DIVERSITY IS NOT INCLUSION | T. Taitt

While our industry is no doubt making progress from a long past of virtual whitewash (it is promising for example to hear about the increase in racial representation at Shaw this season), it is still not true inclusion to put a couple of "diverse" shows on your stage in a season while failing to integrate artists of colour into the rest of your programming in any meaningful way. It is far too easy to do that and become self-satisfied, thereby ceasing to remain diligently self-reflective.

The self-congratulations are most definitely happening and in some instances they are hard to stomach.  While companies should take pride in their progress, that pride should be accompanied by a humble awareness of how much progress is still to be made.  

ALL of our stories are worthy, and I commend any theatre company that commits to telling the range of them. It is important to affirm - without fanfare - that a great cast need not include a single Caucasian person, just as we've been shown in no uncertain terms for time immemorial that a great show need not include a single person of colour.

As artists, we must amplify the powerful and deeply human lives of every race of people. But it is critical that we not fall into the trap of serving the goal of diversity by having "POC shows". These plays and productions themselves can be absolutely beautiful, and the decision to program them is the right one. However, if having the African-American play and the Asian play and the insert-other-culture-here play is the ONLY way you qualify as diverse, you are rowing your boat several miles away from shore.

"Mainstream" theatre companies believe sometimes, with expressed good intentions but a woefully misguided idea of how to put them into action, that they have been inclusive merely by producing non-white shows. 

They are wrong.  

Yes, those narratives are important.  But just as important is making it clear that there are stories that involve us all, not a few 'diverse' shows that tell specifically POC-centered stories, while everything else in the season features nary a non-white person in a role of significance.

Here is what so many still need to understand: DIVERSITY CAN BE SEGREGATED. INCLUSION CANNOT.

America and South Africa were diverse societies in 1965.  I don't think anyone would call them inclusive. Diversity is a state. Inclusion is a decision.

Putting wonderful shows featuring entire casts of colour on stage is a significant step forward; I am by no means downplaying it. That does not change the fact that until the MAJORITY of any company's programming features more than just tokenistic representation of races other than Caucasian both on and off stage, any claim of true inclusiveness is incorrect. 

I'm not telling any company what they HAVE to do. I can't.  It is their art, that is the decision of the ADs and the directors, and I don't have that influence anyway. I am simply saying that to be diverse and to be inclusive are two different things. Know which one you are.

TT 

MOVEMENT by MANDATE: Discovering Diversity for Dollars | by T. Taitt

Over the last few weeks, some large theatre companies have announced their 17/18 seasons to great touting of their cultural diversity.  For the artists featured, it is wonderful and deserved and long overdue.  For audiences it is at the very least, respectful, and at most - wholly necessary.  There are institutions in which programming has been so embarrassingly out of step with... well... reality, that these changes seem worthy of praise.  I can recognize that such changes, when motivated by the desire for equity of opportunity, are a good thing. 

What feels deeply disingenuous, however, is celebrating these changes in the dark -- praising them without casting light on the elephant in the opposite corner of the room.  We cannot speak of these shifts without keeping both eyes open to the fact that they were made only after amendments to the criteria of granting bodies - criteria that includes an increased emphasis on and commitment to supporting cultural equity.

I wholeheartedly applaud these amendments, as much as I regret their necessity.  As theatre is deeply reliant on community, I have long been confounded by the notion of government agencies giving money to arts organizations without affixing to that giving a considerable obligation to reflect the demographic realities of the communities they serve.  Theatre should be an exploratory reflection of one’s society, not an ongoing celebration of oneself.  It is amusing to watch those who espouse “cultural” inclusion while practicing racial exclusion, checking off the diversity box by showcasing a dozen different strands of European. 

If a medium to large Toronto-based company produces countless works which are considered artistic triumphs but do not mirror the most multicultural city in the world, it is, in my view, a creative success but a cultural failure.

There are commendable cases in which inclusion has come with a changing of the guard.  
There are others in which it has only come with a changing of the rules.    

This is the history of racial inclusion on this continent.  Conscious organizations and their leaders set the tone, a bunch of others feign tone-deafness, and finally the latter group is compelled to follow and do what is right not by any sort of principled compunction, but by the promise of their own political or economic disadvantage.

And so we have the present wave of movement by mandate.  A tug of the giving leash brings flickers of change.  While these flickers will manifest as real artists making real art - which is marvellous - they can lull us into complacency.  Flickers can quell our battered and fatigued bid for representation, can spur on a rush to exoneration, and can foster a belief in the presence of actual ideological shifts where they may not truly exist.

The authentic moves always feel different.  Always.  

To those who do not move in authentic space -- stop playing intelligent, awake people who are far more in touch than you are for fools.  It does not become you, and is shockingly transparent.

I acknowledge that in our industry, every season that looks more like the sum of us - rather than some of us - is progress.  Pleased am I for the creators of colour involved in this programming, several of whose talents I greatly admire.  I look forward to experiencing their art, and hope that great comes of the opportunities they have earned through the calibre of their work.

I will always recognize and appreciate those organizations who practice inclusion as a matter of course, based on an equal and abiding commitment to truth, awareness and decency.  There are several and they do no go unnoticed. 

What I cannot do is extole all whose hands were tied into such a commitment. What I cannot applaud is those who essentially needed to be forced in order to seek out non-white artistic excellence.  I will not pretend that those who displayed no moral imperative to prioritize anything beyond the tokenistic participation of my fellow artists of colour - before such a decision was tied to funding - how miraculously found Jesus.

How quickly the myriad of other hues can come into focus.

How quickly some see black and brown when they really want the green.

TT

A Token Of Our Depreciation

PART I

I have four minutes to get to the stop for a bus due in four minutes. 'Tis one of those races against time with which I have become familiar. As I feel around my coat pocket, I utter under my breath “Damn... I have no tokens!” The thought that follows immediately after is “Not even one. Sadder than some theatre companies.” I laugh and sigh, and hear the bus lumber past my window towards the stop. Yay, I missed it. Next bus in 20 minutes. I walk to Shoppers and stock up on bus fare. As I sit in the bus shelter, I hear it again replaying in my mind. “... I have no tokens. Not even one. Sadder than some theatre companies.”

I guess you could say that this piece begins there.

Actually, that's wrong. Today is May 1st, and it begins just over a month ago. I am asked what it is like to be a “diverse” artist. The next morning, my iPod dies on the bus. To pass the time, I reflect on the question and in a flurry of frustration, scribble a piece called Knots in response. I thought I had written all I had to write about this topic, but maybe I'm wrong. Then, during a chat, the topic of cultural representation in theatre comes up – it often does when two non-white artists chat about theatre – and the person I'm speaking with asks “And when did Hedda Gabler become black?”

I am taken aback by the comment. Confused. Agitated. Artists of colour have fought so hard and so long for the opportunity to play the iconic characters, to have a shot at mainstays of the classical canon other than Othello. As we continue chatting, I realize that the question is not intended as a criticism of that casting choice.  The black actors cast in that seminal role are incredibly gifted and deserving. No, the statement is about flipping our idea of what “diversity” (a word I no longer use in this context) means on its head, and looking at it in ways that the conversation as currently framed has not invited us to.

I go home, and ponder the last two years of conversations. We as an artistic community have so many conversations. Forums and surveys and workshops and Facebook threads and heart-to-hearts. Years later, the same conversations. In some corners, notable progress and true integration -- people putting their money where their mouths are -- and change manifesting in surprising places. Then there is a wasteland of those “discussing”, which is essentially endless postponing of the inevitable choice to change nothing much while appearing interested. Then there are those not trying. They have settled into a perspective that works for them and don't even feign otherwise. The resentment I felt towards them has waned, almost completely. I eventually saw it like spending your time trying to change the right-wing when one is a leftist. I would much sooner expend my energy making the left as strong, as equitable, and as conscious as possible. 

As much as the theatre community would like to believe that it is left-leaning by default, there exists within it a spectrum of conservativism to progressivism as evident as any in the political sphere.  

But no artist wants to own the fact that he or she avoids the mud.

That is the antithesis of what we try to do. We confront. We dive. We face the hard, the heavy and the hurtful in order to tell tough truths and explore new ground. We crave uncharted territory and live to turn ourselves inside out. We love the difficult discussions except the ones about how we view race, not diversity but race, in our industry. We don't love those quite so much, because who knows how awkward and unnerving they might get. And because we don't love those feelings, we have a singular discussion, over and over and over again. It is safe, it is predictable, it is often reductive. It is everything we say we don't want theatre to be.

As I eat dinner that evening, tasting nothing amidst the throes of distraction, I consider what inclusion has often meant – the casting of non-white actors in other than peripheral roles. I think of Blair Underwood as Stanley Kowolski, and the black actors who've donned Hedda and Hamlet, and the steps forward move me. But when some are called bold for hiring artists of colour to play roles usually occupied by white actors, it is forgotten that if that is the extent of it, it succeeds only in making sure that we continue spinning our wheels. It is repeated ad nauseam that while crucially important to have actors on our stages reflect the reality of our population, having plays be directed and written by artists of colour is even more so. Yet each year, we continue to see decisions made that would suggest that a significant portion of our industry has their speakers turned all the way down. Criticism is met either with posturing, or dispassionate and delayed acknowledgment. It has become almost impossible to continue participating in conversations laden with earnestness, in which I can anticipate the buzzwords and talking points in advance.

I pledge for the next few days to attempt to consider this issue anew. It is a task that I welcome.

The first thought to crystallize is that when people stick with the tried and true, that choice is usually based in either conscious or subconscious fear.

I believe that part of the reason why some avoid telling the stories of people of colour is because they would have to admit a lack of knowledge, and there is vulnerability in that. For those used to formulating artistic visions rooted in a white North American or European perspective, plays outside of that may mean not being the expert in the room. It can be difficult to summon the modesty needed to admit that. It can be harder still to find the self-awareness required to say "No matter how intelligent I am, no matter how skilled I am, there is a cultural backdrop to this that I cannot truly understand."  That does not mean that a white director should never direct a non-white play.  Not at all.  It means that a white director should possess the clarity to know when what is required crosses the line from artistic and technical intuition to racial and cultural intuition, and the lack of ego to know when outside input is required.

It does not work quite the same way in reverse. 

Some folks' knee-jerk reaction will be to disagree, but it really doesn't.  I am not suggesting that non-white directors have all the answers or will be suited to every script.  What I am saying is that the entry point is usually further in the door, because knowledge of and immersion in whiteness is a huge part of the daily life of people of colour.  It begins long before we choose our careers.  It is the dominant culture, the one into which all people of colour are expected to assimilate.  Canadian kids who are black, Asian, South Asian, Latino and First Nations are taught History, Geography, Art, Social Studies and Literature all of which rotate around Europe and its white emigrants to North America. I have a long list of Caucasian acquaintances who grew up in communities in which almost everyone shared their race, but almost no friends of colour who can say the same.  In fact, I have many friends of colour who grew up as the "only" or one of the scant few.  So yes, all other things being equal, I was able to direct a play set in Nazi Germany with more embedded understanding of that reality than most Caucasian directors could bring to a play set in the colonial Caribbean. This is not because I am any more intelligent or creative than they are. It is because ours is a society that has intentionally crafted the education system and the media in such a way that all but ensures that I walk into the process having more knowledge of their history and culture than they do mine.

It is about so much more than theatre. Any discussion of racial inclusion in any field is always about so much more than the ongoing conversation would suggest. It is about who we are, what we have been taught, what we have come to expect. This next thought may get a lot of people's backs up. That's okay. Their backs have to relax sometime, and maybe when they do, they will think about it.

I believe the unwillingness by many to embrace and program plays by artists of colour is due in part to the fact that it would necessitate the end of tokenism. 

PART II

I say "in part" because I also think it is due to a selective commitment to believability.  

As makers of theatre we extole believability.  We want writing that feels believable. We want performances that feel believable. We want sets and costumes and hairstyles that feel believable. We want casting that feels believable too.  And that means that even when many claim to be open to non-traditional casting -- and may think themselves to be -- the subconscious need for "believability" means that when push comes to shove, they are not.

Many years ago, an acquaintance suggested that I audition for a play with a community theatre company she spoke highly of. I began checking their audition calls. They always included the line about welcoming diverse applicants, yet nearly every show took place in Ireland, or Scotland, or Northern Quebec... somewhere where hiring someone "believable" meant hiring someone who did not look like me.  (I have it on good authority that there is at least one Asian in Cork and a black man wandering through Glasgow.)  Surprise surprise, their casts always ended up one colour.

This desire for believability is part of who we are as storytellers. If a play in set in a particular time and place, we want everything we see on the stage to feel "true" to that setting. If we are in Nigeria, we expect to see black actors. If we are in Vietnam, we expect Asians. If we are on a First Nations reserve, we expect Indigenous actors. We pride ourselves on being not only truth tellers, but creators of worlds. We want the experience of the production to feel real.

If we know this to be the truth – and we do -- then what happens when the vast majority of the plays programmed on our stages have settings which, in time or place or both, are overwhelmingly white?

This brings me back to the “When did Hedda Gabler become black?” comment.

The play is set in Christiana, Norway (now Oslo). As Norwegian culture is not central to the plot, some directors have cast powerful black actors in the role. Fantastic. But what are the chances that a second non-white actor would be cast in a significant role in the same production?  I would wager almost nil. Because while putting a dark-skinned woman in the lead may be considered inspired, to also cast an Asian as George would likely be seen as either too daring or too unrealistic. Keeping everyone else in the cast white not-so-tacitly implies (a) that the play is actually supposed to be white and the non-white actor is a deviation, and (b) that to hire a brilliant actor with more pigment than expected is a "brave" decision. 

In a play in which the setting (and often the actual character descriptions) make it clear that they were written as white, the difference between casting one person of colour and two takes the director's approach from “inspired” to "a reconceiving of the play".

Hence my comment about tokenism.

Could more non-white directors change this approach?  Yes they could and probably would.  YES to more non-white directors.  As I mentioned before, many of them have been by osmosis steeped in Eurocentric culture, while also having the vastly different perspective of their own. That is an incredibly valuable combination in mainstream theatre. Give insightful and courageous directors of all races great plays to direct. That alone, however, will not heal the wound. While it will result in more representative casting, it will still be (for the most part) directors of colour casting actors of colour in parts that were conceived and written with white actors in mind. And so even if black actors were to play Lear until the end of time, and every Lady MacBeth was Latina, and Shakespeare was being directed by one incredible Asian director after another, and Salt Water Moon was never performed by white actors again -- we would still be using and showcasing our gifts primarily in service of narratives that are not our own.

Actors of colour deserve the right to bask in and forage characters that were intended for them too -- as white actors have had the opportunity to do for decades -- rather than waiting to be cast in things in which we will always be seen as a stretch and a longshot.

And so, my days of looking at inclusion and how we can change things ultimately leads to the same place, albeit with a more thoughtful hunch as to why things remain the way they remain.

The only way – the only way – for us to get past where we are now is for us to put the stories of people of colour, stories that are populated by brown and black and yellow and red skin, on our stages. And this is what some people simply do not want, because it upsets the apple cart that feeds them. They do not wish to fix what for them is not broken. They want to continue hiring the same people, people like themselves, people with whom they are innately at ease. They do not wish to delve into that which may cause their areas of ignorance to be made visible. Plays written by white writers set in lily white towns depicting slices of those lives allow uncommitted artistic directors and directors to make minimalist, symbolic gestures when it comes to inclusion.  

"Wasn't it edgy of me to cast one?  There were none in the script!"

Every time we land upon a telling moment in which non-white artists are rendered all but invisible, every time criticism of these moments is met with either defensiveness or silence, every time artists of colour are asked to be patient while others contemplate our perceived value -- it is like being offered a token of our depreciation. 

I believe the unwillingness by many to embrace and program plays by artists of colour is due in part to the fact that it would necessitate the end of tokenism. 

Playwrights of colour. 

That is the only way. 

It is everything. 

It changes everything.

It means that we start telling the stories of our city, of our world, of our lives.  It means that we immediately see more directors of colour, with an innate understanding of these literary landscapes, hired to forage the cultural depths of these plays. It means that we see more plays with mixed casts or predominantly non-white casts. We might even see plays with entire casts of colour.  What a concept.  Try to remember the last time you saw that outside out of culturally-specific or tiny indie company. Artists of colour would be given the chance to play rich, vivid, brilliant characters lovingly created for us. Hiring us wouldn't be seen as an inspired move for any reason OTHER than our artistic gifts.  Imagine.

When you tell stories that shine light on the voices of artists of colour, they feel seen and heard as opposed to merely utilized.

The artistic directors I respect deeply, of all colours, are those whose understanding of that is apparent. They are walking the walk.  But I no longer depend on artistic directors of reputable or large companies to turn the tide. Now, I am counting on artists. I am counting on artists to write their stories and cast their stories and produce their stories and direct their stories. It is hard. There is little money and often only each other for support. But we are mighty, and tireless, and every radiant colour under the sun.  We understand that to continuing wishing is to continuing waiting, and to continuing waiting is to continuing wanting. Wanting their wanting. Wanting their will.  Wanting the awakening of people who are very, very much at peace asleep.

Gifted playwrights of colour, and friends of every race within the creative community who lift them up, are going to be the sea change. These writers will be the ones to create for non-white actors the dream roles of tomorrow. We must seek their voices, supporting and amplifying them, until we remember their names. Until we know their stories.  It is only through such nurturance that the plays they write will become known and loved.  It is only through such nurturance that they plays they write will in time become so revered that THEY too can become part of the canon. It will always be glorious to see black women as Hedda.  Always.  But notwithstanding this, I look toward to the day in which many, many characters initially conceived as people of colour appear on every list of most coveted and prized roles – not solely in black theatre or Latino theatre or Asian theatre or Indigenous theatre... but in THEATRE.

Peace, passion, and progress,

TT

FROM THE INTERSECTION: When Gender Equity Is Oversimplified

The recent Equity In Theatre report was centered almost wholly around gender.  It must be acknowledged first and foremost that gender equity is EIT's primary mandate and to their credit, the dearth of statistics about non-white artists contained within the report was not due to a lack of interest in or effort made to include this information on EIT's part. Rather, it was the result of a frustrating lack of recorded data from which to cull this information, which was itself addressed within the report.  (It is shameful, negligent and woefully short-sighted that this information is not readily available in 2015.)  When such data is not compiled and therefore excluded, discussion of gender equity takes place without simultaneous consideration of the dual variables of race and gender.  To have this discussion with gender as the one criterion can lead to a perception that is greatly misrepresentative of the larger picture. 

For example, that female playwrights and directors are associated with fewer than a third of professionally staged productions is a huge imbalance, and a fact.  It is also a fact that the majority of substantial characters in these productions are male.  Where the problem lies is that in keeping gender as the sole criteria – even in a discussion specifically about gender equity – we imply the following strand of logic to be true.

In the Canadian theatre industry, men are overrepresented compared to their female peers. Therefore,it can be inferred that in the positions of playwright, actor and director, men of colour are overrepresented compared to Caucasian women.

Right there, a major problem.  One would have to be in significant denial to believe that this postulation is correct.  I do not have stats on the percentages of directors, actors and playwrights in Canadian theatre who are men of colour, but I do have eyes and ears and while I am passionateabout working towards gender equity, I am also committed to the whole truth in meeting that end.  That truth is that in the last five years, I have been aware of more produced plays that were written or directed by white women than I have plays written or directed by black, Asian, Hispanic, Native and South Asian men combined.

So where does that leave us?  

It leaves male theatre creators of colour in a position in which they are told how much of an advantage they have over white female creators, when their actual level of visibility does not support that.  It may also lead Caucasian female theatre creators to believe that all men are being granted more opportunities than them, when that is a fallacy. The reality is that the only women over whom men of colour have a sizeable advantage is women also of colour.  This is not to say that there aren't male artistic directors who will program a black male playwright over a white woman – allegiance to testosterone can indeed trump racial likeness – but I assert that there are just as many male A.Ds who would easily choose to program “Susan Jones” in their seasons over “Muhammed Singh”.  This is why the gender stats on their own, while well-meaning, useful to a degree and important to note, are problematic.  They are lacking information intrinsic to a thorough understanding of that inequity. 

Up to this point, it would seem that examinations of gender equity in Canadian theatre are simply not broken down beyond male numbers vs. female numbers.  Some would argue that further breakdown is not necessary.  When colour and culture are not factored into these stats, however, what we are essentially left with is a generalized truth that applies to the majority only.  Think about how inherently incomplete it would be to speak of the privileged status of the white German male in the 1940s without including that if you happened to be white, German, male and Jewish – uh, not so much. 

To have this conversation excluding the glaring determinant of intersectionality is to not have the full conversation.

What “In the Canadian theatre industry, men are overrepresented compared to their female peers”, actually means – devoid of racial consideration – is “In the Canadian theatre industry, the cultural majority – white men – are overrepresented compared to their female peers, white women.”  If we are to be stone-cold honest, we must recognize that that is what that actually means.  It means this because, as a predominantly white society (Canada, not Toronto), those in power who have created the “categories” have decided that “men”, women”, and “minorities” are three distinct subgroups of people.  Men means white men, women means white women, and minorities means everyone else.  It is the grossest of oversimplifications.  It reduces each human being to one category only, with the default colour being white unless otherwise specified.  The dismissal of intersectionality is easy to be guilty of by those in the power position, as they are not affected by the prejudice affecting those in the subgroups. 

Imagine gender equity in theatre as a 200 metre sprint.  Caucasian males are permitted to begin the race 150 metres in, Caucasian women at 100, men of colour at 75, and women of colour at 25.  That's not an unrealistic representation of where we are at present.  (Some may argue the placement of white women vs. non-white men; I am speaking based on my personal observations and welcome discourse).  How can we possibly speak comprehensively about gender equity if we ignore this?  We can't.  If all men were sitting at 150, and all women at 100 or 75 or 25, we could streamline the conversation.  But that is not the case.

And so, gender equity is virtually impossible to assess beyond the basics – boys this many, girls this many – until we look at the experience of the cultural subgroups in comparison to the experience of the cultural majority.  There is nothing close to parity in our industry between white men and men of colour.  There is nothing close to parity between white women and women of colour.  Nor is there parity between white women and men of colour, although preferences may be shown one way or the other depending on the circumstance.  It is an inarguable assertion that we must acknowledge that overarching, disproportionate number of opportunities that are given to men.  At the same time that we continue to support and applaud those with commitments to gender equity, however, we must be cognisant of the areas of intersectionality that make that assertion significantly more complex.  For as long as racial inequities and intra-gender discrepancies exist, our analysis of this issue will continue to be a well-intentioned oversimplication.

_____________

T. Taitt

Welcome to The PALETTE.

palette (noun):  
a thin board on which an artist lays and mixes colours.  2. the range of colours used by an artist or in a particular picture.  3. the range or variety of tonal or instrumental colour in a musical piece.

_______________________________

Above, one sees the obvious reason for choosing palette for this initiative.  An array different colours all sharing equal space and importance.  As I lived with the word for longer, however, I grew to love it for other reasons.  I love the fact that it also happens to be comprised of pal, meaning friend, and the suffix -ette, used sometimes to denote distinctly feminine nouns (such as majorette or bachelorette).  It struck me that an amusing play on the word was that "palette" could mean female friend.  How totally a propos.

The idea that preceded The PALETTE Premise first began rummaging around my brain in 2013. At the time I was considering the formation of a group of female theatre artists of colour, but it never crystallized in my mind and remained simmering on low on the back burner.  After attending Equity In Theatre's Gender Equity In Canadian Theatre symposium, I felt that it was time to wander back over to the pot and turn up the heat.  TPP is the hotpot.

What is the premise?  

That our cultural diversity as women is our greatest artistic asset, and that we cannot claim progress towards equity with our male colleagues when women of a single race - despite the overall underrepresentation of all females - still receive the overwhelming majority of the opportunities given to women.  The PALETTE Premise holds the core belief that when women of all backgrounds are on an equal footing with each other, then and only then can we truly take strides towards gender equity.

As I read Equity In Theatre's recent report, it became glaringly obvious that while there were numerous readily available statistics on women in theatre in general, when it came to women of colour, it seemed that there wasn't sufficient information available to provide comprehensive analysis of almost any area.  I do not blame EIT for this - they cannot report on stats that have not been compiled - but I felt a palpable frustration as I read a report on Canadian theatre and was able to find out more in it about the status of women in theatre in Sweden, Australia and Norway than I was on women of colour in Canada.  Why are these statistics not considered important?  Are those compiling these stats so detached from reality that they believe the experience of white women and non-white women in theatre to be the same? 

The PALETTE Premise is a group of women in theatre who believe that not only should women have gender equity with men, but that we must work to establish equity between ALL women in our industry regardless of race or ethnic origin. 

I knew that there were those in our industry for whom women of colour did not register on their radar, but even I was shocked that a report of that length could be so devoid of information.  It cemented how invisible we actually are to many.  In that moment it became clear to me that simply advocating for women in the theatre industry was not enough.  I knew that there needed to be a contingent of women who made the reality of non-Caucasian women a focus, because the cause at large would likely not.  The "woman of colour" stat would always be an afterthought, a caveat, a footnote.

We are not a footnote.  

We are not incidental or uninteresting or incapable or marginal or singular or weak.  We are a vast array of experiences and as perpetual bearers of the weight of dual discrimination - sexism and racism - women of colour are some of the strongest creatures and most thoughtful artists you will find on this planet.  When the theatre industry denies itself the participation and insight of non-Caucasian women, it denies itself access to a wealth of the most powerful human stories imaginable.  

The simple truth is that while women continue to be underrepresented in the industry -- less than a third of professionally produced plays are written or directed by women, despite women being 55% of ticket buyers and 58% of theatre school grads -- the truth for women of non-European descent is a far more sombre one.  If the majority of predominantly white male A.Ds aren't even programming plays with white women in mind, is anyone naive enough to think that they are sitting in their offices contemplating vehicles for black, Asian, Hispanic, South Asian or Aboriginal women?  

I say "majority" because I am well aware of the male Artistic Directors who are doing the work of TRUE equity.  To these allies, I say a sincere, deep-seated thank you.  To the female A.Ds who have granted numerous opportunities to female creators -- you are sisters in this effort.  To Artistic Directors of both genders who continue to shine disproportionate light on male-focused narratives, male directors and male playwrights -- despite the fact that the majority of people patronizing your theatre are women -- your short-sightedness is seen by all and your legacies will tell the tale.

The PALETTE Premise is not a theatre company or ad-hoc collective, but a group of creators led by a desire for equity in our industry and devoted to the following:  

COMMUNITY - The PALETTE Premise is a community, bound by a shared belief that women need to be each other's greatest sources of support in an industry which, as a whole, continues to marginalize our stories and limit our opportunities.
COLOUR - We welcome women of all cultural backgrounds who recognize and support an end to underrepresentation of racially and culturally diverse women our industry.  Our focus is the increased visibility of women of colour and we embrace our sisters of all hues who are steadfast allies in achieving this goal.
CREATION - We encourage the creation of theatre by female artists beyond the stage. While we call for more roles of substance for female performers, our particular interest is in supporting female artistic directors, playwrights and directors -- positions that hold the balance of creative power.
COMMITMENT - We are committed to not allowing the issue of cultural diversity to be eclipsed by that of gender disparity.  We affirm the tremendous importance of both, but we also recognize that women of colour are given considerably fewer opportunities than their Caucasian peers and we are dedicated to trying to change this.
COLLABORATION - We are excited by the brilliant work that can be created when women from diverse cultures engage in artistic collaboration, and aim to serve as a community in which potential collaborators of all backgrounds can meet, exchange ideas, and form creative alliances.
CONVERSATION - We are committed to having the hard conversations.  There is no forward motion when we refuse to ask tough questions about ourselves, our work, our advantages and disadvantages, and our relationships to each other.  We realize that we cannot espouse bravery in our creation if we evade in it our communication.

The group will meet quarterly to discuss ongoing and specific equity issues, and to bond as women in theatre.  We are beginning in Toronto and at present, the intent is for it to be a Toronto-based initiative.  However, it would be interesting and encouraging to see it eventually take root in other communities.  TPP will host conversations and share information through its Facebook page and group, which will be launched later this week.  Let's hear about those shows with predominantly female, multicultural casts!  Let's hear about those plays being written and directed by all women, but particularly women of colour.  We will also be a hub for mentorship, where young women just entering or already in theatre school can find artists to share knowledge and offer support.  More details coming soon!

Like so many initiatives, The PALETTE Premise will inevitably be shaped in large part by those who share in its vision and choose to become involved.  There is no shortage of incredible women creating theatre in this city.  It is my hope that several of you will soon be part of this endeavour.

One brush stroke a time...

Tanisha Taitt
Theatremaker