Princeton University Ballet Is Not Guilty of ‘White Supremacy’

I started ballet when I was three years old and never quit. I won multiple national titles and performed in the Rockettes’ Christmas Spectacular at Radio City Music Hall, the largest indoor theater in the world. I took a gap year after high school to dance in a ballet company. When I arrived at Princeton University, I learned that ballet is white supremacist.

As a freshman, I joined Princeton University Ballet, the student-run club for recreational ballet. Auditions are required for membership, and we perform a show each semester. We have the luxury of practicing in multi-million dollar studios with Steinway pianos. But recently, the club has gained a new feature by adopting a trendy moral initiative: combating systemic racism.

In 2020, Princeton University Ballet released a statement on the Black Lives Matter movement, claiming that “ballet exists within and benefits from systemic racism and structures of white supremacy” and announcing the club’s “responsibility to stand clearly against racism and anti-black injustices.” The club updated its mission statement to emphasize a commitment “to the pursuit of a more inclusive environment” and raised $7,010 to donate between Black Table Arts and HomeWorks Trenton.

Now, leaders of the ballet club have released an “action plan” detailing new efforts to promote anti-racism. Evidently, the enlightened mission requires a delicate fusion of narcissism and self-abnegation. The document asserts that “ballet is rooted in white supremacy and perfectionism. We are all entering this space with a mindset that what we see as perfect is a white standard.” Of course, there is an admission of guilt: “we want to acknowledge that our leadership and those who composed this plan are all white.”

The authors declare that they “aim to decolonize our practice of ballet, even as ballet remains an imperialist, colonialist, and white supremacist art form.” They remind us that “ballet is usually seen as an art form rooted in tradition,” but they “do not need to uphold the problematic work of historically renowned choreographers.” They never indulge us with any arguments or evidence; there is not a single source, citation, or statistic.

These students are not simply advocating reform of “problematic” practices within ballet. Rather, they maintain that the art itself is intrinsically sinful. A question emerges: Why do the leaders of a ballet club condemn ballet? We cannot liberate tradition from history. We cannot practice the discipline while destroying it. We cannot emancipate ballet from itself.

The underlying logics of extreme (il)liberalism are opposed: Any Western tradition with a majority of white participants is necessarily “white supremacist,” but exporting the tradition would be cultural imperialism akin to “colonization.” The accusation of “white supremacy” is calculated by the proportion of white participants in comparison to nonwhites. This adjudication is never adopted with respect to other races. Is a Latin dance group considered “Latino supremacist?” (Or is “Latinx supremacist” the correct spelling?)

Our auditions will “centralize artistry instead of technique.” Anyone can try ballet, but not everyone can be good, and that’s why real ballerinas are respectable. It strikes me as racist to argue that the standards for merit must be depreciated to accommodate minorities. Lowering the threshold for excellence to generate greater minority participation presupposes that members of such groups are incapable of demonstrating mastery.

It is dangerous to disregard skill in the context of athletics, as those without proper training risk serious injury. If the orchestra decides to feature underdeveloped musicians, then Tchaikovsky’s symphonies will be unpleasant, and people will stop buying tickets. That’s unfortunate, but not hazardous. The ballet club has failed to realize that accepting unqualified dancers potentially means hurting them. Apparently, feigning righteousness is more valuable than physical safety.

Instead of addressing such practical concerns, the club has now mandated that dancers do more than dance: “We hope to take steps to ensure that PUB membership, not just leadership, requires a commitment to [equity, diversity, and inclusion] work.” Accordingly, the leaders have issued a new decree: “Participation in service and outreach to local communities will become a requirement of every company member.”

I imagine readers wondering, “Why should I care about a tiny dance club at Princeton?” Today, these might be some random undergraduates, and it is easy to dismiss their activity as naive, inconsequential virtue-signaling. But these students will graduate soon, and they will implement similar demands when they occupy powerful positions at impressive companies and organizations. Their intolerant dogmatism will not be confined to campus grounds.

The ballet club’s anti-racism revelation indicates that no space, organization, or department is exempt from woke ideology masquerading as the requirements of virtue. Nearly all student organizations have adopted some enlightened “anti-racist” mission with an emphasis on “inclusivity.” Wokeness pervades the mundane aspects of campus life that should be nonpartisan.

My peers’ anti-racist testimony is troubling, even shameful. Still, I have difficulty blaming them. These students are simply mimicking our own university administrators. Their number includes our president, Christopher L. Eisgruber, who claims that “racism and the damage it does to people of color … persist at Princeton as in our society.” With statements such as “we must ask how Princeton can address systemic racism in the world, and we must also ask how to address it within our own community,” he has effectively authorized anti-racist initiatives.

Princeton as an institution encourages hyper-progressiveness. The ballet club expresses a desire to “add land acknowledgement to our shows, in addition to historical context in our programs.” The university issued a guide to land acknowledgments and provides an example: “The Land on which this building stands is part of the ancient homeland and traditional territory of the Lenape people. We pay respect to Lenape peoples past, present, and future and their continuing presence in the homeland and throughout the Lenape diaspora.” To the best of my knowledge, there’s no initiative to return any of the campus grounds or provide just compensation. There’s no action beyond virtue-signaling.

Most sane people have offered me the same advice: “Quit the club!” I find this guidance unimpressive, even disappointing. I will not let my peers’ ideology detract from my love for a beautiful art form. It would be a disservice — even a betrayal — to myself if I abandoned the sport that I spent years attempting to perfect; it required extreme physical, mental, and emotional effort to make the execution look effortless.

Conservatives consider wokeness laughable, reprehensible, maybe even deranged. Yet retreating from woke spaces only enables the ideology to flourish because there is no opposition or threat of exposure. Wokeness is especially dangerous if it remains unchallenged.