In his Sunday essay, “Today, It’s Dance 10, Looks 3,” New York Times dance critic John Rockwell made the case that in the past New York City Ballet was filled with dancers who were not only artistic, but also very beautiful. Actually, I can’t say that he “argued” this point, because he used the cowardly device of posing many of the key points as questions.

He hung his questions on a Balanchine quote: “Woman is the goddess, the poetess, the muse. That is why I have a company of beautiful dancers.” He wondered if Balanchine would have been pleased with the looks of the current company, then went on: “But some of the company’s biggest female stars now are spectacular dancers without being spectacular beauties. Is it merely sexist to lament that the current roster is not ‘a company of beautiful girl dancers?'”

Excuse me, but did we just time travel back to 1950? This is not just “merely sexist.” It’s a rank, retrograde form of workplace discrimination. Mr. Rockwell is suggesting that the pretty girls should advance faster and be trotted out more than the less pretty girls.

I’d love to know what the Times editorial page writers think about this idea, which is the very antithesis of equal opportunity. They, and surely their readers, wouldn’t stand for this type of thinking if Mr. Rockwell were talking about preferring one ethnic group over another. White dancers over Hispanic. Christian over Jewish. Black over Asian. He’d be thrown out on the street like a drunk cowboy getting tossed from a saloon.

It’s natural that we all want to look at what is beautiful, symmetrical, and well-formed. But dance involves human beings who train obsessively for what is a relatively short career. That some have been given greater beauty than others is the luck of the draw – and it has no bearing on whether someone can be a great dancer.

Mr. Rockwell concludes the piece with a hope: “With genuine respect for its current leading dancers, and despite the genuine pleasure to be derived from their performances, the City Ballet might try cultivating a few more gorgeous hothouse flowers like those that graced its stage in decades gone by.”

Even if the company were to take his disgusting advice to “try cultivating” “hothouse flowers,” just how should ballet-master-in-chief Peter Martins go about that task? Perhaps he could hang a sign above the School of American Ballet that reads: “Only the beautiful need apply.” Then the editorialists would surely have something to write about.

Mr. Rockwell’s criticism also must be considered within the context of the vast array of complaints that the dance world levies against City Ballet and its leadership. At every turn, these days, someone is carping that the legacy of Balanchine is being poorly managed: Where’s the spirit? Where’s the art? Or whatever else is tragically missing this week? To this Mr. Rockwell adds the silliest of all: Where did all the hotties go? Of all the accusations against City Ballet, this is the last one that should be getting ink. If (and that’s a very sizable “if”) beauty is a problem, it’s a very small one. There are bigger fish to fry.

On a different level, it’s possible that Mr. Rockwell has misinterpreted his chosen Balanchine quote. (“Woman is the goddess, the poetess, the muse. That is why I have a company of beautiful dancers.”) It’s clear from the words that the choreographer did adore women. This is the lore about him. He had four wives. His dances show off the girls as if they are jewels. He loved women.

But the quote can be read as a matter of appreciation, rather than as a statement of fact. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and Balanchine was in charge of these girls, so certainly he saw them as beautiful. And when a man totally adores a woman, she feels beautiful and projects it. Balanchine could very well have spoken those words so as to inspire his female dancers to feel good about themselves. Such thinking doesn’t change a woman’s looks, but it does affect her presentation, carriage, and mood – all of which could improve the quality of her dancing.

I hope that City Ballet’s dancers never see Mr. Rockwell’s loathsome essay. But if they do, I can only assume that it will hurt their feelings and therefore be a detriment to their dancing. It’s just not helpful to be told that you and your co-workers aren’t pretty enough to do the job. (Even runway models aren’t selected for beauty alone – and some are decidedly unbeautiful.)

His piece was clearly written to ruffle feathers. It was meant to attract attention. I’ve fallen prey to it, admittedly. But that’s because Mr. Rockwell has taken a tack that is just plain mean – and wrong.

Like the Ben Stiller character Zoolander, Mr. Rockwell needs to know that the people he spends time watching are “really, really good looking.” Well, if he wants to see pretty girls, Mr. Rockwell should go to the movies. Lucky for him, the Times is still near 42nd street.

***

If any male readers are looking for ways to atone for Mr. Rockwell’s shamelessness, they would do well to take their sweethearts to the ballet. Especially on Valentine’s Day. I’ve written about this upcoming performance already in this space, but it’s worth repeating. On February 14th at New York State Theater, a massive array of ballet talent will be assembled for the “Stars of the 21st Century Gala.”

This program is a sampler that brings dancers from the Royal, Bolshoi, Kirov, Paris Opera Ballet, Munich, New York City, and American Ballet. The scheduled choreography ranges from George Balanchine to Roland Petit to Martha Graham. Some incredibly talented dancers will be performing some first-rate choreography. And no matter how glamorous the girls are, the dancing will be excellent.