It’s time to get some things straight about #OscarsSoWhite
Alicia Carroll ’16 / Emertainment Monthly Contributor and Alumnus
With the 88th Annual Academy Awards happening tonight, it’s a prime time to revisit #OscarsSoWhite. Following the original debate that emerged after the announcement of the nominees, I read all the responses in the THR series on the issue and spiraled into a rage unlike anything I have ever experienced before.
I am a fixer. That’s ultimately why I decided to enter the entertainment industry: I wanted to fix it. How do you fix not just systematic suppression of female and minority voices in entertainment – and by proxy, culture – but also the systems that reinforce those disadvantages: systems that have had generations to solidify in the sociology and economy of the entertainment industry? Because as a woman of color, the issues that all of these “snubbed” people are “complaining about” are things that I have experienced firsthand. It’s fact: those who identify as such, especially women, face the most difficulty with regards to representation, sexism, and economic disparity.
I am a member of the “oppressed party,” if we want to get political about it. Not everyone is a member of this “special club” and therefore must acquire immense knowledge, self awareness, and willpower to overcome their privilege and understand things from another perspective.
Not everyone can do that, so let me break it down for you.
There seems to be a number of misconceptions about both the #OscarsSoWhite movement (a movement that is nothing new) and the new measures the Academy has set forth to begin a path toward increased diversity in The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences membership:
“But if they truly only nominated the best performances in their opinion, then you should stand behind them for their guts to do the right thing in spite of howls from the public.” — John Van Vliet
Well, okay—
I am sure all the voting members of the Academy feel that their decision to nominate the best films of the year was #sobrave, but don’t think that a mob mentality has suddenly infiltrated the Academy and the insurgence is just beginning now like this has suddenly become an issue.
This has always been an issue. And one could argue that you and your fellow dissenting opinions provide just as large a “mob” as the ones who are speaking in favor of change. Fading into the crowded majority opinion is easy when you are part of the 87% white or 58% male membership.
With so few members of color and female members, there is very little we can do to assure ourselves that the results of the nominations were not racially motivated or sexist, because the majority of voters are not a member of those groups.
I am not so cynical to believe that in the absence of diversity, racism or sexism, or ageism, or ableism is the default. However without a set of checks and balances, without a true diversity of opinion or experience, there is no way to ensure that every film is given equal weight and consideration and that the cream of the crop will rise to the recognition it deserves.
Think about it.
Say the Academy was diverse to the satisfaction of the industry (not the public, this is about the industry), and there was a relatively honest representation within the Academy as there is in the industry at large, or perhaps the demographic breakdown of the country (51% Female, 30% People of Color and Rising); then if all white actors are nominated or no women are nominated, you can’t make the same argument for racism or sexism when 51% of the voters are women and roughly 40% or so are people of color. The Academy wants to increase its credibility because if the voting was fair, the awards would actually mean more. Go figure.
This is not really about snubs.
Let’s take stock of what’s disappointing with this year’s nominations:
- No actors of color nominated
- No female directors nominated
- The stories about people of color that were nominated were recognized for the white screenwriters or actors within them (ie, Straight Outta Compton, Creed)
Throughout the uproarious response to the Academy measures, many people reacted with defensiveness veiled with immense disappointment, like Tab Hunter; “Obviously, it’s a thinly-veiled ploy to kick out older white contributors — the backbone of the industry — to make way for younger, ‘politically-correct’ voters. The Academy should not cave in to media hype and change the rules without talking to or getting votes from all members first” Yes, I am sure all of us appreciate you referring to old white men as the “backbone” of the industry, since all the top earning films of this year had diverse teams and casts, but whatever, you’re entitled to your narrow-minded opinion.
Here are some of the things we don’t need to hear (because all of these things have been said already):
- “I voted for Will Smith, so I’m not racist.”
- “I have no problem voting for Oscar Isaac! I just don’t think his performance was better than all these other white dudes.”
- “There weren’t any movies ‘like that’ worthy of a nomination this year.”
- “IDK, I just thought Sylvester Stallone was spectacular.”
This all may be true, but I don’t care.
This isn’t about the few that voted for them, or would have voted for them, or voted for Forest Whitaker that one time.You are not the issue: the system is the issue.
This is a system that is historically, economically, and culturally ingrained in our society and will likely take decades to rectify. So, please, spare me your whining about your one asian friend who was pissed they didn’t have the qualifications to get into the Academy and stomp their foot, or actors are pissed they didn’t get nominated, because hooo child, this is more than that.
I would also just like to point out that this also isn’t only about actors. The Acting branch may be the biggest offender this year, but they certainly aren’t the only branch worth scrutinizing. So “actors are the least racist people I know” really is irrelevant.
“What bothers me most is how insulting this is to black people.” – Milton Justice
This is Milton Justice, a white, male Academy member claiming to know that measures that were approved by the Academy President (a black woman) are insulting to her entire race.
I mean seriously—
This is not just black and white.
I am so glad, Milton, that your parents raised you on such high standards of equality and inclusivity that you get so upset by things that are offensive to black people. I would love for you to maybe consult a black person before making such sweeping declarations, but I digress. What I would love to explain to you, sir, is that this isn’t that simple.
The US has this nasty habit of viewing both racism and diversity as black and white. Yes, black people do have a deeply rooted negative history in this country, so let’s put our conceptions of racism aside and focus on diversity – or better yet, representation, or inclusion. Many people were upset by media coverage of the #OscarsSoWhite controversy because the examples given of people or films that should have been nominated were predominantly black. Some coverage included Benicio Del Toro for Sicario, more of them should have included Oscar Isaac for Ex Machina, but none of them included as broad a scope as we would have liked. But again, I’d like to emphasize that although much of the coverage was on “snubs,” this is not solely about nominations.
As you may know by now, the membership of The Academy of Motion Picture Sciences is 87% White and 58% male and 75% are over the age of 60, which is a (sadly) staggering improvement from last year’s statistics. People may see Cheryl Boone Isaacs (President) or Dawn Hudson (CEO) and pull the post-racial card “There’s a black president, the Academy isn’t racist” The same could be argued for sexism, but it shouldn’t be argued because, well, neither is true.
Unconscious bias is a real thing. Due to the number of Academy members that grew up in a turbulent racial climate and during the heart of “second wave” feminism, it is not surprising that some (note: not all. See how easy it is not to overgeneralize, Milton?) of the membership could harbor sexist or racial prejudice that they do not actively invoke during their voting process, such as generational propensity toward gender roles.
As a result many simply don’t identify with stories that are not their own (as a white and/or male Academy voter), therefore their merit or quality is unacknowledged. And I don’t fault people for that; it’s not your experience. As Milton Justice so aptly points out that “Having lived through the period and the [Selma] march, as I assume many of the Academy members did,” it is not out of the question that some generational prejudice bias has eked its way into the Academy. Everyone has that one uncle or grandmother who still refuse to be politically correct.
It happens. And because we aren’t going to force every member of the Academy to go to a diversity and inclusion seminar (although I have been to those, and they are wonderful, and I highly recommend them to everyone), there has to be a way to make the Academy acknowledge its inherent bias and make steps toward overcoming it. The first step being acknowledgement. The second being transparency. The third being rectifying disparity in membership (The Academy sort of jumped to step three). Are there any measures to track how many or which films are actually viewed (and therefore considered) for awards during screener season? These are solutions to a small part of a bigger problem (disparity within the industry at large), but we will work on one thing at a time.
I am not saying all old people are racist and sexist. I’m stating a reality of today: generations get more liberal-minded as time goes on. I try not to hold it against anyone if they used to act with prejudice, but I do hold it against them if they continue to do so, particularly after it has been pointed out.
Obama isn’t coming to take your guns, and Cheryl isn’t kicking you out of The Academy…
Translation:
This is a tricky one. I would like you to keep in mind that people of color voicing their discontent may be the impetus for these drastic changes, they did not make the changes. Although many people (who are, predictably and understandably non-white) support these measures as steps toward progress, no one held the Board of Governors captive until they agreed to strip members of lifelong voting rights. This provokes a much needed dialogue on who is qualified to judge film as an artform, when do their qualifications lapse, etc., but that’s another article entirely.
There are those rare unicorns in the Academy that are non-white and/or female, who are in the same boat as you are. They wrote an amazing film 30 years ago and have been teaching or working in television since then. They, too, are in danger of losing their voting rights. So, please, don’t play the victim. Because you can wave as many reverse-racism flags as you want, the measures are sweeping and affect all current members, not just the white ones (and not just the members of a certain age). And it’s worth noting that some of those members of color share your discontent as well…but…well, I’ll leave it there.
The Definition of Diversity Is…
“The Academy is comprised of its many members because we ourselves are diverse. As a body, we bring experience, mentorship, dedication and lifelong achievement.” — Rutanya Alda
Alright, you could say that, but–
di·ver·si·ty
plural di·ver·si·ties
- 1: the condition of having or being composed of differing elements : variety; especially : the inclusion of different types of people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization <programs intended to promote diversity in schools>
- 2: an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities : an instance of being diverse <a diversity of opinion>
Rutanya, I get what you’re trying to do, but practical experience in any given field does not constitute a tangible diversity of opinion, experience, or anything of the sort. Dedication and achievement also have no bearing on diversity.
If you win an Academy Award for a comedy and someone wins one for a drama, is that really the success we’ve been waiting for? By those standards, there are always underrepresented groups, how many people have joined the Academy as experimental filmmakers? They aren’t exactly Oscar bait.
True diversity of opinion requires diversity of experience that goes beyond one’s résumé. Because the racial and social climate in America began to improve long after the studio system collapsed, many of the members of the Academy seem to have been grandfathered in generationally, or through a network of mostly male and mostly white filmmakers that dominated the industry for so long. “But what about Alejandro González Iñárritu?”
Glad you asked.
One Person Does Not Constitute Diversity…
“Eighteen percent of the American population considers itself black. And yet Barack Obama was elected president, beating out a Vietnam War hero…” — Milton Justice (yes, again)
Oh, and, let’s not forget:
“This year, the Academy has nominated Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu for Best Director and Best Picture with his effort, The Revenant. Last year Iñárritu won the Academy prize for his direction of Birdman. Is that not diverse?” – Bill Mumy
Good question, Bill.
The short answer: no, it’s not.
The longer answer: If we are going to use nominations as our barometer for success on this issue (which I don’t think is the best way to do it, but I’ll go with the in-crowd on this one) one nomination is not a symbol of diversity. Just like a black president does not make us post-racial, one nomination does not signify the climate of the Academy as a whole.
Yes, Alejandro Iñárritu was nominated (hopefully this year we’ll be spared another tone-deaf green card joke–thanks, Sean Penn), but try to think about the last time a person of color was nominated before that. If you walked onto a college campus and saw a few scattered students of color in a sea of white faces, would you cheer in name of diversity and donate a million dollars to the school in the name of their work towards creating an inclusive community? You wouldn’t (hopefully).
“Diversity” Does Not Just Mean Racial Diversity
“May I point out that as one of the female members in the short films and feature animation branch, I am also a minority? Am I not contributing to the “diversity” of this organization? Women are shockingly under-represented in craft, technical and directorial nominations every year. Since when is it permissible to discriminate against one minority to right a perceived wrong to another?” — Nancy Beiman
Good point.
As I said before, these measures are not perfect. And it does disenfranchise more female Academy members than male, but nominees are safe–as are people who have been active for more than 20 years. The Board of Governors doesn’t have the management consulting firm from House of Lies, and so they acted quickly without analyzing the the ramifications of their new plan. In the long run, though, I think it will increase the overall number of women Academy members.
Race might have been the spark that started this debate, but no one could have known that there was more fuel lying under the surface to stoke the flames. This debate is about inclusivity and representation of all kind: race, gender (the whole spectrum, not just the binary), LGBTQIA+, and those with disabilities (shout out to Marlee Martin and Ali Stroker for speaking out on this). This was bound to happen, and people decided that now was the time.
“Personally, I was shocked that neither Michael Caine or Harvey Keitel received a nomination for their excellent work in Youth, but I certainly don’t consider it a deliberate slight because they’re senior citizen Caucasians.” — Bill Mumy
If you understand what it’s like being on the flip side of unconscious bias or in rare cases, conscious bias, you might understand that, no, Michael Caine and Harvey Keitel being “slighted” for a bunch of other white male actors of varying ages is not a slight or snub or sign of prejudice. They are on the same (elevated by nature of being white, cisgender, and male) “playing field.”
There is no culturally embedded system that enforces a power differential between those people that disadvantages some for the prosperity of others – especially because the average voter is a 62 year old white man, I doubt that these men are being purposefully biased and discriminatory against their own; the ageism argument falls flat here.
“The Academy does not publicly disclose the names of its members. Membership comes only from being nominated for an Oscar or by being sponsored by two current members. And membership is for life. Not surprisingly, the membership has grown somewhat ossified over the decades. In 2012, the Los Angeles Times determined that the membership then was 94% white, 77% male, and 86% over the age of 50. Not the most diverse group — the Academy makes the US Supreme Court look like the Wu Tang Clan.” – Donna Brazile, Vice Chairwoman of the DNC
Preach, Donna. Preach.
Okay, Milton. Let’s chat.
Lastly, let me say this: If you are not a member of a specific group – minority or otherwise – do not, under any circumstances, assert that you know what is offensive to that group of people. Do not deign to think that you can declaratively (and publicly) define the reality of an entire group of people.
You may have an enlightened awareness or idea of what can marginalize a group of people (in some instances, this is definitely not true) but you do not have the authority to declare it as truth. If you aren’t a minority, don’t speak for them. If you aren’t a woman, don’t speak for them. We have spent centuries fighting to make our voices heard in society.
We did not come this far to let you speak for us.
But I mean, this isn’t that big a deal right? We should just get in line and wait our turn? After all, in the entertainment industry—
Alicia Carroll is an Emerson College alumnus working in the film and television industry. The original version of this article can be found on her blog.