Mr Steinhardt is very accomplished , I'm surprised the NYT left out the fact that Mr Steinhardt is on the Strategic Advisory Board of Genie Oil. Genie oil among other ventures is involved with oil and gas exploitation in the Golan Heights. His co board members include , Dick Cheney, William Colby, Jacob Rothschild, Rupert Murdoch ,Bill Richardson, Larry Summers et al
14
Money is corrupting. It's everywhere. In every country, every faith and line of work. The wealthiest are largely male. Exploiting vulnerable people is the game they enjoy most.
Not that there aren't powerful men to respect and trust but they don't appear in glaring front page headlines. I hope we will learn about them before we're jaded about everyone. I'm pretty close to that.
13
"The "joke defense" has never been a real defense but it is always accepted from those who offer it with one hand while holding their fat wallets in the other. It won't stop being offered until need and greed end i.e. never.
22
I'm a 66 year old man who has witnessed plenty of boorish behavior by men in the workplace. It's not OK to humiliate women with lewd comments; and it's especially wrong when there is a power imbalance. Men want their mothers, wives, daughters and sisters treated with respect in their workplace. Why would you treat someone else's family member any differently?
42
I am a Jewish professional (ordained in the rabbinic program by HUC-JIR '97). I know three of Michael Steinhardt's accusers personally (one since we were in high school and served in regional/national youth group leadership roles). I can wholeheartedly vouch for the moral integrity of these three women--and know that the decision to come forward with this information did not happen without deliberate thought and consideration.
The credentials of the victims are widely available online. Each one of them has dedicated her life and career to the Jewish people and has made a significant impact in the field.
As a Jewish professional, I have heard countless stories from my female colleagues about propositions, harassment, and even assault. Sadly, nothing surprises me anymore. I am immensely proud of these colleagues who have found strength and courage to stand up and cry out against his reprehensible behavior.
Sadly, I am not shocked that people are defending Steinhardt. All too many Jewish spiritual leaders who have been outed in the #metoo era have been vehemently defended by blind, faithful followers who refuse to believe their rabbi/cantor/youth director/stakeholder, etc... could violate the moral and ethical code they instructed us to embrace.
(Full disclosure: I served as a Steinhardt Fellow in Informal Jewish Education, and I received a considerable stipend and graduate school tuition from the Steinhardt Foundation from 1994-1997. I have never met Michael Steinhardt.)
63
I read the statement released by the Steinhardt family, which was quite interesting. I'll say right out that if there's any truth to their contention that the article's reporter pursued a sensationalist, Me Too slant, and to that end pushed interviewees to remember stories that served her mean-spirited and distortive purposes, shame on that reporter. That said, the family statement was itself full of vague defenses and self-justifying innuendos. Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between. What I find outrageous, however, is Michael Steinhardt's own defense, shared by some of his prominent friends, that his boorish statement were meant only in jest. Is that defense also meant in jest? Because one doesn't have to be a diehard Freudian to know that jokes expose uncomfortable truths.
27
I’m wondering about all the, probably male, supervisors of these fund raisers. If it was “common knowledge “ that Mr. Steinhardt spoke to young women this way, why did they send young women to him? To get the money? In other fields this would be called pimping. Don’t the officers and Boards of these nonprofits bear some responsibility for the welfare of their staff?
33
Ohmigod. This guy is a dirty old man, a dirty old RICH man, who wielded his status to harass and humiliate women whom he found attractive. Jewish law teaches that he needs to acknowledge the harm he does, ask forgiveness from the women he's injured, and then amend his life in a way to address the damage he's done to prevent it from happening to others. If those whom he has injured at then prepared to forgive him, it is up to them and them alone. The good his billions may have done, does not and cannot be allowed to outweigh the injury he has inflicted.
31
Whatever happened to Times journalism, where facts were ascertained before conclusions are drawn? I know nothing about Steinhardt, never even heard of him until this article. But I do know that in the very first paragraph Otterman and Dreyfus essentially state as fact what is to the best of their knowledge allegation.
And people wonder at the fact that Trump's pathetic complaints about fake news impugning his non-existent integrity resonate with so many people.
6
This just breaks my heart. What do these women even want?
Yes, #MeToo is important for rooting out and bringing to justice predators. But the bigger social significance is to change the tide on what is acceptable in our society and, I daresay, men like Mr. Steinhardt have already learned their "lesson" through the movement and the tidal changes it is bringing in. I'm certain that whatever he WAS doing when it WAS very socially acceptable he already knows he cannot do TODAY. So, the movement has already done its work and made its point to Mr. Steinhardt.
What do these women want? No one cares about them anymore than they did yesterday. Yes, everyone is thrilled to see another 1%-er brought to his knees. Yes, everyone in the twitter-verse gets to exercise their already overdeveloped thumb muscles acting as judge and jury online. Speaking of, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Americans used to hold that idea dear. Not any more. I feel like I am in Iran watching public stonings of people rumored to have broken some social taboo. Wow, we used to be better than that. But now the internet has made us all believe that just because we have a voice we have something worthwhile to say and just because we *can* judge we are in a position to do so.
And no one will take his part -- no friend, no associate -- all too busy running away lest they have the spotlight turned on themselves for supporting him.
Happy now?
11
I wonder how Mrs. Steinhardt, a nice and generous woman, is faring tonight.
15
Michael Steinhardt is the sort of Jew--and there are many--who makes me embarrassed to be a member of the tribe.
25
For quite some time - and (to my credit, maybe) I wrote about this earlier - the parallels with "Crucible" territory - i.e., people "testifying" because "everybody else was" - are getting eerily similar.
I'm not in a position to judge Mr. Steinhardt - "I barely knew him" - but the "Jewish Life" website makes clear what the Times editor did not - here's an author with a vendetta; here are accusers with "a history;" and here - maybe yes, maybe no - is a STORY.
From the NYTimes p.o.v., they're probably libel-proof, so the fact that it gets a zillion "hits" is a point in its favor that is - apparently - BARELY offset by "BUT IS IT TRUE?!"
Yes, I'm a guy - is that what they call "full disclosure?" - but I'm thinking that it is OH SO EASY to say, "He said this to me - how can he live with himself?" ... and I'm actually inclined to credit the reportage - i.e., HE DID say JUST THAT!
Yes, abusers defy profiling - just as terrorists do - but REALLY?? Michael Steinhardt??
This is one of the several times where I think that CONTEXT MATTERS - that NEVER seems to be considered in reportage!
But more importantly, somebody who says really stupid, more than arguably offensive things ... SHOULD BE JUDGED on the basis of "follow-through." OF COURSE, there was no 2-some or 3-some - M.S. (and others) couldn't or wouldn't have "delivered," even if - by some miracle - the 30-something or 70-something (I've read the comments) had said, "Your place or mine?!"
Have YOU ever said anything STUPID
6
His self-defense seems to be that he's always been a sleazebag. News flash: it's not ok to be a sleazebag.
29
@John
It is, if you're 35, 6' 3", and handsome. Consider 50 Shades of Grey.
5
NEWS FLASH. People think about sex constantly. It's evolution's way of assuring that their genes are replicated. Human beings actually have sex regularly. SHOCKING.
2
@Martin
This is not about sex, it's about money. Related, but the biological imperative is slim.
14
I’m sad to say that Mr Steinhardt’s “jokes” and innuendo are very typical of men in the 60 plus age group. They grew up during the sexual revolution which gave them licence to discuss sexuality in a way that was previously frowned upon, so as not to seem too uptight and uncool. Unfortunately, some of them haven’t moved on and still act like teenage boys. I’ve also noticed that our Jewish friends are often more open and pragmatic about sexual matters and seem to be less burdened by Christian notions of morality, sin and guilt. However, jokes can go too far and really cease to be jokes when people are cringing rather than laughing. While his behaviour was less serious than unwanted physical touching, it was certainly demeaning and can be very psychologically damaging especially if the woman is still very young and inexperienced. But, what is really damning for Mr Steinhart is that this wasn’t just a few isolated incidents of poor judgment, but rather a sustained pattern of bullying. It also sounds like plenty of people told him to knock it off, but he simply didn’t listen. Mr Steinhart and others like you, it’s 2019 not 1960. Time to wake up and get with the program.
24
I've been there - smiled and nodded through a conversation where one of my colleagues told me my job was to sit and look pretty, because there is always, always the lingering fear that a man will get violent if you respond badly to something like that, and then told my boss as soon as I got out. I imagine most women who've worked in the professional world have. My boss believed me and took it seriously; I was lucky in that. The co-worker still has no idea why I had a problem with it.
Is what's described in this article sexual harassment? Yes. Should Mr. Steinhardt have done it? Absolutely not. It is hard to be taken seriously as a woman in general; I can assure you it's no easier when you're dealing with jokes about how you should just settle down and have babies or such. Does he realize that what he did was wrong, or could even be seen as wrong? I really believe he doesn't.
14
@Amanda
Why would you give him the benefit of a doubt?
8
Fundraising has to be one of the most peculiar of modern professions. When I was working as a grant writer at a Jesuit university (not too long ago), I observed the nuns from the neighboring "Notre Dame" swoop in to the retrieve the fancy leftovers of every fundraising event buffet into their "doggie bags". That little observation pretty much epitomizes my experience of the pecking order of this world - money first, men second, women roadkill. Unless they shoehorn themselves into the power structure - through obesiance, funds or sheer naked ambition. 'Bout time we admitted it.
13
Having made my share of inappropriate comments (and fielded not a few), I wonder what kind of world we are creating in which we must at all times weigh our words so carefully for fear of unintended offense.
2
@Steve
Steve, honey, this guy didn't "weigh his words"! He heaved them forward like spitballs in the second grade, with the devil-may-care attitude only the well-monied male can muster. C'mon.
31
@Quite Contrary - Oh, agreed. There is no justification for the behavior described in the article. But I was thinking more generally, and reflecting on some of the other comments. It seemed to me that many readers are willing to lower their outrage threshold to the point of my concern.
1
It is ironic that this article would be published on the Jewish holiday of Purim with a history recorded in the book of Ester in The Old Testament or Tenach and which took place in Persia, modern day Iran . The story is one where the Prime Minister of Persia (Haman) planned to eliminate the Jewish community most of which had been transported to Persia years before.
Jewish Ester, became the Queen and saved the entire community. An important story in many ways, but also notable for a woman saving Judaism from annihilation.
While it is true that there are many Jewish donors, there are few billionaires that I know of (certainly not Soros) who give so much to help the Jewish community. (The Bronfman's are another family).
The birthright program has helped many diaspora Jews, not only Americans, to go to Israel to help to understand their history.
Mr. Steinhardt wasn't only involved from a distance writing checks. He has had debates about God with Rabbi Boteach. He has sponsored Jewish singles events one of which I attended. He was very genial and notably listening to what Jewish singles had to say. He mentioned how he personally had made about 90 matches. I was thinking only in Judaism could you truthfully talk about the billionaire shadchun (matchmaker).
Certain countries (France and Israel for example) have programs that incentivize women to have more children. He appears to be doing the same for (some) American Jews.
4
@David MD
While I respect matchmakers, being one myself, albeit non-denominational, I gotta say THIS DUDE IS UNDENIABLY WEIRD, religious beliefs notwithstanding. And furthermore, his attempts to "incentivize" really truly... ain't working. I've always been prejudiced to think Jews were smarter than the rest of us, but your comment and his behavior makes me wonder if we need to invent a new word to mean "unmerited respect"? ...
17
There are many thoughtful comments, but not many that touch the broader issue – where should we, as Jews, stand on this issue? On the one hand, Steinhardt is a major Jewish philanthropist, on the other hand, his behavior is insulting and demeaning to women. I know where I come out: Jews, we have a house to clean. There is sooo much demeaning, belittling behavior toward women in our religion. It is not incidental. It is disgraceful for Abe Foxman to defend Steinhardt. We need to turn away from the outsize roll of wealth in our religion and get with the moral times. If we don’t, we might have birthright Isreal, but we will be carrying our deformities into the future. I know that’s a harsh word, but I think those who intimately experience Jewish culture know what I’m talking about.
25
@Mark Neustadt You speak of "the outsize role of wealth in our religion," which reminds me of the time I met the head rabbi of a fancy Los Angeles synagogue. We spoke briefly. He asked what I did for a living. "Freelance reporter," I said. "Not much money in that," he replied.
7
This article is part of a third (?) wave feminist revolution coming out of the NY Times and the New Yorker. Senator Gilibrand and others are big in this movement. They prioritize taking down powerful men. But they don't care how guilty these men might or might not be. All in the name of the revolution. Almost Stalinists.
5
I just lost a wonderful assistant because the crazy owner (age 89) of the business where I am COO repeatedly offended her with inappropriate comments. It is so obnoxious and wastes my professional time to hire and train a new person made her feel horrible. I am furious over this situation and have activated ‘black out periods’ where he is not allowed in this office near my NEW assistant. I can’t trust him around my women employees. This has evidently been going on for years! So glad young women today don’t put up with this behavior! Time for a change!
23
I happen to be an old fat millionaire who regularly donates large amounts of money to various charities - $2 million last year. These charities routinely send very attractive flirtatious young women to ask me for donations. I have asked several of these women out for dates. I know they flirt with me and date me because I’m rich - it sure isn’t because they want to spend their time with an old fat guy.
I don’t care. I have money - they have beauty - if they don’t want access to my money, they are free not to contact me.
14
Give me a break. Profit and Non-Profit companies have used good looking women as sales people seeking donations and customers since forever.
Suddenly, women who have used their sex appeal to their advantage are shocked - shocked - to discover they used their sex appeal to their advantage.
If the Snowflake hypocrisy wasn’t so annoying it would be amusing.
8
@Larry Maybe young women are forced to use their sex appeal because society -- yes, still in the 21st Century -- demands that they do, all while minimizing their intellectual input as secondary. Alternatively, no professional woman should be penalized for presenting an attractive, or pretty, self, and it doesn't necessarily mean she's using her sex appeal to get what she wants.
7
Will New York University remove Michael Steinhardt's name from the building on West 4th Street that bears his name? . They should if they are to be taken seriously as a top flight school. This is a very serious charge and it is not be to taken lightly. They must if they are to retain any sense of decency.
19
This is not a serious charge and it is inappropriate to compare what Steinhardt did with what Weinstein, Cosby, et al. did. He made them feel uncomfortable. He let them know who the boss was. Unfortunately, it happens every day. But he did not assault them, nor did he threaten to withhold funding if they did not submit to him. Sometimes, we all have to be in the positing of having to just suck it up.
I would say the average minority endures 1000x the discomfort than these wealthy, white, privileged girls who work in philanthropy. Ever hear of driving while black?
10
@WPLMMT
That is as likely to happen as the camel hopping thru the eye of the needle. Nor is it necessary. People just need to wake up to the fact that naming rights are nothing more than a quid pro quo. Act accordingly.
1
Michael Steinharts money has done a whole lot of good in the world and the price he asked for was to stroke his ego and whatever else he could suggest....
It really is sad that wealthy people prefer to donate or not (Trumps don’t donate) rather than just paying their fair share in taxes. Think of all the good that could be done if we didn’t have lower tax rates for rich people than for workers. Think of all the infrastructure projects and jobs we could pay for if these narcissists were cut out of the process
25
@Deirdre, but giving charity allows you to decide how to pay your taxes, while being taxed outright forces you to give to the social priorities of other people (government officials). So if you have a choice, you'd rather give it to something you believe in.
1
The solution can seem so simple: Don't bring sexuality into workplace discussions. But it's not simple, because it's not merely about jokes or banter or even sexuality; it's about this type of man's unexamined and uncontrollable compulsion to dominate every single encounter he finds himself in.
19
@Lizzie Simon
Co-rect! No doubt in my mind that he was probably just as bizarrely (albeit cannily) aggressive to whatever males, children or animals as found themselves in his path. Maybe only inanimate objects were spared his advice. (This guy appears to be kinda delusional, and maybe dangerous, ain't he?) And the real story here is how his deep pockets shielded him from normal approbation (or certification and incarceration) for a long time at some fairly high levels of SES. Money not only talks, it commands!
4
@Lizzie Simon, but maybe that's what made him a success over all these years.
@Paco financial success, yes!
3
I would almost wonder if there is a conspiracy among women to eventually turn men to homosexuality. because they're certainly making it difficult to even want to talk to a woman any more. I no longer have business meetings with women without a witness or recording the entire meeting/conversation. because that's where we've come to. men now have to think that every conversation could lead to a harassment suit.
I told my college freshman son (at a large east coast state university) that he needs to obtain written, video or recorded consent before he has sex with any woman at college. you know what he told me? at college (in mandatory date rape seminars) they are teaching the males that consent is not always consent. that if a woman has a couple of drinks and would be an impaired (dui/dwi) driver, she is unable to give consent and that even if she begs him for sex, he could be found guilty of rape if she later says she didnt really want that sex. and what if he's in a similar state of impairment? is he expected to be able to judge that she is not really able to give consent? answer: yes he is. she couldn't give consent and they had sex so he's at fault. I'm not making this up. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.
8
Sexual talk does not belong in the workplace. Period the end.
10
@bored critic
Ya, it's a crazy world for men.
We all weep for your son. Maybe his Dad can provide some sage advice, based on your own lack of paranoia and extreme self confidence, experience and tales of bygone days. In the meantime, I suggest turning him over to his Mom.
17
Hmmm, for the ten-thousandth time. Asking for sex or making lewd remarks in a workplace (meetings with Steinhardt were work assignments for these women), is not just free speech or "asking a woman to have sex with you." It is sexual harassment at work. Leering at women and telling them to make babies during a professional interaction is sexual harassment at work. If Steinhardt were merely a lecherous old man in a bar, yes, he could make his dreadful remarks and ask for sex without it being workplace sexual harassment, and receive in response a well-deserved punch in the face. End of story. Moral: do not do this at work. Do not do it, do not excuse it.
I am so grateful times have changed. Now there is a collective will to censure people who commit sexual harassment in the workplace. To censure people who demean women (and it's almost always women being treated this way) by sexualizing them in professional settings.
29
@GLK
They didn't work for Steinhardt.
Thus, the inherent problem is that the women might have to sue their OWN employer, the non-profit entity, for harassment if their employer knowingly continued to send them to meet a documented serial harasser. The pressure that the non-profit could bring would, as far as I can imagine it, be social or from the man's peers. A threat to not take their money unless they reform might not be too helpful. This article shaming him might be the most powerful weapon. It sounds as if his (male) friends in organizations have circled the wagons - - - - but if their own positions and pocketbooks were threatened -- they might be able to hear the women's complaints.
It's what it has to come to: a change of culture in the non-profits.
4
When I woke up this morning and saw the NYT alert of this article on my phone, I was so pleased. I turned to my husband and said, "finally." As a very young professional in the Jewish Community, I experienced this verbal behavior and inappropriate touching from Mr. Steinhardt in a New York City boardroom. My encounter with Mr. Steinhardt was very brief, but made a lasting impression. When the #metoo movement took flight, I wondered how long it would be until Mr. Steinhardt was called out for his ongoing, inappropriate behavior. I commend the women who came forward to share their truth and I join their call. #metoo
46
And in the last several years, despite the man's known proclivities, no one put her phone on record during a private meeting, so that the man could be confronted with the comments he 'doesn't remember'?
@sterileneutrino
Even if they had, what would their manager, (male or female, all answerable to the bottom line) do? If you think nonprofits are really any different than corporations, no, they are not.
There you go.
2
This proves that it is not just the Catholic Church that is guilty of sexual abuse. It occurs within all religions including the Jewish faith as this article proves to be the case. I am not excusing the Church for its wrongdoing but they do not have a monopoly on sexual assault. I am glad these serious charges are being brought to light. Whether it involves Catholics, Jews, or any other religion it is abominable and must be called out as such.
7
He didn’t assault, and it wasn’t THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN.
6
So many comments from judgmental snowflakes. Yes, Steinhardt's behavior was boorish at best and offensive at worst. He was not really propositioning these women for sex, but doing it to make them feel uncomfortable and to get a rise out of them. It is about the power differential. As a very smart and perceptive man, Steinhardt knows how to wield his power. So many women are attracted to wealthy and powerful alpha men only to discover that being alpha has its ugly side as well. How is this different from the beautiful woman who knows her power on men and how to wield it? Men are irresistibly attracted to a pretty, youthful woman who knows how to wield the power of her sexuality. Then they are surprised when she is not very nice to them.
So, you want a man to be wealthy and powerful, yet also gracious and courteous, and on top of that, to write big checks? Seems like that's asking a lot.
7
Some of us are able to pull it off. Joking!
3
So being able to write big checks makes your public and private sexual humiliation of women totally understandable and acceptable? What other types and degrees of psychological abuse of vulnerable people should society allow the wealthy to enjoy to their heart’s delight?
How much physical abuse is acceptable when the assault is done by someone who can write big checks?
16
@Bert
The things that give this story some big, hairy legs , IMHO:
1) Screwed up ruling men (note: not all of them rich, and not every man, clearly not just Jewish, white or any other demographic except anatomical) have been getting away with this kind of societally and legally-protected harassment for a long time, and lots and lots of women (probably including some you love or at least one who birthed you) finally feel that we have a way of fighting back. Hint: we are not at all amused; this is seriously life altering and career-damaging stuff.
2) The New York Times agrees with us!
3) Youse guys can't have it both ways - we're supposed to split the tab, be sex objects and shaddap. It ain't happenin' without a good job, fellas. So what do you want - handmaidens or equals? We've already made our choice. Maybe it's time to catch the get on board?
4
Is this a cultural thing with Jewish men? If you look at a list of high profile accusations from the #Metoo movement the majority of perpetrators are middle-aged wealthy Jewish men. Someone wrote in the comments using the analogy of the pharmaceutical industry hiring attractive cheerleaders to entice customers, hence these attractive women are partially to blame. Having been employed by big pharma for over a decade, they did indeed hire cheerleaders, and yes it worked to an extent. However, that is victim blaming. I will say that certain nationalities and ethnic groups did tend to harass our female representatives. Middle Eastern, Jewish, and southern Indians seemed to be the biggest offenders. I know this won't make it into the comments section.
16
"sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". not anymore. not in America.
2
When did it become illegal to proposition a woman in a casual social setting?
4
Anyone know How his wife feels about his behavior?
3
I would rather have a man ask me if I would like to have sex with him than have a woman ask me to "become a funder of her work."
I would say no to both, but would feel better about the former.
Apparently one can ask the latter AND get huffy about the reaction.
1
Will New York University remove Michael Stein
1
He's crude, rude, successful and fascinating.
Stolen from Wikipedia:
"son of Sol Frank Steinhardt, a- high-stakes gambler, New York's leading jewel fence (according to then-DA Frank Hogan), and convicted felon. . . close friends with underworld crime bosses Meyer Lansky, Vincent Alo (aka "Jimmy Blue Eyes" Alo), and Albert Anastasia (he was out gambling with Anastasia the night before he was killed). Sol, aka "Red McGee," was later convicted on charges of buying and selling stolen jewelry and sentenced to 5 to 10 years in prison."
Steinhardt is a brilliant brawler, who made his fortune in the stock market, but who has been generous, and not only to Jewish causes: e.g., he bought islands in the Falklands and funded a research center there for the Wildlife Conservation Society.
He brawled his way to the top in an arena where brashness is rewarded as long as it comes with brains AND results. It sounds as if he brings the same brass to everything he does: he learned that putting money on the table does make most people jump. He didn't trick anyone to come to a private meeting and expose himself: he was loud and public in his comments. His schtick, as he says. Humor that isn't funny anymore. Not that women ever laughed.
Maybe he needed a friend to tell him, just as bluntly as he talks to others, how wrongheaded his suggestions to women were? Maybe he needed a lot of people to tell him . . It's obvious why he isn't allowed to talk to reporters: he can't stifle himself.
6
All these bad people who support this man must be Catholics and evangelicals. Anything goes with them . They love Trump and his women abusing . This man needs jail time and be on the registered sex offender for life. Shame on all you fakes who call your self good honest citizens to support this evil man.
5
@D.j.j.k., Lock him up! Down with Sex! So they said in Orwell's 1984.
1
To write that there is a hint of anti semitism in this article is foolish. The man is Jewish and is associated with Jewish causes which has been pointed out. I think that the Times has been very careful to not be anti Jewish.
There have been article after article on the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal and I have found some of their reporting anti Catholic to say the least. The comments from the readers have been mean spirited and extremely anti Catholic. I am not excusing or condoning what some of the priests have done which is abhorrent but the Catholic hate is disgusting. All I am asking for is fairness in reporting which I think the Times is trying to accomplish here. Let's call a spade a spade when appropriate.
10
As an NYU Steinhardt alum, I'm interested to see how the institution will handle (or ignore) this article. Perhaps universities should begin making policies of not naming schools or physical spaces after big donors/historical figures and instead after the degree programs they teach.
12
then dont expect any big donations.
1
Catholic priests abuse little boys. Jewish hedge fund founders and philanthropists harass women. What kind of a society do we live in? That kind of a society. We just can't acknowledge that Hobbes was right about many of us, and perhaps most men with power and money: "...of evil character. bent on securing their own interests by fair means or foul." There are plenty of decent people too. But they rarely have power. How to change that? Haven't found a way yet, but maybe looking at societies like those in Denmark or Finland we could learn on how to get started. Maybe.
10
have you been to Denmark? interacted with the men there? it's not what you think
2
Another day, another high profile sexual harassment case. All men, whether high profile or low profile, should just take a number and stand in line. These cases are now as regular as going to the Jewish Deli, or any Deli, and standing in line. ALL men are bad, Period. Let's just leave it at that. The situation has now become as common as each of us all doing our daily hygiene.
3
Good grief. Some guys are jerks and say rude stuff. If he didn't put his hand on you or get naked and chase you around a room or threaten to ruin you career, then you have not been sexually harassed. There's some guy. And he's a jerk. No one's life was ruined. These allegations and (I can't even believe it) lawsuits are demeaning to actual victims of actual sexual harassment. It is not illegal to be a jerk.
20
@Nadia -- You do not know the definition of 'sexual harassment'. You should read up on it prior to commenting.
Perhaps, if/when you do, you will still not accept the definition. In that case, the definition is still the law, and what is described here is, and will still be, illegal.
20
@Nadia
Crude remarks often come before crude behavior.
When a guy makes such remarks, you immediately wonder if he's about to make a grab for your genitals or stick his tongue down your throat. So the remarks alone feel very threatening--like being with someone who is playing with a gun.
When you realize that someone is so lacking in empathy that he can be a complete boor, you wonder if he is capable of worse things.
No one should have to go into work worrying if today Mr. Big will not only make a crude comment, but he will try to grab me by the you-know-what.
Crude remarks create an atmosphere of unprofessional intimidation. And that is why remarks (not only acts) are sexual harassment.
6
I think it’s a sad day for the MeToo movement when prominent people who make off-color comments are vilified on the front page of the New York Times. This man isn’t accused of harassment but making suggestive comments that apparently made people feel uncomfortable. This is no Harvey Weinstein case, where there were apparently repeated ‘quid pro quo’ interactions, but off-hand remarks. So what? This is political correctness gone awry and a waste of journalistic resources that could be better used to cover things that actually matter.
26
@Dr. Seuss -- nope, it's the law. I understand we have become inured to facts when they don't suit us, but this is law.
6
You view of the issue is narrow and you should look up the "contemporary" definition of sexual harassment. Employers make a commitment to protect employees from a range of behavior deemed sexual harassment. Therein lies the basis of the complaints filed by these women. Professional considerations aside, some people still live in the dark ages. Exposes such as this help people evolve.
5
To those blaming the women, please stop!
When you meet a potential donor, your role is to be the hostess who is welcoming, friendly and polite.
Men who are jerks are often “hit-and-run” jerks. 95% of your conversation and contact is fine, but then they hit you with a creepy remark and immediately go back to professional conversation.
So the guy’s side of the conversation is something like this:
Good morning, Ms. NonProfit! Nasty weather, isn’t it? My driver is prepared though—brought a couple of long paddles!
[normal pleasantries]
That’s a lovely sweater—brings out the blue in your eyes!
[A bit familiar—but OK]
Is that the scale model of the museum? Very nice.
[normal business]
Could we get some more light in here? Hard to see the detail. Much better.
[normal business]
Wow. You have the biggest eyes I’ve ever seen, Ms. NonProfit. If I weren’t married, I’d take you home with me right now! And your figure—oh, yes! The men of New York must be at your feet.
[Wait—what is going on here?]
I could eat you up with a spoon and pop the cherry on top!
[OMG!!]
Let’s see. How many square feet will this building be? And which wing will be mine?
[normal business]
And the rest of the conversation is fine.
This kind of hit-and-run tactic, when you’re in the middle of trying to get a donation, makes it really, really hard to say anything. Trust me!
That is why there must be a mechanism for women to file complaints and for higher ups to help them avoid the Mr. Big Pigs.
37
And this is where the organizations who employ said women need to explicitly say- a donor or prospective donor harasses you - that is unacceptable and you end the meeting and report it immediately. Organizations must stand up!
4
I am beyond astonished at the number of posts that are supportive for this horrible man (yes, he is still horrible even though he gives away a lot of money). And very saddened that a number of people suggest that it is the woman's fault in not standing up to him. They are standing up now but yet you seem to be shaming them. No wonder why they didn't when they were younger and even more scared. And in fact, the article did clarify that a number of them did complain right after the incidents occurred, but to no consequence. T
159
@Deepbreath
Scared? Scared of what?
He didn't rape any of the women. He didn't use force. He did not touch them inappropriately. So the word "scared" seems really out of place.
Was is behavior tacky? Yes. Can I empathize with the confusion, dismay, shock, distaste, disappointment and more of the women. Yes. But he took no for an answer. No one has a right to a million dollar donation. So the women's only option was to say "no," and leave by the door. Kudos to them.
Words have meanings. Let's not abuse them. And let's not lose our sense of proportion.
7
@Deepbreath
They are the GOP supporters like the evangelicals and other so called christians who support Trump and his women abusing . They have turned their heads so much any thing goes in their religions except the truth. Very sad .
9
@Ian Maitland Yes, I agree with your last line, "Words have meanings. Let's not abuse them. And let's not lose out sense of proportion." What I don't agree with is your "sense of proportion." Of course these women were scared. Perhaps not of being raped, but they were scared of losing their jobs, their own good names, and of other assorted retribution. A man in a position of power is responsible for creating an atmosphere or respect, yet Steinhardt abused his position and breached boundaries with his cruel and boorish jokes and comments. A man who consistently behaves as such -- this behavior was not a mere lapse -- is a man who could easily be seen as vengeful, because his rights as The King of Israel were rebuked. I don't blame these women one bit for being scared.
21
The philanthropist Eugene Lang tried to sexually assault me in his office when I went there for a meeting to ask for funding for my nonprofit. I have long wondered how many others he treated in similar fashion, using his power and privilege to these ends. But displaced shame prevented me from coming forward at the time, and of course also the fear of his greater power. He has since died but I regret I did not have the opportunity to confront him and hold him accountable. Thankfully the #metoo movement may change this for others going forward.
25
Clearly people shouldn't make comments that belittle others or make them feel uncomfortable. The purpose of this article seems to be calling out bad behavior. I have a question. Pharmaceutical companies routinely hire cheerleaders for their sales staff. They do that because many doctors will happily allow an attractive woman into their office even if they know it's a sales pitch. Is that also a practice with some of these fundraising groups? I'm not suggesting bad behavior is okay under any circumstances, just that if someone is selected for a job because they are physically attractive isn't it likely that their looks will be commented upon? Please don't misconstrue my meaning. It is never okay to use sexual comments to proposition someone or make them feel inferior. But I am curious if charitable groups are using attractive women for fundraising because they know those women can get meetings others can't?
40
Imagine a world where you could make your excellent observations without having to punctuate every single one with equivocation, mitigation, or a preemptive apology. I’m thinking how everyone mocks Mike Pence because he said he’d never even have lunch alone with a woman who is not his wife (and Ok he calls her Mother; that too.) and I’m wondering maybe men and women can’t work together. In circular thinking it’s less than a baby step away from the old idea of us gals don’t belong in the workplace. I’m not sorry. Hash tag not me.
10
of you were looking to get money for your charity and had a choice to send some average looking guy or an attractive woman, who would you send?
5
@Buzz A
When you have to repeatedly ask that your thoughts not be misunderstood, it’s time to rethink them.
39
It was never right. But this must have been tolerated, and must have worked often enough for a person in this position to keep on doing it for what must be years.
2
He should have gotten in touch with Robert Kraft, who could have gotten it for him wholesale.
4
What do people expect? That's not a rhetorical question. Do people expect Santa ho-ho-ho? Bad conduct isn't pretty, but how do people envision these interactions should go down? People seem to believe that power should be entirely tactful, entirely benevolent, and entirely accommodating.
I knew a divinity student who believed in God (the Christian one), but not in Heaven or Hell.
It's amazing that people can be so smart and so successful but have no clue to how they hurt other people.
People of color have always had to endure the harmless "joke", and laugh it off to protect the "camaraderie" of the situation.
Mr. Steinhart should just admit that he has offended many people that had no choice but to laugh it off.
Apologize and understand this, and then see what you can do to make amends. You're not a criminal, but you have really hurt people along the way, so do something constructive about it, and lets all move on.
8
It strikes me that this culture is ubiquitous regardless of what industry it is. The reality is this: men who have power want to leverage that for something they want, and they already have money. Not to excuse the behavior at all, but men are hardwired to want more sex. And thus they use their power and wealth to achieve that. One potential solution is to have a flatter society where nobody has such power / wealth.
To some extent, some women seem to sign up for this. Either in sales, or in film, or in philanthropy, they see that they can advance their careers by enduring or participating in this behavior. And lots of women are, in fact, attracted to money / power. There are jobs where you know your job is to sell yourself - or a relationship - hence, why we have sales jobs. I would never sign up for anything that involves such sales.
2
I personally think the man must be a bit demented or on the autistic spectrum. He apparently knows how to make money, which counts for a lot. The rest of him, well...a bit meshuga. The women came to him as beggars. That’s the charity business. Everyday we are all bombarded by charities, begging for our money. The price for his donation was demeaning and insulting these women.that’s the game they’re in.
7
@Mel
I'm pretty sure he's not demented, but having met him, my guess is he is on the spectrum. He said nothing inappropriate to me, but it is not uncommon for some people with autism to over-compensate, sometimes by making jokes that seem funny to them, but are not perceived as funny by those hearing them. No one has claimed he ever acted on anything, or even touched anyone inappropriately. I'd say he has a hard time reading social cues. I have a hard time believing there is any more to the story than that.
1
What crazy times we live in. Any woman decides that a man's conversation is demeaning to her if in fact the nature or the position of their relationship is unequal and the man gets dragged through dirt for it regardless of the truth, his value to art, society, to humanity. Can only encourage further alienation from each other into a humorless, dried out nasty world without any concept of value other than blaming others and gaining by their destruction.
5
@Bonwise I had to read your comment a few times to make sure you were serious. Wow.
12
That’s his personality a bit crude and vulgar but so what. He’s no Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby. Leave this guy alone.
7
This used to be described as creepy behavior, by dirty old men.
Ignorance doesn't make it ok. From what I heard this gentleman was pretty tough with men too, just not about their appearance.
Does this sound similar to Trump?
12
Has "why didn't she say something?" become the new what was she wearing?" Can we please finally start putting responsibility where it belongs? That is, on the on the men who enjoy using their use their wealth and power to humiliate and intimidate women who have often have neither. These men do it because they enjoy it and they can, not because someone failed to explain that it was wrong.
39
Am I the only one who thinks 'Jewish' in the headline is superfluous information? What is that doing there? The NY Times would be unlikely to say an 'African-American' or 'Baptist' philanthropist was accused...
21
@catmorrow The man is a founder of Birthright. His religion/ethnicity is relevant. The NY Times has spent a lot of coverage on R. Kelly and talked about his status in the African American community.
There was JUST a NYTimes column on Sexual harassment in the Southern baptist community.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/opinion/southern-baptists-sexual-abuse.html
No religious/ethnic group is free from harassers, rapists, or dirty old men. Not even Jews.
7
Sounds like the Trump influence.
3
@Chico Mike Steinhart was doing this in the late 1980's, when I knew him and people who worked in his office. Nothing to do with Trump. Mike is a crass and rude man; and, his comments were part of his aggressive personality. It was a way to demean women --- by focusing on their "use" as sexual objects and reminding them, albeit covertly, that their only function was as a sexual object. He was then, and, no doubt, continues to be a boorish crass poorly educated and classless individual who managed to make money. It was his way of bullying others by reducing them to their genitals. And, no one spoke up in the 1980's, to my knowledge, because they wanted their jobs. His office was rife with sexual innuendo, like most of Wall Street.
14
I wonder if anyone in Streinhatdt's inner circle ever explained to him that what he was doing was humiliating and demeaning. Or was he surrounded by yes men and women? Certainly people like Foxman of the ADL should have been able to speak truth to power; or perhaps one of the female recipients of steinhardt's behavior, one without a lot to lose, could have told him where to get off. Based on the information in this article, I don't think the guy is a predator, but more like a clueless boor who is surrounded by enablers and people who want his money for personal and professional reasons. People with a lot of money can wield power in all kinds of ways that are inappropriate, sexual and otherwise.
11
Did you read the article? There are several instances where he was clearly informed his comments were out of line.
3
Nobody is all good and nobody is all bad. This guy is very generous in his life. Billionaire guys give it away in their will, but he lives in the world of risk and made commitments - even though he might have really needed the money. His generosity has made other people behave in an open hearted way.
16
@Joe Mcmullen And yet copious philanthropy cannot be used as a justification for boorish behavior.
43
@Joe Mcmullen
Very true. But neither negates the other--in addition to those he helped are those he harmed and degraded--16 and counting. Both are part of his legacy.
20
@Joe Mcmullen
Well that is an interesting comment. I am sure when Robert Kraft rolled up in his white Bentley at the sex shop in Florida the police and everyone realized all the good he has done in his lifetime and felt bad naming him, Doesn’t matter that he treats these women like dirt,Kraft has done so much good .
So sexually acting like an old pig should be forgiven,
Women should just be so happy that these degenerates come on to them, after all the young ladies belief in her religious causes should make it ok to put up with this disturbed old man because he is rich,
We are a society that has no character just getting over , because we worship at the altar of greed. This story is sadder because the behavior has been in plain sight for decades and nothing was done because he is rich , his family members probably went to elites colleges like Hollywood moms they paid to get over.
Believe it or not there are good people who have a true belief in following the laws of God we just don’t hear about them enough, the dregs suck all the oxygen out of the room.
33
I am less disturbed by the perp’s behavior, though indeed very ugly, than the behavior of his protectors and apologists. Those men were and are pillars of the Jewish community but not because of their wealth. They are pillars because of their good works and moral strength. Oh, I guess we were wrong about them.
Thanks to Hillel International for their stand in support of their employees. And yet when H. I. withdrew their contact why didn’t other groups, now publicly informed, also distance themselves?
22
Did any of the women record Steinhardt?
The technology has been readily available for 20 years, and within the last 10 years it's become vastly better and cheaper.
Carmen Segarra managed to record various New York Federal Reserve officers effectively working for Goldman Sachs in 2011/12.
If Steinhardt had such a reputation why then would anyone (woman) go to a meeting with him sans a voice recorder turned on?
4
@Yaj
Because " catching " him being vulgar or intimidating wasn't their objective. And because, I suspect, their organizations might not support doing this.
3
Our society has become a better place by the exposing of powerful people who ruin people's lives. However, given the past history of this man's large charity, he does not fit into this category.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who have asked for, and benefited from, this man's charity and I am sure most of them will come out to defend him.
He has denied the allegations of propositions, and has apologized for what appeared to some to be distasteful comments.
7
@Charles
Your assessment is probably correct, as we see those most anxious to protect their donor asset rise (awkwardly) to the task of pulling up the drawbridge. The emperor's character, and the situational ethics of his beneficiaries, however, stands rather exposed.
2
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And Mike Steinhardt has long held virtually absolute power in certain nonprofit circles.
The thing about guys like Mike Steinhardt that you need to understand: everything is a trade. He doesn't donate money without getting something in return. Sometimes it forwards something he genuinely cares about. Others it will be an opportunity to be petitioned by a young attractive woman that he can proposition. But make no mistake - you don't go to someone like him asking for something and expect to give nothing in return.
Even if its just your dignity.
17
I run a bare bones non-profit and have studied the research on generosity. It's of great relevance that very rich people are disproportionately less generous than people with far lesser means. Yet because they can give a lot at one time, they are often sought out by non-profits because of the efficiency of an encounter to supplicate for funds.
That focus on single, larger donations bestows greater power to the donor. As non-profits compete with each other for support, the willingness to accept a compromise in values with a quid pro quo agreement happens often.
I take the accounts of these women at face value--I am very sorry for what they experienced. Their accounts provide a credible detailed story that unfortunately supports the corruptibility of the very wealthy. It also speaks to the need for power by some as a way to achieve meaning. Some of these would-be donors have come to believe that their money helps them transcend good and kind behavior, what should be provided by a true philanthropist.
29
@David
First comment I've seen from someone managing a NFP. And good for you!
The large donation mills that you'd expect to align with my views on big issues -- free speech, women's healthcare, animal protection, children's welfare. -- are not getting another penny from me. Nor will my alma maters whose presidents are lavishly paid. None of them needs my money and they are not interested in me. And they're not using my donation to provide actual services or do hard work. Their CEOs, EDs and presidents are as power mad and self-aggrandizing as any big donor.
My money now goes to small organizations that do real work I want to support. They appreciate smaller donors like me, provide volunteer opportunities, I get to know the staff and I am actually working with them towards a tangible result. I don't expected to be treated like a VIP or a name on an email list. I contribute to their mission with money and my own time.
Good luck with your NFP. It sounds like one I'd donate to!
1
Women do this all the time. Any time a woman compliments a man's height/tallness, she's objectifying him and, indirectly, remarking on his genetic potential as a mate. It's also often a sexual invitation. Have you ever read comments on a Coldplay video or something? Girls talk about wanting Chris Martin and being willing to have his babies. If women had money and were philanthropists, this would have toward men.
I've had older women at bars touch my arm, try to detain me, says suggestive things, and excoriate me, when I've rebuffed them. Isn't all that stuff a form of sexual harassment?
6
@Anti-Marx it's about who is in power and how that power is used to belittle and harass those that are beholden to that power for their career, livelihood, and reputation. Do you really not get it? It's not so much about sex/gender, although there are important historical and cultural power imbalances that must also be taken into context in this situation.
8
@Anti-Marx, you are totally clueless and your "genetic potential" inferences are absurd. Pure projection. I doubt we would be hearing the volume of stories from men if more women were in the donor's seat for the same reason men in power start all the wars: an overabundance of testosterone and thinking with the wrong head.
11
@Dano
I don't view power the way you do. I understand how you view power. I've read Judith Butler, Foucault, Marx, Franz Fanon, Chomsky, Spivak, etc.. I'm a Libertarian. Most liberals think I have a genius IQ, but a dubious set of personal ethics. I work on Wall St. I see the world as eat or be eaten.
1
Shame. New revelation everyday on someone that everyone knew about for decades, right?
6
Steinhardt is 78 which means he was born in 1940-41 and came of age in the late 1950s and early 60s. So the problem here is you have a relic from the Frank Sinatra/JFK/Sammy Davis Jr., rat pack era who still sees women as sex objects in the most literal sense. What we call sexual harassment today was called teasing back then. Not that it was "teasing" in the sense of being harmless.
So Steinhardt hasn't changed. What he appeared to not do was to actually force himself on women like Trump, Cosby and Weinstein and others have done. His behavior is unfortunate but I don't think he should be destroyed by this unless he deliberately used sex as punishment against these women. Did he damage their careers? If the sexual innuendos stopped with his untoward pressured remarks I think the story should end there. Steinhardt of course needs to stop doing this.
9
If a development officer was able to secure donations from a prime donor like Steinhardt, it would have helped her get similar “big ticket” donor contacts and with continued success, she would advance in her career. When the Hillel International development officer was believed and kept away from him, how did that affect her career? And who was next assigned to Steinhardt? And did Hillel warn other female development officers about him? Yes, it is about power, and also the ability to do one’s job without fear of inappropriate treatment, and then advancement.
Like most rich men, the unattractive Mr. Steinhardt was looking for love in all the wrong places. There is no shortage of gold diggers in the tristate area who would have done anything -- anything! -- to meet His Needs. What a shame he had to hit on the only Earth Girls who were Not Easy.
9
@IfUAskdAManFromMars
maybe they flirted with him.
2
But he isn't their employer. He's allowed to say anything he likes. I've had women touch my (male) body and say suggestive things. Being forward and lewd isn't illegal. Nothinghe's done is illegal, or even unethical. It's just uncouth. If he looked like Jon Hamm or Adam Levine, these women probably wouldn't e that upset.
Free money is never free. Someone had to earn it. Men strive to get wealthy so that they can behave like this. Why do you think men work 80 hrs a week at jobs they hate?
Assume that ten other people are asking for the same philanthropic donation that you are requesting. Everybody wants a hand-out. If you don't want his comments, don't ask for his money. It's HIS money. He earned it. You didn't. You're just begging him for some.
4
@ Anti-Marx Just so I’m clear. Your position is that because this guy has money he is allowed to treat businesswomen as prostitutes and that if these businesswomen want to conduct business with this man they need to engage in sexual bartering with him? And that in your view there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Because, you know, he has money and they don’t.
8
@Anti-Marx
You are regurgitating incel talking points.
11
@KitKat
If they want his money, yes. If he approaches them at a hotel bar, no.
Imagine that he has drugs and not money. They approach him (at a party) for some free drugs.
You're using the word "businesswoman" as if it elevates the interaction. I see all business/finance as predation of one sort or another. I see most employment as a form of prostitution (even being adjunct faculty).
I assume that people who have amassed great wealth are smarter and more skilled and disciplined that other people. The general view on the NYT seems to be that all wealth comes through corruption and exploitation. In that view, wealth is a mark of Cain. Most of the successful people I know are super duper intelligent and disciplined.
Is it always women who are sent to ask for his donations? If so, then the people who send those female emissaries are picking women for a reason.
3
@Abby
When the media points out pedophilic priests, they’re not accused of being anti-Catholic. This man’s career and philanthropy were Jewish-centered, and the majority of his victims were Jewish. His religion or ethnicity is relevant to the story for that reason. Are Jews above criticism? I think not, and I hope they would agree. We are all fallible. Nowhere in the article did it state that being a Jew caused his behavior, or that it’s a behavior only Jews perpetrate. Those who cry wolf in regards to anti-Semitic actions are hurting their own cause in the long run.
13
The imbecile has wealth, and wielded as a weapon for sexual harassment. The sad part is that he has enablers in this city, particularly in the Jewish community.
11
Wow, if even half of these accusations are true this guy obviously has a long history of repulsive behavior. “King of Israel”, indeed. What a pathetic buffoon. Just goes to show that money and business success have nothing to do with having class.
13
Anti-Semitic much? Would you draw a similar correlation for black politicians given Bobby Scott, Keith Ellison, John Conyers and Justin Fairfax?? My goodness.
3
Clarification: this was meant as a "Reply" to the comment below from "Diogenes"
Why didn't all these charities send in pairs of fundraisers, one of them male, that would have ended it ASAP. If none where on staff, they could have hired a temp, and told him to keep his mouth shut. Easy fix. Get the money and run!
4
@sob, This is a very good point. I believe that it is well known in the charity business, as in the entertainment business, that there is a certain amount of flirtation and sex appeal involved. By the way, some charity fundraisers make very good money for their solicitation work. If you want to keep sex out of the mix, then send in mixed-gender fundraisers. Otherwise, you can keep on flirting for money.
6
Note to self (and my two daughters): make sure to take a man with you wherever you go. Problem solved!
3
@sob, these are not Victorian times and the solution is not to use men to protect women. What you are suggesting would undermine any professional credibility these women have. Short of legal means the best disinfectant and deterrent would seem to be featuring offenders on the front page of the NYT.
11
Actual quote from the original Hillel: "The more wives, the more witchcraft; the more maidservants, the more lewdness." (Instead of "maidservants," some translations give "female slaves.")
3
I'm a gift officer in New York City and have crossed paths with Mr. Steinhardt (as have my colleagues) at the various nonprofits I've worked at. Unfortunately, sexual harassment at the hands of wealthy/powerful men is very common in our field. Mr. Steinhardt is a complete creep (personal experience!), but so are most powerful, male philanthropists. I'm disheartened to see so many people blaming the women for the sexual harassment they experienced. Do you know what would happen if we even gently stood up for ourselves? We'd lose our jobs for offending a major donor, destroy the organization's opportunity to get funding and get branded as a troublesome gift officer within our close-knit sector.
53
Just because a lascivious boor throws money around and gets his name connected to the Met, NYU, Hillel, and the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, it doesn't guarantee an admirable legacy. That is only properly earned and achievable by behaving decently and morally.
It's satisfying to know that this NYTimes article will be Steinhardt's enduring, unshakeable legacy.
18
And the confiscation of stolen artwork, some of which is now being returned.
3
What if one of the women had joked about him as a sexually plug ugly man with too much money and a dirty mouth? Do you think they would have kept their jobs? Of course not. Because he was the boss, the moneyman. Those defending sexual harassment have really bought into the "plutocrats are aristocrats and can do what they want to do." That immunity leads to terrible consequences. Hope this guy has to pay out bigly for his chronic harassing behavior.
25
I wonder if some of this behavior is age-related. Until relatively recently, such behavior was often considered socially acceptable in the circles that Mr. Steinhardt moved in. Fortunately, that has changed somewhat.
4
I am appalled by the number of people defending Steinhardt. Yes he has donated millions to Jewish institutions - but that in no way excuses his despicable behavior toward numerous women.
Abe Foxman is clearly part of the problem too - part of a generation of Jewish communal leaders who simply don’t get that what Steinhardt- and men like him - have done is a really big deal.
I was a young professional at a work event when Steinhardt loudly asked my age and marital status in front of a group of my colleagues. Steinhardt was one of the most prominent businessmen/donors at the event. I felt compelled to answer. Upon learning I was in my early thirties and single, Steinhardt pointed to a young man nearby and told me to go make babies with him. I was mortified. I also felt completely undermined as a professional. How could anyone who heard the exchange take me seriously at work when the most important person in the room saw me only as a sex object and baby maker?
I commend the women in this article for having the courage to stand up to Steinhardt - and his defenders.
55
@Jewish Woman Powerful and beautiful comment. Thank you!
4
@Jewish Woman the problem is these women DIDN'T stand up to Steinhardt, nor are they "brave" for anonymously speaking to a reporter. If someone is belittling you, speak up! Don't wait 5 years until it is fashionable to report and then point the finger.
3
Sheila Katz tweeted: “My nearly four-year struggle to hold prominent philanthropist Michael Steinhardt accountable for his sexual harassment of me & countless other woman finally came to light in the @nytimes.” Sounds like she doggedly sought justice.
1
I am appalled by his behavior and saddened for his victims. But I am also deeply disturbed by the headline. Would the New York Times write a headline describing someone as a Christian philanthropist, or a white male? At a time of growing and frightening antisemitism, what is the purpose of this headline? Was its inflammatory nature considered? His alleged victims were Jewish women, but that's not headlined. And the article makes it clear that he did not limit his donations to Jewish organizations. As a loyal reader of the Times, I am very disappointed.
6
How tragic. Attaching strings to contributions is hypocritical at best and sinful at worst; claiming a scriptural basis for demanding sex for donations is beyond sinful. Ths is NOT a Jewish problem, it is a POWER problem that crosses all religious, ethnic and cultural lines. The only things such actions have in common among those who commit them are money, power, and a totally warped sense of their own right to take anything they want by real or in this case psychological force. I hope all branches of Judaism will unite on stamping out this plague which defames a religion that teaches a life of good works, not evil acts. And good thoughts and prayers for those with the courage to speak out.
10
I am so tired of these stories. Yes, men have behaved badly (for centuries). Yes, it needs to be checked. But these women who stay silent or "laugh it off" and wait till it is socially in vogue to complain to the mass media are reprehensible. Hundreds of powerful men, many of them victims of overzealous NY Times reporters, have been fired and cast out of society based on these anonymous reports filed years later. I was thrilled when the "#metoo" movement began because it was a platform for women to share their experiences and create a better system for improving the workplace, and the world, for both women and men. But now it is a witch hunt. One woman makes an anonymous report, a few more back her up, and presto! Regardless of the severity or impact of the accusations, another man who might have otherwise been doing important and helpful work for society is taken down. These men are relegated to a place of shame and despair that will never match the "discomfort" of their accusers. Please, let's stop this! Pointing fingers in a public forum is not the way to make things right.
6
Having worked in the "development" offices of both a major private university and a Jewish community organization, I can tell you that no one is sent out to a potential fat cat donor without a thorough vetting of the "target's" past donations, personal history, predelictions, hobbies, wealth, political donations ad infinitum. A database of such called "Wealth Engine" is in common use. Files contain intel not only on what the cat's favorite food is, but when it's fed, by whom, and using what dish. The profession of fundraising at the higher levels is more like a hilariously inept and corrupt detective agency.
So it's highly unlikely that Sheila Katz walked into Michael Steinhardt's office without her boss was knowing exactly what lion's den she was being dispatched to. Highly unlikely. She may have been forewarned, also. This does not make his pattern of behaviors any less reprehensible. It's a feature, not a bug of this symbiotic system.
2
How if concerned, wise, Jewish intellectuals come together and promote some kind of reliable analysis of ways to prevent such demeaning, immoral behaviour? Comparative religion, sociology, psychology...may provide some guidelines?!
3
@Hasmukh Parekh How about, "Men, cut it out!". There, I handled that for you.
1
Isn't the story about sexual harassment? Why is his religious affiliation part of the headline?
3
Male Power sexual politics. Powerful women rarely play this card on their subordinates
4
Interesting how Trump uses the same "I was just joking" excuses ... one would think that with all of their money they'd be able to hire someone to write them better material.
13
The article reads
“Institutions in the Jewish world have long known about his behavior, and they have looked the other way,” said Ms. Katz, 35, a vice president at Hillel International.
Not to excuse his behavior. He is a bully
But why did these charities send women to meet with him?
3
@Tembrach..the fundraising field is predominantly women. Perhaps they should decline taking such meetings so they can lose their jobs.
7
@Judy So it seems that non-profits - knowing that a potential donor will likely harass a woman - nonetheless chose to expose their female employees the donor.
Sounds enlightened.
This has absolutely happened to me. When meeting with a donor on behalf of the museum I was working for, the donor repeatedly tried to hug me and made inappropriate comments. The worst part was, the Museum Director was there, saw it all, and not only failed to stop the behavior, but actually pressed me to keep going back! Women are not objects to be traded for donations! Disgusting behavior!
21
Is asking a woman to have sex with you a crime? I don't believe so. It is a request. There was no unauthorized touching or exposure. It was not made to a minor - or a child.
If true, those requests were made to mature, sophisticated, and intelligent women. Can the hearer's fears that his donations might dry up satisfy the elements of coercive conduct? No to that one also.
This is a loser of a lawsuit but the speaker will probably pay some money for the hearers to go away. Money doesn't appear to be anything more to him other than an asset to be used. But free speech works both ways: he can ask and she can just say no.
4
So, is this something men in professional settings regularly say or do with each other?
13
This raises so many questions. Including, why is it that having money makes people feel they are immune from scrutiny and no matter how loathsome can inflict degradation and pain on others? This man is a disgrace and anyone taking his money or defending him are failed entities lacking dignity and integrity.
Shame on Mr Shoshani who will continue to look the other way because Mr. Steinhardt is a Jewish donor. Try believing the women Sir, and see if that makes you right with God. And Mr. Bronfman, shame on you too. What's "outrageous" is that you would defend this pervert who has distressed professional women. Its not humor, its sexual harassment. Your response stains your reputation too. Wake up! Women are not putting up with this anymore. Keep your money and your shameful misogyny to yourself. I am a philanthropic consultant and I would not work for or with, any of you.
7
Mr. Steinhardt's humanity and charitable work became a side story in this article. We should not judge a man by his few missteps. He apologized for unintentionally offending several women with inappropriate remarks. The apology should be accepted and the tenor of the story should have been of a man who with his brilliance, hard work and creativity built a successful career the proceeds of which he has used to benefit not only NYers but people around the world.
4
@Jane Goldman
You have a brilliant career ahead in fundraising! Just keep those blinders tightly fixed.
5
Philanthropy does not 'erase' or excuse the gross objectification of women.....
(Ask Bob Kraft .)
10
The type of guy who wields disproportionate influence on US policy vis a vis Israel through the propaganda birthright program. Call me an anti-semite if you will but I’m talking about the people who are dictating our foreign policy, and this is not a “trope” whatever the heck that is.
6
Why must the US tax payer pay for this?
Commentators here seem incensed by the description Jewish in the headline. The article makes clear though that Steinhardth’s harassment sought to viscerally communicate his ethno-nationalist agenda - very much in line with the mission of these nonprofit organizations. It’s all very much on message.
3
Another sleaze, who scrambles to deflect criminal behavior through money.
15
@Wendell Murray
is it criminal? Has he broken any laws?
@Anti-Marx
Yes. Reality likely much worse than reported here. "Anti-Marx"?
1
@Wendell Murray
What does that mean? He asks women if they want to have a threesome with him.
Anti-Marx. I'm very pro-capitalism. Many NYT commenters try to lecture me on the evils of capitalism and suggest that I try reading some Marx. I've read almost all of Marx. But I don't agree with most of Marx's ideas. I don't believe in the materialist dialectic or the labor theory of value. My username is to head people of at the pass. I've read most of Marx and most of his followers. I'm deeply erudite. I'm a former college professor (literature). I just don't think Marx was correct. If you tell me to read some Marx, I'll tell you I've read it all (or a lot of it). I think some people are rich and some people are poor, but not in the way or for the reasons described by Marx.
Curious as to why the NYT felt the need to include Michael Steinhardt's religion in the headline, on the front page. One does not have to be Jewish to 1. be a philanthropist and 2. be accused of sexual harassment. Not surprised by this but still curious.
7
So the guy is a jerk - if he did not put his hands on the accusers body - arm, shoulder, neck, hip, breast or God forbid 'fannie' - then the fact that he asked all they had to do is: walk out, tell him to 'go to hell', laugh at his chutzpah - ladies there are ways to hit back at the moment you are so offended and not later joining today's so-called moment of truth. Get over it.
1
@Pauline Hartwig
What makes you think they didn't "hit back" - with silence, ignoring or a dirty look? Some of these types of men are just hoping to "get a rise" by their offensive remarks. Maybe he got it, maybe not. Actually, I would guess his remarks, as reported, were repulsive enough that a response of disgust would be hard to stifle. Which is exactly what he may have expected and wanted. (It's called sadism.)That in-the-moment defense or reaction does not preclude blowing the whistle in the future, nor should it. Being a sadistic jerk is a gift that just keeps on giving.
1
What is it with powerful men? They continue to think with the wrong organ. Sad isn't it so preoccupied with it. Put it away fellas.
9
Good lord. Who cares?? They turned down an old, horny fool....and that’s where it ended. This is front page news??? For the life of me, it’s like Trump derangement syndrome has metastasized to everyone and every corner of the media.
Who cares?? Can we get back to serious news, please? I mean this is the NYT. Can we leave this nonsense to HuffPost?
2
@Ari Weitzner, your comment, and similar ones from others, leads me to assume that you have never been subjected to such humiliating, degrading treatment when you are just trying to do your job. If you are fortunate enough to never have experienced it you should not discount the negative impact of this experience. It IS news because of the #metoo culture change that lets men know that this will no longer be tolerated but, at the very least, exposed to the light of day to discourage it. Apparently some men, you included, still need to be enlightened.
10
@Ari Weitzner
Your daughter, wife, sister, girlfriend, employee comes home and reports this. Is it still nonsense?
3
@Quite Contrary, No....it isn't nonsense. But there is a wide gulf between "not nonsense" and front page news worthy of the NYT. The point is, it isn't likely that this article would have seen the light of day had Steinhardt been a leader in Latino, Black or Muslim philanthropy.
1
Just imagine the progressive outrage that would ensue from a NYT headline that gratuitously referred to the accused as a leader in "Muslim Philanthropy" and perhaps the insidious anti-Jewish bias that infects the Left will become clear.
6
I don't see the problem except for his poor behavior being crude. Did he withhold support for these women if they refused him, no. Where is the crime because I don't see it.
There are many people in life that we don't like because of their behavior so we don't associate with them or limit contact. Flavia Gale said "I was disgusted at his uncouth, disrespectful behavior." Again uncouth, disrespectful behavior is not a crime.
I think destroying a person's reputation should be done in a timely manner not years later after they used the person for their gains.
I think those who are now complaining should return to him his largess and benefits he awarded.
He appears to be a very crude man but there are many no matter their social strata.
This is going to far.
6
Refusing to fund Katz’s projects until she ‘comes back with a husband and a baby’ is a problem.
Good grief. It seems like we need to constantly spell things out.
8
@Lissa It hardly seems worth it. These guys are so upset about being expected to behave professionally that they're won the Oppression Olympics.
1
Humpty Dumpty had a big fall.
6
Seems to be a pattern of behavior here...
7
Money has never meant class. Never has and never will.
14
When I went to Cuba the men were harassed and complained about it. Funny how being on the receiving end of sexual harassment changes one's mind.
That being said, all those men rushing to protect a "poor old man" should consider how many times their wives, girlfriends, sisters and mothers have put up with unwanted touching and sexual innuendo.
I tried to count one time, and the number just went up and up and up...
14
@ms: Yes, my sense is that many men are appalled by priest abuse against boys and young men and what happened when Sandusky abused young men, but think women should 'deal with it' because they should expect to be harassed, propositioned, and assaulted.
It's like when a drunk woman is raped and people say, "Well, what did she expect if she got drunk?" No one would say that to a guy who got drunk and then was sodomized. Total double standards.
8
Question to the leaders of organizations of organizations seeking donations from Steinhart: why, given his alleged reputation first known in 2000, did they continue to send women to seek money?
It sounds like some Judaic organizations looking for donations may have deliberately sent women to make the pitch - were any warned what to ecpect
Question to NYT/Pro-Publica: a) since these were not all his donations, how did male requesters fare v female b) were males interviewed and why weren’t results charted on gender of requester/success gaining cash/requests for sex?
Since Steinhart has made contributions to other than Jewish organizations, why weren’t those making requests for the others interviewed (or their experiences reported)?
What percentages of his donations go to Judaic organizations in terms of dollars and numbers?
There are just a number of questions that come to mind that seem to have not been asked - including of anonymous/former employee sourced: was there any underlying medical problem that could have led to the reported socially unacceptable behavior?
Appears that he is well qualified to run for president as a Republican.
15
Of what value is his deep commitment to his religion if he is seemingly devoid of ethics and morality?
11
It is encouraging to all of us in the hinterlands to read about middle and upper middle class white working women fighting back against...outing...prominent rich men who talk dirty to them.
Now, fellow readers, think about what life is like for the lower classes, the unwhite in terms of sexual harassment by their fellow workers and supervisors, who may be only one precarious rung above them on the wealth/position ladder.
They...we...number in the millions, not the dozens.
18
Happens to us poor young white women too. The operative here is poor. Those in power with hx of this behavior abuse those who are not in power/poor, because they know we likely won't speak up because of jobs we cannot afford to lose. This is why sexual harrassment includes verbal comments and images that make a workplace hostile. This behavior is illegal too. People making excuses for this man seem to think its not.
2
I haven't read a single comment excusing Steinhardt's behavior. There's no question that words attributed to him, rightly or wrongly, would upset many, many people. Even Steinhardt can see that.
Beyond apologies, however, what does he owe these people? These are legal questions. Harvey Weinstein matters because he is said to have assaulted people and cost them their economic livelihood, and he did so with impunity for 30 years.
The question is whether a victim of tactless, disrespectful and vulgar remarks can claim to have been injured in the same way as Weinstein's? That sounds like an interesting debate. I think the Times would serve readers better analyzing that issue.
The bottom line is, lots of people deal with nasty, abusive, offensive bosses, some of whom do harm to their careers. Only people in legally protected classes have valid legal claims, and the New York Times isn't going to publish stories about them. We have a system where the legal standards are the only relevant standards when it comes to news. So why not question whether these standards apply here?
6
@James Adler
You are right - and wrong. It's news when a "big wheel" in philanthropy is being outed as a harasser. Such a voluntary donor has free reign to be a jerk, no crime there, but inasmuch as these women's bosses (male or female) sent them (repeatedly, in some cases) into a known hostile workplace situation, they, as ersatz pimps, should perhaps be the ones facing legal scrutiny. It is a gray area- but a major donor, though not in the "employ" of an organization, certainly is pulling management's strings in these situations bigly. And thus, he can and is judged in the court of public opinion, which is the only justice we seem capable of accessing in many of these offenses that are by definition committed in seclusion from the public eye. Anyway, financial wrist slaps and even jail time are probably less aversive than reputation damage for moguls like this. Reputation damage is permanent - and tends to really tick off wives. It may even change the leopard's behavior, if not his spots.
What delusional 78 year old thinks that a woman his daughter's age or younger find's him sexually attractive?
Or is it about power?
If he want's sex with a younger person he can easily afford and should seek a professional. The difference being it's not a tax deduction. And illegal. Fly to Nevada.
End the stigma of sex work and legalize it. Gov. Eliot Spitzer got hung on that kink.
5
@Lawrence
It's always about power. See Harvey Weinstein for proof.
5
@Margo Channing
In Harvey's case, I'd be willing to say he possibly couldn't get a self-respecting sex worker at any price.
1
Bravo, Sharon Otterman and Hannah Dreyfus! Your article effectively puts the nail in the coffin of the #metoo movement and squelches any future possibility of legitimate sexual harassment claims being taken as seriously as they must. There isn’t a shred of evidence cited that Steinhardt ever laid a finger on anyone.
6
@Ilana Laurence
Irrelevant. Sexual harassment includes verbal abuse. Far from being a nail in any coffin, this case illustrates the need for and power of a MeToo type outing - in situations where victims have little recourse within the law and enormous disincentives in careers dominated by uncaring bosses of either sex. The courts can't solve every societal issue. Journalists are not court reporters; they have a most important role to play when our other systems can't touch a problem.
4
According to Wikipedia Mr. Steinhardt was, "Born to a Jewish family,[7] the son of Sol Frank Steinhardt, a compulsive high-stakes gambler, New York's leading jewel fence (according to then-DA Frank Hogan), and convicted felon. His father was close friends with underworld crime bosses Meyer Lansky, Vincent Alo (aka "Jimmy Blue Eyes" Alo), and Albert Anastasia (he was out gambling with Anastasia the night before he was killed). Sol, aka "Red McGee," was later convicted on charges of buying and selling stolen jewelry and sentenced to five to ten years in prison.[8]
This is a great example of men with inherited/stolen wealth. They think they can do anything. Time to tax back all of that wealth NOW.
WE THE PEOPLE must not allow people like this to run/control OUR lives. They are the worst examples of humanity.
9
@njglea
Don't believe everything you read in Wikipedia, but in this case, it serves as a very interesting background check!
Wiki also does a great job of whitewashing the known history of some other philanthropists, by the way - see Joseph Meyerhoff.
The ladies who are now pulling Mr
2
We can personalize the issue around one certified boor or we can look at it as one more manifestation of the corruption of Jewish philanthropy by mega donors:
https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/the-rise-of-the-mega-donor-and-the-privatization-of-organized-jewish-life/
1
Is there a reason to identify him as Jewish? I could possibly make the case that he raises money for Jewish causes, but must of the alleged sex offenders are not identified by their religion. See no reason for this.
3
Clearly this person is Jewish. Writer only mentioned it 3 times in first couple paragraphs.
2
At least he didn't open his bathrobe. Thank God.
5
I am not surprised by this. I was severely harassed by a powerful rabbi and the synagogue retaliated against me when I went to the leadership with my story. No one wanted to hear my story. No one cared about the women in the article. Money and making sure it continued to flow to charities is all that mattered. The fact this is a vile predator made no difference to the philanthropic community. That is the tragedy. That if you are sexually harassed by a powerful member of the community, the community will not police itself, and will rationalize misogyny to keep the system protected and running smoothly.
12
@Mirah Becker
Not to mention re-writing the donors' family history, if the bucks flowing are big enough.
2
Speaking of the criticism of these women and the shock and horror that this jerk is Jewish and the Times dared to mention it,how would the reporter write the story any other way? The man is the major supporter of Jewish charities. The women he vomited out his perverse weirdness on were all Jewish and worked for Jewish non profits he funded. I’m perplexed as to how this is anti Semitic to include all this information. Maybe they should start writing stories on abusive priests and leave out the Catholic part.
12
WHY the emphasis on "Jewish" and "Jewish" - philanthropy? By the way - your email headline to my inbox read as: "TOP STORIES. Michael Steinhardt, a JEWISH philanthropist and New York billionaire, was accused of sexual harassment by several women who sought his support."
Anti-Semitic much, NY Times?
It doesn't matter whether he is Jewish, Muslim, Christian, agnostic or alien - the fact that you would allow this as your article headline is preposterous. Shame on you!
3
@marie
"WHY the emphasis on "Jewish" and "Jewish" - philanthropy?"
Because he is and the charities/foundations he supported to and donated too are all Jewish. Your point is?
7
Why is it necessary to write a headline that states "Michael Steinhardt, a leader in Jewish Philanthropy..."? Pointing a figure a at man who happens to be Jewish is inflammatory and dog whistle!
When you accuse the Trump team of racism when naming Soros, Steyer and Bloomberg as major contributors to so-called "Progressive" Democrats, I find this headline just more than a bit of NYTimes hypocrisy.
4
Verbal sexual harassment is no joke and never will be whether it's in a billionaire's office, the Oval Office, or the classroom. Plenty of harassers follow through with touching and assaults. This guy and others like him simply enjoy the sense of power over others and style themselves some sort of Hefner-esque 'player'. Stupid.
10
I empathize with people who are bullied like this. Victims are damned if they do (hit back and risk defunding) and
damned if they don't (endure and be criticized).
Steinhardt's wealth & position gave him great power. With great power comes great responsibility. He enjoyed making people uncomfortable -- time for him to squirm.
10
So rude, boorish, and offensive comments are now legally actionable? Lookit: You want his filthy lucre? You tolerate his filthy language. Ciao!
2
@Dr. Steve
Here is what some don't get:
Legally actionable is a bonus; many of us are just as satisfied with public outing. The point is not revenge; it's encouraging anti-social behavior detrimental to universally understood human values to stop. In this, I can only wish more power to MeToo. And boo-hoo to filthy-minded snowflakes. Let them fight back in the media if they wish. The court of public opinion is not as easily influenced by their deep pockets as are hired courtroom gunslingers.
Arrivederci!
1
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty????
8
That’s in a court of law. You are confused
10
...read the article, he admitted guilt to the accusations.
8
@CC Coit
How about the two incidences mentioned in this article about a settlement (most likely paid)?
If "nothing happened" what is there to settle over?
6
Never heard of this guy. But he's a billionaire and has only give $127 mil to charity - are we supposed to deify him for that? Probably had more to do with tax relief than philanthropy, otherwise the number would be higher.
Whatever - sounds like a jerk who was a big-shot hedge fund manager. Surprised?
23
@James
You are right. If he took advantage of the hedge fund tax loop hole these tax deductions probably means he paid little or no fed. income tax.
7
Shame on Abe Foxman for defending this man’s actions. If someone was making comments to a Jewish person that made them feel demeaned or unsafe, would he say that person was just being “passionate”?
31
So, is he going to be charged and disgraced like the others? Remember, Mario Batali? He lost all his restaurants and his products are no longer being sold anywhere that I know of.
6
@NYChap
Good.
Keep it in your pants and your hands to yourself.
How is that so many men and boys were absent that day this was taught in kindergarten?
9
@NYChap
Batali bad.
Steinhardt - good
Wonder why. Could anti-Semitism have anything to do with it? Anyone fearing a label put on them?
Hmmmm.
1
Which he willing did, both to save his investment and because he could see the truth was out. He issued no denials.
3
There really are different rules and realities based upon the wealth one possesses (not that this is news).
For me: why on the one hand, would the man do so much good, and on the other hand, behave like such an lech?
How embarrassing for his entire family ... front page of the New York Times!
8
Which raises the question "Why is this front page of the New York Times?" Sure he was a bore and a lech so sue him if his victims perceived real harm. But why is precious press attention being wasted on this issue?
Is there a woman in the world who has not met a man like this? The smiling 'joking' 'teaser' who make outrageous remarks, pretending they are 'just kidding' when confronted? Whether it is a creep in a bar, catcalls on the street or rich and powerful men who can wield immense power over your life, they are all exactly the same. Sexually abusive creeps.
The 'good' a man does in other areas of his life has nothing to do with and does nothing to mitigate this abusive behavior.
53
Exactly. It’s a super-creepy, seriously offensive personality tic everyone is afraid to call out. My husband knew a guy just like this in his grad program at MIT. He regularly made gross sexualized comments about his wife and other women. I wondered if it was some kind of Tourette-like verbal syndrome. But what bothered me the most was how the other grad students (guys) just shrugged it off. Like Steinhardt, he had something going on (very articulate/smart) they valued.
5
@Julie Zuckman’s
Or, he served as a proxy for frustrated male entitlement/fears in the era of resilient, multi-fanged feminism. Or, men really are just clueless, and hormonally challenged, like we've always feared.
2
"It never hurts to ask..." If even one woman accepted his jest, then it might have been worthwhile... I think overtures are made every day by all walks of life. What makes this story interesting is that Steinhardt has a billion-dollar bank account, as if to say his wealth made the overtures "horrifying" because people conclude that he likely felt especially powerful and/or a sense of entitlement. I'm not sure that has anything to do with it--he says he was this was even when he had no money. Men with no money often are just as interested in having sex with someone they're attracted to as men with money--and same goes for women.
Women attracted to dashing men flirt and ogle. it's just that men might do it more often and that men don't usually mind an overture from a women (even in a business context). Men who receive overtures from women don't seem to try to criminalize the behavior even if such overtures make them feel uncomfortable.
There always will be sexual tension when someone is more attracted to the other--especially in a business (versus social) context. Both women and men need to learn a bit of etiquette so that we all can live happily in a society where attractive/sexual people are going to find themselves together as they journey through life. As long as boundaries are respected, nothing ever is forced or threatened, and both sides know when to back off, we all should be able to get along with each other and explore our sexual needs elsewhere.
6
@James Little I hope men who abuse finally learn that no does not mean "try harder."
1
Why did the Times feel the need to identify Michael Steinhardt as “Jewish” in the headline? Would you have used Protestant, Catholic Evangelical, or other religious identifier on another individual? Why not just say “A Leading Philanthropist”? The fact that someone is accused of sexual harassment is terrible in and of itself. Your sticking the label Jewish on Mr. Steinhardt only exacerbates the rising anti-semitism that is occurring in this country. The article is about yet another man accused of asking for sex...this story seems to run across all religions, ages and races.
13
@Renee Brown Holt, he only donates to Jewish causes.
3
Because that is how he self identifies , even referring to himself as article states as “ king of Israel .”
5
@Renee Brown Holt
Um, he is Jewish and supports only Jewish causes. What is so anti semitic about that?
3
There used to be such a thing as a cad. There is no room for such a character in 2019. But more importantly it's time we recognize that these types of behaviors are harmful, and not just to the person who is subject to them. I imagine many women who were subject to Steinhardt's inappropriate comments quit working in the Jewish communal space.
14
Clearly the men posting here think this behavior is ok Sad
21
@Tamy
Not at all true, but your biases are showing.
1
@Tamy
Also sad, most of their mothers raised their little prince to be either a sexual predator or at least a misogynist who believes females are inferior sex slave breeding livestock, which is the core belief of all these man-made "religions".
2
@Tamy
And they probably voted for Bone Spurs too. And I bet some of them may be married you know, to a woman and possibly kids too maybe even girls. Think on that.
3
The reason that he is identified as a Jewish philanthropist in the headline is because that is what he is. He is a very prominent Jewish benefactor to exclusively Jewish causes. It is an accurate description and not anti-Semitic. It is horrifying that his behavior was so widely known and so widely tolerated. It seems to me all it would take is for one woman to be brave enough to yell at him immediately and storm out of the office in a high dudgeon. Of course, you have to be willing to say goodbye to all that lovely money.
22
See Renee Brown Holt’s comment below. His organizations and crime scenes have a Jewish context, but a headline identification is an example of the persistent NYT insensitivity to its Jewish readers. Are we now headline-identifying alleged perpetrators by religion? If so, let’s be consistently inappropriate.
1
Really disturbing, no question.
But New York Times - you have decimated your local NYC coverage. There is virtually no reporting on infrastructure, land use, neighborhood issues etc .
Have never heard of this person and not understanding why limited resources going to this story?
How about a story on the trash that overflows on sidewalks or trash bags that pile up as high-rise development goes up?
NYC's rodent problem?
Why parks in Manhattan get maintained but parks in the boroughs do not?
Landlords forcing out tenants.
Please get back to reporting about NYC issues!
20
@LS Because it's all about the clicks.
1
A “hedge fund manager” is a predatory vulture who steals value from others then turns around and wants to be praised for “giving” that stolen money back.
“Hedge fund managers” produce nothing of value but are richly rewarded for their predation and financial manipulation. Their “philanthropy” is simply a sign that tax rates are too low for billionaires.
Society should not be dependent on the whims of billionaires for critical social needs, like education.
As for Birthright, I am an American Jew and view Birthright as a vanity project for its founders, whose purpose is to generate support from young American Jews for Israel’s right-wing government. Donors like Steinhardt and Adelson revel in their stauts as “Kings of Israel” as they are feted and toasted at events in their honor.
Another billionaire, functioning on ill-gotten gains who thinks he deserves “royal” treatment because of the obscene wealth his financial crimes have generated.
34
In response to the concerned Comment contributors who think a person's religion shouldn't be used in a headline because it could inflame bigotry, I just used the search function on the Home page and typed "Catholic priest abuse". 3,885 titles of articles popped up. As a former catechist and Catholic, I am glad the abuse is being exposed and if people are questioning whether the Times would include a person's religion in a headline other than Michael Steinhardt's the answer is "yes".
14
@Jenny
But there is a difference: Catholic priests are 1) sworn to celibacy by the very nature of their profession, and 2) are (generally) respected and trusted by the nature of their vows. Catholics often entrust their children to them during religious services and religious education.
None of that is true for the subject of this article.
1
Why is it necessary to call put his religion in the headline? We don’t see that for Christian cases.
12
Of course you do, if the person is a “Professional Christian” the way this guy is a “Professional Jew.”
5
@Jon Gary
I completely agree. Including his religion is nothing more than a way to derail the conversation -- it's not about how men treat women in american society, it's suddenly a jewish thing.
To all the commentators saying, he didn't TOUCH anyone, so not a big deal: Words matter. He was knowingly and intentionally humiliating women and getting off on make them feel uncomfortable. He knew what he was doing and exploiting his wealth and status to keep doing it. Quit justifying this as just some clueless old man.
23
How much evidence do you need to prove that billionaires are just more monkeys with hats on?
No single body should be allowed such wealth. They are a danger to society.
10
Was Steinhardt being determined by wealth or the women? All the women featured had agency. He was supposed to be told. Thats how people learn.
1
His name should be taken down in all the prominent places it is. He is disgusting. Such a blatant example of power abuse via quid pro quo. It matters not how old he is. It's clearly he's been a dirty 'old' man for his entire life - full of himself, and thus thinks he's free to say anything he wants. The 'leader' of the free world is much the same. Shame on us for not holding these bad people accountable. #removehisname
13
I was severely sexually harassed by a very powerful politically connected rabbi. I eventually told rabbi no more and that I would not share what he did if he just stopped. He panicked and retaliated against me severely making me sick. I tried to share my story with the leaders but was shut down. I was totally ostracized. The rabbi was worth more than me. A man is worth more than a woman. Everyone turned a blind eye. Just like in the Catholic Church. No different. Jews are just not supposed to say anything negative about a powerful rabbi. This emboldens Jews to act out. They know no one has the courage to stop them.
30
@Mirah Becker
You and your rabbi need real help.
1
How many men defending Steinhardt's behavior have been propositioned for sex during a business meeting?
20
Did Steinhardt withhold money from the charities unless the women had sex with him (or made Jewish babies with someone else- not such a ridiculous request coming from a Jew)? These stories amount to almost nothing as told. And it would only be an abuse of power since the women were Hillel employees. An exchange of sex for money for a personal charity would be something else.
4
I am appalled at the attempt of the times to take down Michael Steinhardt.
Why is it necessary to lambaste a person who has done so much good.
This is old and very stale news and the book has been closed.
This vendetta seems to take on a personal tone which I for one find disturbing.
While Mr. Steinhardt May have used bad judgement so do jay walkers.
Mr.Steinhardt deserves better.
5
@David
You are comparing a sexual predator to a jaywalker. Interesting logic. I pity your wife if you're married.
5
@David. He takes himself down with despicable behavior.
4
@David
Perhaps he does, but he made life very uncomfortable for the women who were simply trying to do their jobs. If you haven't walked a mile in women's shoes, you have no right to criticize them.
5
This is a big nothing burger. Considering he’s literally responsible for an entire generation of secular and assimilated Jews exposure and attachment to Israel, Jews who without birthright might never get the chance to experience Israel otherwise. , I think we as a people can weather an old school brooklyn Jew making jokes about having Jewish kids. We’ve certainly overcome much worse.
6
Feh.
2
@Mat
Guess you've never been pressured to do something sexual just to get your job done.
3
@Mat
Another comment from someone who will never know what this type of abuse feels like.
4
- Oh jeezus, I'm shocked at this travesty in the self-indulgent pious world of philanthropy - (read sarcasm).
ALL donations should be anon.
How about courtesy and respect regardless of faith? Impossible? yup!, if the benefactor is a sexual predator doling out the money. So gross.
2
Keep shedding light in these creeps. But maybe curtail the NYTimes articles until there’s been an investigation and finding.
4
Shame on Abe Foxman and other jewish leaders and Rabbis covering Steinhardt for very very long time.
27
I must join others in shock and dismay at the Times insensitivity to the article headline as it was originally presented. Would one ever see a headline reading "Episcopal Billionaire...." or "Protestant Billionaire...." I doubt it. What is of considerable concern is the fact that the NY Times has written mightily of late about the rise of antisemitism, only to fall into the trap of singling out the man's religion thus for me, overshadowing the intent and importance of the articles content regarding sexual abuse. I hope the Times has learned quickly from this error in judgement and editorial oversight, and will avoid such insensitive headlines in the future.
11
Spare me his faux confusion, reminds me of John Mulaney calling this out in his comedy “like many men we’re only now learning that women don’t like it when you run at them...with hate in your eyes...” Pls he knew...they all knew...
12
I do not care if the man is Jewish or not, the point is this man is a pig. Some people commenting on this story are attempting to excuse him! Those excusing or making light of the harassment are the reason harassment continues and will continue! We must, as a society, shout a collective ENOUGH at these vulgar perverts!
God willing, we are raising young women (& men) who will immediately speak up when harassed. However, we all know that if you speak up and attempt to protect yourself or speak up in defense of another these powerful men can and will derail your career.
Sexual harassment is pure evil.
19
Men with power and money who routinely behave badly need to have articles about them published like this one......often, and it's good to see this on the front page of the NY Times. This kind of behavior almost never happens when the man in question is not either rich or in a power position or both. And, when the man makes big donations, well, they too often think they can do and say anything. I was an attorney who had an office at Steinhardt Partners in the 1990's for a few years. The trading floor was on the other side of the office, but operated like a frat house...with phallic birthday cakes being delivered, etc. Michael fit right in, and every one knew he could be crude and vulgar. I never personally had an issue with him, though he did make some crass comments in my presence. However, I was independent, and laughed it off. But, I know just how difficult and unpleasant it can be to deal with someone like him, having had superiors in the past who were just as bad.
188
@Vicki
Men and boys with no power...over anything or anyone but girls and women...also rape and sexually abuse.
19
@Vicki
I think there are plenty of men with little money and less power who still manage to make inappropriate comments and request of women.
21
@Vicki
You say:
"I never personally had an issue with him, though he did make some crass comments in my presence. However, I was independent, and laughed it off. "
Take a longer view.
You may have felt "independent" if your salary was not based on needing to "laugh it off", but neither you nor anyone else is "independent" of the normalized, institutionalized, systemic misogyny that allows boys/men and those in charge to behave the way you observed, in an unfettered way.
We all live and work in this system. We all experience the consequences of toxic behavior, directly or indirectly over our lifetime. The system self-perpetuates. The fact that sexual harassment has a legal definition and it has been made illegal tells us that this is a widespread systemic workplace problem. .
18
And this is why donations should not be tax deductible. If Mr Steinhart paid taxes on all of his income then programs could be built to support what is needed
This begging and subservience to the wealthy is corrupt. Enough already
21
why is this a story? billionaire donor is crude and boorish? it is not illegal to ask someone to have sex. All the women had to do was say no thanks. Now if he asked them to have sex in exchange for a donation it might be a different conversation. Also, the women are attractive? Why is that? What about the bias that gives preference to attractive people for fundraising jobs?
9
@Emmie C
"It is not illegal to ask someone to have sex": it is also not illegal for the women thus asked to publicize the fact that they were asked, and to say openly that they found it improper, disgusting, ... whatever ; nor is it improper or illegal for a newspaper to write about it, and name the man. And if we don't like what we read in the newspapers we are free to read something else.
Simple enough?
5
Wow...and people should be able to walk up to you in the street and ask you of you want to have sex? All you'd have to say is no!'
What a wonderful world it would be if everyone could say exactly what they wanted to anyone whenever they wanted with the verbally assaulted simply saying...no thanks.
7
@Emmie C
The quid pro quo may not have been overt but it was apparently implied. The women involved were made to feel profoundly uncomfortable while just trying to do their jobs.
5
What are the next steps?
This article, although well-written and accurate, does not address what the vast network connected to Steinhardt should do in the face of these allegations.
Should the groups who received his money no longer accept it? That would be next to impossible for most; they need his money to survive.
Should Jewish young-adults no longer go on birthright? That would be far too severe of a consequence that many would refuse.
Should NYU rename its graduate school? If doing so means losing his donations then it probably cannot afford it.
This article, like many in the MeToo movement, focuses on the harasser instead of the harassed. All of these victims have suffered at the hands of this one man, and now their stories are finally being heard, but are they actually going to receive justice for it? And in this case what would that justice look like? They live and work in a culture dependent on his money. In most cases, punishing Steinhardt for what he did means punishing the victims as well. Can we separate the injustices he caused from the world who still needs him, rectify those injustices, and not harm anyone else in the process? Or do we have to bring down all of the good dependent on this man's money just to fix his behavior?
I I honestly don't know, but I am hoping somebody else does.
3
@David
Forget his money! Men like that should be ostracized.
@David NYU owns half the real estate in the West Village, and has many donors they could afford to drop this man and remove his name. Unless of course you condone his behavior.
1
I'm not surprised. Many, too many Jewish men who have lots of money have difficulty controlling their thoughts and tongues. In 1956 our father left our mother alone with 3 young children. I was barely 8 but worldly. Mom was just 32 or so and very, very beautiful and not so well off. In fact we were penniless. So, the wealthy Jewish men from the synagogue began to make approaches towards her. Some were single and sincere and others were married, pillars of the community and just clods. Among them was a man who owned an oil company (I still recall the names of these people) and another the most outrageous of the rude and crude suitors was the chief Rabbi. Rabbi Perkins (now deceased) would often call on our mother and make offers and comments. I was there. The oil man was less subtle and offered fuel oil for sex. Mom quickly put him on notice that either he deliver the oil and wait for payment or she would immediately call his wife! The oil was delivered at once. No sex!
Mom is 96 now, healthy, and living comfortably. What the unwanted suitors did not know about our mother was that she was one of the first United States Navy WAVES and she knew immediately how to deal with sexual harassment. She was single in the beginning of her enlistment but Dad and she married in their first year in the service. Mom, never intimidated, put many men in their place. When dad returned after 4 years he was told by a close friend "Your wife was a good girl. She didn't cheat on you".
13
I once worked for a national nonprofit that had a fundraising office in LA. Every employee who worked there was a woman, and every one of them was stunningly beautiful. The office was suddenly shut down when it was discovered that they were basically running a high-priced call girl service for wealthy donors.
I worked at another nonprofit where the president and male members of the Board of Trustees frequently had affairs with female employees. The president gave paying jobs to his mistresses. The rest of us had to compensate for their incompetence and frequent absences from the office. We all knew what was going on.
Based on my experience, I would say that use of female employees for sexual purposes is not uncommon in the nonprofit world. In some places, it's systemic.
11
"I fully understand why they were inappropriate." Of course he does, and did at the time. Because the payoff in such aggressive behavior is inherent in the act itself, not the implied intention - the perpetrator gets to relish the discomfort and helplessness of his victim in the moment. Snappy comebacks or ignoring such behavior simply doesn't work. Exiting the room does, but gets one fired or demoted. And fundraising organizations continue to recruit pretty young things to go make the "ask" - sacrificial lambs to just such rich, old, impotent Mr. Megabucks. Unless they grow a thick skin and rise to the top of this "profession" - where they can then command the troops and continue to milk the moneyed. In the Jewish sector or elsewhere, fundraising is not a nice business and its ethics are generally quite perverted.
14
If the guy is an eel, then don't take his money. It's the only way to take away his power and keep your integrity, aside from prosecuting him - and the way he has been careful not to touch anyone, according to the article, would make it difficult to get a guilty verdict. Either way, it's tainted money.
5
@GeorgeAmerica
I think you mean heel, although eel is not too bad.
2
@GeorgeAmerica
Lose your job or take his comments and his money - quite the devil's bargain...
1
Mr. Steinhardt's behavior was clearly disgusting and outrageous. But it did not deserve a front page story in the print edition followed by two full pages with several "supersize" pictures. I may be wrong, but other than the man who started it all, Harvey Weinstein -- whose behavior was both qualitatively and quantitatively worse -- I don't recall this kind of 'attention' being lavished on other #me too players.
6
@Allan
No better to bury it in section C or something. Better still don't report it at all because you know we have to protect him like he's some sort of deity. NOT. Keep up with articles like this please Editors.
And as for your last comment? Laughable at best. You must have been Siberia because all of the other #MeToo players were plastered all over the place including the Times.
4
Very clearly Steinhardt's "humor" was a power play. When the power differential between a benefactor and recipient is so large, the benefactor's "jokes" highlight his power over the charities and the employees. Is his gift still a mitzvah when couched in louche words? I applaud the women for speaking up.
9
If you refuse an interview, and hire a PR flack, it's a pretty good sign that you're hiding something.
8
In the 80s, I was right out of college, I worked in a stock brokerage house. 98% men. The women were touched..even at our desks...on the shoulders etc whatever, it was inappropriate. There were remarks...inappropriate. I went to my manager and I said I will not work for this man if he touches me or talks that way. Could I have lost my job? maybe... I let the guy know I would not put up with it. I personally, do not like to this day to be touched by people I don't know..or shouldn't be touching me. I don't know why so many women were brought up to keep their mouth shut. Were there instances I kept quiet...sure...but I would not have ever put up with anyone touching me or saying very inappropriate things to me.
5
This man's behavior is grotesque and perverse. What really appalls me, though, is that organizations accepted his contributions allowing him to carry on his depravities. I understand it's a lot of money. I do. Lots of money that can do a lot of good. So what? Life would go on without him and maybe he would eventually behave in a way that honors his largesse. But it is critical that no one aid and abet him by accepting his money while he denigrates young women. If you do accept it, you're a collaborator, just as bad as he is. And that's really, really bad.
5
I’ve made my career in fundraising and philanthropy for nonprofits, and much of the workforce in the world of nonprofit fundraising is composed of women. (Although nonprofit leaders are mostly men - but that’s another story.) Last year The Chronicle of Philanthropy ran a series of stories documenting the problem of sexual harassment of fundraising staff by donors with the capacity to make large gifts. Their statistic was that one in four fundraisers had experienced this, and from conversations with colleagues and experiences I’ve had over the years, I’d say that statistic is sadly accurate.
I don’t know if that’s a bigger story than making an example and outing one particular person with an alleged history of that behavior.
And while I would like to say that any donor who thinks s/he can treat my staff that way can keep their money and frankly, shove off, the reality of our organizational situations simply aren’t always that simple. If we don’t keep the dollars coming in, the doors close. Add that to the fact that many fundraising staff feel deeply that the gift they secure can create a positive impact on the world through the organization they serve, and they steel themselves to put up with behavior they otherwise would not, all the while telling themselves that there is nobility in self-sacrifice for a cause. It’s a twisted power dynamic that nobody talks about much in the world of philanthropy, but quite common. Ask any gift officer.
183
@Alice S. Hear, hear! Excellent synopsis, from a fellow fundraiser.
9
@Alice S. Why is it that "much of the workforce in the world of non-profit fund raising is composed of women"?Are they deemed superior in their abilities to get gifts from wealthy men?
@Alice S.
I noted your comment about male leaders in non-profits. When I read this article, absolutely amazed at the bravery of these women who came forward, I wondered how many leaders sent young women into these meetings knowing full well how Mr. Steinhardt enjoyed harassing and humiliating them -- and perhaps making a donation more likely. I have seen this joked about in other philanthropic settings and wonder if this didn't happen deliberately sometimes Cynical I know but I've been around a long time.
19
This is (one) of the reasons why I believe non-profits should not have to depend on private donations. The inequality in power balance created this and other inappropriate behavior. It's not my only reason: Economy down? No or fewer donations this year (by companies as well as individuals. We see these donators as "good" people. They often get a building or street named after them; however, they want something back for their money! (Think Harvard Alumni donors!)
If we were more of a Social Democracy similar to say Norway and the Netherlands (The king of the Netherlands went to a public university and is doing just fine), all that society needs would be taken care of by the government for individuals. Yes, higher taxes for all and less anxiety for individuals worrying about future health care etc. There economies seem to be doing just fine.
Happiness report just came out for last year: The U.S. is low on the happiness scale and yet high on the affluence scale. Yes, we are able to collect the most toys but are not winning.
20
@Mika Van Spanje socialism and central planning will never work for the US. Decisions are best made bottom up, locally, and dynamically. These are anathema to Socialism.
How does one decide which of the thousands upon thousands of NfPs get aid if not from private donors?
We see what this Administration has tried to do with Planned Parenthood, which: provides birth control services to prevent those who don’t want kids from engendering them, medical advice/services for those who want them, well mother/baby services for the pregnant and newborns and termination of unwanted pregnancies - because of the first and last services which some find objectionable.
And no religious organization should receive a cent of taxpayer money - in the US, it’s unconstitutional.
Eliminate private funding for NfPs and you kill them.
Will the affected organizations return Steinhardt’s donations? Surely they do not wish to retain tainted funding.
8
@Lynn in DC
Let's not hold our breath on that one, shall we?
1
How is the money tainted? He didn’t earn it illegally.
Also he has denied the more serious allegations,
4
WHY is this given front page coverage in NY TImes-Its reprehensible behavior, but the people sending young women out to meet with this man should have told them ahead what was coming & they just needed to be prepared.Or send someone else who could "handle it"
In today's world of total disrespect just tell him" please don't speak in this manner "lets talk about this great organization that I am representing etc.
I also think with the rampant anti semitism this should not be a huge immense story.As other have said here many non for profits have had to confront this issue both within & often outside possibly with major donors.
7
@CP santa fe: So, they should send different (tougher?) young women to meet with him rather than calling him out. I prefer to call him out. The women are not the problem; he is. His religion is not the problem; he is.
8
@CP santa fe
This is news because a few women decided to press a suit and go public. And quite a few other credible women confirmed their allegations. The untold story is how and why that came about - and what happens next.
The history of philanthropy isn't pretty, and it's unlikely that this tale will change the modus operandi. But it might make a few ED's and major donors sit up and take notice. And a few young women arm themselves with tape recordings. The landscape may change, but the golden rule still applies. The one about who makes the rules, I mean.
6
Oh boy, I see why CP from Santa Fe is pushing to hide this. It comes to the belief of MESIRAH in members of this insular group and CP. Members of the Tribe shouldn’t air dirty laundry of fellow members since that may result in anti-semitism. Correct CP? So let’s sweep Harvey Weinstein, pedophile rabbis, and others under the rug since our tribe should deal with this internally. The problem CP is that our tribe doesn’t deal with it and these lunatics go unpunished.
3
The paradox of human nature is often baffling. On one hand they may be eager to improve society's quality of life with boundless care and generosity. At the same time they are sexual predators afflicted by sexual addiction a pervasive phenomenon regardless of social standing. However one looks at it is lamentable.
It blows my mind that I am reading so many thumbed-up responses, saying essentially ‘why is this a problem, he didn’t touch her’, ‘women are snowflakes’, ‘they should speak up’, ‘he’s been doing it for years, why are they complaining now’, ‘this is not sexual harassment’ (this last one is especially wrong since Mr Steinhardt’s behaviorist is textbook sexual harassment), and every other reason under the sun to put these women down and minimize his behavior, it demonstrates the rampant, enduring, and just-below-the-surface sexism of a lot of men (and some women).
65
It's not sexual harassment if it is an up-front proposition presented clearly as a condition.
2
@Objectivist: "an up-front proposition presented clearly as a condition" is what makes it sexual harassment.
10
@Anne
Actually, I think that offering money for sex is a different offense - and I don't think the examples given here indicate that particular offense. The legal definition of sexual harassment , however, is considerably broader, and apparently broad enough that charges leveled in this case engendered settlements. Given nondisclosure law, we'll sadly never know the details.
@Objectivist
Perhaps, "Obstructivist" would be a more suitable moniker?
4
In Judaism, the word "tzedakah" is commonly used to refer to the act of charitable giving. Its etymology, however, refers to justice and righteousness.
Clearly, Mr. Steinhardt, while known to be generous in supporting charitable causes, is now going to be far more publicly known for his decided lack of righteousness, even as justice is being served by this publicity.
More than being recognized for his tzedakah, he will henceforth be recognized for his "shanda," the Yiddish word for shame and disgrace.
11
Once again we see this pattern in a rich, powerful man of this age: people were taught in the 20th century that if you had power, and did many good things, you were “entitled” to do some bad ones. We — and I say this ruefully, as a refugee of the 20th century — were taught that you could “get away with it.” That’s the principle under which Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, and to some extent, Louis C.K. operated. For those men over 80, the present has caught up with them and changed the rules: you cannot get away with it anymore.
19
@David Law 'Once again we see this pattern in a rich, powerful man of this age ...were taught that you could “get away with it.” That’s the principle under which Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen...'
Woody Allen?
Actually, the pattern here is a public -- you -- incapable of finding the facts, and thinking for himself. Are you really ignorant of the facts in that case -- that there's no case? Mia Farrow's accusations were unequivocally dismissed by the doctors and case workers involved -- and by one of her sons. But go ahead -- believe Woody up in the attic molesting one of his children. Doesn't that image strike you as slightly preposterous??
This story is more salacious than helpful unless put in a broader context. I am acquainted with many of these organizations and professionals. It does seem like a sort of dig at the Jewish community and its organizations. Very wealthy donors to all kinds of organizations and institutions get away with or excused from completely unacceptable behavior out of fear that they will take their very valuable marbles home and stop playing with you. This includes potty-mouthed old men and cranky rich ladies who behave like Marie Antoinette. (And don’t think that the roles are never reversed — there are plenty of young, male “development professionals” who are made to feel like or deliberately behave like gigolos to lonely women who are major donors.) This is not a uniquely Jewish communal problem. The most important point of the story is buried — the fact that the head of Hillel Int’l fundraising told the major gifts officer she did not have to meet with major donor Mr Steinhardt anymore. A male staffer no doubt, took over that job. This is a perfect example of how sexual harassment impedes the careers of women — the “solution” to the problematic harasser was effectively to punish the victim.
9
These women's livelihoods depended on their interactions with Steinhardt, who implicitly exploited the power and wealth imbalance in a clear attempt to compel them to have sex with him. That looks very much like sexual assault to me. Yes, these women who have now spoken out did not submit to him. How many women, however, have we not heard from? How many of them submitted because they had, for instance, a child to feed at home or a student loan payment to make? Such men are often serial sexual predators. The multiple accusations against Steinhardt make it clear that he is just such a serial offender.
19
If his reputation for unwelcome advances was so well known, why send women to solicit his help? Are women's solicitations more successful than men's, and if so, why?
7
@Ivan Stern
You just answered your own question.
@Ivan Stern: Are you suggesting that women should not be hired to do fundraising, because some male donors are bad actors? How about advising the men who think this kind of behavior is OK in a business setting to put a lid on it and learn how to deal with women respectfully? Sounds like a much better approach to me.
3
@Ivan Stern: I've worked in the nonprofit world for more than 40 years.
Women are more likely to seek and accept these jobs because they don't pay much. Men are in management, or they're in the for-profit sector.
3
One could only guess he took privileges because of his great wealth and notoriety
3
I can attest to the boorish behavior by Michael Steinhart as recently as December 2018. I was seated next to him at a Christmas dinner hosted by a mutual friend. His wife was not present, my husband was at the table. I was appalled by his conversation, his comments to me which were provocative, sexually suggestive and heavily laden with self-serving suggestions that I convert to Judaism, have babies (I am way beyond child-bearing age) and get involved with Jewish philanthropy He presented himself as The leading American Jewish philanthropist. I am not Jewish, am not involved in any of the charities he supports and was disgusted at his uncouth, disrespectful behavior. But I fear and I am enraged for those in a less equal position.
357
@Flavia Gale (FMG)
Sadly, this is exactly the sort of behavior I witnessed during my employment between 1995 and 2013. Telling women that they should always be having babies. . . and he could get the job done if their husbands couldn't.
61
@Flavia Gale (FMG)
Just curious, but did your husband overhear? If yes, did he tell Steinhardt to knock it off? Or was he also, too polite to do so? Many of the comments blame the women for not having a "spine," but I think anyone, male or female would be so flabbergasted by such boorishness that at a dinner one would not make a scene and say anything.
27
@Flavia Gale (FMG): I was not there, but why is it disrespectful for someone to suggest that another person convert to their religion?
6
This man was not powerful. A powerful person has these stories squashed and the accusers run out of town.
We mistake wealth for power when in reality, true power acquires wealth: the rich only hope to purchase influence for a period until their weakness is exposed.
8
No matter how rich or philanthropic there is no possible excuse or justification for the sexually abusive behavior of Mr. Steinhardt. He should be stripped of his public honors. And he should do a full mea culpa and dedicate part of his fortune to a public awareness campaign that sexually vulgar comments are demeaning and cannot be tolerated however generous the “kidder”. He may have been having fun but his victims were not.
14
@Milton Lewis
He was boorish and offensive, not sexually abusive!
1
@Milton Lewis So you believe someone is guilty until proven innocent and women always tell the truth?
1
This man is a pig. He admits speaking to women like this for decades. Only in jest, of course. Typical.
33
@Jane Just wondering are there any men in your opinion that are not "pigs".
@MDM many I am happy to say!
2
I hope to god one day when Im rich and famous no guys from my past speak out and decide to tell the world how many sex jokes I told when I was 24, or that one time when I punched Nick’s crotch cause he made a statement of how big my boobs were.
11
He's not 24. He's been doing this for years
5
@statdoc This creep wasn't 24. He was wealthy and demeaned those who can for his help.
2
This is not the same thing as making jokes with friends in a social setting. Where you the boss making those comments to employees? Would you be happy if your mother was subjected to these kinds of jokes or comments at her job?
4
It is not a crime to ask whether someone would like to have sex. You are purposely trying to destroy or defame men. What's more, many women are willing participants in such mating behaviors.
6
@Eugene When there's money and funding involved in a power position, it's highly unethical and disgusting, especially when it's in support of a religious community.
11
@Eugene Actually, asking for sex in a work environment is very clearly illegal.
From the US Equal Opportunity Commission: “Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.”
23
Are you nuts? An older, powerful man suggesting that he will help you but first....you must have sex with him?! It is sick! You have no clue about how it feels to be a young woman, being talked to like this. It’s a nightmare. Shame on you! Your comment is the reason these perverts get away with harassment!
1
Even if he asked for sex, he never forced anyone to do anything. This is a non-story. Would you write a headline on every man that asked for sex and was refused?
13
@David: so you think it is ok for men to proposition women any time and any place so long as they are only asking for sex? Such behavior in the workplace is against the law. How is this so difficult to understand?
3
@David
So - I presume if I asked your daughter to come to my office for a meeting to discuss business and possibly do an interview - and then made crude remarks asking her to have sex with me - that would be okay with you --
And if your daughter came to you in tears - hurt, confused and fearful for her career - and told you what I had done - you would just brush it aside as a "non-story" - because I didn't actually "force" her to "do anything" -- so what's the problem -- ?
Is that how you would handle it...?
4
With regard to those people who insist the women should have stood up for themselves and their "boundaries" at the time of Steinhardt's unwelcome comments --
" but [the women] said they felt pressured to endure demeaning sexual comments and requests out of fear that complaining could damage their organizations or derail their careers. Witnesses to the behavior said nothing or laughed along, women said." --
The last sentence -- "Witnesses to the behavior said nothing or laughed along, women said." - is the most telling and critical -
I - a white male - have been in similar situations - with a powerful boss who felt entitled to make the most abhorrent comments to people - both women and men - in the presence of other witnesses, who also "said nothing and laughed along" -
And - fearing for my job - I also said nothing - bit as a witness and a recipient of those comments -
Thinking back on it - there have been many times I can kick myself for having not said anything - or at least stood up for myself -
However - If I had done so then - during those very different and pre #metoo times - Not only would I have probably lost my job - but would have been branded as a "trouble maker" - and the word would have gone out throughout my profession - essentially resulting in a blacklisting -
It's really infuriating to read comments - from people who were not present at the time - casting blame on these women for not standing up for themselves at the time --
Let's see you try it...
52
Thank you! Exactly!
5
There is still a lot of misogyny in the Jewish world. We are making progress, but is is slow. There are too many non profits, and those who can afford, don’t always chip in their fair share, thus making the Steinhardts of the world even more powerful. The toxic masculinity reported on in this article is a cancer and must be eradicated.
12
@Me
There is still a lot of misgyny in the world, period. It has nothing to do with being Jewish.
1
I see many other comments questioning the inclusion of Steinhardt's religion in the headline and pointing out that other powerful men accused of harassment have not been so identified in headlines. I assume the Times called him a "Jewish philanthropist" not because of his personal religion (I don't recall any headlines calling Weinstein a "Jewish Producer") but because his philanthropy is centered around Judaism and Jewish causes.
41
Still offensive to single out his religion in the headline, especially in the face of growing anti-semitism.
Garbage, all garbage. This movement is all about getting something for nothing and making yourself a victim. Identity politics is out of control. All of a sudden, groups are being represented by single people?
Everyone gets a trophy and nobody has to dal with any chaos? Snowplow parents make sure their precious little ones are not offended and can have a safe room to escape life? Children can no longer encounter failure or frustration and parents plow away all problems for their precious little ones.
Bring back the times when men were mean and women were glad of it.
William H. Addeo
5
@William H. Addeo Agree the only thing this movement has shown me is that a lot of women really hate men.
@William H. Addeo
Obvious troll # 6 or #7 here in these comments. Hey Times, I though these comments were moderated?
I think this type of denounces need be brought to light, however I do not see the need to highlight the fact that the man is a Jewish. Just like I've never saw the NYT do that for men of other religion unless the religion a mean of living (such as priests). This encourages unnecessary prejudicial views and antisemitic behavior.
It is absolutely awful what he did and he deserves every criticism, but being just is not the main aspect of it.
8
As a gentile it struck me as inappropriate that this guy's religion was mentioned so prominently in this news item. However, after a moment's thought it occurred to me that since the Times is Jewish-owned and located in a city where Jews are so prominent, I think that the message, if unconscious, was that this guy was one of ours and thus doubly shameful.
4
I think it is still completely inappropriate. How many other similar articles mention other religions?
1
'Institutions in the Jewish world have long known about his behavior, and they have looked the other way,” said Ms. Katz, 35, a vice president at Hillel International. “No one was surprised when I shared that this happened.”'
Yes, no one's ever surprised; kind of what you'd expect when Harvey Weinstein invites you up to his hotel suite to discuss your idea for a script. So, as with Weinstein, the question becomes: why now? What's it all about, Alfie?
Too much Catholic Church maligning, Times?
3
If I thought that this article was part of a "Purim spiel," and I had drank enough so that I couldn't distinguish between the "good" save the People of Israel-Mordechai, and the evil, anti-semitic, power hungry Haman, in Xerxes’ (Ahashverosh)Persian Empire,in 474BC, and couldn’t distinguish between informative, helpful reporting, and violating-bordering on Yellow journalism headlines and irrelevant content I would still feel challenged. In our post-Biblical, Secular-Scientific, evidence-informed, everything-is-measurable world,in which consensualization “factualizes” we derive and create understanding by: (1) cause and effect; directly or indirectly,linear or non-linear;(2) associated/correlated with, and (3) IT exists and we don’t know why (YET?). Numerous Identities (self-created and attributed by others) as well as selected behaviors were noted about this wealthy New Yorker. Since he didn’t touch somas, but reportedly violated selected psyches and souls, which HE and his spokespeople deny/distort, in our toxic WE-THEY daily, violating, culture, which the rest of US enable, complacently as well as complicity, by many, should there be articles about each of US as well? Mr. Steinhardt is also a City College graduate. Should that have been noted? He also has a private zoo. Not noted. What is the point(s) both of this article, generally, as well as the choices of the target’s noted selected background characteristics and behaviors? “Do-gooders,” & “bad-doers” can be flawed?
1
How many women said "yes" and desperately took his money, we may never know. His "banter" is his tactic, and it obviously proved successful of he wouldn't have continued using the tactic. Therefore, you can bet there's a whole other story you may never hear.
Oh and this....
“When people say bad things about Jews, our community leaders are on red alert about the dangers of anti-Semitism,” she said. “But when people harass women verbally instead of physically, we are asked to accept that this is the price we have to pay for the philanthropic resources to support our work.”
You can see this at play in the comment section. Steinhardt’s apologists are using the Louis CK defense "he never touched them". Please. The people lining up to defend the billionaire are all biased for one reason or another.
12
It was the responsibility of the officers of these entities to sever ties with Mr. Steinhardt if the investigation they conducted attributed his remarks to have harmed the women. Period. They are the ones who have failed us most. I know. I have donated money to these Jewish causes. I demand more of those in charge.
6
I am an avid reader/subscriber from Bolivia. I admire and applaud your anti-racist stance, which is why I am puzzled that Mr. Steinhardt's "Jewishness" should be a headline issue, and figure so prominently in the article. I agree that harassment must be called out and stopped... but, is there something special in Jewish harassment for this man's religious/racial situation to figure so prominently in the article and be so often repeated? Would you have written the note the same way referring to his Protestantism? Sometimes our own biases are so deep and so often repeated, that we fail to see them. Just keep this in mind, please. And, BTW, I do sympathize with the women... that is not the issue I am writing about!
6
"None of the women interviewed by The Times and ProPublica said Mr. Steinhardt touched them inappropriately". So this is a story because why?
Stop with the "men are such horrible people because they ask women for sex" stories. Actually keep it up. Please keep exposing how thoroughly specious the #metoo movement is. I really enjoy the delegitimization.
Would also love a follow up on the Asia Argento story -you know the one where she screamed sexual harassment from the highest towers, only to statutorily rape someone. But I guess actual crimes are somehow less important than general creepiness.
7
@ Chris Perhaps look up the legal definition of sexual harassment and also maybe talk with some women, any woman, as to why this is a big issue and a story.
8
Asia Argento, who?
1
Mr. Steinhardt's style is way past its "sell by" date. Regardless of privilege, men like this fail to recognize that the era that they lived in is now behind us. It's time to Mr. Steinhardt to change or be a target of what is and actually always has been inappropriate behavior.
19
Michael Steinhardt’s comments Where indeed and outlandish, but they do not remotely undo a lifetime record of generosity and philanthropy.
If you feel demeaned by something or someone, get away from that something or someone, don’t take any money, make yourself scarce. But please do not get all the money and resources that you possibly can in real time, and then go back and use every means possible to discredit defame and sue them.
I am not saying these comments were not inappropriate and disgusting, But I have a hard time being sympathetic to these women who are invoking retroactive principle and high-handedness yet stayed around long enough to get all the money they wanted.
None of these women were in his direct employ, nor did he ever lay a hand on any of them. The fact that they are going after his reputation says much more about them than it does about him.
11
Why should women have to tolerate ANY of that behavior, regardless of “intention”? Are men simply incapable being professionals?
12
@Mascalzone Nobody held a gun to any of these women’s heads. If I found myself in a situation where somebody was trying to intimidate me or be inappropriate with me, I would forgo the money and get out of there. None of these women did that. And nobody ever suggested that they have to put up with it. They made the choice to put up with it because the money was worth it to them.
@WGM
I suppose that in your view Little Red Riding Hood was at fault for not biting the wolf, right?
2
Standing up to the odious billionaire will certainly get you fired. Nothing has really changed despite me too. Not until all the old guys who run the world and think that this is acceptable behavior are gone will there be any fundamental change.
And they are usually careful to select those with no real power or recourse....
8
@Marti Mart: No kidding. Just look at all of the indignant men here, complaining about being forced to change the repulsive and harmful behavior they've gotten away with for centuries. They're used to women changing their behavior to accommodate them. That's one of the cornerstones of patriarchy: catering to men so they don't ever have to feel uncomfortable or question their own behavior.
3
So... the old man is being chased in courts and having his character smashed in the press just because he tries to have an active love life while elderly? No unsolicited phone calls or messages, no unwanted touches, no menacing words nor threatening behavior, no crime, misdemeanor nor felony whatsoever? This is a person being dehumanized just because a number of women were not interested in his proposals. Obviously, considering he's not a Jason Momoa.
All the time this man was just minding his own business. He had never even left his building to seek these women out. They were the ones going for him. And they are the ones that are still chasing him because they think they deserved to have him silently giving away the money without daring to express himself as a person.
Frankly, if I ever decide to go out of my way, with my own free will, to convince old women to make donations (and people in such business tend to resort on personal appeals while being very "don't take no as answer" persuaders), and they hit on me, I say no and they equally say no to my request, I won't make a scandal out of it because it's ridiculous. I won't be all heartbroken because "it was her fault that I lost the big bucks I was definitively going to get" but didn't managed to because the old pervert needed more than my alluring charms and enticing negotiation techniques to hand over.
8
@Morris Goodman “an active love life while elderly”??
You may want to check with his *wife* on how forgivable this all is...
3
@Morris Goodman
Bravo!
Character? This jerk is utterly lacking in character.
When women want to meet with me I will now refuse. If I offer to shake someone’s hand it could be misunderstood for harassment. I doubt I will hire another women in my businesses- it has gone way too far.
9
@David
Good for you - and "amen"!
3
@David, why bother behaving properly as millions of men and women do each day in the workplace without any harm to their reputations? It makes much more sense to make this example some sort of watershed moment and to now see men as the victims and to lump all women together as untrustworthy (and unworthy of employment). Right?
3
You lost me. Shaking someone’s hand is the same as a stream of abusive sexual comments?
4
Eccentric? Yes. Inappropriate? Mr. Steinhardt has admitted that. Scary? No. Threatening jobs or advancement? No. To tear down a man who has lived a life of generosity and love and care for his family and community over some inappropriate comments? Shameful. It doesn’t sound like anyone could have possibly taken him seriously and no one makes any claim that he actually tried to make any of the outlandish comments a reality. The “me too” movement has been so important. Let’s not diminish it with stories like this which is more about political correctness than sexual harassment or offenses.
19
Surely the organizations having benefitted from Mr. Steinhardt‘s donations will now promptly repay the amounts they received from him in order to have nothing to do with this undesirable character?
5
So it was known to the charities soliciting Steinhardt for donations that he’d make these sorts of sexual comments/propositions, and still the charities kept sending women.
Interesting.
10
This has gotten so out of hand. Intention matters, people. This man's intentions do not seem to have been nefarious or serious. Of course his comments were not appropriate, but it was indeed a different time, and yes that matters too.
I had men make comments when I was a young woman working in nonprofits too, but there was a clear distinction between the ones who were serious 'creeps' and prone to real harassment vs. those who uttered what they thought were jokes or compliments. Years ago, I had a wealthy donor put me in a very unpleasant position when he quietly offered a large donation in return for my becoming his mistress. I got up from the table and walked away after letting him know what I thought of him. I still loathe the man when I think back to him. It was aggressive, demeaning, awkward, and also a waste of my professional time. But even in his case I do not see a need to publicly vilify him and come out as a victim.
And Steinhardt's situation seems so obviously different—much less serious.
I really wish women would act like grownups here and learn that intention and context matter.
14
Get his name off of NYU. Donations should be made without putting a persons name on a building. Education and ego do not mix well. He may have made his money in a different manner then what has been described in the past. If all of these women are telling the truth his name needs to come off of any association with NYU. Buffet makes donations and does not have his name all over the place.
4
Perhaps the most important part of this story is the number of people who knew but fear losing Steinhardt’s money. Tragically when it doesn’t end with verbal sexual harassment but the abuser, who is prominent and powerful, actually sexually abuses physically it is unlikely that a similar article will appear. It is much more difficult for someone who was raped to come forward and allow a reporter to mention her or his name. Without any names no newspaper will print the story.
1
Many respondents seem to blame the victims for not speaking out. Hold on: what was said to each of these women was inappropriate, for starters. Let's start with: why is it their responsibility to educate him. How about the other people in the room who heard these comments? These women were threatened. They were in a business meeting and Steinhardt made these incredibly inappropriate comments, which any woman would understand to be a come-on, which given his power can also be an indicator of violence to come. Their lights were blinking red, not only with "how do I get out of here" but with "what physical harm is going to happen to me." And I've known Nat Goldfein since we were kids and believe every word of what she said. A savvy, smart, tough woman, yet she was intimidated. Some men just love to intimidate. Shame on you, Abe Foxman for making excuses!
320
@Anon: If one person asks another for sex in such a setting, how likely is it that they are going to commit violence against the other, knowing that there are people who can testify about what led up to it? By approaching the other in this way, is the person not signaling that no violence is going to come of it, and that the other is free either to accept or to reject the offer?
2
@Mark
But Mark, let's get back to the beginning. They were in a business meeting. When was the last business/professional meeting you were in when someone asked you for sex? I bet "never" is the answer. And these were not all requests for sex, nor were they all conducted with other people in the room. It appears that a lot of this were comments about the woman's physical appearance, her fertility, her availability. None of this is appropriate.
I am having a hard time understanding why many men do not see this as degrading and threatening. It is never appropriate, in a business or social setting, to make comments like these to another person.
46
@Anon: I have never been at a professional conference where somebody asked me for sex, but I bet it happened a lot. Whether the events that led up to such things were "degrading" or "inappropriate," I do not know, but I think it may have varied. But what is "degrading" or "inappropriate" is not necessarily "threatening," and that was the point of my reply to your suggestion that we should make that inference.
It’s about time. I was subject to his behavior- I was in a room with four other much older men (including him) and he started talking about sex acts, etc. he called one of his employees in and asked if I would have sex with him. The worst part- the other men in the room sat there and watched this all happen and said nothing. One eventually did and suggested I leave the meeting. I have never felt more embarrassed or humiliated.
109
@ Anonymous. So many of the commentors approach this problem by excusing Mr. Steinhardt's behavior because he is older, thus, less attuned to more modern mores. Boorishness and old ways of doing things is no excuse. No matter when these events occurred there was always a power dynamic at work. No excuses.
22
I presume that the commenters complaining that the victims should have spoken up sooner were never twenty-somethings propositioned (or worse) by a client, superior, or powerful person who could make or break their careers. Most women in those situations demur or escape but don't tell anyone, particularly at work, since to inform a supervisor, HR, or the police would be to risk economic and personal ruin. It's as simple as that. And to those of you who claim that Steinhardt did not know it was wrong to issue a sexual proposition to a young woman who was petitioning for charitable donations, I merely recommend that you review the definition of "quid pro quo".
57
You have a dumpy old guy who was probably dumpy and un-athletic when he was young. Perhaps a bit of a jerk then and now. The girls were likely not too impressed.
Now he's got money and wants to make up for it in the pretty young woman department. Not too surprising.
5
Let's not forget that he was in a position of power over the women.
3
When Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was prosecuted, the lead prosecutor on the case did something a lot of members of persecuted minorities are forever thankful for.
Noting Madoff, who appeared an Orthodox Jew (one really cannot be when violating the commandment against theft), used religion to ‘prove’ his ‘honesty’ made coreligionists his victims, the prosecutor said ‘I’m Greek-Orthodox, where do you think I’d go first to find my victims?’
With the huge increase in the repetition of the trope that: Jews are all wealthy, got their money by dishonesty or trickery or usury, control banks and the world, even NYT lede writing has been perverted.
How about:
Women who sought aid for major Jewish charities say an aged donor repeatedly asked them to have sex with him during their meetings.
Their refusal ( did/didn’t) affect the outcome of meetings with philanthropist name, age, himself Jewish and a long-time contributor to religious (and other???) organizations.
He limited his abuse to upsetting verbal requests, said n women interviewed by the Times.
A wealthy donor for (decades?) they say this behavior (started only recently/a decade ago/ has been going on all his life).
The women said they (felt threatened/didn’t feel threatened) their requests would be turned down if they took a hard line rejecting his advances.
(And they seemed to be coming from a sane/aged/distorted whatevered ...)
1
This is no trope, it’s fact.
The New York Times should be ashamed of itself. The “paper of record” is equating Michael Steinhardt’s comments with the criminally injurious acts of real #metoo predators. As reported, Steinhardt did not touch anyone; he did not attempt to touch anyone. He did nothing criminal or illegal and yet he’ll be facing the same societal punishment as men who did horrible, reprehensible, criminal things. Shame on these two reporters and their editors for ignoring context and nuance. They downplayed the incredible generosity and philanthropy Steinhardt has directed toward women in particular. I wonder what standard these reporters and editors hold themselves to? One must be wholly perfect, it seems, to avoid this kind of treatment. Who among us hasn’t made unfair comments? Who among hasn’t treated someone poorly? Who among us is so perfect that we feel entitled to cast out men like this? I hope these reporters go to bed tonight asking forgiveness for the transgressions they’ve made in their own lives because no one will ever live up the impossible, unrealistic standard of perfection the Times portends to hold itself to.
21
@Sarah G.
No, Steinhardt is the only one who ought to be ashamed.
2
@MaryTheresa so, let me just get the straight... you’ve never spoken poorly to or about anyone in your life? You’ve never done something that emotionally hurt someone else? You’re that perfect person who can go to sleep every night knowing that you gave a significant portion of your net worth to charity, that you spoke kindly to everyone you met that day, that you live nobly every moment? I’ll tell you this: none of us can say that. Not a single one of us. THIS is the problem with the metoo movement: there are no shades of grey, no nuance, no scale to mete out punishment. Did you know that Steinhardt established empowerment programs for Bedouin women? Did you know that his charity has allowed hundreds of women to go to school and advance themselves? Should his whole legacy - all his goodness - be erased by the inappropriate comments he has made over the years? I’d like an answer to that question, please. Does this warrant tearing down the immeasurable (truly immeasurable) good he has done? No one is excusing his comments (and that’s literally all they were - comments, words) - but the punishment here DOES NOT fit the crime.
3
I am glad to see that the NY Times editor has changed the headline after receiving my comment. The original headline
this morning was: "Michael Steinhardt, a leading Jewish philanthropist, is accused of a pattern of sexual harassment"
2
Thank you, truly. We need to speak up. Unfortunately the new headline isn’t much better. The fact that the word Jewish appears at all is completely inappropriate. We see stories like this all the time, never do we see the word “white philanthropist” or “gentile philanthropist” or anything specifying race or ethnicity. Only us.
Jews have been historically targeted this way and it’s a tacit dog whistle to everyone who reads it: “hey, this targeting of Jews is acceptable. Don’t worry, your tropes about Jews and money are so safe that members of congress can feel far more comfortable with their own versions of perpetuating these stereotypes. Relax, the world. Your favorite scapegoat remains an excellent and acceptable option”.
9
I met him socially a number of times years back. I was used to his larger than life, Jewish continuity, persona. A truly admirable person. He believes Jewish continuity is threatened by women delaying childbearing. His answer was to prod them into considering marriage with incentives and sexual innuendo. Short of a communal, peer-led intervention, I don't see how he could have revised his discourse towards those young women before it was too late. Having said that, he psychologically preyed on young women that were not daughters of his peers, i.e. middle class. And Jewish. Because that was the locus where his highest relative power resided. Hence that word does belong in that headline.
Doesn't appear to me to be legally actionable, but I'm no lawyer, and everyone is entitled to their day in court. However, without question his behavior was socially unacceptable. I do wish we had more understanding that approbation from polite society can serve a very useful function at putting the brakes on behaviors that are legal but which most people in a particular culture find objectionable. In this case it seems several charitable organizations disengaged from seeking funds for the philanthropist because they found his behavior inappropriate, for example. As Americans I can't help but wonder whether we would be much better off with a more old fashioned "polite society" exercising social castigation to obtain its (hopefully more fairly chosen) desired goals, rather than attempting to legislate every behavior.
6
This man makes my skin crawl.
12
I found this type of behavior all too common during the 10+ years I worked in a regional office of the largest national Jewish human rights organization. From both the director, board members and donors, the remarks were sexual, suggestive and demeaning to female support staff. Long before the Me Too movement, female employees, myself included, did not speak up, but instead, to keep their jobs secure, remained silent or "went along with the jokes". Shame on us!
5
Some people seem to think these are innocent comments made by Mr. Steinhardt and others.
Innocent comments are talking about the weather. Innocent comments are talking about baseball, or television, or politics, or minerals, or current events, or cooking, etc.
There's an entire huge world out there that can be discussed, but these guys decide to choose to bring up sexual matters with these women.
Anyone with a pulse who hasn't been living under a rock for the last 30 years knows these types of comments are inappropriate.
So please stifle your blathering about "innocent" comments; no reasonable person is buying it.
48
@B.
They are indeed, innocent.
No one was harmed - other than their all important (to them) "dignity" was impugned.
Yeccch.
4
Let me reflect here for a moment. A man makes crude or suggestive comments but touches no one. The women who recieve the comments take the money he offers and carry on with their lives. Did they lie awake at night with shame , did the suffer years of fear becuase what they went through? Did they consider that maybe they didnt like this man and therefore refuse his gifts with no strings attached? No to all of the above. Sorry this is no news except to the extent that is exposes an ugly truth about life. People think about sex ,make sexual jokes , seek sex , act crudely, and many people will take money from someone they consider rude or gross. Who is worse: The old man who makes sexual.comments or the women who take his money and then complain that he was rude while he wrote the check? #thisisgettingold
16
@roger 'The women' were NOT 'taking the money'. They were not getting 'gifts' with or without 'strings attached'. Making excuses for boorish behaviour? #thisisgettingold
12
@roger
Your reflection is totally off base. These women were not seeking personal gifts from him. They were seeking funds for their organizations, or they were employed in positions funded by him. In other words, they were just trying to do their jobs! And they were being sexually harassed for it.
15
@Nancy
You miss the point - I told my kids - If you do not like someone or do not approve of the way they act , do not associate with them and do not ask or accept anything from them . "Seeking funds " and "donating money " for good cause is not an excuse for immorally behavior on either side of the transaction. It appears the donor here is a pig and those who accepted his philanthropic largess were willing to get into the sty with him . The morally correct response to objectionable behavior is to condemn it and walk away Is it OK to go to the strip club to pick up donations ?
Whether Mr. Steinhardt ever proposed sex in earnest finally doesn't matter. Even in jest, the proposition can have the same effect: forcing someone to be on the receiving end of an exercise of personal power.
The excuse that the statements were part of a "schtick" vanished as soon as the first woman complained to a third party. And Steinhardt had to pay for his schtick––and therefore acknowledge someone's claim to be harmed––when he settled a lawsuit.
Given the pattern of facts here, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he continued his behavior knowing full well that at least some women were going to feel humiliated. The desire to inflict that humiliation was the reason he continued to do it––how could it be otherwise?
14
@Nancy B
He's simply a jerk?
Why does it matter that he is Jewish?
5
Michael was never serious. I have known him for years and he is one of the warmest people on the planet. He does happen to be obsessed with procreation, but that includes the entire animal kingdom as well as many non-Jews in his circle. He thinks that we should all make babies and his thoughts came out with inappropriate words.
10
Obsession with procreation does not belong in professional relationships, no matter how it’s worded.
11
@Adam R. Rose For nearly 30 years? If he had said that stuff to my wife he'd be looking at a knuckle sandwich.
3
If you dismiss his behavior as normal then you are part of the problem. Many of the comments on here are abhorrent. Get out of the way old people, why should anyone put up with the behavior? Just because you have no self worth, others should not too?
5
@SM
Your hateful, lunatic biases are showing: get out of the way old people"?
You are idiotic and dangerous.
This is not news. This is behavior we women have had to put up with for decades. Finally men are being called out for their crass behavior. No longer is the excuse ‘boys will be boys’ tolerated. Men who do this are ill-mannered. Some have evil intent. Some are vile. Some are scary. Some are actually clueless. But all of this is unacceptable.
44
@Janice Badger Nelson - Agree, but I think you meant to write "for millennia".
Provocative comments, he said, “were part of my schtick since before I had a penny to my name, and I unequivocally meant them in jest.” This guy should team up with Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.
3
Why would you put a “Jewish Philanthropist” in the headline? Not only does that stoke stigmatic, surface level anti-semitism that your own newspaper reported being in the rise, but it’s misleading for the purpose of the article. Yes, he IS Jewish, but that’s not the point (or I would hope not). He is a billionaire who has chosen to bankroll philanthropies, many of which support Jewish causes. That’s not what your headline says. I mean, honestly, in the process of vetting this push notification, there wasn’t a consideration for the consequential provocation of unnecessarily saying “A Billionaire Jewish Philanthropist”, the same way I would hope there would be in attributing any cultural / religious identities? The significance is not that he is Jewish, it’s about his despicable behavior, the women who were affected and the impact on the Jewish philanthropic community.
And because it jumps out like the title, following up in just the 4th paragraph saying, “is among an elite cadre of donors who bankroll some of the country’s most prestigious Jewish nonprofits”, is continuing the insensitivity around anti-Semitic rhetoric.
18
Agree with you on the headline. The phrasing in the text of the article is reasonable to me.
1
Michael Steinhardt's behaviour is and has been beyond the Pale. That his name is graven on an NYU graduate school, a Brooklyn Botanic Garden conservatory, a gallery at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, a school in Tel Aviv is also beyond the Pale. Notwithstanding his status and wealth and donations to institutions that bear his name, Mr. Steinhardt hasn't yet stopped preying on women in his Jewish philanthropic endeavors, asking them for the quid pro quo of sex for big ticket donations, remarking on their womanly attributes, suggesting a menage-a-trois. The guy is 78. We know about guys wanting quid pro quos in their 70s. Steinhardt, a product of the 1940s, has been belittling Jewish women he has met through his philanthropies since the Year Dot. Mr. Steinhardt, a brash and crude man, is The Abominable Philanthropist par excellence.
4
I think it makes a difference if the woman was an employee or "relying on ... support" that could be affected if she turned him down. But if A wishes to interview B or asks B for money, and B asks A for sex, can't A just walk away, just as B doesn't have to grant the interview or give any money?
We may not think too much of somebody who responds to a request for a donation with a request for sex, but there is a difference between that and sexual harassment.
The default assumption is that people are autonomous moral agents who are free to ask for what they want and to turn down what they don't want to give. That is not the case with employees, graduate students, etc. I would agree that there is a power difference when A is looking for substantial financial support from B for a cause that is important to her. But still, B does not owe A anything in that situation, or at least nothing like he would in the case of the employee or student.
2
If I have ever sought the help of someone during my lifetime only later to find out that they, for whatever reason, weren't good people or were only willing to give it in exchange for something I was unwilling to offer, I would simply have CEASED to ask for further help from them. I'm sorry but we're dealing with all sorts of people in this world, some being good and others not so good but I can't say I see any CRIMINAL conduct in the alleged unseemly behavior of Mr. Steinhardt. IF proven true, at worst we're dealing with someone unworthy of the adulation that he's been afforded all these years and another example of someone who's accumulated wealth and power who is clearly unworthy of either but I don't see anything more to this story than that, sorry.
5
A powerful, rich old man abused his position with subordinates. It’s an old story, one which I hope we’re moving away from.
10
I had never heard of this philanthropist. It is unclear whether Mr. Michael H. Steinhardt refused to generously donate to the accusers's organization for whatever reason. The statement that Mr. Steinhardt released if based on reality seems that he was benign but in retrospect his humor was foul. I hope he has been generous to other humanitarian causes that benefit other truly worthy causes irrespective of religion of such organizations. I can only conclude that on the scale of 1 to 10, 10 being Weinsten, I think he is a 1 with his apology, I would give him a pass and try to find out the good that he did overall.
6
When I was in my 20's fifty years ago, I used to ask similar questions of girls I knew. I used to get a "yes" response about 75% of the time. I had no money to offer. I didn't get reported to the dean of my college or reported to the police by the other 25%.
If I was in my 20's today, I guess I'd have to carry a tape recorder with me, and have that 75% sign a "pre-sex" agreement that the act that they were about to engage in was consensual.
What lunacy!
7
@george eliot You had a 75% yes, response, huh? Somehow I doubt that.
3
Mr. Steinhardt’s comments were wrong and left the women subjected to them feeling degraded and vulnerable. No one should be spoken to that way.
It’s clear that women have been coping with such comments, with varying degrees of success, since time immemorial. Most of us have been taught to laugh/shrug such remarks off.
This needs to be changed.
Mr. Steinhardt’s comments were unacceptable. Thankfully, he appears not to have acted on them.
But while this in no way excuses his remarks, I applaud his generosity to Jewish causes.
7
It would appear that the chickens, aptly, have come home to roost. This article speaks as well to the disparity of wealth in this country, and probably throughout the world, from which “power” is derived. I’m a baby boomer and from my perspective I’m not sure how much longer our social experiment begun in 1789 can survive. Between the bizarre blathering of the man elected president in this country and the entitlement felt by the extreme wealthy. (Exacerbated certainly by the recent tax cuts) I have to say the current state of affairs is quite depressing and I’m street-smart enough to realize that even if trump should be a goner in 2021, the damage to the morale and institutions of this country will take a generation or more to recover from. I can only hope that the optimism and shared pride in our republic that I knew as a young man, albeit taken for granted, will be seen again in my lifetime. How will history view this first twenty years of the 21sr century? You know what? I actually think that defeating trump allowing us to begin healing is nowhere a given.
5
Probably the most charitable way to deal with this mess is to test a certain hypothesis: Would he have made these advances with attractive women whom he didn't support or who didn't rely on him? There are certain habits of mind that people accumulate over time that may not have anything to do with exploitation and malevolence.
3
People in power have always felt they could say absolutely anything because of their extreme power or money
You know who is much worse? A person who uses his power to hurt the country.....say like the time Mitch McConnell vowed to make Barack Obama a one term president and then obstructed everything he tried to do for 8 years while the country was teetering on the edge of depression.
9
Amazing how much bad behavior is tolerated by people in exchange for money.
7
This is why we need graded levels of offense. Is the fact that he "didn't meant" these comments justification for inaction? This many not be as serious as actually being assaulted, but it clearly created a hostile and humiliating environment for these young women. I hope with #metoo, women - or any individual harassed for reason of gender, race, religion, etc. - will begin to feel they can confront these situations as they happen.
141
@Paula
As soon as the institutions, businesses and bosses women report to (male or female) are willing to defend their employees instead of shooting the messengers, women will feel they can confront these situations. It's not a matter of lacking bravery, or not feeling damaged - it's a matter of economic self-preservation that silences victims. And that is why accusations are currently being lobbied from a safer remove.
11
Extremely interesting that you identify this man by his religion, "Jewish philanthropist." I don't recall any of the numerous other men accused of such behavior being identified by religion
41
@reader, perhaps it was because such a big part of his life, "Jewish philanthropist" described his role/job. Plus it was in that role that all his reported abuse took place, as he noted what he wanted/expected of Jewish women.
13
I wonder why the headline mentions his faith. How is that relevant to the accusations?
20
@Barbara, perhaps it was because such a big part of his life, "Jewish philanthropist" described his role/job. Plus it was in that role that all his reported abuse took place, as he noted what he wanted/expected of Jewish women.
9
@joan
The point is that it wouldn't be mentioned in the headline if he were Baptist or Methodist or whatever.
2
Many of the Reader's Picks commentators here don't seem to understand what sexual harassment is anymore than Steinhart ever did. Obviously this problem is widespread, even though only the rich and famous make it into the news.
14
What else would you expect? These are Old Testament (Tanakh) attitudes. The Old Testament is full of concubines, polygyny, women as property, compulsory fertility, and prostitution.
Oh yeah, I think it also warns that mankind is sinful.
Oh yeah, I think it also warns that mankind is weak.
It is pretty disgusting that no one comes after these folks (as with Cosby and Weinstein) until they are old and weak. I realize the perils, but stopping the abuse means stopping it back before the abusers need to pop Viagra to make good on their threats.
Legalized prostitution might enable these guys to separate money-for-sex from money-for-charity, and increase the number of consensual exchanges (versus all of this pressure for non-consensual submission to sex).
7
This is an important topic and I am happy the NYT is paying attention to it. Why, however, has news reporting come to the point that the fact that this man is Jewish should be part of the header of this article? In the article itself it would probably become clear that the man is Jewish, but even that could be implicit rather than explicit. It’s really worrying though that a person’s religion can be the most important way of spreading news.
17
I have a real problem with the headline identifying the person in the story as a "Jewish philanthropist." Race, religion, age and other personal characteristics should not be what a story is about. He is a philanthropist accused of misbehavior. That's all.
20
@Ann I don't understand these comments. Did you read the article? He was a philanthropist who focused on Jewish causes. His victims were Jewish. Even his inappropriate behavior was delivered in a Jewish context. As a Jew, I think his Judaism is absolutely relevant.
2
I wish we could talk about the behavior of men with money and power who attempt to take advantage of women, which is a universal ill, rather than make it "a Jewish thing." This article can't seem to beat us over the head enough about Steinhardt's Jewish identity. Trump identifies as a Christian, does that excuse his womanizing behavior, which many could argue is more demeaning than Steinhardt's?
8
@Anand Anandalingam Welcome to the current times of building mountains out of molehills. Words have become like bullets, like it or not. From now on it is best to assume that if you do not keep your mouth shut whatever you say or express will be held against you in the court of public opinion. Also no matter how much good you may ave done there could be something miniscule that you may have done wrong that is politically incorrect will be what you are judged by and for which you reputation is toast and the consequences are severe. Having said that, I am in no way defending Harvey Weinstein or Matt Lauer or Al Franken or the CBC president or any convicted rapist or criminal. In a way these are the best of times during which sexual abusers and harassers are brought to justice in the Trump era but if there are good philanthropists who are falsely accused or the accusations are exaggerrated then these are the worst of times for otherwise good people.
4
Anyone remember Larry David's observations on SNL ?
1
#MeToo is now a run away train gone off the rails. That movement’s credibility is shot and it can be argued it’s only taken women’s rights backwards. Men are now scared to have professional and intimate (NOT SEXUALLY intimate) connections with women at work. These are the professional social connections that have helped men advance in their careers. Uber drivers don’t even want to have a meaningless conversation with female passengers about the weather for fear something may get misconstrued. Women now walk around isolated from men.
And men can’t even be men anymore. These are weird times.
6
@Covfefe References to specifics in article? None. Data/evidence for broad sweeping statements? None. Trolling? Most definitely.
N.B. This is not an apologia for the man, nor an indictment of the women involved, BUT:
Once again it's a "he said, she said" situation. The ancient Romans considered this type of scenario as "hearsay" in their legal system, and not worthy of legal action. That's still valid.
I do find it interesting in this case, however, that the several accusers specifically deny touching, physical abuse, or sexual activity. It appears that they just didn't condone or approve what he might have said, and were uncomfortable.
These folks, in point of fact, are "merely" accusing him of regularly being a bullying figure, and saying crass, puerile, and imbecilic things.
Such might make him a bullying sort of man, and a chronically stupid and offensive rich boor. But his words do not make him a criminal, or even a bad person. Just a jerk.
The big difference this time, of course, is that really large amounts of bucks are involved to be spread around.
I'd love to see the background story on this sorry and sad matter.
8
If people don't approve of Mr. Steinhardt's manner, perhaps they should not ask for his money. If his speech offends them, they are free to walk away.
To roast him on the NYT front page is just another sad example of our call-out culture -- character assassination by public shaming.
Now, what was it that Jesus said? Something along the lines of, "Judge not others, so that others may not judge you." And he probably borrowed that from Rabbi Hillel.
6
You don’t know if you don’t ask.
3
Why is it necessary to put in the headline “Jewish” philanthropist. All this does is inflame anti-Semitism further. Why does it not just say philanthropist? You would not say “Christian” philanthropist or “white” philanthropist, and all this does is raise emotions and tensions and brings out the anti-Semitic feelings in people that are already close to the surface.
22
@Casey Because his philanthropy was specifically Jewish. His victims were Jewish and had contact with him in the context of supporting Jewish causes. I am Jewish and sensitive to antisemitism, but his Judaism is absolutely relevant here.
5
News flash: Dirty old men were here yesterday, they will be here tomorrow. It’s hardly worth a push notification.
9
The problem with articles like this is that they help confuse people on what is actually sexual harassment. Is anything in this article criminally actionable? Were any of the women at risk for losing their jobs because of his alledged comments? It appears not. No! Was the behavior bas? Yes.
Articles such as this seek to put bad behavior on par with criminal behavior. This is exactly why the metooo movement seems to be sputtering out. My advise is don't walk on the streets of NYC, someone may look at you in a way you don't like.
17
Who said harassment has to be criminal to be something that should be outed, talked about and stopped?
This idea that we should walk around not talking or looking at anyone out of fear of accusation needs to stop. This man clearly looked down on these women and did not offer equality in his dealing with them. The things he said were gross and have no place in a professional environment and yet your solution is for everyone to shut up and look down and just keep walking like nothing to see here.
It’s this attitude of refusal to take responsibility for harassing actions and words combined with an attack the victim stance is what let’s the “bad” happen; from the “innocent” comments about looks all the way up to sexual assault and everything in between.
9
This is pretty ridiculous - and mentioning his religion in the headline is telling. A hit job.
9
Between him and Kraft,. This gives the hate people something to stereotype.
It's about abuse of power, not about religion.
Just so you know, there are millions of normal middle class Jews around who would never do this.
3
Brilliant solution suggested by Mr. Fingerhut: You don't need to see him again. Or consider the Foxman defense: Michael is passionate; that's just the way he is. Really? Really? Fingerhut and Foxman, successful as they may be, are bedrock dumb. Oh, but I forget myself - Steinhardt has big, big money.
4
This article strikes me as a hit job. Plain and simple, character assassination.
13
Soooo many incidents. Hardly an assassination.
1
In otherwise friendly conversations with women, they often put their hands on my hands or arms. Some even rub my legs under the table. I do not like to be touched. Do I wait a bit and complain about sexual harassment? I may give it a try; it seems the way to go.
1
Men/women do this because they know everyone will look the other way! "money talks, everything else walks"!
2
So he's a boorish old man with a twisted sense of humor and a lack of social skills. So what?
This seems like a money grab.
Women should be able to stand up for themselves, it comes with the job.
7
No excuse, but this is also a generational problem. Older men say stupid things, inappropriate things without even thinking how wrong it is.
9
The problem is we've been saying this for a while now. And as those of us who once were young (and said it about the old codgers back then) grow older, apparently some of us are (and apparently have been) doing the same thing. It's well into the 21st Century. Anyone competent enough to function independently should understand the basics of acceptable civil behavior. This isn't it.
8
Steinhardt reminds me of some of the louche male characters in an Isaac Bashevis Singer short story.
4
Despicable behavior cannot be offset by philanthropy or dismissed as humor. He is not a criminal but a boor. Call a spade a spade. G-d will judge him and he will suffer greatly in a painful and shameful death. His namesake gallery etc should be renamed to remove the stain of his disrespectful speech.
1
This is ridiculous, a demented old man flirting with woman. According to this article none of these women were groped, or had sex with him. The only thing he can be accused of is bad taste.
In my estimation his charity far out weights his weaknesses.
How about concentrating of the Anti Semite Congress woman, & putting pressure on the Democrat Party to kick her out of the Party.
11
Why not add anti-semitic Republicans to the list?
1
@ab o
There are millions of Evangelicals republicans that support Israel. As Rev. King said , you can't hate Israel without hating Jews, they are one of the same.
3
Not sure why you have to mention he's Jewish in the headline. You wouldn't do it with any other religion. He's given to other causes besides just Jewish causes - look at the NYU school or the Met.
38
Can someone please explain why the fact that he’s Jewish is relevant to this headline? Ties to Israel and other Zionist institutions is an important component of this story, religion and ethnicity itself is not.
16
Of course his language is stupid and crude, not becoming a man of his position, but why does the headline name him as a “Jewish” philanthropist.” I have yet to see newspaper headlines singling out “Christian” malefactors.
37
@Concerned citizen
Thank you. I totally agree.
2
Why does the headline say "a Leading Jewish Philanthropist"? He may be a philanthropist to Jewish causes, but the headline as written implies a relationship of Steinhardt's being Jewish with his being accused of sexual harassment. It's offensive.
20
Because his philanthropy was specifically Jewish. His victims were Jewish and had contact with him in the context of supporting Jewish causes. I am Jewish and sensitive to antisemitism, but his Judaism is absolutely relevant here.
2
@HRD The Times has changed the wording now so I guess they agree with me. Steinhardt's being Jewish has nothing to do with his being an accused sexual harasser.
Presidential.
4
What does his being Jewish have anything to do with these allegations?
He is obviously visibly physically white European and male.
What does that have to do with any of these allegations?
29
This is not harrassment. This is an older man acting like a jerk. Big difference. These women had the agency to say 'no' and complain without fear of retribution.
15
Sounds just like the dozens of harmless well-meaning yentas and self-styled shadchans at our Temple.
"Marry in the tribe and make a lot of Jewish babies" is hardly sexual harassment.
Nobody's claiming he touched them inappropriately, they just didn't like the words he spoke? Then how about you stop begging for his money and call it a day?
This is not some unavoidable public service provider or even their actual employer, they're crawling to him for handouts.
Get a grip.
12
Frequently elderly and powerful men feel privileged to attempt exerting sexual influence over possible vulnerable women; that has changed.
These elderly guys really need psychiatric evaluations to rule out forms of dementia.
On the other hand, why identify this person as Jewish in the article's headline!
9
To echo a previous comment, why the headline "Jewish Philanthropist" (why not just "Philanthropist")? The story tells us that he supports Jewish organizations so this fact is included, but why in the headline? In this volatile and divisive time, please use your heads!
8
A stupid guy, shielded by wealth and philanthropy, got away with inappropriate sexualized banter for years,
finally put in his place by brave women.
16
@FJM Simple and to the point! With reference to the many comments about the headline, “Leading Jewish Philanthropist “, I understand the sensitivity and its anti-Semitic implications, but I also think that if he/she was a similar “Christian Philanthropist” the NYT would not hesitate to use a similar headline.
Why was it necessary to include the word "Jewish" in the headline? Would you call Warren Buffet or Bill Gates a leading Christian philanthropist?
8
In typical NYT fashion you highlight the fact that he is Jewish in the headline. What does this have to do with anything? If he was Muslim or Christian his religion would have been left out. This is why people accuse the NYT of being anti-Semitic. Shame on you.
8
Why is “Jewish” part of the headline? Don’t we already have enough antisemitism right now?
7
The headline of this news story is blatantly anti-Semitic.
Since when is a person's religion included in the headline of a news story, even when referring to convicted killers? What is next
for the New York Times? We will soon read: "A prominent Jewish cardiologist is charged with medical fraud?" An influential Jewish lawyer is accused of embezzlement?" An apology is owed to the entire readership of this paper.
9
This entire accounting ledger has become just way too one sided.
When it comes to sex, people both men and women act irrationally. You have only to go to a rock concert where hundreds of girls and women can be seen throwing their undergarments to the superstars of the day. (which of course is what drives many boys to become successful in whatever field - just like every textbook shows to be the case among virtually all dimorphous creatures.
And for every affair that takes place or one night stand then both a man and a woman are voluntarily participating.
In glorious MA our 'lesbian' local representative wanted to pursue a male legislature for sexual harassment for groping a female legislature. Pinching her butt or some such thing. Well, the incident was caught on videotape and when reviewed it showed the male legislature passing by the 'victim' seemingly unaware that she was even there - there didn't appear to be any contact but at most it would have been an incidental graze that he was unaware of. Still with the evidence in the enraged feminist wanted stronger penalties.
So far as i know prostitution is illegal. If women are engaging in sexual liaisons as a result of pressure to advance then that is prostitution.
Of course it is as crazy to charge them with prostitution as it is to persecute these men who are all too human. Say something surely, but bring it to courts ridiculous.
We all stand united against truly brutal treatment of men and women.
8
Come on.....when I was working near the financial sectors, I was always propositioned, received inappropriate comments, etc. My response was always the same.....the first offense received a disapproving look and a warning, the second a sterner warming and a threat to tell their wife about their behavior and the third a promise that if a public description of their behavior left the room - it would not play out well for them. While most of them were just stupid old farts who thought they were being 'cute', my system never failed. I refused to be a 'victim' of any mans bad behavior and it had no effect on my ability to do my job. In fact, once I laid down the law, I received more respect from them.
13
The Times’ War on the Y Chromosome:
Men shall not ask for sex.
Men shall not pay for sex.
Rich and powerful men must be celibate.
9
@Frank, I think the point here is that rich and powerful men should not use their positions to talk dirty to women in a business setting.
12
Not in a work setting , no. That is sexual harrassment, its called a hostile work environment whether you are rich or poor. All people want to be able to do is their WORK. Save the asking out, etc for when you are NOT AT WORK, why is this so hard to understand?
Thanks NYT for leading with a headline that emphasizes the fact that he's Jewish. As if those who blame the alleged cabal of rich and powerful Jews for every grievance imaginable needed some more ammunition. This comment is not a denial that such sexual overtures are ok, only that it is not ok to make his religion an issue.
6
Hey Steinhardt believe me, as a director of two no profits you asking for sex for your money would not be the hardest thing I've done to raise money for my causes. Raising money for a cause is by far the most humbling thing I've ever done. It is a privilege to be able give money away. You should be on your knees and grateful when a you find a good cause to give to. But that isn't the world we live in . With money comes the illusion of power and the thinking that you can say to do whatever you like. Disgusting. That said , if you got 1mil for my cause , call me .
2
Is the NYT started to track the religions of alleged sex offenders? This headline should be fixed unless his religion is somehow relevant. Perhaps the issue is that his “Jewish” philanthropy is directed at pro-Israel causes which, of course, is per se offensive to the NYT editorial board?
6
@Bruce Oh come on. This is a man who made a public point of his Jewishness and poured his money into trying to see that Jewish-Americans maintained a close and even *intimate* relationship with Israel. His ties to this activity are part of the story.
7
Why does this title have to mention that this man is Jewish? It seems to be othering Jews—of course a Jewish man is charged with sexual harassment. Thank you for contributing to a culture of hate, New York Times
6
He’s just a dirty old man. It’s just locker room behavior. Can’t you take a joke? Why do women have to put up with this? Should he be thrown in jail? Of course not. But how do you change this type of behavior if you continue to stay silent?
5
I suggest the Times remove the word “Jewish” from the headline. It could easily be interpreted to refer to his ethnicity, an irrelevance, rather than his support for Jewish causes, a relevant fact in the substance of the article.
11
@David B happy to see the Times clarified the headline, changing "Jewish philanthropist" to "leader in Jewish philanthropy". Still not sure the word "Jewish" is entirely necessary though.
This article is plain and simple anti-semitism!
How dare the Times repeat such outrageous false claims merely to repeat ancient tropes used to demean and vilify Jews.
6
I met Mr. Steinhardt and his wife at a luncheon in Jerusalem in 2000. Although the attendees were either wealthy individuals or otherwise prominent, the Steinhardts were clearly royalty. It would have been hard to lodge complaints against Michael in the pre #metoo era. As a young woman at the time, I wouldn’t have dared.
364
@Icy Money=power and that's known by all. Thus, women who are concerned for their careers likely won't be keen to speak up when they are offended by a mega donor. This man may be 80 now but he wasn't always. And he was so wealthy that he felt no one would cross him, so he declined to filter his comments.
His comments were disgraceful.
Those who defend him by saying he tries to be amusing and is dedicated to Jews, might consider how they would feel if they were young women who were concerned about their futures.
70
Mrs. Steinhardt is an exceptionally beautiful woman. So is Mrs. Trump. But that doesn't stop their husbands from being dogs.
47
@Icy
that you lacked the spine to stand up for yourself is whose fault?
4
I'm an advocate for women and student rights.
I have done extensive research in this area.
But this article make us women look really bad.
The article claims:
1. Mr. Steinhart did not touch anyone of them
2. These were merely words
3. He stopped and apologized when he was informed...
4. Some kept silence not to lose his donations
If these are indeed the facts, Now, you tell me:
1. How would Mr. Steinhart would know to stop these inappropriate comments if he did not know it made them feel uncomfortable?
2. What responsibility do these women have?
3. Didn't these women exchange money/job security for silence?
If you do not like something Speak Up.
Do not assume that someone should know better especially this is grey area.
If he threatened them or coerced them, then it's a sexual harassment.
But it does not appear as such. It was their own insecurity.
We women need to learn to speak up. Not whine and suffer in silence.
Give the man an opportunity to repair his words before accusing him of sexual harassment.
I'm sorry but this is where I draw the line.
396
@Lets Speak Up / Lea
I wonder if any of these women offered to shake hands with him when their meeting began. Hopefully, he was not stupid enough to shake their hands since then these women would complain and sue him for touching them, too.
With the current double standard in the law and privileged position of females, it is too dangerous for any man to meet for business alone with a woman, to shake their hand or otherwise ever allow the two of you to touch, to compliment them, to discuss anything other than the business at hand, or to extend any courtesy such as holding a door open.
18
@Lets Speak Up / Lea, as a woman who was sexually harassed by her boss and didn't speak up for FEAR of losing her job, I cannot dismiss the fact, as reported in this article, that 16 people confirmed claims of inappropriate sexual actions.
193
@Diane Brown and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc, each did NOTHING to stop the next victims' experience(s). This old guy was doing his, sadly now, old guy schtick. As a father of 4 daughters, while not by any means advocating his alleged inappropriate behavior - no victim did anything about it as he allegedly used his words and followed through with no one (despite the NY Times guilty before innocent trashing).
24
I don’t understand the lawsuits and the article doesn’t explain.
He didn’t touch any of these woman.
None of them actually worked for him.
The article does not indicate that any suffered financial consequences.
And, as one commentator observed, none called him out on his inappropriate comments.
So what are their damages?
Has it become actionable in this country to make inappropriate jokes that make some people uncomfortable?
Would they bring these cases if he wasn’t super-rich?
27
@Steven Roth Close your eyes for a moment and imagine being on the receiving end of a sexually charged comment or proposition from a man or woman in a position of power over you who could influence your professional or personal life if you did not comply? Would that be ok with you? How would that make you feel? Take a moment for a bit of empathy.
9
@Greg D.
True. But also close your eyes and imagine yourself on the receiving end of a comment that demeans your work or stature...empathy is warranted but we seem to be making very simple , and black and white, assumptions about the motivations and ways to correct for these imbalances. How are we going to come to an agreement, as a society, about how to deal with power dynamics in general and an understanding about the difference between rudeness, harassment and assault? People can be demeaned in all sorts of ways, made to fear for their jobs, etc.... and there are all kinds of unknown preferences that make one person treat another personal poorly or favorably. How do we account for such variances in human demeanor and behavior? I think that these old lions being shown that their behaviors were completely incorrect will help to set up new, better standards of behavior. I’m also not sure as to why this particular story warrants a front page article.
Why do we even pretend to be shocked anymore when we hear that a man who is in a powerful position, based on wealth or otherwise, uses that position to take engage in inappropriate behavior that would otherwise not be tolerated? I know it is small comfort for the women who were subjected to his harassment but at least with Mr. Steinhardt it appears to have been all talk and no action.
1
Fundamentally, this is about power. I applaud the brave women who have come forward, because that is never easy in a situation like this.
I work in philanthropy, and I see this sort of thing all the time. Men dangle money in front of subordinate women as a way to get what they want or to demean them because they can (see Kraft, Robert).
This is yet another reason why philanthropy is moving toward female donors. While some are into wielding power, more of them are about funding the work.
34
I'm amazed at the comments excusing the alleged behavior of Steinhardt. If he wasn't a very wealthy person making major donations, most of those defenders of Steinhardt would be probably be singing a different tune.
Yet another example of the influence of money.
30
@Reuven
MeToo!
To those of you asking why religion is an important to this story, I would respond that it's because being Jewish is clearly important to Steinhardt.
Being Jewish is central to his identity, and the women he chose to demean were working in the Jewish charitable sector. He saw these women not as professionals but as fertile vessels, which he saw as central to the continuity of the Jewish people.
That said, it would be interesting to know how he treated women from secular institutions who asked him for money.
24
@Cousy
I understand the need to emphasize that this man is Jewish, but in headline I received on my phone I was surprised to see he was
Identified as Jewish. I have never seen a NYT article on sexual harrassment mention that the man was a Christian or a Muslim, etc. it was jarring to me. I am not Jewish. I think the headline was a mistake especially in light of the current resurgence of anti-semitism.
3
@Cousy
Carol - I've seen a ton of articles about the sexual misconduct of evangelical Christians. Their harrassment followed the same pattern as Steinhardt: they abused women who were working for the church, and who were in effect asked to give in or at least not complain to protect a church leader. It is exactly the same dynamic.
3
Steinhardt’s views on Judaism and his philanthropy on behalf of Jewish causes were appropriately discussed in the article.
The headline, however, is offensive and fans anti-semitism.
1
Seems odd to me that women don't have confidence or courage to object in the present, in the conversation - instead, they subordinate themselves and act fake, because they want something - kind of like concubines for a cause.
Today is Purim and this is kind of a Purim story, where what is hidden is important and what is revealed is distorted. In the course of time, and through the generations, I think we will see more clearly the difference made by this family's unique vision and generosity.
I wish public discourse included a more complex view of human nature - our drives, flaws and especially our triumphs.
The #metoo movement has accomplished a great deal, but in this case, seems like over-correcting. These women's inability to speak up is not everyone else's responsibility.
5
Language like this is *illegal* in most professional settings.
It's not up for debate - Mr. Steinhardt was doing illegal things.
I'm a little surprised to see a few readers (some with pretty responsible administrative positions, as per a simple search) trying to come to Mr. Steinhardt's defense.
20
@KS
Illegal? Where is is illegal?
Not tolerated, perhaps. Frowned upon, perhaps. Even a cause for firing.
But not ILLEGAL.
4
@Bob
Yes, it's *illegal*. Not "bad", not ""fireable", but *illegal* - and the women can certainly go to Court on this.
Title VII lists the following actions of employers unlawful:
"(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to [her or] his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify [her or] his employees discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin … in any way which would deprive... any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect [her or] his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
3
It goes without saying that comments made to these women were inappropriate and upsetting particularly in the settings where they took place. I've never been put in a position where my job was affected by having to tolerate sexual remarks cloaked as humor. In circumstances where unacceptable comments or propositions are made to me in a joking way, I respond in kind. I ridicule and unambiguously rebuff the offender with humor. I can't think of a circumstance where it wasn't effective.
2
The writers suggesting sympathy for Mr. Steinhardt's
reputation echo a long history of the importance of protecting men - they're the important ones, after all - at all costs. I'm reminded of the response to the eight women who said George H.R. Bush groped them. He didn't know what he was doing! He's very old! He was joking! It was all in good fun! Clearly, for him.
“When people say bad things about Jews, our community leaders are on red alert about the dangers of anti-Semitism,” she said. “But when people harass women verbally instead of physically, we are asked to accept that this is the price we have to pay for the philanthropic resources to support our work.”
Holding men accountable for words and deeds that demean women as sexual objects for their amusement is necessary and long overdue. Is it such a difficult concept to grasp?
35
@monty "Holding men accountable for words and deeds that demean women as sexual objects for their amusement is necessary and long overdue. Is it such a difficult concept to grasp?"--Absolutely on point. Thanks for posting this.
I’d ask my fellow fellows to read this, think about it, and adjust your lives accordingly if this is something you think is okay. It’s not. It never has been. Sexual intimidation has always been wrong, even if it’s “been going on forever”. I remember during the exposés on catcalling a lot of cat callers responded: “well how else am I going to meet women?”
Befriend women. Respect women. See women as equals. Heck, see them as superior (can YOU create new life inside your body?) – at that point one of those women might like to meet you.
24
End of sugar daddies, now women want sugar and no daddy. (joke). I get it, some compare to work sexual harassment, but that situation is different because your boss hired to perform a particular job, and if he/she harasses you then he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, now in these cases, the person seeking help could say no and look for funding somewhere else. They knew what the exchange entailed. Now to have the audacity to sue. They are literally stating that a woman is so weak that she can't protect herself and whatever advances come her way she is the victim... let us get real people. They could have just walked away.
3
@Oneguysopinion
It was Steinhart's responsibility to behave appropriately. He was intimidating and sexual predator. Glad that he is outed now. Shameful!
2
This is a story about the abuse of power by the uber rich, with sex thrown in. Obscene as this is, it pales in comparison to last year’s tax cut.
3
@DMO - it's not a contest and each is wrong, harmful, and destructive.
If I believe 1% of this article, it means this guy should be in jail. And I believe he needs to be.
2
We should stick posters up in country clubs, union break rooms, urologist’s offices, professors lounges, men’s rooms and board rooms: “If you are flirting with or hitting on a woman more than 10 years your junior, there is a good chance you are creeping her out. Back off.”
It certainly doesn’t take into account every creepy man’s behavior, but isn’t a bad start.
7
@Rourke: Why "more than 10 years your junior"? Why not "whose league you're not in"? Obviously, the problem is that women are being approached by men they don't want, and this creeps them out. It would be a great boon to society if we solved this tremendous social problem. And if we could send a man to the moon, why can't we solve this one? We need to marshal all of the resources of the social sciences and psychology, and let men know ahead of time when their interest in women would or would not be welcomed. This way they won't creep them out.
1
This is boorish behavior, not sexual harassment.
The man has money and power , folks were intimidated and feared losing his philanthropy. The only cure at the time would have been to be professional, reveal the issue and then ignore both him and his money. But don’t wait until the 80s to try and solve a problem like this with public shame, it only hurts everyone.
Lesson learned for all sides, hopefully.
3
This could be in my head, but #MeToo seems to have disproportionately fallen on people of color and religious minorities. Don't get me wrong, as a woman who has experienced harassment I want it ended and for too long we tolerated too much. That said, where are the WASP accused?
1
But for more than two decades???
Why did these women wait so long?
This type of thing has been outlawed since app. 1980. Since then countless women have timely complained, sued and won.
It is one of the many things I have against the me too movement and waiting too long is the least worst.
Complaining only when the jobs/raises stop, Neo feminist groups accepting money from predators like Weinstein, starting the sexual activity to get ahead, condemning all present day men for these crimes etc. etc. are just a few of the issues I have that involves co depending and enabling of the predator.
The predator lives for that.
1
@Paul Have you been following the news recently. Women "wait so long" because who would have believed them decades ago?
3
@seniorsandy-Thank you for your reply. Not true, countless women have come forward since 1980. I know I saw many in my company.
They would have not been believed before 1980 but it is a difference story. All of these alleged incidents happened long after 1980 ie in the last two decades.
If you now wait decades or worse do the other things I mentioned you are co depending and enabling the predator.
As mentioned they live for that.
1
I've worked at nonprofits for a couple years, large ones, and this is a persistent problem in the nonprofit community - so persistent that at my previous job, leadership gave all of us a seminar on their policies to not tolerate unwanted sexual advances and harassment in any way and that we could go to anybody in leadership and asked to be removed as a solicitor of that donation.
I disagree with a few of the commenters here who suggest he should be left alone because he's 80 and a philanthropist. Development work is unlike your typical sales job, insomuch as someone much wealthier and much more powerful than you doesn't just secure your job, but secures your work in the community. Everyone I've spoken to, myself included, understands the risks of working at nonprofits, and none of us could do it if we didn't find fulfillment in the work we are able to do in the community. People will use that as leverage to behave as they please and it's unacceptable.
266
I worked at Steinhardt Partners for 17 years and left the organization on good terms; on one level, I had a certain fondness for Michael as a man willing to engage in intellectual debate on politics (his ran conservative, mine liberal). But this report is spot on. Michael “jokingly” made sexual innuendos on a nearly daily basis that were demeaning, at minimum, and profoundly upsetting to some (women visibly rattled or crying over the verbal assault once out of his office).
His pattern was that of a predator: he typically prayed on those too intimidated or dependent on his largesse to stand up for themselves—I was only once a target of a salacious remark, and shot back immediately; I was a mere salaried employee and my finances didn't depend on playing along. But tellingly, the verbal harassment never happened again to me, although I frequently witnessed it with others. Several of us would tell him to lay off the target, but you had to stand up personally, or it continued. He sensed weakness, vulnerability, and created a hostile atmosphere that, when called out, was justified by "his sense of humor." It mattered not one whit that we explained, repeatedly and forcefully, that his behavior was offensive.
672
@Cathy
You are the epitome of my point in all my comments. You stood up for your boundaries and your self respect. As a culture we are not teaching our daughters to do that as a normal course of behavior.
People blame the men, but who raised those men? who were the primary caregivers and provider of examples on how to behave? For older men (above 40 or so) that person was their mother, who often lived a June Cleaver existence, or aspired to one.
Times are changing and that is good, but this culture of victimhood has to stop, it does no one any good and is tearing apart great portions of our society.
16
@mike
This culture of predation, not the culture of victimhood, has to stop; that will get to the root of what is causing these rifts.
The only reason times are changing is because people have taken steps to expose predatory behavior like Cathy described. Some people––such as women with a job or advancement on the line––really are victims.
93
@mike
I appreciate your response, but I must disagree. At essence, this is a power dynamic grounded in money, and not one that can just be reduced to mere self respect.
Michael had relatively little power over me (my job was generic, not a principal source of my family income, and I could relatively easily have found other employment at comparable compensation). But for the suppliants looking for funding for the nonprofits, the fear of offending him and closing his checkbook was all too real. That is what made them vulnerable and he knew it and took delight in it.
Sadly, money equals power; unlike many in this article, Michael had little real power over me, making my retort simple. It was hardly a profile in courage.
I also am baffled by your June Cleaver reference: are you blaming mothers for tasing their sons & daughters with sexist attitudes or setting up 'boys will be boys'? Furthermore, the '50s white bread nostalgia certainly didn't apply to Michael, from the little I know of his upbringing.
132
These women are brave to come forward. Here is a man of enormous wealth and influence, who underwrites organizations with values shared by these women (and many cases also employ them), who plays a kind of lewd "game" in which they're expected to play along and not be horrified or recoil. No, he's not groping or coercing them; but it's disgusting behavior, plain and simple. The scenarios described sound far beyond a minor flirtation-type comment on his part (which would also be inappropriate, although not worthy of a lawsuit or exposé.)
I've endured over the years similar "liberties" taken by men in a position of power, situations where my response generally is to grit my teeth and grin or not, and get away as soon as possible (fortunately for me). Enough of this kind of pathetic power play by men who should know better. It's demeaning and inappropriate.
That these women had to petition for his financial largesse while enduring that kind of environment is wrong, and kudos to them for bringing it to light given the undoubtedly huge number of people willing to dismiss it is "harmless"-- as long as that spigot of cash keeps flowing. Ew.
188
@Kate: The time is now, the technology is here. A woman, or actually anyone, who will be in a room with a person of power alone, should go in with at least an audio recording device, or best a running camera. Don’t keep it a secret, mention it as being a safe guard for both in the room. They don’t cost all that much & employers should provide them. They may balk at first, may brazen it through. But, when uploaded onto the internet, these idiots will learn quickly & end up a lot poorer, therefore have less power to do such things.
2
@White Wolf
I agree with what you wrote. Policemen already wear these cameras, why not fundraisers? And if the fashion "catches", there will be smaller and less expensive models, and then... good bye dirty old men!
1
How depressing these comments are, making light of the continued harassment of women who were just trying to do their job. He may not have laid his hands on anyone, but he created an unsafe environment by sexualizing professional settings. It is not hard to be an impactful philanthropist and not use your position of power to demoralize people.
Lauren Berlant on jokesters (Steinhardt) and predators (Weinstein):
“Power shows its ugliest tentacles most clearly in these figures, yet they seem at opposite extremes. Where the predator creates a situation they can exploit, it is often cushioned by a menacing sense that they control the interactive space and that they’re unavoidable. When a goof performs a joke…it is shaped by the play of surprise and hard to process in the moment. Time and fresh awkwardness provide the jokester’s cushion, however slight. In both cases the target suddenly feels baffled or overwhelmed.
…Structural power is expressed in such incidents. Incidents add up to environments, toxic atmospheres: often people lower in the pecking order find ways to live in them by imitating some habits of the powerful while honing varieties of defensive stealth like sarcasm, gossip, self-harm, or dissociating…This is why keeping things “in scale” is not possible: many forces converge in the intimate encounter with structural power, and they’re often not fully equivalent at the level of event…So, the predator has control of situations; the jokester induces one on the spot.”
136
@Katy
Gimme a break! Unsafe?
Uncomfortable, yes. Not nice, sure.
Unsafe? No way.
1
@Bob
So uncomfortable it makes your work miserable. So uncomfortable you have to be on guard, watching for what he might do next.
The kind of discomfort which always carries unspoken threat.
Maybe:
You'll lose you job if you anger him
You'll be black listed
And -If he should start with"uncomfortable" comments, and then a woman has to meet with him again in the course of business , and he does get physical - - and the woman reports that, she'll be met with:" well, after what he said, what did you expect?" or " it was consensual - after all you must have been interested in him if you met him again knowing what he said."
And so on. Seeming forever.
4
@Bob Gimme a break, back! Of course it's unsafe, because a hostile and degrading atmosphere is always, 100% of the time, emotionally unsafe.
From emotionally unsafe to physically unsafe is not an unusual road to travel; however, even if you don't arrive at that final destination, your starting point is unsafe enough.
I worked between 1985 and 2016 as a fundraiser for a prominent national organization. Our major donors - Jewish and non-Jewish - touched me when I was asking for a gift. On my arm face, back. Not once but repeatedly during my ask.
I came up with a name - "hands-on donors" - because that's what these men did. I outed them to my staff, told my staff to be careful and be prepared to step away when it happened. There was nothing Jewish about it. Nor did we decline their donations. It's what men in power do. #MeToo!
322
@Judy Gumbo
That is not what all men in power do.
Being white European American Judeo-Christian majority male is inherently powerful and privileged regardless of socioeconomic political status.
Being black African American Christian is the ultimate bottom of the socioeconomic political power pyramid. Particularly black women.
3
While sexual harassment should not be tolerated, in this particular case, I would leave this poor guy (sic) alone. What snow flakes have we become as a society when we accuse an 80 year old amazing philanthropist of making sexist statements (it seems only statements, mind you) sullying his life time of supporting really good causes. Words seem to hurt so much these days that one is willing to go public to "cry" about it, not realizing the consequences.
146
@Anand Anandalingam
Being old and donating money does not excuse behavior that is inappropriate and demeaning. He was told repeatedly that his behavior was unbecoming yet he continued it. Words matter...they reveal someone's character and integrity - their respectfulness of others. No one is "crying." They are doing something more: Raising the bar.
70
I guess this 80 year old has met his Maker early. Some of us believe in Justice here on earth.
22
@Anand Anandalingam
Same old story: He's a He, He's Old, He's Rich, He's an "amazing philanthropist" and therefore he is entitled to say whatever crosses his sweet little old mind. However, if a young man of color working in the same building were to say the same things, even "in jest," to the women, he'd be fired...and even if not, like Emmet Till, murdered and thrown into the river, have his "improprieties" engraved onto his work resume.
77
People in the Jewish Community have known for years about the existence of this sort of stuff. But it's very hard to do much about when the community is so dependent on a small number of generous, but flawed, individuals. Perhaps article like these will change things, although I wouldn't be sure.
77
@Mike
Presumably Mr. Steinhardt will stop making donations to women. That will spare young woman any discomfort.
4
Kudos to Shifra Bronznick for speaking up for the equal value of all groups of people. And shame on all of us who make excuses for bad behavior instead of saying, out loud and clearly, that it's not okay.
190
@Manhattan
And, if truth be told, why is it not "OK"?
Because YOU are uncomfortable and even offended?
So walk away and ignore the jerk.
1
@Bob It is not okay, because he's taking advantage of his position. If he were just a man on the street, these women could walk away. But he is an important donor whom they must work with and not antagonize.
2
When you have a Bill Cosby or a Harvey Weinstein, the sheer number of credible accusations would seem to give any organization the moral justification to fo fire them while they’re awaiting trial.
But, when there are several accusations that may or may not be credible, it’s better, for a sane and just society, to wait until the investigation is complete and shows proof.
17
1. A request in a setting of power differential is a problem - it seems that perhaps some of the complaints mentioned here may be in this setting but then what would any philanthropist do?? They are always in a position to give money away....
2. But some of the complaints here are actually what I thought was requested by those seeking a more appropriate landscape: ask, don’t just assume or touch. Sounds like the guy is direct and upfront - and that perhaps many people don’t want to be asked??
3. Boorish and stupid comments - shouldn’t happen but fairly universal although the devil is in the details as to whether they cross a line.
8
@David: yes such utter vagueness in asking a woman to make babies together. There are so many ways to take that, right?
4
Just another rich guy who thinks his money gives him the "right" to say anything to anybody. Not worthy of anyone's admiration.
273
@henry824
And not deserving of public harassment.
5
@henry824
Possibly, but he does not need the pillory like these accusers want.
4
@henry824
But worthy of running for President of the United States.
Like FDR, JFK, LBJ and DJT.
MAGA means kiss them and grab them by their lady parts.
1
What does his religion have to do with his alleged deplorable behavior?
104
@Rainy Night His motive was to make more Jewish babies with Jewish women. That was explicit in the article.
5
@Samm the headline giving his religion was unnecessary. Would that be mentioned for other religions??
5
@Samm
As a woman (an old one) I can assure you that you "don't have to be Jewish" to behave like a pig.
Remember the lyric: "When a Harris pat means a Paris hat, OK".
6
He must have been in cohoots with Steven M. Cohen. They share attitudes about the role of Jewish women and “continuity”. I can only hope these behaviors and the men perpetuating them continue to be condemned and that more brave women will come forward
.
45
@C P Saul "To get what they wanted from him"? It's their job.
@steve
Yeah, to get what they wanted from him. They wanted his money. Development jobs are hard ones. But if you don't want to deal with men demanding extra-curricular activities or even HINTING at them, get out of the industry.
Have you ever been the object of unwanted sexual attention, steve? I'll bet not. I bet if you did you'd change your tune...
Interesting the gender difference of some men interviewed. They couldn't imagine their good friend and benefactor, dear Mr. Steinhardt using his wealth and authority in such a crass way. He was only joking, right? He makes me proud to be an alumnus of NYU Steinhardt's school though I graduated before he gave and they renamed it in his honor. Maybe NYU should examine how they got the money. Clean?
23
If this fine example of an upstanding citizen has donated $127 MILLION to Jewish causes, why would he not just take a flight to Las Vegas and buy his pleasure rather than face the current charges? For an entrepreneur, this is certainly a lack of creativity in problem solving.
10
@Lazlo Toth Because exercising the power is the point.
3
Unlike the Purim shpiels that will resound today from synagogues today and that are meant to amuse, this sobering story appearing on Purim reminds us that sexual predators - like the biblical character of Amalek - appear in every generation, and need to be confronted and exposed.
59
@Jonathan Biatch
What, pray, makes him a predator? He's a boorish and loud jerk (possibly) but saying dumb and odious stuff a lot does not make him a criminal.
4
This shows how ridiculous has become the vengeance of the feminist movement. Some woman goes to a man to persuade him to just give her a lot of money to be used for her desired purposes. So he merely ASKS if she will have sex with him. And feminists consider that to be harassment of the woman.
Here is a suggestion. Don't go to men asking them to give you money for you to use for your desired purposes. Use money you earned.
30
@Errol Your comments make it sound as though these nonprofit fundraising professionals were asking Steinhardt to bankroll new wardrobes for them from Bergdorf’s! Not only do such people not have discretion over the funds they solicit, they actually live their altruism by accepting salaries well below what they would receive in the private sector. Using “jests” to put ambassadors for their organizations in the position of choosing between their personal dignity (by voicing their outrage) and the causes for which they’ve made significant personal sacrifice (by maintaining their silence) IS harassment, and you wouldn’t ask any man in their shoes to tolerate it, much less suggest that he was actually a wannabe gigolo. This is what sexism looks like.
40
What are you talking about? It was her JOB to ask him to donate to initiatives in behalf of her ORGANIZATION. This is how the entire non profit sector work? Should all donors be able to ask all people working in fundraising for sex? Are you just arguing that not for profit organizations shouldn’t exist?
34
So, if your job was at a nonprofit, and you went to see a known philantropist who had supported your nonprofit in the past to pitch an idea for a new program, if you are a man rather than a woman, it is ok to ask for money? Rather than earn it yourself? What if the philantropist asked you for sex, made sexual comments about your appearance, your marital status, whether or not you had children in such a way, that others also recognized this was not mere social chit chat, but said to shock, degrade, demoralize, that this would be ok with you? And you knew he could possibly ruin your career if you called him out, even in the most professional and socially acceptable way? Those you worked for may have been reluctant to offend him if he was a reliable donor in a small group of reliable donors. He was harrassing them, creating a hostile work environment. Others, men, recognize that he crossed lines multiple times and refused to continue working with him. When you are in a position of power, it is not ok to do these things just because you have money. Also not ok when you don't.
13
I worked as a photographer for many large publications and had a similar experience when I was on assignment to shoot this character. I told the story to many and it always stuck with me as one of my top 10 most ridiculous shoots. Sounds exactly like him. Crude and perverted...testing others limits to see how far he cold get. Not touchy. This was witnessed by my assistant and his PR rep pretty much laughed me off when he became aware of what was going on. Luckily I only had to see him this one time. I endured countless photo shoots with episodes like this from emotionally underdeveloped celebrities, athletes and big businesses folk. I joyfully left the business...I didn’t leave solely for this reason but it definitely was a part of the wearing down of my idealism and temperament for some humans.
193
While it is plausible that Mr. Steinhardt made such comments without the expectation that these women would ever have sex with him, his intentions don’t excuse his actions. Verbal sexual harassment is often more about power than it is about sexual reward. This is a clear example of how demeaning, sexual language continues to be used to tell women that they are worth less than men, even though we live in a society where saying so outright would lead to condemnation.
213
Wall Street was loaded with this stuff. Goldman, Sachs shipped secretaries to Mexico with Edward G. Novotny, where they were paid off... $25,000 was said to be the going rate to shut them up. Ed loved Goldman, but his conscience was active till the day he died... Goldman heroes could tell their sons and daughters what they did... sexual stuff was endemic... and I believe it was endemic across Wall Street... forced sex... not willing secretaries offering to get themselves elevated... forced sex. Reporters do not want to cover this stuff on campuses... where it is also endemic. Our best newspaper will not cover what matters most. And financial writers prefer to cover Rolling Stone... and ignore what happens everywhere else. Students are at risk with misapplied Title IX nonsense... covering for the behavior of college presidents... Who will ask what happened... to a college president when he suddenly departs for a major charity in Manhattan? No one... want his name?
21
Yes. What is his name?
2
@S B Lewis CORRECTION... Goldman heroes could NOT tell their sons and daughters .... and I said that to the partnership at "21" when Hank Paulson asked me to speak... at Ed Novotny's memorial luncheon... to a standing ovation... Bob Freeman came to thank me with tears in his eyes... Ed Novotny's email account was active in his last 8 months. Confession is good for the soul. He was honest.
2
Part of the problem are the people - some who appear in this article - who, fearing they may miss out on some benefit of some kind, give the rich/powerful wide latitude to act like cretins without consequence. The cretin then continues acting cretinous, enabled by the sycophants. We see this everyday with our President, especially in the way his fellow Republican minions relate to him — sniffing around like desperate dogs at his feet looking for crumbs . . .
61
He jokes, he jokes, he has money, he gives money. Why kvetch? Not one of these women is a shiksa, after all. Listen to Mr. Foxman of the famed ADL, he jokes, he jokes. Mr. Steinhardt just wants to make more Jewish babies, certainly a noble motive.
As for his poor memory, he is now old, but still rich in desire. Why kvetch?
14
You forcefully say no to a man like this, tell him to keep his hands and daydreams away from you, leave his employ if necessary and then go about your business. Making a big public pother about him by exposing his boorishness and obsessions to the NY Times ends up accomplishing what? Saving other women from his depredations? I doubt it. There are better ways of doing that, that do less injury to important Jewish philanthropies.
16
@A. Stanton Guess what? The women in question weren’t IN Steinhart’s employ. And just what are the better ways of saving other women from a celebrated donor who is actually a serial humiliator? This article may be as much about working conditions for women in nonprofits as it is about one man who has made such work toxic for many.
12
Which is to say:
The charities he has supported in the past should have jointly -- and quietly -- approached him and said, “Look Michael, we want and need a lot more money from you in the future, but unless this stuff stops now and forever , we won’t be able to accept it.”
10
@A Stanton- another tone deaf comment here berating women. Most women cannot just quit jobs (and why should they, when they aren’t the ones showing the poor tact), and pack up to a new position when the boss is after their tail. It’s shocking how people actually think
6
All this proves is that religious identity has little to do with keeping it in your pants.
I'm Jewish and don't see what his religion has got to do with it. Or even his philanthropy. It wouldn't matter if he were a Godless nobody, his actions would be just as despicable.
47
@Lex
Totally agree. I would have far less of a problem with the headline saying that he is a ‘Philanthropist for Jewish Causes’ than I do with saying ‘Jewish Philanthropist ‘. His religion is not germane to the accusations, at least in the context of the headline. The NYT did not blast that DJT is a WASP or Bill Cosby African American when there situations were discussed.
4
This hit piece appears to be the side door entrance from the BDS movement. I would like to see more about the backgrounds of the accusers. These women are so threatened by a few jokes with sexual innuendo from one of the most well known Jewish philanthropists at the same moment J Street is promoting its alternative “view point” trip to Israel. It is all very convenient. Interesting that this paper barely noted the rocket attacks on Tel Aviv a few weeks ago and did not even mention the terrorist murder of a young Israeli soldier or a father of 12 in Samaria last week. Support for Israel will remain strong despite your attempts to chip away at it and make anti-semitism okay again.
55
@Sue Mee Actually, this story was first reported last September, long before J Street was promoting its "alternative trips." Your attempt to accuse those who criticize Steinhardt's boorish behavior of anti-Semitism is beyond deplorable.
40
Steinhardt Fine and Berkowitz was so compromised that I refused to trade with them when I was running the block trading desk of Dean Witter... Mike was in charge... and he was a liar.
37
@S B Lewis
He's now Chairman of the Board of Wisdom Tree, claiming that he is there to help the smaller investor.
IS that atonement or more lies?
A sexual request, however inappropriate, is not sexual harassment.
Also, you guys want explicit consent before sexual activity takes place. How one earth can consent be sought if no request is allowed?
Let me agree that a quid pro quo is not proper and Steinhardt might well have behaved badly. But it does seem that the NYT's anti-male mania is out of control.
Apparently male penguins offer pebbles to female penguins as part of courtship. Is the Times going to insist that male penguins offer pebbles WITHOUT any expectation of sex?
Will they be required to wear a placard saying, "Hey, this is just a gift, you don't have to have sex with me and have my babies!". Just wondering.
58
No part of this piece is about "courting"! This was business and a business setting, just stop! You'd be okay with your daughters being "courted" this way at work, job interviews, business transactions, etc??? Sick.
24
@Ludwig Sorry, turning a business meeting into an occasion for sexual advances or intrusive observations about one’s reproductive organs actually is sexual harassment.
22
By definition, a sexual request that occurs at work and/or during the course of business dealings is Sexual Harassment, esp if the propositioner is in a position of power. I'm sorry more people don't understand that.
30
Another billionaire denying misbehavior and his boys sticking up for him. Men have no idea what women endure.
214
@slp: Unfortunately, even some women are excusing this behavior as if he's just a clueless old man who meant no harm. Internalized misogyny. He knew exactly what he was doing.
11
The brhaviour is just stupid. Look at his age and think about the social changes that have occurred.
5
Why is it relevant to mention that he is Jewish? Would you mention it if he was Christian or Muslim?
79
@Ofer
It would be difficult if not impossible to mention this guy’s religion in this article. If he were a benefactor of Christian causes, his religion would have been mentioned. Nowhere is there any implication that his religion had anything to do with his conduct. He was a big macher who thought he could do or say whatever he wanted. This type of personality is common among powerful men of all religions.
You are being far too sensitive.
29
@Bathsheba Robie it was in the headline. Which was used to get people to click and read.
2
Because Western history has a thing about rich Jewish men being sexual deviants. Look at anti Semitic propaganda.
What a disgusting person.
59
No other people accused of sexual harrassment were identified by their religion. This flames anti- semitism.
62
@Abby Please stop. I am Jewish and normally very sensitive to such things. But there is a very clear common thread here of his giving and the people he has allegedly harassed and that is that they are all Jewish related. He liked to pride himself as being a pillar of the Jewish community. To not once mention in the article the theme of his Judaism would be a glaring omission. Him being a "Jewish philanthropist" is the same as someone who gives frequently to the arts being called a "patron of the arts."
There are too many instances of anti-semitism in society today. Crying wolf at one like this just devalues all of the legitimate ones.
44
@Abby
He's identified as one of the leading Jewish philanthropists, which is not anti-semitism. It's a fact.
28
@Abby I'm pretty sure that Catholic priests mentioned in news stories are identified by their religion.
23
“Provocative comments, he said, “were part of my schtick since before I had a penny to my name, and I unequivocally meant them in jest. I fully understand why they were inappropriate. I am sorry.””
No.
The comments were meant to demean women and assert dominance over them. This was done purposefully. And while the regret may be real, but Mr. Steinhardt won’t ever be able to relate to and understand the toll such abuse takes on its victims.
He needs to be quiet and listen to the victims, then use some of his money to help them.
170
I think “victims” is a bit much.
5
@Shiloh 2012 The regret is because people are now
reading about his demeaning manner.
8
@Jr: You've never been sexually demeaned by someone who has power over your job, have you?
4
Ma Goldfein says it perfectly: “I always felt that it was like a game to him and that I had to put up with it and play along. But it wasn’t an equal playing field.” We are doing a disservice to women by alluding in any way that should be see as yet another “me too” moment. While Mr Steinhardt should be reprimanded for being tone death to the changes in social norms, it is terrible that a man who has contributed so much to the community around him should have his reputation tarnished that way.
12
@AK "changes in social norms"
Are you claiming that such inappropriate "jokes" were less offensive back in the 50s? Probably just the opposite--I would guess that even Hugh Hefner had more of a filter than this cretin.
The only social norm that has changed is that since #metoo, women are less likely to put up with such demeaning language. But his offense was not less back then.
8
@AK. Maybe it’s more terrible that a man who has spoken over and over to women in ways that he would object to if those being addressed had been his wife, daughters, nieces, etc.(regardless of the year in which those remarks were made) has been able to assume that his conduct would remain secret, winked at, tolerated. Change happens when offenders stop being indulged.
3
I know it has become a cliche, but the validity of the aphorism "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" increases daily.
121
@David so true. It’s all about CORRUPTION.
3
@David
I think invoking the cliche is inadvertently letting this guy off the hook a bit easily.
If you believe his statement that his "schtick, without a penny" was the same, it may be that being a jerk, in this case, even predated having the resources to visit his weirdness on a captive audience. His wealth just amplified a personality disorder/character flaw and our construct of philanthropy allowed it to flourish unchecked. Until now.
Is it likely that public shaming may put a small dent in it? Is it likely that the trade-off will be viewed a little differently by future practitioners? Is #MeToo a ripple or a riptide? These are the interesting questions...
Power corruption knows no gender. Working with a large group of women, there is no sexual harassment, but there is power harassment nonetheless. We all see it, no one says anything for fear of losing their jobs or becoming an outcast. What hashtag movement will these lives become?
We will see if any of these organizations return his money or remove his name from signage as a result of these allegations.
31
@W Henderson
If these are just accusations that haven’t been proven,why should any organization return money?
10
@W Henderson I'm sorry, why should people victimized *return* a victimizer's money? To prove their purity to you? Nonsense.
2
@W Henderson Why should they return his money?
2