“[Glenn Thrush] behaved in ways that we do not condone.”
“While we believe that Glenn has acted offensively, we have decided that he does not deserve to be fired,”
sang The New York Times about its own employee today when it reinstated disgraced reporter Glenn Thrush who was suspended from his NYT White House beat after allegations that he sexually harassed women while working at NYT and his previous employer Politico.
The Times said that Thrush was undergoing training “to improve his workplace conduct.”
To review Glenn Thrush reports, please go here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/12/05/why-the-new-york-timess-investigation-of-glenn-thrush-is-particularly-tricky/?utm_term=.ec34d13f698e Please note in this article how the Executive Editor at the New York Times said that the results of the Times' investigation of Thrush likely would not be shared with the public, considering that it’s a personnel matter.
Meanwhile, NYT's chief dance critic, Alastair Macaulay, who was arrested, jailed, had his computer confiscated, and had his London home searched by the police while being "investigated for sexual crimes against children" as he described in his own words, is loudly calling for the removal or resignation of Peter Martins from New York City Ballet while falsely claiming that "The evidence of physical harassment here has not been disputed and is not to be doubted". Really? Now the NYT's authority over the justice system includes certifying evidence and erasing anything that doesn't agree with its quick conclusion.
Many wonder how NYT could allow a writer who was investigated for paedophilia-related crimes where so many questions still hang in the air to remain on staff and continue to attend children's performances and write about them. Who would be surprised if he were scheming to manipulate a professional dancer into allowing him to have his picture taken with the dancer's toddler or among Nutcracker child performers so that he could publish it on Instagram in order to "prove" his trustworthiness? Who would be surprised? We see no hands raised. Dancer-parents, beware, unless you truly want your children to be used by Alastair Macaulay for his reputation enhancement.
Let us point out that there has been no evidence of any crime or abuse by Peter Martins despite the five people quoted by the NYT or WP.
No one witnessed Martins manhandle or try to strangle Kelly Cass aka Mrs. Peter Boal. No one heard him angrily say, "You fucking bitch, why won't you do what I tell you" which, by the way, would not be a crime or abuse. In fact, the only "witness" that the media has been able to come up with admitted observing Martins standing over the dancer but then the witness rode off in a limousine with Martins and a group of dancers who were trashing Cass.
A disgraced student who was humiliated in front of his peers on stage after being disruptive during a dress rehearsal decades ago has now come forth with meticulous details about the exact fingers that Martins used to hold the back of his neck overly tightly which he apparently could see perfectly with the eyes in the back of his head.
A fired dancer has come forth saying that Martins threw everyone out of his office the same way by grabbing the back of their necks and kicking them out -- no one else has described that as abusive. According to the NYT, she also clearly said that Martins was "allowed" to be aggressive. She didn't say allowed by whom and apparently the NYT investigative journalist 🙄 didn't bother to ask who "allowed" it.
And former soloist Jeff Edwards has offered no details about the abuse which he complained about to management and the union decades ago, and which he claims the union did not think warranted addressing. It was not unusual for union-management issues to be addressed via phone calls and conversations without evolving into grievances. Edwards and the media tried to claim that a request by dancers to include a contract clause about abuse was ignored. In a quick re-write of the online version of the news article, the Times added a quote from Lindsay Fischer who made it clear that the abuse clause was indeed considered and abandoned by the dancers and union because they believed sufficient protections were in place.
And lastly, there is John Clifford. Can't we just forget him, please? Jeeze Louise, people. Open your eyes.
NYCB should not retreat like a doggie with its tail between its legs after being newspaper-whipped by a bully. If the NYCB wants to change the tough management style of the chief, there are constructive ways to do it.