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.
Now it's really a scandal.
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.
everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
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.
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.
They could've made it up just so he they can kick him out.
Kick him out of what?
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.
Primarily because he is accused of improperly getting funding from the Academy and she was accused of enabling and profiting from this as well as blocking any further investigation into the matter.
There are also accusations that she prevented the Academy from looking into earlier accusation of sexual harassment against her husband, but that is secondary.
So it's the ideal ground for character assassinations?
Especially since society doesn't blame/shame the victims anymore (which is good) -- so someone wrongfully accusing has all the upside and no downsides (which is bad).
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.