AMPAS Explains Diversity-Related Rules Overhaul To Members

Last week the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced sweeping changes to its voting and membership rules in direct response to fierce criticism over the near total lack of nonwhite Oscar nominees for the second year in a row. Designed to increase diversity among its membership as well as ensure voting members are still for the most part actively working in the entertainment industry, the new rules nonetheless have sparked controversy and much confusion in the days since, particularly among members unsure of their status in the group.

To quell some of that, the Academy issued a letter to members, also posted on its official site going into the changes in greater detail. “We’re not excluding older members. Everyone will retain membership,” the FAQ affirms, going on to make it clear that members will be given the chance to appeal if their voting status is revoked, and that the Academy isn’t lowering its standards, “we are widening our net.”

The full FAQ is below.

NEW MEMBERSHIP INITIATIVES

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
 for current Academy members about the new rules:

 

Why is the Academy excluding older members from voting?

We’re not excluding older members. Everyone will retain membership.

But won’t older members lose their opportunity to vote for the Oscars?

These rules are not about age.  In fact, under the new rules many veteran Academy members will retain voting rights.

I thought you had to work in the last ten years in order to vote.

Working in the last ten years is one way to ensure you have voting privileges. Another way is to have been nominated for an Oscar. And a third way is to show that since you were admitted as a member you’ve worked in motion pictures during three ten-year periods. This means that the longer your career, the more likely you’ll qualify for voting.

So we have to have worked for thirty years to keep the vote?

No. Let’s say you were admitted to the Academy in 1980 and you worked on one film in 1989. That covers you for your first ten years. Then you worked once in the ’90s, which covers you for your second ten-year term, and once again in 2001 for your third ten-year term. That’s only a twelve-year period, but you have worked in the three ten-year terms of your membership, so you’d qualify as an active member with voting status.

Do these ten-year terms have to be consecutive?

No, they do not.

How do you define “active in motion pictures?”

You must be employed in the same kinds of quality films that got you into the Academy in the first place. Your status will be assessed by your peers in your branch—the people who best understand the intricacies of the motion picture industry and your field. The intention is to be inclusive.

What about some of us—such as writers and producers—who work steadily but without screen credit?

Achievement is achievement, regardless of whether or not there is a screen credit. Additionally, members will have an opportunity to appeal their situation.

What if the work I’ve done is not in my branch?

If an editor becomes a director, or a director becomes a producer, or an actor sells a screenplay, that’s all employment in the movie industry, and it still qualifies.

What happens if I don’t qualify?

You move to emeritus status, which means you have all the benefits of membership except voting. You continue to receive screeners and you are still invited to Academy membership screenings and programs, but you no longer pay dues.

And what happens if I become active again after having been moved to emeritus status?

Upon review of your request, you can be reinstated as an active member with voting rights.

If I’m moved to emeritus status, does that mean I’ll no longer get screeners?

You are still eligible to receive screeners. The Academy does not distribute screeners. Production companies and studios do. We will ask our members who run these companies not to make an issue of it.  Rest assured, your status—whether active or emeritus—will not be shared with any other outside entity.

So why make these changes at all?

We want the Oscars to be voted on by people who are currently working in motion pictures, or who have been active for a long time. There are a number of Academy members, however, who had brief careers and left the business. We want to strengthen, uphold, and maintain the credibility of the Oscars with these new criteria.

Voting for the Oscars is a privilege of membership, not a right.

What about all the other changes you announced?

The other changes are aimed at increasing diversity in our membership and governance.

Under our bylaws, the board is directed to periodically review our criteria for voting status and membership. This has happened in the past and this is one of those times.  Diversity has been an ongoing discussion for many years.

What about the changes on the board?

We’ve created three new governor seats, to be nominated by the president, and voted on by the board. These three seats will be filled by women and people of color, and the changes will take place in February.

What is the plan for new recruitment?

We will be actively recruiting new members.  We’re also adding non-governor seats to the six board committees that oversee all Academy activity. And we’re reforming the executive committees by which each branch conducts its business; these are the committees that decide whom to invite for membership.

We will maintain high standards and continue to admit only those with substantial achievements.  The concern has been that a lot of highly qualified potential members were falling outside our radar. Many thought they had to wait to be invited, and didn’t know they could apply for membership, through a sponsorship process.

But why lower standards to get new members?

We are not lowering any standards, we’re widening our net.

All of these are substantive changes that will open up our governance to a wider range of members and have a significant and positive impact on the Academy. The result will be a membership that is more inclusive of the motion picture community, governance that is more representative of our membership, and a stronger Academy overall.

  1. It makes no sense to restrict aging members and given the Fickle nature of this business, all the more frustrating. its also rather insulting to those older members who did nominate John singleton as the first black director in 1994. You can’t go forward with diversity by restricting another class in the process– you are just making the push for diversity an incredibly sour pill to swallow– I’m not sure why that is even the intention. Discriminate one class to show you are not discriminating another? It’s a terrible concept

  2. What little legitimacy the academy had is gone. This is a shameful move on their part.

    These were all non-answers.

  3. I propose boycotting Award Season until Cheryl Boone Isaacs and her ilk are removed from the Academy. They clearly do not have the Academy’s best interests in mind. And they are insulting too. Calling her own rank and file members “racist” because they didn’t vote her way. Wow. Disgraceful that a woman like that is in charge of one Hollywood’s institutions.

    1. Just announce the winners the same way the noms were announced.
      It’s so creepy. Perpetuating the dependency on others for validation.
      Does not deserve an event.

  4. Isn’t part of the premise here that non-Whites will vote for their own race? If that is ok, why would it be bad for Whites to do the same? Which is it?

  5. “These three seats will be filled by women and people of color, and the changes will take place in February.”

    Sickening.

    1. I wonder how folks will feel if it’s two Asians and a Latino? Or, do only blacks count as ‘diverse’? That would be beautiful!! LOL

  6. These rules are absolutely useless and only complicate everything without ensuring more diversity in any way.

Comments are closed.