Well, I’m sure that was sometimes true… all kinds of things can become the subject of disapproving gossip. In my grandmother’s case, she was elevated from being a poor but pretty working girl (1 of about 10 children) to an executive’s wife presiding over a household staff, dinner parties, etc. So I imagine much of the gossip probably had a tinge of envy.
But in any event, we seem to agree on two main points:
The men doing such things in that era had no notice that such conduct could subject them to sanctions decades later (and as far as I know, SafeSport has not acted to punish this type of conduct from years back, though the SafeSport rules would authorize them to); and
We have evolved in our understanding of power dynamics in romantic and sexual relationships.
ETA: You truly don’t get it. Safe Sport isn’t going to sanction two ADULTS despite the power dynamic. The fact that you assume the criticism was in part due to jealousy (ie she got something out of it) says more about you than others. My lord my family acted in a manner acceptable of the time period but never would think the scenario of your grandfather was okay. And it wasn’t out of jealousy. Maybe that’s because my family is full of people who didn’t fit the mold. Or maybe because they own their mistakes rather than saying “oh those were the times.”
I guess it’s charming that young people assume that everyone always had exactly the same understanding of things that we have now. Charming, but unfortunately not true. I did a quick google search on this issue of men marrying their secretaries and found this from the Telegraph:
My mother pointed out that meeting your spouse at work was the norm for her generation. She first encountered my father while both worked for a large construction company in Ghana – she, yes, as a secretary and he as a logistics manager, who was 27 years her senior.
Politicians have often been particularly keen on marrying their secretaries; you assume it ensures a life of seamless efficiency, while effectively keeping all the bodies buried.
Now this is really a much more interesting point. I have read the SafeSport rules, and there is no question that SafeSport has the authority to sanction adults based on a power differential (say, a 40 year old trainer and 20 year old groom). Why do you think SafeSport would never do so? And do people think they should, or shouldn’t? Personally, I think it would be case-by-case depending on the circumstances and the evidence available.
Everything goes over your head doesn’t it? A power dynamic between two adults is not the same as between an adult and a child. You assume the talk was out of jealousy which belies your own opinion “she got something out of it.” Also at least in my family, the attitudes have changed including those of my 92 year old grandmother so I’m not retelling mine as a “young person.”
Also, your grandfather wouldn’t have gotten sanctioned for marrying his adult secretary. I don’t get why you are equating that to have sex with children. A lot of people meet their spouse at work. What a lot of people don’t do, is sleep with kids at their work.
Oh dear. The thread of the argument has been lost again. No one is equating sex with children with an adult relationship involving a power inbalance. In fact, if you re-read my post above, I expressly distinguished those two things:
I think you obliquely touch on a concern we keep hearing that is, in fact, true: some conduct that is prohibited by SafeSport was perfectly acceptable for a long time. (I’m NOT talking about sexual misconduct involving a child). One example is a sexual relationship with a power inbalance.
It is hard to have a discussion with someone who accuses you of holding a view that is the exact opposite of what you actually said.
Yes but it’s never been okay to have sex with kids. I suggest rethinking your words when someone points out something in your post. Your response of jealousy is astounding. You further say your grandfather could be sanctioned. Noone is randomly going to throw a marriage under fire like that. Now coercion is a different thing. And, giving your grandfather the benefit of the doubt, I wouldn’t say he held your grandmothers job over her head. And yes like it or not many thought a relationship like that was not cool and had zero to do with jealousy. Some people have always had morals despite what others do.
This finding hugely confuses me because the public element of allegations involved are serious and include conduct that was illegal at the time. I don’t understand how the arbitrator could find enough substance to them to impose a 3 year suspension but not a lifetime one.
An adult male having sex with a 14 year old boy was certainly illegal in 1999, and an adult male having sexual contact with a 13 year old boy in 1976 would have been illegal too. There are two other incidents of him behaving inappropriately with two other students in the 1990s.
My only conclusion is that the arbitrators may vary a lot in their skill and knowledge of the law with respect to sexual abuse. This is frustrating if so, and I wonder what can be done about it.
Tara Lipinski was Callaghan’s student in 1999 and was at the top of her career when these allegations first came out. To her credit, she left him as a coach immediately and it was not a secret as to why.
Well sure. That’s the easy case. What about a case where a woman reports, “I was 45-year old Big Time Trainer’s groom in 1985 when I was 20 years old. He asked me out and we dated for 2 years; then he broke up with me to go out with someone else. Now I realize I felt pressured to date him because he was my boss and was such a big name in the sport… otherwise, I just would have told him no thanks.”
Should SafeSport take action now? It’s an interesting question. Today such a relationship would be prohibited by the SafeSport code, right?
I was puzzled by the news reporting on this incident, too. At first I thought, either the conduct was unlawful in 1999/1976 or it was not; thus, it makes no sense that a penalty could still be imposed but had to be reduced.
The only explanation I could think of is that maybe certain conduct was illegal, but there was a maximum penalty stated in the law of the time? Or maybe somehow child sexual abuse was defined as something that would require a female child (i.e., vaginal penetration)?
I don’t know. The only thing we know for sure is that the news report was definitely missing some piece of information.
I’m going to refer you back to the Safe Sport code for this one. So, yes, an intimate relationship where there is an imbalance of power would be considered a form of “inappropriate conduct.” Then refer to the section on Standard of Proof–there would need to be some corroborating evidence that the relationship existed, meeting the Safe Sport code threshold of “preponderance of evidence.”
Then refer down to the “Sanctions” section. Safe Sport has a lot of options as to how in can handle a situation. Sanctions range from a written warning, a period of probation, to a suspension for varying lengths of time, to permanent ineligibility.
Since so far, permanent ineligibility has been limited to rather extreme cases such as child molestation including multiple victims and physical penetration of children and young teens, I’m going to hazard a wild guess that the situation you describe, which is inappropriate but not illegal, would likely result in either a written warning or a period of probation or a combination of the two. If you listened to the presentation by Mr. Henry, he was very clear that the cases where lifetime bans were instituted involved very grave situations concerning minors.
