Theatre Programs for Women and BIPOC Talent Aren’t Discriminating Against White Men
by Chris Peterson, OnStage Blog Founder
I wasn’t planning to write about this today, but then I saw a stupid video making the rounds—one of those bad-faith arguments claiming that theatre programs designed to support women and BIPOC artists are somehow “anti-men.” You know the type. A guy in a car, talking into his phone, ranting about “woke theatre” and “reverse discrimination,” as if the entire industry hasn’t been overwhelmingly dominated by white men for, oh, I don’t know… centuries.
Look, I get that people are entitled to their opinions, but let’s be clear: Programs that create opportunities for historically underrepresented groups in theatre are not about excluding white men. They are about addressing a long history of exclusion that has kept theatre from truly representing the world we live in.
The Industry Hasn’t Been a Level Playing Field
For decades—centuries, really—theatre in the U.S. (especially at its highest levels) has been overwhelmingly led by white men. Look at Broadway’s history. The vast majority of playwrights, directors, designers, and executives have been white men. The Pulitzer Prize for Drama, which honors outstanding plays, was awarded almost exclusively to white men for much of its history. For example, between 1918 (when the award was established) and 1982, only three women (Zona Gale, Mary Chase, Beth Henley) and no Black playwrights won the prize.
Lloyd Richards, who directed Wilson’s Fences in 1987, was the first Black director to win a Tony Award for Best Direction of a Play—over 40 years after the Tonys began. Women were largely absent in directing roles. Julie Taymor became the first woman to win a Tony Award for Best Direction of a Musical in 1998 for The Lion King—over 50 years after the award was first given out. The Shubert Organization, the largest theatre-owning and producing entity on Broadway, has been led by white men since its founding in 1900. I could go on and on.
Women and BIPOC artists have had to fight for every inch of space, often without the same access to funding, training, or industry connections.
Even today, the numbers tell the same story. The Count, a study conducted by the Lillys, found that white men still get the bulk of playwriting opportunities in regional theatres. The Visibility Report from the American Theatre Wing showed that designers of color are significantly underrepresented in professional productions. These disparities don’t exist because white men are more talented—they exist because systemic barriers have historically favored them.
So when a theatre program specifically supports women playwrights or BIPOC designers, it’s not about discrimination—it’s about course correction.
What the Law Actually Says
Since people love to cry "discrimination," let’s talk about what the law actually says. Programs that aim to increase opportunities for underrepresented groups aren’t illegal—because they’re designed to remedy existing disparities, not to exclude anyone unfairly.
Here’s why:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, the law allows for affirmative action policies and diversity initiatives when they are used to correct systemic disparities, as long as they do not impose absolute quotas or unfairly exclude other groups. It’s important to note that, as of today, this still remains a foundational federal law. However, the Trump administration has implemented several policy changes that impact how anti-discrimination measures are enforced.
The Supreme Court has upheld affirmative action policies in employment and education, stating that diversity is a legitimate goal when it expands opportunities rather than takes them away. (See United Steelworkers v. Weber (1979), which upheld a voluntary training program to promote racial diversity in hiring.)
Workplace diversity programs have repeatedly been ruled legal as long as they are structured to provide access rather than to deny opportunities to a particular group.
Theatre companies, fellowships, and training programs offering opportunities to women and BIPOC artists aren’t shutting out white men. They are broadening the industry’s talent pool and ensuring that access to jobs and leadership positions is more equitable.
Boosting Representation Benefits Everyone
Theatre thrives on diversity. It’s an art form built on storytelling, and the more perspectives we include, the richer and more compelling our work becomes. When initiatives are designed to uplift historically marginalized voices, it’s not about taking something away from white men—it’s about bringing more voices to the table.
Let’s put it in practical terms: If a theatre announces a fellowship specifically for women lighting designers, that doesn’t mean white men can never work in lighting again. It means that, for one program, space is being made to correct an imbalance that has existed for years. And guess what? More women in lighting design means more innovation, more creativity, and a stronger industry overall.
It’s Not a Zero-Sum Game
The fear that programs for women and BIPOC artists somehow make things harder for white men comes from a scarcity mindset—the idea that opportunity is a fixed pie and that if someone else gets a slice, you get less. But that’s not how this works. The goal isn’t to push white men out. It’s to open the industry up so that everyone—regardless of gender, race, or background—has a fair shot at success.
So, instead of getting worked up over a program designed to help level the playing field, maybe take a step back and recognize the bigger picture. These opportunities aren’t about exclusion—they’re about inclusion. And when we make space for more voices, theatre gets better for all of us.
Now, if only I could get those guys in the comment section to understand that.