The Academy’s Expulsion of Harvey Weinstein

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/opinion/harvey-weinstein-academy.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “Movie Academy Ousts Weinstein Over Sex Claims” (front page, Oct. 15):

By expelling Harvey Weinstein, the board of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has brought to our attention not Mr. Weinstein’s misbehavior (The New York Times did that), but its own. Mr. Weinstein’s behavior was no secret. The board members’ outrage emerged only when the news became public and revealed Hollywood’s complicity.

The academy’s decision says, “Don’t blame us!” If the board members were serious about sexual harassment in the industry, they would have addressed Mr. Weinstein’s behavior years ago. They were willing to work with Mr. Weinstein when it met their interests and are no longer willing because those interests have changed.

Their claim that Mr. Weinstein’s behavior has “no place in our society” reaches the height of hypocrisy given that they supported and celebrated him for so long.

JEANNE HEY, SACO, ME.

To the Editor:

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has ousted Harvey Weinstein because of his decades of sexual harassment of female actors. Now Hollywood reporters wonder who will be next, and what other issues may lead to demands to oust members.

But what about the sexual harassment and violence against women in the movies? As long as rape and abuse are considered entertainment in an industry that often depicts men having sexual encounters with women half their age, there will be plenty of Harvey Weinsteins.

ANN BRAUDE, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

The writer is director of the Women’s Studies in Religion program at Harvard Divinity School.

To the Editor:

Re “Woody Allen Comments on Weinstein Scandal” (Arts pages, Oct. 16):

Woody Allen may not be the right messenger, but he’s right to warn that the spate of allegations against Harvey Weinstein may escalate into a witch hunt. While liberal circles may welcome the widening chorus against sexual predators, the charges may become another political weapon for the hard right, seeking to trigger a populist backlash by pinning a political correctness label on claims of sexual harassment.

NANCY M. LEDERMAN, NEW YORK

To the Editor:

Re “The Rich, the Powerful and the D.A.” (editorial, Oct. 15):

Cyrus Vance Jr. takes contributions that on any assessment of the appearance of impropriety should be turned down, and your suggested solution is “a flat-out ban on donations from lawyers” because “you never know who among them will plead someday for prosecutorial leniency for a client”? No, thank you. As lawyers, many of us (me included) who do not represent criminal defendants have friends/classmates/partners/opponents who are running and about whom we have distinct views, and we are entitled just like anyone else to contribute to their campaigns.

That some lawyers may game the system to contribute on behalf of their clients is unfortunate but should not disenfranchise the entire profession.

MATT ADLER, VOORHEES, N.J.