nanushka

I think what aurora wrote is at the heart of the matter. And I’m a white man.

Seriously. It was like a one- or two-week gig, probably.

I agree, but at least here it is in many cases legal (and, I would argue, moral) to fire someone even if they haven't been convicted of a crime.

I believe the criminal investigations are ongoing.

Including Copley himself, reportedly.

Where does she make the claim and what does she cite as the basis for it? If that were true, I would think the Times would have mentioned it along with the other potentially complicating factors discussed in the article.

Deleted.

The core of my argument is here, posted this morning, page 3 above:

I have explained at length on these pages why I believe that remarks such as Copley's (as reported), in a professional environment, to a subordinate colleague, constitute an offense and why, yes, I consider the "complainant" to be an alleged victim (and I believe I have always used the term alleged). You are welcome to disagree, of course, but if you would like to know my reasoning I would simply ask that you read carefully what I have written. And again, there is no evidence whatsoever from eyewitness testimony or credible reporting, that I have been made aware of, that Copley's remark was a joke. It may well have been; I personally don't think it matters much if it was.

kfw, your very first post on this topic began as follows: That, to me, was telling. I'm not saying that, since then, you have expressed no empathy here. But I can see where aurora is coming from (and I share the feeling) in thinking that there has been a lot of blaming the alleged victim here and a lot of excusing of Copley's offense (to the extent of suggesting there was no offense at all, in some cases). (I'm not singling you out in summing things up thus, by the way. It's come from several different sources.)

kfw, as aurora clarified, she was talking about an experience from her past in that reference, not about Copley.

That is interesting. Though it doesn't sound like any "big uproar" caused its removal. The article mentions some audience gasps and "the condemnation of some critics," and it's been revived since then, presumably with the slap. (Again, I haven't seen it.) It sounds more like it was removed as a precautionary measure, to avoid any potential controversy in the wake of recent events.

Yes, I personally read the article primarily as projecting a sort of "Keep moving people, nothing to see here, things are great, carry on!" message.

Admittedly, I haven't seen R+J, but it sounds like Kathleen Tracey may be laying it on a bit thick: Amazing!

In terms of U.S. law, both deeds and words can constitute sexual harassment, and no “sexual threat” (assuming you mean a threat of actual physical sexual contact) is necessary for either to constitute sexual harassment.

Of course I don't completely ignore them. I simply think it's the case that, if it is true that "there's no malice in the man whatsoever," that doesn't mean that everything he says or does in the workplace is appropriate for that environment. He doesn't need to have spoken in malice to have made a serious mistake. (I've never suggested in the least that I thought Copley acted in malice. He could have said exactly what has been reported, speaking not at all in jest, and still not have been speaking with malice.) And they weren't cited in the article as speaking to his general character; they were cited as having characterized the event in a particular way. But they weren't there. So they can certainly serve as character witnesses, but they can't serve as eye/earwitnesses.

Fair enough. I didn't give enough weight to your "if" in my reading. If the remark was indeed the one that has been reported, I would hope that all could agree, regardless of the intention in which it was uttered, that it was inappropriate, not probably inappropriate, in the workplace. But perhaps we can't.

Where does it say that union members who were presumably present came to Copley's defense? The union officials were also representing Copley, the article says, so they could have been merely acting on his behalf. If Copley's intentions are important, we should at least not invent details pertinent to those intentions which are not substantiated in the first-hand reports of the incident.

He's not responsible for what might have happened to the man, but he is responsible for what he himself did — and what he did is something that, in my opinion, he could reasonably be expected to know might be experienced as demeaning by a colleague in a professional environment. That "might" is strong enough to make it inadvisable, inappropriate, and deserving of censure. Given that Copley was only working at the Met on a very short-term basis, unfortunately for him that censure came in the form of firing. "I'm thinking of you in my bed with your clothes off." That's what Copley reportedly said. (He also, reportedly, did not deny saying it.) I fail to see how that statement is a "joke." Here's what the Times also reports: Note that those are people who were not present at the time of the incident, and who are simply described as saying he "must have...meant" it in a way that supposedly diminishes the significance of the offense. It was not, as was said above, "people in the room" who said "there appeared to have been a miscommunication." It was officials at the union who said that, and there is no indication that they were in the room. I don't know what the basis was for their characterization of the incident.

Some of those things you've said yourself that he was essentially saying — e.g. "You should like being an object for my sexual fantasies, because it means I find you attractive." The others I outlined all seem pretty inherent in the remark, in my opinion, no matter what was "intended." A "complimentary" joke can absolutely denigrate, if it is given in a professional environment, in which one expects to be treated like a professional and not a sexual object. I really don't understand how the fact that it may have been intended as complimentary is a mitigating factor. Of course he's not, and I specifically said that he couldn't possibly know the man's past. That's crucial to several of the points I was making.

You wrote above, "But perhaps this guy really was traumatized (harmed) by Cop[le]y's remark. I feel for him then, but that doesn't mean he needed to be." Working under the hypothetical that he "really was traumatized," I don't see how any of these further considerations really come into play. That's not how trauma works, in my understanding. One doesn't stop and think whether it's necessarily necessary to be traumatized. Let me suggest a further hypothetical. Imagine the chorus member is a victim of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a powerful and esteemed older man. Copley's remark is triggering for him. He's in an environment where he feels safe, among his colleagues, at work, where he has a right to expect never to be sexually objectified or demeaned. Suddenly Copley picks him out and says, in front of some of those colleagues, essentially, "Right now, as I stand here looking at you, I am imagining having you naked in my bed. In my eyes, you are not a professional doing a job. You are an object for my sexual fantasies. You should like being an object for my sexual fantasies, because it means I find you attractive. It's a compliment. And I'm laughing as I say it because I am not really considering your inner self and your feelings. Because in addition to using you as a sexual object, I am also using you as a prop for my witty banter among these other colleagues who find me charming." Because that's basically what Copley's words might communicate, in the context I am imagining. And the result might be trauma — not in the merely colloquial sense ("Oh I'm so traumatized!"), but in the literal sense. Now, that's just a hypothetical. Is it probable? No. Is it possible? Of course. If it were true, could Copley be expected to know about this man's past? Of course not. But that's precisely the point. I don't know about the man's past, Copley doesn't, none of us does. People's histories and sexualities can be very complicated and mysterious. There are all sorts of very personal reasons why this man may have reacted as he did, intentionally or unintentionally. We just don't know. And that's why I don't believe that judging or second-guessing his reactions—much less expecting him to be the responsible adult in the room and fix the mess that Copley made with his foolish remark—is wise. Copley's remark was foolish but it was also, in my opinion, simply wrong. You just don't say to a colleague — especially one you don't know really, really well and have a very personal understanding with; especially in a situation where you are an outsider coming in for a brief time to work in a professional environment that is not your own — in those and many other circumstances, you just don't say to a colleague, in the workplace, in front of other people, that you are thinking of him naked in your bed. You just don't do it. In part, that's simply a human matter: you don't know this person, you don't know his past, you don't know his complicated experience of sexuality, you don't know his beliefs, you don't really know anything about him. But more to the point, it's a legal matter: because the workplace — where economic necessity dictates that most of us must be, and where structures of power already entwine us — is a place where we all have the right to be treated as professionals, not as sexual objects. (And yes, structures of power are all around us. They're not the only things that are there, but they are always there.) Copley violated that man's right. Does that mean Copley deserved to be fired? As I've said, I don't think that's necessarily the case. But once Copley did that, firing became one very possible, if not reasonable, outcome. And if Copley didn't know that, that's on him, in my opinion.

I don't understand how one can "get it wrong" if one is genuinely just reacting, not deciding to react in a certain way.

I really don't know what it would mean to say, "I know that person was really traumatized just now. I feel for him. But he didn't need to be." Maybe I could imagine saying that if I knew the person in question well enough to know that he or she was just being self-centered and had more or less consciously decided to play up being traumatized and even maybe really ended up feeling that way. But if I didn't know the person well enough to know that — if I didn't know the person at all — I don't know what it would mean to say that.

I don't see why the guy couldn't have objected in some other way, either. But I don't know the guy, I don't know his past, I don't know anything about him, and so I don't judge his reaction, assuming that he acted within his rights. If the Met were to tolerate Copley's remark (and, again, I don't think firing Copley was necessary to show that they did not), it would communicate to everyone, basically, "This is a workplace in which people in power have the right to sexually objectify you rather than dealing with you based on your professional merits. If you want to continue working here, that's the environment in which you will have to work." It's not a question of getting fired, it's a question of workplace culture and what that says about the basic "rules of the game." And yes, to my mind it is demeaning to be sexually objectified in a professional context, where what should matter is one's professional work, not the fact that a man or woman in power finds you sexually attractive. Copley's stature matters, in my mind, not because it makes his comment more or less demeaning but because, if it were tolerated by the Met, the institution would be suggesting that people with power or stature can get away with such things. Basically, Copley's stature matters, in my mind, because, as another member wrote on this topic above: "Hostile work environment" is a common phrase from labor law; personally, I use it in reference to the case at hand not because Copley's remark was "hostile" in the literal sense, but just because it's a phrase many people know and use in this particular way. I completely understand if anyone finds the phrase to be literally inapt; perhaps it is. I am using it in its conventional, legal sense.

A "hostile work environment" can be defined, among other ways, as one in which it is understood that one's continued employment is dependent upon one's willingness to be sexually objectified and demeaned. If the comment were tolerated by the institution, that would communicate to all employees that such an environment exists. (As I've suggested above, I don't think it was necessary to fire Copley in order to avoid communicating that.) To me personally, it goes without saying that for an esteemed and powerful opera director (no matter how old or how used to such "silly" antics) to pick out a chorus member and say, in the workplace, in front of colleagues, that he is thinking of that chorus member naked in his bed is indeed sexually objectifying and demeaning.