Movies

Are 'Inclusion Riders' a Libertarian Solution to Workplace Inequality or P.C. Run Amok?

There's nothing wrong with pushing to work with people you want to work with.

|

Russ Einhorn / Splash News/Newscom

At last night's Oscars, best-actress-winner Frances McDormand mentioned "inclusion riders" in an acceptance speech that foregrounded issues of gender equity in Hollywood. After asking all the women in the audience who had been nominated for an award to stand up, McDormand concluded:

Look around, ladies and gentlemen, because we all have stories to tell and projects we need financed. Don't talk to us about it at the parties tonight. Invite us into your office in a couple days, or you can come to ours, whatever suits you best, and we'll tell you all about them. I have two words to leave with you tonight, ladies and gentlemen: "inclusion rider."

So what's an inclusion rider? Actress and comedian Whitney Cummings explains:

Stacy Smith, who runs the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative at the University of Southern California, told The New York Times,

…a typical inclusion rider would set benchmarks for diversity in staffing. As an example, it could require the cast be 50 percent female, 40 percent underrepresented ethnic groups, 20 percent people with disabilities, and 5 percent L.G.B.T. people…. It would also require that there be "a good-faith effort to ensure representation in key areas behind the camera"…. A failure to meet the terms of the rider could lead to a fee or a penalty for the studio or distributor that doesn't meet the contract terms."

Let's leave aside for the moment whether writing gender and racial equality into contracts for movie productions will make them better. Are inclusion riders compatible with libertarian ideas about using "market power" and voluntary association to change society? At first blush, absolutely. The movie industry is notorious for placating leading stars, directors, and producers when it comes to demands for creative control, profit-sharing, and all sorts of idiosyncrasies (read about Tom Cruise's custom thongs, if you dare). For creative people who have strong feelings about racial, gender, age, or even ideological representation both in front of and behind the camera, an inclusion rider is simply an instrument to make that happen. It's really no different that choosing to spend your dollars in one store rather than another because you like the owners' philosophy or philanthropy more.

The question of how this sort of initiative will affect quality is a different matter, of course. Quality is a very subjective category, of course, though in Hollywood it's often seen as identical with box-office returns. When political statements override all other concerns in creative endeavors, the result is often the worst sort agitprop that turns off even sympathetic audiences. There are plenty of ways in which any sort of diversity directive can go wrong, but that's also equally true for the status quo. Most movies are pretty mediocre, after all. There's no reason from the outset to believe that inclusion riders will raise costs or decrease quality. And if it will help change a Hollywood culture that has often lagged the larger culture in inclusion, that's good (there's a reason it took 90 years for the Oscars to feature a woman and an African American simultaneously in the Best Director category).

Acknowledging that pushes for diversity have been treated as fads in Hollywood with no lasting effects, [McDormand told the Times]: "The whole idea of women trending? No. African-Americans trending? No. It changes now." And inclusion riders, she said, can mean real change.

Despite a progressive veneer, the production companies and distribution networks comprising "Hollywood" have been unmasked as extremely regressive in actual practice. That's the big takeaway from last year's Weinstein revelations and it extends past gender relations to all sorts of old business practices based on old business models (remember how the film industry lobbied against VCRs, because it mistakenly saw them as a threat of movie sales?). Whether there's enough momentum to sustain actual change in hiring and production practices is yet to be seen.

Related: "5 Great Libertarian Movies!"

NEXT: Motherisk Hair-Testing Program Was Junk Science, and Ontario Wrongly Separated Families Because of It

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Crusty puts an inclusion rider into all his affirmative consent forms.

  2. Can’t it be both? Are you insinuating that something libertarian can’t be P.C.?

    1. Yes they are insinuating that. And yes, it is absurd.

  3. I suspect there’s a one-way legal ratchet here…a quota of white people would be illegal discrimination and the lawsuits would damage the offender’s bottom line. But a quota of nonwhites would be wonderful and diverse and they don’t expect to be sued (stay tuned…)

    1. I was wondering how this doesn’t violate anti-discrimination laws.

    2. Good points.

    3. Doesn’t matter. All this Hollywood insanity has convinced me not to support the “artists”. I have never had cable TV. I haven’t rented a video or gone to a movie in over three years. (I will probably go to a couple movies in the next few months – since I got some free movie coupons – but only if I think there’s something worth seeing.)

      Does that mean I haven’t watched any movies? Heck no. Piracy is alive and well on the ‘net, so I let the pirate sites do their best to get me to install “Flash” for the ninety-millionth time, ignore them, and just watch what I want.

      I used to be a strong defender of the artists’ right to make a buck – but now that I see so much of that wealth trained on making my life worse – fuck them.

  4. First, they don’t mean what they claim to mean. Let a white male include one of these riders and see what happens. Second, this is just putting politics and bullshit over art. It is just an actor saying “I don’t care about the quality of a film, I only care about whether it checks the inclusion blocks and by extension has the right politics”.

    What if someone wants to make a movie that doesn’t require a diverse case? Not every subject or script worth making has a diverse cast. This is just a variation on McCarthyism. I won’t make a movie unless you agree to not put any “communists” in it. That anyone in the entertainment industry would think this is a good idea is a great example of why Hollywood is dying and our civilization seems no longer capable of creating great or even good art.

    1. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

      Diversity for only the sake of itself is not the solution. In fact, it likely makes things worse.

    2. A movie about, say, the Punic Wars or D-Day, would be pretty pathetic and ahistorical if its casting were subject to quotas outlined in the article.

      Eventually Hollywood is going to make a movie about Stonewall and the gay rights movement. It, too, would be pathetic and ahistorical if its casting were subject to minority, sexuality, and gender quotas. The intersectionality battles, however, would be amusing.

      Looks like post-modernism and political correctness is going to ruin Hollywood like it has the Academy.

      1. We have already hit the point you describe for a Stonewall riot movie with Dallas Buyer’s club. There they had a fit because some regular guy played a transvestitie instead of a real transvestite. My God, this is theater here. We can’t have people pretending to be something that they are not.

        You can see the results of this sort of thinking in modern war movies. The fact is that the US military was segregated during the war. But they will make a movie about World War II and put some token black character in it for no apparent reason. It ends up being insulting to blacks and the role they really played in the war. But it makes people like Nick feel good and that is what it is all about I guess.

        1. But if you made a movie about African history and put white people in it, you would be crucified. Shit like this does nothing but make truth-tellers out of the white nationalist types. In the end, all this is about is erasing white people from history. If you are forced to insert black characters into stories where they do not belong but can never do the same with white characters, what is the end result except to erase the white race from history and fiction?

          1. You’re absolutely right, whites are the only group not allowed to be “proud” of their various heritages.

            1. And that is a recipe for disaster. You can’t have a world where everyone plays racial politics but one group. That won’t last. All they are doing is setting the stage for the return of real white supremacy.

              1. Definitely a danger, identity politics has in part led to the rise of the alt right.

              2. And that is a recipe for disaster. You can’t have a world where everyone plays racial politics but one group. That won’t last. All they are doing is setting the stage for the return of real white supremacy.

                True. It’s difficult (and, honestly, not that worth the effort) to even desire “equality” when all that means is I get shat on by everybody else. Why should I strive for equality when equality isn’t, you know, equal.

            2. I don’t think that is true, though. Being proud of your heritage is a very white thing to do. We’re pretty much the only ones that are like: “I’m 30% Irish, 15% German, 40% English and I might have some Native American in me”. We celebrate many holidays, foods, historical events, etc.

              Now, being proud of your skin color is something separate, and white people generally are not, nor should they be. Being proud that your skin is black is just fucking retarded, but I also get it from the stand point that until pretty recently knowledge of black heritage pre-slavery was pretty much erased. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that skin color seems to be celebrated in the mainstream more than the many awesome contributions black people have historically made to society and culture.

          2. Yup. This kind of madness actually lends a lot of credence to some of the points of the Alt Right.

            Fuck dude, if you made an all white A list film of Henry the VIII today the left would almost certainly screech about your evil white racist colonialism needing to be purged from the film industry.

            1. If they made a film version of Henry V today, the army at Agincourt would have a few token black guys and at least one woman with a bow. I guarantee it. I guess they figure their audience is as retarded as they are and won’t notice the problem with that.

              1. Those are usually the least butcher piece of meat in these history films. Take Braveheart, I would happily replace a few white actors playing Scots with some black actors if they fucking put a bridge in the scene for the Battle of Sterling BRIDGE!

              2. Shall we discuss Morgan Freeman as a Moorish something-or-other member of the outlaw band in “Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves”? The point being, Hollywood has been stupid for a long time.

                1. I don’t recall a Moor in the original Robin Hood stories, but OTOH, I definitely remember that Thomas Malory included a Moor among the Knights of the Round Table. Somehow a token black man was needed even in the Fifteenth Century.

        2. Regarding the BBC clip: the lunatics really are running the asylum. And, they are utterly delusional lunatics who, like John says, make the alt-right look like truth-tellers.

      2. You had that type of complaint about Nolan’s Dunkirk film last year.

        This type of quota system makes certain types of stories impossible to depict, so yes, it makes the quality of movies suffer just from the concept.

        1. Speaking of Dunkirk, my wife and I now have a nice “three-fer” for a home evening: King’s Speech, Darkest Hour and Dunkirk. There’s a black guy in the “tube” scene in Darkest Hour, but there were black people in London back then so it works in context (tho I cannot speak for Churchill’s racial views)

    3. “Hollywood is dying and our civilization seems no longer capable of creating great or even good art.”

      Seriously? Didn’t you hear that a remake of The Creature from the Black Lagoon just received an Oscar for Best Picture? And, are you not aware of all the Marvel superhero movies?

      1. And then there are all the remakes of 70s TV shows. Talk about high art. Who needs Casablanca, the Searchers or the Godfather when you have Starsky and Hutch and Charlie’s Angels?

      2. The original Creature is a much better film.It doesn’t work as a romance. Although I did like the remake of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? as a horror movie.

        1. lol!

    4. What if someone wants to make a movie that doesn’t require a diverse case?

      They are talking about diverse crews too. Which is also stupid. You should hire the people who can do the job best. And it is stupid, especially in the case of the sexes, to expect equal representation in all jobs on the crew.

      And if they really want the crew to reflect the diversity of the nation, they need to get a lot more conservatives on board.

      1. Yeah, that’ll happen

    5. What if someone wants to make a movie that doesn’t require a diverse case? Not every subject or script worth making has a diverse cast.

      Yeah, but then they can’t show that William the Conqueror couldn’t have defeated Harold at the Battle of Hastings without the wise battlefield tactics developed by his West African advisor or the advisor’s mercenary company of sub-Saharan African warriors.

  5. There’s no reason from the outset to believe that inclusion riders will raise costs or decrease quality.

    If telling people to hire their employees on the basis of race instead of merit won’t result in decreased quality, then why has everyone been objecting to affirmative action for so long?

    I am making a movie about a black family living in a black neighborhood, Nick, why do I have to have a token white guy? I am making a movie about a boys’ basketball team, why do I have to have to create female characters that are not already there?

    Nick has written some appalling things in his day, but this might take the cake. It really might.

    1. You’ll need a token white guy to be the oppressor in a drama about a black family living in a black neighborhood.

      Duh.

    2. Nick has written some appalling things in his day, but this might take the cake. It really might.

      There is always the possibility that Nick meant that inclusion riders will utterly fail and only produce more out-of-work actors and actresses and/or that film and moviemaking is so shitty that even if all the best actors included riders and you replaced the lot of them with cheap, perfectly diverse hacks nothing would change. To wit, I don’t entirely disagree that a socially or sexually aggrieved white actor is more talented or creative than a socially/sexually aggrieved minority actor/actress.

      But I think you may be safe in your interpretation of Nick’s intent.

      1. Maybe he was being sarcastic.

      2. Hollywood makes movies that Hollywood likes and they applaud each other for doing so 3 or 4 times a year.

        I haven’t watched the Oscars since “Out of Africa” won Best Cinematography over “Ran”. Haven’t missed it either.

    3. “why has everyone been objecting to affirmative action for so long?”

      Racism, duh. All opponents of affirmative action are racists.

      1. Um, because people should succeed on personal merit and not because of color quotas?

        I’m old enough to remember the TV show “St Elsewhere” in which the primo surgeon (Eriq LaSalle) got heat from an intern because he never checked the “color” box on his medical school application. He dismissed the intern’s objections with contempt. That viewpoint has been lost.

    4. Nick has written some appalling things in his day, but this might take the cake. It really might.
      Really? How about this gem:
      “And if it will help change a Hollywood culture that has often lagged the larger culture in inclusion, that’s good (there’s a reason it took 90 years for the Oscars to feature a woman and an African American simultaneously in the Best Director category).”
      It’s all about racism, of course, it has had nothing to do with the quality of the efforts by past women and AA directors, in an industry that prides itself on its progressivism.

      You know? I thought this affirmative action crap would eventually be seen for what it is – an admission that women and minorities couldn’t compete on a level playing field – as the remnants of the open racism of the long-past withered away.
      The opposite has happened – it has gotten worse.
      With this kind of crap, we will never see the “color-blind” society the racialists have claimed to want.

  6. I get the sense that this conversation is going to be divisive, so let me just say something we can all agree on:

    FUCK WOODROW WILSON.

    That is all.

    1. Wilson the potlicker who helped end our noninterventionist foreign policy.

      1. Prohibition, War on Drugs, Jim Crow, Income Tax…

      2. Wilson the progressive who aired “Birth of a Nation” in the White House.

        We don’t have to worry about Democrats developing dementia. They are born with it.

    2. I desperately wish that I could give a crap about anything that happens in LaLa land but alas, I am consumed by apathy. But Wilson? Yeah fuck him!

    3. Yeah fuck that dude.

  7. Anyone short of the A-list will be bypassed for attempting this type of thing. All you’d need is two people on one film with conflicting riders and it’s unworkable.

    1. Anyone short of the A-list will be bypassed for attempting this type of thing.

      Anyone short of the A-list for the role that only they can fill. I don’t recall which CGI childrens film it was that I saw recently, but several of the characters were done by fairly big name actors but more than a couple and in a couple of places the voices were pitch shifted if not fully autotuned.

      It’s going to be hard to enforce your riders on movies composed mostly, if not entirely, of digital/non-human content.

  8. There is nothing wrong with creatives negotiating terms such as inclusion riders into their contracts. However, if these studios receive taxpayer dollars and if these inclusion riders are mandated by the state then no fucking way is it okay ? as long as it’s between to private entities who voluntarily signed a mutual contract then have at it.

  9. Quality is a very subjective category, of course, though in Hollywood it’s often seen as identical with box-office returns. When political statements override all other concerns in creative endeavors, the result is often the worst sort agitprop that turns off even sympathetic audiences.

    Do you think a statement like this could also apply to some Reason writer’s stance on diversity via open borders as well?

  10. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if box-office draws like Tom Cruz and Meryl Streep start virtue-signaling with inclusion clauses. Lesser stars would be committing career suicide if they attempted to impose such contract language on their own, but will probably be afforded the opportunity to include an inclusion clause that mimics the headliner’s so that everybody involved can virtue-signal for the entire production.

    Hollywood preening and virtue-signaling will be its undoing.

    1. People will continue to turn to streaming services and such that produce quality entertainment and continue to go to movies less and less.

      1. I have a Fire Stick where I can choose to watch any movie, for free, whenever I want. I SUPPORT piracy in every possible way. I don’t want to give these studios more money.

        And, again, accused rapist Kobe Bryant got a STANDING OVATION while winning an award while Ryan Seacrest, who was accused of…well, God knows, is becoming a pariah. These same clowns demanded we forgive Roman Polanski for the crime of drugging and ass-fucking an underage girl.

        These people are fucked up. Screw all of them.

    2. Tom Cruz

      Is that like the non-union, Mexican knockoff version of Tom Cruise?

    1. Heh.

      She has always refused to publicly discuss her politics, which in Hollywood is usually code for, “Because I don’t tow the progressive line.” But in this case, I guess not.

      1. She did respond to criticisms of her not wearing black at some recent awards fandango with the great line “I have problems with compliance”

        She is certainly eccentric, a quality I can always applaud

  11. I can’t say this in liberal company, and I love her as an actress and am glad she won another Oscar, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Frances McDormand might be a little batshit crazy.

    1. Haha, well I’m glad we are an outlet for you.

      I knew her by face, but didn’t know her name, looked up her latest Oscar video.

      I’d say she is about average crazy for Hollywood.

    2. I hesitate to say this in any company at all, but for once I agree with you on all points.

    3. It took you this long?

  12. 3 Billboards was basically a slander against free speechers by portraying us as violent groin kickers. In fact, free speechers are nonviolent. Why? Because that’s the WHOLE POINT of free speech – to avert violence. (Otherwise I enjoyed the movie.)

    1. I don’t see why being for free speech would preclude you from also being violent. The movie was actually a metaphor for God and the problem of evil.

      1. That was the whole reason our great country was founded. And the reason that a million brave Americans fought and died. I have not forgotten their sacrifice. Otherwise, I agree it was a metaphor like you said.

  13. an inclusion rider is something actors put into their contracts to ensure gender and racial equality in hiring on movie sets. We should support this for a billion reasons, but if you can’t find a reason to, here’s one: it will make movies better.

    No it won’t. It might in some cases, and it won’t in others. for instance, if you’re doing an historical time-period specific movie where the characters or situation didn’t contain any transgender or people “of color”, then using a literary crow-bar to force those characters in makes the movie much worse.

    1. If you watch the credits closely, you will notice that the number of actors is dwarfed by the number of non-actors that go into making the movie happen.

      1. Robots can’t replace them fast enough.

        1. I’d like to see a robot hold a boom mic in just the right position for multiple takes!

      2. The diversity behind the camera is undoubtedly far, FAR greater than what’s on the camera. And if the hollywood industry collectively said “fine” and added 10% color to what’s happening behind the camera, but made no changes to what’s in front of the camera, I guarantee you movies would A: Not be better and B: Would still be racist.

    2. If it made movies better, you’d think these woke types wouldn’t need to force their fellow woke types to do it, would you?

      1. In what world does two contracting parties freely agreeing to do something constitute force?

        1. Again, why should a woke actor have to tell a woke film company “Be more woke”? It is illogical.

        2. Your assumption that the parties are “freely agreeing to do something” is obviously unwarranted. If I am free to agree I am also free to disagree; the parties in this situation are not free to disagree.

    3. How would shoehorning a black actor into, say, Miller’s Crossing make it a better movie? O Brother Where Art Thou – Tommy as a character fits. Bleh, I hate the whole idea.

  14. It will make movies better? How? Does having a genderqueer on set improve the movie?

    1. *** scratches head ***

      Xi makes everone check their privilege?

  15. Is an inclusion rider “libertarian”?

    No, because it is stupid.

    Do libertarians allow voluntary stupidity? Of course. Go be stupid, just don’t hurt anyone else.

    Someone else will make good movies that we can watch.

    1. This.
      Believing that people are free to propose and enter into these contracts is certainly libertarian. The ideology behind these contracts isn’t particularly libertarian. I think it’s pretty obvious that the point of these riders is social posturing to push collectivism. Mutually agreed contracts are libertarian, but the ideas behind and purpose of these riders certainly fails to adhere to such principles.

      1. It makes it easy for the SJWs, even for the Frances McDormands of the world. Nobody actually has to do anything meaningful, it’s enough to check off all the boxes.

  16. I guess libertarians care about celebrities just like everyone else. Is everyone else boycotting frankenstein chronicles because of the black guy as a bow street runner? Just kidding, I like Sean Bean so I watched it. Can’t believe this discussion is taken place. Get a grip, everyone.

    1. According to Wikipedia: A&E describes Frankenstein Chronicles as “a thrilling and terrifying re-imagining of the Frankenstein myth, set in 19th century London.”

      There’s nothing ahistorical about a black guy in 19th century London. There weren’t very many blacks there back then, but they were present.

      1. There’s a LOT ahistorical about a black Peeler marrying a white woman in 1900s London without anyone batting an eye.

        But it was a good show for all that.

  17. The question of how this sort of initiative will affect quality is a different matter, of course. Quality is a very subjective category, of course, though in Hollywood it’s often seen as identical with box-office returns.

    When did this happen? “Films people actually watched” is a horribly under-served genre in the annals of the Oscars.

    For creative people who have strong feelings about racial, gender, age, or even ideological representation both in front of and behind the camera, an inclusion rider is simply an instrument to make that happen.

    Are they sacrificing THEIR jobs to give these groups jobs? No? Then they don’t have strong feelings on it. You don’t see Reason turfing Dalmia to hire an illegal who’d write drivel equally as terrible, do you?

    When political statements override all other concerns in creative endeavors, the result is often the worst sort agitprop that turns off even sympathetic audiences.

    I’ll note the ode to fish-fucking that won the Best Picture is exceptionally clumsy agitprop for SJW beliefs. So, clearly, they disagree,

  18. Just use CGI for everything and be done with it.

  19. Well yes and no. The practice of Hollywood women having to hide their name (ei. Dorothy Fontana) lest they be discovered to be female should definitely end. On the other hand, much of the grind work in Hollywood is self selected bias. You don’t have a lot of female riggers not because it’s Hollywood but becauseriggers tend to be male. For whatever reason.

    I’ve been in the corners of that industry, and even in the most inclusive workplace there is still gender differences between departments. An over abundance of males in the art departments, but hardly any males in costume or makeup.

    It’s the same problem Silicon Valley faces. By the time the industry gets hold of the applicants, the bias has already been set. You can’t effectively fix this at the time of hiring, you have to fix it earlier on in school and in the culture itself.

    p.s. With multiple awards, a triple crown, and a producer husband, it’s easy for Frances McDormand to call for inclusion riders, But for someone just starting out in Hollywood it’s just going to limit their work.

    1. Feminists don’t want job equality. They want “nice” job equality.

      You don’t seem them livid at the lack of female loggers, after all…

      1. Of course not. The logging industry is enviro-terrorism and an example of toxic masculinity.

        1. Also, menstruation attracts bears.

          1. A few years ago, some feminists got mad because the ratio of male:female deaths in the workplace went down (i.e, fewer men died). They failed to realize it was caused by men losing tons of jobs.

    2. And why would anyone expect that there wouldn’t be gender differences in different jobs? I really don’t think it’s just culture. Men and women, on the whole, are different psychologically. There is lots of overlap, but the differences are enough that you should not expect equal representation in all areas of life or work.

    3. You can’t effectively fix this at the time of hiring, you have to fix it earlier on in school and in the culture itself.

      It also presumes there’s something that needs fixing.

    4. On the other hand, much of the grind work in Hollywood is self selected bias. You don’t have a lot of female riggers not because it’s Hollywood but becauseriggers tend to be male. For whatever reason.

      Because most women aren’t crazy enough to do rigging (I used to be a rigger). 😀

      You bring up a point I’ve been thinking about: this suggestion involves crew, not just cast. I would love to be a fly on the wall when an actress walks up to the IATSE, IBEW, and Teamster stewards and says “Okay… so here are my requirements for diversity in the crew.”

  20. I’m curious if anyone else noticed that the basic takeaway of the movie Black Panther was that a whole lot of black people went to war with each other while a big government white guy did his thing and was the one who actually saved the world.

    🙂

    1. I think you may be baiting the wrong crowd.

      1. I don’t think I’m baiting, though of course I’m hoping for a response.

        Is my synopsis wrong? If not, it kind of gives a different spin to Black Panther than what seems to be being proclaimed.

    2. Kind of a good synopsis for “Legend of Tarzan” — black people are being forced into slavery by evil white people (of course Christoph Waltz gets the part), only to be rescued by the noble white guy returning to his gorilla roots yet ably insisted by the appropriately conflicted black spear (oops, shotgun) carrier.

      Several thousand black actors in that one, yet not one who could assume responsibility for taking on the Belgian slave-mongers. Racial equality in casting sure is a powerful force.

  21. I can’t help but notice how 100% white all the best actor winners are.

    1. Is this true? I refuse to watch industry circle jerks, especially Hollywood.

      Either way, the real question is: Are they truly the best actors?

      If yes, then who cares? If no, then the hypocrisy is hilarious.

    2. Welcome to liberal Hollywood,

  22. “Let’s leave aside for the moment whether writing gender and racial equality into contracts for movie productions will make them better.”

    Why are we leaving that aside?

    1. Because in context it’s a real buzz kill

  23. Besides the fact that an “inclusion rider” is the mother of all bad ideas for solving the problem identified (or any other problem), I think that Nick has overlooked the enormous use of state power that would be involved with its spread. Specifically, I am referring to government courts, which will need to judge such riders in myriad situations. Now, of course, the need to enforce contracts is not a libertarian reason to avoid having any particular one. However, this particular type of rider will ultimately put the courts in charge of Hollywood due to the endless conceivable challenges that will emerge from such recklessness. Some of the issues have already been addressed (e.g., discrimination claims) . But consider these examples:
    an actor claims to be gay to get work, but there is some evidence he is hetero; an actress purports to have Native American blood, but looks like Elizabeth Warren; a fading memory or extreme stage fright is claimed to implicate the disability preference; Zoroastrians as members of underrepresented minority.

    I’m sure I need not go on. Each rider could be dissected and virtually every single word would open up new avenues for litigation. By the time Hollywood adopts these contractual monsters, all Americans not in the movie biz will have a choice: become a lawyer, or sit on juries most days for the rest of their lives. Perhaps the silver lining for libertarians will be the collapse of drug prosecutions: courts will have no time for it.

  24. “Are inclusion riders compatible with libertarian ideas about using “market power” and voluntary association to change society? At first blush, absolutely.”

    Does Nick and Reason support all forms of racial preference/quota riders, no matter which groups are preferred or discriminated against?

    Say, preference riders that limit representation of certain over represented minorities?

    Or, is this just Reason applauding anti white racism, now that they’ve gone Progressitarian?

  25. While fine from a contractarian POV, it rests upon the fallacy that given skill sets are distributed evenly across races, sexes, ages, etc, and that the check the box requirement will yield the best outcomes…

  26. I guess this explains why Ebbing, Missouri had some black folks in town, which I’ve never seen in the dozens of small Missouri towns I’ve been in.

  27. I don’t think it’s libertarian at all. Individuals should be hired strictly on their merits.

    1. It will massively enlarge the group of people, all women and minorities, who have achieved success on their own merits, but are looked at as being successful due to affirmative action.
      Only the self-non-aware think that affirmative action hiring means they were qualified for whatever reward they were handed.

  28. All white people in Hollywood should put themselves out of work, for life.

  29. LGBTXYZ only gets 5% in an inclusion rider? That represents their percentage of the population? Well smack my hind with a melon rind. The way things are I would have sworn they were at least a simple majority.

  30. Inclusion riders to ensure certain quotas are met? How about exclusion riders instead – to make sure that those who don’t fit a role or character or those whose acting / directing / writing / production skills are marginal aren’t hired or retained? I guess my vision of “making movies better” – or anything, for that matter – is rooted in re-embracing excellence as a standard. And unless you are a misogynistic, homophobic racist, you believe that talent and excellence can be found in any gender, race or sexual orientation. Let the chips fall where they may.

  31. “…and 5 percent L.G.B.T. people….”

    LGBT people are over-represented in the entertainment industry. I do not think they’re going to be please about being discriminated against, and their numbers being thinned to meet quotas.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.