‘Representation and Inclusion Standards’: The End of the Oscars

By Andreea Mincu

As a teenager living in Europe, I would stay up all night to watch the Oscars ceremony live, charged with excitement, clutching my Oscar figurine from Madame Tussauds. I had school in the morning, but sleep was less important than finding out whether my favorite films or actors would receive the greatest cinematic honor. I was not alone, of course. Millions the world over tune in each year to see this symbol of excellence bestowed on works of art and the people who bring them to life.¹ For ninety-three years, the Oscars have been celebrating outstanding achievement in filmmaking—but that’s about to change.

The Academy plans to introduce new “representation and inclusion requirements” stipulating that judges must evaluate films not solely on the basis of merit, but also on their inclusion of and support for “underrepresented groups.” In 2022 and 2023, only those who submit an “Academy Inclusion Standards form” will be eligible for the highest honor—the Best Picture award. Then, beginning in 2024, films must meet at least two of the following four standards to be eligible:

“At least one of the lead actors or significant supporting actors” or “30% of all actors in secondary and more minor roles” are from “underrepresented groups”; or “the main storyline(s), theme or narrative of the film is centered on an underrepresented group(s).”

“At least two . . . creative leadership positions and department heads” or “six other crew/team and technical positions” or “30% of the film’s crew is from . . . underrepresented groups.”

“The film’s distribution or financing company has paid apprenticeships or internships” and “offers training and/or work opportunities for below-the-line skill development to people from . . . underrepresented groups.”

“The studio and/or film company has multiple in-house senior executives from . . . underrepresented groups on their marketing, publicity, and/or distribution teams.”²

Of course, such considerations have nothing to do with a film’s artistic or technical value. Then why did the Academy choose them? According to Academy President David Rubin and CEO Dawn Hudson, they did it “to reflect our diverse global population in both the creation of motion pictures and in the audiences who connect with them.” But that is absurd. Rational people do not connect with films because members of their race, sex, or the like appear on screen. They connect with the characters, story, and themes of a film—elements that appeal to viewers, regardless of race, gender, and so forth. As for filmmakers, all these new standards will do is incentivize them to choose the individuals they work with not for their character and ability, but for such irrelevant characteristics as race and gender.

An employer who refuses to hire competent applicants on the basis of race, gender, or other unchosen characteristics is irrational and unjust. But so is an employer who hires someone because of those characteristics. Both are instances of racism, sexism, or the like. The Academy should condemn, not encourage, filmmakers who judge others based not on merit but on such superficial characteristics.

If filmmakers try to hire a specific number of individuals from “underrepresented group(s)” to meet quotas, they may have to hire people who are not the best they can find. As a result, they will create inferior products and lower the standard for the Best Picture Oscar. Because talented individuals exist in any group, it is possible—though not probable—that filmmakers will be able to meet these quotas without diminishing the quality of their work. But that does not change the fact that these requirements are unjust and irrational. They will destroy the value and prestige of the award, the official title of which is the “Academy Award of Merit.”³

Filmmakers are still free to choose who they work with and what stories they tell. But if they want to win a Best Picture Oscar, they will have to waste their time with inclusion forms and quotas instead of focusing on making the best film they can with the people who will help them achieve that purpose. Because a win, or even just a nomination, in this category is enough to draw attention to the film and increase its sales, many filmmakers will want to comply with these criteria. But doing so sanctions racism and injustice.

For ninety-three years the Academy has been “celebrating and recognizing excellence in filmmaking.” If it is to continue doing so, it must scrap the preposterous idea of inclusion requirements and—as it has, historically—require its voting members to judge films “solely on . . . artistic and technical merits.”⁴

1

. The 2020 Oscars were watched by 23.6 million viewers. This is the lowest rating in the past ten years; the highest was 43.7 million in 2014. See Matt Webb Mitovich, “Ratings: Oscars Hit All-Time Low, Down Sharply from First Host-Less Outing,” February 10 2020, https://tvline.com/2020/02/10/tv-ratings-oscars-2020-parasite-best-picture/.

2

. Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, “Academy Establishes Representation and Inclusion Standards for Oscars Eligibility,” September 8, 2020, https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-establishes-representation-and-inclusion-standards-oscarsr-eligibility.

3

. Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, “Oscar Statuette,” https://www.oscars.org/oscars/statuette.

4

. Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, “Regulations Concerning the Promotion of Films Eligible for the 93rd Academy Awards®,” April 2020, p. 2, https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/93aa_regulations.pdf.