Equity should be able to make these statements on our behalf, so we don’t jeopardise our careers, which may or may not have already happened in the case of Daniel and me.\u00a0 Equity in actual fact, however,\u00a0said precisely nothing at all: leaving us in effect isolated\u00a0by making public protestations such as this. \u00a0http:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/stage\/2012\/oct\/19\/royal-shakespeare-company-asian-actors<\/a> \u00a0How could a trade union, supposedly set up to protect actors’ work rights, who supposedly agrees with casting inclusivity not do anything to protect its BAME\u00a0members? \u00a0How could it stand by and say nothing as their two East Asian “Minority Ethnic Committee” members denounced\u00a0the decision as individuals?<\/p>\n During the last 3 years, we on the “Minority Ethnic Members Committee” have tried to\u00a0remedy this (seemingly obvious) contradiction\u00a0in Equity, and have failed. \u00a0 Now in 2015\u00a0we are still concerned that the same outcome would happen again, were the Zhao situation to repeat itself. \u00a0Would Equity say nothing at all and again leave those of its membership\u00a0brave enough to speak out \u00a0(for what most people\u00a0believe in, lest we forget), hanging out to dry?<\/p>\n However, Equity is now on the cusp of making a change. \u00a0The “Minority Ethnic Members Committee” has drafted and sent to Council a rewrite of the unfit-for-purpose Policy, in which Equity now “advocates” good practice. \u00a0 The council needs to approve it and that is why I am writing this. \u00a0To encourage them to vote for it while\u00a0perhaps feeling a touch guilty that this has not happened years ago.<\/p>\n Getting to this stage, the Committee\u00a0met with obfuscation, mis-direction, needless arguments and bad temperedness. \u00a0It has not been easy. \u00a0We were told by Equity staff we would get professional help to word the Policy. \u00a0None came.\u00a0 Daniel York resigned in frustration – a sad end for the most effective member the “Minority Ethnic Members Committee” has ever had.\u00a0 Equity, it seemed, did not want to change. \u00a0I have been\u00a0close to resigning, also out of frustration at the slow pace and seeming resistance to what I consider to be just the right thing.<\/p>\n At our last meeting, we were warned by an experienced Equity staff member that the new wording , below, would not be accepted by the Equity\u2019s Council. \u00a0 Look at it, the proposed new “Inclusive Policy Statement”. \u00a0 \u00a0It is puzzling to imagine\u00a0what any of the actors on Equity’s Council could possibly object to and yet we really remain worried that it will be rejected by our friends and colleagues and fellow Trade Unionists. \u00a0No one on our side can understand how this can possibly be.<\/p>\n But something seems to scare Equity\u00a0from simply\u00a0\u00a0adopting this. \u00a0At the first reading, the Council decided upon a tactic, which an old Equity Council member recalls as “kicking into the long grass” – a tactic, which I have never before in 4 years encountered; \u00a0not voting straight away, but first asking other committees to examine it and take a view.<\/p>\n This is OK, but when I asked why we were not told this might happen, so we could have saved time by contacting them first, instead of wasting even more time than the present 3 years and counting, I was openly pilloried by an Equity staff member.<\/p>\n I was used to that\u00a0by this stage, though. \u00a0This is my own trade union, just to remind you!<\/p>\n The situation\u00a0can be summed up as: Given that\u00a0actors are not racist, Equity members are not racist and Equity staff are not racist; yet Equity’s BAME\u00a0members feel that they are discriminated against (as\u00a0in these two specific examples of Miss Saigon and Orphan of Zhao alone), what is going on?! \u00a0Is Equity itself racist?<\/p>\n Equity have, at long last, hired an equalities officer, who I imagine will examine this possibility\u00a0and determine\u00a0whether this is the case or not.\u00a0 I will be interested to see what she comes up with. \u00a0http:\/\/www.thestage.co.uk\/news\/2015\/equity-hires-first-dedicated-equalities-officer<\/a><\/p>\n Equity does not want to commit to\u00a0the generally accepted correct side in the above inclusive casting arguments. \u00a0Equity\u00a0does not want to commit to making\u00a0any statement on matters such as the ones outlined. \u00a0Why? \u00a0Because Equity\u00a0views that by doing so it would\u00a0in effect be criticising\u00a0(albeit on behalf of its BAME\u00a0members) other members (ie the actors\u00a0who have been cast ). \u00a0I think the staff believes this scenario can’t and won\u2019t work and foresees it eventually becoming a potential ethical nightmare.<\/p>\n Why is Equity scared?<\/p>\n Equity, you understand, does not want\u00a0to get involved in matters of artistic choice.\u00a0 Equity believes that the decision to cast a white actor in a BAME part \u00a0is an artistic one, so they must not interfere. \u00a0This point of view \u2013 for an arts organisation – would be acceptable.<\/p>\n However Equity is not an arts organisation. \u00a0First and foremost it is a trade union, protecting its members working rights, which includes protection from discrimination. \u00a0And the question for Equity\u00a0is whether artistic rights trump workers’ rights.<\/strong><\/p>\n What about the BAME\u00a0member of Equity, whose right to be seen and considered for\u00a0this part has been harmed\u00a0by an artistic\u00a0decision? \u00a0Who is speaking up for them? Protecting them? \u00a0When the outcome of these artistic decisions always seems to exclude actors of colour, someone needs to speak. \u00a0When the artistic decisions\u00a0all seem to be exactly the same i.e choosing a white actor and excluding an actor of colour even from the casting process, it is not artistic. \u00a0It is prejudice, bias and convention.<\/p>\n Equity is compromised and has chosen to hide behind the status quo, which everybody accepts provides poor outcomes for BAME\u00a0actors.<\/p>\n Equity feels scared\u00a0because it has placed artistic license extremely high up on their priority list. \u00a0Equity needs to look at this and re-set the dial. \u00a0Surely when the right of the BAME\u00a0member to work is in direct opposition to an artistic ideology, at least in cases such as this, then the actor – the member who pays his subscription fees – should be a higher priority to his Trade Union?\u00a0 In this day and age (after all), which of the two oppositional standpoints do you think should be set as a higher priority for Equity?<\/p>\n I believe\u00a0that Equity needs to re-prioritise itself. \u00a0I also believe Equity is the correct\u00a0place BAME\u00a0actors should\u00a0turn to in cases like this.\u00a0 Equity should be proud to support its BAME\u00a0members instead of running scared and saying nothing.<\/p>\n Why is Equity scared?<\/p>\n The fact that Act for Change and British East Asian Artists have formed in the past 3 years\u00a0to make these arguments, shows that these arguments have a great deal of support among UK’s BAME\u00a0acting community. \u00a0Equity has donated money to Act for Change, supporting their ideology. \u00a0Lenny Henry argues\u00a0the point so very well. \u00a0There is a general feeling\u00a0in society that it is time for a change with regards to depictions of race, portrayal and representation. \u00a0Yet Equity itself stays silent, rooted in the ’80s (and arguably before even then).<\/p>\n Equity, I believe, wants to support its BAME\u00a0members but is scared of being compromised. \u00a0I don’t think it should be. \u00a0I believe it should be bold and brave and be leading from the front, not playing catch-up from a generation ago.<\/p>\n The rewritten policy document states :<\/p>\n Because African, Caribbean, South Asian, East Asian, Arabic and other minority ethnic artists continue to be the subject of discrimination they should be given preferential consideration in the casting of parts specifically written for these ethnic minority groups. \u00a0Equity calls for this to be attempted wherever possible.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n To lead from the front, Equity and its members must try and redress historical imbalances\u00a0before<\/em><\/strong> worrying about any artistic points of principle. \u00a0It should\u00a0not\u00a0tacitly approve of any productions casting a white actor in a black role or any role of “colour” by\u00a0making no comment. \u00a0 This lets down its BAME\u00a0members and is not the way forward.<\/p>\n The change in Policy does\u00a0not call on Equity\u00a0to denounce\u00a0the actor – but to disapprove of the process of making that choice\u00a0as not being best practice. \u00a0It’s simple, and\u00a0to us all paying our subs, very important.<\/p>\n If\u00a0Equity\u00a0can\u2019t do that then no matter how nice the members\u00a0are and how non racist they are, if they don’t allow this change to become Equity’s policy, they are supporting an old fashioned status quo, which discriminates against BAME\u00a0members and puts the white members in a position of privilege, wittingly or not.<\/p>\n By adopting this new policy as best practice, Equity will,\u00a0for the time being at least, be\u00a0redressing the historic imbalance<\/em><\/strong> that has long seen minority groups be discriminated against in the past. \u00a0 Equity\u00a0will become truly a vocal supporter of inclusivity<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0It is\u00a0long overdue and about time too.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Actors, like any other profession, benefit from a Trade Union, which represents them in matters relating to work. Equity has been this body, representing actors for a long time. An Equity Card formerly stood as a status symbol – a badge of honour. I became a member in 1989. I did a tour in a smoky van … Continue reading The problem for Equity and minority ethnic actors<\/span> ![\"Proposed](\"http:\/\/www.chineseelvis.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/03\/Snap_2015.02.04_09h31m20s_002.png\")
<\/a>