Good Intentions but Poor Execution: The James Beard Foundation and The Code of Ethics
An article about problematic practices at the James Beard Foundation surfaced this week in the New York Times. The article, by The NYT writers Brett Anderson and Julia Moskin, reveals that the JBF is investigating their Award nominees for violations of the JBF’s code of ethics. The Foundation has opened a tip line, and hired private investigators to aid in determining if any of the chefs nominated for their highly prestigious awards could be accused of abusive behavior by their staff. If found to be in violation of the Foundation’s Code of Ethics, the nominee could be disqualified from winning, although their names would remain on the voting ballot. A good idea to hold those to account, but poorly executed.
I have been in the food industry my entire working life and I have always been wary of The James Beard Foundation. I have vacillated between being supportive of their mission to being cynical. Initially, I loved the idea that the culinary world was recognized as an art and that creativity in the American food world was being rewarded. But when I saw the Foundation elevating the same old predictable names, it seemed to be just a way for those who could afford it, to self-promote . Separate from the awards, the organization “invites” chefs to cook at the prestigious James Beard House — which they can only do if they can afford it, fly themselves and their team to New York and thus take advantage of the invitation. Chefs pay for their own promotion and bask in the endorsement of the JBF. The Foundation gives you a stamp of approval. Plus, it seemed to be celebrating gastronomic excellence that was predominately white, European and male. Despite being married to someone who fits that description, I saw inequity in celebrating colonialized gastronomy.
When they began giving out awards, many folks I supported were recognized, and I thought that was cool. But then, I had the experience of working for several chefs that were recognized with a James Beard Award. In all cases, their culture sucked. (Note: just the ones I worked for. I know many who are committed to better culture.) When those chefs received recognition, I became even more cynical about the JBF Awards processes. I was angry that these chefs had been given so much oxygen. The award acted as an endorsement for whatever they are doing. In some cases, it inflated their egos, gave them license to expect employees to work for unlivable wages or no wage at all. It gave them license to continue with the toxic behaviors that were happening behind the scenes.
Today, I applaud the Foundation for striving to be relevant, and being a supporter of and catalyst for change in the hospitality world. It is an organization that has transitioned from being “a body celebrating gastronomy” to one trying to “(drive) impact across the industry” (from their website) Bravo, how wonderful is that! Since 2017 with the emergence of the #MeToo movement, the dirty secret of abusive behaviors within the restaurant industry has been exposed. The James Beard Foundation is now taking that head on.
From the article: “By making itself the chief arbiter of restaurant excellence, however, the foundation also made many of the restaurant world’s most pernicious problems — inequity, lack of diversity in leadership, workplace abuse of many kinds — its’ own.”
To be relevant JBF had to address these issues. In response, they established an Ethics Committee to address just this.
However, they are using the same systems and processes to address those problems that created the problem. With a tip line (for anonymous reporting of abuses) and surreptitious investigations, they perpetuate the stigma of speaking out. We can no longer stay in the shadows and be cowed by the backlash. A poor culture will not survive the light of day. A healthy culture will not be destroyed by one angry unhappy employee lodging a complaint.
I believe that an organization that prides itself in elevating excellence in the culinary world should not be elevating the work of anyone who hasn’t done the work to address a toxic workplace. Hand in hand with that, JBF certainly shouldn’t be elevating anyone or any business that has a known problem that goes unaddressed.
Hiring a private investigator and opening an anonymous tip line fails to go to the heart of the issue constructively. Instead, this practice serves to perpetuate the stigma of speaking out, of covering up and silencing voices, without addressing the behavior itself.
What would be better practice?
· To be considered for a JB award, a restaurant should be required to have a program in place that addresses and holds space for a healthy culture. Restaurants must have a path to accountability built into the culture of their space, including the behavior of leaders at the top. If the work has not been done, restaurants and their chefs should not be elevated as leaders in the industry.
· The Tip Line: This reinforces the stigma of blowing the whistle. JBF should actively interview those who work within a restaurant or with a nominated chef. Any restaurant that is confident in its’ policies would have nothing to hide. If someone is afraid of losing their job for speaking out, well, that is a huge red flag.
· Now this is radical: Eliminate the awards! Celebrate excellence in some other way. I’m not sure what that might be. The awards have had a nasty effect of reinforcing poor leadership practices. Chefs get big egos, become celebrities interested in perpetuating their own self-importance, rather than working to make the industry better. The hundreds of people who will work for them will suffer.
Culture is something that must be consciously created. Restaurateurs have ignored this for way too long, and the James Beard Foundation’s Ethics Committee should not act as Culture Police. Rather, they can act as a resource for restaurateurs for building a better culture. Providing workbooks, and leadership training materials, and helping restaurants write their own code of conduct. This would go far in making culture conversations front and center, making a difference for everyone (including vendors, customers, staff, and management).
