It is a noble cause to advocate for the inclusion of everyone in all things. After all, everyone must have equal chance to participate in activities, sports, jobs, schools, and all aspects of life right? On the surface it makes sense and is the compassionate viewpoint. To think otherwise would be to hold and present bigotry. However, the tough truth is that not everyone can be included in everything. If each life aspect is looked at individually along with its purpose, we find that there are different priorities and needs that must be met in order for it to remain at its best.
The ideas discussed in this article apply to all job industries, but the American film industry is a good example where diversity attempts have been made. It is wonderful to allow every type of person their opportunity to shine, and for those watching to be happy to see someone like themselves. But behind the scenes, what does the writing and hiring process look like? Are they specifically writing that one character must be white, another must be black, and another must represent the LGBTQ+ community? If so, this naturally excludes people from the majority of the U.S. population, white people, who may have auditioned and been able to get a job. If they aren’t specifically writing in that way, yet are picking diverse actors to fill neutrally written roles, then they are deliberately excluding people based on race and sexuality.
It could be said that this is only an assumption and that’s not how diverse hiring works. But if we look at the Oscars eligibility rules 1, we’ll see exactly what was described. The rules contain four primary standards, each with several sub-categories. A film must meet at least two of the primary standards to be eligible for Oscars voting. Not all of the standards are equally problematic and the producers of a film are free to choose any two primary standards. The most extreme example is probably the first category, and it includes:
- “At least one of the lead actors or significant supporting actors submitted for Oscar consideration is from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group in a specific country or territory of production.”
- “At least 30% of all actors not submitted for Oscar consideration are from at least two underrepresented groups“
- “The main storyline(s), theme or narrative of the film is centered on an underrepresented group(s).”
Why is this a problem? Well this gets to the central issue with hiring solely based on diversity. The United States racial demographics aren’t a neat 20% White, 20% Black, 20% Asian, 20% Native American, and 20% Other. One estimate 2 puts the actual demographics at:
- 63.44% White
- 12.36% Black
- 10.71% Multiracial
- 6.60% Other
- 5.82% Asian
- 0.88% Native
- 0.19% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
If the United States was a perfect 14.29% split among the seven racial categories above, it would make sense that we must strive to have equal numbers of each race where it makes sense in each film. But with there being an overwhelming majority race of White people in the United States, that simply isn’t possible without introducing exclusion.
As shown above, the Oscar eligibility standards includes one rule stating that at least 30% of all actors should be from at least two underrepresented groups. This aligns well with White people making up 60+% of the population, leaving 30+% for the other races. It could be questioned the percentage of each race involved in the film industry to really delve into that detail, but the most important rule to focus on is the first one.
The first rule states that at least one of the lead actors or significant supporting actors must be from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group. If there are several films with a very small number of roles, say five or fewer each, how can the underrepresented group based hiring be made fair when considering the actual population demographics? If a film is centered around a non-White culture, would White people be considered underrepresented in films from that culture and thus must be included to fit the first Oscars standard? Again, the production team is free to choose one of the other three primary standards, each with their own rules list, but it is worth examining.
If there are 100 roles in a movie or television show, it would be most representative of the U.S. demographics if the final cast contains 63 White people, 12 Black people, and so on to fit the actual population. To attempt to make the cast instead consist of 14 White people, 14 Black people, 14 Asian people, and so on, would be purposefully turning away 49 White people just because of their race.
If there are just ten roles in a movie, it would make sense that 6 of them would be White, 1 Black, 1 multiracial, and the remaining 2 would be filled by those of the other races who the casting directors felt were the best. This is of course assuming that roles were written as racially neutral and that the film doesn’t center around something specific to, for example, White culture where the number of White roles would be higher, or a Black culture film where the number of Black roles would be higher.
A single lead role can also be made the focus. We can say that, for example, 10 people audition for the role with 6 of them being White, 1 Black, 1 multiracial, and 2 of one of the other races. The probability is high that a White person will be the one chosen for the role. This is solely because there were a larger number of White people who auditioned, and the chance is higher that a White person will have auditioned the best.
Even if we give an example of 10 movies with 10 roles each, the majority of lead roles would still be held by white people because of the country’s demographics. However, the movie industry isn’t necessarily a hive mind in this way. So what we are instead seeing are a higher percentage of individual movies all containing demographics that don’t match that of the country. With every production company having the desire to fulfill their representation goals, none of them are really communicating with each other to ensure fairness that matches the real percentages.
It may be said that there was race-based hiring that was preferential toward White people throughout much of the American film industry’s existence. The conclusion then being that White people have had their turn and have been in everything, so it should now be everyone else’s turn. But, if the preferential hiring existed anywhere near an extreme level, that problem was created by those people from the past. The people of today are simply trying to attain acting roles just like everyone else.
To eschew the actual demographics to favor perfect number equality would be preferential hiring against White people and punishing them for events of the past in which they weren’t involved. The argument then may become similar to the “generational wealth” argument, where someone could claim that White people in the film industry have advantages and connections. However, that is something that would have to be proven through data, and it certainly wouldn’t apply to every single White person.
This all becomes even more complicated when considering that the Oscars standards include more than just race. According to their standards, underrepresented groups may include women, race or ethnicity, LGBTQ+, and people with disabilities. More needs to be done to determine how to attain fairness for all while working within the actual U.S. race, LGBTQ+, and disability demographics, as well as while considering to what extent each culture is involved in the film industry. Each group or sub-group makes up very different population percentages compared to each other, and each film has a very limited number of roles. So not every film will be able to check every box. Each film also has its own story goals, and that’s ok.
It’s only natural in a predominantly white country that many productions will feature only white people. It is only natural that some, and not all productions, will feature a mixture of people. While walking around in a city, how often are friend groups seen with a mixture as diverse as the cast of Stranger Things? In real life in the United States, when walking through a city, you will mostly see groups of friends and family who are all White, all Black, all Asian, all Hispanic, all male, all female, etc.
This isn’t to say that mixture groups don’t exist and aren’t common, just that it is more common for a group of people to be of the same race, culture, sex, or other demographic because people find it more relatable to spend time with people similar to themselves. This can be seen extended to films, where a movie or television show may center around a specific culture and contain an all White family or friend group, all Black, all Asian, or some other group with possible occasional supporting actors from other groups.
Much of this applies to other job industries as well where the demographics should align with the overall demographics of the United States. Looking around an office, the race or ethnicity, sex, LGBTQ+ affiliation, and disability percentages should match that of the nation, with some cultural factors also needing to be considered. Many on the right leaning side believe that the purpose of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is to force a reduction in the number of straight white males who are hired and increase the hiring of all other groups. Most DEI programs, and those who are left leaning, clearly state that this isn’t the case, and that it is more about making resume reviews more blind by blocking out names and other identifying information, understanding various cultures, understanding your own biases, and other aspects.
It is possible that there is preferential hiring toward minority groups occurring in some workplaces, but there may not be enough data for anyone to confidently make that claim. Either way, it isn’t something that should cause panic because the demographic percentages should naturally balance out in the hiring process no matter what side you are on. If evidence is found of preferential hiring in any direction, it will have its day in court.
