I hear you and agree to an extent. Class is one of the undying issues in America and theater pricing models do affect people of color disproportionately because race and class are so entwined in our economics. That's why some (not enough theaters) have started addressing financial access in their efforts to be more inclusive. But even for racially diverse populations of the same income, whiteness often prevails in audience make-up because others have not been made to feel meaningfully engaged or welcomed in any holistic fashion. As I mention in the piece, throwing open the gates a few times a year (for a dance piece or a play with an all Black cast, etc) doesn't equal actual community engagement or investment. People of color who might enjoy a particular show may also ask: do I want to go the theater will the all-white staff, the 80% white season, and the 95% white audience? Do I want to support a theater that I do not see engaging with other events/organizations in my community? This is where the all-white leadership becomes a problem: people who mean well but don't know nonwhite life or culture are more likely to replicate the same old patterns, and not have any sense of how to do better. When the leadership is more diverse (one good example is Boston's Company One), more attention may be given to true community engagement, work that is not designed simply to replicate past seasons, and addressing inequities (including financial) that serve as barriers.