As to this question, I think it’s because horsemen are used to existing and acting completely independently without any oversight. Even regular labor laws often don’t apply due to ag exemptions. There’s no common training or mandatory certification of any kind in equestrian, and that can lead to some very curious notions of what constitutes ethical and professional behavior.
This is not to diss horsemen particularly or to say that anyone is a bad person; only that in almost every other sport there’s some sort of common curriculum or program that people go through, especially with most other sports having either a strong college system or a facility affiliation where they are interacting with many professionals.
In figure skating, for example, you don’t generally see the owner/manager of the rink also being the sole coach.
That I think is part of the problem in the discussion. People are reacting to statements like yours as meaning any one who hugs a student for whatever reason is a creep. Sure there are plenty of creepy hugs but consoling a child who has lost a horse or a friend or is hurt is not creepy.
Typical all or none reactions to a statement that may not mean what the reader thinks and over thinking statements and their meanings too.
I get that. However if teachers can’t hug students anymore to prevent the creepy teacher from getting off on it then so be it. I did not mean teachers who hug students are creepy.
I hug my students on occasion. I think most teachers do. But it’s reserved for exceptional moments, good or bad. I wouldn’t make a habit of hugging students regularly or in private. I also try to use language like “can I give you a hug?”
I will just point out that sometimes a ribbon might mean a lot under certain circumstances. If a talented, hard-working, dedicated rider of limited financial means manages to win the finals due to a working student position, that can be a springboard to a lot more opportunities in the horse world. Obviously that does not mean minors should be at risk, but that ribbon can mean a lot in the grand scheme of things to that rider.
Yeah, my just-finished-kindergartener gets and gives hugs at school all the time. The teacher’s aid told me he gives the best hugs, so it’s not a secret or against policy. And like Texarkana, part of it is asking because agency over your own body and consent are really important.
There are also scholarships. Not just NCAA (which for the most part seem to be those who may not be hurting for the next dollar) but schools offer scholarships for IHSA riders as well. College is expensive and being able to have core classes paid because of a partial scholarship for IHSA can be a big advantage. Of course most working students do want to pursue a profession in the horse industry but not all. The working student moniker can mean so many different things. And yes it can mean slave labor and often does.
”‹”‹”‹”‹”‹”‹We need to get rid of those who have the “I paid my dues you must pay yours” mentality and those who want slave labor. And of course the sexual abusers.
On that subject, I know of a very good rider of modest means who got a full scholarship to an excellent school as a member of their NCAA team. That was shortly after she won an equitation final. So yes, that one ribbon can make a huge difference in someone’s life.
And what do you think sexual abuse does to a person? Working students can still be a thing. Instead of throwing up their arms and exclaiming against SS and their “inconvenient” rules (which are in place to protect minors AND adults…) maybe they could sit down and come up with ways to be compliant instead of freaking out that they are going to get falsely accused (or not falsely accused because they have done things they shouldn’t have) and do what literally every other sport involving minors does.
I was addressing the idea stated in an earlier post that a working student “might win a ribbon that means nothing in the grand scheme of things.” Sometimes the ribbon can mean a lot. That fact does not downplay the relevance of Safe Sport.
I was mostly saying this because people on this thread were saying that because of SS “inconveniences” that working students will no longer be a thing, and that sucks because they had awesome experiences as a WS.
Wanted to highlight this quote snippet from Mary Babick that could be lost under all the verbiage of the interview. Put another way, this is an acknowledgement that horse sport has a problem, and it needs to be addressed.
I am absolutely positive that working student opportunities will continue. There will be some format changes to bring them into compliance with SafeSport. There are many other sports with similar programs, programs that are compliant, to help show the way.
Requiring things to never change isn’t the only option. These types of positions evolve all of the time anyway. They just need to evolve in a certain direction.
Agreed!
So very true. For years in the past, threads asking “what do I do?” were an annual summer ritual. Teens and young adults posting anonymously and desperately, not wanting to tell anyone and risk losing the opportunity of a lifetime, and/or feeling trapped. “I have no where to take the horse that I have with me”, maybe even “I have no transportation or way to leave”. Problems with parents that blocked that avenue of communication. Reluctance and embarrassment to admit the problem to anyone they knew. Sometimes claiming there were no adults in a position of responsibility for their welfare to turn to.
The only good thing is that those threads seem to have shrunk in number over the last few years. Young people are hopefully better informed, much more confident and better prepared to cope with untoward situations. And yet even then, there needs to be a place to go when something happens, to make sure that it stops and doesn’t happen again.
Some people have expressed such chagrin and surprise that there have been so many allegations from long ago. As Mary Babick said, this industry has had a problem. And it is one of very long-standing.
It’s time for the horse industry to grow up into the professionalism that is standard and expected in American business today.
It’s time for the paying consumers in the horse industry to demand that standard of professionalism, and to put their money only with professionals who are honest in their business dealings and compliant with SafeSport in their conduct. First and foremost, before looking at winnings.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that Ms. Roper has given you the complete story here. I understand why - she is probably overloaded and the question you posed to her was generic and did not expose the complexity of the code. So I am not, in any way, being critical of her.
My previous interpretation of the meaning of “regular contact” in the context of the USEF SafeSport Policies was not correct. The term “regular contact” does not quite have its plain language meaning. Yet another paragraph of the Policies is required to understand the meaning. Here is what the Policies say:
POLICIES EXPLAINED
National Member Organizations.
Regular contact – Neither the federal statute, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, nor the USOC define the term “regular contact;" therefore determining “regular contact” should be through a process of risk analysis:
Is the person in a position of authority over a minor (e.g., trainer/coach)?
Is the person likely to be in a chaperoned one-on-one situation
with the minor?
Is the person going to have reoccurring contact with the minor to an extent where they could develop a trusting relationship that would create an environment where any type of abuse could take place?
So it is the third bullet that applies. This is from pages 24 dn 25 of the Policies:
https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/YXj0R68pxq0/safe-sport-policy
So let’s change the example a bit. You, a USEF member and competitor, are at the barn alone working on your horse. A 16 year old arrives at the barn by herself (because she can drive herself). She is a competitor in USEF shows and happens to be your daughter’s best friend - a girl you have known for years (a trusting relationship). Now you really are in the position that the Policies consider to be “strongly discouraged.”
This would also apply in your own home (to being alone with your daughter’s best friend). A trusting relationship could, of course, also develop if you do things like trail ride with teens, go to shows with teens, etc. Also, based on the Policies, making a one-on-one interaction OK requires a second adult not a minor as a witness.
I can’t be the only one who is at least a little disconcerted by the idea that the more you have a legitimate, non-exploitative, trust-based relationship with a teen, the more suspect you are. This is a very cynical view of human relationships and it is not clear to me what the long-term effects will be of indoctrinating everyone (including children) into such a suspicion-based view of relationships. And before everyone flips out, of course I understand that trust- and power-based relationships have been used to enable sexual abuse. But there is a real issue here.
So what are my main points:
It is difficult to codify morality. To do so creates pages and pages of rules that can be hard to know and harder to understand. This example clearly demonstrates that. In addition, there are often unintended side effects (loopholes that are not covered and the opposite - situations deemed inappropriate that are not).
Many USEF members who are not trainers or volunteering with minors are likely to qualify as "Applicable Adults."
For Applicable Adults, the code extends into the barn, your home, basically everywhere.
It is much more difficult to never be alone with a minor than you might think, even if that is your intention.
I had a live-in working student position and traveled with the trainer to shows as a kid too; however, my experience was horrific. My “private” experiences were something that made me feel embarrassed, guilty, damaged, alone. I lost self-confidence. I lost trust in adults. It affected every relationship I have had including those with my own child. I still do not trust easily and protect myself. So while I am happy your experience was invaluable, not everyone was so lucky. And I want to point out, my parents did not dump me at the barn. They were told it would be a great experience and I would be safe. They had known the trainer and I had been riding with them off and on for 5 years prior to that summer.
I have some questions for you - How old were you when you were a working student? Was your trainer of the opposite sex? If so, were they married? Kids? Were their other teenagers also living there?
What you are quoting is the MAAP policy Ms Roper said doesn’t apply to adult boarders. I personally will take the advice of the Safe Sport coordinator for the USEF over a fear mongering internet lawyer.
There is no reason why minors cannot compete, win ribbons, or even be a working student without being the victim of sexual abuse. What it takes is a commitment to keeping minors safe. Maybe that means having a rule where two adults are required to be with a minor . . . that’s how it is in other sports. And yes, my kids were both recruited athletes and spent a lot of time with coaches.
And yes, I was a working student. Looking back at that time, there was a young woman “with” the trainer I worked for. I don’t know how old she was, but he was a good 20 years her senior and I found him smarmy and unpleasant. At 16/17 I didn’t think very much about their relationship, but I wonder now, how old she was. At that point I wanted to ride every day and I had the chance to work with some nice horses and get lessons.
@OwnTooMany “Two-Deep Leadership” and prohibiting one-on-one contact between minor and adult members is not a concept that was created by SafeSport (for example, the Boy Scouts of America follows a similar model). It’s about protecting everybody involved. For the minor, it’s about limiting the potential for grooming and abuse to occur. For the adult, it protects them from false accusations of abuse. This also extends to the social media and electronic communication guidelines.
Personally, I’m not very concerned about how these policies may impact the perception of healthy relationships between adults and youth. I am more concerned about how these policies can protect minors from abuse (and, by extension, protect adults from false accusations).
I haven’t had the chance to look into all of the “Suspension” cases yet (and it’s nearly impossible to find all of the “Temporary Measures”, formerly known as “Interim Measures” cases, since some of the people had their cases dismissed and others had their statuses upgraded to an official sanction), but I have gone through the “Permanent Ineligibility” and “Ineligibility” sanctions that were handed down by the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
I then compiled the publicly available information (including age of survivor* at the time, age of the accused/perpetrator at the time, date of the incident, description of the incident, evidence, etc) into an Excel sheet. I would suggest others do the same before accusing SafeSport of haphazardly punishing people (this is directed towards certain people I have seen on FB). My point is, as long as you are not arrested (and, in most cases, convicted) for a violent crime, served with a permanent restraining order, or sexually abusing athletes, the chances of you getting sanctioned by SafeSport seem to be very low.
*One of individuals was banned for first-degree murder, so in this case, I would refer to the “claimant” as the deceased.
In your example, my question for you is why would you get in trouble?
SafeSport is not out there writing proverbial parking tickets. The SafeSport inspector doesn’t come to your barn and cite you for violations.
The rules come into play when you have been reported.
Is the 16 year old going to report said adult, mother of her friend, for no reason? SafeSport opponents are claiming yes, that all these reports are false and made to take competitors down. From everything I have read + Mary Babick’s response, that does not seem to be the case. When a report is filed, there are preliminary considerations made prior to placing someone on interim suspension. I think more commonly, guilty parties are claiming false allegations to save face. Or the truth lies in a gray area where the accused party is guilty of other related unprofessional behavior, but maybe not sexual misconduct.
In our 21st century culture, secretive relationships with minors are strongly discouraged on every level. I am still failing to understand why hunter/jumpers should be held to a different standard than everyone else.
I have teacher colleagues with children of their own. Often times, their children are friends with the students they teach. Sure, it blurs the line. Do these teachers freak out and forbid their children from having friends? No. They just follow common sense. You conduct yourself in a transparent manner. You try not put yourself behind closed doors with a minor (physical or metaphorical). If it happens, it happens and you are open about it. You don’t do stupid things that are illegal, like let underage kids drink in your house. Bottom line-- you conduct yourself like an adult instead of trying to act like the minors’ friend.
