WSJ Article on Possible Misty Copeland Promotion

[nanushka]

If ABT did not make the first black soloist part of its ongoing narrative, for examply, why would she know. What she did know was that there were any black faces at ABT when she became interested in ballet and when she joined ABT.

Again, a point that I think is a very good one. I still don't see how she would get from this lack of knowledge to making a definitive statement like the one she made in the 2008 interview. That leap seems problematic to me.

[kfw]

If it's not part of the narrative, it's easy to assume wrongly. If ABT did not make the first black soloist part of its ongoing narrative, for examply, why would she know. What she did know was that there were any black faces at ABT when she became interested in ballet and when she joined ABT.

I'm sure you don't think she's dumb, but I think your argument depends upon her being so. Why would she know? Because she was concerned with the issue. Who goes around claiming to be the first at something without having tried to figure out if they were?

[Helene]

It would be hard not to recognize her recent accomplishments in several styles of rep, except for the part about his he's managed to resist for a long time with her and many others.

She's made herself useful to the company selling tickets, and ABT is partly in the business of selling tickets.

Dancers are not sum, or dumber than most people. They tend to be undereducated, but my friends who teach college have tales that make her sound above average in research skills.

[kfw]

It would be hard not to recognize her recent accomplishments in several styles of rep, except for the part about his he's managed to resist for a long time with her and many others.

She's made herself useful to the company selling tickets, and ABT is partly in the business of selling tickets.

Dancers are not sum, or dumber than most people. They tend to be undereducated, but my friends who teach college have tales that make her sound above average in research skills.

All true. None of it, as far as I can see, pertinent to what we"vet been debating this evening.

[nanushka]

Who goes around claiming to be the first at something without having tried to figure out if they were?

I think this gets to the crux of the issue. I said upthread that I wasn't convinced she was lying. But this is the point that leaves me unconvinced she was not lying. A definitive claim without any due diligence done to ascertain its truth -- that seems problematic to me.

[Helene]

What is pertinent to the debate this evening is what is commonly agreed upon and what is being debated:

Agreed upon, as far I know:

• Copeland is a female ballet dancer, and, hence, wears pointe shoes
• Copeland described being subject to racial discrimination during her training/career
• The press has been running with the race issue
• Copeland wrote a book
• Copeland has a PR person
• Copeland has given many interviews
• Copeland claimed to be the first black female soloist at ABT, until she stopped claiming that she was the first black female soloist at ABT
• Were Copeland to be promoted now, she would be the first black Principal Dancer at ABT
• Some people are going to believe she played the race card if she's promoted, and somehow, this will taint her promotion, because it will mean she didn't earn it through merit

Not agreed upon:

• The extent to which Copeland's claims of racial discrimination during her career has hurt or helped her, and the proportion
• Whether it is a character flaw that she did
• Whether Kevin McKenzie has no choice but to promote Copeland, because she's claimed she was subject to racial discriminate during her career
• Whether she lied or was mistaken about her claim that she was the first black soloist at ABT
• Whether she should have known and how she should have know she was not the first black female soloist at ABT
• Whether someone during her career definitely told her about other black soloists at ABT
• The extent to which she should have done her research about whether or not she was the first black soloist at ABT
• Whether not knowing something makes one dumb or uneducated about the subject
• The extent to which dancers are educated in dance history
• Whether she got an PR representative to handle press when it became clear she needed it managed, or whether she hired a PR rep to drum up the press on her behalf

Am I missing anything?

Honestly, I don't think she should care about most of those arguments, and I hope Marina Harss and other professional critics are right: that there's a promotion coming her way. But my bias is towards movement quality over body type, and versatility and expression over technique.

[dirac]

Not if there's a videotape or written description, especially in another language, like German, that shows that someone else did it before the choreographer. That is also a fact, and the choreographer, who did not know this, is mistaken.

To say that she should have just googled the facts: she was born in 1982. She did not even find ballet until 1995, at which point, she was living in poverty until she moved into her teacher's house, when her life was focused on ballet and school. To assume that the information was even easily findable on google, had she done a search, in 2000 -- when slow, expensive dial-up was still in its hey day -- is questionable: it was hard enough to find it until she made it a wrong point. The idea that everyone just searches immediately on their smart device and entire libraries and a century of the NYT is at one's fingertips is a very new practice. In fact, ballet companies delete prior seasons' information and bios of dancers who've left off their servers. Out of sight, out of mind.

By the time she joined ABT in 2000, she obviously wasn't seeing any black female faces around, and ballet history is overwhelmingly oral/pass-it-down. There were people there who were contemporaries of the other black soloists. If I were a young dancer with an unusual background, I would hope that my teachers and mentors would point out my predecessors as role models. If they passed on the history -- because it was not readily accessible -- none of them have said a peep about this. Most dancers are not historians.

Obviously, I'm not dirac, but I would say specifically that one thing I would dispute is your characterization, which leaves out how much more than her description of racism she encountered is part of her narrative, which is wider-reaching and more subtle. If the news media ran with that aspect, that's their business decision, because they assumed it would sell.

I don't think she should have had to soft-pedal her experience, because of what the media would emphasize. I'm glad she didn't.

I thank Helene for her clarification above, and I add the following. kfw, to state that :

One doesn’t need to have seen someone dance to know a PR offensive that includes accusations of racism and a false claim to singularity is an appeal to something besides merit, or to know that accusations of racism and racial groundbreaking are highly effective today.

is to use loaded language to describe what Copeland has said and done. It is harsh language, and in my opinion it is inappropriate and not applicable to her actions and situation -- wrong, if you will.

Helene, and others, have explained well and thoroughly why the Big Lie by which you set such store is disputable. You say that you "await specifics." In this thread, and in the old Copeland threads, it seems to me that we are up to the wazoo with specifics.

nanushka, perhaps you are coming a bit late to the party. I suggest respectfully that you may wish to review, if you have not already done so, the Copeland threads in the "Dancers" forum, where you will find many of the same points raised here hashed (and rehashed) over.

Possibly the solution is to have a "Misty Copeland is a Big Honking Liar" thread where the like-minded can congregate to discuss her personal and professional shortcomings.

[kfw]

Honestly, I don't think she should care about most of those arguments, and I hope Marina Harss and other professional critics are right: that there's a promotion coming her way. But my bias is towards movement quality over body type, and versatility and expression over technique.

Judging from the Swan Lake reviews, she seems to have earned a promotion.

dirac wrote:

Helene, and others, have explained well and thoroughly why the Big Lie by which you set such store is disputable. You say that you "await specifics." In this thread, and in the old Copeland threads, it seems to me that we are up to the wazoo with specifics.

“The Big Lie” is your rhetoric, not my thinking. I could call Copeland a lot of positive things, like incredibly hard-working, determined, brave, beautifully poised, etc., and I’ve called her some or all of them here. She wants to be a role model. Overall she’s a wonderful role model but, like the rest of us, not always. I don’t choose to call her by the name “liar” because that denotes someone who lies habitually, for whom lying is an integral part of their character, and I have no reason to believe that describes her. I do, however, think that one has to make a lot of excuses for her not to think she probably lied about this. The impulse to make those excuses and to believe every particular of her story unreservedly, can be honorable. Unfortunately, some people with honorable intentions on many issues habitually distort the other side’s arguments, and then dismiss the distortions.

As for specifics, when directly asked for specifics, you specifically have fallen silent or replied with generalities. Enuf said.

[nanushka]

Helene, and others, have explained well and thoroughly why the Big Lie by which you set such store is disputable. You say that you "await specifics." In this thread, and in the old Copeland threads, it seems to me that we are up to the wazoo with specifics.

nanushka, perhaps you are coming a bit late to the party. I suggest respectfully that you may wish to review, if you have not already done so, the Copeland threads in the "Dancers" forum, where you will find many of the same points raised here hashed (and rehashed) over.

Possibly the solution is to have a "Misty Copeland is a Big Honking Liar" thread where the like-minded can congregate to discuss her personal and professional shortcomings.

I think you are assuming that those of us who approach Misty and her story with an attitude of skepticism -- not in the sense of disbelief or suspicion, but in the sense of questioning and agnosticism -- are in fact extremists in opposition to your views, believers in the statement that "Misty Copeland is a Big Honking Liar." I would not have an interest in such a discussion among "the like-minded," and when I have encountered such I've found it tiresome. If you read what I have written upthread I think you will see that I am not of a settled mind when it comes to many things Misty. Based on my first-hand experience of seeing her dance, I do not think that she deserves promotion at this time. But this discussion has not primarily been about that question, nor was it ever (I think, based on its topic) intended to be primarily about that question. There are many other issues surrounding this individual that are interesting and, I think, worthy of discussion -- and on many of those issues, my mind is not at all settled or made up.

[nanushka]

kfw, to state that :

...

is to use loaded language to describe what Copeland has said and done. It is harsh language, and in my opinion it is inappropriate and not applicable to her actions and situation -- wrong, if you will.

This seems to me like more of an impressionistic description than an analysis. Let's take it piece by piece:

One doesn’t need to have seen someone dance to know a PR offensive that includes accusations of racism and a false claim to singularity is an appeal to something besides merit, or to know that accusations of racism and racial groundbreaking are highly effective today.Copeland may have earned a promotion solely on merit (i.e. in McKenzie’s opinion may deserve it), but now we’ll never know. I think that’s unfortunate.

• Is Misty engaged in what might be termed "a PR offensive"?
• Has Misty's PR campaign included "accusations of racism"?
• Has Misty's PR campaign included "a false claim to singularity"?
• As part of a PR campaign, are accusations of racism and/or a false claim to singularity "an appeal to something besides merit"? (Note: That would not exclude an appeal to merit as well. But is "something besides merit" part of the appeal that's being made?)
• Are accusations of racism and/or racial groundbreaking highly effective today?
• Will we ever know whether Misty's promotion (should it come) was earned solely on merit?
• If so, is it unfortunate that we will never know that?

[kfw]

It sounds like you're asking dirac, but I'll just say a couple of things. If I've used the term "PR offensive, then "PR campaign" would have been better. She's hardly conducting a war. In regards to appeals to merit, her dancing is of course an appeal to merit (an awkward term which I think was mine, but I'll let it stand).

[nanushka]

It sounds like you're asking dirac, but I'll just say a couple of things. If I've used the term "PR offensive, then "PR campaign" would have been better. She's hardly conducting a war. In regards to appeals to merit, her dancing is of course an appeal to merit (an awkward term which I think was mine, but I'll let it stand).

Not asking anyone in particular -- especially since, from dirac's most recent post, it sounds like dirac may be tired of the conversation. My aim was merely to parse your earlier statement, the one that seemed to be the object of particular criticism (and which I found to be, for the most part, insightful and well articulated), and to open up its terms for further conversation, should anyone care to take the bait.

[dirac]

Enuf said.

I'll say.

[Helene]

[Helene]

Racism taints consideration of merit. Describing the racism she faced, in the context of ABT's hiring and training history -- and almost every other company's, for that matter -- may have helped to make up some of the unfair disadvantage and leveled the playing field.

I'm not sure how this responds to my points.

One of your concerns is that we won't know if Copeland is promoted, whether this was entirely merit-based. It's not my concern, but my response to that concern is that she could just as well have not been promoted earlier because the merit of her dancing was veiled by the obstacle of racism, and once removed, she can be judged on the merit of her dancing.

Dancers are not sum, or dumber than most people. They tend to be undereducated, but my friends who teach college have tales that make her sound above average in research skills.

All true. None of it, as far as I can see, pertinent to what we"vet been debating this evening.

We've been debating how much Copeland should have known and researched before proclaiming herself the first black soloist at ABT. You've been calling this a lie. I believe my post speaks to another possibility and is quite pertinent to the debate. Just one of several details discussed many times.

“The Big Lie” is your rhetoric, not my thinking.

I think this is a logical extension of your characterization of Copeland's statement as a "lie" repeatedly in this and prior Copeland threads. "Lie" means she knowingly spoke falsely with the intention to deceive, and there is no proof that she did, and not calling her a "liar" doesn't diminish this charge. The other possibilities are that when she claimed to be the first black soloist at ABT she was sloppy, ill-informed, or mis-informed, didn't do her research at all, did her research to the standards that my 8th-grade teacher would have scoffed at, but college professors see regularly now, didn't ask the right people, didn't dig deep enough, saw nothing of her heritage reflected in what ABT choose to recognize and came to the wrong conclusion, etc. You characterize any of the other possibilities as "excuses," when I think they are valid possibilities. Most of them don't speak that well of her.

I think she would have had to be dumb to knowingly speak falsely with intention to deceive: most of the people who know, trained, and danced with the other black soloists are alive and well and could easily have "exposed" her. I find it curious that ABT never made the correction -- "Miss Copeland is third in the fine line of black soloists at ABT, and we are proud to have her" -- since it is their history that was misrepresented, and it's not as if they risked not having access to her had they done so.

• Has Misty's PR campaign included "accusations of racism"?
• Has Misty's PR campaign included "a false claim to singularity"?
• As part of a PR campaign, are accusations of racism and/or a false claim to singularity "an appeal to something besides merit"? (Note: That would not exclude an appeal to merit as well. But is "something besides merit" part of the appeal that's being made?)

The assumption that Copeland/Copeland's PR agent had full control of how the narrative was spun and weighted is also up for debate, regardless of the impacts -- positive and negative -- that narrative had. She most likely had most control over what was in her book, although her publisher's editorial staff and/or legal team might have had some say in it.

While there is currently a storm of predictions of and support for her promotion in the mainstream media, it isn't clear whether her PR efforts delayed the casting that could support her promotion and the promotion itself, since there have been many benefits to ABT from this delay: packed houses and high ticket sales for the journey to the top, passionate support from her followers, snowballing free publicity in the mainstream media that dovetailed nicely into ABT's 75th anniversary celebrations, the biggest name recognition among the general public in the US for a ballet dancer for many, many years and, once again, tied to ABT, and fierce debates among fans, stoking the Copeland vs. Abrera vs. Lane debates.

[abatt]

Kevin McKenzie has been artistic director of ABT for quite some time, and Misty has been a soloist there for quite some time. It's not like there has been a change in administration at the top of ABT's artistic direction recently. So one has to ask why McKenzie pretty much ignored her for lead roles up until very recently. I'm talking about roles where she had to carry the evening on her shoulders, like O/O and Juliet. Helene posts that perhaps the veil of racism was lifted from McKenzie's eyes. (Not a direct quote, but a paraphrase of the idea mentioned in Helene's post.) Another explanation is that Misty's relentless assertions in the media that she has been the victim of racism, combined with the fact that ABT has been her only artisitc home, meant that in effect she was claiming discrimination at ABT. When faced with these assertions, McKenzie had no choice but to give her lead roles and ultimately promote her. Otherwise certain members of the public would conclude that ABT is a racist employer.

[Helene]

Why would ABT care about certain members of the public concluding it was a racist employer? Unless there was a groundswell of negative publicity -- and I haven't seen those follow-up articles, aside from a few that talk about the dearth of black ballerinas across North American companies, and the statements by other black dancers that they've gone to Europe to escape discrimination, ie, not tied specifically to ABT -- major donors stopped donating and the cause was specifically due to perceptions of racism at ABT, or board members resigned for the same reason, there's no reason to change artistic policy.

The idea that Kevin McKenzie would "have" to do anything unless his bosses -- ie, the board -- demanded something of him is highly questionable.

[kfw]

Helene wrote:

One of your concerns is that we won't know if Copeland is promoted, whether this was entirely merit-based. It's not my concern, but my response to that concern is that she could just as well have not been promoted earlier because the merit of her dancing was veiled by the obstacle of racism, and once removed, she can be judged on the merit of her dancing.

Interesting argument. I don’t remember anyone saying her promotion has come unjustly late, but interesting argument.

We've been debating how much Copeland should have known and researched before proclaiming herself the first black soloist at ABT. You've been calling this a lie. I believe my post speaks to another possibility and is quite pertinent to the debate. Just one of several details discussed many times.

Thank you for explaining. Just to be clear and detailed, your position is that having been conscious of standing out due to race (probably since she first joined the company in 2000 and even before – perhaps someone who’s read her whole book can say for sure, but it stands to reason) after 14 years she still had not bothered to ascertain the truth of something so central to important to her narrative – that being so (naturally) concerned with setting precedent, she had never even been interested enough to just ask, say Kevin McKenzie or another longtime company person, how much a precedent she had actually set? I don’t find that scenario convincing.

> “The Big Lie” is your rhetoric, not my thinking.

I think this is a logical extension of your characterization of Copeland's statement as a "lie" repeatedly in this and prior Copeland threads. "Lie" means she knowingly spoke falsely with the intention to deceive, and there is no proof that she did, and not calling her a "liar" doesn't diminish this charge.

Lots of things that can’t be proved are considered most likely true based on available facts and logic. No, saying someone lied about something is not, when I say it, the same as characterizing them a Big Fat Liar, for reasons I took time to explain.

I think she would have had to be dumb to knowingly speak falsely with intention to deceive: most of the people who know, trained, and danced with the other black soloists are alive and well and could easily have "exposed" her. I find it curious that ABT never made the correction -- "Miss Copeland is third in the fine line of black soloists at ABT, and we are proud to have her" -- since it is their history that was misrepresented, and it's not as if they risked not having access to her had they done so.

I find that lack of correction curious too. As to Copeland, I agree, the claim wasn’t too smart, no, but people blurt things out sometimes, and since the impulse to correct would clash with the impulse to cheer on another trailblazer, I’m not surprised those dancers didn’t (to my knowledge) publicly correct her.

The assumption that Copeland/Copeland's PR agent had full control of how the narrative was spun and weighted is also up for debate, regardless of the impacts -- positive and negative -- that narrative had. She most likely had most control over what was in her book, although her publisher's editorial staff and/or legal team might have had some say in it.

I doubt her PR team told her to not to correct the Glamour interviewer.

While there is currently a storm of predictions of and support for her promotion in the mainstream media, it isn't clear whether her PR efforts delayed the casting that could support her promotion and the promotion itself, since there have been many benefits to ABT from this delay: packed houses and high ticket sales for the journey to the top, passionate support from her followers, snowballing free publicity in the mainstream media that dovetailed nicely into ABT's 75th anniversary celebrations, the biggest name recognition among the general public in the US for a ballet dancer for many, many years and, once again, tied to ABT, and fierce debates among fans, stoking the Copeland vs. Abrera vs. Lane debates.

Why would PR – in effect, publicity - “delay” the casting that generates more publicity and sells all those tickets?

[kfw]

Why would ABT care about certain members of the public concluding it was a racist employer?

You must be kidding! Because there would be a huge and immediate "groundswell of negative publicity," the flip side of the groundswell of positive publicity Copeland's been getting.

[abatt]

I believe her promotion will be announced very soon, and that will help them sell tickets to their Fall season at the Koch. Think about how few female principals are left for them to even list as appearing for the fall season now that Reyes, Kent and Herrera are gone.

[aurora]

Kevin McKenzie has been artistic director of ABT for quite some time, and Misty has been a soloist there for quite some time. It's not like there has been a change in administration at the top of ABT's artistic direction recently. So one has to ask why McKenzie pretty much ignored her for lead roles up until very recently. I'm talking about roles where she had to carry the evening on her shoulders, like O/O and Juliet.

I think it is worth remembering that just as she was given one of her most notable roles to date -- Firebird -- she had a fairly catastrophic injury that almost ended her career. These sorts of things do put careers back, it is not surprising she is just taking on full evening leads in the last two (?) years.

[dirac]

You must be kidding! Because there would be a huge and immediate "groundswell of negative publicity," the flip side of the groundswell of positive publicity Copeland's been getting.

"Huge and immediate"? Really? I rather doubt 60 Minutes is going to do a follow up story on how Misty Copeland didn't make principal. Most of the articles I've seen on the subject also say something alone the lines of, "Even if Copeland doesn't become a principal, she's had significant impact on the discussion," not "If she doesn't make principal, there'll be hell to pay."

[Helene]

You must be kidding! Because there would be a huge and immediate "groundswell of negative publicity," the flip side of the groundswell of positive publicity Copeland's been getting.

And where has this groundswell been in the last five years since she began to be interviewed by the mainstream press, with a major increase in interest since the publication of her book? She's said she encountered racism since those interviews began. The press has been running with it, although her narrative has many other aspects. It's hardly hidden, and, yet, no immediate groundswell of negative publicity.

She's been a soloist since 2007, longer than she was a corps member.

As far as selling tickets goes, the story is always more interesting when someone is trying to attain their goals and immediately when they achieve them than much long after they have achieved them. That's why fairy tales end with "Happily ever after," unless Stephen Sondheim finds them interesting.

[kfw]

If Copeland doesn't make principal - a huge if - and she then calls that racist - another huge if - I'm sure her claim will get tons of attention, although I'm not sure what a 60 Minutes story on it would consist of - interviews with critics illustrated by video clips that could clearly show the non-dance public how much better she is than Hee Seo?

Helene, I think there has been no negative groundswell because her story has made her look like a rising star who would eventually be promoted. It's only now, as her profile has been cresting (and as she's been given a ballet even many non-balletomanes have heard of) that those in the know say "if it's going to happen, now's the time, or soon."

[nanushka]

I think it is worth remembering that just as she was given one of her most notable roles to date -- Firebird -- she had a fairly catastrophic injury that almost ended her career. These sorts of things do put careers back, it is not surprising she is just taking on full evening leads in the last two (?) years.

That is indeed useful to keep in mind. One common narrative runs, "Misty was basically one of KM's so-called 'flagship soloists,' not destined for promotion, until her PR campaign boosted her career and put her on the principal track." A counter-narrative then runs, "Misty was on her way to bigger roles and a more prominent position in the company, beginning with her assignment in Firebird, but a serious injury sidelined her for awhile; now she's back, taking on bigger roles, and on her way to likely promotion."

Of course it needn't be purely one or the other. It's quite possible the truth is somewhere in between -- or that there are other narratives altogether that one should consider.

[Mme. Hermine]

I don't know who I'm quoting, but in these discussions, I've found that often it's forgotten that she may be the third female AA soloist but is actually the fourth AA soloist, remember Keith Lee?