nanushka

He's not responsible for what might have happened to the man, but he is responsible for what he himself did — and what he did is something that, in my opinion, he could reasonably be expected to know might be experienced as demeaning by a colleague in a professional environment. That "might" is strong enough to make it inadvisable, inappropriate, and deserving of censure. Given that Copley was only working at the Met on a very short-term basis, unfortunately for him that censure came in the form of firing. "I'm thinking of you in my bed with your clothes off." That's what Copley reportedly said. (He also, reportedly, did not deny saying it.) I fail to see how that statement is a "joke." Here's what the Times also reports: Note that those are people who were not present at the time of the incident, and who are simply described as saying he "must have...meant" it in a way that supposedly diminishes the significance of the offense. It was not, as was said above, "people in the room" who said "there appeared to have been a miscommunication." It was officials at the union who said that, and there is no indication that they were in the room. I don't know what the basis was for their characterization of the incident.

Some of those things you've said yourself that he was essentially saying — e.g. "You should like being an object for my sexual fantasies, because it means I find you attractive." The others I outlined all seem pretty inherent in the remark, in my opinion, no matter what was "intended." A "complimentary" joke can absolutely denigrate, if it is given in a professional environment, in which one expects to be treated like a professional and not a sexual object. I really don't understand how the fact that it may have been intended as complimentary is a mitigating factor. Of course he's not, and I specifically said that he couldn't possibly know the man's past. That's crucial to several of the points I was making.

You wrote above, "But perhaps this guy really was traumatized (harmed) by Cop[le]y's remark. I feel for him then, but that doesn't mean he needed to be." Working under the hypothetical that he "really was traumatized," I don't see how any of these further considerations really come into play. That's not how trauma works, in my understanding. One doesn't stop and think whether it's necessarily necessary to be traumatized. Let me suggest a further hypothetical. Imagine the chorus member is a victim of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a powerful and esteemed older man. Copley's remark is triggering for him. He's in an environment where he feels safe, among his colleagues, at work, where he has a right to expect never to be sexually objectified or demeaned. Suddenly Copley picks him out and says, in front of some of those colleagues, essentially, "Right now, as I stand here looking at you, I am imagining having you naked in my bed. In my eyes, you are not a professional doing a job. You are an object for my sexual fantasies. You should like being an object for my sexual fantasies, because it means I find you attractive. It's a compliment. And I'm laughing as I say it because I am not really considering your inner self and your feelings. Because in addition to using you as a sexual object, I am also using you as a prop for my witty banter among these other colleagues who find me charming." Because that's basically what Copley's words might communicate, in the context I am imagining. And the result might be trauma — not in the merely colloquial sense ("Oh I'm so traumatized!"), but in the literal sense. Now, that's just a hypothetical. Is it probable? No. Is it possible? Of course. If it were true, could Copley be expected to know about this man's past? Of course not. But that's precisely the point. I don't know about the man's past, Copley doesn't, none of us does. People's histories and sexualities can be very complicated and mysterious. There are all sorts of very personal reasons why this man may have reacted as he did, intentionally or unintentionally. We just don't know. And that's why I don't believe that judging or second-guessing his reactions—much less expecting him to be the responsible adult in the room and fix the mess that Copley made with his foolish remark—is wise. Copley's remark was foolish but it was also, in my opinion, simply wrong. You just don't say to a colleague — especially one you don't know really, really well and have a very personal understanding with; especially in a situation where you are an outsider coming in for a brief time to work in a professional environment that is not your own — in those and many other circumstances, you just don't say to a colleague, in the workplace, in front of other people, that you are thinking of him naked in your bed. You just don't do it. In part, that's simply a human matter: you don't know this person, you don't know his past, you don't know his complicated experience of sexuality, you don't know his beliefs, you don't really know anything about him. But more to the point, it's a legal matter: because the workplace — where economic necessity dictates that most of us must be, and where structures of power already entwine us — is a place where we all have the right to be treated as professionals, not as sexual objects. (And yes, structures of power are all around us. They're not the only things that are there, but they are always there.) Copley violated that man's right. Does that mean Copley deserved to be fired? As I've said, I don't think that's necessarily the case. But once Copley did that, firing became one very possible, if not reasonable, outcome. And if Copley didn't know that, that's on him, in my opinion.

I don't understand how one can "get it wrong" if one is genuinely just reacting, not deciding to react in a certain way.

I really don't know what it would mean to say, "I know that person was really traumatized just now. I feel for him. But he didn't need to be." Maybe I could imagine saying that if I knew the person in question well enough to know that he or she was just being self-centered and had more or less consciously decided to play up being traumatized and even maybe really ended up feeling that way. But if I didn't know the person well enough to know that — if I didn't know the person at all — I don't know what it would mean to say that.

I don't see why the guy couldn't have objected in some other way, either. But I don't know the guy, I don't know his past, I don't know anything about him, and so I don't judge his reaction, assuming that he acted within his rights. If the Met were to tolerate Copley's remark (and, again, I don't think firing Copley was necessary to show that they did not), it would communicate to everyone, basically, "This is a workplace in which people in power have the right to sexually objectify you rather than dealing with you based on your professional merits. If you want to continue working here, that's the environment in which you will have to work." It's not a question of getting fired, it's a question of workplace culture and what that says about the basic "rules of the game." And yes, to my mind it is demeaning to be sexually objectified in a professional context, where what should matter is one's professional work, not the fact that a man or woman in power finds you sexually attractive. Copley's stature matters, in my mind, not because it makes his comment more or less demeaning but because, if it were tolerated by the Met, the institution would be suggesting that people with power or stature can get away with such things. Basically, Copley's stature matters, in my mind, because, as another member wrote on this topic above: "Hostile work environment" is a common phrase from labor law; personally, I use it in reference to the case at hand not because Copley's remark was "hostile" in the literal sense, but just because it's a phrase many people know and use in this particular way. I completely understand if anyone finds the phrase to be literally inapt; perhaps it is. I am using it in its conventional, legal sense.

A "hostile work environment" can be defined, among other ways, as one in which it is understood that one's continued employment is dependent upon one's willingness to be sexually objectified and demeaned. If the comment were tolerated by the institution, that would communicate to all employees that such an environment exists. (As I've suggested above, I don't think it was necessary to fire Copley in order to avoid communicating that.) To me personally, it goes without saying that for an esteemed and powerful opera director (no matter how old or how used to such "silly" antics) to pick out a chorus member and say, in the workplace, in front of colleagues, that he is thinking of that chorus member naked in his bed is indeed sexually objectifying and demeaning.

Also, not all "firings" are the same, despite the common terminology. Copley was essentially brought in as an independent contractor to do a single job on a very short-term basis. He failed to adhere to the standards of the workplace (which are basically the standards of any law-abiding workplace), and so he was dismissed. It's not as if he lost a full-time position over this.

I don't think it is a good idea to hyperbolize and caricature others' differing views on a matter such as this. Personally, in my own views, I am very far from sexually puritanical; I certainly do not believe in blind adherence to conventional sexual morality. And yet I believe there should be a difference between how one acts in one's personal life, in private spaces, and how one acts as a professional, in the workplace. I understand that not all workplaces feel the same, and that those working in the arts are often used to a "freer environment." But a workplace is a workplace; legal and economic realities dictate that it is a zone in which inequities of power are inherent, and one of the functions of workplace standards against sexual harassment is to ensure that people in positions of power don't get to personally define what is acceptable and therefore what everyone around them has to put up with. Because as Catherine MacKinnon wrote in Sexual Harassment of Working Women, "Economic power is to sexual harassment as physical force is to rape." Economic power—taken broadly to include all forms of institutional and professional power—is the instrument through which such abuses have their force. Frankly, it baffles me that for a director, in the workplace, to say to a subordinate, "I'm thinking of you in my bed with your clothes off," would be considered a form of expression deserving of protection. As for the lack of clarity in what was said, I have seen no credible reports to the contrary, only hearsay and gossip from supporters of Copley who were not present. I may not have seen other credible journalistic reports or first-hand accounts that are out there, though, and if there are any I would certainly be eager to read them. But the only one that has been cited here tells us that that's what he said and, furthermore, that he himself did not dispute that report. And as for the alleged victim's response, we know next to nothing of this person, of his past, of his beliefs, of his identity. If what has been reported actually occurred, he is a victim of sexual harassment, plain and simple. Given that, and assuming that his responses did not exceed his legal rights, I personally feel it is unwise and inadvisable to question them, to speculate about them, or to criticize them. And the victim-blaming that has in some cases been expressed seems to me improper. All that being said, I don't believe the Met handled this in the best possible way; I don't necessarily believe that firing Copley was the best response; I likely would have behaved quite differently if I had been the one to whom that remark was spoken. But I also don't believe that any of that means that an actual injustice was done here. Anyone who is of sound enough mental capacity to do the serious work of directing an opera production at one of the world's leading houses should certainly be expected to know that saying what I've quoted above to a subordinate colleague in the workplace is simply unacceptable, and should certainly be expected to know that such behavior would not be tolerated. (To clarify, I am using the term "subordinate colleague" in a broad sense—a colleague lower in status and relatively lacking in various forms of power.)

Stella got a lot of love on Instagram from many ABT dancers before her debut this afternoon. There's clearly a very deep, genuine affection for her. No surprise.

I third that.

I'm excited to hear any reports that come in from Stella's Juliet on Saturday!

I definitely get that, but I also think there's a lot in the choreography itself that fit the title. (And I might advocate a return to the tutus and tiaras, even.) There was an article in Ballet Review Winter 2016-17 that discussed this (the choreography, I mean, not the title change — as I recall): "Crystallization: Balanchine's Imperial Ballet" by Don Daniels. Some of his ideas seemed to me a bit unconvincing, but there were others that I found interesting.

While we're at it, let's go back to some of the original titles, like Ballet Imperial. So much more fitting and less clunky. (I kind of insist on using the name anyway, in defiance. Like a friend of mine who refuses to stop calling it "the State Theater.")

Yes, the original ending is so much more evocative and meaningful. And the iconic image was still there, but subtler, as Robert Garis describes in Following Balanchine (great book): "in the apotheosis a sunburst figure passes before your eyes like a cloud formation (rather than what it has become in the current version, a brilliant Apollo-logo to ring down the curtain)."

I do think I would like to see LeCrone in it more than Lowery. The latter has a body type that I just personally don't find inherently appealing for a dancer, and to my eye lacks in her dancing the qualities that could make her appealing to me despite that. I just find myself sighing resignedly every time I see her on a cast list for something I'll be seeing. Very much a matter of personal taste, I admit. Thanks for the video!

Stamper's book has been on my mental list for awhile; thanks for the reminder, sandik. And thanks for the Simpson rec as well, kbarber. Both sound good to me.

Oh wow! So jealous! That sounds like an amazing pairing. I hadn't thought of anyone in particular for the MWM. I only know the piece from videos and am not as familiar with the full company as I am with ABT, as I only started seeing NYCB regularly a few years ago (when I caught the Balanchine bug really bad).

Hmm not a particular fan of Savannah L or Megan LeC, that’s too bad. I like that PDT. Wound love to see Maria K or Unity P in the PDD.

Thanks canbelto. Who dances the woman in the MWM trio?

I've never seen Agon live and don't remember the last time it was done. Any guesses as to whom we might see in it later this season?

Wish they'd do another season like that!

If it's what was telecast, I believe that was only starting from the PDD through the end. (It's on YT with Kistler and Zelensky.) Most of the works that were done for that particular program were excerpted, around 10 min. each. But they may well have done the complete T&V in other performances that season, if that's what you mean.

Indeed, it's heartening how positive in general the reports have been of performances so far this season. I've seen them only once, on Saturday evening, and the company looked in quite good shape and spirits, to my eyes. And on social media the dancers seem to be in good spirits as well.

Completely hear you, but I'm sure they were dealing with a lot of other stuff over the last month (didn't PM only finally resign on NYD?), and reprogramming a season (albeit a week long one only) was perhaps just not viable for them amidst all that. Unfortunately.