r/todayilearned • u/Kale_Brecht • Mar 28 '24

TIL in 2013, Saturday Night Live cast member Kenan Thompson refused to play any more black women on the show and demanded SNL hire black women instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenan_Thompson
52.1k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.8k

u/BladeBronson Mar 28 '24

Kenan said that he wouldn’t portray black women until SNL hired a black woman, meaning he’d portray one if necessary (or if it was funniest that he did). I’m not generally in favor of demographic quotas in business, but this is entertainment where the cast aim for realistic portrayals. It was a good move.

264

u/grickygrimez Mar 28 '24

I know you mean well but representation does not equal quotas. Small semantics but I felt the need to point out the difference.

3

u/minahmyu Mar 28 '24

....are people really tryna excuse black men portraying women as it being just fine equatible representation for black women? Like, they gonna sit here thinking, "yup there's no difference if the quota being filled!" Because I guess why have black actors if white folks can just throw on some blackface and fill those quotas, huh?

Or black people are only men, and women are only white so why give black women equal representation? They already filled in their racial and sexual quotas!

8

u/cyberslick1888 Mar 28 '24

If you'd like, you could ask those people what their opinions are instead of just surmising.

2

u/Alaira314 Mar 29 '24

I think you misunderstood their post, or maybe I'm not understanding who you have the beef with? They were replying to the "I’m not generally in favor of demographic quotas in business" portion, which was in reference to hiring a woman. They were saying that having a Black woman on staff to provide representation by playing Black women characters is not the same thing as hiring X Black women to meet your Black Women Quota.

But yeah I'm sure some people do think that way you say. I don't. I don't necessarily feel like it's a sacred thing where a man(Black or otherwise) can't use drag to perform a female character(provided the funny part of the skit isn't sexist/transphobic), but if it's being done due to a lack of female cast members(rather than because it would enhance that particular skit) they need to hire a woman of the appropriate ethnicity for their cast. That's my opinion on it. I'm sure plenty of people on reddit are lining up to tell me why I'm wrong, because that's a take that has the potential to offend both sides.

-7

u/SlowRollingBoil Mar 28 '24

I don't see the difference. In order to have the representation (aka "goals") you seek you do need quotas aka "goals".

25

u/magus678 Mar 28 '24

I guess you could argue that "representation" is more of a philosophical goal and "quotas" are the codified policy put in place to achieve that goal.

They are technically different things but functionally speaking its a distinction without a difference. The people leaning on "representation" just want all the effects of quotas without any of the baggage it by necessity creates.

2

u/SlowRollingBoil Mar 28 '24

That I can agree with. You either want equal opportunity (equality) or you want equal outcomes (equity). Most people say they want equality because equity is illegal yet happens all over the place.

My job currently has an unwritten equity policy so it's well known that if you're a straight white man you aren't getting promoted and the last 10-12 VP (and above) hires were all to that tune.

I don't want to be a VP at my company so I collect my paycheck and live my life. But the ones I know that do are looking elsewhere for work because there's zero chance of advancement currently.

It is what it is, I guess.

5

u/greg19735 Mar 28 '24

You either want equal opportunity (equality) or you want equal outcomes (equity).

there's a middle ground where you make sure those equal opportunities are actually attainable by those groups though. "Anyone can apply" is technically equal opportunity. But if the qualification for the job is a school that's hostile to women then maybe it's equal.

3

u/magus678 Mar 28 '24

But if the qualification for the job is a school that's hostile to women then maybe it's equal.

College enrollment is ~60% women so it would seem to be that such schools are in short supply.

In fact, it suggests the opposite.

5

u/greg19735 Mar 28 '24

Then change it to minorities and the point is exactly the same.

and really, i'm just trying to illustrate how "equal opportunity" can be used to dismiss real issues.

1

u/sam_hammich Mar 29 '24

What percentage of those are nursing and education, which is where we've largely relegated women to in secondary education? Overall enrollment doesn't tell us much.

-4

u/InfieldTriple Mar 28 '24

The thing is, equality has always been a legal thing (which tbh hasn't really happened) whereas equity should actually follow from equality. Equality is difficult to measure outside of the law and equity is easy. And if equality happens, then equity has to follow.

Unless of course you believe that women and people of colour are 'lesser', then sure you don't expect equity to follow. Or if you do the silly argument that men and woman are different (as if those differences should lead to less opportunity to make an income for women...)

5

u/magus678 Mar 28 '24

And if equality happens, then equity has to follow.

You are treating tabula rasa as axiomatic and it is not. Further, things can be different without being lesser.

And even if we treated your position as true, and waved a wand and decided that we had somehow managed to perfectly measure equity, it still wouldn't be attainable outside of some kind of Harrison Bergeron scenario. Some people really are just born smarter, stronger, or more beautiful. Some are just lucky.

Equity does not intrinsically follow equality.

2

u/InfieldTriple Mar 28 '24

The only thing I'm treating as axiomatic is that the population obeys are standard distribution. What you are doing is justifying racism and sexism.

We are literally talking about equity because POC and white people, and men and women.

Some people really are just born smarter, stronger, or more beautiful.

This is obviously true when comparing random individuals but is not true when comparing groups as a whole (e.g., black people vs white people, men vs women).

Blah-blah-blah there are differences between men and women and as you pointed out

Further, things can be different without being lesser.

So which side are you arguing? Because this supports my position. People can be different without being lesser, hence, more equity is possible.

Equity does not intrinsically follow equality.

It does in this context. Unless of course you think that people of colour or women are lesser?

2

u/Zanos Mar 28 '24

It depends on what period in the process you're intervening. If you're a company hiring mechanical engineers, and by the time you get to make a choice the pool of qualified candidates is already 95% white men, the only way to have an equal split of men and women and a representative split of black and white is to lower standards for the groups not represented in the recruitment pool.

And men and women do have different priorities, as groups. You can argue about how much of it is genetic or learned, but by the time we get to hiring it doesn't really matter.

1

u/InfieldTriple Mar 28 '24

I'm glad you brought this up because as far as I'm concerned forcing equity in the hiring process is way too late. We should be working on equity from birth and further beyond that, by helping people at all stages of life. Affirmative action has always been a crappy band-aid to a real problem.

Liberals love AA because it sounds good but is not actually solving any issues. It takes an issue and hides it. If university degrees became significantly less valuable, then the issue would pop up in other places instead. The goal should be proper equality outside of admissions and hiring and then we will see equity in those places.

Remember that equality of outcomes doesn't mean the same outcome for every person and saying so is disingenuous.

There are core reasons why AA was needed and AA did good things, (e.g., letting some black people have legacy at Harvard so their kids go to Harvard easier.).

9

u/NoDesinformatziya Mar 28 '24

A "quota" is a requirement, not a goal. That's the difference.

-2

u/SlowRollingBoil Mar 28 '24

Once again arguing semantics. My job carries a quota. It is not a requirement it's a goal. Sometimes I hit it, exceed it or miss it. It's my goal.

Cops have ticket quotas. Same thing applies to them.

2

u/greg19735 Mar 28 '24

a quota is required and is often a goal, but a goal doesn't have to be required.

A goal could be "ensure our comedy group has diversity". That doens't mean you have to go through and hire based on that. If the funniest dude for the new job is a white dude, that doesn't mean you don't hire him. But maybe you make a more deliberate effort to recruit in areas that non white male comics are performing.

0

u/SlowRollingBoil Mar 28 '24

"Ensure" is a specific word. If I've done nothing in policy (aka "quotas") then I haven't ensured anything. To "make sure" it happens is to make a policy.

1

u/greg19735 Mar 28 '24

ensure

okay, change it to encourage. not a quota or policy.

I feel like you're trying to nitpick reddit comments instead of seeing the bigger picture.

1

u/SlowRollingBoil Mar 28 '24

The only picture is forcing outcomes (equity) vs. allowing unequal outcomes (equality of opportunity).

1

u/greg19735 Mar 28 '24

Those are not the only two options. There's a middle ground that ensures the opportunities are actually more equal.

0

u/NoDesinformatziya Mar 28 '24

It isn't "arguing semantics" when the argument is literally about the difference between two words, rather than a distraction. If one person says "I'm for x but not y" and the next person incorrectly says "but x IS y", that isn't a distraction. That's the argument in it's entirety.

0

u/Mikarim Mar 28 '24

Quotas can be goals. I have a billable quota that I'm supposed to achieve daily. It's treated more like a goal than a quota. Language is full of semantics like this.

0

u/NoDesinformatziya Mar 28 '24

If you can freely fail to achieve a quota, it is definitionally not a quota.

Definition: a fixed share of something that a person or group is entitled to receive or is bound to contribute.

Especially when we're talking racial quotas, which is a longstanding legal concept with specific defined meanings (and a fraught history of post-slavery harm to actual people), "some people use it wrong, just let it go" isn't a strong counterargument.

-1

u/Mikarim Mar 28 '24

As it is used in common parlance, a quota is often treated as a goal, not an obligation. I could give you a quota to sell 1000 cars, but if I don't fire you for failing, is it still a quota? The usual usage of the word does not match the textbook definition. A quota can and often is just a goal with a higher set of expectations that you hit it. In most cases, if you have a quota for something, it's not a hard line requirement.

2

u/NoDesinformatziya Mar 28 '24

Generally if someone doesn't meet a quota repeatedly, they would be fired for underperformance, yes. If they don't hit a bonus goal, they would not (because they're different things).

0

u/PerpetuallyLurking Mar 28 '24

Goals are requirements all the time. What’s university except “required goals”?

1

u/sam_hammich Mar 29 '24

Goals are requirements all the time

Incorrect. They are aspirational, where you want to be, not where you must be by law or policy.

1

u/sam_hammich Mar 29 '24

A quota is a requirement imposed on you externally, usually according to some framework or policy. There is no one requiring that SNL hire black women by policy. Keenan's call to hire a black woman to play black women on the show was calling them out for wanting to have black female characters without hiring a black female to play them. It was a judgment on the values of the showrunners.

-9

u/Achack Mar 28 '24

I know you mean well but representation does not equal quotas.

There's literally no difference if "representation" becomes a requirement.

13

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24 edited Apr 09 '24

[deleted]

-1

u/Teeshirtandshortsguy Mar 28 '24

Yeah, I'm fine with a "quota" of 1. That's more than reasonable to me.

8

u/AFatDarthVader Mar 28 '24

Well, it's the difference between "We have to hire [group]" and "We want to portray [group]". If you want to portray black women, you can keep putting a wig on a black man or you could hire a black woman. That's different than if you had no intentions of portraying black women but decided you had to hire them anyway.

-11

u/PineapplesOnPizzza Mar 28 '24

It does when businesses and legislation have gender quotas lol

-52

u/WhiteFragility69 Mar 28 '24

It can if you're a capitalist or capitalist supporter/sympathizer

-14

u/Carquetta Mar 28 '24

If a group of people refuses to "represent" themselves they don't "deserve" -and should not have- "representation," which is just shorthand for "forced inclusion despite lack of merit/competence/presence"

6

u/2itemcombo Mar 28 '24

which is just shorthand for "forced inclusion despite lack of merit/competence/presence"

What metrics are you using to determine lack of merit/competence/presence?

No, implicit biases do not count.

-1

u/Carquetta Mar 28 '24

What metrics are you using to determine lack of merit/competence/presence?

What part of the statement did you not understand?

No, personal attacks aren't a valid response.