[A note from 2023 Eris: As my writing about the Institute for Composer Diversity (unfortunately) continues to expand, I’ve given up and created an entire blog category for these analyses. You can now find all my posts focusing on ICD by clicking here. Posts that mention them in passing but do not focus on their actions specifically will still be tagged, but you’ll need to search “ICD” in the bar at the bottom of the page—and likely scroll a little—to find those. Thanks!]

Welcome back! Today we’re wrapping up our multi-day adventure through the ICD review. If you haven’t read the previous installments, I recommend checking out Part 1 and Part 2. After we conclude our point-by-point walkthrough, I’m going to mention some major concerns I didn’t get to talk about previously. As always, thanks for being here! I would’ve given up at Point 10 without y’all.

• Click here for an unmarked, unedited PDF of the review as it was published on January 29, 2021.
• My introduction, ICD’s introduction, and Points 1-14: see Part 1
• Points 15-30: see Part 2
• Section 5 (cont.): Feedback on Rob Deemer and ICD Leadership
  • Point 31: Rob Isn’t Qualified. Period.
• Section 6: Systemic Issues in Classical Music
  • Point 32: Acknowledge Colonization’s Impacts
  • Point 33: Antiracism, Not DEI
• Section 7: Additional Feedback
  • Point 34: I Know More About This Than ICD, So They Stole My Words
  • Point 35: ICD, Where Do These Stats Come From?
  • Point 36: Plagiarizing Trade Winds Again (“Self-Reflexive Data Analysis”)
  • Point 37: Stop Taking Individual Credit
  • Point 38: White Profits Should Help Artists of Color
  • Point 39: “ICD” Is Inaccurate
• Folks, we made it to (their) conclusion
  • Expected Timelines
  • The Communications Coordinator(/Specialist)
• What’s Left? My Closing Thoughts
  • ICD’s Language Problems
  • Privacy Issues and Data Use
  • Okay, let’s wrap this up.
• Works Cited