This just in... Academy's New Diversity Plans Announced
Friday, January 22, 2016 at 4:30PM 
After the emergency meeting of the Oscar's governing board (51 players strong) to discuss what to do about their sorry track record of diversity these past few years -- #OscarsSoWhite had become the only story out of the Oscar nominations -- they've announced plans for changes to take effect immediately following this Oscar season.
It boils down to a plan to significantly expand & speed up the initiatives President Cheryl Boone Isaac had already put in place with one very significant change.
- New Members*
Though they've been adding more members annually already, between now and 2020 they vow to double the number of female and diverse voters. The Academy currently has about 6,261 voting members with estimates of women and nonwhite members making up about 1400 of that number so expect a couple those more members. - Three New Board Members
The 51 seats will increase to 54 with the new members chosen by the President. (All eyes will be on who she selects I'm sure. Is it too much to ask that we get an LGBT person in there somewhere? Because the Academy's track record) - Membership Terms
This one is the major change. It's no longer a lifetime appointment (unless you are an actual nominee or winner so yes Roberto Benigni gets to stay) but a ten year appointment. Members must be active in film during the decade to renew their membership when it's up. If they don't meet the criteria they will become "Members Emeritus". This will apply retroactively after the Oscars this year. Voters who do not qualify will not lose any privileges except voting. So they still get all the screenings and perks and such.
* One more change involving the new members to be invited (which usually happens in the summer) was announced but it's a bit vague. Variety describes it like so:
The Academy will supplement the traditional process in which current members sponsor new members by launching an ambitious, global campaign to identify and recruit qualified new members who represent greater diversity.
Cheryl Boone Isaacs, the Academy's current President
Cheryl Boone Isaacs states:
The Academy is going to lead and not wait for the industry to catch up. These new measures regarding governance and voting will have an immediate impact and begin the process of significantly changing our membership composition.”
This is all very promising but we'll still need the industry to catch up to insure that different types of stories are told and heard each year. And audiences will still need to support stories that aren't about superheroes or men to get more of these films made. But that's another struggle.
For now hear hear on Ms. Isaac's swift actions!
Reader Comments (85)
In other words, the outcry that you criticized Nathaniel had a real and benefic impact on the oscars.
I am happy the way things turned.
Very good news.
I'm glad they didn't change the format of the awards process.
Charlotte Rampling's comments, though, may affect her already slim chances of winning. I think I get what she is saying, but boy, did she phrase it very badly. Or maybe she just doesn't give a damn what people think.
These honestly feel like some really positive moves in the right direction. These changes, hopefully coupled with more and more doors being opened for more diverse stories and more diverse people in front of and behind the camera will hopefully result in some real change. Kudos to Cheryl Boone Isaacs, who has had the unenviable job of having to address this issue.
Marcello -- yes, i'm the bad guy. i never tire of hearing that this week. I'm the one holding the world back with my list of possible solutions and my request that people stay calm and work through problems and not call each other names and assume the worst about each other (sigh)
Raul ---not yet at any rate.
Kieran -- agreed. I don't know when Cheryl's tenure is up but if it's timed anything like Obama's they should have huge drinks together like "the shit we had to clean up when we were in office, damn" Not that Oscars and running the US are comparable. LOL.
Rampling is known to be a straight-shooter, so I won't assume she didn't mean what she said exactly the way it's being reported. Though she was speaking in French, so maybe there's some nuance missed. It didn't come off well.
Very excited for these changes. Cheryl Boone Isaac realized the root of the problem was not the format of the awards, but the voters themselves. The plan seems very reasonable and, in my mind, doesn't automatically toss out old voters because they are out of touch, but restructures the voting body to be more representative of the diversity that exists in the world.
I just hope that they do end up doubling the number of women and nonwhite members by 2020. This is something I feel we will need to check up on to make sure it is not just lip service.
Good work Cheryl!
Oh, Charlotte Rampling, finally gets her big moment, and this is how she chooses to spend it. It's really disappointing to hear someone you've admired for so long say something that ignorant and insensitive.
Happy with the decisions and for the change, without going in to more radical measures like expanding the acting fields (which I didn't think would help at all, leading to either them just picking more of the usual stuff or "The Minority Slot") or something along those lines.
I've had mixed feelings overall toward these developments and I guess the "#OscarsSoWhite" debate. I agree that the Academy (and the film/television industry at large) needs to take greater measures in recognizing performances from minority actors/actresses - but without making it about "well they NEED to get a nomination because they're 'X' race, gender, etc." Then it becomes about nominating them purely based on their race, gender, or ethnicity - a point that I get what Michael Caine and Charlotte Rampling were getting at, though maybe not phrased appropriately (obviously in the case of Rampling, worded quite poorly).
I don't think we can ever live in a world where the Oscars/Academy can purely be the be-all, end-all for a 100% diversity-driven nominations body. They can't see every film, they can't praise every performance, they can't give EVERYONE an award. Obviously expanding the fields would have taken away what they represent.
There isn't really a one-step solution to these issues highlighted in the last week, but I'm glad they're at least taking steps to change that, and I give a lot of credit to Isaacs and the other Academy heads for recognizing that and taking the critiques to heart and mind.
I applaud the academy for these changes. Two more that I would like to see:
1. 10 best pictures
2. Let committees from each branch do the nominating instead of the entire branch. This will make members less likely to only vote for the films getting splashy campaigns, and the committees themselves can be more diverse than the membership as a whole.
What Miss Rampling said was not that the outcry was "racist to whites" or "racist to white people." Her exact words were: "C'est du racisme anti-blanc" ("This is anti-white racism.")
.......
This is a step in the right direction. I hope studios make and campaign more films with diverse filmmakers. I hope POC are given more opportunities. But I also hope all this outrage inspires audiences to go support diverse filmmakers, and for the media to encourage this participation. If you criticize Oscars for being white, what are you doing during the year to combat this issue? Is the Hollywood Reporter going to stop pigeonholing "contenders" from the get to? Oscar season has become a vicious cycle. The media can do something from its end, too.
And studios: stop the year-end bombardment that seriously debilitates a voter's ability to watch all they should be watching. No one wins when watching movies and voting for the Oscars feels like finals week. But really this comes down to voters needing to do a better job. Recognize your blind spots. Watch more movies.
These are the most rational and logical changes they could and should have made.
I am particularly excited by the new membership drive to bring in women and diverse members because that announcement every year of the new names has always been so disappointing when you see categories STILL adding 90% white men. I wonder what sort of names will be added. It could be fun.
Good measures but really a bit of let down after all the fighting and name calling and finger pointing. I expected the Academy to self dissolve . Or at least make it mandatory for each member to clap for DiCaprio if they want to keep their membership :-)
Kelly -- #2 is actually how it already is. Only actors nominated actors, etcetera. It's when they get to the final who wins the award round of voting that it changes to everyone getting to choose.
Glenn -- YES. the gender imbalance is an enormous problem, and one that's been overshadowed this week in discussions and this is a great step to address that.
This is positive news. Well done, Cheryl Boone Isaacs and the Academy. Here's hoping it brings about the changes we all want. I think it will help.
And Nathaniel: No way are you the bad guy. Quite the opposite, in fact. I for one am glad you're here to help navigate us through this issue. Don't ever change!
John: Good points (again [if you're the same John as before!]). We've all got our part to play.
Ryan M...the thing is it's hard to make that point without it ultimately boiling down to white objectivity (this notion of the white perspective being objective and neutral)--a falsehood that plagues a lot of these conversations and makes it difficult for people to see beyond themselves. No one is saying anyone needs to get a nomination because they're X or Y or Z identity. They're simply saying that there are systemic problems in place that immediately affect how non-white professionals in this industry are viewed, evaluated and also given employment opportunities.
It's like the arguments against affirmative action (which I think would go away if people actually read about how little affirmative action moves the needle in terms of hiring practices and college admissions). To me, it's hard NOT to ultimately boil any arguments against affirmative action to "well, people of color must simply not be as capable as their white counterparts if they aren't making inroads" because fact--inequality in terms of access exists. It exists because of power structures that have been in place for a long time. Merit is subjective, first of all. A lot of people did think Michael B. Jordan was great. But, it seems like the confluence of events has to be just right for people of color to even be considered in terms of awards--in a way completely different from the confluence of events that needs to be in place for white performers to be considered for awards and much of that (not all of it and not all the time) is informed by implicit racial bias. And that's setting aside casting practices that often don't give non-white performers the chance to be great. In an industry like cinema where friends hire friends and the power (production and distribution) has very largely been in white hands, that of course is going to unconsciously or otherwise lock out certain people. It's myopic and frankly false to think that anyone would propose someone gets a nomination simply because they're a minority. No one is proposing that. It's about expanding the conversation and allowing for more diverse stories to be considered in the first place, then evaluated on their own merits. I hope I countered your point respectfully.
So glad to see terms implemented. It was one of my suggestions in your post the other day and I'm, frankly, shocked to see them here. Now it's just pertinent that the renewal board scrutinizes those members up for renewal and doesnt rubber stamp folks trying to exploit the process.
These changes seem promising. I'm glad they are happening.
As for Rampling, she deserves all the ire coming her way. Stupid, tone deaf and out of touch remarks. She can't apologize this away for a long time and forget about her contending for the win. Unless all those being kicked out vote for her as their last "fuck you" to the Academy.
This is great news because it actually addresses problems and doesn't actually change what the Oscars are (I really thought we were gonna get 20 Best Picture nominees and ten acting nominees per category..which would have been awful).
I have been one of those defending the Oscars saying BUT IT'S AN INDUSTRY PROBLEM and THEY'RE DIVERSIFYING IT JUST TAKES TIME but my god is that last quote just amazing about not waiting for the industry to catch up. Instead they're going to lead the industry. Powerful stuff, and it proved me wrong. The Oscars have power in Hollywood, and I actually do think this can lead to change industry wide.
I am not going to comment on what Rampling said because I am not French and do not know the difference in what the terms mean. In English, of course, the term racism deals with power structures, so no, what she described is not racist. But her word choice might not carry that denotation in French. Is there anyone who grew up in France (not just someone who speaks it) who can add some insight? Well I guess this has turned into me commenting on her comments, so yeah, she shouldn't have said anything if that is how she felt, unless it was along the lines of what Isaacs has been saying i.e. "not to take away from this year's great nominees, but we still have to address that there is an issue."
PS Did anyone else think "wow, 2020, that is so far from now," and then realize that it is only four years away?!
Nathaniel -- yes, I get that only branch members vote on their nominees. I'm advocating for a smaller committee of the branch members. For example, instead of the 1100 or so actors voting on who to nominate, they should have a committee of 100 or so deciding on the nominations.
Steve: Re: 2020: yes, I did. How time flies! Life is short.
Race is a huge political issue right now in France -- though the parameters are slightly different than those in US conversation -- and the term "anti-white racism" will surely resonate with some of the far right victimized-white-people rhetoric going on there right now. I'm pissed about Rampling's comments.
To the point: I'm glad the Academy under Ms. Isaacs is acting quickly. This year's nomination slate has been a disaster for them, and they needed to respond immediately.
I view these changes as very good news. They've done the right thing in my eyes.
As a current PR student, I feel desperately sorry for Charlotte Ramplings PR team.
@ Kieran Scarlett:
"It's about expanding the conversation and allowing for more diverse stories to be considered in the first place, then evaluated on their own merits."
Well said! Fully agree, and totally respectful.
Didn't mean for my original point to sound "myopic" or anything like that. I totally agree that it should be about "expanding the conversation" as you put it - the performances and talent are what should be considered, though obviously with the recent debates and what not, it's a shame that many worthy performances (Michael B Jordan, Idris Elba, etc.) are not getting the proper recognition they deserve.
I hope the changes they announced today help that, not only within the Academy, but reach out to the entertainment industry at large.
SanFran - Thanks for the insight on race in France. That certainly worsens the comments Rampling made, in my mind at least.
At last! Well done, Cheryl Boone Isaacs. The internet madness demanded proactive measures.
I wish the Academy would actually let those who want to boycott the Oscars have some time on stage to talk about their concerns and explain their positions during the show.
About the new rules: I read on another site that if you pass the ten-year evaluation three times in a row you will get lifetime voting rights. Is this correct? And going off of that, will they go back and review the careers of people who are retired or who have not worked in ten years to see if they would have passed three consecutive reviews at some point after they became a member of the Academy? Because shouldn't that be factored in if that is the standard they are holding newer/younger members to starting now?
Steve that is correct. and its applied retroactively so it affects everyone. The only thing they weren't clear on is if that meant if it was 30 years of activity or 30 years of activity AFTER INDUCTION which would make a difference.
CBI is a goddess. This problem obviously has as much if not more to do with the entire film industry, but I'm happy to see the Academy being a leader in this field. It's what they should be.
Honestly you guys, CHARLOTTE RAMPLING just doesn't give a fuck anymore.
I'll be surprised if she even attends the Oscar, still holding on for her to pull off a miracle win though.
This feels like such a big step in the right direction and it feels the right one to make too, so props, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, for trying to correct this problem properly.
And! The global initiative part really makes me excited because hopefully this means they'll notice more foreign films! Which hopefully means more nominations beyond one movie in one category that kind of only shows up at Oscar if they show up at all which would be really amazing because foreign movies are awesome and deserve so much more love than they've gotten. Here's to hoping the drought of nonwhite nominees can be solved through nonwhite nominees outside of America as well as inside America.
Does anyone know what they mean by "activity" exactly? Can someone take a role as an extra or something every ten years and declare themselves "active in the industry?"
Wow! Didn't know the Oscars needs "affirmative action". Hooray for Rampling! "Perhaps they just don't deserve to be on the short list"."
Very pleased to hear of these reforms. Just to reiterate that the gender imbalance has been systemic even within the last 10 years.
Total of new members to actors branch since 2004 to 2015 = 229 ( 138 male + 91 female )
that makes for a 60% male 40 % female avg. - There's absolutely no justification for that particularly when the average of male to female new members across branches is a very steady 75% male to 25% female.
I know I've been banging on about this for the last few days but it just shows how much these reforms are needed.
Btw. Nathaniel - I still want a reform for category fraud ! Cheers :)
BTW - Annette Benning is a member of the Board of Governors - wouldn't you love to hear her talk about it? Pity she never will.
Ms. Cheryl Boone Issacs just dropped the mic on u bitches! Living, darlings! :-D
I just hope the Academy truly looks internationally and not just nationally for new, diverse members. I think that could potentially give foreign films and art house films a leg up in competing for nominations outside of the usual parameters like screenplay and foreign film. I just don't want to see come summer Academy Member Rihanna or Academy Member Vin Diesel
Is there a peer criteria process for this doubling process? Sounds like quotas without merit. Charlotte Rampling threw down.
The one area where I agreed with Rampling is .... Will Smith is an overpaid A-lister, so I cry no tears for him and Jada in their Belair mansion.
I would also like to extend my sympathies to Julie Delpy's publicist.
@Ez: I know how Delpy feels. Sometimes I wish I were a white woman...in particular, Cate Blanchett. </sarcasm>
But no, seriously.
Very feasible and decisive steps taken, none of them are dumb and rash. Applaud Cheryl Boone Issacs for taking the initiative. Regarding Charlotte Rampling, let's all wait for the actual French interview. I want to think that it's misconstrued but based on her straight forward personality, I'm pretty sure parts of it were in Essence true. Feeling very sad for her not only because her chances of winning are squashed, I'm really afraid they will boo her and ask her uncomfortable qns on Feb 28. Or she might choose not to attend due to the uproar over her comments. Please dun let such things happen.... 😢
Nathaniel, you are NOT the bad guy here and in fact, CBI's measured and sensible solution is not unlike the ones you proposed yourself (I'm so happy they didn't panic and just do stupid things like expanding the acting categories).
I'm also glad you point out the gender imbalance because this eventual increase in female voters to 48% constitutes a large enough demographic shift to have a significant impact on the voting. It will be interesting to see if more female centered films actually enter the Oscar race. Will Best Picture feature as many Best Actress nominees now as Best Actor? Will we have less anti-hero, dreary masculinist films like The Revenant? This can only be a good thing.
BlueMoon: I've read the transcript of the French interview, that's how I was able to quote it above.
These suggestions are knee jerk and Social Justice Warrior ill thought out.
Oh and as for Julie Delpy, girl you got to do TWO sequels of financially unsuccessful films of you just walking and talking. Name ONE actress of color who gets to do that. Go ahead. I'll wait.
In other diversity news: The X-Files
I for one am hoping we one day get Academy member Rihanna and Academy member Vin Diesel and as a matter of fact Academy Member Young Thug, Academy Member Rich Homie Quan, Academy Member Travis Scott, Academy Member Nicki Minaj yea I said it.
Perfect, then it's just MTV Movie Awards. Why are they making these rash decisions before the show airs? I would not hire their legal counsel, but whatever.