Kathleen O'Connell

The Perelman Center will be one of those "flexible" venues that can (allegedly) be reconfigured to accommodate a variety of staging options and audience sizes. Maximum capacity when all of its spaces are combined is 1200. I don't know if the center will have the kind of backstage space that a large theatrical production might require or if it can provide an orchestra pit, however. Jazz at Lincoln Center's Rose Theater can seat about 1200 as well. I have attended dance performances there, and the revived NYC Opera performs there as well. The theater can be reconfigured to provide both a proscenium and an orchestra pit. It's a lovely venue and would be ideal for smaller-scaled works - i.e., I wouldn't do Swan Lake there, but some of ABT's triple-bill works would probably look great there. Would either venue really be big enough? By way of comparison, City Center seats about 2250. (But the sight lines are so awful - even after the big renovation - that only about half of them count, if that many.)

If this video is any evidence, Allegra Kent didn't.

This is why there isn't as much money in my bank account as there should be. Sometimes you just have to choose them all. 😉

Yup, yup, and yup.

I like Phelan a lot, but at the moment I don't think she has the kind of distinct and wholly individual style that the really big roles require. I think she just needs a little time and space to develop one — outside of the bright glare of Diamonds, for instance.

I am a huge Hyltin fangirl* and would have crawled over broken glass to see her in the Bizet 2nd Movement had I been in town. But I can understand why the role might not have been right for her: although she counts versatility, charm, stage smarts, musicality, and a strong technique among her many gifts, she's not quite a ballerina in the grand manner in the way that Kowroski, Mearns, and Reichlen are. I too would like to see LaFreniere in the role when she's ready, but also Emilie Gerrity, who has been very impressive in some of Mearns' roles (Sanguinic and Namouna), and Ashley Laracey, who isn't quite in the grand ballerina mold either, but who could be very special in the role nonetheless. She was just a dream in Divertimento No. 15. ETA: * Given a choice between Hyltin and Peck in Sleeping Beauty,Coppelia, or the Midsummer Night's Dream Divertissement, I will choose Hyltin every time.

Eh. I'm fine with a female ballet dancer referring to herself as a ballerina when someone asks her what she does for a living, or on her social media profiles, or in a resume, or on an application, or wherever. To the general public it's as generic, descriptive, and succint as "soldier." As a balletomane, I like to reserve capital-B Ballerina for actual capital-B Ballerinas, but the number of people of my acquaintance who understand the distinction is vanishingly small — and I see no real need to bore them with it.

I say this every chance I get: Best Rubies Tall Girl Ever. But I can understand the company wanting to give others a shot at the role. They are rich in Glamazons.

Since the School of American Ballet, Inc. and New York City Ballet Inc. are separate and distinct legal entities with their own Boards of Directors, staffs, financial statements, and regulatory filings, I don't think the suit of necessity targets both the company and the school.

To be clear, I was certainly not my intention to suggest that there shouldn't be consequences for wrongdoing, nor that an apology was somehow enough by way of retribution and redress. An apology is necessary, but it's not sufficient. I stated that sharing explicit photos without consent is a firing offense, full stop. If the company decides it wants to re-admit a dancer it has dismissed, however, I think a sincere apology is a required part of the package. That was my only point. Here, I must respectfully disagree. A sincere apology is sincere because the person making means it. It doesn't matter whether the person who was wronged decides to extend forgiveness or not. It's not a negotiation: the apology shouldn't be contingent on forgiveness nor should a wronged person feel compelled to offer forgiveness in return. The apology is in a real sense its own reward.

I worked at a company that had mandatory diversity training that included a unit on sexual harassment. We had something even more valuable, though: men who were willing to call out other men when they engaged in behavior that demeaned and degraded women.

As far as I'm concerned, sharing explicit photos of anyone — company member or no, woman or man — without their express and freely-given consent is a firing offense. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the company should actively police its employees' private communications for infractions. Should it be presented with incontrovertible evidence that infractions have occurred, however, then yes, immediate dismissal is appropriate. And speaking as a member of the audience: if that means that the company has to reach down into the pe-professional program at the Dolly Dinkle Academy of Dance to cast the next three seasons, that's fine with me. As Charles De Gaulle pointed out, the graveyards are full of of indispensable men. If the company decides that it can and should re-admit an offender back into its ranks, it shouldn't do so unless there's been an open, explicit apology. A good apology is more than the usual, tepid "I'm sorry if anyone was offended." Skidmore sociology professor David Karp has laid out five criteria for evaluating celebrity apologies. An apology should include an explanation of the harm done to the person or people receiving the apology. It should include an admission of the perpetrator’s role in causing that harm, an “acknowledgment of personal responsibility and avoidance of denials or minimizing.” Perpetrators should express remorse. They should explain which behaviors they are committed to stopping now that they understand the harm they’ve caused. Finally, they should explain what they will do to make amends. These are taken from a Dec 5, 2017 Vox article by Anna North entitled "How to apologize for sexual harassment." Vox's Today Explained podcast for Aug 30, 2018 also featured a good discussion of this issue with an actual example of a well-done apology. You can listen here. I also highly recommend a Sep 10, 2018 Vox article by David Roberts entitled "What so many men are missing about #MeToo." Roberts points out that "The fate of abusers ought to be the least of our worries," but that alas, it isn't. Finally, "freely-given consent" is more than just saying "Yes." I means without coercion, which can include explicit or implicit threats of harm, be it physical, emotional, or social.

Thank you for posting this, Sappho. I would only add that dance companies — like nearly every collective enterprise, be it artistic, commercial, or charitable — is also a community. As such, it will have norms in addition to rules. Good communities have the kind of norms that foster things like fairness, reciprocity, tolerance, mutual regard, empathy, openness, and emergent leadership. What good communities don't require is a daddy. ETA: I added "tolerance" to the list, although one would hope it would be obvious.

School of American Ballet, Inc. and New York City Ballet, Inc. are in fact separate legal entities. They file separate IRS 990s, have different EINs (Federal tax ID numbers), file separate CHAR 500s with the New York State Charities Bureau, have different New York State registration numbers, and prepare separate financial statements. They each have their own Boards of Directors, corporate officers, and administrative and professional staffs. They have separate endowments and do not have any material assets in common. They are each separate constituents of Lincoln Center. They do share an Administrative Director, but that AD is employed and compensated separately by each organization; they could have separate ADs if they wished, and someday might. The two organizations are obviously closely affiliated, but an SAB student is NOT "a student at New York City Ballet, Inc." Ms. Waterbury's lawyer needs to sharpen his pencil. For EINs, search here: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/ For NYS Charities Bureau filings, search here: https://www.charitiesnys.com/RegistrySearch/search_charities.jsp For SAB financial statements, go here: https://www.sab.org/school/financials/ For NYCB financial statements, go here: https://www.nycballet.com/About/Annual-Reports.aspx

Nanny cams are cheap and easy to use. Just type “nanny cam” into the Amazon search bar and you’ll find over a dozen to choose from, including one that looks like a clock radio. I’m not saying Finlay set up a nanny cam, just that one doesn’t have to be a an AV wizard to film someone on the sly.

[Admin note: this post was in response to a post that was deleted among about a half dozen in response to a post that was so over the line, I decided I couldn't let stand, but couldn't edit to make the discussion coherent, and threw out the baby with the bathwater. The original fork noted silence among dancers in the Company.] In addition, I suspect many of them may still be grappling with their own conflicting thoughts and emotions. It's easy to express disgust at something in the abstract, or at things that have taken place somewhere else involving no one that you know. It's quite a different matter when you learn that a friend, colleague, or loved one has done something reprehensible. In that situation, one's anger and disgust is doing battle with one's loyalty and affection. (Trust me, I've been there.) I think we can and should grant the dancers some space to come to grips with the situation, sort out their own feelings — which may be some complicated tangle of anger, shock, sorrow, resentment, self-reproach, denial, and even forgiveness — and decide what they need to do as individuals, a community, and a company. ETA: and the same goes for all of the other people who work at NYCB, e.g., the musicians, the technical staff, the backstage crew, the costume shop, whoever. Company leadership of course needs to speak out publicly and clearly.

Got it! I actually don't think the ballet (or arts) workspace is all that radically different from many more work-a-day enterprises. I'm not sure how many of those Paglia has actually experienced. 😉

What are "regular workplace rules"? Where I've worked the only the formal rules 1) strictly enjoined romantic or sexual relationships when there was also a reporting relationship and 2) forbade coercion and harassment in any form. There were informal rules, of course: 1) keep it to yourselves, 2) don't let it interfere with work, and 3) don't exploit whatever power you might have. And I absolutely agree that power imbalances, peer pressure, and even subtle coercion have no place in any workplace, whether the arts happen there or not.

I have no idea what Paglia means by a "less rigid sex code," but I certainly think that freely consenting adults can have as much sex as they'd like with whomever they like without abusing and harassing each other. Taking explicit pictures of someone and sharing them without their express, freely given consent doesn't violate a sex code: it violates human decency and every individual's right to privacy, dignity, and self determination.

If you use Apple products - e.g., an iPhone and a Mac laptop - it is very easy to send and receive text messages (via iMessage) to and from a cell phone on your computer. I do it all the time when I'm working on my computer.

I don't know what the legal implications are of naming a third person who isn't a party to the suit, especially when that person participated in the activities that form the central part of the complaint. It may be that the donor is someone Ms. Waterbury's lawyer would prefer not to tangle with at this time.

No, it doesn't sound like a few friends getting together, but it needn't have been a charity event for there to be speeches and a microphone. It could have been a wedding, a big birthday bash, a retirement party, a bar mitzvah, the celebration of a special achievement - who knows? And the point is, we don't know. I haven't decided if the complaint is one of the sloppiest I've read or one of the most clever. As a coherent narrative of the facts and a robust presentation of the theory of the case, it leaves something to be desired. However, that very sloppiness allows us to draw damning inferences based on very few concrete details. For instance, the complaint doesn't say the donor was a "major donor" or an "important donor," nor does it state explicitly that the behavior took place at NYCB-sponsored events. It doesn't explain how or why NYCB would have knowledge of the donor's behavior. It merely states that the donor hosted parties, encouraged excessive alcohol consumption, and had his mike cut; it then states that the company took his money and allowed him to attend its events "regardless of his behavior." It leaves us to infer that that behavior took place at NYCB events, but doesn't say that it did. Look, I'm not saying that the donor wasn't a major check-writer, or that he didn't behave badly at NYCB events. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if that were the case. (Frankly, nothing in the complaint would surprise me, although it would certainly sadden and disgust me.) But the complaint doesn't come right out and say that. It could be because it is badly written, or it could be by design.

Lordy, yes, especially in NYC. If you are a young professional with, say, C-suite or fast-track partnership aspirations, you find yourself a prestigious charity fast, start writing checks, and get on a junior committee asap.

Oh, I've done that. 😉 If the speech referred to in the complaint (it appears to have been just one) was made during an NYCB function, then yes, it might have been someone who ponied up more than a few thousand. However, the complaint only states that the donor "hosted parties" where excessive alcohol consumption was encouraged and that his mike was cut during a speech. It doesn't state that the speech was made at an NYCB sponsored event.

The donor could easily have been someone with a previous connection to Finlay — a family friend, say, or the colleague of a friend or family member. Dancers can have friends that they make on their own, and those friends can be encouraged to become donors.