Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Natalie Portman on Bias in Resistance to Inclusion Riders
The Mary Sue: Inclusion riders are nice in theory, but listening to Natalie Portman talk about them makes one thing very clear: The system is a lot more messed up than people realize and an inclusion rider may not be the only thing that can fix it.
2 comments:
Elizabeth P
said...
An inclusion rider is something present in a contract that basically sets a minimum for the amount of diversity that must be present, among the actors and the production staff. The fact that these statements are necessary does highlight the internal problem that was highlighted in the article. I've been hearing the argument that we should cast and hire based on talent and not the physical attributes of any given individual, but bias is always going to get in the way of that. We have created a society where talent seems only able to present itself in white cis able-bodied males. Sure, talent does sometimes show up in this group of individuals, but we continue to only look for talent in these places. We continue to make up excuses to not cast or hire someone based on talent. Inclusion riders are simply one of the things that can help deter those automatic decisions from happening, but we can't just use the excuse of having only inclusion riders, and thinking it is helping to solve the problem. As more companies continue to add inclusion riders into their company statements or contracts, you can see that progress is being made. It might not be fast, but because this isn't going to change overnight we have to do what we can.
I think this article very interestingly points out that inclusion riders are inherently biased and the arguments surrounding inclusion riders are inherently biased. I think that inclusion riders can be beneficial in increasing diversity, but I do think that there needs to be a systematic change in the way we in our society judge talent and we need to find a way, outside of inclusion riders, to stop establishing talent as only coming from those who are upper-middle class, cisgender, white males. I do think inclusion riders are a good start to this process, but I also understand Natalie Portman’s point in arguing against their current effectiveness as well. Inclusion riders are a process that need to become more widely accepted. Change is not something that is going to happen overnight, but the inclusion riders are a great start to promote this change and start the ball rolling on something that should have been happening way before the point we are at now.
2 comments:
An inclusion rider is something present in a contract that basically sets a minimum for the amount of diversity that must be present, among the actors and the production staff. The fact that these statements are necessary does highlight the internal problem that was highlighted in the article. I've been hearing the argument that we should cast and hire based on talent and not the physical attributes of any given individual, but bias is always going to get in the way of that. We have created a society where talent seems only able to present itself in white cis able-bodied males. Sure, talent does sometimes show up in this group of individuals, but we continue to only look for talent in these places. We continue to make up excuses to not cast or hire someone based on talent. Inclusion riders are simply one of the things that can help deter those automatic decisions from happening, but we can't just use the excuse of having only inclusion riders, and thinking it is helping to solve the problem. As more companies continue to add inclusion riders into their company statements or contracts, you can see that progress is being made. It might not be fast, but because this isn't going to change overnight we have to do what we can.
I think this article very interestingly points out that inclusion riders are inherently biased and the arguments surrounding inclusion riders are inherently biased. I think that inclusion riders can be beneficial in increasing diversity, but I do think that there needs to be a systematic change in the way we in our society judge talent and we need to find a way, outside of inclusion riders, to stop establishing talent as only coming from those who are upper-middle class, cisgender, white males. I do think inclusion riders are a good start to this process, but I also understand Natalie Portman’s point in arguing against their current effectiveness as well. Inclusion riders are a process that need to become more widely accepted. Change is not something that is going to happen overnight, but the inclusion riders are a great start to promote this change and start the ball rolling on something that should have been happening way before the point we are at now.
Post a Comment