Race-based hiring preference is often mistaken for race-based hiring discrimination. Notably, race discrimination in workplaces continues to persist even though it is illegal. Over time, there have been numerous cases where some companies prefer to hire specific races due to the nature of their products. Even though black Americans are more subjected to discrimination, white Americans also find themselves in the same predicament. According to EEOC, it is against the law for companies to base their hiring processes on race, origin, or even culture. During the Hamilton show casting, the show's directors and producers were headlined due to their preference for Non-white actors. According to the news report, Hamilton casting of only non-white actors brought about controversies and assumptions of the show being an artistic expression. Therefore, this discussion reflects on race-based hiring preference in theatres and other cases where race-based hiring preference is protected under BFOQ exceptions.
There are cases where race-based hiring preference is protected under the Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQ) exceptions. However, Title VII states that "it is illegal to deny someone employment based on their race, color, religion, or national origin" (Fleischer, 2018). For the case of Hamilton's broad show, the casting directors did not by-pass the law. Hamilton show was protected under race-based hiring preference in the BFOQ exceptions. Notably, in the entertainment industry race, and other preferred characteristics such as age and gender are taken into account for casting. Consequently, it is clear Hamilton's advertisement was not unlawful even though it gave rise to many controversies. The issue with their casting calls was a matter of bad choice of words. Therefore, the casting directors and producers had to answer the allegations of reverse racism. The show producers gave counter-arguments on the controversies and argued that race was an integral part of telling the show's underlying story. Notably, even though Hamilton's advertisement steered controversy, producers had the right to state their preferences while making casting calls.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Hamilton case tables the fact that there is a place for a race-based hiring preference. In some job opportunities, it is vital to implement the race factor into the hiring process. However, the employer needs to ascertain that they are protected under BFOQ to justify their preference (Fleischer, 2018). Thus, any reliance on BFOQ for race-based hiring preference should be scrutinized as employers may find themselves in legal implications. Nonetheless, shows have a message that they want to communicate to their audience. Additionally, some products are exclusively manufactured for specific races. In this kind of circumstances then race-based hiring preference becomes a factor of consideration. Notably, Hamilton is different with a different cast.
Hamilton would have been different with a different cast. Casting directors often aim at filling specific roles during a casting call. There are different attributes they look out for in terms of height, hair color, and even race. The purpose of these specifications is because each show has an underlying story to tell to its audience. Therefore, the casting of Hamilton with people of color was no accident (Villanueva & Sanchala, 2016). Even though America's founding fathers were the white race, Hamilton showcased the founding fathers as the people of color. It was an intentional decision to communicate to their audience. They were showcasing the twenty-first century that immigrants built. Therefore, the show's purpose was to communicate that people of color are no liability, as they played a role in founding America.
Consequently, with a different cast, Hamilton would have told the same story that has been told over the years. The story of the White founding fathers and this was not the intention of the show. Hamilton's show was aiming at repudiating the mainstream approach (Villanueva & Sanchala, 2016). Fundamentally, besides giving the people of color a representation in the founding era. The show was also meant to show the proactive techniques incorporated in casting in this era. Therefore, with a different cast then the Hamilton show could not have communicated their message. Furthermore, in hiring their preferred casts, Hamilton casting directors were protected under the First Amendment, which states that casting directors can focus on the scriptwriter's intended message while making casting calls. Unlike Hamilton's show, Hairspray does not communicate its intended message.
Hairspray show features an entirely white cast, and it does not work. Hairspray is a show that tells the story of the discrimination and racism subjected to African American communities. The prevalence of racism against black Americans has geared the production of many shows. S However, the Hairspray only features white casts to the extent that the roles meant for African American actors are played by Asians or white actors. Nevertheless, Hairspray can no longer work with an entirely white cast.
The entirely white cast does not communicate the underlying message of the show. The show carries the message of civil rights for all Americans. Nonetheless, the message gets muddled as the actors do not support the storyline. The hairspray show is discrimination against the minority group, while the show itself does not feature any member from the minority group. Unlike the Hamilton show, Hairspray seeks to tell the story of racism against the black American but features no black American. Therefore, casting an entirely white cast in Hairspray might steer legal redress (Ligon, 2019). Further, there is a case of employment discrimination in the Hairspray show. Lawfully hiring an entirely white cast in the show can be categorized under racial discrimination because of its underlying story. Moreover, denying white actors to play black roles in Hairspray is not a form of discrimination, but rather it does justice to the storyline considering the themes of the show. However, there are cases where racial-based hiring preference is considered appropriate.
There are different cases where racial-based hiring preference is appropriate when the circumstances are extraordinary. However, it depends on the protected class that an employer is hiring to justify their preference. For instance, some companies may look into hiring specific races. A good example is a company that exclusively manufactures hair products meant for white race hair types. Thus, hiring a black model to advertise the hair product is not appropriate as it does not attract the intended customers. Nonetheless, even though there are accepted cases of racial-based hiring preference, the BFOQ should be well scrutinized before taking the preference route ( Fleischer, 2018). Otherwise, employers may encounter legal issues based on discrimination.
To conclude, racial-based hiring preference has a place, especially in the entertainment industries. Not only do shows entertain, but they also tell an underlying story. More often, the casting crew has to have the appropriate characteristics to communicate the message. For instance, telling the story of a black slave during the colonial period requires a black actor. Thus, under BFOQ exceptions, casting directors are protected when making casting calls that favor a certain race. A good example is Hamilton. Even though the show underwent controversies, their casting calls were not illegal. It was just a matter of bad choice of words. On the other hand, Hairspray features all-white casts even though the message revolves around racism and discrimination. Therefore, to communicate the message of the show, there is a need to change casts. Notably, there are different cases outside the theatre where racial-based hiring preference is appropriate. For instance, companies that specialize in a product that exclusively produces products for a specific race.
References
Fleischer, C. H. (2018). The SHRM Essential Guide to Employment Law: A Handbook for HR Professionals, Managers, Businesses, and Organizations . Society for Human Resource Management.
Ligon, N. (2019). Who Tells Your Story: The Legality of and Shift in Racial Preferences Within Casting Practices, 26 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 135.
Villanueva, & Sanchala. (2016, March 31). “Hamilton” — Race Discrimination Allegations and the BFOQ Defense. Retrieved from https://www.new-york-employment-lawyer-blog.com/hamilton-race-discriminatio/
