Will Students Be Forced to Dance in the Streets?

Harvard dancers have begun a letter-writing campaign because in less than three years, the primary dance performance and rehearsal space on campus will be disappearing. The Harvard administrators assigned to solve the impending space crunch have shamefully dragged their feet. In fact, three and a half years have passed since the Rieman Dance Center was signed over to the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study and a six-year transition lease was signed; now most of the time provided to prevent a devastating continuity crisis has been squandered. Administrators are finally taking action, but it may be too late. The long neglect of this problem shows subtle discrimination against women, since dancers are disproportionately female. Just as disappointing as gender bias, however, is the way in which this issue suggests a marked disrespect in the Harvard administration for both the arts and undergraduate education.

What if Harvard lost its football stadium? There is little question how quickly University President Lawrence H. Summers would act to ensure complete continuity in the program. And while the priority—or lack thereof—given to dance at Harvard is probably not due to any overt gender bias, the resulting effect will predominantly hurt undergraduate women. This neglect is discrimination “in effect if not intent,” to use a phrase with which Summers is surely familiar. Had the administration given this issue the priority it deserved back in 1999, the potential damage to dance could have been averted.

The administration seems to have recently realized the seriousness of losing the Rieman Center. Associate Dean of the College David P. Illingworth ’71 said last month, “There is nothing facing me right now that’s more important.” Illingworth also says administrators waited to address the problem until Radcliffe decided once and for all it would convert Rieman into an unusable space for dance after the lease ends. That decision did not occur until last spring. Nonetheless, for three years the College idly sat by while Radcliffe made its decision—which seemed the inevitable decision anyway.

In the administration’s defense, the long-term solution is incredibly difficult and complex. One of the Rieman Center’s most unique and valuable assets is its versatility—the way it can be quickly converted to a performance space from a rehearsal space in just hours. To fill the void for performance space, it was hopeful either a renovated Hasty Pudding theater or the Loeb Drama Center mainstage would suffice. Neither of these performance space solutions seem viable. Renovations on the Pudding have been repeatedly delayed, and even if they ever finish, the stage is likely to remain raked, too small and a plain safety hazard for dancers. The Loeb, on the other hand, is mired in another set of issues related to the American Repertory Theatre (ART), which administers the building. Although the Loeb was built expressly for undergraduates in 1960, undergraduate mainstage access is limited to just four productions a year. A 2000 student proposal to secure an additional slot for a dance production was rejected. Recent dance productions such as “Against the Grain” last fall and “Perpetual Motion” in the spring of 1999—which was the first dance production on the Loeb mainstage in 20 years—have been forced to compete with plays and musicals for the dearth of slots available.

The impending loss of practice space is even more distressing. Currently, more than 18 student dance organizations vigorously compete for space alongside 15 extracurricular courses in ballet, modern, jazz, tap and West African dance. These courses alone attract more than 600 Harvard students and others. Without the Rieman Center, these dance programs could be devastated. The only near-comparable facility is the Malkin Athletic Center, but that space is already nearly impossible to reserve because of athletic recreation classes focusing on dance.

The only other long-term solution on the horizon is Allston, and the College needs to take tangible steps toward building—or at least considering—a new facility across the river. This new versatile performing arts center—a modern Loeb done right—for both undergraduates and the ART will free up significant performance slots in Cambridge while simultaneously providing ample rehearsal space. It’s not an ideal solution, but it’s probably the only solution.

In the short-term, however, administrators must do more than give lip service to finding dance a new home; they must guarantee Harvard will do anything and everything possible to ensure the life of the program. Illingworth said Harvard is considering certain local church spaces as one possible temporary solution. If their last-ditch efforts fail, the College must actively consider a renegotiation of its Rieman Center lease. Although Radcliffe has legitimate claims to the center, such as the desire to have its faculty in close proximity to one another, Harvard simply cannot afford to give up on dance in the short-term. If it is truly a priority of the College, then Illingworth must prove it.

A new facility in six years was never a real possibility, yet in negotiating the Rieman lease Harvard has seemed willing to sacrifice this essential aspect of undergraduate life—disproportionately affecting women—in favor of furthering its budding graduate institute. Ironically, Radcliffe was once the home of undergraduate women. Because there has been no action for so long, we now find ourselves at a critical juncture; Illingworth and Summers must prove that dance, the arts and undergraduate life are as high a priority as they often claim. An Allston complex is years, if not decades away. We need a guarantee of a short-term solution, including if need be a renegotiated lease. The football team wouldn’t ask for anything less.

Benjamin J. Toff ’05, a Crimson editor, is a social studies concentrator in Winthrop House.