The lead article in the arts section of today's New York Times is a cheap hit at the Alvin Ailey dance troupe for hiring the son-in-law of the chairwoman of the dance troupe's board as the architect to design a new, $47.5 million headquarters for the group.
There's a gotcha, accusatory tone that runs through the entire article. If the Times wants to complain that the building is ugly, or, once it is erected, that the roof leaks, that is one thing. But to lodge such a prominently placed objection to the choice of an architect merely because the architect's mother-in-law happens to be Joan Weill, the chairwoman of the dance troupe, seems unjustified.
It would be like someone objecting to the New York Times Company's choice of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. as publisher of the Times and chairman of the Times company merely because his father, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, held the same jobs. If someone wants to complain that young Mr. Sulzberger is not qualified for the job, or that he puts out a paper that is often slow, inaccurate and biased, that would be one thing. But the Times this morning goes after Alvin Ailey for lacking "written guidelines" to cover "conflict-of-interest issues," and for failing to interview other candidates or hold a formal competition. Imagine if the same standards the Times wants to apply to Alvin Ailey's choice of architects were applied to the Times company's choice of a publisher. (Or, for that matter, the company's choice of any of the other Ochs-Sulzberger family relatives salted away throughout the company as executives.)
The Times article this morning makes a faint effort to draw a distinction on the grounds that "nonprofits are held in the public trust." But the Times has made a claim that its journalistic responsibilities amount to a public trust, and, in any case, as a publicly traded company, it has responsibilities to its public shareholders. The Times article today doesn't quote or mention a single Alvin Ailey donor or board member who is upset about the situation. There is, arguably, a public interest in the Alvin Ailey situation because the group is tax-exempt. Still, the notion of the New York Times working itself into a lather about a low-grade case that seems to involve the mere appearance of nepotism, if that, is pretty hypocritical.