HFPA's Diversity Controversy

Due to this past weekend's Golden Globes ceremony in Los Angeles, the HFPA was in the news quite a bit recently, especially after it was reported that not a single member of the association is Black.

I'm usually on board with calls to increase diversity in any type of organization or company, but this time I disagree.

Let me explain. According to Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) is a non-profit organization of journalists and photographers who report on the entertainment industry activity and interests in the United States for media (newspaper, magazine and book publication, television and radio broadcasting) predominantly outside the U.S. The HFPA consists of about 90 members from approximately 55 countries with a combined following of more than 250 million. It conducts the annual Golden Globe Awards ceremony in Los Angeles every January, which honors notable examples of film and television and achievements in entertainment businesses.

To retain "Active" status, each member must be currently accredited by the Motion Picture Association of America and must submit clippings of their work every year to renew their active status or be reassigned to a non-voting affiliate status.

Requirements for active membership include primary residence in Southern California, attendance in at least four monthly general membership meetings and a minimum of four published articles or photographs per year outside the US.

From this bit of information it is clear that:

1. the HFPA doesn't represent every country in the world, in fact, just over a quarter of them;
2. its membership is potentially volatile, unlike membership in the Academy Awards. For example, if a publication finds itself in economic distress, it can decide to recall its assigned journalist and perhaps rejoin the organization at a later date.

I would then venture to argue that those 55 countries are mostly within Europe (with its traditionally large majority White populations) or are similarly advanced economically. By this, I mean that very likely no African nation sends representatives to the US to be part of the HFPA.

Is it then realistic or even fair to expect (or demand!) that other countries select their journalists based on their race? And then to expect that some of them (which ones?) ensure that they're Black?

I would imagine a country like Finland, or Germany, to have an overall fairly White population, which would also mean that their journalists are very likely going to be White as well. If a Swedish or Spanish or Greek newspaper wants to send a journalist to the HFPA, and has no Black journalists on staff, what could they do?

My more general point is that the United States is considered a melting pot for the many different nationalities of origin of its people, but the rest of the world is hardly like it in this regard.

Let's posit a hypothetical: 20 central African countries decide to join the HFPA and send a representative. Those 20 new members would almost assuredly be Black, because their countries' populations are likely almost all Black, so those who become journalists would be Black as well. Would anyone complain that the African delegation isn't representative of other ethnicities because all their representatives are Black? Of course not!

In conclusion, the HFPA's membership shouldn't really reflect the world, because participation isn't mandatory and it's not made up of people from every country; that's what the UN is for. If there were only White males, I would share in calling them out for not allowing women, but that's not the case (in fact, two of the three representatives who went onstage to try and quell the criticism last Sunday were women, and one was from India -- and wasn't a blonde, tall, Barbie-look-alike; and the man, from Turkey, wasn't actually pale white either).

I think a lot of work needs to be done to achieve equality or parity, but targeting the HFPA is a misplaced effort and fails to consider their extenuating circumstances.