The Oscars Discrimination Controversy Shows How Complicated Discrimination Actually Is

People following the Academy Awards likely noticed a significant source of controversy surrounding this year’s ceremony, one likely more important than annual debate concerning who should win the actual awards. For the second year in a row, no black individuals were nominated for any of the acting roles, even though there were several black performances that many dubbed deserving. As Variety pointed out, the critically acclaimed Creed was filled with black characters in major roles and was both written and directed by African American Ryan Coogle, but the only nomination was for one of the few white actors, Sylvester Stallone. Similarly, Straight Outta Compton, a film filled with black actors and directed by the black F. Gary Gray, received a nomination only for the screenplay written by two white men. Some people, like actress Charlotte Rampling, argued that this was due to their performances not being as good as white ones, while others, mainly in comment sections of the aforementioned articles, argued that minorities’ overwhelming presence in sports or rap music made this debate hypocritical. Actors like Don Cheadle weighed in too, noting that the issue was due mainly to black actors not getting roles from studios in the first place. That statement also seemed fair; after all, people need representation in casts before they can expect nominations. But regardless of whether or not black actors deserved Oscar nominations, discrimination is a far more complicated topic than commentators on both side of the debate were making it out to be. As such, oversimplifications of the topic tend to ignore equally important topics of consideration across the entire spectrum of media.

To begin with, debates over who deserves an Oscar automatically imply that the Oscars are some kind of merit contest, one that uses objective standards to determine the best films and Hollywood stars from each year. As this article notes, the standards for judging various categories are vague and often non-binding; surprisingly, there isn’t actually a rule that voters need to view all of the films in each category. 2015’s Selma, for instance, was nominated for best picture but unseen by ten percent of voters, while 2014’s 12 Years a Slave was unseen by at least two voters who voted for it anyway due to the film’s “social relevance.” A great deal of tension surrounded the vote from the outset anyway; host Ellen Degeneres noted this in her opening monologue by quipping, “ Possibility No. 1, '12 Years a Slave' wins best picture. Possibility No. 2, you're all racists." It’s thus clear that discrimination affects the awards differently via certain films and during different years, implying some degree of subjectivity. Even ignoring the problems with judging, this isn’t that surprising; Oscar voters are ninety-four percent white, seventy-six percent men, and an average of sixty-three years old, meaning that their decisions emanate from a certain set of worldviews. And while it’s easy to claim discrimination was the reason they didn’t nominate black individuals, the more likely explanation is that they’re out of touch with black culture and lack interest in even seeing films about black experiences. That’s not much of a stretch after all, it's far easier to judge the quality of acting of those who are undergoing experiences that the viewer can personally sympathize with.

In addition to problems with the nature of the actual Oscar event are problems with discrimination across the entire film industry. Don Cheadle had a point concerning the film industry's disinterest with providing minority roles; while many white best actress winners have gone on to star in many A-list roles, black best actress winners haven’t done nearly so well, with only Halle Berry and Whoopi Goldberg gaining some degree of modern A-list recognition across Hollywood. Beyond black roles not being written, there has been a notorious trend of white-washing across the industry. Considering that white children are more likely to receive arts education in public schools than black children (59 percent to 28 percent), this is itself not surprising, but a limited number of roles being available in the first place and lack of funding to support acting education might seriously discourage young minority actors from the start. Again, it is far too simplistic to argue that the Oscars are discriminatory when so many factors play into black representation in media; unfortunately, the discrimination problem only gets worse.  

2016 Oscar host Chris Rock received approbation for his humorous approach to the discrimination problems faced by black individuals within the industry, but the Oscar ceremony also took the opportunity to utilize Asian-American stereotypes with little to no self-awareness of the potential hypocrisy of doing so. While the Academy was poking fun at it’s own problems with diversity, it was also creating new ones, something criticized heavily by Asian-American actors within the community. This is something that is often ignored in discussions of discrimination in media; while it is true that black actors are often unrepresented in media, Asian and Latino/a actors face even larger problems. Latinos represent seventeen percent of the US population, but have only about five percent of film roles. While opportunities for Latinas are increasing, Latino roles are starting to disappear. Moreover, most of the roles occupied by actors are either drug or law-enforcement related, pigeonholing actors to work almost exclusively to perpetuate stereotypes. While it is true that Asians are represented in media approximately in line with their percentage of the US population, they are almost always also depicted via some stereotype. Asian women seem to be consistently depicted, across genres, in nearly identical ways, while other Asian stereotypes like emasculation and funny-sounding names seem almost universal. Many Asian actors find they actually have better opportunities if they move to the Asian film market, regardless of whether or not they can actually speak the industry’s language. Discrimination in film is a problem for all racial minority groups, not just black ones, but the problem still doesn’t even end there. Instead, it gets even more thorny.

While easy to characterize the representation of minorities in film as a problem specific to one industry, the problem is essentially the same across all media, including tv series, news broadcasting, and literature. According to the Latino Media Gap Report, Latinos compose a fraction of tv series producers, writers or directors, are depicted as criminals nearly a quarter of the times they appear in tv series, are only 1.8% of news broadcasting producers, and appear on news broadcasts only 1 percent of the time, often during stories on criminal activity. And this isn’t a problem exclusive to film and television either; it extends to literature too. Of 124 authors on the 2012 New York Times bestseller list, only three were people of color, while over 90% of the books they reviewed during 2011 were written by white authors. Even published authors run into additional problems; many books by or about black individuals are lumped into bookstore or library sections labeled “African American Fiction.” Interestingly enough, some of the best representations of minority actors come from “new media” like Youtube channels; of the top 50 single-focus Youtube channels, 18% are run by Latinos, while many of the most popular Youtube celebrities are Asian-American. As many are aware, the most popular Youtube video of all time starred Psy, a Korean singer. Though most media that has been around for more than a few decades is dominated by white presences, newer forms are changing that, due at least partially to the less-restrictive barriers to entry.
Those who have engaged with the debate over recognition of black actors at the Oscars have mostly done so in a vacuum. Their comments ignore that discrimination manifests in a number of different forms, often unplanned, but still consistently affecting minority groups across a vast range of modern media. Those who wish to address unequal representation should keep these things in mind when moving forward, and set benchmarks accordingly; if real progress is to be made in these areas, proponents must understand the numerous ways in which it both manifests and is perpetuated.

Read More

What is this SlutWalk Thing Anyway?

Few people seem aware of the prevalence of modern feminist efforts, many of them being confined to the internet, covered little by the media, or regionally-focused. But the few efforts that have caught on internationally still don’t seem to be recognized by the average citizen, so this will be the start of a series to remedy that.

This week we’ll cover “SlutWalks,” one of the only existing public efforts to destigmatize female sexuality and end common myths about sexual assault.

The concept of a “Slut Walk” emerged in early 2011 after a talk at a safety forum on York University’s campus. During a piece on crime prevention, a police officer chimed in to add his thoughts, noting his belief that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.” Though the officer was reprimanded and apologized after his words gained significant media coverage, two individuals, Sonya Barnett and Heather Jarvis felt that wasn’t enough. Recognizing problems both with his usage of the term “slut” and the social mores that supported his comment, they organized an event in Queens Park at the beginning of April to make a stand against similar attitudes, encouraging all participants to come without shame.Though they expected roughly 200 individuals to appear, over 3,000 showed up, some in fishnets, some in jeans and t-shirts. After a round of speeches discussing various topics related to their cause, they marched from the park to the Toronto Police Headquarters, where they briefly protested the police’s perspective on sexual assault.

After this event received significant media coverage, the movement slowly began to spread to other cities, slowly increasing momentum as they received national and international acclaim. Women turned out in London, Sydney, New Delhi, Boston, and over 250 other major metropolitan areas to support the cause, showing up in varying degrees of “slutty attire” or simple day-to-day wear. Though the initial interest in the event has died down a little, the movement is still going strong to this day; the Toronto march is now an annual event, with the group's Facebook page being consistently used as a means to expand outreach about varying consent problems.

So why is this movement so compelling for so many people? Well, for one, it’s pretty revolutionary, in the sense that it hasn’t been done before. Plenty of people have marched for equal rights and feminist causes, but few have done it nearly nude. Plenty of people have decried rape culture and victim blaming before, but rarely in march form. And while a number of scholars in recent years have restored the academic interest in women’s sexuality, those discussions rarely garner media coverage. Slut walks do garner interest though, positive or otherwise. They bring discussions of women’s rights, women’s interests, and consent into the public sphere, dragging it from the realm of academia and Cosmopolitan articles to the public square. Further, the help demolish harmful misconceptions like dress playing into the reasons for rape (most of the crimes being planned in advance by people known to the victim).

Not all of the attention they’ve gained has been positive though; some in the media question the need or efficacy of the work, while others critique the type of feminism that they’re promoting or the vitriol of the marchers. In regards to the need or efficacy or their work, this article makes a fairly comprehensive case that Slut Walks are addressing a serious issue and encouraging change in other areas. Besides cases where the attire of underage rape victims was used as proof they were “asking for it,” there is a significant body of literature that indicates that other nations still struggle with misconceptions concerning rape. Egypt, for instance, saw an upsurge of sexual assaults during the 2011 Revolution. When the UN investigated a large number of these cases, they found that over 75 percent of women assaulted were wearing conservative clothing and no makeup. Interestingly enough, over 90 percent of women in the report believed that other women encouraged sexual assault thru the way they spoke, walked, or the clothing they wore. Even if critics are right about Slut Walks being useless in the US, they at least have significant importance abroad, especially if other countries’ major cities continue to host them.

While many modern-day feminist efforts are ignored by the media, slut walks have gained a great deal of notoriety. Whether that’s due to their provocative nature or the message they promote, it means that the average individual is exposed to more perspectives on sexual assault than normal, hopefully forcing a continuous reevaluation of their beliefs. This is a significant change in how feminists engage the public in cultural conversations; hopefully we’ll see more movements like this in the future.

Read More

Environment Detriments: Modern-day Racism in Action

As a Sustainability student who is interested in the effects of pollution upon communities, I understand that the term “environmental racism” collectively represents a vast array of grievances. That said, few seem to understand what the term actually means.

Environmental racism was first discussed in a 1971 report written by the Council of Environmental Quality. In it, the council noted a link between socio-economic status, race, and risks of exposure to pollutants, an observation quickly adopted by a plethora of social groups aiming to protest the conditions of their communities. The term’s modern definition changed little in the forty-five years since; according to Robert Bullard, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, “environmental racism refers to environmental policies, practices, or directives that differentially affect or disadvantage (whether intentionally or unintentionally) individuals, groups, or communities based on race or colour.” This could include things like storing nuclear waste in certain areas more than others, siting landfills in historically segregated communities, or allowing manufacturing plants looser restrictions on water and air pollution in monoracial areas.

The recent water quality problem in Flint, Michigan has been linked to racism for a number of reasons, including the fact that the most polluted areas in the state correspond significantly to the blackest communities. This isn’t a new trend; pollution problems have reached the point that experts can fairly accurately predict both a person’s race and how long a person has to live just by knowing their Zip Code. Similarly, nuclear testing’s repeated occurrence near the Western Shoshone nation, coal plants’ consistent siting near black populations, and Asia’s electronic waste recycling disparities, have all demonstrated structural problems with how environmental impacts are distributed. Yet while these problems are tragic, they serve to demonstrate the importance of environmental racism; without the concept, few would understand how institutional level policies directly impact health outcomes among certain demographics.

It’s important to recognize that policies that site manufacturing plants or landfills are necessary for a functioning society. It becomes problematic however when the impacts of those are unequally distributed, especially when correlated heavily with race. Though environmental racism currently poses severe threats to underprivileged communities, the recent national news coverage of Flint, Michigan brings hope that greater attention will be directed towards the problem in the near future; hopefully something of substance will finally be done to end it.

Read More

Ahmed's Clock: A Result of Racism or Hypersensitivity?

By now I'm sure everyone has heard the tale of Ahmed Mohamed, the teenager who was put in handcuffs for bringing his homemade clock to school. This incident is a shameful example of predjudice getting out of hand, but has luckily turned out for the better for Ahmed in all the support he has found following his suspension. Since the story has spread, a lot of questions have been asked over the scenario. Did President Obama really need to get involved? Does the clock work? Does Sarah Palin really still believe that it's "more than a clock?" However, the one that I've read above any other is:

"Whould this have happebed if he was white?"

I read a pretty interesting article concerning this on The New York Post. 

While I don't agree with the claim of this whole story being a "False, convient tale of racism" I do think the author's questions pose for a compelling conversation. Is the issue bias? Or is it something else?

In my opinion, it is difficult to deny that Islamophobia had a minor (if not major) role in Amed's arrest and suspension. However, I have to admit, when I first heard the story, my mind immediately went to an event that happened in my own community this past Wednesday, when a portion of the freeway was shutdown for an hour because of a cooler on the side of the road.

The New York Post article also rattles off some examples of overeactions to certain, unthreatening behavors in schools. Some students mentioned are white, some are not.

We can all agree that the reactions are extreme, we can all agree that the way they were handeled completely wrong, but what about the source of the behavior? From what illness is this a sympotom of?

When I play this out as happening at my old high school, which was predominantly white, I can very easily see a student proudly showing off his clock, and security thinking nothing of it, but at the same time, I can't rule out the possibility of the situation getting out of hand in the same way as it did for Ahmed, because I know it happenes all the time.

So, would this have happened to one of Ahmed's white classmates had they brought in a clock?

It's hard to say, but I think the greatest issue that's floated to the top of this entire ordeal is society's knee-jerk reaction to look for something to roll our eyes at, rather than allowing it to motivate us to try for something better. It always has to be dilluded by some debate. What were the administrators who called the police thinking? What was the racist-to-non-racist ratio? Who knows? Who cares?
It was another line added to the sad song of discrimination that too many minorities hear thanks to society's branding of all non-whites as violent and that's should matter.

It should have stopped before Treyvon.

It should have stopped before Tamir.

It should stopped before Ahmed.

How many more children need to fall victim before we admit that yes, racism is a problem, racism is the problem? I fear for a country that keeps asking why white kids aren't getting free white house tours instead of why black kids are getting shot.

But that's just me. Like I said before, I think this topic provides for some really, really compelling discussion, so for anybody reading this, I am personally challanging you to get out of your comfort zone and to share your opinion. What was your reaction to the story when you first heard it? What connections did you make? What do you think is the greater issue? Please, contribute below!

Read More

The Psychology of Unconscious Bias

A lot of the posts on this blog are based off of articles on other social justice websites. This week, i decided it was time for a change. I searched through my favorite websites, Psychology Today, for some insight on unconscious bias and what I found was an article that both shocked and impressed me.

Check it out here.  

Dr. Mikhail Lyubansky expands on some issues outlined in a 2012 W.K Kellogg Foundation panel on "Unconscious Bias and Race." The issue is introduced with the horrifying study that revealed that Doctors actually treat patients different based on the color of their skin. They give them less pain medication, they're more reluctant to do strenuous procedures on them, and more likely to perform less desirable solutions like lower -body amputations for diabetics.

With data like this, both Lyubansky and panelists argue, it is impossible to deny that racial bias exists, and yet so few are willing to admit that unconscious bias is an issue, that racism is just a left-wing urban legend. 

Psychologists argue that this bias is nothing to be ashamed of. Our brains naturally categorize everyday items into groups to make more sense of them, and the very same applies when it comes to people. But just because it's normal, doesn't mean it's okay. The longer the biases go unknown, the more harmful they can be, because the deeper they become ingrained into one's logic. 

My favorite point was the following:

“There are three types of not knowing,”[John Powell, director of the Haas Center for Diversity and Inclusion and Robert D. Haas Chancellor’s Chair in Equity and Inclusion at the University of California Berkeley] explained: 1. What we can’t know, like how many neurons are firing at any given moment, 2. What we don’t care to know, like the color of the car we pass at a particular intersection, and 3. What we don’t want to know.  When we talk about racism, we usually talk about #2 and #3, and those are important conversations to be having.  We all need to care. We all need to want to know. But #1 is important as well."

The article very prophetically describes a series of repercussions for unchecked bias that we are seeing here today. It's a pretty old piece, but overall, I think it's a good read because it goes over a lot of points that should made included into the conversation of unconscious bias, many of which weren't even mentioned in this blog post.

So the real question is, do you disagree? What stuck out to you?

Read More

The Art of Reflection

Privilege. I have it. You have it. Now what?

I've come to realize that I've drilled the importance of self-reflection into this blog, but not once have I described what self-reflection is, or what it looks like in the context of privilege. I'm going to try to fix that as best as I can.

Self-reflection, in layman's terms, is "meditation or serious thought about one's character, actions, and motives." It's taking a moment in your life to pause and critically contemplate the nature of your life, your self, and your actions. In a culture where we are all about self-validation, all about instant gratification, and life is constantly on the go, go, go, we have reached a destitute poverty of self-reflectors. Its gotten to a point where we don't even know what it looks like anymore. We don't even know where to begin.

Is self-reflecting self questioning?

Is it investigating? Excavating?

How long does it take?

Ten minutes?

Ten years?

I think the answer varies from person to person, but reflection in the context of privilege, in my opinion, is mostly based on observations that lead to an irreversible sort of awareness. It's an everlasting process. With different experiences, you become aware of different kinds of privilege. For example, I'd never really thought of able-bodied privilege until I started writing for this blog.

The real challenge comes when we start to deny the privilege that we have discovered, when we blow off multiple observations we've made as irrelevant to the conversation of unconscious bias.

A great example of the self-reflection process can be read in this article from the Huffington Post.

Gloria Atanmo exemplifies what it is to critically dissect observed disparities and sort them into privileges she has, many of which (such as African-American Privilege) she'd never consider a privilege previously .

Self-reflection varies on the person of course. What is reflection to me, to Atanmo, or her editor, could be entirely different from somebody else's "aha!" moment in privilege.

So what is self-reflection to you? Have you had any big "aha" moments worth that completely shifted your understanding of privilege?

Feel free to share in the comments below!

Read More

Reaction to the VMAs: One Small Step for Miley, One Giant Leap from Manaj

And the Moonman for Best Hip Hop video goes to.. #VMAs http://t.co/SWRN5MPOOT

— MTV (@MTV) August 31, 2015

Nicki Manaj's acceptance video has been a buzz all throughout social media for the past few days.  Her firm, assertive stance on white artists winning awards by appropriating black artists' styles has earned her a title as a revered voice of reason in the music industry: a beacon of light. Manaj further inspired fans on stage at the VMA's, where she called host Miley Cyrus out for her tone-policing comments in a recent Time interview  where she claimed that Manaj was hurting her cause by not being "polite."

As awesome as it was, the speech was the end all to a greater issue. Not to cultural appropriation, and especially not to tone-policing: an issue that remains a huge threat to oppressed peoples outside of the pop culture scope.  However, as Maisha Z. Johnson points out in a recent Everyday Feminism article, the whole ordeal does provide an important lesson to be learned, and creates an ample opportunity to those blinded by their bias to step forward and educate themselves. 

Check out the article here.

Post your thoughts in the comments below. 

Read More