someone who is under them in the hierarchy  but otherwise of age,  willing and available?

57 minutes ago, Helene said:

The only defense of Martins that reminds me of the defense of Joe Paterno's is from the dancers and people affiliated with the company, like Perry Silvey and the Board members who've spoken, ie, from people who are invested.  I think that's a different argument than thinking there's no proof that Martins has done much wrong.

Why should we take the word of an anonymous letter writer,  a pop singer,  dancers whose careers were not as stellar as they may have wanted or even Kelly Cass Boal over those who worked with Peter Martins everyday up to the present for years?  Where's their evidence?  I'm not defending Peter Martins - I don't know him and don't care that much about his career.  But there's a rush to judgment here that's unsettling.  Many here seem to want him to be guilty,  but that's not evidence either.  Until such time as someone is willing to make a list of the dancers he was "known" to have slept with,  and they confirm it,  it's not even hearsay.  It's just a rumor.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I am intrigued by the notion that adults in a company somehow lack the capacity to enter into consensual sexual relationships.  Generally only the mentally-incapacitated and incarcerated prisoners are considered unable to consent.  It may be unwise or against company policy,  but in any hothouse environment of healthy  people with a median age of twenty-two,  sex will happen.  There are numerous people in NYCB who could be said to be in supervisory positions,  even dancers who just occasionally teach company class.  Is it totally forbidden for them to act on any attraction they may have to someone who is under them in the hierarchy  but otherwise of age,  willing and available?

"Hi -- I'm your boss, in a business where my opinion of your skills is one of the only elements that will govern your success or failure in this company. Want to go out?"

Spoken or not, this is the situation that exists in many organizations, including dance companies. It may seem awkward that "adults" can't just follow their pheromones wherever they may lead, but power relationships are complex enough without additional baggage.  As Pique Arabesque said further upstream in this conversation: "Consent is not just about saying "yes" - it's also about feeling free to say "no" without fear of negative consequences."

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, sandik said:

"Hi -- I'm your boss, in a business where my opinion of your skills is one of the only elements that will govern your success or failure in this company. Want to go out?"

Spoken or not, this is the situation that exists in many organizations, including dance companies. It may seem awkward that "adults" can't just follow their pheromones wherever they may lead, but power relationships are complex enough without additional baggage.  As Pique Arabesque said further upstream in this conversation: "Consent is not just about saying "yes" - it's also about feeling free to say "no" without fear of negative consequences."

None of that means that they lack capacity,  which is a legal concept.  It may mean that the boss is in violation of Federal law.

Share this post


Link to post

It protects everyone to have rules in place that prohibit bosses from dating or sleeping with their subordinates. Some companies allow these relationships but HR must be notified. It seems ridiculous on the surface but it really does offer a level of protection. My husband worked for a company where the (married) president was having an affair with an employee. When he broke it off she got a lawyer and sued the company claiming sexual harassment. It was cheaper and easier to pay her off than to go to court. 

Share this post


Link to post

Since Natalie Portman is married to Benjamin Millepied, who danced and choreographed for NYC, and  has been mentioned as being in the running for NYCB AD, I'm going to say that this is on topic.

Portman's one and only social media account is on Instagram and it's devoted to supporting people in all fields who have been subjected to sexual harassment, misconduct, expliotation, etc particularly in service workplaces (hotel maids, agricultural workers, etc). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

According to the old Bernard Taper biography,  Balanchine married his first wife Tamara Geva when he was a teen at the urging of her father,  who knew they were having sex and was concerned that they would get "in trouble",  an old euphemism for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.  If he didn't have sex with his subsequent wives before marrying them,  it probably wasn't because he became more moralistic as the years went by.  Maybe they insisted on it,  maybe he was largely impotent by then.

I still take issue with this... and now you're suggesting he was impotent, is that also documented or just assumed due to the lack of issue (my understanding was Balanchine had significant concerns regarding pregnancy's effects on a ballerina's frame) ...     Do you have the Taper quote?  I've read both Taper's biography and Geva's autobiography, and it's not calling up any memories of the father being concerned... I do remember Geva's mother was Geva's father's kept woman before finally getting married against the objections of her mother-in-law.... perhaps the concerns about propriety were to to protect Geva's reputation in advance of any sex, particularly considering the breakdown of society just then.  It was a very crazy time... if ever there were a time not to be temporal-centric it would be applying today's mores to Russia's social mores immediately after the revolution.  

Edited by Amy Reusch

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, AB'sMom said:

It protects everyone to have rules in place that prohibit bosses from dating or sleeping with their subordinates. Some companies allow these relationships but HR must be notified. It seems ridiculous on the surface but it really does offer a level of protection. My husband worked for a company where the (married) president was having an affair with an employee. When he broke it off she got a lawyer and sued the company claiming sexual harassment. It was cheaper and easier to pay her off than to go to court. 

I agree totally that such rules are a good idea.  Even when they don't exist,  adultery is still against the law in many states,  including New York.  You can be drummed out of the military for an adulterous affair and consent doesn't matter.  The boss in your example indulged in risky behavior and the company paid a price for it.  So far,  no current dancer in NYCB has claimed sexual harassment  by Martins.  No dancer has claimed that he created a hostile environment,  with dancers being coerced to acquiesce to his sexual demands or suffer professionally.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Amy Reusch said:

I still take issue with this... and now you're suggesting he was impotent, is that also documented or just assumed due to the lack of issue (my understanding was Balanchine had significant concerns regarding pregnancy's effects on a ballerina's frame) ...     Do you have the Taper quote?  I've read both Taper's biography and Geva's autobiography, and it's not calling up any memories of the father being concerned... I do remember Geva's mother was Geva's father's kept woman before finally getting married against the objections of her mother-in-law.... perhaps the concerns about propriety were to to protect Geva's reputation in advance of any sex, particularly considering the breakdown of society just then.  It was a very crazy time... if ever there were a time not to be temporal-centric it would be applying today's mores to Russia's social mores immediately after the revolution.  

(My previous answer disappeared into cyberspace so forgive me if this posts twice.)   I only mentioned impotence because it is a possibility.  As a young refugee,  Balanchine  suffered from illness and  malnutrition, and he had only one lung.  According to a poster here ,   he never consummated his marriage to Maria Tallchief,  which may or may not be true.  But Balanchine maintained that pregnancy and childbirth did not harm  a ballerina's body,  and many of his favorite dancers were mothers,  including  Karin von Aroldingen,  who passed  away just two days ago.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, On Pointe said:

According to the old Bernard Taper biography,  Balanchine married his first wife Tamara Geva when he was a teen at the urging of her father,  who knew they were having sex and was concerned that they would get "in trouble",  an old euphemism for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.  If he didn't have sex with his subsequent wives before marrying them,  it probably wasn't because he became more moralistic as the years went by. 

We've been talking about whether Martins' slept with dancers in his employ (other than Watts and Kistler) and the ethics of his doing so if, as alleged, he did. As for Balanchine, we can surmise that he slept with Geva, whom he had a romantic relationship with, before marriage, and we know he took advantage of Frankfurt when he was drunk and dying. But we don't know that he casually slept with dancers he was not in love with. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

(My previous answer disappeared into cyberspace so forgive me if this posts twice.)   I only mentioned impotence because it is a possibility.  As a young refugee,  Balanchine  suffered from illness and  malnutrition, and he had only one lung.  According to a poster here ,   he never consummated his marriage to Maria Tallchief,  which may or may not be true.  But Balanchine maintained that pregnancy and childbirth did not harm  a ballerina's body,  and many of his favorite dancers were mothers,  including  Karin von Aroldingen,  who passed  away just two days ago.

I was distinctly under the impression that Hayden, Kent & Von Aroldingen were the exceptions...  http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-02/entertainment/ca-15602_1_city-ballet  :  "Children had never entered my mind, and it was no secret that Balanchine thought ballerinas shouldn't have them." -- Suzanne Farrell,

Share this post


Link to post

It was very clear in Taper that Balanchine and Geva were in a sexual relationship, and that Geva's father told them to marry, but it wasn't on moralistic grounds: he though that given the social upheaval, being married would be safer.  

Assumptions of Balanchine's possible impotence have two sources:  Tallchief and references to him feeling up dancers when he was much older, the first in Kirkland's book and the second in Frankfurt's account.  In the latter, she also referred to the same thing that freaked out Kirkland:  the girl in Saratoga, this month's girl, etc.  He didn't have to have intercourse in order to be having the sex he was capable of. 

Tallchief was vague, but made it clear that their relationship wasn't very sexual.  In her memoir, she spoke about having a passionate affair right after, and noted that this was in sharp contrast to her relationship with Balanchine, which she later said in several interviews was his way of keeping his eye on her and loyal to the company.  (If she was married to him, she wouldn't be distracted by anyone else.)

And there are also references across the various bios that he was often "in love" and dating, not just the women he married, but also actresses and dancers in his movies and shows.  I can't remember the name of the actress, but one of his dancers wrote about seeing Balanchine driving down the street with this glamorous actress and realizing her schoolgirl crush was for naught.  

Edited to add instead of double-posting.

4 hours ago, Amy Reusch said:

I was distinctly under the impression that Hayden, Kent & Von Aroldingen were the exceptions...  http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-02/entertainment/ca-15602_1_city-ballet  :  "Children had never entered my mind, and it was no secret that Balanchine thought ballerinas shouldn't have them." -- Suzanne Farrell,

They were exceptions.  He gave up on Kent, according to biographers and Kent herself, because she kept leaving to have children.  (She had three.)  He cast her, but he stopped making roles for her, and he moved on.  

According to Hayden, she was never a muse or that important to Balanchine, although she had many loyal fans, was a technical marvel, and was a workhorse: although she premiered a number of major roles, not all of them were made with her in mind -- second pas de Trois in Agon, Stars and Stripes were -- a number of others were made for someone else who couldn't dance the premiere, like Titania, and she often felt her roles were the weakest in a multi-movement ballet, like Brahms-Schoenberg Quartet.  Her valedictory ballet, "Cortege Hongrois," Balanchine's third or fourth foray into Raymonda, is generally considered a weak work, and often it's the von Aroldingen character role that is described as the most inspired.

When she was feeling tactful, Hayden would say that she got this or that role because Tallchief had to move on to dance new roles, and when she was more embittered (and honest), she said that she was always second: second to Maria, second to Allegra, second to Suzanne.

von Aroldingen hid her pregnancy from Balanchine into her fifth month, fearing to tell him.  (She was not his bestie or Principal Dancer yet.)  She said he cast her as Leda in "Apollo," and she burst into tears, and that's how he figured it out.  After she could no longer dance, she said he had her teach in the school so that the girls would see what a pregnant lady looked like.  Somehow, I doubt this was meant to inspire them to motherhood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I think it's pointless to rehash what Balanchine or Robbins did compared to Peter Martins. Balanchine was born in 1903 and died in 1983. It's 2018 and standards of behavior and attitudes towards women/sex/work/marriage/children have changed. I don't think for example that Harvey Weinstein's behavior differed significantly from the notorious casting couch movie moguls like Harry Cohn or Darryl Zanuck. It was said of Darryl Zanuck that "Zanuck worked his way through actresses on the sofa in his office faster than the credits rolled on his flicks" and that he has his afternoon 4 pm office shutdowns which was his "happy hour." But Harvey Weinstein has to answer to 2018 attitudes towards sexual harassment, and so does Peter Martins. 

Edited by canbelto

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, On Pointe said:

Many here seem to want him to be guilty,  but that's not evidence either.

What do you consider evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, canbelto said:

I think it's pointless to rehash what Balanchine or Robbins did compared to Peter Martins. Balanchine was born in 1903 and died in 1983. It's 2018 and standards of behavior and attitudes towards women/sex/work/marriage/children have changed. 

Balanchine and Robbins are dead, and there is definitely more accountability for abusers than there was back then, but wrong is wrong, regardless of the decade (you know this, of course - I just wanted to put it in print). More on Balanchine later...

7 hours ago, On Pointe said:

So far,  no current dancer in NYCB has claimed sexual harassment  by Martins.  No dancer has claimed that he created a hostile environment,  with dancers being coerced to acquiesce to his sexual demands or suffer professionally.

And it is unlikely that any current dancer will ever publicly disclose anything. It takes great courage to come forward and disclose your assault. Disclosure can also have negative personal and professional ramifications, which will likely discourage a career-minded young dancer from coming forward. However, the NYT did publish allegations that Martins had sex with dancers. Kathryn Morgan said that she heard allegations that he was sleeping with three dancers, including one principal. It might be easy to dismiss this as rumor or conjecture, but when there's smoke, there is usually fire. I would not be surprised if Martins' relationships with dancers were an open secret among company members. 

7 hours ago, AB'sMom said:

It protects everyone to have rules in place that prohibit bosses from dating or sleeping with their subordinates. Some companies allow these relationships but HR must be notified. It seems ridiculous on the surface but it really does offer a level of protection. 

This doesn't seem ridiculous to me, either. I hope that as a result of this investigation, NYCB develops a "Code of Conduct" establishing standards for workplace sexual ethics/relationships. I am not opposed to relationships among dancers (even though they can end messily), but management/dancer relationships are ripe for coercion and present an ethical minefield (for reasons I have already outlined).

9 hours ago, Amy Reusch said:

Ummm... .I take issue with this.   Where is the evidence that Balanchine slept with his dancers?  As far as I understand, with the exception of Danilova with whom he was understood to have a common law marriage, he married his dancers before he slept with them...   

Back to Balanchine: Clive James argued that Balanchine slept with his dancers. And marriage is not a balm that heals abusive/coercive relationships, particularly with the dancers that he married/wanted to marry. Maria Tallchief didn't want to marry him him initially, and her family disapproved of Balanchine. He got a quickie divorce from Tanaquil LeClerq to marry Suzanne Farrell (nearly 40 years younger than him), and her refusal to marry him lead to her departure from City Ballet.

Also, I would encourage everyone to watch Oprah's remarks from the Golden Globes last night. She addresses many of the political issues that have been raised in this thread, focusing on the story of Recy Taylor, a black woman who was raped by six white men in Alabama in1944 (since there seems to be an assumption that black people only factor into sexual assault cases as "falsely accused" defendants).

Share this post


Link to post

 

5 hours ago, Pique Arabesque said:

Balanchine and Robbins are dead, and there is definitely more accountability for abusers than there was back then, but wrong is wrong, regardless of the decade

 

Sorry, but this is nonsense. In the 1940s and 1950s, interracial marriage was considered "wrong", having children outside of marriage was "wrong" and gay marriage was unthinkable. All of these things are accepted and often applauded in 2018. By contrast, in the 1940s and 1950s, the idea of a relationship between a boss and an underling - usually a male boss and a female underling - was accepted and often commonplace. How many men of that era married their secretaries? What's "right" and "wrong" change with time and place, and I'm not sure I'd like to know what the self-righteous types of 2088 will be saying about us. 

With reference to the earlier-quoted 1992 Los Angeles Times article about Martins' and Kistler's brawl and their relationship that started at age 16, I noticed that whomever quoted from the article bypassed this section:

Company members say Martins' less punishing class was just one of many signs early on that he was less despotic than his predecessor. Richard Tanner, who was an assistant ballet master with the company in Balanchine's time and who has returned under Martins, says Balanchine didn't hesitate to snap at his dancers and humiliate them. "Balanchine used to just scream the same thing day after day: 'I thought you were better. Come on, come on, what's wrong with you? Are you stupid ?' " On the other, hand, says Tanner, "Peter trusts people more."

It is part of a longer passage about Martins' respect for dancers. I also recently re-read Jock Soto's autobiography, and his praise for Peter's working methods is fulsome. 

I don't know Peter Martins personally; I have no idea if he abused Wilhelmina Frankfurt, Kelly Boal, or anyone besides Darci Kistler, which he has acknowledged. I would like to see evidence of these and any other assaults presented in a court of law, not a court of public opinion. Based on his arrest record, Peter appears to have an alcohol problem. Most balletomanes have heard the gossip about his affairs with young dancers, and I have too, although I tend to respect women's agency in these matters if they are over 18. In general, I'm not particularly sad Peter left the company - it was past time, and he did not seem inclined to leave on his own.

That said, I think it's important to place these serious accusations - because they are accusations right now, not convictions - into context. Peter Martins has worked with hundreds of dancers during his time at the NYCB, and he has worked for tens thousands of hours. His entire body of work should not be judged by some ugly incidents, even if they are found to have taken place. I would not like to be judged solely by the most unseemly and shameful ten-minute periods of my life over the past 30 years. 

People very eager to point fingers at others seem to be doing so for reasons reflecting their own psyches, not for the good of society at large or for the protection of young dancers. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Helene said:

von Aroldingen hid her pregnancy from Balanchine into her fifth month, fearing to tell him.  (She was not his bestie or Principal Dancer yet.)  She said he cast her as Leda in "Apollo," and she burst into tears, and that's how he figured it out.  After she could no longer dance, she said he had her teach in the school so that the girls would see what a pregnant lady looked like.  Somehow, I doubt this was meant to inspire them to motherhood. 

:offtopic:

I gather they look something like this:

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Pique Arabesque said:

Suzanne Farrell (nearly 40 years younger than him), and her refusal to marry him lead to her departure from City Ballet.

Agreed, but remember it was Farrell giving Balanchine  an ultimatum over roles for her husband that clinched the departure.... one can certainly understand why she felt she had to make a stand, but dancers do not give ultimatums to artistic directors.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1990/10/11/dancing-for-balanchine/

"Finally one evening when Mejia was not given a role that he felt was his due—Symphony in C, third movement—Farrell issued an ultimatum: if Mejia didn’t dance in Symphony in C that night, they would both quit. To her utter astonishment, Balanchine took her up on it."   

 

I am not defending anyone's shameful actions here, but let's not lose the fine lines of history.

Share this post


Link to post

This is the DWI that has been discussed earlier in the thread, not a new one.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

Most balletomanes have heard the gossip about his affairs with young dancers, and I have too, although I tend to respect women's agency in these matters if they are over 18.

Consent isn't relevant if the boss is sleeping with his employees.  This is a legal workplace issue. 

 

3 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

Sorry, but this is nonsense. In the 1940s and 1950s, interracial marriage was considered "wrong", having children outside of marriage was "wrong" and gay marriage was unthinkable. All of these things are accepted and often applauded in 2018

And there were people who, at the time, understood what was wrong with these views.  Some acted upon them and paid the price, but they stuck to their convictions.

 

3 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

I would like to see evidence of these and any other assaults presented in a court of law, not a court of public opinion

Since the statute of limitations is up on many of these, chances are that few, aside from the drunk driving charge, will go to court, and he might plead out.  His assault on Kistler would have gone to court, had she not decided to drop charges, which was her right at the time.

There are two ongoing investigations, but I wouldn't count on strong statements, since he resigned.  Since this is an employment issue, there is no requirement to use criminal standards, and if anyone were to sue him, SAB, or NYCB, civil standards would apply, not criminal standards.

 

3 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

Peter Martins has worked with hundreds of dancers during his time at the NYCB, and he has worked for tens thousands of hours. His entire body of work should not be judged by some ugly incidents, even if they are found to have taken place. I would not like to be judged solely by the most unseemly and shameful ten-minute periods of my life over the past 30 years. 

Everyone gets to decide on their own how to judge his career, regardless of personal preferences, and there's no test for that decision.  However, since, again, this is an employment matter, NYCB and SAB have great leeway in deciding whether he should (have) remain(ed) employed, within the terms of his contract, as long as they don't violate laws on discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

With reference to the earlier-quoted 1992 Los Angeles Times article about Martins' and Kistler's brawl and their relationship that started at age 16, I noticed that whomever quoted from the article bypassed this section:

Company members say Martins' less punishing class was just one of many signs early on that he was less despotic than his predecessor. Richard Tanner, who was an assistant ballet master with the company in Balanchine's time and who has returned under Martins, says Balanchine didn't hesitate to snap at his dancers and humiliate them. "Balanchine used to just scream the same thing day after day: 'I thought you were better. Come on, come on, what's wrong with you? Are you stupid ?' " On the other, hand, says Tanner, "Peter trusts people more."

If a tough class is despotic, then so are high artistic standards, it seems to me. I remember Croce remarking on Martins' easier class, I think during her review of the 1992 Balanchine Celebration: "We are seeing the results." And a lot of longtime observers agreed. As for Tanner's comment, he should know, but that doesn't jibe with reports that Balanchine rarely lost his temper, and more than that it doesn't jibe with the fact that most of his dancers loved him. 

Quote

 I think it's important to place these serious accusations - because they are accusations right now, not convictions - into context. Peter Martins has worked with hundreds of dancers during his time at the NYCB, and he has worked for tens thousands of hours. His entire body of work should not be judged by some ugly incidents, even if they are found to have taken place. I would not like to be judged solely by the most unseemly and shameful ten-minute periods of my life over the past 30 years. 

Wise remarks, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

That said, I think it's important to place these serious accusations - because they are accusations right now, not convictions - into context. Peter Martins has worked with hundreds of dancers during his time at the NYCB, and he has worked for tens thousands of hours. His entire body of work should not be judged by some ugly incidents, even if they are found to have taken place. I would not like to be judged solely by the most unseemly and shameful ten-minute periods of my life over the past 30 years. 

Why do Martins' accomplishments — considerable as they may be — constitute "context" for any acts of sexual misconduct that he may be guilty of?

The implication here seems to be that those accomplishments should be viewed as mitigating factors in any judgment of him — or that any judgment of him has to be made with constant reference back to the accomplishments. Should the misconduct of a man with many accomplishments be viewed differently from that of a man with fewer?

Why can't one instead consider these two things separately — the misconduct and the accomplishments? In discussing the former, why should one have to keep acknowledging the latter? Aren't Martins' accomplishments in fact a separate issue? In judging his alleged misconduct, is one really judging "his entire body of work"? Personally, I can't recall having heard or read any suggestion that Martins' accomplishments are rendered null by any alleged acts of sexual misconduct he may have committed.

Share this post


Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×