Six Actionable Steps for the Theater #3: Hire a Diversity Officer

4/30/2013

Theaters large and small should have the humility and the foresight to hire a diversity officer. Corporations have one. Hollywood studios have one. You should have one too.

Hire a diversity officer and vertically integrate them into all your activity: season planning, casting, hiring and board cultivation (Think of the NFL Rooney Rule.), audience development, marketing, and staff training. I guarantee they will never be lacking for things to do.

We in the theater like to think we're so open-minded and so inclusive that we don't even need a diversity officer. But the statistics for inclusion of women and artists of color belie that argument. Moreover the mark of someone who is truly open-minded is one who has the humility to recognize when they need an outside perspective. I keep hearing "it's getting better," but it's called "best practices," not "better practices." By the time it gets best, we'll be dead.

You need a diversity officer because -
1) national demographics are shifting
2) if the theater hopes to shape the national discourse, then the plays we put out should reflect the diversity and values of all Americans
3) theaters are publicly-funded institutions that are accountable to the populations they serve
4) the only way to attract new audiences is by widening the perspective of the stories we tell;

5) many efforts at wider community outreach feel half-hearted at best and tone-deaf at worst; and
6) as forward-minded as we like to think that we are in this industry, the theater is actually lagging behind corporate America when it comes to putting women and people of color in power positions.

If you can't afford to hire a diversity officer, get an artist to volunteer as one. But really consider whether you can or can't afford one. Because I would argue that what you really can't afford is to alienate your audience and lose the faith of the artists who comprise your community. While nobody seeks to offend, we all have our blind spots. In the past year alone, I've witnessed...
- one member-based theater that offended their female artists by putting out a season of plays that was nearly entirely written by men
- several theaters that offended the Asian community by staging stories set in Asia without casting any Asian actors
- one play with a depiction of a transgendered character that was so offensive to a transgendered audience member that he wrote a protest letter to the producing theater

A diversity officer would have been able to help in all of those situations, and those were just the situations that erupted in controversy. Behind the scenes, a diversity officer would be able to contribute perspective on all of the hundreds of microdecisions that go on in a theater every day.

Because those microdecisions add up to a theater's integrity and values. And I think we can all do a lot better.

10 Comments

Claudia Alick link

4/30/2013 01:27:11 pm

Great suggestion. At many theaters these duties are performed by audience development if they have the right mandate and voice in the company

Seth Rozin

4/30/2013 05:04:55 pm

Mike
While I wholeheartedly agree that (1) diversifying the field in terms of both artists and audiences is necessary, and (2) demographics are clearly shifting, I am a bit more cautious about this suggestion of yours.
First, it feels like a top-down, legislated requirement, of which there are, thankfully, precious few in the arts. And why diversity as opposed to accessibility? Do you think it is more important that different races and ethnicities are fairly represented in the theatre than it is to make theatre more easily affordable and accessible to a wider range of constituents? Should theatres also be required to have Accessibility Officers?
Second, unlike corporations and Hollywood studios, non-profit theatres are grossly undercapitalized; many of them struggle to maintain full-time (or even part-time) literary managers. Are you, again, suggesting that Diversity Officers are more important than other positions that many theatres can't afford?
And third, the fact that demographics are changing doesn't automatically mean that those demographics will or should be equivalently represented in all professional fields (look at major professional sports, for instance, which clearly have the resources to mass market, yet neither the players, coaches nor paying fans are nearly as diverse as most teams' communities). Not all communities share an equal interest in practicing or attending theatre. One of the primary reasons audiences have remained primarily white, older and middle/upper middle class, I believe, is that there is a proven track record of interest. For undercapitalized non-profit theatres, who are trying to figure out how to stay solvent, to spend precious dollars on positions and/or initiatives that probably won't even generate enough income to pay for those positions and initiatives is a tough sell. I believe (and InterAct has demonstrated) that making a long-term commitment to developing more diverse audiences will likely payoff, but most theatres can't (or don't believe they can) take a long-term approach when their very survival is always at risk.

Godfrey L. Simmons, Jr. (1 of 3) link

5/6/2013 12:14:53 pm

Seth,

Your response to Mike's third actionable step for the theatre is a perfect illustration of the kind of psychology that is destroying any attempts to make theatre in the United States more accessible, representative, inclusive, and, frankly, more engaging. And it's doubly surprising coming from the leader of an institution that seems to be fighting the good fight on this one.

Let's start with your first rhetorical question: Why diversity over accessibility? I'll answer that with another question: WHY NOT BOTH? The either/or stance of institutional leadership (mastered by the Republican Party) toward the concerns of disenfranchised populations is a common ploy used to stave off the changing of the status quo. What your question implies is that it doesn't matter what's on stage or who's making the decisions on what's on stage, it only matters that people can afford to see it. And what does accessibility even mean to you? Does it mean affordability? Does it mean location -- taking it TO the people? Does it mean that more than one or two kinds of people will feel included by your season programming? Or does it mean all of these things? I hope the answer to that last question is yes, especially in such a polyglot, oddly segregated city like Philadelphia.

It seems to me that accessibility is part of a diversity officer's job, is it not? Perhaps a trip to one of these Fortune 500 companies to see what these people do in their Diversity Officer positions is in order before we dismiss it out of hand. And, while I am not so fond of the word diversity, to say that the lack of diversity in theatre staffs, stages and audiences can somehow be segregated (to strain a metaphor) from accessibility presumes that A: White people, particularly men, SHOULD stay in charge of all phases of institutional theatre, even if they don't know anything about over 50 percent of their constituents (counting women, people of color, and LGBTQ) and B: The only responsibility these white men have toward other populations is to make their, THEIR, theatre accessible to them -- in other words, come to our house. As a black man in the United States, I'm sick and tired of this assumption that I have to come to YOUR house to see YOUR theatre. You need me. You need Mike Lew. You need Judy Tate. You need Sylvan Oswald. You need OUR perspectives, OUR gaze. Because you don't know anything about us or the people/communities we come from and there's no obvious incentive for you to care.

That's a strong accusation I just made, about you not knowing anything about our communities. I'll get to that accusation when I examine your third point. But on to the second rhetorical question: "Are you, again, suggesting that Diversity Officers are more important than other positions that many theatres can't afford?" Clearly you are implying that other positions in theatres are more important. But again, it seems you are de-valuing the benefits of a Diversity Officer without much in the way of evidence. Let's get rid of the word "Diversity" for a second and replace it with "Civic Engagement", because that's what we're talking about here. It's not just "let's do theatre that will get different minorities/immigrants (or the new majority!) into the theatre." It's about ENGAGING with those people in a way that will enhance the theatre-going experience of even those white, monied communities who have a "proven track record of interest" (I don't even know where to begin looking at that phrase -- proven track record of interest -- but I will shortly.). Any theatre artist belonging to a community that isn't straight and white will tell you that when they perform a play from their community's experience, if the audience is just full of white people, there will be precious little laughter of recognition, empathy, or subtle translations of insider information that make the discovery of a new perspective in the theatre so exciting.

Having helped to run Off-Broadway's Epic Theatre Ensemble and now as Artistic Director of a new regional theatre, Civic Ensemble, I know first hand how important a Director of Civic Engagement is. Most people call it Education Director -- Epic has taken the brilliant step of changing their Education Director's title to Artistic Director, since that is what mostly drives their programming. Regardless, this job should be the FIRST hire for any theatre company. The nature of the title demands that she connect with all sectors of our community, both artistically and culturally. She doesn't just coordinate our educational activities. She connects our programming to the larger population so that we aren't programming in a vacuum -- that "artistic" world where we just "wanna do theatre we want to do to get the people in who can pay the money to see it." Every decision is vetted through the prism of how will this be accessible now or in the future, and who does this artistic/programming decision speak to and how.

Godfrey L. Simmons Jr. (2 of 3) link

5/6/2013 12:29:44 pm

(Cont'd) We should think of this Diversity Officer with some creativity -- to me, this is the role our Director of Civic Engagement is serving, but she's serving it as a creator and implementer of programs and as an artist. I don't think you can (okay I'll use the term again, 'cause it's just fun) segregate a Diversity Officer's duties from artistry -- it must be both an administrative and artistic position. And, oh by the way, this position has brought the most revenue (and will continue to bring the most revenue) to the company. And we knew it would. A cynic would say it's because the grant/donor dollars are in Civic Engagement, but to us it's because it's an open playing field. It's rare for theatre company decisions to be driven by the diversity of their communities before commerce. And frankly, we care more about exploring the diversity of perspectives in our community than we do catering to people with money. And to our surprise, the entire community, including those monied white folks, feel the same way. They just need and want institutions to do what they're supposed to do -- Lead.

This leads me to the most dispiriting thing I've read related to the theatre since...well...since the last time a NY Times Reviewer (notice I did NOT use the word critic) tried to intelligently review a play by a black woman that wasn't named Lynn Nottage or Suzan Lori Parks. (If you must know, Charles Isherwood's review of Dominique Morrisseau's DETROIT 67. It didn't go well for him.)

Seth, you say that, "Not all communities share an equal interest in practicing or attending theatre. One of the primary reasons audiences have remained primarily white, older and middle/upper middle class, I believe, is that there is a proven track record of interest." I'll be blunt. What the FUCK does that mean? No, really. That's not rhetorical. I want to know. I know I've lapsed from whatever elegance I had in this screed, but I really, truly want to know what you meant by these two sentences.

Here are some rhetorical questions for you: Are you saying that because theatres are mostly white-run and cater to rich whites they should stay that way? Are you saying that my interest in practicing theatre is not equal to yours? Are you saying that the fact that the earliest recorded theatrical event was in Africa in 2000 BCE does not count toward a proven track record of interest for African-Americans?

You clearly don't know anything about our communities, otherwise you would never say anything so cynical about us. Litany: Despite the high cost of producing and the benignly racist NY Times critics, NYC supports not one, not two, but three Off-Broadway Asian-American theatre companies. And guess what? Asian-Americans attend those companies' productions alongside what people consider the typical Off-Broadway audience. In fact, a play I co-wrote about race in America (Dispatches From (A)mended America) that dealt largely with blacks and whites, was almost as well attended by Asians and Asian-Americans as it was by black folks. NYC also supports nine Latino theatre companies, three of them Off-Broadway. Ten Thousand Things and Mixed Blood Theatre in Minneapolis perform to diverse audiences year-round in a city that's 60 percent white with 22 percent of people below the poverty line. And the most recent example of Black Vaudeville, Tyler Perry, made his first fortune on theatre. Black folks going to see theatre. No it was not August Wilson. No one's preparing to shortlist him for a Pulitzer. But it was theatre. And audiences were so loyal that they followed him to the movies.

Godfrey L. Simmons Jr. (3 of 3) link

5/6/2013 12:38:23 pm

(Cont'd)
Seth, I'm not sure what track record you're talking about. The reason rich whites go to the theatre is because it caters to them. Almost every advertisement, every title, every casting decision, every new hire in the LORT/LOA regional theatre circuit and in New York is vetted through their eyes, concerns, and predilections. When you read a play or hear a play, you have no choice but to do it through the eyes of these white middle/upper middle classes. You're one of them. (Actually, I know nothing about your economic background as a child --you might have grown up poor, for all I know. However, based on what you've written here, it seems to me that you identify with them.). So it almost doesn't matter whether or not you do a play by an Asian-American woman -- the decision to do it never really considered her community's perspective. Those Minneapolis theatres I mentioned earlier don't succeed with diversity just because of programming or accessibility or diverse staffs: it's because of ALL of those things. Institutions big and small are doing this. For example, Civic Ensemble's first production is a community-based play about parenting called PARENT STORIES. Premiering on May 31st-June 1st for three performances, the play is the result of a year-long process of story circles, devised theatre, and community-building with Ithaca community members that co-existed with our other programs. Likewise, the venerable Public Theater has begun a Public Works program that will pair their artists with community organizations to make a free, original musical adaptation of THE TEMPEST that will feature 200 New Yorkers from across the five boroughs. In both cases we are talking about communities of mixed races getting together to create and attend theatre.

And this idea that the arts is not "top-down" is just laughable. There may not be top-down legislated rules for theatre, but theatre in the U.S. is the definition of top-down. A theatre decides what its season is and they tell their audiences "we're doing this play and that play, come see it here at this time." Audiences aren't included in those decisions, they never get an opportunity to experience themselves what actors experience onstage every night, they never get to see or tell their own stories onstage. They have to subscribe at the beginning of the season to get the best seats, so wealthy people are given access before anyone else. Readings are free, but precious little else that the theatre does is affordable. And theatres ask for donations 4-6 times a year. And what does the audience get to experience? What's the public benefit? Some good plays, maybe some visits from a teaching artist at their child's school, some hobnobbing with artists at an opening. That's all good stuff, but the audiences aren't engaged on a deep level in a conversation with theatres about the world we live in and therefore have no reason to feel like a theatre WANTS them there. You can't just do a Latino play and hope Latino audiences come and then when they don't come, you decide that you can't do anymore Latino plays. You have to invite them to your house. AND you have to go where they live. AND you have to make a piece of art with them.

With all the interesting work that is evident through InterAct's programming and mission, this cynicism toward diverse audiences, particularly audiences of color, is very concerning to me. Why would you do a play by an artist of color or about people who aren't white if you know your audience is just going to be rich white people? And why do you assume that even middle class people of color aren't interested in practicing or attending theatre. The cynic in me wants to ask you if you are just doing those plays because that's where the grant/donor money is. But I know that's not true. But I have to tell you that this cynicism on the part of white people who run theatres in the United States is tough enough to slog through without having to hear it from someone who seemingly is trying to develop a new, more diverse canon. We cannot afford to give ammunition to those who would keep the status quo simply because it might stay that way despite our efforts.

When theatres and their leaders lead, things happen. When theatres decide to press Casting Directors to bring in people of different ethnicities and physical abilities for Mamet and Shepard and Rebeck and Ruhl, things will change for those actors. When theatres demand (and publicly call for) newspapers and online outlets find more theatre practitioners and more people of color to write criticism, things will change for writers of color. And if theatres decide that yes, our very survival depends on NEW audiences that aren't 80 years old and rich and white and NEW practitioners from those audiences to lead our theatres, our "diversity" problem will become marginalized. Because, Seth, it's not just most theatres' very survival at risk. The dying of the theatre audience in the United State

Godfrey Simmons (4 of 4) link

5/6/2013 04:28:55 pm

(Cont'd)
Because, Seth, it's not just most theatres' very survival at risk. The dying of the theatre audience in the United States is a fucking national emergency of epic proportions for every theatre. Again. You NEED those people to come to your theatre, to see themselves onstage, to feel a part of your theatre community. Because when people can, they will reinvest in their community. If theatres make themselves a part of their ever-expanding, ever-diversifying communities, those communities will support them. And that begins with the appointment of an artist/administrator as Director of Civic Engagement or a Diversity Officer.

Judy Tate

5/1/2013 01:02:37 am

Re: Seth Rozin saying: “One of the primary reasons audiences have remained primarily white, older and middle/upper middle class, I believe, is that there is a proven track record of interest."

Are you actually suggesting that Black people, Asians, Latino’s and any other non-white people are not interested in the theatre? Do not exhibit a “track record”? I find that suggestion ludicrous, monumentally insulting and counter to my experiences as a theatre-maker and goer. Your world of experience is too narrow—even as InterAct professes to be a theatre “for today’s world” and that is exactly what efforts at diversity like the ones Mr. Lew suggests are addressing. Just the other week I sat in a theatre FULL of black people for Dominique Morisseau’s Detroit ’67. And lest you say “well, of course, it was an all-black play-- they’ll drag their uninterested butts out for those”. A few days ago I attended a beautiful production of Richard III (Epic Theatre Ensemble) and the ethnic makeup of the audience for this brilliant production of the bard’s work was evenly mixed. Why? Because at every level of decision-making Epic Theatre makes inclusion a value. The theatre-makers are a diverse bunch and therefore so was the audience. You say that diversity officers at theatres are a bad idea because it sounds like “top-down legislation of which there are thankfully few in the arts”. Baloney. Every time your theatre company gets a grant, what it can or can’t do with the money is a “top-down” legislation. Did it occur to you that your reasoning is precisely why mainstream theatre remains a bastion of white male privilege? And that is why we lag so miserably behind even Fortune 500 companies in diversifying gender, ethnicity & race and age. And I’m not just talking about the fare on the stage but the staff behind the scenes as well. And who says that diversity doesn’t include accessibility to the theatre? If you diversify your personal networks, it follows that gender, race/ ethnicity, social class will follow. The actually proven fact isn’t that only white people prove interest in theatre in this country. The proven historical, inarguable fact is that in a country in which inequities have been fought and many liberties won, unless change is prescribed in the beginning, it doesn’t become practice, no matter how “nice” and “liberal” people want to make themselves out to be—especially artsy theatre types. I have lived through many civil rights actions, the women’s movement and various pushes for change in labor practice and I’m telling you the FACT is that unless people are, perhaps uncomfortably so, challenged in concrete ways to change how they do business, institutions large and small will default to a place of exclusion. If they’ve not made a fundamental commitment for inclusion (as Epic has done), wrapping their mind around it is difficult. Power never concedes power easily and the mindset exhibited in your response is a prime example of why and how.

riti sachdeva

5/1/2013 11:08:23 am

What if theaters hired artistic directors, lit managers, artistic associates, etc. who were required to have a proven track record of "diversity" in their artistic and professional resume and vision? Then theatres wouldn't have to continue sinking money into the administration of the theater and could pay the artists...? I know most monied theaters are run like corporations, I'm concerned about miming corporate strategies if we don't want corporate product...

As Ms. Tate points out about Detroit '67, the Public theater notably attracts "diverse" audiences, and occasionally these audience members cross over to support shows beyond their (our) own "diversity." In order to have proven track records from audience, the theater must also have a proven track record of consistent programming to attract those audiences. White/upper middle class audiences have had at least 150 years of programming in the U.S. catered to them in order to have become loyal customers. I believe 150 years of programming for other target audiences to "diversify" would bring similar results (this can already be seen in the strides made by Black theater makers and audiences in NY and Atlanta.)

Accessibility is crucial and is as much about ticket prices as it is about content, geography, and relationships. And while on accessibility, I must say that Seth Rozin is one of the most accessible artistic directors I've come across, which is key for the kind of "populist" administration we need in theater.

Paul Slee link

5/2/2013 06:40:55 am

Hi Mike, I was directed to this posting as a result of our own diversity conversation going on in our theatre and just want to say "bravo!" for engaging in this conversation and especially for putting forth actionable ideas. Thank you.

Marketing Tips link

8/30/2013 03:52:18 pm

I appreciate for sharing your research here. Great post and this is the first time I am hearing about the subject that you have researched. I hope this will bring positive effect in the season planning, casting, hiring and board cultivation and make the people aware about the importance of hiring a diversity officer.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Six Actionable Steps for the Theater #3: Hire a Diversity Officer

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories