This is a partial re-write of the original post.-Feb. 5, 10:13 pm.
I was in the middle of writing a post and googled "nicholas kristof dylan farrow" to get Kristof's column again when I saw and read Margaret Sullivan's article. This was the post.
"When evidence is ambiguous, do we really need to leap to our feet and lionize an alleged molester?"
What a question, what a standard! After 20 years, when evidence is ambiguous, Hollywood still should not have honored Woody Allen.
What other questions does Kris ask:
"Look, none of us can be certain what happened. The standard to send someone to prison is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but shouldn’t the standard to honor someone be that they are unimpeachably, well, honorable?"
I was in the middle of writing a post and googled "nicholas kristof dylan farrow" to get Kristof's column again when I saw and read Margaret Sullivan's article. This was the post.
"When evidence is ambiguous, do we really need to leap to our feet and lionize an alleged molester?"
What a question, what a standard! After 20 years, when evidence is ambiguous, Hollywood still should not have honored Woody Allen.
What other questions does Kris ask:
"Look, none of us can be certain what happened. The standard to send someone to prison is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but shouldn’t the standard to honor someone be that they are unimpeachably, well, honorable?"
That is a GREAT question. It is THE question (to me). We are at liberty to honor, merely to associate with, whomever we please. And whom not to. I, as a private employer, can hire or fire you for any reason or a good reason, just not a bad reason (race, etc.). I like your hair color, I can hire you for that reason. I don't like your hair color, I can fire you for that reason. I can befriend, or not; honor, or not, whomever I please. I can think of fewer better reasons not to hire, befriend, or honor a person than that he is a frigging child molester!
By what standard?
By what standard should...there are no "should's" here; I may decide not to honor you based on no evidence whatsoever that you are a child molester. I may look at you, conclude in my mind that you are a child molester, and decide not to honor you. By what standard do people decide to honor and not honor. Mr. Kristof's standard is that the evidence must be unambiguous that the person is "unimpeachably honorable." Indeed, with the understanding that there are no should's here we may say...I will say (I have said) that Kristof's standard for is unreasonable. But, if Kris is consistent in applying that standard across the board in his personal judgment-making there is nothing to fault him with. He would not have honored Woody Allen. Allen clearly does not meet the standard of being unimpeachably honorable, I mean, my God, forget the child molestation charge, it is unimpeachably true that Woody Allen took nude photos of, and had an affair with, Mia Farrow's daughter Soon-Yi Previn while he was in a long-term relationship with Ms. Farrow! Ooooh doggie. But, Kristof goes farther than this in his statement above. Kristof thinks Hollywood, or "we," should have employed Kristof's standard and not honored Allen.
Hollywood evidently had a different standard since they honored Allen. What was Hollywood's standard? Don't know except that it had a lot to do with Allen's talent, his accomplishments as a movie director. Those trumped any concerns they may have had with how honorable a man Allen was. It seems reasonable to me that the entertainment industry would give primacy to Allen the movie director over Allen the honorable man. Kristof himself characterizes Allen as an "artistic giant." This was not the Presidential Medal of Freedom after all, not the Nobel Peace Prize, not Humanitarian of the Year, not even Good Housekeeping's seal of approval. May we reasonably criticize Kristof's standard as applied to an honor within the field where he admits the candidate is a "giant?" It seems to me we may, and I do. May we reasonably criticize Hollywood for employing a standard by which artistic achievement so trumps "character" issues? I am not at this point... My God, man, are there not some moral standards for a Hollywood award?...Yes. It seems to me, understanding that there are no "should's," that we may criticize Hollywood if there is no, or unreasonably little, consideration given to character. How little? Let's start to answer that by looking at the standards used by some other people. I had one instantly come to mind, a case also in the entertainment industry. It is the case of Jameis Winston.
By what standard?
By what standard should...there are no "should's" here; I may decide not to honor you based on no evidence whatsoever that you are a child molester. I may look at you, conclude in my mind that you are a child molester, and decide not to honor you. By what standard do people decide to honor and not honor. Mr. Kristof's standard is that the evidence must be unambiguous that the person is "unimpeachably honorable." Indeed, with the understanding that there are no should's here we may say...I will say (I have said) that Kristof's standard for is unreasonable. But, if Kris is consistent in applying that standard across the board in his personal judgment-making there is nothing to fault him with. He would not have honored Woody Allen. Allen clearly does not meet the standard of being unimpeachably honorable, I mean, my God, forget the child molestation charge, it is unimpeachably true that Woody Allen took nude photos of, and had an affair with, Mia Farrow's daughter Soon-Yi Previn while he was in a long-term relationship with Ms. Farrow! Ooooh doggie. But, Kristof goes farther than this in his statement above. Kristof thinks Hollywood, or "we," should have employed Kristof's standard and not honored Allen.
Hollywood evidently had a different standard since they honored Allen. What was Hollywood's standard? Don't know except that it had a lot to do with Allen's talent, his accomplishments as a movie director. Those trumped any concerns they may have had with how honorable a man Allen was. It seems reasonable to me that the entertainment industry would give primacy to Allen the movie director over Allen the honorable man. Kristof himself characterizes Allen as an "artistic giant." This was not the Presidential Medal of Freedom after all, not the Nobel Peace Prize, not Humanitarian of the Year, not even Good Housekeeping's seal of approval. May we reasonably criticize Kristof's standard as applied to an honor within the field where he admits the candidate is a "giant?" It seems to me we may, and I do. May we reasonably criticize Hollywood for employing a standard by which artistic achievement so trumps "character" issues? I am not at this point... My God, man, are there not some moral standards for a Hollywood award?...Yes. It seems to me, understanding that there are no "should's," that we may criticize Hollywood if there is no, or unreasonably little, consideration given to character. How little? Let's start to answer that by looking at the standards used by some other people. I had one instantly come to mind, a case also in the entertainment industry. It is the case of Jameis Winston.
