In defense of USFCA

[oso97]

LOL!

You're right.

Again.

But you get the point: they're SUPPOSED to submit. Just like good students are.

Besides, I'm sure you've said the same thing to a student as their parents did with wildly different results.

Which, again, is why it's unwise to coach one's kids. It would be unethical if one were to use the coaching relationship inappropriately at home: ie// do your homework or I'll make you do 100 pushups at the club.

Perhaps that's the distinction that Hauptman is getting at? That it's not the power relationship itself that is unethical, but rather the abuse of that power relationship?

James.

I would submit that such a statement would apply to any relationship.

And we've not even touched upon things like bias, favoritism, etc, with regards to other students!

[jBirch]

I would submit that such a statement would apply to any relationship.

And we've not even touched upon things like bias, favoritism, etc, with regards to other students!

True.

Which is why subscribing to a code of ethics is an important thing to do.

And why part of an ethical code is to prohibit situations that are likely to lead to compromised thinking and acting.

And I can't think of many situations that are set up for failure as clearly as coaching one's spouse.

James.

[Hauptman]

No I'm trying to avoid repeating myself. I think others and I in this thread have covered it. Frankly, I'm running out of ways to say the same thing in different ways.

To review:
I pointed out that in other work environments the same applies. In many companies, having your child work in the same department is less of an issue than a spouse or someone you are dating.

Here's another example. a) A single teacher is attracted to one of his adult students. They want to date. He waits until she is no longer in his class.

b) A single teacher is attracted to one of his students and sleeps with her while she is still a student in his class.

c) A teacher in a school has his son go to the same school. One of his classes is his dad's class.

Off the top of your head, which situation will get the most people talking and questioning the ethics and professionalism of the teacher?

Ethics mostly come down to community standards and how others (clients, the community, peers) perceive you. It is a line in the sand. Coaching your own child is perceived as not as bad of a decision, than sleeping with one of your students. Maintaining good ethics benefits everyone. The coach, as well as the sporting organization. I believe the guidelines are there to make it easier for coaches to negotiate through these situations and make decisions that don't reflect badly on them and their club.

Ahhh... we have a miscommunication here.

I am not in anyway stating that it is ethical for a coach to begin an intimate relationship with a current student, but that is very different from a person beginning a coaching relationship with their spouse.

And I would also agree with the point made that there is a difference between individual coaching versus a team environment. In a team environment, nepotism is a very real issue, but I believe this issue would apply equally to spouses or children.

And my work/school experience frowns on nepotism of any sort whether child, spouse, or distant cousin. Your experience may vary.

So I still maintain that if you would find coaching a spouse unethical, then coaching your child would be equally so. Of course, I find neither unethical at face-value, but a prohibition on the arrangements to avoid potential unethical behavior could be reasonable.

[Fencergrl]

All of the above examples make me not only question the ethics of said teacher, but question why (s)he is still employed.

Anyone who does any of those things has no business in the profession. The ones involving sex just make them have less business in the profession.

First off I agree... all three situations open themselves up to being unfair, and some may be considered by some unethical.

However, the question was "which of three would get people talking the most" (and therefore tarnish the reputation of the teacher the most).

a) Yes, people would talk. When I was in my 20's I came across this scenerio. The instructor was dating one of his former students. They were not involved when she was a student, but started dating after she left the program. They were the same age. People talked, but most people seemed to feel he "did the right thing" considering the circumstances.

b) I think most people would find both parties to behaving unethical. Most would blame the instructor.

c) While I would question if the child would be fairly graded. Either too easy or more likely too harshly. I think many would wonder if other arrangements could have be made (different school/ teacher). However this may not be an option and would factor into other's view of the situation.

[Fencergrl]

Oh, and to rebut your points, Fencergrl, there are numerous examples in the scientific community of spouses who work in the same institution, and even within the same department. I've personally worked for four different Principle Investigators, at three different public universities. Three of them had spouses who were also Principle Investigators - and had been specifically recruited by the institutions as a couple. In one case, they were members of the same department, and shared common space and meeting space.

By contrast, I've never known a single Principle Investigator whose child attended or worked for the university at which he was a faculty member. And I've known a lot of PI's over the years.

Again, there are many situations where working together as a couple is a good thing... Where a company feels it isn't, they have rules/ ethical conduct in place. Usually these involve power-skewed situations.

As mentioned numerous times... coaching is different than working side-by-side as equals. What part of this are you not getting?

[oso97]

Again, there are many situations where working together as a couple is a good thing... Where a company feels it isn't, they have rules/ ethical conduct in place. Usually these involve power-skewed situations.

As mentioned numerous times... coaching is different than working side-by-side as equals. What part of this are you not getting?

The part that insists that couples must be equals in all things in all ways in order to have a healthy relationship. In almost every circumstance, one partner or the other is in some sort of more dominant role. The important thing for a healthy relationship is that the OVERALL relationship is equal, and that one of the persons does not seek to dominate the overall relationship because of one aspect of it.

Then again, unlike many coaches, I don't view my role as one of domination and superiority. I don't get kicks out of ordering people around and telling them what to do. I'm a guide, a tutor, a knowledge base and a resource, especially when dealing with adults and older teenagers.

[Fencergrl]

I am not in anyway stating that it is ethical for a coach to begin an intimate relationship with a current student, but that is very different from a person beginning a coaching relationship with their spouse.

In principle, I agree. However, an organization needs to determine clear guidelines. You can't say "don't have sex with your students, unless you're married". What about the couple who's been living together for 20 years or the gay couple who can't get married in their state? How do you determine if a relationship is committed? Where do you draw the line? Does marrying the student that a student that you had sex turn an unethical situation, ethical? Do you simply say you cannot begin a relationship with a student?

What defines the beginning? What if you meet someone at a party you like and decide to take a fencing class because you know he/she coaching it? Can it be argued that taking the class was a continuation of an existing relationship? Is openly flirting with a student (that you're married to or not) considered professional/ ethical behaviour? As an organization you have to determine at what place to you draw a line in the sand. Coaching your married partner could fall on either side of that line (given the organization). The challenge is to not exclude too many people, yet not water them down until the ethics are meaningless and/or no longer reflect the ethics of the community at large.

So I still maintain that if you would find coaching a spouse unethical, then coaching your child would be equally so. Of course, I find neither unethical at face-value, but a prohibition on the arrangements to avoid potential unethical behaviour could be reasonable.

I am not arguing that coaching one's own child can be considered unwise in some/ many circumstances. It can also be unethical. However, it comes back to an organization coming up with ethical guidelines that are too exclusionary.

[Fencergrl]

Then again, unlike many coaches, I don't view my role as one of domination and superiority. I don't get kicks out of ordering people around and telling them what to do. I'm a guide, a tutor, a knowledge base and a resource, especially when dealing with adults and older teenagers.

As a coach, you are in a position of responsibility. Just like a boss. It's not about ordering people around.

[Fencergrl]

The part that insists that couples must be equals in all things in all ways in order to have a healthy relationship. In almost every circumstance, one partner or the other is in some sort of more dominant role. The important thing for a healthy relationship is that the OVERALL relationship is equal, and that one of the persons does not seek to dominate the overall relationship because of one aspect of it.

We're not discussing "what makes a healthy relationship here". We're discussing ethics in coaching, and why organizations, peers, and clients might consider one situation less ethical than another.

[Fencergrl]

I am not in anyway stating that it is ethical for a coach to begin an intimate relationship with a current student, but that is very different from a person beginning a coaching relationship with their spouse.

Here's a real-life ethical problem. If you were leading the ethics committee what would your response be to the following:

Coach Bob is married, but unhappily so. An adult student in his class is attracted to him. He ends up having an affair with said student. He ends his marriage and proceeds to date student. Eventually the two married. Throughout all of this, he was her coach.

Is this ethical? Did marrying his student make an unethical situation ethical? Was it unethical from the beginning or ethical from the beginning? Would your answer be any different if you were on the ethics committee? A peer? A student in his class? A father of a teenaged daughter in his class? If so, why?

[Mr Epee]

Take a quick moment to chew this tasty morsel before you swallow.

You don't have to personally subscribe to a particular ethical code in order to be judged by it. You are certainly permitted/expected to lobby your point of view, but deviance from the norm is not without social risk. Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions; however, they are not able to control how others perceive those decisions.

If you want to line up fifteen consenting adult students (men, women, or mixed), and bang the living be-jesus out of them, then that is a personal decision for you and them. That decision will most likely deeply impact how other people think about you.

[Hauptman]

Here's a real-life ethical problem. If you were leading the ethics committee what would your response be to the following:

Coach Bob is married, but unhappily so. An adult student in his class is attracted to him. He ends up having an affair with said student. He ends his marriage and proceeds to date student. Eventually the two married. Throughout all of this, he was her coach.

Is this ethical? Did marrying his student make an unethical situation ethical? Was it unethical from the beginning or ethical from the beginning? Would your answer be any different if you were on the ethics committee? A peer? A student in his class? A father of a teenaged daughter in his class? If so, why?

I believe you can draw a clear line very easily in your example. The question is which relationship came first? If the coaching relationship came first then that is where you draw the line; no dating students. If you really want to date the student then you end the coaching relationship. That is the approach for doctor/patient, psychologist/client, supervisor/employee, and other professional relationships.

We both acknowledge that the line is gray, and that it can be drawn in any number of reasonable places based on ones personal point of view.

My point is that the coach/child relationship is just as risky and "gray" as the coach/spouse relationship (albeit for different reasons), and so for the sake of consistancy and clarity we can keep it simple and say no to both. Or we can allow both, but inconsistancy between the two seems ill advised.

[swordsen]

I can think of more than one happily married couple that began as a coach and student.

[Mr Epee]

My point is that the coach/child relationship is just as risky and "gray" as the coach/spouse relationship (albeit for different reasons), and so for the sake of consistency and clarity we can keep it simple and say no to both. Or we can allow both, but inconsistency between the two seems ill advised.

Your argument is horribly flawed. It is fallacious to such a degree that it obscures the case you are trying so desperately to make. Please clean it up, if you wish to continue this discussion.

I can think of more than one happily married couple that began as a coach and student.

I'll see your more than one happily married couple that began as a coach and student, and raise you the 'Happy Poly Wives Blog: Polygamy for Liberated Christians.

[MdA]

The Amadeus story may be a really good example for this discussion from another angle. ...... Great talent……wasted?

What about Mozart's father? He developed his great talent....but did he kill him?...or was it Salieri?

[oso97]

Your argument is horribly flawed. It is fallacious to such a degree that it obscures the case you are trying so desperately to make. Please clean it up, if you wish to continue this discussion.

On the contrary, its not horribly flawed. The logic is internally consistent, and clear. That is, at least, to anyone with any sort of knowledge of logic. The only one being fallacious here, Mr. Epee, is you.

[foibles]

How about a coach having consensual sex with the adult parent of a coached child?

Not unheard of.

Ethical?

[jBirch]

On the contrary, its not horribly flawed. The logic is internally consistent, and clear. That is, at least, to anyone with any sort of knowledge of logic. The only one being fallacious here, Mr. Epee, is you.

Actually, I think what Mr. E is trying, in his own way to say, is the following:

Given A = Children of Coach
Given B = Spouse of Coach
Given C: Coaching A is ethical
Given D: Coaching B is unethical

Premise 1: Coaching A or Coaching B is equivalent.

Given this relationship, it is natural to cite the paradox:

IFF premise 1 then either ~C or ~D

However, if ~premise 1 (as you've stated in the comment "albeit for different reasons" and as we've pointed out in the various discussions of inherent power and sexual dynamics) then nothing can be derived about the relationship between C and D: they are logically independent.

What that means is that you have to seperate the argument. Arguments in regards to coaching your kids have no bearing on arguments around coaching your spouse.

The fallacy at the core of your logic is called "assuming the premise" and you're employing at least 2 rhetorical tricks to support it:

1) a "straw man", which is a more easily defended argument the one you're making (namely,~C) and which seems to be mildly effective here.

2) ad hominem which is an attack on the person (and a type of red herring) which is evidenced by the accusation of idiocy.

Your task is to prove your premise, which I don't think you've done, but I'm curious about the arguments that surround it. I agree that coaching one's spouse is unethical. I agree that coaching one's child is unwise, but ethical. I'm curious about the possible moral links between them.

Aristotle, by the way, believed that the analysis of fallacy and the use of logical inference was at the core of constructing good arguments and deriving truth from them. As such, it doesn't really matter to us that the arguments you're proposing are ill-formed, since we don't buy the truth you're proposing either. I would suggest that if you want to learn a real truth then perhaps consider what is being said here more then superficially. As I'm sure we're trying to do with what you're saying (even the venerable Mr. E).

You asked why the difference between coaching one's child and coaching one's spouse and there have been 2 pages of answers, all of which you seem to disagree with. But the way you've done that is to simply assert that your premise is true!

If you want to construct this argument, then convince us that there exists a moral equivalence between A and B before we attack C and D.

I hope this helps.

James.

[Mr Epee]

James, you are my hero.

You are a patient, patient, patient man.

Thank you.

[telkanuru]

"Assuming the premise" is "Begging the question", right?