Finlay Resigns, Catazaro and Ramasar Suspended -- Update: Catazaro and Ramasar Fired

[On Pointe]

6 minutes ago, aurora said:

A ballet company is both a workplace and a very close knit community. They are not mutually exclusive.

As for the rest, good for you that you would report the person.

However you are clearly smart enough to know that many people do not report people in workplaces for violations of professional norms because they are ostracized and punished for doing so. This is why so many people (men usually) get away with sexual harassment in the workplace. I'm glad you do not share their concerns, but people do have them and they are clearly valid, based on empirical evidence.

 

 

A ballet company  is not a typical workplace,  but it is a workplace nevertheless.  Reporting that a co-worker appears to be impaired in an office setting is quite different from a situation where that co-worker handles your body as part of the job.  I share the concerns of people who don't  want to be seen as "snitches",  but I can't  be more concerned about their well-being than they are.  If they want to risk being bruised and broken that's on them.

[Drew]

3 hours ago, On Pointe said:

 If they want to risk being bruised and broken that's on them.

No-one wants to risk being bruised and broken at any workplace. Speaking generally, one issue I notice is that sometimes people find themselves in situations where they also doubt--and indeed are implicitly encouraged to doubt--their own perceptions. "Everyone says x is such a great person...I must be over-reacting...;" "Well, so-and-so didn't actually physically hurt me, I just felt weird-- I guess I shouldn't say anything" and "Perhaps it was just the one time, I don't want x to lose his/her job" etc.  "So-and-so reported something two years ago and ended up losing HER (or HIS) job after blowing the whistle...I don't want that to happen to me..." and, very common, "It must have been my fault--I sent the wrong message when I stopped to chat...asked for advice..." etc. etc.

I wish people spoke up more too. But a blanket condemnation for people who don't speak up at their workplace about behaviors that are genuinely inappropriate or even illegal  seems puzzling to me. Especially when you add gaps of age and experience, complex legal scenarios--since without certain kinds of evidence some statements can be considered libelous etc. 

To return to this case: Waterbury doesn't work at NYCB--though I don't think her history as an SAB student is morally insignificant in this story and I suppose there is a chance that it may turn out not be legally insignificant either--but even the way her complaint has been received gives one an idea of how hard it is to come forward in similar situations including when employers are involved: "Oh she isn't really suffering--I saw her in class last week;" (which implies and more than implies that she's a liar)  "Oh what was she doing on Finlay's computer anyway?"  (which implies and more than implies she is a suspicious person) "Obviously, she is out for money...revenge..."(which implies she is an opportunist) to say nothing of the insults she reports receiving in one of her interviews...And all this despite the fact that the company's own investigation found wrongdoing on the part of Finlay, Ramasar, and Catazaro.

The fact that we may see more of this kind of thing as the legal disputes go forward actually has me in a bit of a cold sweat (not that that is the main problem with it!!) since--for example--if the company were to go after Waterbury in a personal way (as opposed simply to disputing their legal responsibility for what happened to her), then I would likely feel compelled to stop travellng to see NYCB perform for quite a while.  (This may seem comical--or hypocritical--from someone planning to travel to see the Bolshoi this summer--but New York City Ballet is New York City Ballet, a "home" company for me. I do feel differently about it and a different kind of responsibility as someone who has donated money to the company etc.)

Edited to add: Maybe someone is reading this and thinking "oh grow up...all major ballet companies have horrible stuff going down all the time..." But if that were true, so much the more reason for there to be a reckoning and an attempt to think about what the companies and their schools might do differently. There are always bad people (something On Pointe has said several times), but not all workplaces are equally bad.

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Drew
Grammar/spelling

[nanushka]

47 minutes ago, Drew said:

To return to this case: Waterbury doesn't work at NYCB--though I don't think her history as an SAB student is morally insignificant in this story and I suppose there is a chance that it may turn out not be legally insignificant either--but even the way her complaint has been received gives one an idea of how hard it is to come forward in similar situations including when employers are involved: "Oh she isn't really suffering--I saw her in class last week;" (which implies and more than implies that she's a liar)  "Oh what was she doing on Finlay's computer anyway?"  (which implies and more than implies she is a suspicious person) "Obviously, she is out for money...revenge..."(which implies she is an opportunist) to say nothing of the insults she reports receiving in one of her interviews...And all this despite the fact that the company's own investigation found wrongdoing on the part of Finlay, Ramasar, and Catazaro.

THANK YOU, Drew, for so effectively conveying (in your whole post, but especially in this paragraph) what I've been thinking and feeling while taking in these responses to Waterbury's claims.

The first represents a woeful ignorance of the realities of how acute psychological distress can actually manifest itself.

The second — well, I don't see why it matters in the least how she found the text messages, etc. Maybe she was snooping — maybe she had suspicions and those led her to snoop. (If her allegations are true, she apparently had good reason.) Even if I knew that to be the case (and as others have pointed out, there are some very good explanations for how she could have found them without snooping, so I see no need to grant that), I would not think that it matters.

As for the third: we have no way of knowing Waterbury's (possibly complex mix of) motivations for taking action (assuming that we're not all willing to just believe what she says are her motivations — and it's clear that some are not), but again I don't see why they matter, so long as her claims have a basis in demonstrable evidence. A victim doesn't need to be a saint to deserve justice or reparation; if she did, we'd have little use for a legal system.

Edited September 16, 2018 by nanushka

[minervaave]

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

The comedian Louis CK barred the exit door and forced female comedians to watch him masturbate.  Charlie Rose used to parade naked around his assistants.  Les Moonves allegedly forced a producer to perform oral sex and when she refused a second time,  he called her the "c" word and threw her against a wall.   That is "rampant sexual misconduct".  Looking at pictures of naked girls is not.

Looking at pictures of naked girls in pornography, which features people who have agreed to have images of themselves naked and having sex, is not rampant sexual misconduct.  Distributing photos of someone who has not explicitly agreed to have them shared absolutely is.  Just because what Louis CK or Les Moonves did is horrific does not mean this is less horrific.  This is a public violation, and a public violation regarding something that many people would consider the most private, personal and intimate thing about them, their body.  All of these things are awful and all of them can have a devastating and traumatic impact on their victim.  

[nanushka]

2 hours ago, On Pointe said:

That is "rampant sexual misconduct".  Looking at pictures of naked girls is not.

Setting aside the problematic characterization of the alleged behavior as simply "looking at pictures of naked girls" (not really the essence of what Waterbury has accused the men of, as @aurora has pointed out above), which part of the phrase is being disputed here?

"Rampant"? That generally means "widespread," and is not necessarily a description of the severity of the action.

"Sexual misconduct"?

Murdering people is bad; that doesn't mean mugging people isn't also bad. I don't see what the purpose is of making comparisons, unless it's to excuse the behavior that Waterbury has alleged.

ETA:  I see @minervaave and I were posting at the same time. Ditto to the above.

Edited September 16, 2018 by nanushka

[On Pointe]

1 hour ago, Drew said:

No-one wants to risk being bruised and broken at any workplace. Speaking generally, one issue I notice is that sometimes people find themselves in situations where they also doubt--and indeed are implicitly encouraged to doubt--their own perceptions. "Everyone says x is such a great person...I must be over-reacting...;" "Well, so-and-so didn't actually physically hurt me, I just felt weird-- I guess I shouldn't say anything" and "Perhaps it was just the one time, I don't want x to lose his/her job" etc.  "So-and-so reported something two years ago and ended up losing HER (or HIS) job after blowing the whistle...I don't want that to happen to me..." and, very common, "It must have been my fault--I sent the wrong message when I stopped to chat...asked for advice..." etc. etc.

I wish people spoke up more too. But a blanket condemnation for people who don't speak up at their workplace about behaviors that are genuinely inappropriate or even illegal  seems puzzling to me. Especially when you add gaps of age and experience, complex legal scenarios--since without certain kinds of evidence some statements can be considered libelous etc. 

To return to this case: Waterbury doesn't work at NYCB--though I don't think her history as an SAB student is morally insignificant in this story and I suppose there is a chance that it may turn out not be legally insignificant either--but even the way her complaint has been received gives one an idea of how hard it is to come forward in similar situations including when employers are involved: "Oh she isn't really suffering--I saw her in class last week;" (which implies and more than implies that she's a liar)  "Oh what was she doing on Finlay's computer anyway?"  (which implies and more than implies she is a suspicious person) "Obviously, she is out for money...revenge..."(which implies she is an opportunist) to say nothing of the insults she reports receiving in one of her interviews...And all this despite the fact that the company's own investigation found wrongdoing on the part of Finlay, Ramasar, and Catazaro.

The fact that we may see more of this kind of thing as the legal disputes go forward actually has me in a bit of a cold sweat (not that that is the main problem with it!!) since--for example--if the company were to go after Waterbury in a personal way (as opposed simply to disputing their legal responsibility for what happened to her), then I would likely feel compelled to stop travellng to see NYCB perform for quite a while.  (This may seem comical--or hypocritical--from someone planning to travel to see the Bolshoi this summer--but New York City Ballet is New York City Ballet, a "home" company for me. I do feel differently about it and a different kind of responsibility as someone who has donated money to the company etc.)

Edited to add: Maybe someone is reading this and thinking "oh grow up...all major ballet companies have horrible stuff going down all the time..." But if that were true, so much the more reason for their to be a reckoning and an attempt to think about what  the companies and their schools might do differently. There are always bad people (something On Pointe has said several times), but not all workplaces are equally bad.

 

I was referring to a specific hypothetical situation.  If you are about to rehearse or perform a lift with someone who is so inebriated that you doubt their ability to handle you safely,  you must speak up.  I am not talking about interactions where there is any ambiguity about what is going on.  (In those cases I would keep a journal and inform at least two other people as to what was happening.)  When air passengers spotted pilots drinking right before a flight,  they didn't stop to consider if the pilots might lose their jobs.  (They did.)  That's an extreme example but I hope it helps to make my intent more clear.

On the whole,  Ms. Waterbury  has been received very sympathetically in my opinion.  There is no doubt that she was wronged,  but that doesn't mean there isn't another aspect to this story.  Suing for monetary damages may or may not be an act of revenge,  but the company is obligated to defend itself,  and Ramasar and Catazaro have a right to fight for their careers.  Key aspects of the Waterbury complaint are ambiguous,  inaccurate and one might say deceitful.  One would hope that she and/or her parents read it before it was filed,  but it's  hard to believe there was no opportunity to make corrections.

Noting that Ms. Waterbury  has been seen in class,  and that her contract with Danskin  remains intact, does not mean she isn't  suffering.  It means that the complaint is not accurate when it describes her as unable to carry on with her life.

I am not persuaded by the argument that the company's investigation found wrongdoing on the part of the male principals involved.  (It's interesting that there are those who readily accept the company's conclusions in this matter,  yet disbelieve the result of its investigation of Peter Martins.)  We don't  even know what Catazaro is accused of.  It might not even be sexual in nature - maybe he wrote something like,  "The Koch Brothers suck!".  A few years ago a company member expressed something similar on social media,  got spanked for it and prompted the company to come up with a formal social  media  policy.  None of the accused dancers put objectionable photos of women on their personal social media accounts.

Somebody is compelled to go after Ms. Waterbury  on a personal level because she's making a personal complaint.  Her lawyer or her parents should have warned her that not all elements in her story are going to go unchallenged,  especially by the dancers who have been dragged into this mess through no fault of their own.  She chose to go on Good Morning America instead of remaining relatively anonymous.  She sued only a few days after the first meeting with NYCB.  Perhaps more effort should have been put into reaching a settlement.

Whether you continue to support the company is your decision of course.  But it's hardly like the Bolshoi,  where dancers fling acid in the eyes of their enemies.

[Longtimelurker]

42 minutes ago, nanushka said:

THANK YOU, Drew, for so effectively conveying (in your whole post, but especially in this paragraph) what I've been thinking and feeling while taking in these responses to Waterbury's claims.

The first represents a woeful ignorance of the realities of how acute psychological distress can actually manifest itself.

The second — well, I don't see why it matters in the least how she found the text messages, etc. Maybe she was snooping — maybe she had suspicions and those led her to snoop. (If her allegations are true, she apparently had good reason.) Even if I knew that to be the case (and as others have pointed out, there are some very good explanations for how she could have found them without snooping, so I see no need to grant that), I would not think that it matters.

As for the third: we have no way of knowing Waterbury's (possibly complex mix of) motivations for taking action (assuming that we're not all willing to just believe what she says are her motivations — and it's clear that some are not), but again I don't see why they matter, so long as her claims have a basis in demonstrable evidence. A victim doesn't need to be a saint to deserve justice or reparation; if she did, we'd have little use for a legal system.

I agree with most of what you said except for the third point. I think those on this board should consider her possible motives for including NYCB in her suit. This is a ballet board after all and her actions are affecting one of the leading institutions of this art form so open to discussion. Also some media reports and her legal claim have made incorrect characterizations of her relationship with the company. I think that also makes it fair game to consider what the true relationship is and how that could effect her motives and mindset.

[aurora]

11 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I was referring to a specific hypothetical situation.  If you are about to rehearse or perform a lift with someone who is so inebriated that you doubt their ability to handle you safely,  you must speak up.  I am not talking about interactions where there is any ambiguity about what is going on.  (In those cases I would keep a journal and inform at least two other people as to what was happening.)  When air passengers spotted pilots drinking right before a flight,  they didn't stop to consider if the pilots might lose their jobs.  (They did.)  That's an extreme example but I hope it helps to make my intent more clear.

This is a hypothetical you yourself brought up and which has literally no bearing on the issue at hand.

 

[Helene]

While the complaint, which she didn't write, might be sloppy, I've seen no evidence that Waterbury has been deceitful.  Anyone can have their own doubts and suspicions, and that and $10 will get one a Frappucino.

8 minutes ago, Longtimelurker said:

I think those on this board should consider her possible motives for including NYCB in her suit. This is a ballet board after all and her actions are affecting one of the leading institutions of this art form so open to discussion. Also some media reports and her legal claim have made incorrect characterizations of her relationship with the company. I think that also makes it fair game to consider what the true relationship is and how that could effect her motives and mindset.

Anyone can consider her possible motives, but that doesn't make those theories or suppositions valid content for this board, unless they are raised in official news by ballet professionals. 

If you'd like to start a ballet board of your own, you can create your own rules and define what can and can't be discussed.

[nanushka]

10 minutes ago, Longtimelurker said:

I agree with most of what you said except for the third point. I think those on this board should consider her possible motives for including NYCB in her suit. This is a ballet board after all and her actions are affecting one of the leading institutions of this art form so open to discussion. Also some media reports and her legal claim have made incorrect characterizations of her relationship with the company. I think that also makes it fair game to consider what the true relationship is and how that could effect her motives and mindset.

Just to clarify, in saying "I don't see why they matter," I of course don't mean to suggest that others shouldn't discuss them. (Forgive me for momentarily discussing the discussion here, simply for the sake of clarifying that I was not discussing the discussion! 😁)

I'm definitely interested in considering the effects of her case on the institution — I'm just not sure her particular motives are knowable, or that they have an impact on what particular effects her legal claims will have.

Edited September 16, 2018 by nanushka

[cobweb]

40 minutes ago, minervaave said:

 All of these things are awful and all of them can have a devastating and traumatic impact on their victim.  

That is certainly true, and assuming the allegations are true, is evidently what Ms. Waterbury is experiencing. I would certainly not want what appears to have happened to her, to have happened to me when I was that age (or ever, of course, I just mean that I was really young at that age and way more vulnerable than I would be now). I’d just point out that some women may not be bothered, let alone traumatized, by having topless or intimate photos shared. I can imagine that the variables affecting one’s reaction include things like: what exactly the photos include, the circumstances of how/ when one was photographed and by whom, one’s relationship with the person doing the sharing and with the recipients (for example, these may be people you have slept with previously/ hope to sleep with/ have danced with closely since you were a teenager and figure they already know your body pretty well), whether you knew the photos possibly were being shared (you may have had a vague sense and not exactly given consent but not cared much either), whether one has exhibitionistic tendencies and/or enjoys showing off one’s body, whether one has one’s own intimate pictures of the guy/s in question and may or may not have shared them with girlfriends, one’s age and rank relative to the sharer... and more. The point being that there could be a range of responses from intense shame and anger and betrayal, to indifference or even possibly pride. Obviously I have no information about what the reactions are of any NYCB women involved. Just pointing out that the allegation of photo sharing leaves out a lot of highly pertinent details and that women (or men for that matter) are likely to vary a lot in their response depending on those details and their own personality and circumstances. 

[Longtimelurker]

11 minutes ago, Helene said:

While the complaint, which she didn't write, might be sloppy, I've seen no evidence that Waterbury has been deceitful.  Anyone can have their own doubts and suspicions, and that and $10 will get one a Frappucino.

Anyone can consider her possible motives, but that doesn't make those theories or suppositions valid content for this board, unless they are raised in official news by ballet professionals. 

If you'd like to start a ballet board of your own, you can create your own rules and define what can and can't be discussed.

Then I am confused. I assumed that discussing her possible motives was within the rules of this board as it is something that has been discussed and not deleted. My response was not related to what is allowed by the rules on this board but rather whether discussing it was something that added substantively to the topic. I think that since her lawyer and the media have mischaracterized her relationship with the company that she has chosen to sue, her motives for both suing the company and why that relationship was not accurately reported is something worthy of discussion. Apologies if that or anything else I have said is against the rules of this board.

[Pique Arabesque]

8 hours ago, cobweb said:

That is certainly true, and assuming the allegations are true, is evidently what Ms. Waterbury is experiencing. I would certainly not want what appears to have happened to her, to have happened to me when I was that age (or ever, of course, I just mean that I was really young at that age and way more vulnerable than I would be now). I’d just point out that some women may not be bothered, let alone traumatized, by having topless or intimate photos shared. I can imagine that the variables affecting one’s reaction include things like: what exactly the photos include, the circumstances of how/ when one was photographed and by whom, one’s relationship with the person doing the sharing and with the recipients (for example, these may be people you have slept with previously/ hope to sleep with/ have danced with closely since you were a teenager and figure they already know your body pretty well), whether you knew the photos possibly were being shared (you may have had a vague sense and not exactly given consent but not cared much either), whether one has exhibitionistic tendencies and/or enjoys showing off one’s body, whether one has one’s own intimate pictures of the guy/s in question and may or may not have shared them with girlfriends, one’s age and rank relative to the sharer... and more. The point being that there could be a range of responses from intense shame and anger and betrayal, to indifference or even possibly pride. Obviously I have no information about what the reactions are of any NYCB women involved. Just pointing out that the allegation of photo sharing leaves out a lot of highly pertinent details and that women (or men for that matter) are likely to vary a lot in their response depending on those details and their own personality and circumstances. 

Waterbury's complaint clearly states that the photos were taken and distributed without her consent. Nude images of sex workers, for example, are taken with their consent. They are also paid for their photos and understand that the photos will be disseminated widely. This was not the case for Waterbury and the NYCB women.

8 hours ago, On Pointe said:

Key aspects of the Waterbury complaint are ambiguous,  inaccurate and one might say deceitful.  One would hope that she and/or her parents read it before it was filed,  but it's  hard to believe there was no opportunity to make corrections.

Noting that Ms. Waterbury  has been seen in class,  and that her contract with Danskin  remains intact, does not mean she isn't  suffering.  It means that the complaint is not accurate when it describes her as unable to carry on with her life.

I am not persuaded by the argument that the company's investigation found wrongdoing on the part of the male principals involved.  (It's interesting that there are those who readily accept the company's conclusions in this matter,  yet disbelieve the result of its investigation of Peter Martins.)  We don't  even know what Catazaro is accused of.  It might not even be sexual in nature - maybe he wrote something like,  "The Koch Brothers suck!".  A few years ago a company member expressed something similar on social media,  got spanked for it and prompted the company to come up with a formal social  media  policy.  None of the accused dancers put objectionable photos of women on their personal social media accounts.

Somebody is compelled to go after Ms. Waterbury  on a personal level because she's making a personal complaint.  Her lawyer or her parents should have warned her that not all elements in her story are going to go unchallenged,  especially by the dancers who have been dragged into this mess through no fault of their own.  She chose to go on Good Morning America instead of remaining relatively anonymous.  She sued only a few days after the first meeting with NYCB.  Perhaps more effort should have been put into reaching a settlement.

Whether you continue to support the company is your decision of course.  But it's hardly like the Bolshoi,  where dancers fling acid in the eyes of their enemies.

5

1. I imagine that there will be typos in a document of that length. 

2. It could take every ounce of strength in her body for Waterbury to get out of bed in the morning. I am thinking of the people who said that Peter Frame seemed happy in the days before his suicide.

3. I seriously doubt that NYCB would part with 3 of their leading men - particularly Ramasar - if they did not find any wrongdoing. They circled the wagons around Martins earlier this year. There will likely be more information about Catazaro emerging in the subsequent months, but mild criticism of a donor/sponsor (to use your example) is probably not a fireable offense. Also, most social media platforms have a policy against pornography, which is why the images were never shared on social media (Instagram - where the dancers seem to be most active - is particularly tough on this).

4. Waterbury first discovered the images in May, and went public in September. She and her team likely spent the entire summer trying to build the strongest case possible. They are all acutely aware that any sexual misconduct claims will be under placed under a microscope from people who want to protect the men and institution involved. Also, Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar "dragged" dancers into this situation, not Waterbury. She should be applauded for her unwillingness to tolerate an abusive environment. (I am also thinking about Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, who very reluctantly and bravely came forward today. Coming forward publically can be liberating to victims).

Also, as for her relationship to NYCB, broadcast media tends to paint in broad strokes. It is easier for the general public to see her as a *ballerina* (more clickbait-y) than a former SAB student, which probably doesn't mean much to people unfamiliar with classical ballet. I don't think that Waterbury or her team have tried to mischaracterize their relationship with NYCB.

[Villette]

It is difficult for me to read people say Alexandra might be opportunistic, partly because I have experienced a situation similar to hers. A difference was that I was too young to legally consent to anything that happened, and the individual who took the images was legally an adult. Having a legal team and/or police officers look at nude images of you, listening to them discuss it, answering their questions, that is humiliating. It takes every once of strength. It is not an experience anyone would go through for any reason other than in an effort to keep it from happening to someone else. When all of this was going on, I became hyper-productive. Throwing myself into my school, my dancing, my writing, all of that became my escape. It was the only thing that kept me feeling like a real person. It may be the same for others. 

[Pique Arabesque]

3 minutes ago, Villette said:

It is difficult for me to read people say Alexandra might be opportunistic, partly because I have experienced a situation similar to hers. A difference was that I was too young to legally consent to anything that happened, and the individual who took the images was legally an adult. Having a legal team and/or police officers look at nude images of you, listening to them discuss it, answering their questions, that is humiliating. It takes every once of strength. It is not an experience anyone would go through for any reason other than in an effort to keep it from happening to someone else. When all of this was going on, I became hyper-productive. Throwing myself into my school, my dancing, my writing, all of that became my escape. It was the only thing that kept me feeling like a real person. It may be the same for others. 

I am sorry that happened to you. You are very brave, and I am sure you saved many others from experiencing harm.

[Drew]

1 hour ago, Longtimelurker said:

 I think that since her lawyer and the media have mischaracterized her relationship with the company that she has chosen to sue...

I assume the company's lawyers will also insist on this--regarding what she said about studying at New York City Ballet Inc. (I assume that's what you are referring to...) For me, leaving aside the legal issues, it makes little difference to the larger implications of the case. Whatever turns out to be the legal status of New York City Ballet Inc., the School of American Ballet is intimately intertwined with New York City Ballet, and not just as their feeder school but sharing a director etc.  If a case went forward against the company (I don't think it will because it will likely be dismissed or settled), then it would not be hard to show that School of American Ballet stands in a very different relationship to New York City Ballet than, say, Ballet Academy East does.

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

Whether you continue to support the company is your decision of course.  But it's hardly like the Bolshoi,  where dancers fling acid in the eyes of their enemies.

Just one Bolshoi dancer that has been formally found guilty, but yes--and actually, more disturbingly to me, that same dancer has been allowed back into the theater to take class! I brought it up because I wanted to be candid about how conflicted situations like this make me as a ballet fan feel, though in such situations my particular feelings are rather trivial considerations. But as I said, I also feel differently about a company  that is, so to speak, my home company, and to which I have made donations. (I have never donated to the Bolshoi.) 

Right now, I DO continue to support New York City Ballet -- partly because of their most recent statement. At the same time, if Ramasar and Catazaro successfully fight to get their jobs back on the basis of arbitration and what their contracts do and do not allow etc. -- and the whole scene does NOT become a victim shaming fest and I am given reason to understand the other issues raised by the suit are being taken seriously -- then I believe I could continue to support the company too. (Not that my support is a serious issue here. It's not...so perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up. But since I did I thought I should explain myself.)

And thank you Villette for your post....these are very hard things to talk about in any setting...

Edited September 17, 2018 by Drew
Edited to cut a lot that I thought got too speculative and also because my feelings aren't the issue..

[FITTB85]

For reference can anyone tell me what actions NYCB took against Nilas Martins following his 2007 arrest or Peter Martins following his 2011 DWI arrest?  Newspaper reports indicate that both eventually plead guilty to the charges.  Did NYCB punish either of them following their illegal activities?  

[fondoffouettes]

 

[onxmyxtoes]

The complaint lists that photos of NYCB female dancers were shared, but what complicates this is knowing that many male dancers date female dancers in company. There leaves open the possibility that nude photos were taken willingly but the sharing was unknown. The way the complaint is written, it almost suggests that the male dancers were taking photos of the women without their knowing and then distributing. If anyone remembers reading otherwise, I am open to being corrected.

[fordhambae]

12 minutes ago, onxmyxtoes said:

The complaint lists that photos of NYCB female dancers were shared, but what complicates this is knowing that many male dancers date female dancers in company. There leaves open the possibility that nude photos were taken willingly but the sharing was unknown. The way the complaint is written, it almost suggests that the male dancers were taking photos of the women without their knowing and then distributing. If anyone remembers reading otherwise, I am open to being corrected.

This seems correct, there was never any allegation that other individuals photos were shared without their knowledge, that is just the presumption based on the lawsuit. If this is the case, would those terminations (other than Mr. Finlay) be considered unjust? Perhaps this is why the union stated they seek to arbitrate the matter for the other's involved.

[FPF]

Sarah Kaufman from the WaPo weighs in: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/theater_dance/in-wake-of-suit-against-new-york-city-balletaudiences-and-funders-should-demand-answers/2018/09/16/88f184a4-b5da-11e8-b79f-f6e31e555258_story.html?utm_term=.95cc5b32f937 

Quote

Here’s what NYCB needs to do next.

1. Take a hard look at itself and admit there’s a problem. 

The institution needs to make sure that power is not abused and that all dancers and students are empowered and supported if they come forward with issues, including the youngest and most vulnerable.

NYCB leadership “can’t just say, ‘We had an investigation and we’re fine,’ ” says Michael Kaiser, chairman of the DeVos Institute of Arts Management at the University of Maryland and past president of the Kennedy Center. “The way we approach these issues is changing. We can’t just ignore it. They need to say, ‘How do we study ourselves and see what’s wrong with our culture, and make ourselves be open and aware and self-reflective?’ ”

2. Start by replacing board members and staff too closely connected to the old way — to Martins.

“Being a steward for an institution like this, one would want to clear up the question of whether or not there’s has been a systemic pattern of behavior that has been abetted by a culture of permissiveness,” says DeVos Institute President Brett Egan. 

Board members allied with Martins may be caught in a conflict over that question of permissiveness. Vice Chairman Robert I. Lipp, for instance, first joined NYCB’s board in 1984, the year after founder George Balanchine died and Martins took over as co-director with choreographer Jerome Robbins. (Martins assumed sole leadership in 1990.) Last December, after Martins took leave amid the dancers’ accusations against him, Lipp signaled he was okay with the status quo. The New York Times quoted him as telling the dancers he hoped Martins could soon “be back and continuing in his regular role.”

3. Set clear policies and punishments, and enforce them with indisputable fairness. 

NYCB has moved sluggishly at every juncture in this nightmare year. Did it do so out of regard for those who say they’ve been victimized? Or to protect its stars?   

“This moment in our society, long overdue, must examine in cold light to whom those in power give the benefit of the doubt,” says Egan, “and what action is taken, or not, based on that balance. These are vital questions of justice.” 

4. Set standards of comportment for outside as well as inside the studio. Carrying oneself with pride — the idea of representing — seems to be a hit-or-miss ideal at NYCB. It will take a self-disciplined leader to set the example. Every authority figure on the staff must be a role model.

Balanchine himself was not without controversy; he had a roving eye for ballerinas. Yet the demands he made upon himself as an artist and a public figure, he also placed upon his dancers.

“We were taught that we not only represented the organization, but that we represented New York,” says Wilhelmina Frankfurt, who danced with the company before Martins took over. “We were expected to behave with class and dignity.” 

Martins shut the door on many of the Balanchine-generation ballet stars; he did not bring them in to teach and coach his dancers. These artists — Suzanne Farrell, Stephanie Saland, Edward Villella and so many others — should be welcomed back as part of NYCB, as mentors and connections to the grandeur that an institution mockingly linked to a “Dance of the Deviants” no longer possesses.

“These men,” says Frankfurt, speaking of Finlay, Ramasar and Catazaro, “didn’t have an example.” 

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by FPF
formatting

[nanushka]

4 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

This seems correct, there was never any allegation that other individuals photos were shared without their knowledge, that is just the presumption based on the lawsuit. If this is the case, would those terminations (other than Mr. Finlay) be considered unjust? Perhaps this is why the union stated they seek to arbitrate the matter for the other's involved.

I thought there was a reference to the sharing of a photo of a company dancer taken (surreptitiously, I thought) while she was changing. Is that not accurate?

[fordhambae]

2 minutes ago, nanushka said:

I thought there was a reference to the sharing of a photo of a company dancer taken (surreptitiously, I thought) while she was changing. Is that not accurate? 

Yes there was, do we know if this was tied to either Catazaro or Ramasar? We still don't know who these "9 men" are.

[nanushka]

4 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Yes there was, do we know if this was tied to either Catazaro or Ramasar? We still don't know who these "9 men" are.

Oh, I don't know that. I was responding to your claim:

12 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

This seems correct, there was never any allegation that other individuals photos were shared without their knowledge, that is just the presumption based on the lawsuit.

I didn't think @onxmyxtoes, whose post you were responding to, had been referring specifically to Ramasar and Catazaro.

Edited September 17, 2018 by nanushka

[fondoffouettes]

1 hour ago, FITTB85 said:

For reference can anyone tell me what actions NYCB took against Nilas Martins following his 2007 arrest or Peter Martins following his 2011 DWI arrest?  Newspaper reports indicate that both eventually plead guilty to the charges.  Did NYCB punish either of them following their illegal activities?  

I have no idea about Peter Matins, but Nilas Martins was pulled from the Saratoga season that summer. The next reference I can find to him performing with NYCB, here on BA, is the one below, from winter 2008. I can't find any references in the press to him performing during that time period. This isn't to say he didn't dance in the fall; I just can't find any evidence he did. Also, I gather that by that point in his career, his appearances were a real rarity anyway.

https://balletalert.invisionzone.com/topic/26607-nycb-winter-2008-week-7/?tab=comments#comment-221482

Also, he only pled guilty to the reduced charge of "disorderly conduct," claiming it wasn't his cocaine and that he was covering for the other person in the car (Amar Ramasar). 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080900751.html

https://nypost.com/2007/07/07/dancer-to-sidestep-prison-da/

Edited September 17, 2018 by fondoffouettes