Drew
-
Posts
4,077 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Drew
-
-
6 hours ago, nanushka said:
... The complete absence of any expressed remorse is striking, but that may have been somewhere else in the original source.
I was unable to read to the end of Catazaro's statements, but this was exactly my reaction. NO remorse even crafted to avoid any implication that he deserved to be terminated? Likewise from Ramasar. Well, okay -they can take the opportunity to prove they did nothing for which they should be fired AND, given the lack of anything apologetic in their statements--that they did nothing to feel the least bit regretful about. (And it's not simply reassuring to learn from Catazaro that he was disciplined for actions that did not directly involve Waterbury. A fuller story may be...or not.)
Honestly, I think their statements almost make me less sympathetic to them than I might have been had they been dismissed and said nothing. That said, Catazaro and Ramasar have every right to fight for their positions in the company (as no-one here has denied) and if the union is on their side...they may have a chance to regain their positions. So be it.
But for my own personal feelings about the company the decision to terminate was the right decision given the following from the Times article and assuming even minimum good faith on the company's part:
"The company said in a statement on Saturday that after hearing the concerns of dancers, staff members and others in the City Ballet community, it had decided to fire Mr. Ramasar and Mr. Catazaro" (my emphasis).
The part in bold seems important to me. Catazaro and Ramasar can fight for their right to return--they should no more be condemned for that than Waterbury or her lawyer for seeking legal redress. But clearly there are people in the company dismayed enough about what they did to have spoken up within the company even given how very fraught this situation is (lawsuits etc.). It's not just a question of personal "liking" here--more is at stake.
Anyway, I almost breathed a sigh of relief when I saw the company's statement--it did make me feel that maybe the leadership might actually give a d**m or understand that they need to do so... but obviously there is a lot more legal wrangling coming and since it pits the dancers' union against concerns also expressed by dancers (according to the company's statement anyway "hearing the concerns of dancers" and implied by Lovette's & Bouder's earlier statements as well), this is legal wrangling with potential to continue to be demoralizing to many involved. So I can't exactly feel relief after all. But the company statement does make me feel less conflicted about continuing to buy tickets/make donations etc.
Ramasar in particular seems to express in his statement that he will end up vindicated. (If this turns into a victim bashing scenario --"she knew...she wanted..."--then I will be sickened beyond belief. Because in this case I believe I would find it impossible to find it credible "she knew...she wanted..." and add to that the age difference and Finlay's position as a principal etc. etc...So let's hope he has something else in mind by way of vindication.) As far as Ramasar and Catazaro go, too, of course most people who aren't actual saints make mistakes, even bad ones; sometimes they pay, and they can and should be allowed to move on--I don't need to see Ramasar or Catazaro or even Finlay destroyed for all time, but I do want to see New York City Ballet take what they did seriously and send a signal to the company and to SAB -- where the students look to the company -- about what the company's values need to be. And dismissing these dancers does that even as it does have extremely serious implications for their careers as ballet dancers. There is nothing to be happy about here, but unhappiness has to begin with what these men DID. (With they caveat that they have the opportunity to show otherwise.) Waterbury's lawyer didn't make that happen, and neither did she, and though Finlay arguably did make it happen--the company's investigation concluded that he was not alone.
-
3 hours ago, On Pointe said:
I think we're talking about this case because we're ballet fans and those involved are ballet dancers. Ms. Waterbury appears to have a legitimate case against Chase Finlay. There is nothing ballet schools can teach that could have prevented him from taking photos of her. Everything that happened between them could have happened if she were an accountant.
People can be wonderfully brought up--given good ethical, personal, and professional guidance and examples and still be horrible. But many people are impacted by the guidance and examples they receive at school as well as the norms etc. that surround them at work. It would need a much more thorough airing of laundry (dirty or clean) to know if ballet schools could do more to make horrible behavior less likely or whether, indeed, they need to do so. In Dance Magazine, commenting on one of Waterbury's statements, Susan Jaffe seems to say NO rather decisively. In a public statement (posted on FB and linked to on Twitter) Leigh Witchel says YES... That doesn't point to consensus.
-
6 hours ago, KayDenmark said:
I stand with humans. Both Alexandra Waterbury and Chase Finlay are humans with strengths and weaknesses, good and bad sides, gifts and faults, bad deeds and good deeds.
De-humanizing either one of them does not promote justice, kindness, or a better world.
Finlay (and Ramasar and Catazaro and the donor, etc.) may deserve punishment, but nobody deserves hatred and humiliation.
Good thoughts. The only thing I would add —which may just have seemed too obvious to you to write —is that certain situations still call for taking sides—giving certain kinds of support to some humans and not giving it to others. Even standing with some and not others regarding that particular situation. Neutrality in those cases or agreeing that ‘everyone makes mistakes’ is taking a side, the side of the status quo and sometimes of the more powerful ...
In fact, like many posting here I don’t feel I know enough to have completely formed views of this situation and obviously I can’t determine the truth of much in the legal complaint. But due to the company’s disciplinary actions and its history along with statements its leadership has made during past investigations, I certainly do feel I know enough to feel great sympathy for Waterbury’s situation and to be disturbed by insinuations being made against her—some direct, some indirect—and to remain skeptical that problems inside the company (whatever the strictly legal issues are) have been addressed or are nonexistent I also rather doubt Lovette would have posted (however vaguely) about supporting other women and working behind the scenes to make things better if there were no issues women dancers at NYCB wanted to see addressed.
-
2 hours ago, KayDenmark said:
Is it fair for Miss Waterbury to use their experiences to bolster her own case?
It may not be--but it also may not be fair for their silence to protect people (or an institution) responsible for harm done to her. Both of those things can be true.
And since her case against NYCB involves claiming patterns of behavior by the company that contributed to the harm done to her, there is no way to make it without invoking other events that have happened there.
(I also assume there are legal rules and protocols involved in the case of rape victims etc. that help to protect them in cases like this -- but that part of this particular complaint may just turn out to be hearsay anyway. Something Ms. Waterbury or someone else "heard" and reported to her lawyer. We don't know.)
I agree she is likely to face harsh and ugly treatment in a legal battle--or indeed in a public relations one. She already has had some genuinely insulting language lobbed at her (reported in the press) alongside more mildly critical language. She entered the public sphere with this case, and I hope her lawyers and advisors prepared her for what would happen if she didn't receive a settlement -- which presumably would have had a non-disclosure agreement attached. (At least insofar as anyone can be prepared.)
-
Thank you for the additional report annamk --
-
7 hours ago, Longtimelurker said:
They also have the necessary clout to do so without any repercussions.
Even a well-known principal dancer can be phased out through casting decisions etc. There will always be "artistic" ways to explain those decisions. No-one is irreplaceable especially in a field as competitive as classical ballet and a company as over-brimming with talent as NYCB. Add to that the conflicted and often very unpleasant reactions of the public when artists speak out on any controversial issue -- reactions which may also have career consequences for those who speak out.
So, I think there is always a risk of repercussions...it may be less serious for some than others--if you are planning to retire or can pick up guest star gigs (and find those reasonably satisfying) then maybe you are risking less than someone just beginning a career, but nothing seems risk-free here. Though...perhaps collective action and collective voicing gives some protection: if all the company's women principal dancers or soloists could agree on a statement or some such. Even there, I think one shouldn't under-rate how hard it is to speak out publicly; and in the face of group action company management might still decide that dancer x or y was the "ringleader." (As far as this particular case goes, some of the company's dancers are probably--like many of us here--not confident they know exactly what happened, who was involved etc....and that may influence their decisions about speaking out as well.)
Because it's so hard/risky to speak out in situations like this one, I'm not too quick to condemn people who don't speak out publicly, but sometimes speaking publicly has an important role to play in bringing about a better system--maybe even a necessary role.
-
I don't think a link to this little feature from Dance Magazine has been posted--but perhaps I missed it.
"When news about the lawsuit against New York City Ballet and Chase Finlay emerged last week, plaintiff Alexandra Waterbury, a former School of American Ballet student, told the New York Times:
'Every time I see a little girl in a tutu or with her hair in a bun on her way to ballet class, all I can think is that she should run in the other direction,' she said, 'because no one will protect her, like no one protected me.' [...]
"We reached out to a variety of authorities in the field to hear their reactions to her statement:"
A range of quotes follows from various figures in the ballet world including one from Jenifer Ringer--here is the link:
https://www.dancemagazine.com/alexandra-waterbury-2602545003.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1
Perhaps this should be the beginning of a different topic? Wasn't sure...but the content of one or two of the quotes made me think maybe just put it here.
-
For a preview article on Atlanta Ballet's opening program of the 2018-19 season, AJC has a nice feature on Robert Barnett and his history at Atlanta Ballet as he is works with Atlanta Ballet dancers on Tchaikovsky pas de deux for the upcoming "Return to Fall" program:
"At 93, Barnett is doing what he loves best — teaching and coaching dancers. Having set Balanchine ballets on numerous companies in recent years, he is restaging work on Atlanta Ballet company members for the first time in 21 years for this weekend’s production, 'Return to Fall.' [...]
"Barnett’s ties with Balanchine, one of the 20th century’s most influential ballet figures, help connect the next generation of dancers with Atlanta Ballet’s past as well as the history of American ballet."
And this quote from Barnett regarding Tchaikovsky pas de deux in particular: "'“It’s not calm, with a bunch of commas,' he later explained, 'There are exclamation points all through it'.”
Here is a link to the whole piece: https://www.myajc.com/entertainment/arts--theater/former-leader-plays-role-atlanta-ballet-prepares-for-new-season/fLhFscKlDlrNtSiPLK9hFP/
-
15 hours ago, Birdsall said:
Last night Kovalyova, Tissi, and Kretova thrilled the crowd, and the audience didn’t seem to want them to leave. Tissi, of course, was beloved, but it also felt like I was watching a star being born for Kovalyova! Kretova too! It was like watching 3 stars being born!
I actually saw Kovalyova’s debut via a private video and thought she was too young and inexperienced for Nikiya...I was actually disappointed when I watched the video, but last night she impressed me, so I assume she’s been working on the role. Where she was weak in her debut seeming to barely act when the High Brahmin accosted her, she was more emphatic in her rejection last night. However, she looks to me to be a sweet and gentle soul where anger or rejecting someone comes harder than for someone like Zakharova. She has the flowing Vaganova arms that I love, and all night she seemed like a woman in love. Her turns with the scarf looked more assured than Zakharova’s!
But the biggest thing that made me love this performance was that all three main characters seemed fresh, young, alive, and the dancers looked like they LOVED what they were doing at every moment.
Kretova’s acting was outstanding. She looked desperate when she thought she might lose Solor, and she was very imperious and angry after the cat fight bringing her fist down powerfully. After the snake bite and Nikiya accuses her she looked scared. Technically I found no fault either. Her Italian fouettés and regular fouettés were great!
Tissi was hard not to love. I am sure part of the excitement in the theatre was due to his being Italian. However, he delivered and added so many little balances or poses that were beautiful and expressive of the moment. It was like he wanted so much to give the most to the performance. His first solo, however, had a slight jerkiness to it, as he prepared to jump, but all other moments were gorgeous. His cambres in the first act as Nikiya circles around him were deep and beautiful.
Basically, this was the performance I thought I would like the least, but it ended up knocking my socks off! Everyone was “on” and you truly believed in the plight of these young people!
It is so rare for all the main dancers to be so exciting.
"On" isn't always a function of the most distinguished casts--whatever one's criteria for distinction is--or most experienced ones. There's a living excitement that takes over in the theater some nights. Sounds like this was one of those nights. Wonderful to read about!
-
1 hour ago, sappho said:
...
And while most people dodge the issue by saying something like, "He was a product of his times," Clifford seems to think Balanchine's actions are worthy of emulation.This was my reaction to almost the entirety of Clifford's statement -- and...uh...I admit also that I actually do think it matters that Balanchine belonged to a different era and am willing to have that be part of my view of him as a leader without thinking it makes him a god. (Even if I think his choreography is divine.)
Clifford's words do show very well how many dancers viewed Balanchine...the role he filled for many of them and faith he inspired. At least according to other memoirs and interviews I have read. And keeping calm in a crisis is undoubtedly a great quality for a leader to have and I most certainly believe Balanchine had it. But for me the rest of Clifford's account of how Balanchine operated, taken as a description of what an artistic director should be in the United States in 2018 --and in some cases even as account of what Balanchine himself was like as a director--was kind of "what the ....????"
Regarding Finlay losing his career at NYCB and possibly losing his career entirely: we don't know what the results of the internal investigation would have been and, therefore, don't know what penalty he would have received from the company had he not resigned.
The allegations about unnamed company figures are just that -- allegations: I personally want to believe the company will take them--or has taken them--seriously enough to look into them. Unfortunately, right now, I can't say that I do.
-
Very interesting to read about Ali-Baba -- thanks from me as well Birdsall and Laurent.
-
29 minutes ago, miliosr said:
Clifford has made a new entry to his blog titled 'The Eye of the Storm' where he ruminates some more on this topic:
http://johnclifford26.blogspot.com/
I think Clifford's post--which is about Balanchine's leadership in times of crisis not this current crisis per se--needs a thread to itself. In commenting on it, and most especially in commenting on it as a way of thinking about what New York City Ballet needs today--which is how Clifford presents it,...well....I don't even know where one would begin.
I am very grateful for Clifford's youtube channel--I also have some distant memories of him as a terrific dancer--I was very young when I saw him, so unfortunately they are a little vague. And he knows a lot about Balanchine, but ...
-
23 hours ago, Rock said:
While Bouder's comments are tiresome, they're also typical.
In a couple of respects at least I find Bouder's statement neither typical nor tiresome as we are (understandably) hearing very, very little --and that little relatively non-explicit--from other dancers in the company.
She does seem to me to trying to thread the needle, so to speak: strongly defending New York City Ballet while expressing sympathy for Waterbury ... and yet, at the same time, sort of acknowledging that there may be institutional issues that need to be addressed. I imagine many are unlikely to find this satisfying. (Even I don't really find it satisfying.) But until I read a slew of dancers are speaking up, it seems to me in that regard, her statement is quite untypical and even a touch brave.
Brave? I don't buy the idea that Bouder has nothing to risk in this mess: she has a life in New York City; ABT isn't going to hire her tomorrow--even assuming she wanted to dance for them or any company other than NYCB; and a new artistic director or, for that matter, Jonathan Stafford himself if he becomes the company's next artistic director, could phase her out through casting decisions should that person so wish. Many audience members would say--'well she was getting older...she did take time off to have a baby...too political' etc. So I give her props for some bravery here.
-
37 minutes ago, On Pointe said:
"Alex's relationship with the company has no bearing on her standing to bring forth a case against City Ballet."
In the complaint, Ms. Waterbury claims to have been a "former student at New York City Ballet, Inc." As this was not true, it's unclear why this detail was included. Perhaps to suggest a relationship with the company that did not exist?
"Being aware or not aware of explicit photographs being taken of you is a separate issue from having those images distributed without your consent. Even if someone willingly gives nude pictures of themselves to someone else (which was not the case here), it is still a violation of administrative code 10-177 to distribute those images without permission."
All true. Best not to put oneself in a vulnerable position in the first place. Ms. Waterbury is likely aware of the many cases of nude photos taken without permission that have ended up on the internet. If your boyfriend is "into" taking such photos, and continually bugs you to pose, it's a pretty good clue that he's not the one for you.
Someone posted above that SAB is part of the legal entity "New York City Ballet Inc." -- is that not so? I'm afraid I was not able to track this down. [Edited to add that FPF confirmed that this is the case below.]
(Certainly the School of American Ballet can reasonably be described as the company school. It's not as if there is no relation between the two institutions. If someone tried to argue that in front of a jury then they would have to explain why the institutions share a single director, and even now the plans are to hire one director for both entities.)
I think it is very harsh to blame Waterbury for not being savvy enough or shrewd enough or strong enough to refuse all photos. As if she therefore somehow deserved that those photos went public.
And, if I were a juror in this case, then I would not consider the ten-year age difference between Finlay and Waterbury, the fact that she was 19-20 when this was happening, and the fact that she had been a student at the school of the company where he was a principal dancer, a non-issue in the psychology of the situation. But even if you convinced me it was a non issue and even if she had enthusiastically agreed to pose for him (as she says she did not), still SHE didn't commit a crime or do anything heinous to her romantic partner--according to her complaint at least, HE did. And there are laws against what he did.
Yes, Finlay, too has a right to his day in court, or at any rate, a right to make his case to the public, but while I want to be fair I must admit that I can't help but agree with those who have said that that his swift resignation doesn't suggest he felt he had a strong case to make to his employer.
-
On 9/8/2018 at 6:18 PM, On Pointe said:
If Waterbury could not be expected to know of Finlay's activities, why should anyone in leadership at NYCB be expected to not only know about them but prevent them?
I agree with several posters above that the issue is not only whether the leadership of NYCB knew exactly what Finlay was doing to Waterbury at exactly the time he was doing it and how etc. etc.--but whether they enabled a situation in which a pattern of this kind of mistreatment generally could and did take place...and might indeed reasonably have been anticipated as likely to take place. Again, I'm not a lawyer and not a judge: I don't know legally exactly how these liabilities work. (Several posts have appeared since I began typing arguing just these kinds of legal issues.)
I'm also not Solomon so I can't say I have an exact sense of how to think about moral responsibility and other issues raised by this case that may be other than legal. Of course there is a limit to what the company can be responsible for...But the issues raised by the complaint do seem to me to need to be framed at least a little more broadly than the way they are in the question I quoted. And perhaps one doesn't need to be Solomon to wonder about what it's like for many women in the employ of New York City Ballet after reading Waterbury's complaint. (Women in particular in the wake of this complaint; but one wonders about vulnerable men as well.)
All the same, I'll add that since Waterbury herself wasn't a member of the company and these activities are said to have been taking place on company premises, it's actually not altogether farfetched to imagine company members/employees knowing things about Finlay's activities regarding her specifically--and certainly his activities in the past--that she didn't. Anyway, as Rock notes, the complaint is just that, a complaint. If the case against the company goes ahead and the company doesn't settle at that point, then I assume there will be depositions etc. and we may then find out how justified Waterbury and her lawyers are in thinking NYCB bears some responsibility for the situation involving three of their principal male dancers (according to both the complaint and the company's own investigation) plus other company employees and a donor according to the complaint.
Two other thoughts as I have been reading this thread:
The idea that because someone is going to classes and/or holding down a job they aren't suffering mental health problems is a little hard for me to respond to on a public message board -- anyone who has dealt with such problems or knows people who have (friends, family, colleagues etc.) has almost certainly had experience to the contrary. The smiling excellent student who is, in fact, suicidal; the model employee who is going broke paying psychiatrist bills -- these aren't figures of fantasy. I very much HOPE Waterbury's problems aren't that serious...she doesn't have to be on the verge of complete incapacity for me to feel that if the wrongs alleged were done to her, she is well within her rights to seek legal remedies including financial ones.
-
On 9/8/2018 at 3:12 PM, On Pointe said:
At some point, adults have to take responsibility for their actions. Ms. Waterbury had fair warning that the man she was dating was a substance abuser with a kink. She had the opportunity to cut off contact with him but chose not to. Finlay photographing her against her will is not her fault. But it isn't the fault of the NYCB either. Why should the company have to pay her off? Including NYCB in her complaint smacks of opportunism.
Fair warning? There is no evidence she knew he was sending around nude or semi-unclothed photos of her without her consent or that she knew he videotaped her in intimate situations. (Not just photographing her). How is she responsible for having known ahead of time what he was capable of? Plenty of substance abusers —even kinky ones — do NOT do what Finlay is charged with doing. And plenty of people older and more experienced than Waterbury have found themselves abused and taken advantage of...
It may well be a judge will agree with you that NYCB is not legally liable and not let the suit against the company go forward. On the other hand, a judge may feel that determination can’t be made without evidence or lack therof being established concerning allegations about the company made in the complaint. Either way, it doesn’t mean Waterbury does not sincerely believe company culture played a role in her ordeal. (And, for that matter, I suppose information about the company and not just Finlay may come out in a suit against Finlay alone.)
Legalities aside: does one believe the company has thoroughly looked into things mentioned in the complaint that do have a bearing on workplace issues? I hope so, and at least I know I should say high-mindedly that I am suspending judgment on that. But truthfully I am skeptical.
-
-
2 hours ago, cobweb said:
Re Chase Finlay, I look forward to hearing some kind of response from him, in whatever form that takes as the legal process proceeds. Could he really have taken videos without her knowledge - like having a hidden camera aimed at the bed which he furtively activated? I find it hard to believe anyone could be so lacking in sense and decency, so I'm wondering what his version of events is (most likely - that she did in fact know about it the taping, but this was conveyed orally so there is no documentation). But if it did happen as described in the complaint, he'll have to deal with the consequences.
We certainly have yet to hear Finlay's version of events which may cast a different light on things, but as far as sense and decency go, nothing in the emails cited in the complaint give one the impression of "sense and decency" in his dealings with Waterbury. I don't find it hard to believe that the author of those emails could have taken a video of her without her knowledge.
-
52 minutes ago, Rock said:
Alexandra Waterbury would seem to essentially be after two things: revenge on Chase Finlay, in which she would appear to be spectacularly successful, and then a big payout from the NYCB, which I doubt will go as well.
Putting aside prognostication, I think this language is too reductive and intentionally or not (I assume not) makes this suit about her and her personal motives in a way that's rather negatively coded ("revenge"/"Payout") when it is potentially --IF charges/allegations are born out--about rather more. Even on a purely personal level-: is it impossible to imagine that she has a concern for regaining a sense of control over her own life, for her own dignity or humanity in the face of experiences that may feel very humiliating and degrading--and that even the embarrassments and stresses of taking legal action (including suits and, yes, financial settlements) seem a way to do that, especially in the United States where that is often how people take action on their own behalf? I'll go further: the other side of revenge can be, for many people, a sense of justice.
But why should she sue NYCB? Rightly or wrongly she may well sincerely judge them to be complicit in what happened to her, exactly as the complaint lays out. That she could quite genuinely feel that way isn't even the tiniest bit of a stretch given the involvement of multiple NYCB personnel in this case. If allegations in the complaint about events that have happened to other women dancers in the company turn out to be accurate, then that would make her suit important in ways that go beyond her personal situation. And I don't think one can automatically assume that such wider issues mean nothing to her. All this may seem way too idealistic an interpretation, but it's no more implausible than talk of revenge etc.
Honestly, I'm inclined to believe motives in most law suits are complex and multiple. But I also believe Waterbury has been through an ugly ordeal; moreover, in the wake of her complaints becoming public she has talked about receiving ugly remarks/threats--I'm sure she is going to receive many more especially if her action against NYCB is at all successful or as popular a dancer as Ramasar faces further repercussions. If she can prove her case, then I have no problem with her receiving an award for damages. If she can't, but still does shine a light on problems in the company, that could be a good thing too. If it all turns out to be frivolous, or dishonest then I hope it's thrown out of court as soon possible. I'm only human and can't help but lean one way regarding what I think is likely to be true--the company's highly legalistic response as well as the head of the board's clue-lessness when responding to the Martins' allegations (more or less: 'let's have an investigation so he can come back as soon as possible, but please feel free dancers to tell us what you think') leaves me with a lot of skepticism about their approach to these issues--but really I don't know --
-
51 minutes ago, On Pointe said:
Unfortunately I could not access the actual complaint, so I'm puzzled about some of the claims.
The complaint is, in some respects, itself a puzzling document. I'm not a lawyer but I don't think the problems with it for a layperson like me are all down to professional uses of language. Reading it doesn't clear up the questions you raised in your post. Who fined the company $150,000 when a hotel room was "trashed" and what exactly was the fine for?? etc.
51 minutes ago, On Pointe said:There is no way for NYCB, or any business or institution, to control sexual relationships between consenting adults, even when such relationships are against company policy. If people choose to send sexual images from their personal computers on their own time, the company can't prevent that either. They can punish or fire employees whose activities cast the company in a negative light, and that is what they have done. that NYCB is financially responsible for their shenanigans. (I do expect this to show up on an episode of Law and Order SVU this coming season.)
Well, what has the company done with cases of improper/illegal behavior in the past? (Pretty much the most appalling allegation in the complaint is that a rape within the company was swept under the rug: but no names and no indication of what the source is--or whether there is hard evidence, though there is a location given, Vail.)
If one showed a pattern of permitting bad behavior (behavior that was against company policy) or, indeed, illegal behavior being allowed to proliferate with little or no response from the company, then that would raise questions about institutional responsibility for what happened in this case. At least, that's sort of my non-lawyer's understanding of the suit: the company's failure to act in the past has led to this kind of situation being probable--the company knew or should have known what kind of atmosphere they were creating/allowing through what was permitted in the past.
That is, one of the claims in the suit seems to be that the company has winked at appalling behavior in the past which is why it is responsible for normalizing that behavior--giving the green light to Finlay and others. Can those claims be proven? I don't know. But if they could be proven, then I think that would have a bearing on institutional responsibility ... I have to add again that I personally think there can be kinds of responsibility that may not rise to the level of legal responsibility, but that an institution might want to address.
Moreover the complaint claims that there are more people attached to the company who are connected to these particular incidents than have been named.
In the meanwhile, NYCB made a point in the statement issued today that they disciplined Catazaro, Finlay, and Ramasar "before the law-suit was filed." I can't help but notice that is not the same as saying they disciplined them before they knew a suit was coming--as they surely did know since they had heard from Waterbury's lawyer--so it doesn't seem to me evidence that they automatically take strong action in the face of these kinds of issues.
Regarding the complaint: this is the website that gets you there. You need to type something that proves you aren't a "bot" which takes you to a page where you can fill in the name of the complainant. A lot of it is allegations that don't seemed pinned to particular evidence--whether that's normal for a complaint at this stage or not I can't say: http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/index.jsp -
10 hours ago, On Pointe said:
Chris Rock famously said that "a man is only as faithful as his options" - if they can get away with bad behavior, some men will behave badly. There was nothing that NYCB could be reasonably been expected to do that would have prevented Ms. Waterbury's abuse. All they can do is react, and make clear going forward that such activities could lead to being fired. (Finlay and Ramasar could have forwarded photos to members of the company who didn't ask for them and didn't approve of their activities. It would be grossly unfair to punish them for the actions of others.)
We don't yet know enough to know what New York City Ballet's liabilities might be under the law. Obviously, the company thinks it can beat back a lawsuit. I would add that whether they have further kinds of responsibility beyond the legal and whether the larger dance world does (or doesn't) need to think about these issues as well--requires a conversation that goes way beyond Chris Rock's version of "boys will be boys" --
But let's take Chris Rock's way of putting things: a man's (or, indeed, a woman's) "options"--even just what they think those options are--may be partly impacted by the institutional rules, norms or cultures that surround them. The question in this case seems to be whether New York City Ballet normalized options that, on the whole, contributed to the disrespectful and/or illegal treatment of Waterbury and, possibly, other dancers.
For me, based on what is publicly known, it seems way too soon to say "there was nothing that NYCB could reasonably [have] been expected to do that would have prevented Ms. Waterbury's abuse. All they can do is react..." since we don't know what they in fact had tolerated, permitted, overlooked, ignored, treated as trivial etc. And the complaint gives examples that, if proven, are very serious. If there were no potential legal basis for suing institutions in cases like this, then there wouldn't be a suit like this--or it would be thrown out immediately as frivolous; as this particular suit goes forward, it still may not succeed in proving an actual legal basis. Though, as noted above, even if it doesn't, the company may want to consider issues beyond simply the legal ones...
(Presumably, one reason high profile entities like NYCB have codes of conduct is precisely that the "innocent" can be damaged when the company's reputation is damaged. But, say, the institution did bear some responsibility for what happened to Waterbury and/or others--it would have to address and answer for it or other "innocent" people would get hurt and continue to get hurt--invisibly in most cases. When more is known, maybe the company will come up smelling like a rose. And maybe not.)
-
Looking forward to hearing more. I would love to see that four-ramp Bayadere!
-
8 minutes ago, Helene said:
There are qualified third parties, but rarely are they impartial. [...]
The dancers union has been mum so far, and it also wasn't a voice during the Martins investigation. That I find curious.
True and true. But one hopes it could/would be possible to find third parties who are impartial and that unions could find a productive role to play.
Perhaps not easily?
-
27 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:
Doesn't this put the company in the position of legal enforcers? Will it be expected to perform a criminal investigation of what can often be a he-said, she-said (or he-said, he said, or she said, she said) situation?
i think crimes should be reported to the police and investigated by the police, and persons who are convicted of a crime by the justice system should be tossed out of the company. On the other hand, I don't want someone whose expertise is in the Balanchine technique to be investigating or serving as the judge and jury on sexual assaults. They are simply not qualified to do so.
To follow up Nanushka's comment, I don't work in the arts and my workplace has a cods of conduct. If someone reported that I had violated that code, my workplace would investigate me. It's not an unproblematic system but it is normal. Add to that NYCB very much has a public image to preserve. And not just the company but the School of American Ballet where Waterbury was a student when she met Finlay even if they only started going out afterwards....(what happened there and when is unclear to me). That is, the company and the school have an interest in protecting their reputation. That includes investigations of complaints and it may include proving this lawsuit is unfair--at least as far as the company's role in events goes--if they are able to do so.
20 minutes ago, nanushka said:It's pretty standard for an employer to engage in some internal investigation following the raising of sexual harassment claims and similar alleged abuses, I believe. It may not be a criminal investigation (they're employers, after all, not the police), but it's still an investigation. Behavior that constitutes sexual harassment may not even itself be a crime (though sometimes it is); and yet, the employer is still expected to respond to the allegations — for instance, with an investigation — and to take appropriate action.
I agree, with Nanushka that there are behaviors that without being illegal may constitute a problem for the workplace. And of course workers need protections against overzealous investigations and inappropriate penalties. I assume at NYCB the unions have a role to play in this, but don't know exactly how they figure into it. Presumably unions have to speak up for dancers on all sides of an issue as well.
I just finished typing this when KayDenmark posted again: I rather like the suggestion of third party investigations in some circumstances at least. It's not a perfect solution,..but nothing is...I had thought that was more or less what happened with the Martins investigation. A third party was brought in to do it ... and it is a method some universities have used in the middle of big scandals. If New York City Ballet really wants to find out about some of the wider issues raised in the Waterbury suit--and I hope that they do--that might be the way to go. Of course, now they are probably doing exactly whatever their lawyers tell them protects them from liability most effectively...to say nothing of contemplating the impact all this has on their donor base.
Bolshoi Ballet Summer 2019 ROH London Residency
in Bolshoi Ballet
Posted · Edited by Drew
Oh I hope I can make it too!!
I was actually surprised they didn't throw in something that hadn't been seen in London in a while--Legend of Love or Raymonda. But for me, during a summer when work may take me to UK, this is a pretty good line up--though I would very much have liked to see Hero of Our Time.
(I should say budget and work dates will probably determine just what I end up seeing more than strict personal preference, but Bayadere is a high priority for me.)