In defense of USFCA

[ivlobane]

In addition to the quite clear explanation that you've already been given, you should understand that an insoluble teacher-student relationship exists between parents and children. That you, for whatever reason, refuse to admit understanding the value of balance and equality in consensual adult relationships is fascinating, simply fascinating.

Considering that you attribute statements to me that I haven't made, I sincerely hope you will reread, and redirect your bluster.

...Or just kill yourself via running into brick wall head first...

[Mr Epee]

I think he's probably more mad about your "stupid stick" comment.

That could be. Or could it be that the subject brings his own personal decisions/behaviors into question? I don't know. Could be either one.

I agree with you on just about every count here, Mr E, but I also find it highly ironic that you call someone stupid in the same thread that you espouse a professional code of conduct for fencing coaches.

1. I'm not sure calling a spade a spade is unethical.

2. I have a highly refined taste for irony. In fact, I've heard it's common trait amongst high-functioning individuals, such as myself.

[RITFencing]

Unethical? Perhaps, perhaps not. We could probably argue for an hour while splitting hairs on intent vs methodology. I'm not sure how professional it is, though I suppose it is a tangential subject to ethics.

If you were viewing it from the outside, would you see your comment as a professional way to express an opinion?

I know I'm being a bit anal about this, but something I've been thinking about a lot lately is professionalism (or the lack thereof) in fencing coaches in the US. It's something I have been burned on, and tried to improve over the last half year or so, which has really helped my coaching and improved my cash flow.

I'm sure that you're very capable of acting like a professional, and I know your skills are certainly quite high, but in a discussion that has turned to a debtae in coaching ethics and behavior, I think that especially the more well known forum members (ie those who, willingly or not, will have a large impact on the people reading, especially coaches who are just developing) should show a high degree of professionalism.

Who knows, though? Maybe I'm just overreacting because of something that's been nagging at the back of my mind for a while. I still think there are far more productive modes of discussion.

[oso97]

*Ignoring Mr Epee's attempts to portray himself as a witty fountain of all that is knowledgeable*

In addition to the quite clear explanation that you've already been given, you should understand that an insoluble teacher-student relationship exists between parents and children.

Indeed there is. As a parent, I'm quite aware of it. However, a standard for judging ethical behavior should consider not only the effect upon the two people involved but, in addition, the effect that relationship has on others. Or did you miss that lecture in Ethics 101?

That you, for whatever reason, refuse to admit understanding the value of balance and equality in consensual adult relationships is fascinating, simply fascinating.

I quite understand the value of equality in consensual adult relationships, thank you very much. As you grow up, and possibly enter into one yourself, you might however come to the understanding that equality in a consensual adult relationship does not mean equality in all things within that relationship. I've taught my wife about fencing. I've also taught her about cooking gumbo. She's taught me much about teaching, pedagogy and the methods of imparting knowledge (being a professional teacher herself). She's also attempted (unsuccessfully!) to teach me to speak French. In fact, without getting into the details of our personal life which are quite frankly, no business of yours, we are quite unequal in many regards, if they are viewed separately. However, we're definitely a partnership of equals when the sum is viewed as a whole. Most healthy relationships function that way.

[Mr Epee]

Maybe I'm just overreacting

This.

Breath in. Breath out.

It's all good.

[Hauptman]

This.

Breath in. Breath out.

It's all good.

Or maybe you're just an arrogant ass.

It's all good.

[Fencergrl]

Oso,

Here's another way to view this...

Ethics are something that vary from person to person, however there are some key elements that I think many coaches will find unethical while others don't. In some cases, people may simply not find the action unethical, but unwise.

I think teaching one's own children a sport may be considered unwise for some, but few people would find it unethical.

As for teaching one's own spouse... this gets much trickier. Some might feel that coaching your spouse is more unwise than unethical. However if you are going to establish a policy... this is another thing all together.

If coaching a spouse is ethical, then what about a girl/boyfriend? Does marriage make a difference in these ethics? It shouldn't because then it becomes about religion and belief structures and a whole other argument. So if marriage has no place, and boyfriend-girlfriend coach-student is okay, then dating a student becomes okay... and on this ethical stance deteriorates.

Ethics aren't about squirming out of things. Either a code of ethics is established by an organization that is respected by most community standards or it doesn't. Frankly I'm surprised the USFA doesn't seem all that interested in establishing and upholding a standard "code of ethics".

Ethics are can be quite simple... What it often comes down to, is how you want to be perceived by the community. Would a parent feel less comfortable about a coach if that coach had his own child in a class? Most would be okay with this. However many would not be as comfortable about a coach who was dating a student he was coaching.

[Hauptman]

I also curious about this distinction in ethics between coaching one's spouse versus child.

My understanding is that the ethical conflict occurs in a team setting in which there may be favoritism (or possibly abuse). I don't see the difference in dealing with a child versus a spouse (or romantic partner) in that situation in that there seem to be the same potential issues.

Can anyone clarify the potential harm that exists in a one-on-one situation? And how that harm rises to the level of making the situation itself unethical?

I've seen responses along the lines of "...it's so obvious you must be too stupid to understand it." But I think a more explicit explanation is not uncalled for.

[MdA]

....

2. I have a highly refined taste for irony. In fact, I've heard it's common trait amongst high-functioning individuals, such as myself.

This reminds me of a another movie scene.

"Mozart. A little modesty might suit you better."

Amadeus 1984

[Fencergrl]

Let's try this from a different angle. Coaching is a work environment. I think we can all agree with this. Some coaches may not be paid much (or at all) but it is a place of work. For me, it's my full-time occupation.

In working environments, it is considered inappropriate/ unprofessional/ unethical to date/ be married to someone you work directly with or in the same department. Sometimes this applies to all relations (ie children) but not always.

As a coach you should want to uphold the standards of other work environments. In doing so, you are seen as behaving in a professional, appropriate and/or ethical manner. In not doing so, you are behaving unprofessional and can be perceived as behaving unethically.

[telkanuru]

Or maybe you're just an arrogant ass.

It's all good.

Why can't both be true?

But he's an arrogant ass who happens to be right, which makes it worse.

What's the quote? "The problem with being better than everyone else is that people tend to presume that you're pretentious."

[VorpalCat]

...I also find it highly ironic that you call someone stupid in the same thread that you espouse a professional code of conduct for fencing coaches.

You say 'tomayto' and I say 'tomahto'
You say 'ironic' and I say 'typical'

But to the (well one of the many) topics at hand, coaching a family member can be a tricky area for some and a complete non-issue for others. And that difference depends not only on the coach but on the fencer as well. I may have no trouble with my husband as a student but he may have a difficult time accepting that I'm on the 'giving' end of the information. In a large club where a spouse, family member, etc. can be assigned to the same class but with a different instructor, groovy, no problem, have a nice day. But in a small club, it's up to that coach and that fencer to sort it out. And if they seem to be okay but the rest of the class (or club) feels that there is a problem -- coach is dating student and the student gets all of the coach's time to the detriment of the rest of the club, for example -- they need to express that to the coach so the issue can be addressed. An organization-wide 'thou shalt not' policy on this just doesn't seem to be a good fit, imho.

[MdA]

Unethical? …….I'm sure that you're very capable of acting like a professional, and I know your skills are certainly quite high, but in a discussion that has turned to a debate in coaching ethics and behavior, I think that especially the more well known forum members (ie those who, willingly or not, will have a large impact on the people reading, especially coaches who are

……"The problem with being better than everyone else is that people tend to presume that you're pretentious."

I think we can all be a little more professional here…especially in a discussion about ethics. I will admit that my pirate “dork talk” wears a little thin.

Thank goodness Fencergirl brings us back to center….a little adult supervision never hurts….which is the point ….isn’t it?

RIT makes a good point, and that is why I was reminded of the scene in Amadeus. If a person is truly better than everyone else, they have a greater responsibility to society….otherwise they may be unable to teach. Great talent……. wasted.

[MdA]

The Amadeus story may be a really good example for this discussion from another angle. Mozart might be an example of a lot of our “high-functioning” fencing coaches. Tremendous talent, free-spirited, and unprofessional (by society’s standards)...party cups of vodka.

…and what is the true motivation of the students? Does the Princess really want piano lessons? Or does she want to play another instrument….like the opera singer?

This is the challenge when trying to put an ethical box around coaching a sport like fencing; where the traditional method of teaching is one-on-one.

What about society itself? Like the Mozart movie. Only the wealthy can avail themselves of Mozart’s (great coach’s) talents…and high energy. Great talent……wasted?

Don't even get me started on Salieri....and the committee?

[jBirch]

I think you guys need to pay more attention to what FencerGrl is saying...

...and Mr. E, though his rationale isn't quite so brilliant as my co-patriot's.

...and probably look up "cognitive dissonance".

Other then that, I don't really have anything productive to add to the conversation that hasn't already been said, except to mention that Allen has started a much more on-topic thread, which should help others in the future search out what seems to be a very interesting topic.

James.

[Mr Epee]

...and Mr. E, though his rationale isn't quite so brilliant as my co-patriot's.

Agreed, however, my highly refined techniques and internet virtuosity is significantly more likely to elicit comparison to Mozart... the venerable cad, himself.

Also, I posses a unique talent for coaxing flatulent blowhards into contributing gems, like the one below, to the conversation. It's an art. It really is.

Actually, no, we're not on the same side. I'm not sure exactly who's side you're on, other than your own.

It's hilarious on several levels; both in content and execution.

[jBirch]

Agreed, however, my highly refined techniques and internet virtuosity is significantly more likely to elicit comparison to Mozart... the venerable cad, himself.

"Internet Virtuosity"?

Any virtuoso is likely to elicit comparisons to other virtuosi, kinda by definition.

Though self-declared mastery is not a generally accepted credential of note.

*grin*

James.

[keith]

An organization-wide 'thou shalt not' policy on this just doesn't seem to be a good fit, imho.

Which is the problem of confusing ethics, morals, professionalism and risk management.

They are quite different things. For any organisation, even the USFCA, it is the last which is most important when it comes to defining 'professional conduct'.

[MdA]

.......They are quite different things. For any organisation, even the USFCA, it is the last which is most important when it comes to defining 'professional conduct'.

Excellent point.

[VorpalCat]

Which is the problem of confusing ethics, morals, professionalism and risk management.

Exactly.