Diversifying the Symphony

In reading through the comments of my colleagues and Ann’s wonderful introductory statement, I sense that this a great opportunity to look at many facets of this issue. I must say having more brass players involved is always a good thing. Some of the aspects that have already been raised include:

• The myth of “the best player”

• The misconception that “blind auditions” equals sufficient access in the 21st century

• The myth that “blind auditions” are the best process for choosing employees (wonderfully dissected in the most recent VDP)

• The prized cultural value of “conformity” over “difference” in orchestras

• The “pipeline” issue. Who’s responsible for feeding and monitoring it?

• The advocacy of “more education” as a panacea to diversity is ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst

• Our industry seems oblivious (conscious or not) to the depth of racism historically in our field, its manifestations today, and the lasting impact its systems of disenfranchisement has had on diversity efforts.

I will access each of these throughout the week.

Ann asks, “Should we care about the diversity in orchestras?

In one sense, given that hundreds apply to most orchestra positions every year, the orchestra field doesn’t have to care about this issue to get a reasonably qualified person to fill the job. The fact that there are many highly qualified minority players who aren’t even interested in auditioning and that large segments of the population do not feel sufficiently reflected or served by orchestras to support it could be reasons enough for orchestras to care about diversity. Frankly, if they really want “the best player available,” respect their pledge under their 501(c) 3 tax-status to serve the public interest, and care about their future viability and relevance, each and every employee and volunteer of the orchestra should care.

Ann also asks, “Is it the job of orchestras to attempt to increase the numbers of African-American and Latino musicians hired, especially if this might mean not hiring the very best player for a position?”

Of course it’s the orchestra’s job to attempt to increase the numbers hired, but that doesn’t mean quality suffers. IBM, Intel, and major cities feel it is their job to impact their workforce. Why not orchestras? The bigger question is who “owns” the orchestra, meaning who will make it happen? If the public truly owns its orchestra, which legally it does, and they care about this enough, then the audience and donors will and must make the orchestra care. If the orchestra’s paid and volunteer leadership does, as was evidenced around 2000 by key board and staff members of the Chicago Symphony, then it becomes their job. If musicians do, and they don’t see any artistic, business, values-driven, or moral reasons for this, then they won’t go out of their way to look internally and examine their work culture and look externally to find people to encourage and mentor.

I wonder why do we often equate fairness with lowering quality? When women became more prevalent in orchestras, the sexist concerns at the time were whether women would disturb the continuity (read quality) of the orchestra by being away having children or if women had sufficient “stamina for the job.” Now, actively broadening the pool of qualified minority applicants implies that the orchestra will be forced to “not hire the very best player.” As Jeff said, “If I believed that my race had anything to do with why I was hired, I would always wonder how my colleagues really felt about me and if they held any resentment towards my appointment.”

The psychological “trip” on all involved in this type of phrasing has been wonderfully effective at short-circuiting this discussion and is reminiscent of Dr. Frank Luntz. Who wants to be psychologically shackled with that responsibility? The fact is you can only hire the best person who is available to you (read who auditions) in the time period in which you need to hire someone.