It is prize season again in the cultural sector and that always generates hassle. Suspicions of rigging, nepotism, bribery. It's part of it, as is everyone doing their best to tell you that the jury chose completely objectively and independently. There is also a Cultural governance code to prevent the small art world from having too few people say something about too many important things.
Last Saturday, however, things went wrong. The Nederlandse Taalunie, the language preservation and development club that has been at loggerheads for some time between the Dutch proselytisers and the Flemish precisers, has been calling the Taalunie Toneelschrijfprijs awarded to Freek M., the brother of one of the jury members. Worse, the jury member in question, Ruth M., has recently set up a theatre company, together with the brother in question, to tour the winning play throughout the Dutch-speaking world.
According to the Language Union, it is all pico bello expired. The three-member jury would, in total objectivity, consider Freek M.'s piece on the longlist have put. Ruth M. allegedly had no say in it. In the Volkskrant of Monday, September 7, the secretary states that juror Ruth M. also did not contribute to the placing on the shortlist of her brother's piece. She was also not at all involved in the final choice of her brother's play by the other - two - jurors.
Remains the question of what exactly Ruth M. did participate in that jury. But we didn't get an answer to that. Nor to the question of why she did not then withdraw openly to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
At a time when the subsidised arts sector is under a magnifying glass from populism-driven media and politicians, this state of affairs is rather disastrous. We can, of course, dismiss it as a faux pas, a - excusez le mot – shitty coincidence, but only the bare fact in itself That the Language Union does not comment further on the affair is a accident waiting to happen. Anyway obviously a problem that only a three-member jury was appointed. Du moment That you do is the asking for trouble.
Who takes the Language Union at all any more earnest?
Update: response Steven Peters on behalf of Taalunie 'Hand in the fire for integrity'
Every entry for the Taalunie Toneelschrijfprijs is initially read and weighed by two of the three jury members. If, in the first jury meeting, it appears that both jury members consider the text worthy of the prize, it goes straight to the second jury round and is then also read by the third jury member and myself. In this case, the text is also not discussed during the first meeting, to avoid influencing the jury member who has not yet read the text. When distributing the entries among the jury members, I try to take into account as much as possible that jury members do not know the entrants, which is not easy in the small world that is the theatre world, but still. For instance, a Dutch jury member is more likely to receive texts from Flemish jury members for assessment and vice versa, a jury member who is himself a maker in youth theatre is more likely to receive texts for adult theatre, and so on and so forth. I try to be as scrupulous as possible when it comes to the distribution of texts and always ask members of the jury to be open when it comes to relationships with submitters, which is duly done. In this particular case, I was of course aware of the family relationship and Ruth did not vote on Freek's text in the first round, as she was not submitted for assessment for this reason either. The enthusiasm of the other two judges was such that, thanks to them, the text was retained for the second jury round. Also solely because of their unanimous preference, 'Waiting and other heroic deeds' was eventually awarded the prize. Ruth was not allowed to vote on the choice of laureate. I dare put my hand fully in the fire for her integrity and that of the entire jury. Ruth has previously found it very objectionable that it turned out this way, however happy she is for her brother.
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
