On Pointe

It might be a better idea to digitally restore and enhance all of the available footage of the ballet.  Even that would cost a great deal,  but the end product would allow serious scholars and fans to get a glimpse of the past without tying up the current company.  

(I wonder if any footage exists of The Figure in the Carpet,  a ballet commissioned by an oriental carpet company.  It had a pas de deux created for Arthur Mitchell and Mary Hinkson of the Martha Graham Company,  dancing on pointe,  perhaps the only time Balanchine choreographed on a black couple,  to my knowledge.)

9 hours ago, dirac said:

People who donate enormous sums to the arts pretty much have money to burn by definition. I do wonder why such a benefactor would be "eccentric"? I should think that one of the chief purposes of arts philanthropy is to support a project like reviving "Don Quixote," allowing people to see a flawed work that is nevertheless a significant one in the oeuvre of the art form's towering genius.

I say eccentric because a new production would probably take weeks of work for the dancers,  taking time away from rehearsals of other works,  and cost millions of dollars for building the sets and costumes.  All for a ballet that wasn't  much liked when the creator was alive,  with a story and music that was despised by many.   Philanthropists like to back projects that will enhance their image.  Putting tons of money into projects that are likely to prove unpopular is not their usual MO.  Still,  producers manage to find backers  for production after production  of Merrily We Roll Along - a show that's never going to be a hit,  despite its  much-loved Sondheim score - so maybe if NYCB tries hard enough,  a backer can be found for reviving Balanchine's Don Quixote.

Perhaps it would be possible and/or desirable to restage a suite of dances from Don Quixote,  rather than revive the entire ballet.  Farrell could curate.  If she is adamant that any revival is all or nothing,  most likely NYCB nor any other company will ever restage it because of the expense and deployment of resources,  unless some eccentric benefactor with money to burn pops up.

If her life and career had gone differently,  I think that Kathryn Morgan would have made an intriguing Dulcinea.

I didn't  know much about ballet or Balanchine when it premiered,  but I recall that the reception for his Don Quixote was lukewarm,  not considered a great success.  Possibly that's why it wasn't  re-staged in later years.  Besides seeing NYCB's Nutcracker as a child,  I remember seeing Noah and the Flood on television,  which was definitely a flop.  Even Balanchine had his misses from time to time.

I often stay up late at night and watch Classic Arts Showcase on cable TV,  where they show a lot of "golden age" Balanchine-era NYCB, mainly  from the Bell Telephone Hour and a program on French-Canadian television.  (They also present oddities like Maria Tallchief and Erik Bruhn  in the Don Quixote pas de deux,  Lupe Serrano with Jacques D'Amboise,  Lewis Christensen's Filling Station and Todd Bolender's The Still Point.)  It's clear from these archival records that even during Balanchine's tenure with NYCB,  the way his choreography was danced changed over the years,  as he himself changed and the dancers he worked with reflected their generation.  Getting former NYCB  stars to coach their old roles is a great idea,  in theory.  One can only hope that in practice,  they are able to transmit the spirit of Balanchine's choreography without trying to impose the technical inflections of their time onto today's dancers,  who mostly have more pronounced turnout,  higher passé  positions,  higher extensions,  and I dare say,  better port de bras and épaulement.  Male dancers back then,  like Eglevsky,  did multiple turns with their supporting foot almost flat to the floor.  (I'm not implying that today's dancers are "better" than the dancers of bygone times.  A star is a star is a star.  Stylistic differences don't  change that.)

When I first moved to NYC,  I studied with a famous couple who trained their daughter to dance exactly the way they had danced in their heyday.  While she had an impressive technique,  she was virtually uncastable with dancers her age,  as she looked like she had stepped off the pages of a history book.   While no doubt there are many fans who would love to see mid-1970s stagings of  Balanchine's work,  maybe they should remember that he himself said that,  "Ballet belongs to a dancer who is right now in front of your face."  Most of NYCB's dancers were born long after Balanchine died.  They are going to interpret his work in their own way,  no matter who stages it.

30 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:

Could be, but then we end up in an ongoing eye-for-eye situation. Finlay (or Ramasar or Catazaro or  Jared Loghitano) could then argue that because Waterbury has now violated their privacy, they're in a position to dump all sorts of previously undisclosed personal information about her into the public domain.

I don't think anybody wants that. 

I think it's understandable that once Ms. Waterbury  fell into the email rabbit hole she would continue to read what she found.  But by including in her suit identifying, embarrassing information about other people,   including women who did nothing to harm her,  she exhibits animosity and a lack of respect for the privacy rights of others.  

6 hours ago, Pique Arabesque said:

There is quite a bit of support for Waterbury, but there is also backlash that centers the concerns of the accused men. I think that most people agree that Finlay messed up, but there is a pernicious idea that Ramasar and Catazaro have been unfairly caught up in Waterbury's grievance against her ex, when in fact they are grown men who were active participants in the reprehensible communications. Ramsar could have elected not to participate in the nude sharing, and Catazaro could have told Finlay that his behavior was gross. While termination might seem severe to those who are used to dismissing similar behavior as private locker room talk, I am not going to cry any tears for these men. 

I agree that NYCB dancers should not be obligated to make statements, but the support for Ramasar at Carousel and Sterling Hyltin's defense of Ramasar in the comment section of her IG posts reveal that dancers are unafraid to do so.

And any person who makes sexual misconduct/assault claims understands that their claims will be looked over with a fine-toothed comb. However, there is a difference between fact-finding that is intended to uncover the truth vs bad faith questions that are intended to impugn the character of the survivor and place a smokescreen in front of the accused.

As for the 'snooping' - it seems that Waterbury was simply trying to check her email and had the misfortune of stumbling upon Finlay's communications. I see no reason to think otherwise.

 

I wouldn't  characterize the belief that Ramasar  and  Catazaro  have been caught up in somebody else's dispute as "pernicious".  You either believe it or you don't.  Considering that Catazaro did not receive or look at any photos of Waterbury,  and has no apparent connection to her dispute with Finlay,  it seems to be a reasonable position,  although obviously others disagree.  Everyone involved is an adult - Catazaro  has no obligation to chide Finlay about his language,  and the expectation that he would do so in a text message seems unrealistic.  

It appears from the complaint that Ms. Waterbury  did more than just stumble across a couple of messages.  She must have scrolled down and taken screenshots of numerous exchanges,  including those that did not refer to her.  She may not have intended to "snoop",  but one could argue that she did anyway.  A judge will decide whether she was justified in doing so.

2 hours ago, nanushka said:

Its relevance, at least as the Times sees it, is explained in the third paragraph of the story, immediately after the note is described:

The point seems to be that the company is now one of the latest epicenters of this controversy. I assume those at the Times, like most or all in the company, don't know who posted the note.

While the word "redeemed" can mean "to get or win back" (in which case the person getting something back is the subject of that active-voice verb), my sense is that the phrase "to be redeemed" (when it's the person who is being redeemed, and so the verb is in the passive voice) and the phrase "to redeem oneself" (when, again, it's the person who is being redeemed) have a rather different meaning. I don't think that "being redeemed" necessarily (or even likely) involves reclaiming the status or power one had before one committed the offense one is in need of redemption for. In many of these cases, that would likely be viewed by many as expecting rather too much — especially after so little time has passed.

I should have been more clear that I was being ironic when I used the term "redeemed".  Of course these men are not redeemed,  except possibly in their own heads.

Considering the credible allegations against him,  the only redemption suitable for Harvey Weinstein should involve many years in the penitentiary.  So far,  Les Moonves'  "redemption" seems to be taking $100,000,000 from CBS as opposed to $120,000,000,  after his alleged physical attacks on women,  and his attempts (with some success)  to destroy the careers of Janet Jackson,  Ileana Douglas and Linda Bloodworth Thomason.   James Levine feels so redeemed he's suing the Met for wrongful termination.  Louis CK is already back on the comedy club curcuit.  For a certain type of powerful man,  like Brett Kavanaugh,  there are few consequences for bad behavior.

Finlay has resigned,  so he can't  be drummed out of NYCB.  Surely there must be something Ramasar  and  Catazaro  can do that will allow them to continue their careers.  They are not accused of physically abusing anyone,  making sexual demands,  or trying to destroy anyone's career.  They are also not walking away with millions of dollars.  Perhaps personal apologies to the company dancers and a promise to do better.  Ramasar  has already expressed contrition.  (I would add an apology to Ms. Waterbury,  from Ramasar,  not Catazaro,  but because she's suing them it might be a bad legal move.)

7 minutes ago, Marta said:

 

It's really not a parallel situation.  The people Levine molested, or insert whatever word you prefer, were not current musicians at the Metropolitan Opera.  We don't even know the story about the fired NY Phil musicians. I don't assume that management of NYCB told the dancers to write a statement for the Gala. Rather I assume the two authors wrote it and then had it approved.

Levine allegedly had many victims,  and some of them were singers and players in the employ of the Met and other organizations where he had a leadership position.  The story on the Philharmonic firings is out there,  it's just not getting any traction in the mainstream press.  (It's a lot worse than anything involving the dancers.)  It is amazing,  considering our litigious culture,  that none of the people abused by Levine have sued him or the Met,  where,  unlike NYCB,  Levine's sexual misconduct was known and gossiped about for years,  and where,  unlike Ramasar  and  Catazaro,  he had direct control over the careers of his subordinates.

Just from a few Instagram messages,  it's clear that there is no unanimous reaction from the company dancers to the firings.  No doubt there are some young male dancers who are quite happy about their enhanced opportunities.  I don't  know how many donors have threatened to withdraw support,  but donors don't  have to abide by union rules,  and they don't  run the company.  If some drop their support,  that's a problem for the company to overcome.  I'm sure they are quite happy to lose Longhitano's money,  which he apparently gave in order to fuel his fantasies.

4 minutes ago, abatt said:

The statement was carefully worded to avoid a direct reference to the firings, resignation and the Waterbury lawsuit.  However, I don't think there's any doubt that the statement was the direct result of the firings, resignation and Waterbury lawsuit, and was an implicit reference to these events. 

I have not seen any info to suggest that there was a vote on the Reichlin statement.  Since individuals are not normally given a platform to give speeches from the stage at a special event on topics of their own choosing, I'm comfortable with the assumption that the speech was prompted by, and approved by, management.

 

The statement was defensive and unnecessary,  so it's a good thing that it didn't  really say anything.  The singers and players at the Met have made no group statement about Levine,  the musicians at the Philharmonic have made no statement regarding the firing of two principal musicians.  The ballet community,  including the dance press,  appears to be overestimating the effect of the Waterbury  affair on the public,  hence the virtue-signalling speech.   It is an internal matter,  important to (some) dancers,  but of very little significance to the rest of the world.  It's likely that a number of NYCB dancers don't  care one way or the other about the firings.

2 hours ago, Helene said:

Not liking someone and being compromised in the workplace by having sexual photos distributed among your co-workers without your permission is something quite different.

These assertions have yet to be adjudicated legally.  It's not even clear from the lawsuit that all of the photo sharing was non-consensual.  Having no access to the inner workings of NYCB,  I don't know  if other employees were disciplined,  but it would be indefensible for only Ramasar and Catazaro to be fired when allegedly more co-workers were involved.

7 minutes ago, Helene said:

NYCB investigated the communications, which they received in June, and the announced the decision to suspend in August before the lawsuit was filed.   The latest NYT article says that Finlay was suspended once for showing up hungover, and his part in breaking a pipe and causing substantial water damage to the hotel in DC was also revealed.  The communications would be the third acknowledged issue in his case.

NYCB has access to excellent legal resources, and, based on their history of action and non-action as a conservatively run organization, and they had enough to at least suspend Ramasar and Catazaro without pay without objections by AGMA; we'll never know if AGMA would have appealed through arbitration had the Company fired Finlay.  It was not in the Company's best interest to lose three of their male Principals less than a month before the Fall season and for Nutcracker, and, I'm sure they were less than thrilled at having to air more dirty laundry after the Martins allegations, especially with the NYT ready to write about it.

The lawsuit may have been what spurred some of the female dancers to go to management and, essentially, ask for the men to be fired, but they were also insiders who had greater resources to follow up, and I fail to see how the men could be seen as having been innocents wrongly accused.

AGMA might have objected to the suspensions if they had been asked to do so.  Apparently Ramasar  and  Catazaro  did not go to the union and contest NYCB's initial actions.  There are other NYCB employees mentioned in the lawsuit.  If they were not also fired,  it bolsters the principal dancers' position that they should not have lost their jobs.  Of course,  if the other employees were stage hands and/or musicians,  as members of far more powerful unions than AGMA,  it would be a lot harder to fire them.

That some female dancers felt uncomfortable being partnered by Ramasar and  Catazaro is no justification for their termination.  They are professionals in the performing arts,  where artists work with people they don't like all the time.  If in fact NYCB  fired the dancers because of complaints about their private communications,  they have set themselves up for being sued by Ramasar and Catazaro,  who would have a far stronger case than Waterbury.  After James Levine was fired from the Met,  after years of rumors of despicable behavior on his part,  corroborated by several of his alleged victims,  he sued the company for over $5,000,000 for wrongful termination.  (The Met is countersuing.)  Ramasar  and  Catazaro  are not accused of abusive behavior in the workplace,  and compared to the published material ascribed to the current nominee to the Supreme Court,  their private communications are pretty small beer - pardon the Kavanaugh pun.

16 hours ago, FPF said:

Flash footage of Taylor Stanley's solo from the Kyle Abraham ballet. 

 

The NYCB audience may find this excitingly different,  but this solo strikes me as generic black gay male choreography,  of a type that's been around for forty years.  While Taylor Stanley dances it very cleanly,  I've seen more dynamic performances of these phrases from Broadway and modern dancers.  I'm very happy to see a black choreographer get a commission from  NYCB,  but this work didn't impress me.  I guess you had to be there.

40 minutes ago, Drew said:

Oh...I was doing a search on AGMA and notice that September 20th they posted a statement on sexual harassment on the workplace but also a change in how people can report on those issues. Has this been posted already? I infer they wanted to make it easier. Why they made that change or whether it will be helpful or not, I can't say:

https://www.musicalartists.org/agma-condemns-all-sexual-abuse-sexual-harassment/

The statement makes sense until the last paragraph,  where,  in my opinion,  it is a mistake to specifically cite NYCB.  Ms. Waterbury  is not making a workplace allegation of sexual harassment   and even if NYCB dancers were making such allegations,  calling out a specific company by name while investigation is ongoing could be construed as prejudicial to one or more parties involved.  No one doubts that AGMA condemns sexual abuse and harassment.  This statement,  beyond informing members of a new method of reporting,  is unnecessary.

1 hour ago, balletforme said:

Actually kids all over the city use public transportation Bus and subway to get to and from school.  The schools issue tickets. 

And NY Child Labor laws are pretty robust, as are the regs governing supervision, schooling, rehearsal hours, etc. (Know several kids who are on Broadway now).  Not saying that there aren't problems but no production company trying to sell tickets to a kid friendly show is going to want the kids in the show to be abused.  .bad for business. 

 

https://labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/secure/child_index.shtm

 

While NYC children tend to be very self-reliant and use public transportation all of the time,  it's still unusual for an eleven year old to go to work on the subway alone at night.   (I remember an interview with Amar Ramasar where he recalled that,  when he was about twelve,  his mother showed him how to use the subway to get from the Bronx to SAB by himself,  once.  After that,  he was on his own.)  

Producers of shows with child actors often make special accommodations for them,  like setting aside a room for them to do their homework,  or splitting big roles between two or three children,  like the title role in Billy Elliott.  There is usually an assistant stage manager or cast member tasked with keeping an eye on them - a dark backstage area can be dangerous.  And being children,  they are apt to get into mischief - I worked on a show where a stagehand broke his leg while protecting a child.  When I was an active union councillor,  the well-being of child actors was a great concern of mine.   I have worked with children who were the main support of their families,  which didn't  mean they were treated kindly by their parents. 

None of this applies to apprentices of NYCB,  who may be too young to drink,  but are otherwise old enough to fend for themselves.  And why not - many of them have been living in dorms in NYC while at SAB from a very young age.  College freshmen are usually around the same age as the apprentices,  and every year thousands of them are sent far away from home to go to school.  Some of them have been known to go to a wild party or two as well.

7 hours ago, Pique Arabesque said:

 

I think that some of the backlash to Waterbury, broadly speaking, comes from the fact that it is making others reckon with their trauma. People are upset that she is publically asking for accountability instead of staying silent/minimizing the severity of the behavior like previous generations of survivors.

Also as Finlay's partner - who accompanied him to official NYCB events - she had more access to the goings-on inside NYCB than the average former SAB student. I'm sure he told her quite a bit, and she saw some events herself. I have no reason to believe she was snooping. And it's always a terrible idea to give any passwords to anyone.

Is there evidence of a backlash against Ms. Waterbury?  All I have seen is universal praise and support for her.  Members of NYCB are wise not to speak out about an ongoing lawsuit,  and have likely been ordered not to by management,  an almost universal practice when corporations are sued.  As a member of two performers' unions,  I am concerned about the rights of the union members involved,  especially what I consider the unjust termination of Zachary Catazaro.  Questioning elements of the Waterbury  complaint does not constitute a backlash.  

The court will determine if reading Finlay's text messages is snooping.  But reading a romantic partner's private communications is almost guaranteed to end badly,  even when there is no reason to suspect any nefarious activity.

35 minutes ago, Helene said:

While "underage" is listed in the complaint and "underage apprentices" are listed in the interview, it isn't clear what "underage" means:  for drinking purposes, that is 21.  The age of sexual consent in Washington DC, according to the information on this site is 16.  (In NY, it's 17.)  

If, and that's an undetermined if, the apprentices were legal minors (16-17), I haven't seen anything public or contractual that discusses any requirement for the company to provide supervision.  Perhaps someone else knows how to search this, but, while I have read that children in theater and films need to have a chaperone below a certain age, almost all of the search results I can find for children working in the entertainment industry are from UK sites, and the US information is about unaccompanied children on airlines.

There is very little supervision required in  New York for stage children of any age.  When she was starring in Annie on Broadway at age eleven,  Sarah Jessica Parker used to take the subway and the bus to the theater by herself.  In California,  you have very strict rules on movie and TV sets regarding hours worked and on set education,  but not in New York.  At any rate anyone old enough to be an apprentice at NYCB  is too old to be supervised.  The reality is nobody chaperones seventeen year old kids working in fast food either.

1 hour ago, Helene said:

Are women "actors" when they're raped, assaulted, are beaten by their partners, and have their images shared? 

I'm sorry,  but your meaning is very unclear to me,  as regards this case.  I was referring to the women,  referenced in the suit,  who willingly engaged in sexual activities.  While Ms. Waterbury's image was shared without her knowledge,  there is no claim in the suit of anyone being raped,  assaulted or beaten.  ETA there is mention of an alleged rape within the company,  but it has nothing to do with Finlay-Waterbury  or my comments.

1 hour ago, nanushka said:

Well, you began your post with this:

...and you ended it with this:

And you didn't mention anyone other than her being at fault for the harms you described in your post. It seemed to me that you were "primarily" (if not, in fact, only) blaming her for those harms.

Ms. Waterbury  is the one doing the suing.  I am discussing the elements in her lawsuit,  not the alleged behavior overall.  Her case against the defendants would be just as strong without mentioning the other women.  When the defendants  respond,  I doubt that the consensual activity of the other women  will be brought up.  It's irrelevant.

16 minutes ago, nanushka said:

Furthermore, why is it primarily Waterbury rather than the alleged perpetrators — Finlay, et al — who, according to @On Pointe, gets the blame for "hurting a lot of women" by bringing this suit? If Waterbury does indeed have standing to sue (and I understand that is still in dispute by some here), then it should follow that blame for potential negative effects of that suit might fall on them.

I make no claim that Waterbury  is "primarily" to blame.  But she includes allegations about the actions of women that were not necessary to state her case,  and even where she doesn't use names,  she includes information that makes their identity apparent.  

52 minutes ago, Helene said:

If course she will be asked to supply info.  Presumably, so will sources, once disclosed. 

 

 

 

What about the privacy rights of all the people,  whose names are not currently revealed in the suit,  who will be exposed and humiliated if this discovery goes forward?  For example,  the alleged domestic abuser's  victim,  who has nothing to do with Finlay-Waterbury,  should not have her personal troubles used to prop up this claim.  There are women, alleged in the suit to have been involved in consensual sexual activities,  who no doubt would prefer not to be named.  (The latest version of the suit removes one name,  but you can't unring a bell.)   They didn't take or distribute photos of Waterbury.  Some of them are not even in NYCB.   In the name of female empowerment,  Ms. Waterbury  is hurting a lot of women.

18 hours ago, vipa said:

I agree. Her one year apprenticeship could have been put on hold. Unions are, justifiably, wary of performers being used as cheap labor such as apprentices, for long periods of time. I know Actors' Equity has a limit on the number of audition call backs a person can be asked to do before being hired. They don't want call back "auditions" turning into an unpaid rehearsal period.

Actually under Actors Equity rules,  you can be called back many times,  but after the third audition,  you have to be paid for each one.

Some actors refuse to play the game,  even when paid,  and they tell the producers that they've seen enough of their talent to make a decision.  Often they end up getting the role.

57 minutes ago, Helene said:

Complaint #43 alleges that Stafford "frequently asked Mr. Finlay about his partying and alcohol use because he smelled like alcoholic beverages..." 

According to the HIPAA website, employers do not have to follow the HIPAA privacy laws, which apply to health care providers and insurers.

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/guidance-materials-for-consumers/index.html

I don't see anything that applies in any of these NY State law summaries:

http://www.healthinfolaw.org/state-topics/33,69/f_topics

 

The Waterbury  suit puts forth a lot of inside information about goings on at NYCB.  Who told her about Stafford noticing alcohol on Finlay's breath;  how did she know about the dancer with the domestic violence incident;  how does she know about the alleged rape;  how did she know who was at a company party in DC?  She can't  possibly know these things first hand.  She wasn't  there.  She seems to be repeating gossip,  which may or may not hold up in court,  in order to paint the company in a negative light.

2 hours ago, Drew said:

This gets us far afield from the precise issues in the Waterbury case. And the particular cases you mention would have to look at those institutions some 30 years ago ... but in fact there are all kinds of institutional criticisms/discussions and even title 9 investigations around sexual assault, sexual harassment, and rape on college campuses. (Some people reading here may know the film the Hunting Ground which deals with a range of sexual misconduct on college campuses and institutional responses to those behaviors that have allowed the worst of them to persist. And it discusses Title 9 suits brought by students. The same filmmakers made a film about sexual assault, sexual harassment, and rape among personnel in the military and the military's responses to it--The Secret War; the Secretary of Defense at the time (Panetta) had a screening of it; he didn't say, "well, that happens everywhere so we don't need to look at how/why it happens in the military." Nor did he claim military exceptionalism "well, you can't be surprised that soldiers rape.")  

And systemic critique has never meant that everyone who attends a school or every employee at a workplace participated in problematic behavior.

But whatever one's own view of institutional (or systemic) criticisms, it would be incorrect to think that there have been no attempts to pursue them AND reforms -- sometimes through the courts or through government -- when it comes to universities. It has led to mandated Title 9 training and such-like.  In universities, that is, many people and institutions are looking at systemic issues around sexual misconduct that impact women especially -- though not exclusively. Of course, under the current administration Title 9 is being handled differently than under the previous one. (I don't know the details about the differences; but have seen articles addressing it.)

I think everyone understands that it is tricky to find the right balance in all these issues--what is useful reform, what is useless hand-wringing or government/institutional over-reach; what is helpful and what, in fact, perpetuates the problems it sets out to solve. (I've at least once seen what I think of as the last...) But I also think that a complete absence of systemic/institutional critique stands no chance of leading to better workplaces and schools. Especially when you can show that workplaces/institutions often have been protecting the individuals that create the problems and, in some cases, commit crimes--as I believe has been shown in the case of universities. Edited to add: Institutions are shaped by individuals--absolutely--but one doesn't have to be a sociologist (or a dialectician) to understand that it's "vice versa" too. Both can be true.

What's any of that have to do with Waterbury's case and NYCB? What I wrote above was exclusively a response to the remarks I quoted, not a comment on her case.  Still...

Does one have to wait until actual sexual assault is involved before it pays to look at larger issues in any institution? Does the fact that problems occur in all kinds of institutions mean that no institutions have any responsibility ever? And are there really no systemic or broader issues at New York City Ballet that might be addressed? As we all have repeated ad nauseam the courts will decide on the legal standing of the suit against NYCB and the three dancers named. As for moral or professional issues that may not rise to the level of legal ones...I hardly think it's an outlier position or...uh...."fascist"  to hope that NYCB is doing some internal review and self-interrogation in the wake of this mess and the coming change of leadership. Perhaps SAB as well. The fact that these are GREAT artistic institutions--essential ones as far as I am concerned--seems to me to make it more not less important.

(I'm assuming the allegation about rape in the suit, though it may represent something Waterbury heard and therefore believes to be pertinent, would be difficult to prove, and I prefer to leave it out of this discussion until/unless there were to be a lot more information.)

All that you posted is sadly too true,  about colleges and the military.  However Ms. Waterbury  and Merson could not cite even one comparable case,  even anonymously,  at SAB.  There is little evidence that there is systemic,  widespread sexual misconduct occurring at the school.  Just because it happens elsewhere does not mean the SAB staff needs to do some kind of soul searching and interrogation at their school.  Any sexual activity at the school appears to be entirely consensual,  between students,  and while the school may frown on it,  there's little they can or should do about it.

And no,  I don't  think  there are any systemic issues at NYCB that can be addressed by management.  Adults are going to behave like adults,  which means they will sometimes behave badly.  It's got nothing to do with the "culture" of ballet.  Ms. Waterbury's  personal problem with a boyfriend who happens to be a ballet dancer is not a ballet issue.  It's a Chase Finlay issue.