Part One: CMS’s Historical Record of Hospitality & Inclusion

Master Sommelier Trades Pin for Integrity

The NYT painted CMS as an “old boys club” run by a bunch of old white men out of touch with the world today, an organization that limited the involvement of women and people of color. The article even quotes a male MS who stated that, “Among certain men, there’s no attempt to hide it and no shame in it…It’s like something from another era.” Sadly, the NYT forgot to mention that this MS’s wife is one of the women making accusations of sexual harassment. Additionally, her 2018 exam results were nullified because a Master Sommelier gave exam answers to an undisclosed number of students. Although I empathize with his anger, it does not accurately reflect the true history of CMS.

CMS’s history is one of outreach and inclusion. The organization’s bedrock principles of Hospitality and Meritocracy has had a profound impact on elevating professional hospitality standards. No one was ever ostracized because of their sex, sexual orientation, or skin color. In fact, the CMS is one of the driving forces behind so many more historically systemically oppressed people are now involved in the hospitality industry today. The proof is in the CMS candidate mix and current diversity of successful candidates.

When I attended my first CMS Advanced Exam in 1994, the make-up of that room was already more diverse than the industry at large, and that diversity has only grown. As a member of the board of directors from 2004 until 2017, I took part in numerous votes to spend tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships for marginalized people throughout North, Central, and South America. We successfully organized the first Introductory exams in Spanish and encouraged and accepted people of all races, color, sex, and sexual orientation. According to the first black MS, CMS was his safe space. The organization is filled with success stories of immigrants and marginalized people who found hope, as there was never any judgement or prejudice. CMS offered opportunity to many who had little.

The simple fact is, CMS has always accepted every human who desired to attempt the journey. But the journey is not for everyone. It is exceptionally hard and packed with disappointment and sacrifice. On average, it takes 10 to 15 years for most people to get through the entire program, and the vast majority never do. The current BOD recently boasted that the 2022 group of new Masters is the most diverse ever. This stunning achievement is the direct result of every Master that served on the BOD for the last 15 years and beyond. We, not the current BOD, laid the groundwork that changed the industry.  

The NYT’s false narrative of CMS, and the current board’s amplification of it, insults all those that gave selflessly to build this inclusive, though not always flawless, organization: Nunzio Alioto, Madeline Triffon, Fred Dame, Sally Mohr, Wayne Belding, Tim Gaiser, Joe Spellman, Evan Goldstein, Doug Frost, Jay Fletcher, Jay James and so on. These great, albeit imperfect humans, built an organization that inspired and empowered a generation and more. These individuals elevated the standards of hospitality and professionalism and people followed.

Accusation: Lack of Female Involvement

The NYT article sites several examples of how “old white men controlled the exam results” and that “sexual aggression is a constant for women somms.” Although I agree there were a very small number of men whose behavior was reprehensible, it was not enough to slow female or minority involvement. Between 2010 and 2019, I mentored nearly 500 candidates from across North & South America. Nearly 50% (245) were women and a significant percentage would identify as LGB+ as well. There were other issues, besides a few bad apples, that lead to women not completing the program. Having mentored and empowered a significant number of women, I discovered several things. First, many women, and some men, realized that the return on investment for the sacrifice required to pass this exam is not worth it. And they are absolutely correct! (See False Expectations section). Secondly, many of the women I mentored expressed disappointment in the lack of access to female Masters. Some of the women that did gain access to female Masters felt discouraged and humiliated after tasting with some of them. Furthermore, I was involved with nearly every Masters and Advanced exam between 2003 and 2019. I can tell you from firsthand experience that many women MS’s graded female candidates harder than their male counterparts. Many people within the organization know this to be true, but many will deny this truth. I can site many examples, but will limit it to the two below.

Exam Evidence

Despite CMS’s best efforts, a hospitality service exam will never be 100% objective and there will always some subjectivity in the evaluation process. The exam is also exceptionally hard to the point of almost being unpassable, so when candidates are close to passing, we do our best to find the compassion and points to push them over.

To prevent humiliation, I will not provide the years or names, but the first example involves a male Master that demanded a female candidate, who I will call Jane, be passed. Jane failed the service table that was proctored by a female Master and me. The female Master refused to reevaluate her score and pass Jane. The male Master became irate, so I stood with the female Master to back her up. Here is the dichotomy: Jane failed to pass because a female Master would not reassess her score, while the obstinate male MS was fighting to pass Jane, despite the failing service score. 

The second example involves tasting results between a male and female candidate both within a few points of passing. The male candidate got 3 wines correct while the female candidate only got three grapes correct; a seemingly small but very significant difference. After much deliberation, they pushed the female candidate over and made her a Master but failed the male candidate.

With 20 plus years of exam experience, I could site many more examples of good, albeit flawed, humans doing their best to ensure objective fairness while promoting diversity. Furthermore, it should be noted, no single Master ever has, or will ever have, the power to pass or fail a candidate. It is always a committee decision. This is the true history of the Court of Master Sommeliers.

False Expectations

The NYT also painted a dishonest picture of Masters “swathed in pomp and privilege” and stated that those who pass the Masters exam “instantly join the ranks of the highest-paid and most influential members of the profession.” This is absolutely NOT TRUE! This false narrative is driven by the 2012 SOMM documentary that gave the impression that fame and riches await those who passed. Wrong! There is nothing waiting for anyone that passes the Masters exam. The results may generate some social media fame, and the notoriety might open a few doors, but at the end of the day, if the Master does not perform to the expectations of an employer, they do not get the job. Period.

Passing the Masters exam is more analogous to successfully summiting Mount Everest. Both endeavors are very expensive, require tremendous sacrifice and multiple attempts with no guarantee of success. Those that manage to pass the exam or summit the peak are certainly part of an elite group, but that does not guarantee success at any future venture. In fact, many Masters are lost after passing. So much of their identity was tied to the journey, they forgot they were pursuing a title of hospitality and servitude. Although I am grateful for the attention the movie Somm brought to this wonderful industry, it did a poor job of depicting the service aspect of a Sommelier. The movie changed the perception of our title from one of servitude to the false hope of instant fame and riches.

Harassment Enabling Organizations: GuildSomm & TexSom

Finally, The NYT biggest gaff was its inability to clarify the difference between the Court of Master Sommeliers, GuildSomm and TexSom. These are three completely unrelated organizations, which are only connected by the word SOMM. CMS is an examination body that administers the Master Sommelier exam. Fraternization with candidates during exams is forbidden and any relationship a Master has with a candidate, whether romantic, friend or business, must be disclosed. Masters that make poor choices at CMS events have always been disciplined. Although CMS can prevent these Masters from participating at CMS events, the organization, of course, has no say in who can participate at a GuildSomm or TexSom events. The majority of the harassment issues sited in the NYT article involved either GuildSomm or TexSom events, NOT Court of Master Sommelier events. Leadership at GuildSomm and TexSom were well aware of the poor decisions made by certain Masters at their events, but invited them back anyways. Likewise, many of those attending GuildSomm or TexSom knew about the reprehensible behavior that was allowed, but they continue to support both organizations. The question that was never posed was “why?” Why do so many people in the hospitality industry continue to support both GuildSomm and TexSom despite their culpability. The painful truth is quite simple and sad. Apparently, it is more important to be seen with Somm “celebrities” and get those SM clicks than to hold accountable those organizations that enabled the harassment and bad behavior.