Inclusion Riders in Hollywood...

[Trace Buster Buster]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

The vast majority of people who work on a film are behind the camera so this mainly concerns recruitment for crew members. Hollywood is mostly run by white men, who are more likely to hire white males, because we all have a tendency to gravitate to our own. So if there is a white man and a black guy or a woman, both equally qualified, why not make a point to hiring the black guy or the woman to give them a chance ? And its not like white guys won't get hired anymore, this just makes sure that it isn't all white guys but that there is some proportional representation.

So if we have three qualified candidates (a black guy, a white guy, and a woman) you're proposing that the company hire the black guy or the woman under the pretense that the white guy can, "find a job somewhere else because he's white"? Seriously? Damn dude.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by Trace Buster Buster

So if we have three qualified candidates (a black guy, a white guy, and a woman) you're proposing that the company hire the black guy or the woman under the pretense that the white guy can, "find a job somewhere else because he's white"? Seriously? Damn dude.

Did you read the bit where I explained that this doesn't mean that white guys won't get hired ? They will but an inclusion rider insures that they won't be the only ones. To turn this around, why should it be qualified women and people of color who never get the job ?

[BluProofie]

Lmao at OP thinking this thread will go well.

I think IR is an excellent idea.

[J-Mart]

Originally Posted by Kylo Ren

"You aren't really qualified for this, but you're a minority we don't have on our team, so you get the position!"

I don't understand why the minority in all these hypothetical situations is always perceived as unqualified.

[WestMan]

Originally Posted by J-Mart

I don't understand why the minority in all these hypothetical situations is always perceived as unqualified.

Perhaps because when colleges have used quotas based on race, it has done exactly that. African Americans at state schools need lesser grades to get in compared to their Asian counterparts.

[Trace Buster Buster]

Originally Posted by J-Mart

I don't understand why the minority in all these hypothetical situations is always perceived as unqualified.

Because if they were qualified they would have gotten the job. (Bring on the flames baby)

[s2mikey]

IMO, forced diversity always sucks. Natural diversity is good. What does that mean? Well....

It means that qualified minorities getting looked over for jobs just because of their race is really mean and horrible. It also means though that trying to enforce some arbitrary percentage of women, blacks, asians, etc, etc into any production is completely stupid and equally horrible. Just let things play out as they play out. Right now the world is infatuated with percentages and trying like hell to make sure that we have X% of this on staff, X% of that race on staff, X% of this gender, etc. Its moronic.

If there was a qualifed black worker and I didnt hire him then Im stupid. I just let a qualified candidate walk away and go somewhere else to be productive. Bad for business.

Overall though, forcing the issue will just lead to more biterness and angst. Is that what they really want?

[CelluloidPal]

No matter how they try to spin this, it's Affirmative Action, pure and simple.

[Trace Buster Buster]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

IMO, forced diversity always sucks. Natural diversity is good. What does that mean? Well....

It means that qualified minorities getting looked over for jobs just because of their race is really mean and horrible. It also means though that trying to enforce some arbitrary percentage of women, blacks, asians, etc, etc into any production is completely stupid and equally horrible. Just let things play out as they play out. Right now the world is infatuated with percentages and trying like hell to make sure that we have X% of this on staff, X% of that race on staff, X% of this gender, etc. Its moronic.

If there was a qualifed black worker and I didnt hire him then Im stupid. I just let a qualified candidate walk away and go somewhere else to be productive. Bad for business.

Overall though, forcing the issue will just lead to more biterness and angst. Is that what they really want?

Yep. If company A chooses to not hire a more qualified person because of their gender or race, it's their loss and a stupid business decision. Plus why would you want to work at that place anyway? They just showed you that they're racisct/sexist and you can rest easy knowing you're not working at a place like that. I bet there racist/sexist companies having to hire people they don't like and then secretly hating those people behind their backs.

[blu blood]

Originally Posted by WestMan

Perhaps because when colleges have used quotas based on race, it has done exactly that. African Americans at state schools need lesser grades to get in compared to their Asian counterparts.

And if we continue to include underrepresented people in all areas, things like inclusion riders won't be necessary, because eventually we'll all truly have equal opportunities.

Unless you think white men are genetically superior, we are getting an unfair advantage somewhere.

If we're generally more qualified it's because of better access to education, lower odds of being passed over for a job for some profiling reason thus building a better resume et al

Either there are genetic advantages or there are societal advantages, otherwise we would see demographic representation commensurate with the demographic breakdown of the general population, rather than white men overrepresented in so many segments of society.

[NegaScott128]

Don't mind me, I'm just getting my foot in the door before this thread gets deleted.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by blu blood

And if we continue to include underrepresented people in all areas, things like inclusion riders won't be necessary, because eventually we'll all truly have equal opportunities.

Unless you think white men are genetically superior, we are getting an unfair advantage somewhere.

If we're generally more qualified it's because of better access to education, lower odds of being passed over for a job for some profiling reason thus building a better resume et al

Either there are genetic advantages or there are societal advantages, otherwise we would see demographic representation commensurate with the demographic breakdown of the general population, rather than white men overrepresented in so many segments of society.

If I ever found out that I was chosen for a gig based on my race above skill set just to even out representations, I would walk away. It's beyond insulting to me.

[WestMan]

Originally Posted by blu blood

And if we continue to include underrepresented people in all areas, things like inclusion riders won't be necessary, because eventually we'll all truly have equal opportunities.

Unless you think white men are genetically superior, we are getting an unfair advantage somewhere.

If we're generally more qualified it's because of better access to education, lower odds of being passed over for a job for some profiling reason thus building a better resume et al

Either there are genetic advantages or there are societal advantages, otherwise we would see demographic representation commensurate with the demographic breakdown of the general population, rather than white men overrepresented in so many segments of society.

Affirmative action has been around for over 55 years and things still aren't "equal". There is a village in Kenya that produces the majority of the best runners in the history of long distance running. Should big marathons make sure non-Kenyans have an equal chance at winning the races?

Quotas, Riders, and laws can't change reality. Let the best do the job. If that is all Kenyans like in racing, then so be it

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

Did you read the bit where I explained that this doesn't mean that white guys won't get hired ? They will but an inclusion rider insures that they won't be the only ones. To turn this around, why should it be qualified women and people of color who never get the job ?

When hiring practices are based solely on race and gender, that's a problem.
If things were flipped and the production was lead by a female or a POC, discrimination would be greatly excepted and applauded.
The film, Equity is a great example of this. The female led production went so out of their way to hire solely female crew and overpaid them because they were female and went on CNN and admitted it in an interview for the film.

[blu blood]

Originally Posted by WestMan

Affirmative action has been around for over 55 years and things still aren't "equal". There is a village in Kenya that produces the majority of the best runners in the history of long distance running. Should big marathons make sure non-Kenyans have an equal chance at winning the races?

Quotas, Riders, and laws can't change reality. Let the best do the job. If that is all Kenyans like in racing, then so be it

This is false equivalence.

Comparing marathon times and comparing resumes aren't remotely the same thing.

If there was a truly impartial, unbiased, objective way to measure resumes in the same way a stop watch measures marathons, you would have a point here, but alas...

[WestMan]

Originally Posted by blu blood

This is false equivalence.

Comparing marathon times and comparing resumes aren't remotely the same thing.

If there was a truly impartial, unbiased, objective way to measure resumes in the same way a stop watch measures marathons, you would have a point here, but alas...

Look at college SAT scores. There is a difference in the average SAT score by race for college acceptance. That is a measurable test. That is with AA being used which is similar to what this is. Is that a better example for you?

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by blu blood

This is false equivalence.

Comparing marathon times and comparing resumes aren't remotely the same thing.

If there was a truly impartial, unbiased, objective way to measure resumes in the same way a stop watch measures marathons, you would have a point here, but alas...

Your suggestion isn't any less impartial, unbiased or objective.

[Talleyrand]

I thought McDormand's speech was obnoxious and it soured me on the film a bit...still my favourite of 2017 but damn.

As for the riders, honestly, I don't think it's the worst. I think going for exactly proportional representation is asinine for two reasons: It implies people of a given group are equally interested/capable; and its kind of racist/sexist in itself (albeit towards every race and both genders) in that it homogenizes the groups in the question.

Also I had heard at first they wanted 50%+ minority representation and...I mean, the US is 60%+ white so that seems a little incongruous; but having proportional representation is a better ideal.

But on the other hand if there are situations where actual racism is occurring then, yeah, that should be stopped.

That being said, if I was an actor, I wouldn't have a rider.

Originally Posted by Lord Method Man

Hollywood is destroying itself and I don't really care. #MeToo did what McCarthy never dreamed of, the new SAG demands are essentially bringing back the Hays Code, and I'm sure this crap will just escalate the decline even more.

Dude, you scared me to death with this post. I had to look this up, but it seems you exaggerated a bit.

Originally Posted by eightslicesofpie

And realistically, studios are not going to purposely hire someone who sucks or is unqualified, because that would be stupid.

No, but that's a strawman.

What could happen is if a minority is 70% - 90% as qualified or skilled or whatever as a non-minority they could get the job.

Originally Posted by J-Mart

I don't understand why the minority in all these hypothetical situations is always perceived as unqualified.

Well, presumably otherwise they'd have the job.

[Hoke Moseley]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

I thought McDormand's speech was obnoxious and it soured me on the film a bit...still my favourite of 2017 but damn.

Oh, give me a break.

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

No matter how they try to spin this, it's Affirmative Action, pure and simple.

I don't think it's similar at all. That's the government forcing the issue.

This is actors privately choosing to have this contract, which the studio can take or leave.