In the febrile atmosphere created by the Presidents Club affair, it is hard to maintain a balanced view of what is sexual harassment and what is salacious gossip. But that balance must be defended when reputations are at stake. As the saying goes: “A reputation once broken may possibly be repaired, but the world will always keep their eyes on the spot where the crack was.”
Anthony d’Offay, the art patron, whose fabulous collection of contemporary art, built up over a lifetime, has been gifted to the nation, now faces at the age of 78 the destruction of his good name. Two national galleries which have over the past decade benefited from his generosity, have stopped all collaboration with him on the basis of anonymous allegations, so far unproven, of sexual harassment. The future of his Artist Rooms project, which takes works by Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, Robert Mapplethorpe and many others out to towns and villages across Britain, must now be in doubt.
The National Galleries of Scotland (NGS) and the Tate in London, to whom Mr d’Offay donated his multimillion-pound collection, have suspended contact with him until the matter has been “clarified”. Effectively they have ended his career.
The allegations must, therefore, be very serious. And indeed they may be. Except that all there is to go on are newspaper and social media stories, categorically denied by Mr d’Offay. The Guardian and The Observer have reported three cases, between 1997 and 2004, in which women with successful careers in the art world complain of “inappropriate behaviour”. The most significant is from a young woman, 25 at the time, and an employee, who made a series of claims against Mr d’Offay, including that he held her round the waist “very close to my bum”, then later grabbed her and kissed her neck while she was on the phone. The incident, she says, was captured on CCTV; shortly after, she signed a settlement agreement and left his employment. There was, she told The Guardian, “no sense of boundary in respect to personal space”.
Another, then in her thirties, complains of a telephone call to her from Mr d’Offay, which, she believes, was made from a bath. She claims that his heavy breathing suggested he was masturbating and “that he had used my voice to service his sexual needs”. Later she felt uncomfortable when walking with him alone in a park and says he lunged at her “with his mouth open”. Later still, when he offered her a Warhol show, she told him that in view of what had happened she did not want to pursue the idea, at which point he became abusive and told her to leave by the tradesman’s entrance.
Advertisement
A third woman recalls an event from the late 1990s when, she says, Mr d’Offay spoke to her “inappropriately” in front of a group of other people.
One should not play down any of these alleged episodes. If they happened, they were unacceptable. Whether they were criminal is another matter. One of the allegations is, according to the newspapers, being investigated by the police, though Mr d’Offay says he has no knowledge of that.
The real issue is why the Tate and the NGS have decided to judge Mr d’Offay’s behaviour before any inquiry has been carried out. I presumed that they must have serious, first-hand evidence, so I asked them. It appears they know no more than we do. This is what they told me: “Tate and NGS were made aware of allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour against Anthony d’Offay in December. In light of these and the further allegations detailed in The Observer in January, Tate and NGS decided that it was appropriate to suspend any further contact with Mr d’Offay until these matters have been clarified. The work of Tate and NGS is underpinned by values of fairness, equality and respect and the right to work free of sexual harassment. We expect these values to be demonstrated in the behaviour of everyone who is involved in our organisations.”
Effectively they accepted the allegations and not Mr d’Offay’s denials. I asked them two further questions. Did they have any more to go on, other than the newspaper and social media stories? They said: “Tate and NGS were made aware of information about allegations in December. The first instance was a social media post which included an image and text relating to Anthony d’Offay with #metoo and #no- surprise. Tate and NGS have been looking into this matter since then.”
I then asked whether, given the way similar allegations in the past — against Edward Heath, Leon Brittan, Lord Bramall, Sir Cliff Richard and others — had come to nothing, they felt any sense of responsibility to Mr d’Offay. They repeated: “Our trustees have asked us to suspend contact with Anthony while this matter is clarified; we are making no judgment until we have further information.”
Advertisement
But of course they are making a judgment. By suspending him they have condemned him. They could, and should, have made the briefest of statements, to the effect that they awaited the outcome of any police investigation before taking any other action; that they intended to go on solid evidence rather than second-hand rumour.
No one would argue that because Mr d’Offay is a generous art patron he should be given special treatment; just because Harvey Weinstein made some decent films does not mean his behaviour can be excused. But Tate and NGS owe Mr d’Offay something more important: loyalty to a valued colleague with whom they have worked for more than a decade to the advantage of the nation. The very least he might have expected is an even-handed approach and that most basic concept of natural justice: that a man is innocent until proven guilty.