Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

Oscar Equality?

[NOTE: This post has been UPDATED]

The New York Times has an OpEd this morning by Kim Elsesser, ?a research scholar at the Center for Study of Women? at UCLA, calling for ?gender-neutral? Oscars.

?Surely,? she points out, if separate awards were given ?for best white actor and best non-white actor,? if Morgan Freeman were not allowed to compete in the same category this year as Jeff Bridges, George Clooney, Colin Firth, and Jeremy Renner,

the academy would be derided as intolerant and out of touch; public outcry would swiftly ensure that Oscar nominations never again fell along racial lines.

Why, then, is it considered acceptable to segregate nominations by sex, offering different Oscars for best actor and best actress?

?Clearly,? Ms. Elsesser concludes, ?there is no reason to still segregate acting Oscars by sex.?

The divided Oscar categories merely insult women, because they suggest that women would not be victorious if the categories were combined. In addition, this segregation helps perpetuate the stereotype that the differences between men and women are so great that the two sexes cannot be evaluated as equals in their professions.

Ms. Elsesser is commendably concerned with equality, with doing away as she says with any practice that ?helps perpetuate the stereotype that the differences between men and women are so great that the two sexes cannot be evaluated as equals in their professions,? cannot be allowed to compete against other on equal terms.

Fine. But what, I wonder, would she think if, say, Mr. Freeman were nominated in part because he?s black and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences couldn?t flout political correctness by having all white nominees? If his race were ?taken into account? in the actual award of the Oscar? If women were included with men in a gender-neutral category but then evaluated by a different standard to give them a greater chance of winning?

If she would oppose such preferential treatment as violations of equality that perpetuate stereotypes of racial and gender inequality, can we assume that she supports state constitutional amendments, such as California?s pathbreaking Prop. 209, that prohibit both discrimination and preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity, or sex? For that matter, I wonder if she sees anything odd about the fact that UCLA?s Center For the Study of Women, with which she has been affiliated since 2003, has six women on its staff of six, 17 women on its 17 member advisory committee, and 31 women research scholars among its 31 research scholars in 2009-2010?

I doubt it.

ADDENDUM

IIf, as most advocates of affirmative action believe, illegal discrimination can be reliably inferred from ?underrepresentation? statistics ? especially where, as here, ?underrepresentation? is actually exclusion, should we conclude that UCLA?s Center for the Study of Women, ?funded by [UCLA?s] Division of the Social Sciences,? is violating not only California?s Prop. 209-based prohibition on race and sex discrimination but also Titles VI and VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Just asking.

Full post as published by Discriminations on March 04, 2010 (boomark / email).