Unlike the paper edition of the New York Times, which is frozen once it comes off the presses, the digital edition of the Times gives readers a chance to see how often the paper's headline writers get it wrong (the journalists who file articles seldom write the headlines).
The headline yesterday was "Special screenings and performances of black films and plays tailored for black audiences can feel especially welcoming."
In my view, this was an alienating and careless headline, one that would discourage many from reading any farther—precisely the opposite of what a good headline should do.
Today's headline is much better, and actually more accurately reflects the content of the article:
"At ‘Black Out’ Performances, the Power of Healing Through Community."
The first headline was click bait, and it generated lots of negative comments from people who never got past the headline to read the article.
The Times, as the 'newspaper of record,' really needs to examine its headline practices—do it want to inform, or inflame?
3
I am white.
Do the commenters here drawing an equivalency between the experiences of an all-black audience at a show about racial injustice, and an all-white audience, understand that we live in a society with a white majority and a long history of violence towards people of culture that we are still living out?!?!
NO, it is not the same as advertising a white-only anything because the context is different depending upon your race!
How hard is that to understand?!?
6
@Birdpants your passion for equality is admirable but you’re completely wrong. Here in America in our quest for equal rights among all people no one is served by regressively isolating racial groups. You can pretend that the separate but equal idea works for black people in one context but not in another, but the fact is racism is racism even if you suffer from white guilt. If there aren’t enough black people seeing things on Broadway, then they should buy more tickets for themselves rather than have performances for blacks-only. If black people don’t wanna come to the theater, then there’s nothing we can do to stop them. Making shows, or events of any kind really, depending on the color of your skin is a recipe for more divisiveness, and frankly, violence. And if you disagree with this idea then the fact is, whatever it is, white people get to do it too.
11
"Just be certain that inclusivity is not forced — not all black people feel most comfortable in predominantly black settings — and is intersectional, crossing multiple identities and multiple cultural backgrounds, Dr. Shim said."
Yeah - be sure that the EXclusivity is enforced. That's better.
This seems like a bad idea on so many levels. But we are apparently being asked to be satisfied with the opinions of those who were instrumental in the presentation, alone...as though there would be any involved in presenting the concept who would be less than enthused about it in print.
I'm sorry - this is groupthink.
13
So, can someone ask the audience what they now think of white people who feel more comfortable - and a warm feeling of acceptance - when there are no black people in the room? Asking for a friend.
14
Rather than thinking about this as excluding, think of it as creating an affinity space for Black people. In theaters outside Black neighborhoods, and especially on Broadway, the space is a default White affinity space. White people like me don't need to think about this, because we are rarely the only or one of very few White people. We don't think about it, and we don't often question it. Why would we question a community choosing to engage in art and theater and discussion together, and why would we question a theater dedicating one performance--or more!--to that community? Forget the optics. Honor the community.
7
In the two Black out performances I've been to in Boston, no one was
prohibited who wasn't Black. It was clear who the evening was intended for and most people who weren't Black, didn't attend
5
How's this for a headline:
Special screenings and performances of white films and plays tailored for white audiences can feel especially welcoming.
13
Is this news paper only for black people? Sure seems that way. Maybe I should be reading the WSJ, where all the news isn’t tinged with white guilt.
16
Whaaaaaat?? i am just squinting and shaking my head. Is this really necessary, isn't it patronizing - not to mention as Brad from Houston says "the optics just arent right", I mean switch the color to say all 804 seats were reserved for whites only and wow you really want to go there. Is it that hard for black people to buy an off broadway ticket and see a show - do we have to infantilize them and make a safe space for them - nahhhhh - this is really silly
16
No white folks ?
Is that what we really want ?
10
The NYT wouldn't be covering this in positive terms if it were a bunch of white folks who didn't feel comfortable around a bunch of people of color.
10
@Uncommon Wisdom That’s why they put it in the style section, instead of listing it under arts, or theater, where more people would see it and have a negative reaction.
3
This is deeply wrong and no better than any whites only spaces of the Jim Crow years. In fact, it is worse since we now know better. At least most of us.
11
Let me guess "White-Out" performances are still racist and totally unacceptable.
12
The optics just don't seem right here. Is that even legal to exclude someone because of their race?
23
@Brad If they're charging money, it's probably not legal. If they're giving away the tickets and it's a private performance, then it probably is. Not clear from the article how the tickets are distributed.
3
The story should have discussed that. I read another article, from American Theatre magazine, that said the producers basically bought out the theatre and distributed all the tickets for that performance to organizations of black students in the NYC area and other community groups. It was kind of word of mouth, I guess. I don't think it's unheard of for a group to buy out an entire performance for a fundraiser or something like that.
3