On 8/3/2018 12:31 PM, Thornhill wrote:
> On Friday, August 3, 2018 at 9:32:29 AM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, August 3, 2018 at 9:20:40 AM UTC-4, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2018 9:15 AM, Thornhill wrote:
>>>> On Friday, August 3, 2018 at 2:19:14 AM UTC-4, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>> On 8/2/18 3:23 PM, Thornhill wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 5:42:37 PM UTC-4, ***@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> I think the more interesting question is what happens to Gatti? Remember, Levine was at retirement age when he was called out on strikes. But Gatti, he’s in the prime of his career. Does he still guest conduct anywhere? Will he be regulated to a community orchestra someplace? Will he still conduct Otello in Berlin next year? -Which is supposed to be broadcast live on the digital concert hall.
>>>>>> Time will go by. Someone will give him a second chance.
>>>>>> And I have no doubt that there are some male orchestra presidents who think they have the right to treat women how Gatti did and he got shafted — they'll want to help him out.
>>>>> I cannot approve what he is alleged to have done, but I do believe in
>>>>> repentance and redemption. Destroying him is not an acceptable course.
>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>> Losing the privilege to conduct elite orchestras for a very long time is hardly "destroying" someone. It's a more than acceptable punishment.
>>> It's not really punishment in the strict sense. It's orchestras
>>> protecting their employees and their reputations.
>> If the means of my livelihood was taken (and my reputation tarnished) I'd feel punished.
> There are consequences to bad behavior.
I don't think anyone said or implied otherwise.
> How should this situation have been handled? The WP never published its story and instead told the RCO about its investigation, and then the RCO announced that Gatti was resigning to spend more time with his family?
Did anyone suggest it should have been handled otherwise?
> If he can never get another gig with an elite orchestra because people don't want to work with someone who has a reputation for sexually harassing and assaulting women, well, that's his fault.
Did anyone suggest it wasn't?
There is a question of the punishment fitting the crime, though. There
are degrees of evil and punishments vary in severity. I'm not suggesting
about Gatti's or any other particular case. Where I used to work I'm
only familiar with some he said/she said cases. What generally happened
was a woman would accuse a man of something that was unwitnessed,
ranging fron unwanted back rubs all the way to quid pro quo type offers.
The accused was called in and told that he was accused and that if he
did it he had to stop and that if he was caught doing it he would be
fired. The accuser was told the accused had been so informed. Some
cases ended like that. Nobody was happy about this, of course. Sometimes
the accused and accused went on to be able to work together and
sometimes one or the other would quit (usually the accuser). In two
cases the accused was later observed doing something offensive and one
of those was fired. The other, a quite senior person was severely
rebuked and as word got out, embarrassed, and perhaps his advancement
was halted. I'm not aware of cases of multiple accusers, which seem to
be taken as evidence in and of itself.