John Bailey’s MeToo moment: Is this the end of the Academy?

After a series of scandals, snafus, and misfires, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is in the worst shape it’s ever been. As well as struggling with financial difficulties and interpersonal calamities, the Academy is also faced with the onerous truth that they’ve lost a great deal of public interest. The 2018 ceremony attracted the lowest ratings in the history of the broadcast, with only 26.5 million people wasting a fair chunk of their day to watch tipsy millionaire actors applaud one another.

Now that Academy President John Bailey is under investigation for sexual harassment, the future of the already-weakened Academy feels dicey. Could this be the end of one of Hollywood’s oldest institutions? More importantly, should any of us even care?

Does the Academy give a damn about its bad reputation?

On Friday, Variety reported an investigation had been launched into the three sexual harassment claims made against Bailey. An official Academy statement suggested the situation was being kept as private as possible. The Academy treats any complaints confidentially to protect all parties. The Membership Committee reviews all complaints brought against Academy members according to our Standards of Conduct process, and after completing reviews, reports to the Board of Governors. We will not comment further on such matters until the full review is completed.

The investigation into the accusations against Bailey is part of the Academy’s newly-established Code of Conduct, featuring a specific claims process outlining how such allegations should be processed. If the allegations are deemed credible, the board will decide upon sufficient disciplinary action. The Academy cleared Bailey in March 2018 with no further action.

Post-#MeToo governance changes at the Academy

The Code of Conduct that handled the Bailey case marked the start of structural adjustments rather than a single fix. Bailey was cleared under the new process in 2018 and went on to serve a second term after re-election that August. Leadership later shifted when Janet Yang became the first Asian American president in 2022 and CEO Bill Kramer was appointed the same year to steer day-to-day operations. These moves reflected an effort to separate governance from the older model of a single prominent figure holding the spotlight.

Impact of inclusion standards on Best Picture eligibility

Critics had long flagged the Academy’s demographic makeup, and concrete rules followed. Beginning with the 2024 Oscars, films must meet criteria in at least two of four categories covering on-screen representation, creative leadership, industry access, and audience development to qualify for Best Picture. The Academy Aperture 2025 initiative built on that framework by expanding outreach and data tracking. These standards replaced vague pledges with measurable thresholds that every contender now has to clear.

Business as usual

The Academy has shown support for movements like MeToo and Time’s Up, including expelling Harvey Weinstein eleven days after The New York Times published his alleged history of sexual misconduct. When Bailey was first elected as Academy President in August 2017, there was some notable tension surrounding the decision to hire a 75-year-old white man for the role at a time when the Academy was still being challenged for a lack of diversity. This was an issue the former cinematographer called “bullshit” when questioned by Variety: “I was born a white man, and I can’t help it that I’m 75 years old. Is this some sort of limiting factor?” Bailey re-elected in 2018 and completed his service before his death in November 2023. Inclusion standards implemented for 2024 Oscars addressed some of the earlier concerns about representation.

The Academy received backlash in 2012 when the Oscar voter demographic was found in a study to be 94% white and 77% male. Meanwhile, the group had a median age of 62. Bailey’s identity may not have been limiting, but it definitely suggested the decision was business as usual at the Academy. While the sexual harassment accusations are now resolved, factors like these still shape perception at a time when audiences want active signs of change rather than a theater of old white dudes achieving peak activism by wearing a Time’s Up pin on their expensive lapels.

Academy Museum performance and public reception

The Academy Museum of Motion Pictures opened in September 2021 after pandemic delays. Construction costs reached approximately $482 million. Earned revenues declined from $18 million in 2023 to $15 million in 2024. The building now sits on the former May Company site and houses permanent and rotating exhibitions drawn from the Academy’s archive. Attendance has varied with seasonal programming, yet the museum remains a visible public face for an institution that once operated largely behind closed doors.

Money talks and the Academy is flush with silence

The Oscars ceremony might keep the Academy swimming in dimes like Scrooge McDuck for another year, but as society’s viewing habits and film interests continue to change, the Academy and its overly opulent ceremony need to modernize if they’re to survive. Fiscal 2025 revenues reached $269.2 million with net assets of $988 million. That stability undercuts earlier fears of insolvency, though it does not erase the sense that the institution still leans on ceremony more than innovation.

Oscars viewership trends since 2018

The 2018 low of 26.5 million viewers was later eclipsed by a pandemic-era floor of 10.4 million in 2021. Numbers climbed to 19.7 million in 2025 before settling at 17.9 million in 2026. The broadcast remains the single largest annual showcase for the film industry, yet the long decline from earlier decades continues. Shorter runtimes, staggered streaming releases, and competing live events have all chipped away at the once-automatic audience.

Right now, the seemingly endless sway of the unbroken Hollywood boys’ club, indulgent spending on a vainglorious museum, and snoozeworthy six-hour Oscars ceremony are hardly maintaining a mass appeal for the public. The Academy cleared Bailey, installed new leadership, and introduced eligibility rules that force studios to consider representation earlier in the production cycle. Viewership has fluctuated and the museum has opened, yet the core question lingers: whether these adjustments amount to genuine transformation or simply new window dressing on an old machine. So if this is the end of the outdated version of the Academy, we feel fine about it. Maybe it’s time for the institute to transform into one the modern-day film industry genuinely needs, and doesn’t just lean on for meaningless dazzle.