Save this article to read it later.
Find this story in your accountsSaved for Latersection.
That terse self-exoneration raises a lot of questions about the Mets role in furnishing the power that Levine abused.
Among them:
How many people did Levine allegedly harass or abuse?
Did the alleged abuse take place at the Met or elsewhere?
If some of his victims have identified themselves to investigators, does the Met accept any responsibility toward them?
The Met has a renowned childrens chorus: Did Levine target any of its members?
How long did the alleged abuse and harassment continue?
Did it stop at some point, and if so, when?
Did Levine vindictively destroy the careers of artists who evaded him or reward those who complied?
Did some artists refuse to work with him after being subjected to his harassment and/or abuse?
The statement asserts that rumors of a cover-up are unsubstantiated.
Does the Met claim that nobody at the company was aware of the allegations?
Or is it that staffers were aware, but their inaction simply doesnt rise to the level of cover-up?
Did the report conclude that they had knowledge of his activities?
Did anyone at the Met ever make any effort to determine the truth of those rumors?
For instance, were young artists ever advised to avoid being alone with him?
The company and its chief conductor were intertwined for decades, and each boosted the glory of the other.
Its simply not enough for the Met to say,We didnt know!
