Founded in 1926, the Academy Awards, otherwise known as the Oscars, is widely recognized as one of our most prestigious entertainment ceremonies. It is the oldest entertainment awards ceremony of its kind. This year, things took a dramatic twist. 

Several well-known actors and actresses either boycotted or publicized displeasure with the world’s supreme entertainment ceremony — Jada Pinkett Smith, Will Smith, George Clooney, Spike Lee, Lupita Nyong’o and Mark Ruffalo, to name a few.

The reason for this seemingly rash action: For the second year in a row, all 20 Oscar nominees for acting are white. However, this overly simplified, race-based response hardly scratches at the surface of a deeper issue.

Famous writer and producer Lee said, “We can not support it and mean no disrespect but how is it possible for the second consecutive year all 20 contenders under the actor category are white? And let’s not even get into the other branches.”

While this year’s voting process mirrored that of the past, the voting pool remained rather homogenous; 94 percent of the voting pool was white, 77 percent were men and the median age was 62. The rather racially consistent ballot of nominees made many more aware of the lack of diversity within the voting pool.

Not to doubt or discredit the talent of any current nominees, but a more realistic voting pool is imperative to generate the best possible list of nominees. Historically precise sampling techniques illustrate that in order to most reliably gather the list, a more diverse pool that reflects the diverse American population is necessary. 

It’s nothing personal against late middle-aged white men; the voting pool would look equally as distorted if it were comprised of mostly minority women of average age 30. The point is that just like a pool of mostly minority women of average age 30, the current pool of mostly late middle-aged white men is also erroneous.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, In addition to a 50/50 gender split, a more ethnically and racially factual voting pool would look something like 64 percent white, 16 percent Latino, 13 percent African-American, 5 percent Asian-American and 2 percent multiracial.

While a more diverse voting pool would yield less biased poll results, there are still a few vital remaining variables that need to be addressed.

Each year, approximately 6,261 members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have the privilege of voting for 20 nominees from different awards categories. 

These members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are writers, producers, directors, art directors, visual effect supervisors and actors who apply for voting rights. Each applicant applies for a voting right in one committee of their choice.

In addition to an “unusually high level of quality and distinction,” committee prerequisites for actors and actresses include three film credits with one from the past five years, a written letter and application approval from two current branch members.

For writers, producers and directors, two screen credits are necessary for further consideration, while art directors and visual effect supervisors must be active for a specified number of years that fluctuates based on their specific concentration of expertise.

Additionally, Oscar award nominees from the previous year are automatically considered for Academy Membership.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences admission standards lead to arguably the most crucial question regarding the entire Oscars Boycott: Who are the people applying to join the Academy of Voters?

Are deserving minorities and women applying but being disproportionately rejected for these positions? Or are largely white males of average age 63 applying for these spots? The answer to this question ultimately determines the validity and rationale behind the boycott itself.

If minorities and women who exceed committee requirements are being disproportionately rejected by the Academy, this may illustrate a greater problem of subconscious racial and gender favoritism within the organization.

On the other hand, while a more representative pool of voters is essential, if few minorities or women are even applying to the voting committees, how can the current voting pool be at fault for something as subjective as nominating the actors and actresses they feel are most deserving? After all, the actors they could pick as both nominees and members of the voting pool were already limited due to an existing lack of diversity within Hollywood itself. 

Lastly, cumulative data from the past decade on the statistic of Oscar nominees by race and ethnicity would also be essential. These results could then be compared to the gender, racial and ethnic demographics of Hollywood and the United States as a whole.

While there are clearly greater problems in the world besides the Oscars, ensuring that hardworking, dedicated individuals in the entertainment world receive accurate recognition should be addressed.