Peter Martins Sexual Harassment Allegations

[dirac]

23 minutes ago, canbelto said:

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.

Be that as it may, we know to date of no specifics that any sexual harassment occurred at NYCB and the preliminary results of the SAB investigation have revealed no wrongdoing, according to statements. What we do know is that Martins resigned while denying the accusations and the investigation is ongoing. And of course we may never know the results of the investigation since those are not commonly made public.

BalanchineFan writes: 

Quote

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.

I’m not sure why you would assume that a visiting choreographer would do that.  I should think it more likely that a visiting choreographer would probably try to avoid the issue as none of his or her business, and select the dancers best suited to make his/her ballet look good.

What I would hope for, given that the world of ballet is a small one, is that, for a start, choreographers would avoid companies where sexual harassment is known within the profession to be endemic. That might be a tough decision if the commission is a big one, but we can hope, especially now that the issue is out there.

[nanushka]

15 hours 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.

I don't follow the logic here. Families are entities in which, inevitably (or even just probably), "the truth will out"? Not the family I grew up in, nor many other families I know.

1 hour ago, kfw said:

Dancers who speak out now will be considered an asset to anyone in any management capacity who values justice and has basic decency.

I don't follow the logic here, either. Since when is a strong sense of justice, and the willingness to take significant personal risks for the sake of justice, a notable "asset" for a dancer in a ballet company? Since when do the AD's of ballet companies (or the management in many other types of organizations) place the furtherance of justice as among their primary hiring considerations?

Much of this seems like magical thinking to me, based on ideals rather than reality. And it seems disconnected from how the victims of such crimes would actually be thinking and feeling about themselves, their own vulnerabilities (emotional, professional, financial, social, etc.), their relationships with others (many of which would be strongly impacted), their aggressors, the organizations they work within and in which those aggressors have substantial power, etc.

It seems like what's being suggested here is that, if Peter Martins were guilty of sexual misconduct, his victims would probably have spoken out —  because why wouldn't they in today's climate? I'm not suggesting that they definitely would not have spoken out. I'm merely suggesting that there are some very good reasons why they might not have. And so from the lack of publicly identified accusers, I think we can conclude nothing about Martins' likely innocence or guilt.

Edited January 9, 2018 by nanushka

[Quiggin]

Expanding on Kathleen's post above, it's difficult for me to completely figure out Barbara Hoey's role in this.  A press release at Kelley Drye welcoming her back to the firm says this :

Quote

She has defended employers in single-plaintiff and class action litigation and has won more than a dozen jury and bench trials involving claims arising under Title VII, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, False Claims Act, New York State Whistleblower Law, Family Medical Leave Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Is she an advocate for City Ballet or is she a mediator? I assume she will help bring the company up to date on current fair employment practices and workplace standards. But dancers might not want to be completely candid with her as she might not be representing their personal interests.

On the other hand, in the Fox News interview linked at Kelley Drye she does say (in regard to the Harvey Weinstein case) that she always tells her clients flatly, "there is no such thing as a consensual affair with your boss." Then she says "if people felt they had to succumb to this behavoir to keep their jobs," it would be quid pro quo harrassment. Of course she may have a way of reading the Martins affairs as consensual.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Quiggin

[kfw]

58 minutes ago, nanushka said:

I don't follow the logic here. Families are entities in which, inevitably (or even just probably), "the truth will out"? Not the family I grew up in, nor many other families I know.

What I mean is that abuse (or an affair) is unlikely to stay secret, especially in today's climate.

Quote

I don't follow the logic here, either. Since when is a strong sense of justice, and the willingness to take significant personal risks for the sake of justice, a notable "asset" for a dancer in a ballet company? Since when do the AD's of ballet companies (or the management in many other types of organizations) place the furtherance of justice as among their primary hiring considerations?

Much of this seems like magical thinking to me, based on ideals rather than reality. And it seems disconnected from how the victims of such crimes would actually be thinking and feeling about themselves, their own vulnerabilities (emotional, professional, financial, social, etc.), their relationships with others (many of which would be strongly impacted), their aggressors, the organizations they work within and in which those aggressors have substantial power, etc.

A strong sense of justice, and the willingness to take significant personal risks for the sake of justice is a notable asset for any human being and is recognized as such by other good human beings, yourself I'm sure included. This is a moment in which many women, including several dancers, have spoken out about the abuse they've suffered. What started as a trickle became a floodgate, emboldening  many others. Why would things reverse now?

 

[nanushka]

 

I'm genuinely very curious, then, to know what you are suggesting. In emphasizing the reasons why victims would be likely to come forward, and in asserting that the negative consequences of doing so would likely be minimal — what are you suggesting?

Edited to add:  I apologize if those characterizations of your assertions are inaccurate; if so, please do clarify.

[kfw]

3 minutes ago, nanushka said:

I'm genuinely very curious, then, to know what you are suggesting. In emphasizing all the reasons why victims would be likely to come forward, and in asserting that the negative consequences of doing so would likely be minimal — what are you suggesting?

I don't know why you're confused. Helene wrote that many dancers might shy away from speaking out. That seems unlikely to me and I've explained why. 

[nanushka]

9 minutes ago, kfw said:

I don't know why you're confused. Helene wrote that many dancers might shy away from speaking out. That seems unlikely to me and I've explained why. 

So what you're asserting is that, if a person in general (not Peter Martins) were guilty of sexual misconduct, his victims would probably speak out — because why wouldn't they in today's climate?

I'm confused because that's nearly identical to the characterization of your views that I made above:

Quote

It seems like what's being suggested here is that, if Peter Martins were guilty of sexual misconduct, his victims would probably have spoken out —  because why wouldn't they in today's climate?

I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult. I just don't understand precisely the point you're making — or, rather, I don't understand how your point differs from what I suggested it was above.

Edited January 9, 2018 by nanushka

[kfw]

42 minutes ago, nanushka said:

So what you're asserting is that, if a person in general (not Peter Martins) were guilty of sexual misconduct, his victims would probably speak out — because why wouldn't they in today's climate?

I'm confused because that's nearly identical to the characterization of your views that I made above:

I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult. I just don't understand precisely the point you're making — or, rather, I don't understand how your point differs from what I suggested it was above.

I don't believe I've expressed disagreement with the idea that Martins' victims would probably speak out - several claiming to be victims have in fact done so. (I've also said that I think dancers in general will likely not be intimidated into silence now). Their doing so would, I would think, embolden dancers in similar situations in the future. Except that, given what's happened to Martins - and Gomes - how soon will an AD try anything again?

[sandik]

9 hours ago, kfw said:

What I mean is that abuse (or an affair) is unlikely to stay secret, especially in today's climate.

A strong sense of justice, and the willingness to take significant personal risks for the sake of justice is a notable asset for any human being and is recognized as such by other good human beings, yourself I'm sure included. This is a moment in which many women, including several dancers, have spoken out about the abuse they've suffered. What started as a trickle became a floodgate, emboldening  many others. Why would things reverse now?

 

In general, I am known as a brightsider to my family and friends -- someone who assumes that the good will eventually win out and that justice may be glacially slow but will in the end prevail.  But these are early, early times in this process, and I fully expect to see backlash and retribution in many and various places.  I'm more grateful than I can say that people have started to speak up, but I do not expect that a problem which is so fully entrenched in so many parts of our culture will be overturned as easily as this. 

Two things I heard today -- Catherine Deneuve signed a letter to Le Monde complaining in part that the #metoo movement will create a new Puritanism, that men who were "touching a knee, trying to steal a kiss, or speaking about ‘intimate’ things at a work dinner, or sending messages with sexual connotations to a woman whose feelings were not mutual" will suffer the same consequences as a serious abuser.  Meanwhile, two women who had been harassed at their work at the Seattle Public Library by their manager and had complained about it, did get a settlement, but are forbidden from ever working in a city agency again.  Their manager did not lose his job.

I admire Deneuve's work -- I think she's a wonderful actress, but I think her skills and her celebrity would insulate her from any blowback, should she need to complain about mistreatment.  Her reputation as an actress would not suffer -- her ability to work in her field would not be affected.  These two women who worked as security guards at the library are not only out of a job, they are unable to apply for any city position.  Ever. 

Until I have more faith that a security guard who was spanked at work can complain about her mistreatment without losing a chunk of her rights, I won't be sanguine about the tiny bit of improvement we've managed so far.

 

[nanushka]

The letter Deneuve signed was also signed by more than 100 other prominent women in France. This is not the first indication of a backlash, and of course there will be more. It's an open question which force will prove stronger: change or inertia. Whatever happens, major social changes do not occur as simple shifts from point A to point B. That's not how society operates, and especially not when such potent forces — power, sexuality, etc. — are at issue. I think it would be naive to think otherwise.

[Marta]

9 hours ago, sandik said:

In general, I am known as a brightsider to my family and friends -- someone who assumes that the good will eventually win out and that justice may be glacially slow but will in the end prevail.  But these are early, early times in this process, and I fully expect to see backlash and retribution in many and various places.  I'm more grateful than I can say that people have started to speak up, but I do not expect that a problem which is so fully entrenched in so many parts of our culture will be overturned as easily as this. 

Two things I heard today -- Catherine Deneuve signed a letter to Le Monde complaining in part that the #metoo movement will create a new Puritanism, that men who were "touching a knee, trying to steal a kiss, or speaking about ‘intimate’ things at a work dinner, or sending messages with sexual connotations to a woman whose feelings were not mutual" will suffer the same consequences as a serious abuser.  Meanwhile, two women who had been harassed at their work at the Seattle Public Library by their manager and had complained about it, did get a settlement, but are forbidden from ever working in a city agency again.  Their manager did not lose his job.

I admire Deneuve's work -- I think she's a wonderful actress, but I think her skills and her celebrity would insulate her from any blowback, should she need to complain about mistreatment.  Her reputation as an actress would not suffer -- her ability to work in her field would not be affected.  These two women who worked as security guards at the library are not only out of a job, they are unable to apply for any city position.  Ever. 

Until I have more faith that a security guard who was spanked at work can complain about her mistreatment without losing a chunk of her rights, I won't be sanguine about the tiny bit of improvement we've managed so far.

 

Yes, I agree with your assessment.  I was unhappy about  the declaration of Deneuve et al.  I had the feeling that they really don't understand. I don't think the  attitude toward me too movement, or to the harassment issue in general, in France or Italy is  suitably angry!  I feel that they -- people, including many women -- are skeptical,  maybe even suspicious about motivations of women here who are saying "me too".

[kfw]

I know the commonly used word “backlash” isn’t being used to suggest violence but it does have that connotation, so I think it's a word that muddies the waters rather than clarifies them. As someone who’s been happily married and out of the dating game for a good long time, I have no real opinion on the matters Deneuve’s talking about, but she isn’t exacting retribution, much less violent retribution.

Also, I love the King quote that “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice,” but as someone with a low anthropology, a pessimistic rather than optimistic view of human nature, I don't think we're ever going to eradicate the abuse of any kind of power. But while it's true that progress often proceeds as two steps forward and one back, if the question is whether or not dancers feel more free to speak out now, I think the evidence suggests they do.

[nanushka]

28 minutes ago, kfw said:

But while it's true that progress often proceeds as two steps forward and one back, if the question is whether or not dancers feel more free to speak out now, I think the evidence suggests they do.

But I don't think that is the question we have been discussing. I don't think anyone here has argued that dancers don't "feel more free to speak out now." But "dancers feel more free to speak out now" is not the same as what you were suggesting above:

20 hours ago, kfw said:

Helene wrote that many dancers might shy away from speaking out. That seems unlikely to me and I've explained why. 

Asserting that dancers are unlikely to shy away from speaking out is very different from asserting that they now feel more free to speak out. One can certainly agree that they feel more free to speak out while still thinking it's likely that some or many will continue to shy away from speaking out.

"More" and "less" are relative. A dancer could feel less afraid of or hesitant about speaking out now than 6 months ago and yet still be pretty darned afraid and hesitant — so much so that they (and many others in a similar position) don't do it. 

Edited January 10, 2018 by nanushka

[nanushka]

Definition #3 of backlash in Merriam-Webster:

Quote

a strong adverse reaction (as to a recent political or social development)

I think this is what those who've used the term here have meant by it.

 

[kfw]

I’ll say this simply because I don't think it's complicated. More than 20 dancers, including some still in the company, have complained about Peter Martins, with the result that he’s lost his job (2^nd DUI or not, he’d still be there if they hadn’t). Perhaps the most beloved dancer of his generation has lost job over an alleged sexual incident that hasn’t even been made public. In the future, it’s likely that some dancers will suffer abuse but be afraid to speak out. But it’s probable that fewer will suffer abuse and more who do will feel emboldened to speak out (with the result that the abusers will lose their jobs and there will be even less abuse).

Quote

I think this is what those who've used the term here have meant by it.

As I said, I don’t think anyone meant to imply violence, but there is a reason that definition is Webster’s third. The first connotes violence, and does so even when no literal violence is implied. That’s how connotations work. For clarifying and resolving issues, the clearer and more accurate words are, the more efficacious they are. Less accurate words are often propaganda.  

[abatt]

http://www.dancemagazine.com/open-letter-new-york-city-ballet-2524021433.html

 

Well, terminated dancer Sophie Flack has decided throw her two cents into the mix.  She doesn't report on any abuse she endured, but concludes that Martins is guilty and should have been terminated back when Darci called the police on him in the 1990s.

Edited January 10, 2018 by abatt

[BalanchineFan]

On 1/8/2018 at 10:44 AM, Amy Reusch said:

Agreed, but remember it was Farrell giving Balanchine  an ultimatum over roles for her husband that clinched the departure.... one can certainly understand why she felt she had to make a stand, but dancers do not give ultimatums to artistic directors.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1990/10/11/dancing-for-balanchine/

"Finally one evening when Mejia was not given a role that he felt was his due—Symphony in C, third movement—Farrell issued an ultimatum: if Mejia didn’t dance in Symphony in C that night, they would both quit. To her utter astonishment, Balanchine took her up on it."   

 

I am not defending anyone's shameful actions here, but let's not lose the fine lines of history.

If we’re looking at the fine lines, Balanchine removing Mejia from performances is widely viewed as retaliation for Suzanne Farrell rebuffing Balanchine by marrying Mejia. That fits with the sexual harassment argument. 

[its the mom]

41 minutes ago, abatt said:

http://www.dancemagazine.com/open-letter-new-york-city-ballet-2524021433.html

 

Well, terminated dancer Sophie Flack has decided throw her two cents into the mix.  She doesn't report on any abuse she endured, but concludes that Martins is guilty and should have been terminated back when Darci called the police on him in the 1990s.

Thank you, Ms. Flack.  

[dirac]

1 hour ago, abatt said:

http://www.dancemagazine.com/open-letter-new-york-city-ballet-2524021433.html

 

Well, terminated dancer Sophie Flack has decided throw her two cents into the mix.  She doesn't report on any abuse she endured, but concludes that Martins is guilty and should have been terminated back when Darci called the police on him in the 1990s.

She also doesn't say anything about any sexual harassment or other abuse she observed or heard about, which is interesting since she was with the company recently,  is no longer an "insider," and presumably has nothing to lose. She merely points to the NYT article, which was as some noted previously, rather weak tea, and the older claims against Martins.

I guess Balanchine didn't provide "a safe workplace for unfettered creation."

[aurora]

9 minutes ago, dirac said:

She also doesn't say anything about any sexual harassment or other abuse she observed or heard about, which is interesting since she was with the company recently,  is no longer an "insider," and presumably has nothing to lose. She merely points to the NYT article, which was as some noted previously, rather weak tea, and the older claims against Martins.

I guess Balanchine didn't provide "a safe workplace for unfettered creation."

I don't see that it is her place or responsibility to tell other peoples' stories. Besides that explicitly wasn't the point of this piece. She is addressing the dancers, not writing to provide you with new proof of Martins' guilt. She is clearly starting from the belief (based on her many years at he company) that he is guilty.

[Quiggin]

Sidenote: The Times' reports, towards the end of the article, that Deneuve also made a strong statement last March defending Roman Polanski. “It’s a case that has been dealt with, it’s a case that has been judged. There have been agreements between Roman Polanski and this woman.” 

Edited January 10, 2018 by Quiggin

[dirac]

21 minutes ago, aurora said:

I don't see that it is her place or responsibility to tell other peoples' stories. Besides that explicitly wasn't the point of this piece. She is addressing the dancers, not writing to provide you with new proof of Martins' guilt. She is clearly starting from the belief (based on her many years at he company) that he is guilty.

I was simply pointing out what I thought was an interesting omission. Naturally I presume that if Flack had such knowledge, she would want to share it with the public with a view to supporting the accusers she claims the dancers who defended Martins discredited. I think something along the lines of, "While I worked there, the atmosphere was toxic with competition among female dancers who believed they had to sleep with Peter to get ahead" would be perfectly acceptable to write, given the circumstances, and quite damning.

[abatt]

23 minutes ago, aurora said:

I don't see that it is her place or responsibility to tell other peoples' stories. Besides that explicitly wasn't the point of this piece. She is addressing the dancers, not writing to provide you with new proof of Martins' guilt. She is clearly starting from the belief (based on her many years at he company) that he is guilty.

Yes, but if Flack  has decided that she is judge, jury and prosecutor, and  that Martins is guilty of abuse, why wouldn't she provide her own facts to back up that conclusion?   At least the Times articles provide specific details from each person quoted, adhering to some form of journalistic integrity.  Not so in Dance Magazine.

Edited January 10, 2018 by abatt

[aurora]

Just now, abatt said:

Yes, but if Flack  has decided that she is judge, jury and prosecutor, and  that Martins is guilty of abuse, why wouldn't she provide her own facts to back up that conclusion? 

I'm pretty sure she didn't decide that. To reach that conclusion from this article (open letter) is an immense reach.

She has made her own judgment (as we all do) of the situation based on her experience in the company and her knowledge of people involved.

 

[abatt]

She most definitely claims that Martins is guilty of abuse.  Her exact words are that if you side with Martins, "you are siding with an abuser".  Yet she doesn't offer any facts to support that assertion. Nor does she clarify whether he is guilty of sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, or all of the above.  Just more vague claims which are being presented as  facts and truths.

 

If a widely read publication is going to give someone a platform for an "open letter" to make an accusation against someon, it really needs to take account of journalistic standards. 

Edited January 10, 2018 by abatt