dirac

I seem to recall reading that Farrell was invited back to stage Don Quixote and said no. Farrell may be a splendid coach now but again, in fairness to Martins such was not always the case, apparently. Her company had its ups and downs, and not only because of the limited resources available to her. (Note that I am not disagreeing with the view that it would be great if she returned to NYCB.)

Waiting impatiently for your report.

What did Tom know, and when did he know it?

Martins is indeed not overly sympathetic, but given what the current press reports tell us, he is entitled to a full investigation and it seems that he will get one. As to what people say on the internets, well.......

As fondoffouttes pointed out earlier, neither the Post nor the Times has come up with any concrete, specific examples of sexual abuse or harassment,. They may do so in future. They haven't yet. Who said anyone here is thinking this???

Shades of Tiberius and his little fish. That really is damning. After the police report there was really no excuse for the Met not launching its own investigation. Levine will not be charged in Illinois, and says the claims against him are "unfounded":

Hi, Sandy, good to hear from you. I hope someone can answer your question.

Exactly. Which reputation might well be working against him now if he were still running a company, much as Martins' playboy rep is hurting him -- even more so because of Baryshnikov's larger celebrity. Baryshnikov's ballet movies all wink at his womanizing reputation, even exploit it, as if to say "See? Not all male dancers are gay. Here's your proof!" (The movies of course are careful to avoid losing audience sympathy for their star - the aging lothario in "Dancers" doesn't sleep with the corps girl.)

The schadenfreude among Martins' defeated rivals must be off the charts at this point. Also, I wonder if somewhere Mikhail Baryshnikov is thinking, "Maybe it's a good thing that whole ABT thing didn't work out in the end...."

It was an odd little post, yes.

If all of the foregoing were so, that still wouldn't make Kistler a "front-person" with Martins "pulling strings." However, I can also see Kistler balancing personal loyalty to her husband with what might be very different ideas on running the company. My point is that jumping to such conclusions on the basis of a woman's status as wife is....not ideal. The Miami analogy doesn't seem quite the same to me, although even there it would not be fair to any prospective candidate to assume that person is simply the outgoing director's Mini-Me unless there is already reason to believe it is so apart from the mere fact that X is close to Y. I would think the best way to predict what the prospective AD or CEO wants to do is to actually ask that person what she wants to do and how she plans to accomplish her goals. (Of course, if you want to take your company in a non-Balanchine direction, then you might not feel the need to do that with a candidate you already know to be steeped in Balanchine.)

I agree, KarenAG. The lady doesn't seem like anyone's puppet, for one thing. I certainly hope we have all gotten beyond the time when a wife was regarded merely as an extension of her husband. As far as I know, Kistler has indicated no interest in succeeding Martins, so the question is moot, but if such was the "perception," even if it was only a "perception," it would be offensive on so many levels I don't know where to start.........

I hope for a transition as close to normal as possible under the circumstances and that no abrupt departure by Martins will be necessary.

It can be but as the article you linked to points out, there is a bar to reach. From the Seattle Times article (which is about a pretty egregious case):

Hard to say from the information we have, which isn't much. It would be classic quid pro quo sexual harassment if Martins' alleged lovers were reluctant, he pressured them into sex, and there were professional consequences for them if they didn't play ball. There's no indication that he did that - yet. (However, as others have pointed out, the boss sleeping with multiple employees, or in some circumstances even one, potentially creates a hostile work environment.)

Ex-board member Robert Gottlieb would blow a gasket at that one. ("There's a rumor that she may teach. Teach what?")

My point was that if the policy had been in place before they married, then they could not have married without violating the policy. In other professions that often means that one spouse transfers or leaves the office, and my related point was that ballet is a small world and there would be few equivalent jobs that could be found outside the company without leaving town (or the state - or the country). That could potentially be a difficult or even cruel dilemma.

A mite harsh, perhaps. Kistler and Martins have been married twenty years. I suppose today they would have the dilemma of choosing between marriage or one of them leaving the company? Ballet is a small world. There would not be many equivalent places for them to go. Seems potentially extreme, especially since many ballet companies have functioned successfully with an AD in a long-term relationship with a leading dancer.

In fairness to Martins, it's worth repeating that, as many here already know, at the time of his appointment he was considered to be a promising choreographer, at least as good, if not better, than other male NYCB stars who were encouraged to make dances.

Well before (and after) that, even:

Yes - as noted upthread, this is not (as of yet) a case of workplace sexual harassment, but of sexual abuse of minors. That would only be true if the Met already had reason to believe that the charges had validity. If they have reason to believe Levine could be innocent, then their obligation would be to stand by their employee, at least for now. Even if that were not the ethical course to take, they might well be in serious legal trouble if they fired Levine on the basis of allegations that turned out to be false. Indeed, they have only suspended him, not fired him. (Also, I wouldn’t throw around the word “pedophile” – its applicability is arguable here, based on the information we have.)

Tony Bliss’ letter is here. Because we don’t have the unsigned letter to which he was referring, we have only his letter to guess at what claims he was defending Levine against. Bliss’ reply seems to refer only to charges of homosexuality, and quite rightly he says that's none of the Met's business. (He also refers to “criminal activities” but in 1979 that could well have meant homosexuality alone.) That hardly lets the Met off the hook, though.

The current allegations refer to the sexual abuse of underage boys, as the articles specify, not sexual harassment (although in Levine’s case it is possible they may end up overlapping). The Met is apparently going to conduct its own investigation of Levine -- now that this is in the news. But will the Met investigate itself? Seems to me Gelb has got a lot more 'splainin' to do.

Hockenberry seems a different case, more in line with workplace harassers like Lauer and Charlie Rose. Color me unsurprised also. Levine may not be the last conductor whose name gets mentioned, either. The NY Post broke the story on Saturday. It has some details that, if true, make it all sound even worse - looks like Levine had been on the hunt since the boy was four. Not good.

I, too, was hoping for a miracle. Didn't happen. This is just a crushing, crushing loss. The angels are nudging each other and asking where he got that breath control. Thank you for posting the news, volcanohunter.