Trouble at Juilliard as chair tries to fire president

Trouble at Juilliard as chair tries to fire president

News

norman lebrecht

March 14, 2022

The New York Times has documents showing that board chair Bruce Kovner ordered Juilliard president Damian Woetzel (pic) to resign in mid-term.

Woetzel, 54, refused.

And somehow survived, with the help of eminent faculty members.

Expect more trouble ahead, however.

Read Robin Pogrebin here.

Comments

  • anon says:

    The NY Times has a long established paywall….

  • John Porter says:

    You have to hand it to Woetzel. No one would have believed that if Kovner wanted him gone, that it would be Kovner who would go instead. And Kojima may go too. Very deep pockets to leave the board, not that it matters as Juilliard has more money than any other performing arts conservatory by an order of magnitude (but still charges tuition…).

  • fflambeau says:

    The link leads to a NYTimes subscription only article.

  • Antonia says:

    Wish the article filling out the story were not behind a paywall.

    Any way, Norman, for you to possibly offer even a brief paragraph describing the reason?

    Thank you for considering!

  • Gerry Feinsteen says:

    Woetzel’s pretzel…
    The arts community of NYC was stunned when a danseur was to fill the position held be the venerable Polisi.

    To many out there Juilliard is a music school with dance and theatre programs, to everyone else it’s a music conservatory.

    I predict AOC will be a contender to head the music division with the direction Juilliard is heading.

    I predict the China campus will strangle creativity and hires in the NYC campus eventually.

    • Imbrod says:

      More than just a dancer, Woetzel “earned a master’s degree in public administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard while still dancing.” Kovner’s assessment concludes that “Woetzel focused on performance instead of education; had weak administrative leadership; failed to consult faculty members on key decisions; and created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.” The longtime board chairman, a hedge fund multi-billionaire with conservative affiliations, has donated over $100M to Juilliard. He is on the Met Opera board and was a NYPhil trustee. After 22 years on the board Kovner will step down in June, as previously planned. There’s lots more in the article but I can’t summarize it all.

  • Paul Wells says:

    I too would like to protest at the Times’ decision to put their content behind a paywall. This attitude is spreading. Just the other night I enjoyed a meal at a restaurant, only to discover that their food was behind a paywall. There’s a tailor I like but I’m shocked to discover he paywalls his clothes. When will the madness end.

    • Victoryman says:

      On target, sir. I call it grubbing for dollars. Some publications require $1.00 to read an article. Groveling has reached new heights.

      • Tiredofitall says:

        It’s a business, trying to maneuver a very difficult era of lost ad revenue due to the internet, etc.

        Pay the buck and be grateful.

    • BigSir says:

      The difference is that the food probably satisfied your appetite. Its not even worth the $1 a week to have 99% of the print telling you what to think.

      • Couperin says:

        The NYTimes doesn’t tell you what to think. Television “news entertainment” tells you what to think. Journalistic newspapers give you information and editorials so that you can use your own brain and form your own opinions.

        • Taka Gander says:

          The Times is not a journalistic newspaper. Few exist today, except perhaps in small cities somewhere. The Times is constantly telling readers what to think, what to eat, what to buy, how to exercise, especially with their advertorial Wirecutter section. And too many New Yorkers follow every recommendation. Every time a town is mentioned in a real estate profile, it is flooded by more New Yorkers who drive up the prices. If it were a fair, journalistic publication, it would not constantly display a huge anti-Semitic bias, promoting people like the hateful bigot, Rashida Tlaib for no reason whatsoever.

  • Bobby PieCake says:

    Momma said knock you out.

  • NotToneDeaf says:

    If Woetzel actually cared about the institution, he would be mortified by the results of the survey and would indeed offer to leave and let a competent leader take over. Too bad his ego is going to cause a major division in a place that was long peaceful and collegial under the prior brilliant leadership. Juilliard’s bank account, among other things, will be very sorry about all of this.

    • John Marks says:

      “The Survey.”

      Let us all bow down and worship “The Survey.”

      Have you ever heard of Push Polling, my young friend???

      I bet you are not a marketing professional.

      Woetzel might be a difficult person, and perhaps even an out-of-his-depth prima donna.

      But Woetzel is 100% right when he points out that this ad-hoc (you might want to look that up), sui generis (ditto) “hand-crafted” “Survey” is the total opposite of Best Practices in Non-Profits.

      I can assure you (I have worked in all of the arts, education, and as a trial lawyer handling employment cases, always for the employer) that the above-alluded-to facts regarding this alleged, but in truth non-process process constitute waving red flags indicating that the whirring sound to be heard was the axe being sharpened, and that the Survey result was predestined… by Push Polling.

      Not even best practices; Minimally Acceptable practice is, when Management has concerns about performance of someone at that high a level, first, they should already have baskets full of contemporaneous, and NOT cut-to-measure-made-up-last-week __evidence__ supporting their concerns; and then, they absolutely must deputize the murder to outside consultants.

      Let me put it this way, as I seek to end on a laugh line:

      THE “FIRING” PROCESS FOR WOETZEL WAS AS LAUGHABLE A CHARADE AS WAS THE “HIRING” PROCESS FOR BRANDON K. BROWN (FOR THOSE WITH LONG MEMORIES).

      In both cases, I see a hidden agenda.

      Pax vobiscum,

      john

  • Couperin says:

    I would love to see the performance review.

  • Taka Gander says:

    Despite his re-education at Harvard, I would be dubious of putting any dancer in charge of almost anything, as they basically get no education other than a physical one. And, their knowledge of music is entirely second-hand, through the alterations made for ballet. Many are close to illiterate, choosing dance in the first place because of learning disabilities, and having more talent than athletes. Based on personal observations of friends.

    • Amy says:

      Wow. As a former professional dancer who is now an attorney (among many I know), I beg to differ. Ballet dancers have to be both physically and intellectually intelligent, curious, diligent, determined in the face of injury and competition, along with having extraordinary memory and ability to learn new material every single day, usually with multiple versions, and to be able to call it all up at the drop of a hat. Claiming that many are illiterate or disabled is absurd. They choose dance because they love dance. Some go to college while dancing, some dance first and then go to school. Some choose careers where they don’t need a college degree, just like lots of other people. But, most dancers are incredibly successful in their second careers because they have the skills and determination to survive a career in dance which then transfers to many other careers. I have a JD. I run a corporation. What do you do?

  • E Rand says:

    Ultimately, neitherJuilliard nor Curtis are the schools they once were. Besides degraded faculty, they exist in hell-scape cities where students can no longer afford to work and live upon graduation. Juilliard is expensive and now adds insult to injury by embracing woke-ism and graduating little Minnie Maos. Good riddance!

  • MOST READ TODAY: