Support NeoGAF

[A Link to the Past]

Yeah, disenfranchising people does not seem like the best way to promote diversity. Either broaden the base to make it more diverse, or introduce some new categories for the time being to ensure some recognition of minority performances.

Firstly, it's not disenfranchisement. It's, ironically, a merit-based proposal.

Secondly, that idea won't work for two reasons:

1. It will be viewed as the token minority award and be criticized roundly because there isn't a "best white performance" category;

2. It could very well mean that performances by minority actors would be even more reduced by the Academy.

 

[Slayven]

I can't even get on your fuckin podcast, hell no you're not getting my Academy-approved sack of bath bombs.

Thanks for reminding we need to work that.

 

[EatinOlives]

Yeah, disenfranchising people does not seem like the best way to promote diversity. Either broaden the base to make it more diverse, or introduce some new categories for the time being to ensure some recognition of minority performances.

"Disenfranchising" I think is coming off a little too strong. This isn't voting for your government representative, this is voting in a subgroup of an entertainment medium that is, by its own admission, very exclusive and insular. It's not a right but a privilege.

And they're not getting kicked off the Academy, they're just being moved to an "emeritus" status that lets them still be in the Academy and enjoy all the privileges, they just can't vote in the awards that rewards extremely recent films that have come out in the last year. If you're not up to date with the current activity in the medium, I don't see how it's unfair to tell people they shouldn't vote on current films.

Besides, broadening the base and introducing categories at best will likely be decried as "PC" and "not merit-based" by the same group anyway.

 

[Stumpokapow]

This is true. The number of people who will be affected by this rule is very small, especially if there's other measures beyond credited work. But that begs the question, why do it? If the number of voters thrown out of the pool by the proposed rules will have negligible affect on the overall voting body, why implement it?

For one, to make further reforms more viable in the future? Say they want to get to a position where there's significant decade-on-decade churn in academy voters, but they know any changes will bring consternation. Making a small change now makes it easier to make a small change later and then several more changes to bring it to where they want it to be. This isn't a conspiratorial slippery slope thing, it's literally win-win. Slow changes help minimize the backlash, and they also help minimize the impact of people who benefit from the existing system.

Let's say you're the Academy and you want to lower the average age of voters to, say, 45-47 (from the current mid-60s). One way you could do this is simply ban people over 70 from voting at all. Another way you could do this is make it easier for people to get in young and harder for people to hang onto voting 30-50 years later. And then in 5-10 years, you'd see a fairly real drop in average voting age.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I don't have a problem with increasing diversity. It's just weird it's being done at the expense of older Academy members. Why not expand the pool instead of kicking out folks who spent decades working in the industry? Let them have their say. Just increase the younger voting body to reflect a more diverse society. Instead they're instituting an age bias that is just as problematic as racial issue in the industry.

Won't someone think of the older whote people!!!

Basically the entire voting group is older academy members.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

that is whitest thing that I have ever seen since the white teenager danging gif

 

[Imperfected]

I admit to prejudice in this matter: I don't think an 84 year old should be making decisions about anything for anyone other than themselves, and often not even then.

(And yes, I know the American political system does not agree with my assessment.)

 

[krazen]

Racial issues aside there's always been a critique on the Academy and their being out of touch whenever awards season comes around, the race issue just helps illustrate the point.

If the people deciding what the movies of merit are all in their 70's, there's a problem. Same way if it was all 20 year olds, lol.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

What about fighting against an institution so entrenched in its ways that white dudes are comfortable and unafraid enough to publicly call themselves the "backbone of the industry" without any self-awareness at what they're saying or implying?

Do it in such a way that you're not discriminating against retired people, then.

Actually, isn't this ambiguously illegal? I think the federal statutes prohibiting discrimination based on age apply to private organizations and are willing to apply the disparate impact test, anyway.

When I see how baby boomers are screwing every western country ATM I'm totally okay with ageism.

Doesn't mean I don't feel like we as a society have a duty to care for our elderly. I just want them to step down and enjoy their hard earned retirement.

Exhibit A on the "ageism is a completely acceptable prejudice for modern liberals," case.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Do it in such a way that you're not discriminating against retired people, then.

There is no just world here. These older white men have made it this way, and now their industry's bullshit needs to be corrected. I have no hard feelings toward involving people different than ones who would unironically call their age/race/gender demographic "the backbone of the industry" after they self-selected their way into being that backbone.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Do it in such a way that you're not discriminating against retired people, then

This isn't really ageism. Someone who got invited into the Academy at age 20 could have their vote yanked at age 30 if they didn't work within the industry for the next 10 years. That same person might get bounced at age 40. And if they managed to work MINIMUM three times in the following 30 years from their acceptance into the Academy, they get lifetime voting privileges. If they're nominated for an award, they get lifetime voting privileges.

It's not the age that's the determining factor, it's the work. There are going to be a lot of old voters who will retain their vote. There are going to be some young people who don't.

people are getting what they wanted: something closer to a meritocracy that is dependent on voters having proved their merit via some rather lenient standards.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Do it in such a way that you're not discriminating against retired people, then.

Actually, isn't this ambiguously illegal? I think the federal statutes prohibiting discrimination based on age apply to private organizations and are willing to apply the disparate impact test, anyway.

They're not discriminating based on age, they're mandating that you still be involved in the industry. Such an argument basically is making the claim that it's discrimination to not keep employed an employee who can no longer work any of the jobs that exist in your company.

I admit to prejudice in this matter: I don't think an 84 year old should be making decisions about anything for anyone other than themselves, and often not even then.

(And yes, I know the American political system does not agree with my assessment.)

That's not fair. An elderly person can have a valuable perspective on things.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Old white men are the most oppressed group in all of society.

It's true. Did you know that they are the group that is most likely die of a hypothetical heart attack during a traffic jam caused by a protest?

 

[Ryaaan14]

lol fuck those old hags.

Also, they haven't even worked in the industry for 30 years? Hb get a damn job while you're at it. No wonder my boy Leo has gotten snubbed so much. Out of touch old racist bags. Go watch some Bonanza in a fuckin retirement community or something.

 

[Vice]

Do it in such a way that you're not discriminating against retired people, then.

Actually, isn't this ambiguously illegal? I think the federal statutes prohibiting discrimination based on age apply to private organizations and are willing to apply the disparate impact test, anyway.



Exhibit A on the "ageism is a completely acceptable prejudice for modern liberals," case.

It's possible for them to still be in the academy though. If they were active i. Their youth or even only worked lightly in the last few decades they will still be in. It likely won't have as deep as an impact as some people are hoping and others are fearing.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

These obsolete old people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

This isn't really ageism. Someone who got invited into the Academy at age 20 could have their vote yanked at age 30 if they didn't work within the industry for the next 10 years. That same person might get bounced at age 40. And if they managed to work MINIMUM three times in the following 30 years from their acceptance into the Academy, they get lifetime voting privileges. If they're nominated for an award, they get lifetime voting privileges.

It's not the age that's the determining factor, it's the work. There are going to be a lot of old voters who will retain their vote. There are going to be some young people who don't.

Yeah, and some blacks could pass literacy tests and pay a poll tax, and there's nothing stopping them from getting voting ID today. That doesn't change the fact that the practical effect of such measures was to minimize the portion of blacks in the electorate and that this was precisely what the authors of those bills had in mind. Disparate impact motivated by animus against protected groups as always been treated as discrimination, and for good reason.

(in before someone rails against me for comparing two things of significantly different levels of seriousness. Obviously poll taxes are a significantly greater injustice than a few privileged dudes losing the ability to vote in a popularity contest. I'm asking you to think like a lawyer. Even if the stakes are lower, do the same principles apply?)

 

[A Link to the Past]

lol fuck those old hags.

Also, they haven't even worked in the industry for 30 years? Hb get a damn job while you're at it. No wonder my boy Leo has gotten snubbed so much. Out of touch old racist bags. Go watch some Bonanza in a fuckin retirement community or something.

Uhh

Please cut down the ageist rhetoric? lol

I mean I get where you're coming from, I get why you're reacting this way, but there really isn't any need for it. :/

Yeah, and some blacks could pass literacy tests and pay a poll tax, and there's nothing stopping them from getting voting ID today. That doesn't change the fact that the practical effect of such measures was to minimize the portion of blacks in the electorate and that this was precisely what the authors of those bills had in mind. Disparate impact motivated by animus against protected groups as always been treated as discrimination, and for good reason.

(in before someone rails against me for comparing two things of significantly different levels of seriousness. Obviously poll taxes are a significantly greater injustice than a few privileged dudes losing the ability to vote in a popularity contest. I'm asking you to think like a lawyer. Even if the stakes are lower, do the same principles apply?)

Again I ask, is it ageist to have a person removed from their position if they can no longer perform the roles that the position requires them to?

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Do it in such a way that you're not discriminating against retired people, then.

Actually, isn't this ambiguously illegal? I think the federal statutes prohibiting discrimination based on age apply to private organizations and are willing to apply the disparate impact test, anyway.

This isn't ageism. It's changing an institution that is based in heavily bias rules into a more diverse merit based system. Who gives a shit about your age, if you haven't been active in film for 30 years (not just acting but writing, directing, mentoring etc), how can you possibly be qualified for this position? This system doesn't discriminate against you if you're old, old people in the Academy are still heavily involved in film and will not lose their voting rights.

If you're retired for 30 years in an industry like film, you really have no place judging and handing out awards to things so past your time and perspective.

 

[WanderingWind]

They're not discriminating based on age, they're mandating that you still be involved in the industry. Such an argument basically is making the claim that it's discrimination to not keep employed an employee who can no longer work any of the jobs that exist in your company.

Not even that. It's more like an employee did some okay work for you once (remember, not the recognized best, or they'd have at least an Oscar nom and be set), then left the company. But the company continued to give them a vote during important board meetings. For life. Now the rule is that hey, maybe you should have worked here at some point in the last decade, or proven that you are a paragon of the industry in some fashion before getting to have a say. For life.

The new rules are still stupid lenient. Honestly, they're just so fair to all parties that I don't get how anybody could be upset about them.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yeah, and some blacks could pass literacy tests and pay a poll tax, and there's nothing stopping them from getting voting ID today. That doesn't change the fact that the practical effect of such measures was to minimize the portion of blacks in the electorate and that this was precisely what the authors of those bills had in mind. Disparate impact motivated by animus against protected groups as always been treated as discrimination, and for good reason.

(in before someone rails against me for comparing two things of significantly different levels of seriousness. Obviously poll taxes are a significantly greater injustice than a few privileged dudes losing the ability to vote in a popularity contest. I'm asking you to think like a lawyer. Even if the stakes are lower, do the same principles apply?)

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

 

[Blader]

I don't see really why people who have not been active in the industry for decades should have a vote anyway. The whole point of the Oscars is to recognize your peers. Tab Hunter is nobody's peer in 2016.

 

[A Link to the Past]

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

Comparing diversification to Jim Crow

Not even that. It's more like an employee did some okay work for you once (remember, not the recognized best, or they'd have at least an Oscar nom and be set), then left the company. But the company continued to give them a vote during important board meetings. For life. Now the rule is that hey, maybe you should have worked here at some point in the last decade, or proven that you are a paragon of the industry in some fashion before getting to have a say. For life.

The new rules are still stupid lenient. Honestly, they're just so fair to all parties that I don't get how anybody could be upset about them.

They're unfair to them because they have to follow any rule.

 

[Kaako]

Good!
These outta touch mofos, cry some more so I can swim in them you dinosaurs.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

Comparing diversification to Jim Crow



They're unfair to them because they have to follow any rule.

But Jim Crow didn't have diversification in his video for "We Fly High"

 

[Bobby Roberts]

(in before someone rails against me for comparing two things of significantly different levels of seriousness

Then you probably should have figured a way to make your point without doing that because jeeeezus.

Academy members who do not meet the Awards voting criteria won't get their status revoked as Academy members. They will still belong to the Academy, they will still attend those events, get those gift bags, and see those films without having to pay for a ticket and enter a theater. Their influence will still be noted and felt. They'll likely turn into lobbyists, if you want to make a modern-day political comparison.

But the Academy has decided that the people who get to vote on who gets their awards have to have contributed in some fashion to the industry proper within the last 10 years, and that's IF they haven't actually secured a nomination, at which point they're lifetime voters no matter what. That's not a particularly stringent restriction at all.

This isn't age-based disenfranchisement. It's more like telling people who don't pay rent that they don't get a say in how the house gets decorated. Nobody's getting kicked out of the house. They're just not allowed to help hang the photos on the wall.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

You see that second paragraph? I guess it's only three lines, so it's easy to miss. I'll wait while you get caught up.

 

[StickSoldier]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/academys-new-voting-rules-raise-858388

Long read, but this is my favorite

Can you imagine what is said behind closed doors?

I love it LOL. Once the older generation of rich, racist, white men finally dies out, I feel like hopefully we can move in a better direction. Fuck this guy

 

[excelsiorlef]

There's about 6000 active voting members. They could easily expand that number by a thousand and still maintain the current level of exclusivity relative to the number of people in the industry.

Some members might be 30 years without a credit, but that doesn't mean they aren't active in the industry. They can still teach and play other behind the scenes roles that don't result in a screen credit, but still help shape face of the industry. The movie industry is unique in that fashion. Just because you don't have a credit, doesn't mean you're not working.

If with 6000 voters minorities can't get nominated what makes you think expanding by all of 1000 will solve everything.

Out of touch members who haven't been in the industry since before the Civil Rights movement need to go.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Can I have yours this year?

I can't even get on your fuckin podcast, hell no you're not getting my Academy-approved sack of bath bombs.

When Bobby is on the next pod cast and Slay had a diamond encrusted GPS, we'll know.

 

[A Link to the Past]

You see that second paragraph? I guess it's only three lines, so it's easy to miss. I'll wait while you get caught up.

Yeah, I don't think the person who's trying to compare people being harmed by diversification to people being harmed by Jim Crow has the high ground here.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

You see that second paragraph?.

Like I said, simply placing a disclaimer on the level of "in before..." doesn't wipe away the poor choice in analogy. You knew it was a bad call and pursued it anyway. You're gonna catch a couple shinfuls for that no matter how prominent your "in before..." is.

 

[DryEyeRelief]

Good!
These outta touch mofos, cry some more so I can swim in them you dinosaurs.

These obsolete old people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

lol fuck those old hags.

Also, they haven't even worked in the industry for 30 years? Hb get a damn job while you're at it. No wonder my boy Leo has gotten snubbed so much. Out of touch old racist bags. Go watch some Bonanza in a fuckin retirement community or something.

When I see how baby boomers are screwing every western country ATM I'm totally okay with ageism.

Doesn't mean I don't feel like we as a society have a duty to care for our elderly. I just want them to step down and enjoy their hard earned retirement.

I admit to prejudice in this matter: I don't think an 84 year old should be making decisions about anything for anyone other than themselves, and often not even then.

(And yes, I know the American political system does not agree with my assessment.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV0wTtiJygY

 

[excelsiorlef]

You see that second paragraph? I guess it's only three lines, so it's easy to miss. I'll wait while you get caught up.

You just compared trying to deny black folk the vote which is a legal right open to everyone to the Academy, an exclusive organization which already limits who can vote, changing their rules so that you actually have to be relatively active in the industry to vote.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Yeah, I don't think the person who's trying to compare people being harmed by diversification to people being harmed by Jim Crow has the high ground here.

Pardon me for using textbook antidiscrimination law to talk about discrimination.

You just compared trying to deny black folk the vote which is a legal right open to everyone to the Academy, an exclusive organization which already limits who can vote, changing their rules so that you actually have to be relatively active in the industry to vote.

How has refusing to apply antidiscrimination laws to private organizations worked out for the civil rights movement in the past?

 

[Prototype Viktor]

Also aren't the people in the article not officially out of voting yet? But they sure as hell think they are. I'm starting to put people on my ain't shit list if they talk about voting for someone black instead of saying POC. The standard is still there in the "I don't see race, then immediately mention whites" lines

 

[excelsiorlef]

Pardon me for using textbook antidiscrimination law to talk about discrimination.

THIS ISN'T DISCRIMINATION...

 

[A Link to the Past]

Pardon me for using textbook antidiscrimination law to talk about discrimination.

Is it discrimination if an employee can no longer function in their job to remove them from that job? I need to establish boundaries to your consideration of discrimination.

Further, would you argue that integration is discriminatory because it created more competition for white workers?

 

[Jonm1010]

Yeah, and some blacks could pass literacy tests and pay a poll tax, and there's nothing stopping them from getting voting ID today. That doesn't change the fact that the practical effect of such measures was to minimize the portion of blacks in the electorate and that this was precisely what the authors of those bills had in mind. Disparate impact motivated by animus against protected groups as always been treated as discrimination, and for good reason.

(in before someone rails against me for comparing two things of significantly different levels of seriousness. Obviously poll taxes are a significantly greater injustice than a few privileged dudes losing the ability to vote in a popularity contest. I'm asking you to think like a lawyer. Even if the stakes are lower, do the same principles apply?)

HOLY SHIT!

Unfortunate to hear your off the mark analogies and horrible arguments aren't exclusive to topics about sexual activity preferences. You are literally trying to conflate active, concerted institutional prejudice that aims to pervert outcomes with something that is aiming to reduce it and improve outcomes.

This is not active prejudice. This is changing the requirements for the job aimed to improve organizational effectiveness at achieving the desired optimal outcome the organization is seeking. A goal which is to produce a more meritable and properly encompassing nominee pool within the framework of the industry it is honoring. Motive and context matters. Something that seems continuously lost on you.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Pardon me for using textbook antidiscrimination law to talk about discrimination.

You're not gonna get the pardon, but you can move past the mistake to address the direct response I gave you that explains more clearly how this isn't age discrimination.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Pardon me for using textbook antidiscrimination law to talk about discrimination.

This is nothing discriminatory about the new rules the academy has put forth. You have to be kidding me. Your argument stems on "hey, despite the fact that the entirety of the problem we face now is because we have an stagnant and homogenous pool of people in an exclusive club picking everything, working to expand the reach of our group past that is discrimination". It's like, how can any knowing the situation and reading the Academy's new rules genuinely bitch about this. You're bitching for the status quo which is horrible.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Pardon me for using textbook antidiscrimination law to talk about discrimination.

You're not talking about the actual discrimination in Hollywood, though. You're talking about the results of having to fix it.

 

[Anth0ny]

christ

get these out of touch fucks outta there

 

[Mimosa97]

That's what the guild awards are for, though it's not terribly often that guild award recipients don't match the eventual Oscar recipient.

So the Big Short has the oscar on lock ?

Ugh ...

 

[MHWilliams]

Do it in such a way that you're not discriminating against retired people, then.

Actually, isn't this ambiguously illegal? I think the federal statutes prohibiting discrimination based on age apply to private organizations and are willing to apply the disparate impact test, anyway.

Nope. Tab for example, just needs to act, direct, produce, or contribute to a current project in any way, shape, or form to retain his voting status. Seeing as there's little clarification, Tab could be a background extra in the next Transformers and that would probably cover him.

And otherwise, he still retains his membership privileges.

This is, as others have stated, about making sure the voting body is somewhat connected to modern film-making.

 

[Bronx-Man]

Yeah, and some blacks could pass literacy tests and pay a poll tax, and there's nothing stopping them from getting voting ID today. That doesn't change the fact that the practical effect of such measures was to minimize the portion of blacks in the electorate and that this was precisely what the authors of those bills had in mind. Disparate impact motivated by animus against protected groups as always been treated as discrimination, and for good reason.

This has been one hell of an MLK week on GAF. Can't wait to see what February brings.

 

[Ridley327]

Nope. Tab for example, just need to act, direct, produce, or contribute to a current project in any way shape or form to retain his voting status. Seeing as there's little clarification, Tab could be a background extra in the next Transformers and that would probably cover him.

And otherwise, he still retains his membership privileges.

This is, as others have stated, about making sure the voting body is somewhat connected to modern film-making.

Incidentally, he would probably retain his voting privilege since he was the subject of a documentary about his life and struggle with having to stay in the closet for as long as he had to last year. Sounds like it was quite well received, too.

 

[Antiwhippy]

Bu-bu-but I thought the Oscars were based on merit.


Ahahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Incidentally, he would probably retain his voting privilege since he was the subject of a documentary about his life and struggle with having to stay in the closet for as long as he had to last year. Sounds like it was quite well received, too.

Yeah, if he participated in any way in that documentary (producing/advising/appearing) then he's golden. He gets to keep his vote.

 

[MHWilliams]

Incidentally, he would probably retain his voting privilege since he was the subject of a documentary about his life and struggle with having to stay in the closet for as long as he had to last year. Sounds like it was quite well received, too.

Well there you go. Done.

The rules are crazy lenient with the size of Hollywood and film productions these days.