Michael Riedel on behind-the-scenes diversity struggles on Broadway

“You can’t write with the idea that someone is looking over your shoulder"

You mean like an editor? Or an audience?

What a ridiculous stance.

The proofreading process for any piece of writing must include having a bouncing board for how things will be received. If something is insensitive and needs to be changed, better to catch it before it’s in front of an audience. If it’s insensitive and the writer wants to keep it, that’s their prerogative, and they can deal with the consequences and/or find a producer who will accept the script as-is.

Any proofreader should be scanning for this kind of thing anyway, the only difference is that now the proofreader is specifically equipped for it.

I must've forgotten the "ending the relationship with the NYPD and hire private security" part of WSYWAT. While I agree with a lot of what that organization said, there's parts like this that are stupefying.

I've maintained that at the moment we're in a moment of overcorrection on Broadway. (See: seven plays by Black writers on at the same time when the market was never deep enough to sustain them.) It's probably good that we are overcorrecting for the moment, to set an example for the rest of theatre industry nationally, but I do agree with the other in the article that say we need to find a middle ground. And I'm sure we will, though I think the biggest challenge will always be with the unions.

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Yes, a middle ground is key. The goal of WSYWAT seemed to be "ask for a lot in the hopes that we get like 30% of what we asked for."

The NYPD bit is ridiculous, especially for theatres in the middle of Times Square where the sidewalks are shared with so much foot traffic. (And any private firm would probably be entirely made up of ex-cops, and would serve the exact same function...except it would cost even more.)"

Reminds me of the recent Pride organization kerfuffle where they have NYPD being banned, and instead wanted private security. And like you say, it's all ex- or off-duty cops.

I’m very glad he wrote this article.

It’s certainly laughable to think the industry will ever be completely equitable or fair. There is never going to be a time where who you know or what your last name is won’t affect whether you’re cast or unemployed, for example. It’s a business, and business is cold.

I’m sure a lot of industry veterans would like to speak out in a similar vein, but are afraid of being ostracized, canceled or misperceived. This explains so many speaking on the condition of anonymity. Some of them have had whole careers that have served as unofficial diversity training. I can understand being resentful when you’re 70 years old and someone half your age comes in to lecture you for hours about proper diversity protocol.

The aim of increasing diversity is important and necessary, but they shouldn’t legislate - either officially or not - what artists are allowed to create. That is dangerous for all of us.

Hopefully we will find that middle ground. Evolving is always a bumpy process.

Like most things, we're only listening to the loudest voices in the room instead of what we actually need.

WSYWAT comes from a well-intended place, but it's going to take time and proper negoatiation with the unions, League, and LORT (because so many shows are incubated off-b and regionally) to make real lasting change and find the "happy medium".

I think we'll find that these newly-hired "Artistic Consultants" will quickly feel burnout at the nonprofits (unless they're being overpaid), because they don't have much actual power –– the primary purpose of having Ruben at MTC or Kenny at Roundabout or Liliana at LCT is to have someone who isn't white to consult with and give ideas, but the final decisions still come down to the Artistic Director. And it SHOULD come from the AD.

Basically, don't hamper the artistic process with micromanagement. That will just lead to burnout, and some shows won't get produced if it's just going to be too much of a headache to do it well. (Every producer dealing with a play about "issues" is probably fearful that they have another Jagged Little Pill or Tootsie on their hands –– not that the discourse alone closed those shows, but it didn't help.) Trying to do TOO much "kumbaya" stuff becomes cloying for the company, and looks disingenuous if they try to generate press or social coverage from it.

Wick3 said: "it sounds like each and every actor has to go through the same or similar diversity training with each new production they participate in?"

That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me –– repetition doesn't hurt, and most actors aren't going to have the luxury of jumping from one show to the next. But I would hope there's input from the creative team on how each production is specifically handling things related to its "workplace culture" and harassment policy.

Not sure how this is handled for readings (which could be as short as one day) or workshops (which could last multiple weeks and are basically a full rehearsal process without tech).

There's probably a lot of people in this world who couldn't do CPR successfully, even after 4 hours of training...

I would almost guarantee that every person who has harassed someone has done some sort of anti-harassment training in their lifetime (and same with people who've done bias training or diversity training). In this new world, many workplaces require it annually (such as higher education institutions) or at the very start of a new employee's time with the company.

It's one of those things that could have a major impact with just a half day devoted to it at the start of each proper contract. But as we know from recent events, sometimes even that isn't enough.

New York has a standardized online course with a gender-awareness and harassment training. Once you complete it, you get a certificate of completion, which has (I believe) a 1 year expiration date. Within that year, you can present the certificate to any employer that requires the training. Once that year is up, you have to take the training course again when beginning a new contract that requires it. I've taken the course 2 or 3 times now, and I find it helpful to have a refresher (there's good information in there, not just to prevent harassment, but also guidelines on what to do when you witness it, what to do if it happens to you, and other resources, etc.).

Seems like there could be something similar focusing more closely on race, and/or more specific to a show-business setting. And seems like an easy fix for the "how often?" and "how expensive?" debates going on in this thread.

JBroadway said: "“You can’t write with the idea that someone is looking over your shoulder"

You mean like an editor? Or an audience?

What a ridiculous stance.

The proofreading process for any piece of writing must include having a bouncing board for how things will be received. If something is insensitive and needs to be changed, better to catch it before it’s in front of an audience. If it’s insensitive and the writer wants to keep it, that’s their prerogative, and they can deal with the consequences and/or find a producer who will accept the script as-is.

Any proofreader should be scanning for this kind of thing anyway, the only difference is that now the proofreader is specifically equipped for it."

I'd say that is an even more ridiculous response, as what he's complaining about has zero to do with editing or proofreading and involves censorship and the stifling of "troublesome" subjects or characters out of a fear of controversy.

Updated On: 11/14/22 at 05:26 PM

Middle ground, yes. Do you know how hard it would be for Mickey and Judy to throw a show together in a barn thes days?!

Intimacy coaches and Diversity Programs seem to be very new and recent concepts that have not created a high demand in order to have stabilized costs and competition.

What is not new, I think, is the problem of having actors and other production members suing your production or doing an exposé due to unprepared, dangerous or malicious material or personnel.

Coming from a country where artistic service is severely underpaid and undervalued, I can't help but wonder if this piece is a result of the "I just don't want to pay for it" mentality. Has anyone recently read a piece (not from Riedel, I imagine) of the good effect these professionals have brought to a specific production? It would make me less suspicious if the article had a balanced examination of this new way of producing art.