Doesn't what Ms. Whelan wants count? Gia Kourlas gives no evidence that she knows what that is or has sought to know. Or cares. This is arrogance. Is it not possible that Ms. Whelan wants neither to take on additional duties (her plate is quite full) nor to participate in a PR charade by taking on a title without the duties it implies? In other words, is it not possible that it is Gia Kourlas who is confusing PR and reality?
13
the good news though is both are equally talented and they will make nycb even better.. kudos for two excellent choices and whatever the titles are they will get the job done!!!
4
“Ms. Whelan gets out into the world — recently, I’ve seen her at New York Live Arts and the Museum of Modern Art.”
Well, I guess that qualifies as “the world” by New York standards. I couldn't make this stuff up...
3
@JL Williams You realize the NYTimes is our local paper, of course, and the point is that she is moving outside the dance world in NYC, where we live.
3
Isn't it possible thay after a year of extensive analysis and interviewing, the Board made a sensible decision without regard to gender? And while Ms. Kourlas is entitled to her opinion, on what basis should Ms. Whelan have been given a "co"-title? Experience? Qualifications? Gender? Desire?
6
"But there’s a problem here: equality. "
The author seems to be searching for a problem. It that simply because it's the flavor of the month ?
Ms. Whelan and Mr. Stafford seem to have different roles.
The board named one of them "director" and the other one "associate director".
The author does not cite any proof or even opinion that the two are doing the same job. There is no claim that Ms. Whelan thinks she should be a "co-director".
There seems to be a relentless urge to apply the term "inequality" to just about every circumstance involving a white male and any other person who is a non-white-male.
If there is a strong argument that this was a case of inequality, the author did not provide it (IMHO).
This weakens our focus on situations involving real inequality.
18
@G The company/the board is looking to have it's cake and stay in the stone ages, too --- they want credit for elevating a woman to a leadership role for the first time, or else why should Whelan have shared the stage with Stafford?) but they don't want her to control finances or casting. The author is calling attention to the fact that the announcement is one thing; the reality, another. Separating PR from fact is the job of a journalist. and this article does a good job.
12
@G So how exactly is anyone qualified to serve as a "co-artistic director," let alone an artistic director, of a world class ballet company if they have no substantial experience (a) choreographing, (b) staging works, (c) commissioning and working with guest choreographers, and (d) selecting repertoire?
The Board made a great move putting Ms. Whelan in a leadership position - she certainly deserves the opportunity. I hope she proves me and everyone else wrong, and shows that she was born to serve in this role. But the fact is, she just does not have that experience, and she did not successfully run the company for over a year through a very tumultuous time, as Mr. Stafford did.
Overall, I think things are off to a great start, and it does not feel constructive to the company's promising new beginning to turn this into a somewhat contrived issue of gender equality.
3
@Bernard: It's interesting how men do not see "anything wrong" with this, while women see the point. She is the FIRST woman in a leadership position there. Ever. Let that sink in. And they still did not trust her enough to lead by herself. She has a male boss.
9