This really makes your jaw drop: elite wine club turns out to be a hotbed of sexual misconduct

Have you seen Somm, the famous documentary about wine that was available on Netflix for a long time? It’s no longer on there, but trust us: when it aired, it was all anyone in the culinary-wine world talked about around the coffee machine. Many of the experts and master sommeliers featured in it have ties to the prestigious ‘the Americas chapter of the Court of Master Sommeliers’, the leading wine institute in America. And that very ‘court’ is now under fire for sexual harassment, sexism and general hostility toward women.

Journalist Julia Moskin wrote a compelling article for The New York Times (not exactly a minor newspaper), in which several women speak out about a deep-rooted problem: the few women trying to reach the ultimate level of Master Sommelier are systematically belittled and sexually harassed by the predominantly older white men who call the shots at the highest level.

Elite little club

The institute was founded in 1997 and has an associated educational branch: GuildSomm. This is a community with more than 12,000 members. Within it, candidates can complete four levels of intensive and extremely expensive training, ultimately leading to the coveted title of Master Sommelier. How many people have achieved it since the organisation was founded? 155. How many of them are women? 24.

During the four levels they must complete, candidates pay tuition, their own travel costs, and expenses for tastings and exams. It is a major investment, but sommeliers who ultimately succeed hold positions in the best restaurants in the world, do ambassadorial work for brands such as Moët Hennessy and Krug, and consult for the most luxurious hotels, cruise lines and the largest wine distributors worldwide. In 2017, an international survey showed that master sommeliers earned an average of €140,000 a year and charged consulting day rates of €850.

From small to big

Especially after the aforementioned documentary Somm came out in 2012, following candidates during the learning process for that final exam, the institute saw applications multiply. Before that, it had been a fairly under-the-radar and highly elitist club, and even now the assessment of exams and eventual awarding of the title remain shrouded in secrecy.

But the tide turned for one of the women now sounding the alarm about conditions within the institute when, earlier this year, The Court’s board issued a statement saying that a committee had been established to promote diversity and inclusion. It was dressed up with social-media campaigns in which women and people of colour were showcased for the first time. This rubbed Liz Dowty Mitchell the wrong way, as she and other women had repeatedly urged the board to take action after complaining about various Masters who had been their mentors or supervisors and behaved appallingly (in a teacher-student relationship regardless, but also generally).

The cheerful, cosy image presented by the committee was the last straw. “We refuse to be used as a PR tool while we have encountered so much hostility toward women, groping and sexual misconduct on our way here,” said Mitchell.

A range of allegations

The examples given by the women—one of them also possessing evidence in the form of digital exchanges—range from sending oral-sex guides to suddenly putting fingers into someone’s underwear at a farewell, to slamming classroom doors in the face of someone who rejected their advances.

Almost all of them mention improper requests from mentors, ranging from invitations to supposedly important events that turned out to be private and far away with just the two of them, to wanting to sleep in a student’s bed because he had “drunk too much”, and, after being rejected, asking whether he could at least have a pair of panties to cuddle with on the sofa.

Several times, professional favours were offered in exchange for sex. The term ‘somm suckers’ is apparently used for women who are in relationships with members of The Court. Several women say they accepted the advances out of fear of jeopardising the rest of their training, or ultimately being denied the diploma. (Again, exactly how the exams are assessed is murky and takes place behind closed doors).

What happens next

In response to questions from the New York Times, The Court of Master Sommeliers (CMS) wrote that they “uphold the highest degree of professionalism and integrity at all times and investigate every allegation that is reported”. There is now also a phone number where these kinds of issues can be reported, whereas previously they could only be brought to the board itself—the board on which the accused themselves often sat.

Some of the designated mentors have been suspended, and there is a promise that others will not be allowed to assess the exams of ‘their’ whistleblowers. (The remaining exams, they may). For Ms Mitchell, the matter was not over after the NYT article was published: she considered CMS’s response so lacking in understanding that she published an extensive essay in which she calls CMS’s reaction appalling and hollow, backing this up at length.

Another woman interviewed once again stresses the importance of inclusivity within the wine world. “We want this to be accessible to everyone; our goal is for all people to enjoy wine. Otherwise, collectively, we’ll go under because of White Claw (America’s largest hard seltzer brand, ed.)…”

You can read the full NYT article by Julia Moskin here, and the follow-up essay by Liz Mitchell here.

Also read:

• Impress sommeliers: here’s how
• Coronavirus news: you can now order a delivery sommelier
• We asked top sommeliers about the very best snack-and-wine pairings

Source: The New York Times