Peter Martins Sexual Harassment Allegations

[balletforme]

19 hours ago, Amy Reusch said:

I still take issue with this... and now you're suggesting he was impotent, is that also documented or just assumed due to the lack of issue (my understanding was Balanchine had significant concerns regarding pregnancy's effects on a ballerina's frame) ...     Do you have the Taper quote?  I've read both Taper's biography and Geva's autobiography, and it's not calling up any memories of the father being concerned... I do remember Geva's mother was Geva's father's kept woman before finally getting married against the objections of her mother-in-law.... perhaps the concerns about propriety were to to protect Geva's reputation in advance of any sex, particularly considering the breakdown of society just then.  It was a very crazy time... if ever there were a time not to be temporal-centric it would be applying today's mores to Russia's social mores immediately after the revolution.  

The cult of personality looms large and is clearly repeating itself in Martin's  tenure.  

Amy how would you judge/characterize Balanchine's pursuit of Suzanne Farrell and it's fall out on her career? Was that sexual harassment? 

Edited January 8, 2018 by balletforme

[its the mom]

44 minutes ago, nanushka said:

Why do Martins' accomplishments — considerable as they may be — constitute "context" for any acts of sexual misconduct that he may be guilty of?

The implication here seems to be that those accomplishments should be viewed as mitigating factors in any judgment of him — or that any judgment of him has to be made with constant reference back to the accomplishments. Should the misconduct of a man with many accomplishments be viewed differently from that of a man with fewer?

Why can't one instead consider these two things separately — the misconduct and the accomplishments? In discussing the former, why should one have to keep acknowledging the latter? Aren't Martins' accomplishments in fact a separate issue? In judging his alleged misconduct, is one really judging "his entire body of work"? Personally, I can't recall having heard or read any suggestion that Martins' accomplishments are rendered null by any alleged acts of sexual misconduct he may have committed.

Thank you!  People can be wonderful at their jobs and still commit heinous acts.  I have an acquaintance whose son graduated from the Naval Academy, was a Navy Seal, and an upstanding, accomplished young man.  He killed his wife's ex-husband (and, may I add, I probably would have done the same as it involved sexual abuse of their daughters).  He is spending his life in prison for this act.  His amazing accomplishments did not diminish the fact that he committed a crime.  

I understand that right now much of what we are hearing may just be accusations, however if those "ten-minute" periods are what they are truly purported to be, Martins deserves to be judged for them.  Actions have consequences, or at least they should.  The fact that he is/was a great director, the fact that Gomes is a great dancer, the fact that Weinstein is an amazing producer, Spacey is a great actor, etc., does not excuse their actions!

 

[Olga]

4 hours ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

I gather they look something like this:

 

Touchè! One of the greatest dance videos.

[kfw]

5 minutes ago, its the mom said:

I understand that right now much of what we are hearing may just be accusations, however if those "ten-minute" periods are what they are truly purported to be, Martins deserves to be judged for them.  Actions have consequences, or at least they should.  The fact that he is/was a great director, the fact that Gomes is a great dancer, the fact that Weinstein is an amazing producer, Spacey is a great actor, etc., does not excuse their actions!

But there is a difference between excusing actions legally or otherwise and not judging a person as a person and that person's career solely on those actions. (And I've not been a fan of Martins since he quit dancing). 

[nanushka]

5 minutes ago, kfw said:

But there is a difference between excusing actions legally or otherwise and not judging a person as a person and that person's career solely on those actions. (And I've not been a fan of Martins since he quit dancing). 

Who here has advocated judging Martins' career solely (or even primarily) on his alleged misconduct? This seems like a straw man argument to me.

Edited January 8, 2018 by nanushka

[kfw]

1 hour ago, nanushka said:

Who here has advocated judging Martins' career solely (or even primarily) on his alleged misconduct? This seems like a straw man argument to me.

I'm echoing KayDenmark's point because I think it's an important one. If you don't disagree, great.

 

[sidwich]

7 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

That said, I think it's important to place these serious accusations - because they are accusations right now, not convictions - into context. Peter Martins has worked with hundreds of dancers during his time at the NYCB, and he has worked for tens thousands of hours. His entire body of work should not be judged by some ugly incidents, even if they are found to have taken place. I would not like to be judged solely by the most unseemly and shameful ten-minute periods of my life over the past 30 years. 

We're not discussing Martins' career as a whole, although that would probably be a very interesting separate thread.  

The question at hand was whether he should continue to do his job, and from my perspective (and I'm sure anyone else who has ever been in a position of hiring and/or firing anybody), "ugly incidents" no matter how brief can be huge issues, especially in a position as high profile as Mr. Martins'.

 

[On Pointe]

15 hours ago, sidwich said:

What do you consider evidence?

Those people directly affected,  dancers he was alleged to have had sex with,  would need to come forward,  with days,  dates and times when these contacts took place.   If they were coerced,  by threats or promises of rewards,   they have to specify what they were.  They should be able to cite witnesses who either observed the two in intimate circumstances - unlikely - or who can confirm that they were told about it contemporaneously.  If they choose not to do this,  or refuse to answer,  if they are legal adults,   other people cannot be outraged on their behalf.  Anyone who claims that Martins' affairs caused a hostile work environment has to cite how and why,  which would entail naming names,  and detailing the negative effects on the company.  It doesn't matter that it's hard or that there may be deep feelings involved,  if you want to charge someone with wrongdoing you have to be prepared to face him and back it up,  which is bound to have consequences.  Martins has the right to defend himself.  (One obvious defense - the man is seventy-one years old.  Whatever he managed in the wild and crazy days when he was juggling affairs with Watts and Kirkland at the same time,  surely he must have slowed down a bit by now.)

I don't believe that anyone who came forward would suffer catastrophic  fallout.  In our current social climate,  they would be hailed as courageous and offered magazine covers and talk show interviews.  (I don't mean that disparagingly - the reality is that the media would eat up a sex story set in the exotic world of the ballet.  It would fit right in with publicity for Jennifer Lawrence's new film.)   There could be other legal consequences.  If anyone accuses Martins and he can prove malice,  he could sue them for defamation of character.  If Darci Kistler files for divorce,  she could charge Martins' sex partners,  and him of course,  with adultery (still illegal in New York),  or alienation of affection,  which could be very embarrassing for everybody.

Or everybody could just tiptoe away.  Martins has retired.  Rightly or wrongly his accusers got what they wanted.  The company,  the board and the school can re-group and carry on.

 

[vagansmom]

37 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I don't believe that anyone who came forward would suffer catastrophic  fallout.  In our current social climate,  they would be hailed as courageous and offered magazine covers and talk show interviews

 This is where I think you are absolutely wrong. I agree that in the present moment, there's a chance that these people will not "suffer catastrophic fallout." But down the road? I think there's a very STRONG chance. All I have to do is think about how the current president came into power to know that nothing should be taken for granted. Surprises - SHOCKS - could be right around the corner. 

[Kathleen O'Connell]

57 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Those people directly affected,  dancers he was alleged to have had sex with,  would need to come forward,  with days,  dates and times when these contacts took place. 

They need come forward to no one but the law firm conducting the Board's investigation into Martins' conduct. The public doesn't need to know who came forward or what the evidence was, and neither does anyone in the company. 

ETA: The law firm will also have standards regarding what it deems creditable evidence of harassment for the purposes of assessing Martins' conduct. Those standards may differ from On Pointe's and they might not be the same standards that would be used in a legal proceeding. 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Kathleen O'Connell

[canbelto]

42 minutes ago, vagansmom said:

 This is where I think you are absolutely wrong. I agree that in the present moment, there's a chance that these people will not "suffer catastrophic fallout." But down the road? I think there's a very STRONG chance. All I have to do is think about how the current president came into power to know that nothing should be taken for granted. Surprises - SHOCKS - could be right around the corner. 

One of Roy Moore's accusers house got burned d8wn this week. Police are treating it as an arson case.

[On Pointe]

31 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

They need come forward to no one but the law firm conducting the Board's investigation into Martins' conduct. The public doesn't need to know who came forward or what the evidence was, and neither does anyone in the company. 

ETA: The law firm will also have standards regarding what it deems creditable evidence of harassment for the purposes of assessing Martins' conduct. Those standards may differ from On Pointe's and they might not be the same standards that would be used in a legal proceeding. 

I agree that accusers need to come forward only to the law firm investigating the claims,  not the general public.  I don't agree that the law firm can set its own standards.  If they don't follow well-established norms for this kind of investigation,  they could be sued by Martins and others.

[On Pointe]

8 minutes ago, canbelto said:

One of Roy Moore's accusers house got burned d8wn this week. Police are treating it as an arson case.

"Correlation does not imply causation."  Moore had numerous accusers.  Only one had her house burned down.  It could have been for reasons that have nothing to do with the Alabama Senate race.  At any rate,  I could be wrong,  but I don't think ballet fans are that invested in the Martins saga.

[Helene]

I agree that backlash is inevitable.

Even with the wage gap in Hollywood, many of the actresses who came forward against Weinstein have had the opportunities to make millions, and some have the means to produce films and theater on their own.  Dancers don't have the same opportunities, and I'd expect many to shy away from coming forward and becoming a target.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

13 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I agree that accusers need to come forward only to the law firm investigating the claims,  not the general public.  I don't agree that the law firm can set its own standards.  If they don't follow well-established norms for this kind of investigation,  they could be sued by Martins and others.

Given that Barbara Hoey is a litigator, the Chair of Kelley Drye’s Labor and Employment practice group, and, per her bio "works with human resources, in-house counsel and boards of directors to conduct investigations into complaints of alleged wrongdoing by upper level executives," I'm confident that she's well equipped to determine which standards are appropriate for the kind of investigation the Board has undertaken. When I said that Kelley Drye would have its own standards, I of course assumed that they would be based on current best practice for these kinds of investigations. 

[kfw]

1 hour ago, Helene said:

I agree that backlash is inevitable.

Even with the wage gap in Hollywood, many of the actresses who came forward against Weinstein have had the opportunities to make millions, and some have the means to produce films and theater on their own.  Dancers don't have the same opportunities, and I'd expect many to shy away from coming forward and becoming a target.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the interim directors or the next director of NYCB might retard the careers of any NYCB dancer who publicly, or just to the director/s's knowledge, accuses Martins? Because the interim directors might be loyal to Martins? Because the next director . . .what? Or are you talking primarily about dancers in other companies, suggesting that Martins is not the only 21st AD to abuse his power in this way?

[BalanchineFan]

6 hours ago, kfw said:

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the interim directors or the next director of NYCB might retard the careers of any NYCB dancer who publicly, or just to the director/s's knowledge, accuses Martins? Because the interim directors might be loyal to Martins? Because the next director . . .what? Or are you talking primarily about dancers in other companies, suggesting that Martins is not the only 21st AD to abuse his power in this way?

  1 hour ago, Helene said:

I agree that backlash is inevitable.

Even with the wage gap in Hollywood, many of the actresses who came forward against Weinstein have had the opportunities to make millions, and some have the means to produce films and theater on their own.  Dancers don't have the same opportunities, and I'd expect many to shy away from coming forward and becoming a target.

///

I wouldn't think the interim NYCB directors would enact any backlash or retribution, but I wouldn't put it past others, say a visiting choreographer to overlook dancers that he/she knew had made accusations against an AD. A lot of people posting here think the accusations are just sour grapes from bad dancers. If any choreographer or AD in any company in the future shares that view then the people making the accusations wouldn't progress there, not as dancers, choreographers, teachers, coaches, costume designers and all the numerous things dancers do when they stop dancing.

Dancers can't know where their careers are going to lead. So many small things could add up to it being a big set back.

[kfw]

13 minutes ago, BalanchineFan said:

A lot of people posting here think the accusations are just sour grapes from bad dancers. If any choreographer or AD in any company in the future shares that view then the people making the accusations wouldn't progress there, not as dancers, choreographers, teachers, coaches, costume designers and all the numerous things dancers do when they stop dancing.

That's a great big "if" though, especially since dance companies, by all accounts, are big families, where the truth will out. And isn't it at least as likely that any given choreographer or AD will admire and empathize with dancers with the courage to speak up? (I say "courage" because of the embarrassment and [false] shame often involved).

[aurora]

2 minutes ago, kfw said:

That's a great big "if" though, especially since dance companies, by all accounts, are big families, where the truth will out. And isn't it at least as likely that any given choreographer or AD will admire and empathize with dancers with the courage to speak up? (I say "courage" because of the embarrassment and [false] shame often involved).

Judging by this thread? No

[On Pointe]

5 hours ago, BalanchineFan said:

  1 hour ago, Helene said:

I agree that backlash is inevitable.

Even with the wage gap in Hollywood, many of the actresses who came forward against Weinstein have had the opportunities to make millions, and some have the means to produce films and theater on their own.  Dancers don't have the same opportunities, and I'd expect many to shy away from coming forward and becoming a target.

///

I wouldn't think the interim NYCB directors would enact any backlash or retribution, but I wouldn't put it past others, say a visiting choreographer to overlook dancers that he/she knew had made accusations against an AD. A lot of people posting here think the accusations are just sour grapes from bad dancers. If any choreographer or AD in any company in the future shares that view then the people making the accusations wouldn't progress there, not as dancers, choreographers, teachers, coaches, costume designers and all the numerous things dancers do when they stop dancing.

Dancers can't know where their careers are going to lead. So many small things could add up to it being a big set back.

It seems to me that the only person a whistle blower might fear is Darci Kistler,  and her ability to impact someone's career is limited,  even if I thought she was that kind of person,  which I don't.  As far as I know,  nobody has had a bad word about her.  She might be the only person involved who is unequivocally a victim.

[Fraildove]

Speaking as a former dancer recently ‘retired’ but one still teaching and coaching, fear of backlash would be on anyone’s mind, but not really for the reasons listed, and not just in regards to the future NYCB director(s). As someone said, the ballet world is like a very disfunctional family, a very small one. And if a dancer vocally acuseses, or makes ‘trouble’, any future  artistic director that might audition said dancer if that dancer were to leave might take a pass because it isn’t worth the headache. They could be viewed as one who isn’t afraid to make waves, or one that will not hesitate to call out wrongdoing. Both of which is not considered an asset, especially to female dancers. And it’s sad that that might stop someone from being hired. Dancers generally only have a 1 year contract, so there is already a constant worry, maybe only in the back of the mind, of not having a contract renewed. And if a dancer finds themselves needing to audition again, perceived reputation will play a part. I will continue to hope that dancers speaking out will be upheld and helped, but any change is very slow coming in the ballet world. If ADs already feel under the microscope, in all likelihood they won’t risk their on necks on a dancer that may or may not have caused a fellow AD to already loose theirs.

 

[nanushka]

9 hours ago, kfw said:

And isn't it at least as likely...

Would you risk your career on 50-50 odds? Maybe you would.

I might, too (though probably not).

But I can certainly understand why many people wouldn't. Especially dancers, who often don't have much training or experience doing anything else, and who are often young and financially vulnerable.

I don't buy the idea that, in the current #metoo climate, the majority of victims really feel liberated to "speak their truth." For one thing, the current climate is all of....four months old? After millennia spent living in a very different climate. Who knows where this goes? Who knows whether this is a real social shift or just a passing trend? Would I be willing to stake my future on the chance that, in the fall of 2017, human social culture suddenly and substantially changed?

I don't believe that a majority of victims look at Oprah onstage and a room full of Hollywood elite and think, "Oh, ok, they've got my back. Of course I'm going to tell my story now."

If it really takes "courage," then I can certainly understand why many victims would remain silent rather than putting their futures on the line.

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by nanushka

[altongrimes]

I applaud that the heretofore sacrosanct inscrutable realms of entertainment, finance, etc. are now showing cracks in the wall and that those who inhabit those realms are, in some measure, beginning to be subject to the full import of the law. My only concern is that if the media in its often slick manipulations can destroy a man's reputation long before due process of law has had opportunity to take effect, then my final applause for this worthy cause is at best tepid.

[kfw]

It’s true that the MeToo movement is new and that may factor into some dancers’ thinking. But why would the movement fade away? In society at large, women who have spoken out so far have been seen not as troublemakers but as justice seekers – heroes. At NYCB some current dancers have called Martins a good boss, which is good and appropriate of them if in fact he has been (and I don’t doubt them). But how many have explicitly cast doubt on the claims made by dancers of a previous era? As for the board – to which the next AD will report – it expressed hope that Martins could return – why wouldn’t it? – but took the claims serious enough to investigate them. Dancers who speak out now will be considered an asset to anyone in any management capacity who values justice and has basic decency. Misty Copeland didn’t hurt her career when she said she’d encountered racism at ABT (granted, she didn’t name names). Opposition to sexual abuse, like opposition to racism, is something that everyone in public life nowadays has at least to give lip service to.

[canbelto]

Dancers (past and present) might be speaking to lawyers running the investigation and they might be talking to the NYTimes. But they have every right to not want their names out their and their lives dissected by the general public. And the investigation has every right to protect the identities of the dancers who have been speaking to investigators. Just because it isn't splashed on the front page of CNN doesn't mean it didn't happen.