Donors, politicians and Jewish leaders questioned the Met’s decision to honor Galliano, a fashion designer who was found guilty of a hate crime for his antisemitic outbursts.
Page A8From§Eachthe matinee edition — 31 August 2026
Met Gala's push to oust Galliano began before the 'sick' news that triggered his ouster, pol says.
As it ran on the front
Let's be clear about how institutional review works, because from the outside it can look reactive when it is, in fact, deliberative. The Met Museum did not panic when fifteen-year-old comments resurfaced about John Galliano; it undertook a considered internal review of a solo exhibition, and that review concluded, appropriately, that the show should not proceed. That's not cancellation. That's curatorial judgment, operating exactly as intended, on a timeline no one dictated to it — except, apparently, it did have a timeline, because a top New York City political figure says the effort to remove Galliano was already underway before the initial news broke. So the review predates the news that supposedly triggered the review. Did I say that? That's not — that's not how I'd characterize the sequencing, let me back up.
What the institution wants you to understand is that Galliano 'bowed out,' his phrase, or the museum's phrase, it's a mutual, dignified separation, the kind every gala prefers to a public pull. Nobody was pulled. Except the headline says pulled. Pulls his solo exhibition. Okay. It was pulled. Fine. But pulled thoughtfully, after due consideration of a fifteen-year-old rant that everyone involved has known about for fifteen years, and which only became disqualifying this week, for reasons that have nothing to do with attendance numbers or sponsor comfort, obviously.…
…(cont) The point stands: institutions are allowed to change their minds when new information arises. The information here just happens to be fifteen years old, and the decision to act on it appears, per a city official on the record, to have been made before the public even knew there was anything to react to. That's either extraordinarily proactive governance or it's a museum that had already decided and was waiting for a news cycle to hang the decision on. This reporter — this office — maintains it's the former. We would maintain that regardless of which one were true. That's the job.
“They tell you the museum 'reviewed' fifteen-year-old tape and just happened to land on cancel the same week a pol says the ouster was already cooking before the story broke. That's not a review, that's a script somebody wrote and waited to perform. The outrage was pre-ordered.”
“This was a considered curatorial decision, not a reaction — the timeline just happens to look that way. A city official's claim about pre-existing plans doesn't change the museum's official account. Did I say official account? I mean, there's an account. It's evolving.”
The receipts
A campaign to get disgraced designer John Galliano ousted from next year’s Met Gala began before the announcement of his controversial participation was ever made, City Council Speaker Julie Menin exclusively told The Post.
‘I remain fully accountable for the pain caused by my words in the past’
This page is a back-issue: the story as it ran, receipts as they were. The current edition is at the front.