Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Screening Suspicious Sounding "Students"

You could ask for a reference.

Nobody would choose a piano teacher without checking references. The same could apply to students.

I've been lurking, and reading. (And a HUGE thank you to Gary for getting the issues and articulating them so incredibly well, and to Keystring and everyone else who has contributed.)

theJourney, I find your responses confusing. Part of what confuses me is that, in the paragraph I quote above, you seem to suggest that crime/assaults only take place in "bad neighborhoods", and that someone who lives in a "good neighborhood" is somehow immune from criminal activity.

Am I misunderstanding what you're saying? Because I think *surely* you know that crime is not limited to "bad neighborhoods".

I tend to agree that there are not hoardes of crazy people out there specifically targetting piano teachers. However, I do believe that there are plenty of people out there that are capable of harming others, and that are opportunists in choosing victims. While they might not start out looking for "piano teachers" - I'd think that the opportunity to be alone with a (possibly young) woman in her home for some period of time... might look attractive to them.

And, there's a similar situation that this has reminded me of. Realtors. (Similar in the sense that they are alone with strangers.) I don't think criminals specifically are trying exact revenge on realtors in general, I think that assaults and murders (see below!) are opportunistic.

-----

"Georgia Man Uses Home Showing To Make Sexual Advances On Agents" - "An Albany, Georgia man went through the local real estate book and started calling the agents he found attractive..." While "making advances" is a far cry from assault, the man went far enough over the line that he was arrested, and pled guilty to 4 counts of disorderly conduct

"Ohio realty agents wary after 2 killings, robbery" (2010) - 1 female realtor killed, 1 male realtor killed, 1 female realtor robbed (and told she'd be killed if she called the police).

In this article, they actually provide some tips (not too different from the idea of having your first meeting in a public place): "...reminding agents to take standard precautions when showing homes, such as following the prospective buyer into the property and not bending down or turning your back to the clients. Agents are also encouraged to meet new clients at the office, get identification and verify that they are preapproved for loans, all to help ensure that the potential buyers are serious and credible. "

Do you think that these people are paranoid for giving advice like "don't turn your back on your client" and "get identification"? Do you think that they must have been working in a really terrible neighborhood?

"St. Louis Real Estate Agent Assaulted While Showing Home" (2007) - A man posed as a buyer, got the (female) realtor into an unfinished part of the basement, took out a handgun, handcuffed her to a pole, and assaulted her (a later article reports that he was found guilty at trial).

Man Gets Death Sentence in Murder of 2 Atlanta Real Estate Agents Two young female realtors murdered in Atlanta (I can't find any of the original articles, this one tells that the man was found guilty and received the death penalty.)

-------

These were not crimes where the perpetrator knew the victim. These were not crimes that had anything to do with being in a terrible neighborhood.

They WERE crimes where a criminal sought out an opportunity - a chance to be alone with women in a private place.

Nobody here is talking about being paranoid. As has been pointed out, paranoid would be giving up teaching in-person forever, refusing to meet new people, and having 5 locks on the door.

And nobody is saying that the risk of encountering one of these psychos is high. Nobody expects that crazy killers are going to be beating down their door every other day.

Given what seems to me to be relatively sane, prudent advice ("if someone sounds suspicious, meet them in public") - I can't understand the responses that seem to make light of the fact that there are real risks in the world, even in good neighborhoods(!), and that seem to hint that taking simple precautions is frivolous paranoia.

I'm only quoting the above, but I appreciate everything you said, saerra. Thank you for your post!

Who is "making light" of risk? Who is telling anyone that they're an idiot (note my deliberately over-the-top language) for meeting someone they deem strange at a public place? Saying that people tend to overestimate certain kinds of risk is not "making light" of anything. It is called bringing another point to the discussion. Saying that people "can" twist themselves into knots over things is, likewise, bringing another point to the table. Neither point is a judgment of any specific action taken by individuals who best understand their circumstances.

What has disturbed ME about this thread is how easily several people have donned the coat of moral superiority and used it to insult other people.

In my own case, I was judged ethically deficient because I did not notice that the thread was a retread, and I did not comment on the post immediately above mine. I thought I explained myself pretty well, but nonetheless my character was impugned on that non-evidence. Repeatedly. Well, the evidence that "I" have seen is that some people seem to enjoy anger and they have no problem presuming that they are the ethically chosen. Feh.

This thread is about strategies for solving problems encountered in the profession, specifically involving private teachers who may be alone with clients. It is not about personalities of participating members. On that subject, however, the comments involved posts by TJ, not you, P*D.

Oh, really. I think you should reread some earlier posts, including your own.

The sooner this thread is locked, the better. The discussion is going nowhere and now we just have a petty argument going on. No value is being added to the conversation about the original topic of the thread.

The discussion did not go nowhere. Red Rose gave us a concrete example, and specific practical actions that she took. The important thing is to stay on topic, and not respond to anything that is not on topic. And keep directing back to the topic.

regardless of how I feel about the original propositions, the excoriation of P*D for having a shred of a viewpoint that doesn't fit with the consensus thought is shameful. How he has been treated, especially by one poster who apparently won't be happy unless P*D grovels is below the standards of discourse we usually expect here.

I've been reading P*D's reasoned and rational contributions to all of PW for quite a few years now. I really don't think he's a raging misogynist. Someone read a context into one line from a multi paragraph post that probably wasn't even correct and brought it up. Several others jumped on that interpretation and the clamor began. He has adequately supported himself and his intentions to broach a broader subject in parallel to but not strictly related to the OP . I agree with Polyphonist, you've all made your points and it's time to let it go.

respectfully submitted,

Kurt Z

Hi PianoDad.

First, can I say - I have alot of respect for you, and I didn't intend for my post to come off as if I were attacking you, personally. I'm sorry if it did. I tried to choose my words carefully, but honestly, but it is an emotionally charged subject.

I was specifically trying to address Journey's repeated posts asking about "bad neighborhoods" (which I quoted). As I said, I'm trying to not attack anyone, but I'm genuinely confused. When Journey posted all of the crime statistics, I thought that he was agreeing that we live in a dangerous world. Crime happens. Being reasonably cautious makes sense. Then, he popped up with what sounded like a sarcastic question, asking "what kinds of communities are these that have prospective piano students, of all people, showing up high on meth or planning a rape during their first sample lesson with a new piano teacher. Would hate to have anyone I know have to live in a such a place... "

THAT is what I thought was making light of the situation, and that is what I was trying to clarify. To me, this reads as if suggesting that the only places where crime occurs are bad neighborhoods filled with murderers and drug addicts, and that anyone who is concerned about crime MUST live in a truly terrible place, bad enough that he "would hate to have anyone I know have to live in such a place".

I am trying to determine if I have completely misunderstood this, because the deeper implication is: "Look, your neighborhood is not that bad! You don't have druggies hanging out on your doorstep or shootings in your backyard. Therefore, crime is not likely, and it's silly to worry about it." That is what *I* thought he was trying to convey through sarcasm.

Perhaps I'm wrong (which is why I'm asking). I am open to the fact that I might be wrong. Given that it apparently read that way to many other posters though, if I AM wrong, it might be worth it for Journey to think about how to communicate the point more clearly.

Regarding your posts:

1. I'm (honestly) sorry that you are feeling attacked here. I suspect that if we were all sitting down together in person, chatting, it would not have gotten to this point. I hope and believe that maybe we're actually closer to agreement than is apparent, and it's just not coming across because of the medium. Rotten internet!

2. Not that my opinion matters much, but I don't blame you for missing that this was an old thread. Again, it happens. I've done it myself.

3. You said: "Saying that people tend to overestimate certain kinds of risk is not "making light" of anything. It is called bringing another point to the discussion. Saying that people "can" twist themselves into knots over things is, likewise, bringing another point to the table. "

True, but... if I could offer you another point of view? Given the pairing, it didn't come across as "here's another point of view". It came across as a direct reaction to what we were talking about.

As an example, if you and I were talking (in person), and you told me about this thread. You might say, "People can be such idiots online. They don't stop and listen to what you're saying, they jump to conclusions, and then they all gang up on you and act like you're evil incarnate."

If I then say, "Sometimes the folks posting really ARE idiots, and deserve that treatment!" - OUCH! EVEN if I mean it completely objectively - it still comes across as if I'm saying, "you're an idiot, you deserved it". (I may not even understand that this was something you experienced.)

Do you see how in that conversation you might think, "oh, she's saying that I'm an idiot, and I deserved it"? Even if *you* personally don't interpret things that way, can you see how it *could* be perceived as offensive, even if it was never remotely intended to be that way?

So when you say, "people overestimate risks..." - yes, as an objective fact, you are 100% correct! Absolutely. But, in the context of THIS conversation, that statement sounds like you're saying, "People overestimate risks. You are all overestimating the risk of being attacked. It such a low probability, you should not concern yourself with it at all."

Similarly, if we're talking about precautions for teachers to take to avoid being assaulted, and you say "people can twist themselves into knots over things" - whether you intend it or not - just by virtue of those things being juxtaposed - it will read to the majority of people as if you are saying something like, "this is such a minor risk, why would you bother putting so much thought and effort into it?" It also sounds as if you're saying, "YOU are all twisting yourselves into knots over this issue."

And, again if you don't mind me being honest here, I'm still not sure that I understand your point in saying that people overestimate risks and can tie themselves up in knots about stuff like this. I only realized this because I tried to think of how I would express that viewpoint, what I would have done differently. And, again, perhaps it's that I'm not getting what you're trying to communicate - but would you mind sharing a little about what the thought/intent was? (Because to me, everytime I come back to it, I can not separate it from the implication that by having this conversation, all of us are "overestimating risks/tying ourselves in knots" - without that - the statement feels like a non-sequitor.)

As I said, I'm not trying to attack you, and I'm asking so that I can understand your viewpoint (rather than just respond to the perception of your viewpoint.)

You also said: "Neither point is a judgment of any specific action taken by individuals who best understand their circumstances." Thank you for that. I think that message is getting lost in the emotion.

Finally, as to what people want to hear: I don't think anyone is asking for a groveling apology. For me, what I'd want to hear, is what idea did you intend to communicate? I think our perception must be very wrong (because I think you're a good person), but I can't figure out what you DID mean.

My hope is that, as often happens, we find out we're not actually that far apart on our beliefs (or as a friend used to say when we were accidentally arguing the same point against each other: "we're in violent agreement!")

One other thought. I think part of why you are feeling beat-up is Gary's posts, and I want to share what I liked about his post. I felt *relief* when I read his post. Not because of anything he said about you, but because I felt like he truly GOT it - he clearly understands that women are vulnerable, that we have to be wary, that we're not always treated as equals. To me it feels like a HUGE relief to have him articulate it.

And, absolutely no disrespect or moral superiority intended, I don't know if you see/believe those things. I can't tell from what you've written. So, it feels like part of the tension here is that we're coming from different worlds, and I'm not sure if you understand/believe the reality that many women experience as part of their normal, daily lives.

Thanks for reading, I hope this comes across in the way I intended it (respectfully trying to understand what's going on, and hopefully to help you understand why things were perceived so badly).

Thanks!