Winning an Academy Award, the world’s oldest and most prestigious movie award, can add an exemplary amount of support to one’s film career. While the Academy is known for their high prestige, little is known about who are actual Academy members who vote on the Oscars.  A recent study shows that the Academy is actually extremely homogeneous and barely diverse – which may explain some trends in which movies win over time.

The LA Times reports the current number of Academy members at 5,765. Because the membership list is not publicly posted, the LA Times had to “[review] academy publications, resumes and biographies — to confirm the identities of more than 5,100 voters — more than 89% of the voting members” in order to retrieve and analyze demographic data of the Academy.

After confirming identities of the 5,100 Academy voters, the LA Times reported that 94% are white and 77% are male.  Blacks make up about 2% of the Academy, and Latinos constitute less than 2%.  The age of Academy members is another skewed statistic, as the median age is 62.  Only 14% of the Academy is aged 50 or younger.

The “overwhelmingly” white and male population of the Academy may be the answer as to why some movies have gotten snubbed in years past.  For instance, Inception and The Social Network have both won Oscars in the past years mainly in technical fields, but to the surprise of many, did not win as many larger awards.  This may be in part because the movies did not appeal to an older demographic.

While the Academy recognizes the need and want to become more diverse, the situation is a little more complicated than what first meets the eye.  In a country where affirmative action has become much more prevalent in employment and universities, the film industry itself and the Academy has steadily remained mainly white males.  The question of whether the Academy should grow as a reflection of the film industry or as a reflection of America is a large question among members:

“You would think that in this day and age, there would be a little bit more equality across the board, but that’s not the case,” said Nancy Schreiber, one of a handful of women among the cinematography branch’s 206 voting members. “Being a cinematographer should not be gender-based, and it’s ridiculous that it is.”

“We absolutely recognize that we need to do a better job,” said writer-director Phil Alden Robinson, a longtime academy governor. But “we start off with one hand tied behind our back…. If the industry as a whole is not doing a great job in opening up its ranks, it’s very hard for us to diversify our membership…”

“…Is most of commercial narrative filmmaking the product of mostly white men? Sadly, the answer is yes,” said Alexander Payne, the director and co-writer of best picture nominee “The Descendants” who belongs to the director branch.

Frank Pierson, a former academy president who won an Oscar for original screenplay for “Dog Day Afternoon” in 1976, said merit is the primary criterion for membership.

“I don’t see any reason why the academy should represent the entire American population. That’s what the People’s Choice Awards are for,” said Pierson, who still serves on the board of governors. “We represent the professional filmmakers, and if that doesn’t reflect the general population, so be it.”

Some academy members, though, believe the organization should do more to reflect the demographics of the nation. Denzel Washington, who won the lead actor award for 2001’s “Training Day,” said the academy needs to “open it up” and “balance” its membership.

“If the country is 12% black, make the academy 12% black,” Washington said. “If the nation is 15% Hispanic, make the academy 15% Hispanic. Why not?”

Of course, there have been recent attempts to diversify the Academy.  Since 2004, the names of the invitees have been made public, but who accepts and declines their invitations is not public information. African-American stars such as Jennifer Hudson have joined, but the statistics still remain highly skewed towards older white males.  Another large problem with diversifying the Academy is that while there are attempts to include demographical make up other than older white males, the Academy restricts admission by only inviting 30 new members per year, not including vacancies due to death.  The LA Times explicitly states the rules to become a member:

There are three ways to become a candidate for membership: land an Oscar nomination; apply and receive a recommendation from two members of a branch; or earn an endorsement from the branch’s membership committee or the academy staff.

The membership committees then vote on the candidates; those who get a majority are invited to join. The Academy says almost everyone accepts the offer.

Actors, for example, now must have three significant credits to be considered for membership, and producers need two solo producing credits or the equivalent. Such criteria benefit people with more experience. “The academy is always going to be slightly older — if just because you have to have about five years of credits before you’re even considered,” said Joe Letteri, a four-time Oscar winner for visual effects.

Despite the stiffness in admission, the Academy states they welcome more applications from women and minorities and hope those who are already member will be involved more.

Now that these repulsive and skewed statistics are revealed, the world can now view the winners (and losers) chosen by “the most accomplished men and women working in cinema,” through a new lens this Sunday – the lens of what is appealing towards mainly white men who are a median of 62 years old.  While the Academy recognizes it must become more diverse, it will most likely be a very slow and long change.

What do you think?  Should the Academy be a reflection upon the demographics in the film industry or a reflection upon America?  Or, should the process start with Hollywood and welcome a larger demographic of minorities into employment?