Conserving Excellence and Progressing Access

As the classical music field continues to wrestle with questions of access, excellence, and belonging, I’ve found it useful to borrow a framing more commonly applied to politics: the tension between conservative and progressive values.

Not as caricatures. Not as moral judgments. But as fundamentally different orientations toward change.

At their core, conservative traditions seek to preserve what works and protect inherited standards, practices, and institutions from erosion or dilution. Progressive traditions, by contrast, see social systems as unfinished works in progress that must adapt as our understanding of talent, fairness, and human potential evolves.

Both instincts exist in the arts. And both, when left unchecked, can cause harm.

Who Gets in the Room

In classical music, conservatism often shows up as a commitment to long-standing markers of excellence: early access to elite training, mastery of a narrow canon, fluency in unspoken cultural norms, and endorsement by trusted gatekeepers. These traditions are defended not out of malice, but out of fear that loosening criteria will weaken standards or compromise artistic rigor.

Progressive instincts ask a different question: What if the room itself has been too small? What if our definitions of readiness, promise, and professionalism are shaped less by innate ability and more by access to resources, safety nets, and mentorship?

At Equity Arc, this tension is not theoretical. Every investment we make sits at the intersection of conserving excellence and expanding opportunity.

Oboist Zachary Allen accepting a solo bow by Riccardo Muti at the 2023 Equity Arc Pathways Orchestra Festival in partnership with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.

Proving Worth Once at the Table

Even when access is granted, another conservative reflex often takes hold: prove you belong. Young musicians from historically excluded backgrounds are frequently asked to demonstrate not just excellence, but gratitude, resilience, cultural fluency, and emotional restraint often to a higher standard than their peers.

Progressive approaches challenge this asymmetry. They ask whether our systems confuse potential with polish, and whether we mistake familiarity for merit. They invite us to build structures that develop excellence rather than merely recognize it once it appears fully formed.

This is where Equity Arc has intentionally positioned itself. Not as a replacement for elite institutions, but as connective tissue that strengthens pathways, reduces friction, and makes visible the extraordinary talent that has always existed outside the traditional spotlight.

Training, Promotion, and the Myth of Neutral Standards

Few ideas are more deeply conserved in classical music than the belief in neutral, objective standards. But standards are never neutral, rather they are reflections of history. They encode who had access to training, who had time to practice, who was believed in early, and who was protected when they stumbled.

Progressive work does not reject excellence. It asks us to interrogate how excellence is cultivated and for whom.

In this sense, Equity Arc’s work is both conservative and progressive. Conservative in our uncompromising commitment to musical excellence, rigor, and preparation for the highest levels of the field. Progressive in our refusal to accept that current outcomes are inevitable or that the status quo represents the full measure of what is possible.

2025 and the Politics of “Permissible” Equity

This work did not happen in a vacuum. The Trump administration’s efforts to narrowly redefine and outright delegitimize diversity, equity, and inclusion had tangible consequences for our field. Funding streams grew cautious. Partnerships hesitated. Language was policed. Programs that named structural inequity were suddenly deemed “political,” while long-standing inequities themselves remained unquestioned.

What struck me most was how quickly progressive ideas widely embraced after George Floyd’s murder were reframed as radical simply because they challenged comfort rather than competence.

History reminds us that many ideas now considered conservative were once seen as dangerously progressive: gender desegregation in orchestras, expanded access to training in higher education, blind auditions. Progress is always relative to the moment in which it occurs.

Avoiding the Worst of Both Worlds

Conservatism goes wrong when it confuses tradition with inevitability and when it protects systems long after they have stopped serving the full breadth of human talent. Progressivism goes wrong when it rushes ahead without clarity, rigor, or respect for what excellence actually requires.

Our task in the arts is to hold the tension responsibly, not choose sides.

At Equity Arc, we are trying to conserve artistry, discipline, and excellence while progressing toward a field that better reflects the world we live in and the talent that wants to be heard on our professional stages. We are implementing steadily, learning publicly, and adjusting constantly. In other words, we are treating the system as something closer to perpetual beta than sacred text.

Not because progress is inherently virtuous. But because standing still for the past 30 years has costs that are not borne equally.

As we reflect on 2025, I remain convinced that the future of classical music depends not on choosing between excellence and equity, but on recognizing that excellence itself depends on equity whether we are brave enough to admit it or not.