6 ms·

Fools! Failing to fulfill their most important duty because one member brought a lecherous boor to some of their events and may not have been impartial in the v

by etiam 8y ago

Fools! Failing to fulfill their most important duty because one member brought a lecherous boor to some of their events and may not have been impartial in the vote on some awards. Now it's really a scandal.

robert_foss 8y ago
At this point the number of Academy members that have resigned has has left the Academy with fewer members than what is required to make an Nobel prize decision. Currently there are 10 members, and 11 members is the minimum required. So it isn't really about choice at this point. Secondly the reasons for the resignations and turmoil is the unwillingness of some, the majority, of the Academy members to recognize and properly handle the _alleged_ sexual harassment by Jean-Claude Arnault. To make this matter worse Jean-Claude Arnault is married to an Academy member and the two of them together run a 'culture' organization which is funded and closely related to the Academy.
- xtirpation 8y ago
  Alleged sexual harassment, in keeping with the facts reported in the article.
- PunchTornado 8y ago
  if it is alleged then how should you handle it? everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
  - omginternets 8y ago
    ...in a court of law. For better or for worse, this is a court of public opinion.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      For worse.
      - kzrdude 8y ago
        For anything to happen in this case. Nothing has been brought to the police in terms of sexual assault reports. The police report the academy has let go forward is about the corruption/financial issues.
  - robert_foss 8y ago
    In terms of being sentenced yes. But this guy was given money to run an organization in which I think 14 counts of alleged sexual harassment has been reported. It would be grossly negligent to continue to sponsor this.
    - jahvo 8y ago
      If it hasn't been proven then there's nothing to talk about. They could've made it up just so he they can kick him out.
      - dagw 8y ago
        Continuing to give funding to someone credibly accused to sexual harassment is a very bad look. Especially when that person is also married to a committee member. That is absolutely something to talk about. They could've made it up just so he they can kick him out. Kick him out of what?
        jahvo 8y ago
        Of the committee. Maybe they just want to ruin his life. Credible? If it's credible, why hasn't he been convicted.
        dagw 8y ago
        Of the committee. He's not and never has been on the committee. His wife is. And no one has been kicked off the committee. If it's credible, why hasn't he been convicted. Because building a case strong enough to stand up in court in situations like these is really hard and the police/prosecutors have decided not to priorities it. But the core of the matter isn't really the sexual harassment, it's the fact that the Academy apparently knew about several cases of both sexual harassment and, more importantly, possible financial fraud/corruption involving this individual and instead of dealing with it, decided to protect him. The sexual harassment charges are just the events that brought these more serious charges to light.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Standards of "proof" vary, even in courts of law (beyond reasonable doubt vs preponderance of evidence), let alone outside of them.
- belorn 8y ago
  From the legal perspective, the factual aspect is that the academy should have acted on the corruption where one family member made a decision to grant funding to an other family member. This is classic nepotism and in Sweden a actually crime (Jäv) and a problem which international anti-corruption agency has highlighted to be an issue in Sweden. Its a common theme for the nation funded investigating journalism program called Uppdrag Granskning, through sadly rarely recognized in the public discussions around corruption. When the Academy issued an internal investigation by a lawyer firm, the report they got back had very little to say about the alleged sexual harassments. It did however recommend that they should report the corruption and for some reason the Academy decide against it. After some major public outcry covering mostly the alleged sexual harassments, the Academy suddenly turned about and are now following the recommendation and has reported the corruption to the police. What I would like to think is that the corruption charges would have come up to light regardless of the sexual harassment accusations, but I guess thats the current political climate in Sweden. Now it is being used as a proxy to address the sexual harassment accusations which is extremely suboptimal.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Secondly the reasons for the resignations and turmoil is the unwillingness of some, the majority, of the Academy members to recognize and properly handle the _alleged_ sexual harassment by Jean-Claude Arnault. How about their don't recognize or handle anything? If Jean-Claude Arnault is guilty of sexual harassment, let him legally go to jail / pay a fine / serve community service or whatever. That's for the law to decide. They can then take them off the academy (or not) -- if he is convicted. Otherwise, it's not their business to do anything about it, and even less so for something "alleged".
  - dagw 8y ago
    Otherwise, it's not their business to do anything about it I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. If a company or organization receives multiple independent accusations against someone, it is absolutely their business to look into it and decide if this is a person they want to keep being involved with, completely separate from any police involvement. It may even be their business to bring this information to the police and provide any evidence they may have if the accusations are serious enough. At most companies just the serious suspicion of financial fraud, repeated sexual harassment or the covering up of these is plenty enough to get you fired.
  - tlb 8y ago
    Organizations, especially ones in the public eye, have to set a higher bar for acceptable behavior than the criminal justice system. Lots of bad behaviors aren't criminal, or aren't usually prosecuted, but should still be grounds for removal.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >Organizations, especially ones in the public eye, have to set a higher bar for acceptable behavior than the criminal justice system. Not really, and not their job. If we wanted that, we could always set a higher bar for the criminal justice system. >Lots of bad behaviors aren't criminal, or aren't usually prosecuted, but should still be grounds for removal. In this case we're not talking about chewing gum on a board meeting, or treating employees bad (e.g. shouting at them) or something like that. We're talking about actual criminal behaviors -- but only "alleged" ones. Those should be handled legally or not at all. Else not a point in having a legal system, if any accusation can lead to "mob justice" or ad-hoc measures against someone.
dagw 8y ago
because one member brought a lecherous boor to some of their events Despite that being the part of the scandal that kicked off the investigation and has been getting the most focus, it's not the core of the scandal. The other parts of the scandal is that a venue owned by the above mentioned "lecherous boor" in question (who is married to an academy member) had possibly been getting improper funding from the Academy and that he might have leaked previous winners to his friends in advance.
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  I say the core of the scandal is that the Academy has been protecting its members and him from outside consequences even though it has been clear from a long time he was behaving improperly and even when their own investigation recommended that they should file charges for corruption a majority seems to have resisted taking action.
  - dagw 8y ago
    Agreed. Had the case simply been that the spouse of one of the committee members was accused of sexual harassment then it would never have ended up like this. It's the financial aspect and the academies continued refusal to deal with the problem that caused this. Sexual harassment was mainly the catalyst.
SiempreViernes 8y ago
Uh no, you learning about a scandal for the first time is not what makes it a scandal. This crisis been an ever increasing scandal since last year, and reports that the Nobel foundation were considering cancelling the Literature prize this year started surfacing at the start of April. The academy themselves announcing that there will be no prize this year is a way to avoid the humiliation of being kicked out from that role by the Nobel foundation.

by etiam 8y ago

robert_foss 8y ago

At this point the number of Academy members that have resigned has has left the Academy with fewer members than what is required to make an Nobel prize decision. Currently there are 10 members, and 11 members is the minimum required. So it isn't really about choice at this point. Secondly the reasons for the resignations and turmoil is the unwillingness of some, the majority, of the Academy members to recognize and properly handle the _alleged_ sexual harassment by Jean-Claude Arnault. To make this matter worse Jean-Claude Arnault is married to an Academy member and the two of them together run a 'culture' organization which is funded and closely related to the Academy.

xtirpation 8y ago
Alleged sexual harassment, in keeping with the facts reported in the article.
PunchTornado 8y ago
if it is alleged then how should you handle it? everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
- omginternets 8y ago
  ...in a court of law. For better or for worse, this is a court of public opinion.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    For worse.
    - kzrdude 8y ago
      For anything to happen in this case. Nothing has been brought to the police in terms of sexual assault reports. The police report the academy has let go forward is about the corruption/financial issues.
- robert_foss 8y ago
  In terms of being sentenced yes. But this guy was given money to run an organization in which I think 14 counts of alleged sexual harassment has been reported. It would be grossly negligent to continue to sponsor this.
  - jahvo 8y ago
    If it hasn't been proven then there's nothing to talk about. They could've made it up just so he they can kick him out.
    - dagw 8y ago
      Continuing to give funding to someone credibly accused to sexual harassment is a very bad look. Especially when that person is also married to a committee member. That is absolutely something to talk about. They could've made it up just so he they can kick him out. Kick him out of what?
      - jahvo 8y ago
        Of the committee. Maybe they just want to ruin his life. Credible? If it's credible, why hasn't he been convicted.
        dagw 8y ago
        Of the committee. He's not and never has been on the committee. His wife is. And no one has been kicked off the committee. If it's credible, why hasn't he been convicted. Because building a case strong enough to stand up in court in situations like these is really hard and the police/prosecutors have decided not to priorities it. But the core of the matter isn't really the sexual harassment, it's the fact that the Academy apparently knew about several cases of both sexual harassment and, more importantly, possible financial fraud/corruption involving this individual and instead of dealing with it, decided to protect him. The sexual harassment charges are just the events that brought these more serious charges to light.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Standards of "proof" vary, even in courts of law (beyond reasonable doubt vs preponderance of evidence), let alone outside of them.
belorn 8y ago
From the legal perspective, the factual aspect is that the academy should have acted on the corruption where one family member made a decision to grant funding to an other family member. This is classic nepotism and in Sweden a actually crime (Jäv) and a problem which international anti-corruption agency has highlighted to be an issue in Sweden. Its a common theme for the nation funded investigating journalism program called Uppdrag Granskning, through sadly rarely recognized in the public discussions around corruption. When the Academy issued an internal investigation by a lawyer firm, the report they got back had very little to say about the alleged sexual harassments. It did however recommend that they should report the corruption and for some reason the Academy decide against it. After some major public outcry covering mostly the alleged sexual harassments, the Academy suddenly turned about and are now following the recommendation and has reported the corruption to the police. What I would like to think is that the corruption charges would have come up to light regardless of the sexual harassment accusations, but I guess thats the current political climate in Sweden. Now it is being used as a proxy to address the sexual harassment accusations which is extremely suboptimal.
coldtea 8y ago
>Secondly the reasons for the resignations and turmoil is the unwillingness of some, the majority, of the Academy members to recognize and properly handle the _alleged_ sexual harassment by Jean-Claude Arnault. How about their don't recognize or handle anything? If Jean-Claude Arnault is guilty of sexual harassment, let him legally go to jail / pay a fine / serve community service or whatever. That's for the law to decide. They can then take them off the academy (or not) -- if he is convicted. Otherwise, it's not their business to do anything about it, and even less so for something "alleged".
- dagw 8y ago
  Otherwise, it's not their business to do anything about it I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. If a company or organization receives multiple independent accusations against someone, it is absolutely their business to look into it and decide if this is a person they want to keep being involved with, completely separate from any police involvement. It may even be their business to bring this information to the police and provide any evidence they may have if the accusations are serious enough. At most companies just the serious suspicion of financial fraud, repeated sexual harassment or the covering up of these is plenty enough to get you fired.
- tlb 8y ago
  Organizations, especially ones in the public eye, have to set a higher bar for acceptable behavior than the criminal justice system. Lots of bad behaviors aren't criminal, or aren't usually prosecuted, but should still be grounds for removal.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Organizations, especially ones in the public eye, have to set a higher bar for acceptable behavior than the criminal justice system. Not really, and not their job. If we wanted that, we could always set a higher bar for the criminal justice system. >Lots of bad behaviors aren't criminal, or aren't usually prosecuted, but should still be grounds for removal. In this case we're not talking about chewing gum on a board meeting, or treating employees bad (e.g. shouting at them) or something like that. We're talking about actual criminal behaviors -- but only "alleged" ones. Those should be handled legally or not at all. Else not a point in having a legal system, if any accusation can lead to "mob justice" or ad-hoc measures against someone.

dagw 8y ago

because one member brought a lecherous boor to some of their events Despite that being the part of the scandal that kicked off the investigation and has been getting the most focus, it's not the core of the scandal. The other parts of the scandal is that a venue owned by the above mentioned "lecherous boor" in question (who is married to an academy member) had possibly been getting improper funding from the Academy and that he might have leaked previous winners to his friends in advance.

SiempreViernes 8y ago
I say the core of the scandal is that the Academy has been protecting its members and him from outside consequences even though it has been clear from a long time he was behaving improperly and even when their own investigation recommended that they should file charges for corruption a majority seems to have resisted taking action.
- dagw 8y ago
  Agreed. Had the case simply been that the spouse of one of the committee members was accused of sexual harassment then it would never have ended up like this. It's the financial aspect and the academies continued refusal to deal with the problem that caused this. Sexual harassment was mainly the catalyst.

SiempreViernes 8y ago

Uh no, you learning about a scandal for the first time is not what makes it a scandal. This crisis been an ever increasing scandal since last year, and reports that the Nobel foundation were considering cancelling the Literature prize this year started surfacing at the start of April. The academy themselves announcing that there will be no prize this year is a way to avoid the humiliation of being kicked out from that role by the Nobel foundation.