The Taipei Music Academy and Festival has sacked oboist Liang Wang from its faculty.
The Oregon Bach Festival has dismissed Matthew Muckey as principal trumpet.
Both have been suspended by the New York Philharmonic over complaints of an alleged rape in 2010.
The Lithuanian-born singer Asmik Grigorian is opting for…
Musicians of the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra and…
From a brilliant FT column by mathematician Tim…
The Amsterdam concert hall surprised its Sunday-morning soloist…
Session expired
Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.
Why is Wang still on the faculty of the Manhattan School of Music? And a member of the Santa Fe Music Festival?
Not for long now.
I believe Wang is no longer on the MSM faculty.
He is (still on the website) on the pre-college division, the most vulnerable, girls, when a married colleague couldn’t protect herself against him…
I read today that he’s on leave from MSM, don’t know about SFMF.
Good
Sun Valley Summer Symphony cut ties with Muckey several years ago. Bravo to them for being on the right side of history.
Why should they be sacked? This sets dangerous precedent.
The final arbitrator did not find them guilty. Innocent until proven guilty.
Also, I am not sure how Liang Wang fits into all this. Doesn’t seem key to the storyline.
Then you know how much evidence there was, and how much the arbitrator required.
O.J. Simpson was and was not innocent. There were two cases, criminal and civil.
Let’s be real honest here. You dirtbags blacklist competent musicians for far, far less, and herald the presence of anyone you believe can advance your career, even if they’re absolute trash. How would you tolerate a tRump supporter in your ensemble? Would you recommend a conservative musician for a gig? Of course not, but these two predators deserve the utmost grace, am I right? Without double standards, you unprincipled degenerates wouldn’t have any standards at all. Go. Get. Wrecked.
Why? If for no other reason, the stink.
The question is: Why are they only being dismissed now? The answer: The justice system failed to do its work. With the recent exposure of the story the public is having to deal with it. A jury should have, and may yet get to, deliberate. In the meantime, it is manifestly obvious that these men must be kept out of our arts venues. It’s good to see that organizations are beginning to respond.
So this is what vigilante justice looks like? Fascinating.
No, it’s what justice looks like when the justice system has utterly failed, as it has failed women time and again.
“Also, I am not sure how Liang Wang fits into all this. Doesn’t seem key to the storyline.” Indeed: Other than his presence was established at Muckey’s residence the night of the incident, the police didn’t take Wang’s DNA sample. It wasn’t established that Wang was in any way a party to the alleged rape.
No it does not set a dangerous precedent. It creates a safe and professional work space. It says you have to BE BETTER then a sexual predator rapist. And that’s a pretty low bar, especially for one of the top orchestras in the world.
The jury did not find OJ guilty, but that didn’t prevent the public at large from concluding he was guilty as hell, and treating him as a pariah for the rest of his life.
If these two musicians continue to appear on stage with the NYPO, they’re going to bring significant public vitriol down on the entire orchestra, not to mention the corrosive effect they seem to be having on the orchestra behind the scenes.
“Truth” is making the false equivalence that “arbitration gives job back” is the same as “exonerated in all regards.”
The investigation seems to have documented much wrong-doing that is undesirable to have in an employee.
The arbitration making the bare re-hire/don’t re-hire choice may hinged on just that no actual legal conviction had happened.
Employers frequently fire employees for misconduct that doesn’t net a criminal conviction.
It’s not a dangerous precedent.
All thanks to Slippedisc and Vulture.
No, all thanks to Cara Kizer, Sammy Sussman, and New York Magazine.
Vulture = New York magazine. Vulture is NY mag’s online culture vertical.
Not that a date rape is somehow less awful and disgusting than just rape but in this case there was never a “date” of any kind or a relationship beyond being professional colleagues prior to the rape. Please correct your words.
When was rape ever proved anywhere? Anyone with any sense of decency or fairness should be chilled by this. But I know we don’t live in an era where due process or fairness matters. All that matters is an unproven 14 year old allegation. Sad state of affairs.
The allegation was made at the time. With plenty of evidence. And met by indifference by prosecutors and obstruction and retaliation by colleagues who closed ranks around the perpetrators.
It has only taken justice 14 years to catch up.
These guys got plenty of due process – one of them even allowed to invoke his 5th Amendment rights.
The sad state of affairs is that a female horn player was somehow expected to endure a rape by a colleague, and not seek accountability for fear of not getting tenure. In what workplace would that be acceptable?
Yes, women love having sex with a tampon inside. Total consent.
Exactly what I came here to say.
Who needs a trial?
You can be fired for lots of things without a criminal conviction. It’s not exactly unusual and definitely not new. In fact these players have had far more protection than most workers would.
Apparently no one. I mean, NL and Vulture must be the epitome of virtue and truth the way this story is being treated.
I’d say these two do. It seems very strange that prosecutors didn’t consider the evidence strong enough to go to trial.
You need to read the article. Some legal officials in Colorado were astonished that the local prosecutor didn’t pursue the case, given the strong evidence. It’s another example of how women are failed by the justice system.
Again, for the rape apologists, this statement from the orchestra committee, which represents the Philharmonic musicians:
It is “the overwhelming sentiment from the orchestra that we believe Cara” and that “we don’t believe these are isolated incidents involving Matt Muckey and Liang Wang.” The committee added that the orchestra has a culture of “not taking musician complaints seriously so musicians often do not feel safe in raising accusations of sexual harassment and assault.”
What caught my eye (and continues to catch my eye) is the part of the statement which says “…we don’t believe these are isolated incidents involving Matt Muckey and Liang Wang.” It seems to me just from that phrase there may be more coming and could surface involving both of those two. Is someone hinting at more or is it just a turn of phrase without the intention of teasing impending events?
If they have done what has been said, they both deserve sex changes before they are thrown in the all male prison.
Curious that this comes up ten years later, right as the rest of the musicians are trying to negotiate for a wage that reflects the last several years of inflation.
Why? In what way does this story increase the musicians’ leverage with management? It only brings the institution into disrepute, which helps neither side.
But I’m always open to a good conspiracy theory, so let’s hear it.
People need to stop equivocating criminal court/civil law with a private business entity’s code of professional conduct and behavior. Companies should have the right to fire employees for just cause based on actions that bear no criminal or financial liability in a legal jurisdiction or court of law. Applying a preponderance of evidence legal standard to employment practices only enables employee bad behavior. The “You can’t prove that I broke any law” excuse is not, in and of itself, an acceptable defense for bad deeds and actions detrimental to others both within – and outside – the company that employs them.
Bottom line: The NYPhil, Zarin Metha, D. Borda, and the new CEO have engaged in a cover-up of this rape (and lord knows what else) for over 12 years. The used NDAs and provided payoffs for silence. This is EXACTLY what Miramax did under Harvey Weinstein.
Untrue: Borda fired them.
Then rehired them.
What Borda has never made public or even shared with her orchestra was the Philharmonic’s internal investigation by the ex-judge that was the basis of firing them initially.
If the orchestra had access to that complete report, which included interviews of orchestra members themselves, I think what is happening now could’ve happened 10 years ago.
Borda was forced to rehire them after the union arbitrator found in the players’ favor. I supposed she could have tried to refuse, but no doubt the NY Phil legal counsel advised them they would have lost in court.
They may have been forced to rehire them, but they could have immediately put the two on paid suspension until a benefactor could fund a long term buyout.
Yeah, “Hey rich person, give us 15 million to keep these two guys on the payroll to stay home for the next 40 years” sounds like a bold strategy.
Sir, not a date rape. This was a vile colleague rape, there was no date, she was married and invited to have a drink by colleagues. All rapes are crimes, but just a clarification.
It was NOT “date rape” as your blurb erroneously refers to it. It’s was allegedly raping an unconscious woman. Horrible.
Amazing that a fundamental tenet of society, innocence until proven guilty, is no longer valued in American culture.
Horseshit. They haven’t been imprisoned – people have decided they no longer wish to work with them.
Our governments are allowed to be the most corrupt institutions on Earth because unfortunately people believe whatever they read in the media without evidence. Abandoning innocence until proven guilty has historically always had grave consequences.
How is Liang Wang still on the upcoming ARD competition Jury ?
Muckey was never a member of the Oregon Bach Festival—he was contracted to play this year (for the first time), but his contract was pulled when other musicians in the orchestra protested. This happened several months ago.
Interesting how so many treat this article as though it is the uncontestable truth. Though according to it, Cara claims she didn’t remember anything about it beyond going to their apartment and not wanting to get in the hot tub. So then how does the dna of Matt found on her tampon automatically become the smoking gun proving this was rape?
At some point in almost everyone’s life, they will hope there is due process to determine their guilt or innocence. None of us were there that night and an article in NY magazine doesn’t magically settle the veracity of Cara’s claims.
If she remembers nothing about it, unless she had a seizure, it would appear that Muckey engaged in sexual activity without her without her consent. The DNA on her tampon seems like a pretty big smoking gun.
Otherwise, are you suggesting they had a consensual interaction, and she claims rape afterward? How would that ever make sense? If that’s what happened, it would have been in the interest of both to agree not to talk about it.
Hang on, there. This and other comments here are making assumptions that misunderstand rapesexual assault law when the theory of culpability is not force or coercion, but rather “incapacitation,”—that the victim was impaired to a point of not understanding the nature of the act such that meaningful consent was impossible. AND: that the accused knew or had enough facts in front of them that they should have known. What people fail to understand is that a mere memory blackout from impairment does not prove this. One can be walking and talking normally and seemingly willingly engaging in behavior while in this type of blackout. So, merely “not remembering” does not prove legal “incapacitation.” Vomiting might be evidence that the accused “should have known,” but did that occur before the sexual contact? Or after? Who knows?
One travesty here is that the specific roofie drug was not tested for in a timely manner. Months after the event and in someone’s hair is much less probative–suggestive, but less probative.
But the real travesty was allowing the two proceedings to use different standards of proof. Most workplace sexual misconduct policies set out the applicable standard for investigation, findings, and conclusions. While civil or criminal standard would apply in a court case, it seems weird that in a workplace level matter, union arbitration would not follow the standard in the employer’s policies. Why did one use “preponderance” (lower proof standard of “more likely than not” and easier for the accuser to prevail), while the union arbitration used “clear and convincing” (lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but tougher to prove than
“preponderance”)? Many employer policies do apply a ” preponderance” standard to internal workplace level sexual misconduct matters, it’s not at all out of the norm.
That is the real travesty here.
And, to further add–the fact that the union arbitration gave the accused another whack at the pinata applying a different standard of proof–is the real bombshell revelation in the NYMag/Vulture story. The issue here is not, anybody who makes a “Me Too” accusation or says they were raped because they “can’t remember” what happened should automatically be believed.
The issue is, the allegation was found substantiated in one investigation under the employer policies, but the second investigation–one would expect it to ALSO be under the employer policies–applied a tougher standard of proof.
The proof standards are why police and prosecutors don’t pursue these accusations without powerful evidence. Because in a criminal matter the proof standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and won’t be satisfied in he-said, she-said cases. In this instance, the accused party claimed they had sexual contact but she consented–you can bet he said he saw no sign that she was severely impaired past the point of knowing what she was doing.
And the other guy probably said the last he saw her she did not appear impaired to the point of legal “incapacitation.” While hair follicle traces months after the event might help sway the balance under a “preponderance” standard of proof (“preponderance” has colloquially been stated as “more likely than not,” or even, “fifty percent and a feather), it’s much iffier under a “clear and convincing” standard of proof, let alone, “beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even under a preponderance standard of proof, these he-said/she-said allegations of “incapacitation” most often are substantiated when a roomful of witnesses saw the victim falling down, vomiting, losing consciousness and passing out, taking their clothes off and dancing on the table, etc. Or there is security camera footage showing the two parties getting out of the elevator at one’s apartment, and the victim can’t walk and is being held up or carried by the perpetrator, and can’t get their key or keycard in their door and the perp is doing it. That kind of thing.
Have you heard of a little thing called CONSENT, Alexia? The simple fact that Cara doesn’t remember the specifics, yet Muckey’s DNA was found on her tampon (inside her body—ladies would you ever voluntarily have sex with a tampon in? That doesn’t sound pleasurable in the least!) shows that she could not have been in any position to give consent. If the woman can’t say yes and be able to remember it, she’s too incapacitated to consent. That. Is. Rape.
A person who is incapacity by either drugs, or even just liquor, are not capable of giving consent, this has been held up by law. Read it again, slowly. She was drugged, but Colorado didn’t test for that drug (which is odd, given that it’s the most commonly used date rape drug), she had to get a private test.
It’s not that hard to understand consent. Try again.
Richard Stanbrook:
17th April 2024.
I know very little of the USA’s legal system but hope that the principle of innocence until proven guilty is de rigeur.
If these two NYPO players are exonerated, then they should be offered the chance of employment restoration.
Clearly you don’t know the O.J. trial.
“Innocent until proven guilty” applies in criminal cases. Cases where the public prosecutor files criminal charges and the matter is taken to trial before a jury or judge. A criminal defendant is “innocent until proven guilty,” and that is a jury instruction, that they must view the defendant as innocent and it is the state’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reeasonable doubt. But what was at issue here was not a criminal matter. The prosecutor declined to charge it–quite frankly, because the chances of being able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt were low at best.
In contrast, the termination occurred not in a criminal court case, but in an internal employment proceeding. That is called an “administrative” inquiry.
It’s not a court matter, it is within the employer or the institution, under their policies and procedures.
They don’t have to prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” unless their internal workplace policies provided that, but generally they don’t. The standard in an internal workplace “administrative” inquiry is usually the civil standard of “preponderance of the evidence,” aka “more likely than not.” That is an easier burden of proof to meet than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
But what was allowed to happen, was that it went to arbitration under the union rights, the arbitration officer did not review the case using the standard applied by the employer. They used a tougher burden of proof called “clear and convincing” evidence. That is not as tough to meet as “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but tougher than the preponderance “more likely than not.” It is this inconsistency that is the travesty here. Review of the evidence should have occurred using the standard set out in the employer policies and applying in the original investigation and findings. Why it did not is unaccountable. It would be different if NYP’s own policies and procedures specified “clear and convincing” initially.
Apparently they did not–though, as as point of fact we actually do not know what their policies and procedures said. But given that the current Union are saying they are changing the standard in the CBA provisions for arbitration in the wake of this, something weird must have gone on with the standard applied here.