Hmmm... I have a feeling some (if not many) are gonna dislike my response to this, but here goes anyways...
I'm not a fan of this change from "Gypsy Robe" to "Legacy Robe". It erases a very loving and respectful term from Theater vocabulary. The intentions are VERY well-meaning, but unintentionally misguided.
First, I understand, empathize and completely support the Roma (Romani? - I'm not 100% sure which is the more respectful/accurate address - I apologize for my ignorance, and hope you understand that my intention is to be respectful) peoples' cause to be disassociated from the term, "gypsy". As stated in their response to Actors' Equity, it is a misnomer. I'm also very pleased that they are moved by the decision, and agree that it is "honorable". I'd also add, "deserved". No people or person should have to endure the kind of slur that the term gypsy casts upon the Roma peoples. I feel like I have a working understanding of how the term was created by Europeans, why the Roma peoples see it as a slur, and how it should never be employed when referring to them. I can certainly pledge that I will never refer to to the Roma peoples as gypsies.
In theater vocabulary, however, it holds a different meaning, with a completely opposite social connotation regarding the people referenced in the theater world. There is absolutely no connection to, or association with the Roma peoples.
The first time I heard the term used in its theatrical sense was in the musical Applause. The character of Eve is taken to a "gypsy" hangout. The character of Howard says, "Gypsy is the name dancers affectionately give themselves as they go camping from show to show." BTW, I italicized the word, "affectionately".
In the theater world, the term "gypsy" was adopted because of only ONE aspect of the word's definition: a member of a group of people who travel from place to place. All of the negative aspects associated with the word's etymology and historical usage were completely ignored. Although I can't be 100% certain, I suspect that there was an attraction to the term due to a sense of mystery, and exoticism. Perhaps that's an example of a predominantly caucasian ignorance of the word's actual history, and more in line with its portrayal in storybooks.
Was the adoption of the term a result of cultural ignorance? Yes.
Is the adoption of the term an example of cultural white-washing? Also, yes.
But was the adoption of the word by the theater community, with its new (albeit uneducated and ignorant) definition a bad thing? Its use in the theater world has no negative connotation whatsoever. It's used with pride, and associated with a strong sense of a very special and unique community.
So here's what I struggle with: Here's a word that I have only known to be affectionate and a source of pride. A word that elevates a unique group of people. A word that (bizarrely, via cultural white-washing and ignorance) has been changed from "bad" to "good". A word that has been (literally) celebrated in the theater community for decades, as well as specifically in the musical Applause.
Do I want it abolished from our vocabulary, in its context within the theater community? No. Most definitely not.
Do I want to show disrespect to the Roma peoples? Also, No. Most definitely not.
The new title, "Legacy Robe" is grating. The Gypsy Robe is a "legacy" (something that is handed down from generation to generation). To describe what is a legacy using the term "legacy" is odd - it's basically re-naming the robe as the "Legacy Legacy". The Gypsy Robe is a legacy that is passed from gypsy to gypsy.
Although I completely support the Roma peoples in their goal to abolish the word gypsy from being used in its negative connotation, in reference to a people who do not deserve to be slurred, I also mourn the loss of word from the theatrical lexicon, and its very positive connotation.