In defense of USFCA

[Allen Evans]

Or...it could....possibly be.....that the rule stems from a historical incident that the USOC is trying to prevent in the future, while realizing that it's impossible to prevent the coaching of one's child at most levels of sport.

With all this logic being tossed around all of you have made the two most erroneous assumptions of all: that the rules have to be internally consistant AND make sense.

AE

[Hauptman]

Actually, it's exactly the same and I do believe that coaching your spouse is the same as having sex with a student.

The problem is with a fundamental nature of power and authority: people fall in love with people who exercise it. Coaches, Priests, Doctors, Police Officers, Therapists, Teachers and other professions all occupy positions which can cause people to fall in love with them by simple virtue of the position. Part of the social contract we grant them when we give them this position of power and prestige is that they are to refrain from falling in love with us in return.

We do that because we can't tell if we are in love with the person or the position.



Which is why I cleaned up the argument the way I did. You're arguing, I think, that coaching one's child should also be considered unethical, right? And there are a lot of very good reasons why I'd agree with you.

There are two killer arguments in contrast to that, IMHO:

1) we have guardianship (and therefor, the responsibility to teach and love and guide) our kids. That means that, as a sovereign family (weird term, I know), that if we choose to put our kid and one of the parents into that situation, that we do it with the noblest of intentions in mind.

2) the nature of our communities is such that, in many places, the choice is to put the coach into this position or to deny teaching the child.

When faced with that decision, the education of the child outweighs the burden on the coach. And we try to mitigate the problem of nepotism by dealing with it seperately: an ethical coach, just like an ethical doctor, is supposed to treat all students equally.

But like a doctor, when we can get away with it, we shouldn't be teaching (or operating on!) our family members because our judgment is compromised.



Again, the psychological phenomenon whereby people in submissive positions fall in love with people in power positions. If Johnny the Coach and Mary the Student get married, is she in love with the Coach or Johnny?

I'd also like to introduce (again?? I can't remember my own arguments) the concept of "moral luck". Just because the outcome is ok, doesn't mean that the means to get there are.

As coaches, we're supposed to make personal sacrifices for the betterment of our students. And that includes suppressing our feelings when we're in an intimate relationship with another person.

And, as FencrGirl says, the key between coaching a spouse and dating a student is very fine to parse. Does marrying a student turn an unethical situation into an ethical one?

James.

The examples you pose all involve beginning a romantic relationship with a current student, which I believe everyone agrees is unethical.

I don't see that any of the examples apply at all to beginning a coaching relationship with your current spouse, which is the situation that I am exploring.

Hypothetically, I want to begin coaching my wife in fencing. Can you give me any examples of possible unethical behavior that will result?

I believe that coaching your spouse is entirely different from having sex with your students, but neither of us will be able to prove our point sufficiently. I believe that your argument in the affirmative is not strong enough to make coaching your spouse rise to the level of unethical.

Your example of why coaching your child is considered ethical is based more on pragmatism. If we wish to be pragmatic, there are far more examples of issues arising from parents being far too involved in their children's sports activities, which makes parents coaching children a situation best avoided.

Additionally, your reliance on good intentions, and on the coach to act ethically regardless, flies in the face of reality. Parents are far too often not objective, rational people where their own children are concerned, and we see examples in the news everyday.

[jBirch]

Or...it could....possibly be.....that the rule stems from a historical incident that the USOC is trying to prevent in the future, while realizing that it's impossible to prevent the coaching of one's child at most levels of sport.

With all this logic being tossed around all of you have made the two most erroneous assumptions of all: that the rules have to be internally consistant AND make sense.

AE

Well, if they're not consistent and don't make sense, that makes them wrong, doesn't it?

And if they're wrong, why the heck would you sign up to be bound by them?

James.

[jBirch]

I don't see that any of the examples apply at all to beginning a coaching relationship with your current spouse, which is the situation that I am exploring.

Hypothetically, I want to begin coaching my wife in fencing. Can you give me any examples of possible unethical behavior that will result?

Yeah, this is the angle that bugs me too.

I don't have a good argument about why this situation is unethical.

I do believe that dating students is a bad thing as a matter of policy. And the double standard is kinda hard to deny (you can coach your wife, why can't I coach my girlfriend?) and that slippery slope continues down (if you can coach your girlfriend, why can't I coach this girl I just met and convinced to come to fencing but am trying to get into the sack?). How many dates before your "other" becomes your "spouse"?

Your example of why coaching your child is considered ethical is based more on pragmatism. If we wish to be pragmatic, there are far more examples of issues arising from parents being far too involved in their children's sports activities, which makes parents coaching children a situation best avoided.

Again, you're right. But let's seperate the two arguments, shall we? Coaching our kids is a different discussion then coaching our spouses.

Additionally, your reliance on good intentions, and on the coach to act ethically regardless, flies in the face of reality. Parents are far too often not objective, rational people where their own children are concerned, and we see examples in the news everyday.

Two things here.

1) The news is, well NEWS, because IT'S NOT NORMAL!

2) Second, you're allowed to raise your kids however you see fit. Even to the point of grafting significant psychological issues on to them. It goes with the territory of being an adult. Ethics focuses solely on the use of power and attempts to demarcate "bad uses" from "not bad uses". I'm not sure I'm making a pragmatic argument instead of a philisophical one. Allen, seems to be making a pragmatic argument, but I think mine is more nuanced and centres around the implicit power relationship (and total responsibility) between the parent and the kid. Parents, essentially, OWN their kids until the age of majority. And since parents aren't bound by a shared set of ethics (you can't take away someone's parenting credentials and prevent them from parenting in the future), they have the freedom to act however they like within the limits of the law.

Which means that actions by the coach with the "parent hat on" are fine.

And yes, that's a very weak argument, but one that makes the situation just gray enough to not clearly be a "bad use of power".

James.

[Allen Evans]

Well, if they're not consistent and don't make sense, that makes them wrong, doesn't it?.

Hmmm...that's right. You fence epee, don't you? I suggest a careful read of the foil rules when you have some time.

We spend most of our lives living by rules and codes that aren't necessarily internally consistent, adjusted for local conditions, and host of other "except when"s and " i before e except after c and..." and we do it just fine.

Im also puzzled why anyone would think formal logic had to apply in this case.

Anyway, while you guys rant on, I think I'm going to write the USOC and see if they have any answers.

I'll include a couple of logic diagrams for fun.

AE

[Hauptman]

Yeah, this is the angle that bugs me too.

I don't have a good argument about why this situation is unethical.

I do believe that dating students is a bad thing as a matter of policy. And the double standard is kinda hard to deny (you can coach your wife, why can't I coach my girlfriend?) and that slippery slope continues down (if you can coach your girlfriend, why can't I coach this girl I just met and convinced to come to fencing but am trying to get into the sack?). How many dates before your "other" becomes your "spouse"?



Again, you're right. But let's seperate the two arguments, shall we? Coaching our kids is a different discussion then coaching our spouses.



Two things here.

1) The news is, well NEWS, because IT'S NOT NORMAL!

2) Second, you're allowed to raise your kids however you see fit. Even to the point of grafting significant psychological issues on to them. It goes with the territory of being an adult. Ethics focuses solely on the use of power and attempts to demarcate "bad uses" from "not bad uses". I'm not sure I'm making a pragmatic argument instead of a philisophical one. Allen, seems to be making a pragmatic argument, but I think mine is more nuanced and centres around the implicit power relationship (and total responsibility) between the parent and the kid. Parents, essentially, OWN their kids until the age of majority. And since parents aren't bound by a shared set of ethics (you can't take away someone's parenting credentials and prevent them from parenting in the future), they have the freedom to act however they like within the limits of the law.

Which means that actions by the coach with the "parent hat on" are fine.

And yes, that's a very weak argument, but one that makes the situation just gray enough to not clearly be a "bad use of power".

James.

I tie the two arguments together because I find nepotism to be a valid argument for not coaching a child or spouse in a team setting.

And also, parents are not without limits in terms of parenting. The law has quite a bit to say about it, and if you ever had to deal with family courts or custody issues you would be quite surprised how little power a parent might really have.

That said, I think this discussion has run it's course. I'm glad we finally narrowed down our differences, and found some areas of agreement.

[MdA]

Pssst... your love of hockey is interfering with your spelling Mda. "The Canadiens" is a hockey team (or the French spelling of Canadian). I think you meant the Canadian ethics committee.

Your right. I do love hockey....born and raised a Chicago Blackhawks fan. To me the word has always been spelled "Canadiens"....even if it is incorrect.

[Fencergrl]

LOL... Le Québécois would be pleased.

[Philistine]

{snip}
I don't see that any of the examples apply at all to beginning a coaching relationship with your current spouse, which is the situation that I am exploring.

Hypothetically, I want to begin coaching my wife in fencing. Can you give me any examples of possible unethical behavior that will result?
{snip}

I agree with Hauptman on this. I fail to see the ethical problem with coaching an already-existing spouse.

AFAIK, other professions don't have ethical prohibitions on providing professional services to spouses. Certain ones may think it's not a substantively good idea--for reasons of lack of objectivity, but I don't believe they feel it is an ethical issue.

I also agree that any real ethical issues of favoritism etc. which might arise out of coaching a spouse would appear to also be there in coaching you own child--but, I think Allen's point is well-taken that it's unlikely that a rule forbidding coaching your child would ever pass muster.

--Philistine

[jBirch]

I agree with Hauptman on this. I fail to see the ethical problem with coaching an already-existing spouse.

AFAIK, other professions don't have ethical prohibitions on providing professional services to spouses. Certain ones may think it's not a substantively good idea--for reasons of lack of objectivity, but I don't believe they feel it is an ethical issue.

Doctors, therapists and priests have bans against operating/ministering to their spouses.

Teachers of all stripes have ethics against being involved with their students.

I have no idea about the relationship between a police officer and a criminal spouse, but I suspect that nobody would let them interact professionally if it could be avoided.

A student who is also the legal spouse seems to be a very gray area in other professions. Nobody seems to consider, explicitly, whether a spouse CAN be a student of a professional teacher.

The USOC code is the only one I've seen that considers spouses explicitly. Are there any others out there?

James.

[Hauptman]

I have no idea about the relationship between a police officer and a criminal spouse, but I suspect that nobody would let them interact professionally if it could be avoided.


James.

I love this one!! Can we have examples? Come on, this is the internet... there HAVE to be some out there!!

[Philistine]

Doctors, therapists and priests have bans against operating/ministering to their spouses.

here is the AMA's Ethical Guidelines for Doctors--counseling against most non-routine treatment of all family members.

Dentists apparently have no such requirement.

Priests? I'd find it hard to believe that they are generally banned from ministering to their spouse. Clearly, the spouse will almost always be a member of the Priest's congregation.

Teachers of all stripes have ethics against being involved with their students.
{snip}
A student who is also the legal spouse seems to be a very gray area in other professions. Nobody seems to consider, explicitly, whether a spouse CAN be a student of a professional teacher.

With all of these issues, Doctors, teachers, therapists, etc.--the ethical prohibition is on family members. Spouses, children, brothers, sisters, parents, etc. I really don't see any reasoned difference between ethical issues relating to children (or other family members) and spouses.

The USOC code is the only one I've seen that considers spouses explicitly. Are there any others out there?

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers (which have been adopted by a number of states), in discussing what would be a conflict of interest in the comments, states:

"A lawyer is prohibited from engaging in sexual relationships with a client unless the sexual relationship predates the formation of the client-lawyer relationship." IIRC, this was added in the late 90's, early 2000's.

This seems sensible as a rule of thumb for professions.

--Philistine

[foibles]

Ok. I'll admit it.

Once, over the course of a year, I conducted multiple acts of sexual congress with one of my students. No one seemed disturbed by this at the time. It somehow didn't even feel wrong or unethical. To be honest, it felt oh_so_right. Of course she was 34 at the time, I was 35... And no one was ever upset by it because, at the end of the day, it was a big, fat, complete non-issue.

In ethics, as in most things, common sense applies.

If the political environment in your club/ division/ section is so toxic that it's going to upset people that you want to teach your wife to fence, then you prolly shouldn't. Otherwise, really, who the hell cares.

[Durando]

Otherwise, really, who the hell cares.

...but this is fencing.net.

You fail!

[foibles]

...but this is fencing.net.

You fail!

Elaborate.

[Durando]

Elaborate.

Only if this thread can be allowed to die.

For, you see, on fencing.net everyone has an opinion about everything.

[MdA]

This is just an effort to wrap up a portion of this thread. For those who are interested...the USFCA Executive Committee has endorsed the USOC Coaching Ethics Code. Details are on www.usfca.org under Info>>>Ethics

[oiuyt]

For those who'd rather not have to click through...

USFCA Ethics Policy

The United States Fencing Coaches Association endorses, promotes and advocates the USOC Coaching Ethics code. The USOC Code of Ethics is not intended to be binding on any member. However, the USFCA encourages all members to individually aspire to the highest possible standards of professional conduct as exemplified by the USOC Ethics Code. Likewise, USFCA members are encouraged to respect and protect human and civil rights, and to refrain from participating in or condoning unfair discriminatory practices. The USFCA is researching a long term program to establish professional coaching standards.

-B