Academy Awards Best Picture - Know These New Rules Before You Start Production

[Doug Jensen]

What would you propose as an alternative?

Nothing at all.
As you posted yourself, there really is no problem here that needs to be solved, and even if there is, I have no standing or special insight. In fact, I barely care enough to post on this thread. But with that said, my advice is to just get out of the way and let the market run it's natural course. Talent, hard work, and brains will rise to the top if you let it. And when it comes to hiring, no consideration whatsoever should be given to race, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else that tends to divide people and pit them against each other. As an audience member, I just want to be entertained. I don't really care WHO produced the material as long as it was done well.

[ahalpert]

Nothing at all.
As you posted yourself, there really is no problem here that needs to be solved, and even if there is, I have no standing or special insight. In fact, I barely care enough to post on this thread. But with that said, my advice is to just get out of the way and let the market run it's natural course. Talent, hard work, and brains will rise to the top if you let it. And when it comes to hiring, no consideration whatsoever should be given to race, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else that tends to divide people and pit them against each other. As an audience member, I just want to be entertained. I don't really care WHO produced the material as long as it was done well.

In practice, hiring does not work out that way. There are some fields that are closer to true meritocracies (such as sports). But more often, social capital and bias play a role in advantaging/disadvantaging different groups. The loose quota applied by the academy here won't change anything because it's basically already being met. But if you're opposed to quotas generally and you don't have an alternative proposal to change industries where women or black people, for example, face bias -- then it basically sounds like you're happy to keep things as they are.

[Doug Jensen]

ut if you're opposed to quotas generally and you don't have an alternative proposal to change industries where women or black people, for example, face bias -- then it basically sounds like you're happy to keep things as they are.

I don't accept your premise that there is wide-spread systemic bias that actually keeps genuinely-qualified candidates from being hired.

[ahalpert]

I don't accept your premise that there is wide-spread systemic bias that actually keeps genuinely-qualified candidates from being hired.

In the film business or in general? In general, it is super well-documented.

Job Applicants With ‘Black Names’ Still Less Likely to Get Interviews
Employers aren’t treating identical resumes equally, new research finds.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...heckout-banner

https://www.google.com/search?client...h=702&dpr=2.81

It's also documented that black people are less likely to receive a loan approval than white people with the same qualifications. And that Black homeowners will receive a higher appraisal value for their home if they remove all their family photos before the appraiser comes.

But is any of this really a surprise? As Americans, do we really need scientific evidence to validate what is basically common knowledge?

I would add that in the film business, I have personally witnessed sexist and racist bias. This was against people who were already hired and on the job. I just witnessed people doubt their abilities and disrespect them.

[Doug Bee]

I don't accept your premise that there is wide-spread systemic bias that actually keeps genuinely-qualified candidates from being hired.

I don't accept that you get to say if there is or isn't a bias when you're in the majority that get hired.

Women in the camera department overall is something like 18-20% (per guild numbers and if you were to look at the HOD, then it's even less. Something like less than 5%.

If you think 5% female participation rate of DP's is not a problem, then you're part of the problem.

There are no voices from women participating in this thread. It would go very differently if there were.

[Doug Jensen]

If you think 5% female participation rate of DP's is not a problem, then you're part of the problem.

Don't be an ass. Not agreeing with you about whether a problem exists or not does not make me part of whatever problem you imagine there to be.

Some professions simply don't attract a lot of people from certain demographics. That is a fact. And if you think the demographics of every profession should match the demographics of society as a whole, you are crazy. Personally, I don't think there needs to be a 50/50 split of men and women in every job unless there are an equal number of fully-qualified candidates who actually want to be hired. Show me THAT situation, and then we can talk about whether the numbers should be equal or not.

There are really two factors at play;

1) How many people WANT to be hired to perform a certain job?
2) How many of those people are actually qualified to do the job?

After those qualifiers have been applied,the group of potential candidates will be narrowed-down substantially. And if the demographics of that group don't match society as a whole, or however you think they should be, that is your problem.

Has it ever occured to you that maybe there are more men who have an interest in cameras, photography, video, etc. than women? I challenge you to go to Yellowstone or anywhere else where there are abundant amatuer photographers shooting wildlife. From my casual observations, I'll bet the ratio of men to women is 8 to 2, And that is being generous. These are amateur photographers doing it for fun. Nobody hired them. Nobody turned away women because they were women. Nobody told women not to invest in camera gear and go out and shoot. Why do you think there are fewer women? There must be bigotry involved somewhere, right?

When I'm teaching workshops in Maine I observe the demographics of my students, and the students in other workshops. By far, the overall majority are men. Why is that? Nobody is preventing women from signing up. The school would be just as glad to take their money, and they will be welcomed with open arms by their fellow students. So why aren't they there? I beleive it is because there are far fewer women that have any interest whatsoever in that type of work. That's just the way it is. You can't force someone who's not interested to get interested. And you can't tell a certain number of men to stay home because it will skew the demographics if they attend the class.

Maybe the Academy would be better served by recruiting, training, mentoring, and fostering people in the demographics they want to see represented more. That is how you build a stronger, better, more creative industry.

[Tom Roper]

As Americans, do we really need scientific evidence to validate what is basically common knowledge?

Yes because livelihoods should not be endangered for assumptions lacking factual basis.

[ahalpert]

Yes because livelihoods should not be endangered for assumptions lacking factual basis.

What I'm asking is that in your heart of hearts, did you really doubt what I'm presenting evidence to prove?

[ahalpert]

Some professions simply don't attract a lot of people from certain demographics. That is a fact. And if you think the demographics of every profession should match the demographics of society as a whole, you are crazy. Personally, I don't think there needs to be a 50/50 split of men and women in every job unless there are an equal number of fully-qualified candidates who actually want to be hired. Show me THAT situation, and then we can talk about whether the numbers should be equal or not.

AFI student body is 52% women

https://www.univstats.com/colleges/a...223%20students).

I can't find average numbers for its cinematography program specifically. But the cinematography graduates of 2022 were 8 women out of 22 total.

https://conservatory.afi.com/cinemat...graphers-2022/

[Tom Roper]

What I'm asking is that in your heart of hearts, did you really doubt what I'm presenting evidence to prove?

Quotas and mandates are not the way. Discrimination is illegal under laws enforced by EEOC. The presumption of innocence is considered fundamental in modern democracies. Conviction and punishment of the offenders is the appropriate process.

David Hume argued, in A Treatise of Human Nature,^[29] that people invariably slip from describing what the world is to asserting that we therefore ought to follow a particular course of action. But as a matter of pure logic, one cannot conclude that we ought to do something merely because something is the case. So analysing and clarifying the way the world is must be treated as a strictly separate question from normative and evaluative questions of what ought to be done.

The most important questions of analytic jurisprudence are: "What are laws?"; "What is the law?"; "What is the relationship between law and power/sociology?"; and "What is the relationship between law and morality?"

[Paul F]

Quotas and pushing for equal representation is absolutely the way to go. Nothing saddens me more when I see roofers, septic tank pumpers, teachers, truck drivers, nurses, brick layers, social workers, welders, knackers, tax examiners, produce harvesters, flight attendants, health care managers,.... well this list goes on. But to see so many occupations owned by one sex or the other; It's madness. Something has to be done. If we could get all the girls in our grade schools to .... well, for example, go on a field trip to the 30th floor with iron-workers or get the boys to go make the visitation rounds with a social worker, .......stuff like that, I'll bet we could equalize the sex disparity in no time.

[ahalpert]

Quotas and mandates are not the way. Discrimination is illegal under laws enforced by EEOC. The presumption of innocence is considered fundamental in modern democracies. Conviction and punishment of the offenders is the appropriate process.

David Hume argued, in A Treatise of Human Nature,^[29] that people invariably slip from describing what the world is to asserting that we therefore ought to follow a particular course of action. But as a matter of pure logic, one cannot conclude that we ought to do something merely because something is the case. So analysing and clarifying the way the world is must be treated as a strictly separate question from normative and evaluative questions of what ought to be done.

The most important questions of analytic jurisprudence are: "What are laws?"; "What is the law?"; "What is the relationship between law and power/sociology?"; and "What is the relationship between law and morality?"

Sounds lovely. But it doesn't work out that way. Case in point, coming from the opposite direction: now that the Supreme Court is making affirmative action illegal, many universities are dropping the SATs as a consideration for admission. Observers believe that they're doing this to make it harder to prove that they're continuing to do affirmative action. I don't have a problem with that, but the point is that if people want to swing their hiring one way or the other, it will be difficult or impossible to prove that they are purposefully doing so.

And just in general, the legal system is very slow and expensive. Suing your potential employer for a job is not going to be a practicable solution for many people nor would it yield a desirable result.

Furthermore, bias is largely subconscious. People don't even necessarily realize why they arrive at certain decisions.

One bias that I saw cited recently after a black youth was shot in the head for knocking on someone's door is that people consistently judge black men to be larger and more threatening than white men who are actually the exact same size. They just perceive them differently.

https://www.apa.org/news/press/relea...en-threatening

Anyway, I think the observation about the world is very well grounded, with more or less evidence gathered in one situation or another. I'm not leaping to a conclusion about what should be done about it. I was asking for proposals. If your answer is that there isn't a problem then we're at an impasse and I think your conclusion is probably motivated by self-interest.

[DLD]

Disney joined this fight because of activist employee pressure.

That is correct. Which means they should better manage its employees.

And Iger wouldn't be closing the Stars Wars hotel, if "parks and recreation" was not suffering.

[ahalpert]

That is correct. Which means they should better manage its employees.

And Iger wouldn't be closing the Stars Wars hotel, if "parks and recreation" was not suffering.

The star wars hotel was doomed. It was super expensive to stay at and super expensive to operate. Disney parks revenue is up despite the failure of the star wars hotel.

Re: managing employees, guess what -- gay people don't want to go back in the closet. That is what's at stake. Conservatives have used the controversy over Trans issues to push legislation that is a Trojan horse for turning back the clock to 1980 and it's not going to end well for them, as we've already seen in recent special elections.

[Paul F]

What's really funny is that this discussion is happening on a forum that is likely 90+% straight white male. Now, what are we going to do to to bring diversity to the forum?

I'm waiting......