WSJ Article on Possible Misty Copeland Promotion

[nanushka]

Alistair Macaulay's June 23 "Dance This Week" column in the NYT links to a very interesting article by Theresa Ruth Howard that relates to many of the topics raised on this thread:

"The Misty-rious Case of the Vanishing Ballerina of Color: Where Have All the Others Gone?"

Definitely worth a read.

[Helene]

Pia Catton has written another article for the WSJ with focus on the audience that attended Copeland's NY Odette/Odile debut:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/misty-copeland-takes-the-stage-in-swan-lake-1435189061

Ballet has never been strictly a merit system: it's an American bias that meritocracy is the be-all and end-all and the most morally superior system, and except in Paris, determination of merit is affected by the biases of the artistic director, or, for a brief period, the co-artistic directors, as is how much merit plays in the decision. Peter Boal, for example, has said that it doesn't matter how great a dancer is: if he or she will not be a good colleague, he won't hire that person.

Although the PNBS PD hired into the company next season is a jewel, there was another who is a better dancer by just about every measure. There was no room for another short man, however. Dancers are hired and promoted for their usefulness as well as merit or "merit." Companies are not the Olympics, where it's a one-time hit-or-miss opportunity, and even judging panels have their own deals and biases.

The definition of merit is informed by usefulness: aside from how a dancer's personality fits with a company, and how reliable they are, is the "better" dancer the one with the best technique? Not to the people who find Murphy, Alexandova, and/or Tereshkina cold and overly technical, but think that a little less technique and more warmth makes a better dancer. Is the "better" dancer the one who does the best Odette/Odile, or the one who is more versatile and whose peaks may not be as high, but who dance at a more uniformly high level across different kinds of rep?

Based on Corella's latest hires, I have little respect for his artistic integrity or his commitment to Pennsylvania Ballet's traditional strengths or rep.

Enough people I respect who have seen Copland's most recent performances have written of the merit of her dancing in a range of styles and rep -- one of her strengths and not a common one in ABT now -- while acknowledging the importance of her audience and interest from the mainstream press. Until I see her again, that's where my trust lies, but everyone has his or own standards.

[dirac]

Well, the accusations are a matter of record and the PR campaign is a matter of record, so I’m not sure exactly what you dispute. That in light of her PR campaign, there is reason to think it might have worked? I have mixed feelings about Copeland, admiring some things and not others, and I’ve said as much. But when criticizing her even for telling an obvious falsehood (that she was the first black ABT soloist), draws objections, it’s clear that politics is at play. Anyhow, I hope she wows’em tomorrow, and makes absolutely clear she deserves that promotion.

I think there's been plenty of disputation of just those things going on, or have I missed something on these two long threads?

[Helene]

For example, whether she intentionally told a falsehood or whether she made a mistake, or whether the falsehood or mistake was so obvious.

[kfw]

Helene, I believe in trying to give people the benefit of the doubt. But to believe that having been in the company proper since 2000, and quite naturally being very aware of what a rare feat she’d achieved, she would think she was the first to achieve that feat . . . that’s just incredible. So when she told an L.A. journalist in 2008, eight years after she joined, that "They've never had a black woman make it past the corps de ballet,” that seems to me almost certainly a lie. And when Glamour interviewed her in 2012 and said “ One of the first things many people point out about you is that you’re the first African-American soloist for the ABT,” and she didn’t correct them, likewise.

As for the other thing I said, dirac, I don't remember anyone disputing that she's conducted a PR campaign - or that she wears pointe shoes, is African-American, and dances for ABT.

[Helene]

I don't see any reason to conclude that she was lying. I will repeat yet again the Jackie Robinson example, in which countless baseball journalists and professionals have repeated the mistaken assertion that Robinson was the first black player to play in an integrated professional league. I have no reason to assume that they are lying, lying liars and the people who love them.

Everyone is welcome to judge anyone or anything by whatever standards they want, but to assume that all assertions, standards, and arguments have equal weight is also something we are all free to judge.

[kfw]

I have said

I don't see any reason to conclude that she was lying. I will repeat yet again the Jackie Robinson example, in which countless baseball journalists and professionals have repeated the mistaken assertion that Robinson was the first black player to play in an integrated professional league. I have no reason to assume that they are lying, lying liars and the people who love them.

Everyone is welcome to judge anyone or anything by whatever standards they want, but to assume that all assertions, standards, and arguments have equal weight is also something we are all free to judge.

People make mistaken assertions about other people all the time. When people make them about themselves, we call it lying.

[Helene]

That may be your standard, but it's not mine. When people are mistaken about themselves, they are mistaken, unless they have intent to misrepresent themselves. The classic example is in modern and contemporary dance: choreographers, especially dancer-choreographers, constantly write and say that what they're doing is original -- and there are many people around them who will reinforce this mistake -- when, in fact, others were doing the exact same thing before they were born. In my mind, they are mistaken, not lying.

Given how long it was before she was corrected, I'd think a lot of people believed that every black female dancer at ABT never made it past corps, too. We're not talking about former soloists who denied that they were black, like Tai Babilonia in skating, who tried to pass as a Filipina.

[nanushka]

I'm not convinced she was lying, but what I'd be interested to know is, having (mistakenly or deceitfully) made that a part of her narrative, has she ever later acknowledged the truth? I don't know the timeline of when people began pushing back on the idea that she was the first -- and whether, for instance, her 2012 Glamour interview came after that or not. Is there anything in the public record about her correcting this often-made (by her and others) assertion about her?

[nanushka]

And, also, does the misstatement appear in her book? Because that should have been fact-checked. (But we all know that doesn't happen so much nowadays.)

[ABT Fan]

I'm not convinced she was lying, but what I'd be interested to know is, having (mistakenly or deceitfully) made that a part of her narrative, has she ever later acknowledged the truth? I don't know the timeline of when people began pushing back on the idea that she was the first -- and whether, for instance, her 2012 Glamour interview came after that or not. Is there anything in the public record about her correcting this often-made (by her and others) assertion about her?

I don't know when this was added to her website, but on the bio page of her website it reads "in 2007...Copeland [became] the third African American female soloist and first in two decades at American Ballet Theatre."

You can see it here: http://www.mistycopeland.com/home.html

Of course that's not a correction per se, of any earlier misstatements (or whatever you want to call them) given to any specific publications or made during any interviews.

[nanushka]

Of course that's not a correction per se, of any earlier misstatements (or whatever you want to call them) given to any specific publications or made during any interviews.

No, but it's something. Thanks for the info.

[Helene]

She also gave the correct info in the ABT documentary.

Even if a person submits a correction to a publication, it's up to the publication to decide whether to make the correction.

[dirac]

As for the other thing I said, dirac, I don't remember anyone disputing that she's conducted a PR campaign - or that she wears pointe shoes, is African-American, and dances for ABT.

Below is what you wrote, to which I responded:

My point was that “lots of other people have done it” is no defense. 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.

To which I responded:

To observe that decisions about promotion are not made in a vacuum is merely to note a simple reality. The assertion that Copeland has made accusations of racism as part of a PR offensive is quite a harsh one, as others have said, and one with which many would disagree. "We'll never know" suggests that there will be for ever a question mark over Copeland's promotion, should it happen, and that may be so -- for some. That may indeed be unfortunate, but perhaps not quite in the sense you intend.

As I said initially - very harsh stuff, and highly disputable.

[nanushka]

Here's what I'm having some trouble following -- and what I think kfw was asking dirac about as well. kfw wrote (addressing dirac):

Well, the accusations are a matter of record and the PR campaign is a matter of record, so I’m not sure exactly what you dispute.

To clarify, kfw had previously written, "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..."

To the above-quoted post, dirac responded:

I think there's been plenty of disputation of just those things going on, or have I missed something on these two long threads?

What are the "just those things" that are being disputed here? That's what I think kfw was asking, and what dirac's latest post does not really make clear to me.

[kfw]

That may be your standard, but it's not mine. When people are mistaken about themselves, they are mistaken, unless they have intent to misrepresent themselves. The classic example is in modern and contemporary dance: choreographers, especially dancer-choreographers, constantly write and say that what they're doing is original -- and there are many people around them who will reinforce this mistake -- when, in fact, others were doing the exact same thing before they were born. In my mind, they are mistaken, not lying.

That’s an area where there is genuine room for dispute, and a choreographer may feel he’s doing something new but other people don’t see what’s new, or have seen things the choreographer hasn’t and know it's not new, etc. What Copeland said is clearly wrong, and no one disputes it because there is no disputing it, the facts are known.

Given how long it was before she was corrected, I'd think a lot of people believed that every black female dancer at ABT never made it past corps, too.

Could very well be, but I’m not saying everyone who did was lying (her PR team, unless it doesn’t know how to use Google, is another story). She, on the other hand, had every reason to know otherwise.

dirac, what exactly do you claim is disputable? That she claimed she encountered racism? That she's been promoting herself? That her self-promotion has been so effective that McKenzie could be influenced by the wave of support it's generated. "Disputable" is all too vague. If it’s disputable, I await specifics,

[Helene]

That’s an area where there is genuine room for dispute, and a choreographer may feel he’s doing something new but other people don’t see what’s new, or have seen things the choreographer hasn’t and know it's not new, etc. What Copeland said is clearly wrong, and no one disputes it because there is no disputing it, the facts are known.

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.

dirac, what exactly do you claim is disputable? That she claimed she encountered racism? That she's been promoting herself? That her self-promotion has been so effective that McKenzie could be influenced by the wave of support it's generated. "Disputable" is all too vague. If it’s disputable, I await specifics

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.

[nanushka]

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.

I don't see how this is "left out" in kfw's post, the one that I think was mainly under dispute here. I emphasize in bold below:

My point was that “lots of other people have done it” is no defense. 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.

What exactly in this post is being disputed?

[Helene]

I was clearly responding to kfw's summary of his thoughts, which he expressed differently.

I don't have an issue with multiple factors being taken into consideration when a promotion is made. I think there is a credible, alternate narrative to "Because she's waged a PR campaign that includes the hot-button issue of race, the only reason she'll be promoted is because McKenzie has caved into the pressure."

Rationalizers are going to rationalize, doubters are going to doubt, and haters are going to hate. I doubt that pleasing everyone, which is nearly impossible, is high on her agenda. The people who matter to Copeland, among the most lauded and respected in her field, have been supportive, and if others have a mental asterisk gun going, that's their issue.

[kfw]

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.

Well we're talking about a hypothetical so it's hard to settle the point, but I don't see its relevance anyhow. Other people lie too? Sure.

Anyhow, I don’t think all dancers are ignorant of history, and certainly the teachers and others who’ve been with the company for ages are steeped in its history. Copeland was highly aware of being black in a largely white world. It was a big issue to her. Understandably of course. She’d know the history because she wanted to know it. Eight years in the company by 2008, and no one had told her and she’d never asked? Same thing after she’d been in the company 14 years??

What I wrote (thank you, Nanushka, for making to easy to find) is 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. "Includes." Yes, there was more to her story. No I don’t believe she’s not smart enough to know the media would run with that part of it. Sure, she has every right to her story and how she sees it. Two things can be true at the same time.

[Helene]

I don't think other people are lying. I think they are mistaken. There are very few places where dancers are steeped in dance history.

Again, I disagree. 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.

[nanushka]

I was clearly responding to kfw's summary of his thoughts, which he expressed differently.

I don't have an issue with multiple factors being taken into consideration when a promotion is made. I think there is a credible, alternate narrative to "Because she's waged a PR campaign that includes the hot-button issue of race, the only reason she'll be promoted is because McKenzie has caved into the pressure."

I agree with what you say here, but I also don't see anything in kfw's posts that contradicts this. Perhaps I'm missing something.

[nanushka]

There are very few places where dancers are steeped in dance history.

Doesn't the very act of making the statement -- ""They've never had a black woman make it past the corps de ballet" -- suggest that one has looked into the history?

[Helene]

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.

It's not surprising that a profession in which "They always get fat" and "They don't have the feet" -- "they," not "You, dancer Jane" -- is tossed around within eatshot of "them" that there wouldn't be a lot of celebrating heritage.

[kfw]

I don't think other people are lying. I think they are mistaken. There are very few places where dancers are steeped in dance history.

Well my argument, as I said, doesn't just depend on dancers themselves being steeped in history.

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.

I don't have an issue with multiple factors being taken into consideration when a promotion is made. I think there is a credible, alternate narrative to "Because she's waged a PR campaign that includes the hot-button issue of race, the only reason she'll be promoted is because McKenzie has caved into the pressure."

Somehow I missed this before. I'm sure there are multiple considerations. I've never said or tried to suggest that the PR is the only consideration. What I have said and I think is pretty obvious is that McKenzie would have a hard way to go not promoting her given her PR push.