WSJ Article on Possible Misty Copeland Promotion

[Plisskin]

Hayward is great, and I hope she becomes a principal at the RB one day. She has also distanced herself from conversations about institutional racism in ballet, which is her prerogative. I imagine that if she attempted to start a conversation, she would lose a lot of fans.

From the backlash Misty is getting, if she ever decides to do that she'll at least be prepared and know what to expect. But, from an outsider looking in, GB doesn't seem as bad as the U.S is in that regard. I remember Acosta talking about racism in ballet a couple of years ago and he faced no backlash. So it might be different for her.

[abatt]

I recall that California posted a subsequent response explaining what he/she meant and to clarify his/her position, but that explanatory, clarifying post was not provided above. Why am I not surprised.

[Pique Arabesque]

I'm sorry you seem to have so little faith in her fans.

Not all of her fans. But unfortunately, there would probably be a 50 page BA thread bemoaning why such a talented dancer has to play the "race card" to advance her career. (I hope Plisskin is right, though).

Ive enjoyed Albert Evans and Craig Hall and Carlos Acosta, and on video Arthur Mitchell.

Black men have been soloists/principals at major companies since the 1960s. There could always be more, of course. However, the bulk of my critique is focused on the dearth of black women in major companies (who rarely advance beyond the corps).

Neither I do not think Copeland's promotion is the culmination of an affirmative action/PR project, abetted by our 21st century culture of "political correctness." What I believe and the way you can tell this is because Ive actually said it is that while Copeland worked very hard to deserve promotion through her dancing, by portraying herself (no doubt because she believes it) as having had to overcome racism to make it to soloist, she put McKenzie in the very difficult spot of opening himself and the company to the same people who see racism in every criticism of her dancing to charges of racism had he not promoted her.

I guess I should be more specific here. I think the Copeland criticism falls into roughly two camps: the people who think she is a hack affirmative action ballet dancer, and the people who believe that while Copeland's dancing has some merits, she is punching above her weight class in the classics/has made race a tool to leverage a promotion. Even though the latter is a more polite-sounding sentiment than the former, both critiques are informed by the same logic. Furthermore, if McKenzie's makes personnel decisions based off of a fear of bad press, that says more about his leadership than it says about Misty.

What we see on this board is "a strain of polite" and sometimes not so polite insistence on finding what one wants to find, on reading racism into pretty much any criticism of Copeland, period.

I don't think that all criticism of Copeland is racist. Some people will not be fans, and that's okay. Unfortunately, much of what is written in this particular forum is exceedingly critical and vindictive towards Copeland. Kotchetkova and Seo are unpopular, too, but I've never read anyone attack their character on BA. TThe only thing that distinguishes Misty from them is skin color. Also, there are people who are not Copeland fans - Plisskin comes to mind - who have expressed discomfort with the tone of the conversations in the Copeland threads.

[sandik]

That "affirmative action" is a negative speaks volumes, when the purpose was to level the playing field by recognizing how that field was stacked. That the definition of "political correctness" requires a judging qualifier (ex: "the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.") when it was meant to invoke thoughtfulness and respect in expression, speaks many more.

Indeed.

All we seem to have proved, in hundreds of comments on multiple threads here, is that a young woman of color is unusual enough in the ballet world as it exists today, that we are turning ourselves in and out to discuss her.

While I don't think that anyone who participates here considers themselves to be racist, and indeed I imagine would be (and is) distraught at the suggestion, I fully admit that, as a white, middle-class woman raised in the suburbs, I have been and continue to be the beneficiary of a discriminatory society. In the same way that you cannot see the log in your own eye, I probably manifest all kinds of behaviors and beliefs that I would find objectionable in others.

This is something I struggle with all the time, and will likely continue to do so until I am dead.

Systemic racism exists. So does white fragility.

We cannot get any further with these issues if we keep taking offense at the conversation.

I am grateful for the community here, and their enthusiasm for an art form near to my heart. But I think I have to take a break from this part of the website.

[Helene]

Ok "There's no racism in America" kfw, here's one statement I found in the Misty Copeland thread:

California wrote:

http://balletalert.invisionzone.com/index.php?/topic/39465-misty-copeland/page-5?hl=+misty%20+copeland%20+vail

You don't see something dark in that sentiment? That her audiences are "underpriviledged"? That the "white, rich" communities of Vail will find her a "curiosity"? The equally ugly assumption that her "underpriviledged" audience won't have a car/means of transport to her performances?

The selective readings and straw man arguments have to stop. Now.

If you follow the post, California did not say that Copeland's entire audience was underprivileged, although it took a few sentences to clarify context. The target audience for outreach is usually underprivileged people and/or people who have not been exposed to dance. Whether the participants will translate into box office at VIDF is a real question, because the transportation issues and costs between Vail and outreach areas are formidable, due to lack of housing, ridiculous hotel rates, and unreliable and costly public transportation, unlike in NYC, where the economically underprivileged members of Copeland's audience can take the subway from home for $6.00 round-trip (at full price). This, of course, assumes that immediate audience-building is the goal, not long-term exposure to dance, meeting the terms of educational grants or funds, and/or good will, and this is an assumption I would question.

To assume that every black person is economically underprivileged is racist, and to assume that every black girl who is inspired by Copeland as a role model is poor is racist, but, not every economically underprivileged member of Copeland's audience is black or a minority, and not every mis-characterization, stereotype, and assumption about poor people is racist. Most are primarily classist, which is equally ugly and feeds into racism.

For the majority of people in the US who only know of Copeland through the media and who are her potential new audience -- locals and others alike -- she is a curiosity: that's the purpose of the type of PR that's been done on her behalf.

[kfw]

Black men have been soloists/principals at major companies since the 1960s. There could always be more, of course. However, the bulk of my critique is focused on the dearth of black women in major companies (who rarely advance beyond the corps).

No, actually the critique you made was that my comments evidenced racism. No one here to my knowledge has disputed what you wrote about, which is obviously true.

I guess I should be more specific here. I think the Copeland criticism falls into roughly two camps: the people who think she is a hack affirmative action ballet dancer, and the people who believe that while Copeland's dancing has some merits, she is punching above her weight class in the classics/has made race a tool to leverage a promotion. Even though the latter is a more polite-sounding sentiment than the former, both critiques are informed by the same logic.

Saying something is illogical isn’t the same as showing it’s illogical. A claim isn’t an argument. The alternatives I see your claim depending on are that Copeland is either too pure a soul to use an obvious advantage, or too dumb to know she can. Neither needs rebuttal.

Furthermore, if McKenzie's makes personnel decisions based off of a fear of bad press, that says more about his leadership than it says about Misty.

In other words, if someone gives way to pressure, that means there was no pressure.

much of what is written in this particular forum is exceedingly critical and vindictive towards Copeland. Kotchetkova and Seo are unpopular, too, but I've never read anyone attack their character on BA. TThe only thing that distinguishes Misty from them is skin color. Also, there are people who are not Copeland fans - Plisskin comes to mind - who have expressed discomfort with the tone of the conversations in the Copeland threads.

Plisskin is welcome to defend his own criticism if he or she can. Quote me saying something vindicative about Copeland. And show me someone whose character is entirely above criticism. Such people don’t exist. Respect means praise when it's merited, which I have given over and over, and it means criticizing when that's merited too. I know little about Kotchetkova and Seo, for the simple reason that they’re not in the news. I guess I’m a racist anyhow for knowing more about Copeland.

[Pique Arabesque]

Indeed.

All we seem to have proved, in hundreds of comments on multiple threads here, is that a young woman of color is unusual enough in the ballet world as it exists today, that we are turning ourselves in and out to discuss her.

While I don't think that anyone who participates here considers themselves to be racist, and indeed I imagine would be (and is) distraught at the suggestion, I fully admit that, as a white, middle-class woman raised in the suburbs, I have been and continue to be the beneficiary of a discriminatory society. In the same way that you cannot see the log in your own eye, I probably manifest all kinds of behaviors and beliefs that I would find objectionable in others.

This is something I struggle with all the time, and will likely continue to do so until I am dead.

Systemic racism exists. So does white fragility.

We cannot get any further with these issues if we keep taking offense at the conversation.

I am grateful for the community here, and their enthusiasm for an art form near to my heart. But I think I have to take a break from this part of the website.

Thank you for your honesty and insight.

[vipa]

Thank you for your honesty and insight.

All I have ever tried to say about Copeland is that I have seen her dance many, many times as a soloist. For me she is nothing special as a dancer. Most of the time she gets the job done. She doesn't have a virtuoso technique, she is not deeply musical, she does not offer a layered performance in dramatic roles, she does not bring a unique imagination to any roles. No one does all of these things but a principal dancer has to have some of these things. To me Copeland has none. Perhaps KM sees more in her than I do. Perhaps he sees potential that I don't see in a dancer who is in her 30's. I am deeply insulted by the insinuation that when I watch Copeland, the fact that her skin is darker than most of the other woman in the company influences my judgement. She is a beautiful woman who has a body that is an amazing instrument for ballet. Am I not allowed to conclude that her dancing is lacking and that either KM sees something I don't or he had to avoid the negative media that would hit if he didn't promoter her, or some combination of both? I feel sorry for the critics that have to deal with this. I doubt we'll ever read an honest review.

[Pique Arabesque]

All I have ever tried to say about Copeland is that I have seen her dance many, many times as a soloist. For me she is nothing special as a dancer. Most of the time she gets the job done. She doesn't have a virtuoso technique, she is not deeply musical, she does not offer a layered performance in dramatic roles, she does not bring a unique imagination to any roles. No one does all of these things but a principal dancer has to have some of these things. To me Copeland has none. Perhaps KM sees more in her than I do. Perhaps he sees potential that I don't see in a dancer who is in her 30's.

KM has cited her musicality as one of her most appealing attributes. He obviously sees something that you do not. However, there is nothing wrong with not liking Copeland, but there are people (not necessarily you) who are acting as if her promotion is the beginning of the end for ABT, which is hyperbolic. Regardless, it's a done deal.

I am deeply insulted by the insinuation that when I watch Copeland, the fact that her skin is darker than most of the other woman in the company influences my judgement.

You should not feel personally offended. Really, this issue is bigger than the both of us. I feel like most white fans wouldn't have an issue with a black dancer - given that she has a typical ballet body. But Copeland has become a punching bag on this site because she draws attention to institutional racism in ballet, which makes a lot of those fans uncomfortable.

I feel sorry for the critics that have to deal with this. I doubt we'll ever read an honest review.

You shouldn't feel sorry for critics - if they can't deal with criticism/backlash/dissent re their reviews, then they're in the wrong profession. Anyhow, pretty much every major Misty review that I have read has been honest about her strengths and weaknesses. I see no reason why that trend wouldn't continue.

[dirac]

>No, actually the critique you made was that my comments evidenced racism. No one here to my knowledge has disputed what you wrote about, which is obviously true.

>Saying something is illogical isn’t the same as showing it’s illogical. A claim isn’t an argument. The alternatives I see your claim depending on are that Copeland is either too pure a soul to use an obvious advantage, or too dumb to know she can. Neither needs rebuttal.

>In other words, if someone gives way to pressure, that means there was no pressure.

>Plisskin is welcome to defend his own criticism if he or she can. Quote me saying something vindicative about Copeland. And show me someone whose character is entirely above criticism. Such people don’t exist. Respect means praise when it's merited, which I have given over and over, and it means criticizing when that's merited too. I know little about Kotchetkova and Seo, for the simple reason that they’re not in the news. I guess I’m a racist anyhow for knowing more about Copeland.

Plisskin seems to be doing fine. And...since you have mentioned it -- you could know more about Seo and Kochetkova if you wished to do so, surely? The buzz around Copeland is not so insistent that it’s unavoidable; she’s getting a lot of attention for a ballet dancer, true, but that isn’t really saying all that much.

As for saying something vindictive about Copeland, -- again, since you have brought it up -- I should say that your posts and those of others taken altogether in these multiple threads speak eloquently for themselves. It’s not a matter of, “Gee, I criticized Misty Copeland for something and now these meanies think I’m a racist.” As Pique Arabesque observes, there have been many judicious criticisms made of Copeland’s dancing. I also don’t think the occasional suggestion that she’s a tad overexposed would be out of line, whether or not it’s arguable. (Personally, I don’t think she needs to refer to the “little brown girls” she wants to inspire any more. She sounds like George H. W. Bush.) But the kind of beating and insinuations that Copeland has taken in some quarters are not the usual, even by the passionate standards of balletomanes.

For what it’s worth, I suspect gender is also an issue here, and not only because historically it's been harder for black female ballet dancers to achieve acceptance than male ones. Copeland has been uncommonly forthright, even aggressive, about her ambition and goals – not what is expected of women, even today, and particularly not what is expected of female ballet dancers.

[Helene]

Copeland may be the only person on Ballet Alert! with more news about her than Kochetkova. I am convinced that MK owns one of those time shifting thingies that allow her to be in two places at once.

[kfw]

Plisskin seems to be doing fine. And...since you have mentioned it -- you could know more about Seo and Kochetkova if you wished to do so, surely? The buzz around Copeland is not so insistent that it’s unavoidable; she’s getting a lot of attention for a ballet dancer, true, but that isn’t really saying all that much.

As for saying something vindictive about Copeland, -- again, since you have brought it up -- I should say that your posts and those of others taken altogether in these multiple threads speak eloquently for themselves. It’s not a matter of, “Gee, I criticized Misty Copeland for something and now these meanies think I’m a racist.” As Pique Arabesque observes, there have been many judicious criticisms made of Copeland’s dancing. I also don’t think the occasional suggestion that she’s a tad overexposed would be out of line, whether or not it’s arguable. (Personally, I don’t think she needs to refer to the “little brown girls” she wants to inspire any more. She sounds like George H. W. Bush.) But the kind of beating and insinuations that Copeland has taken in some quarters are not the usual, even by the passionate standards of balletomanes.

For what it’s worth, I suspect gender is also an issue here, and not only because historically it's been harder for black female ballet dancers to achieve acceptance than male ones. Copeland has been uncommonly forthright, even aggressive, about her ambition and goals – not what is expected of women, even today, and particularly not what is expected of female ballet dancers.

Well, the subject of Seo and Kochetkova is a red herring, obviously as is the fact that talk of Copeland is avoidable. I could argue the point, but you haven’t even made an argument yourself. As for saying something vindictive about Copeland, you give no examples because there are none. Neither did Pique Arabesque when asked, just as canbelto couldn’t quote me saying there is no racism in America when challenged to do so . . . etc., etc., etc. Instead of a concrete, specific instances you mutter vaguely about “beatings and insinuations” and “some quarters,” and bring in another pet PC theory, gender bias (sure gender bias exists, but the point is you can't just trot it out, you have to show it). If you want what you say to be taken seriously, be serious.

Sandik wrote that “We cannot get any further with these issues if we keep taking offense at the conversation.” I make it a point in debates and discussions here and elsewhere to respond to every point addressed to me, where by rebutting it or acknowledging its validity. If I’ve left any unaddressed, that’s been unintentional. Some people in this country, still, don’t just speak their minds in debates; they also look for common ground and look for good motives and good reasons on the other side. That’s the way we get further on any issue – the way a debate sheds light and results in both sides understanding the other side’s view and maybe even modifying or changing it – not by one side (much though not all of it in this case) taking potshots, then taking refuge in sarcasm and generalities or fading away entirely when challenged, and then resurfacing later to cheer on the next guy trying the same strategy.

[variated]

As a London balletwatcher I haven't seen Misty dance live but just wanted to say that I am glad the moderators left this thread open and to thank pique arabesque, dirac and sandik in particular for the really excellent points they made. The deep deep conservatism of many ballet fans and their (sometimes aggressive) refusal to recognise this in themselves is a bugbear of mine and too often internet discussions get shut down before these important issues can be debated.

As regards Francesca Hayward, I would say that the RB followers embrace her wholeheartedly - she is tiny, delicate, pale-skinned, has a fairly "posh" accent, and her only interviews/articles have been intensely unthreatening "pretty ballerina star" puff pieces. However I have also wondered (as someone did up thread) whether there would be a pushback if she were to be perceived as at all "pushy" in interviews. I do agree that there is a gender issue here also - Steven McRae for example openly gave interviews early in his career saying "They know I'm ambitious, they have to make me a principal or else" and he didn't come in for much criticism in discussion forums (except for his rather cheesy stage persona, which is a different issue) whereas I've read quite a lot of ruffled feathers "she's getting above herself" criticism of Tamara Rojo, the most outspoken female principal at the Royal in recent years and now of course director at ENB.

I'm not saying that most posters on ballet forums start out expressly to be racist/sexist, and many of them are genuinely shocked to be called out on these things but I think it behoves all of us from time to time to reflect honestly on our reactions and responses and really consider whether they are driven in part by unconscious assumptions about race, gender or even class.

[Pique Arabesque]

kfw, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on these issues. Going through 200 plus pages of mean-spirited conversations about Copeland is not a fun way to spend one's morning.

dirac and Aurora - Thank you.

variated - Thank you as well! Ballerinas are avatars of femininity, and there are a lot of people who think they should be seen and not heard. Throw in the notion that black women are forward and aggressive, and you have a perfect storm.

[canbelto]

Well, the subject of Seo and Kochetkova is a red herring, obviously as is the fact that talk of Copeland is avoidable. I could argue the point, but you havent even made an argument yourself. As for saying something vindictive about Copeland, you give no examples because there are none. Neither did Pique Arabesque when asked, just as canbelto couldnt quote me saying there is no racism in America when challenged to do so . . . etc., etc., etc. Instead of a concrete, specific instances you mutter vaguely about beatings and insinuations and some quarters, and bring in another pet PC theory, gender bias (sure gender bias exists, but the point is you can't just trot it out, you have to show it)[/size]. If you want what you say to be taken seriously, be serious.

Sandik wrote that We cannot get any further with these issues if we keep taking offense at the conversation. I make it a point in debates and discussions here and elsewhere to respond to every point addressed to me, where by rebutting it or acknowledging its validity. If Ive left any unaddressed, thats been unintentional. Some people in this country, still, dont just speak their minds in debates; they also look for common ground and look for good motives and good reasons on the other side. Thats the way we get further on any issue the way a debate sheds light and results in both sides understanding the other sides view and maybe even modifying or changing it not by one side (much though not all of it in this case) taking potshots, then taking refuge in sarcasm and generalities or fading away entirely when challenged, and then resurfacing later to cheer on the next guy trying the same strategy.[/size]

Kfw that is rich. You say that in these hundreds of posts about Misty Copeland there's not a single example of anything "vindictive" about Copeland? Denial is more than a river in Egypt.

[Helene]

kfw wrote, "As for saying something vindictive about Copeland, you give no examples because there are none." In the context of this discussion, he was talking about himself: he feels no one has given an example of him being vindictive about Copeland.

Kfw that is rich. You say that in these hundreds of posts about Misty Copeland there's not a single example of anything "vindictive" about Copeland? Denial is more than a river in Egypt.

I've made this warning before and this is my last: do not misrepresent what other people say or do not post.

[Helene]

I am going to use kfw as a guinea pig. (The price of being a Moderator.) He has argued that Copeland lied by claiming to be the first black female soloist at ABT. I could look at this and post that by characterizing her action as such, raising it, and responding to the issue several times in several threads, it's a tactic right out of the Ken Starr playbook, one that has been used consistently by Fox News and much of the right-wing media: make a big issue out of a small or no issue and repeat it so that people hear it enough and start to doubt.

However, kfw has posted on this site for a long time, and there are plenty of examples having nothing to do with race or Copeland in which he's expressed his personal standards for behavior, and his opinion on Copeland's claim is completely consistent with his standards and why it would be an important issue for him.

As kfw also has said in other contexts, there's nothing mutually exclusive or incompatible about this, which makes both point-by-point rebuttals and whole-cloth assessments difficult to argue. There are a lot of intertwined and complex inputs that go into the equation. It's not simple to parse them out.

I have no doubt that anyone who has followed this, any of the Copeland threads, and the ABT roster, performance, who-do-you-want-to-see-promoted, etc. threads, and has thought about it, has his or her own opinion about whether posts and posters are racist, deliberately or un-selfconsciously, or not racist based on what they've posted here, ie., the data. We know it when we see it, and we smell it when we smell it, or there's nothing to see, or there's no odor, but that doesn't translate very well in this format, unless we turn Ballet Alert! into most of the free-for-all comments sections on the internet.

If Copeland has been following these threads, I hope she has had the option of a Big-Gulp-sized mimosa before hand. But I suspect if she has (read them), she's learned little that she didn't already know.

[dirac]

Well, the subject of Seo and Kochetkova is a red herring, obviously as is the fact that talk of Copeland is avoidable. I could argue the point, but you haven’t even made an argument yourself. As for saying something vindictive about Copeland, you give no examples because there are none. Neither did Pique Arabesque when asked, just as canbelto couldn’t quote me saying there is no racism in America when challenged to do so . . . etc., etc., etc. Instead of a concrete, specific instances you mutter vaguely about “beatings and insinuations” and “some quarters,” and bring in another pet PC theory, gender bias (sure gender bias exists, but the point is you can't just trot it out, you have to show it).

Sandik wrote that “We cannot get any further with these issues if we keep taking offense at the conversation.” I make it a point in debates and discussions here and elsewhere to respond to every point addressed to me, where by rebutting it or acknowledging its validity. If I’ve left any unaddressed, that’s been unintentional. Some people in this country, still, don’t just speak their minds in debates; they also look for common ground and look for good motives and good reasons on the other side. That’s the way we get further on any issue – the way a debate sheds light and results in both sides understanding the other side’s view and maybe even modifying or changing it – not by one side (much though not all of it in this case) taking potshots, then taking refuge in sarcasm and generalities or fading away entirely when challenged, and then resurfacing later to cheer on the next guy trying the same strategy.

You were the one who said you didn't know much about those two dancers and that you knew more about Copeland because of the media fuss. I was responding to that.

If you want what you say to be taken seriously, be serious. That’s the way we get further on any issue – the way a debate sheds light and results in both sides understanding the other side’s view and maybe even modifying or changing it – not by one side (much though not all of it in this case) taking potshots, then taking refuge in sarcasm and generalities or fading away entirely when challenged, and then resurfacing later to cheer on the next guy trying the same strategy.

I presume this is your manner of describing what you regard as my M.O. in these threads. I do not always have the time, inclination, or, frankly, the stamina and intestinal fortitude to post here and very often someone else makes a good point before I do.

I don't know who you're referring to when you say "the next guy trying the same strategy" (no, that is not an invitation or a demand for you to name names), but it seems to me that many valiant posters here have taken up the cudgels in exactly the way you claim you desire them to do, without making a good deal of headway.

No one is under any obligation to take the unserious seriously, including yourself, of course.

I am sorry that you choose to characterize gender bias as a "pet P.C. theory." As you note, it does indeed exist, and I don't think it's out of line to speculate that it may be operating here to some degree.

[volcanohunter]

Steven McRae for example openly gave interviews early in his career saying "They know I'm ambitious, they have to make me a principal or else" and he didn't come in for much criticism in discussion forums (except for his rather cheesy stage persona)

This is an interesting thought. One ABT dancer who openly expressed his ambitions and for whom this seems to have backfired was Giuseppe Picone, and as it happens I found his stage persona very cheesy. Perhaps off-stage personalities and onstage personae are not such discrete and disentangled entities. I must confess that I dislike brashly assertive personalities in both men and women, and part of my antipathy for certain dancers may well stem from their projection of this quality. But I would have to monitor myself to see whether I respond merely with eye-rolling in the case of cocky male dancers and with something more violent with brassy women.

[kfw]

Helene wrote:

I am going to use kfw as a guinea pig. (The price of being a Moderator.)

LOL. I knew I shoulda read the fine print.

He has argued that Copeland lied by claiming to be the first black female soloist at ABT. I could look at this and post that by characterizing her action as such, raising it, and responding to the issue several times in several threads, it's a tactic right out of the Ken Starr playbook, one that has been used consistently by Fox News and much of the right-wing media: make a big issue out of a small or no issue and repeat it so that people hear it enough and start to doubt.

However, kfw has posted on this site for a long time, and there are plenty of examples having nothing to do with race or Copeland in which he's expressed his personal standards for behavior, and his opinion on Copeland's claim is completely consistent with his standards and why it would be an important issue for him.

I understand that you still greatly object to things I’ve said, but you didn’t have to write what you wrote above, and I thank you for it.

dirac, when I refer to gender bias as a pet PC theory, I’m not denigrating the theory, and I’m not minimizing gender bias and its prevalence. I’m taking issue with the way you deployed the theory. Earlier this evening I wrote more on this and on the rest of what you say, but I’m going to go with the short version: It would bother me too if I thought Copeland was the subject of unfair criticism; I would push back against that criticism too; I respect you for pushing back against what you think you see; but I don't appreciate the way you've argued.

[dirac]

dirac, when I refer to gender bias as a pet PC theory, I’m not denigrating the theory, and I’m not minimizing gender bias and its prevalence. I’m taking issue with the way you deployed the theory

kfw, I refer you back to what you originally wrote.

I respect you for pushing back against what you think you see; but I don't appreciate the way you've argued.

Yes, you've made that amply clear. Since you've brought it up, all I can say is: Physician, heal thyself.

[mussel]

NYT op-ed on Misty's promotion: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/opinion/black-dancers-white-ballets.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

[fondoffouettes]

NYT op-ed on Misty's promotion: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/opinion/black-dancers-white-ballets.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

I very much appreciate this article for putting Copeland's promotion within a broader historical context.

I find this paragraph to be particularly powerful:

"Lest the door slams shut behind Ms. Copeland, we must acknowledge the achievements of the artists who paved the way for her, and we must train and nurture black ballet dancers and choreographers, and cultivate audience diversity. If we fail to do so, it is not just aspiring black dancers who will suffer, but ballet in general that will do so — by missing out on the talents of the next Misty Copeland and by failing to appeal to 21st-century audiences."

I think it's a lot harder to get people to care about these issues than it is to make them feel invested in a single dancer's narrative, but I think these are important issues that really need to be examined. (They also affect many other performing art forms to a greater or lesser degree, so it's not just a ballet issue.)

[Helene]

I think that is a cousin to Theresa Ruth Howard's discussion about how there is room for one story.

I just finished reading Bill Russell's book "Red and Me," and he wrote about the unofficial quota in the NBA at the time, one that capped the number of black players to three. Like with the Negro leagues, it was clear what talent was playing in an elite league or in the pipeline. (In the case of basketball, it was college basketball, and the talent was out in the open, for people willing to look.)

It is great to see more and more companies starting to hire black ballerinas as corps and apprentices, but we are pretty much blind to who is in the pipeline, and the Misty phenomenon of inspiring young women to take notice of ballet and to believe they could become professionals will take years to come to fruition. It would be disheartening if Copeland's promotion was singular, and it was another false start, like the Lochard-Ash-Kamara years at NYCB and then, for a long time, nada.