Stephen Furst brands Academy ‘ageist’ over Oscar voting changes

Animal House actor Stephen Furst has accused bosses behind the Oscars of “scapegoating” veteran Academy members to “deflect the criticism about the lack of diversity” in this year’s (16) nominees.
The 60 year old, who is also known for his role on sci-fi show Babylon 5, has written an open letter to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences condemning plans to cut older voters to make way for a more diverse range of members.
The move was announced following the furore over the 2016 nominations which provoked a storm of criticism after no black actors landed nods in the leading categories for the second consecutive year.
The new rules state voting privileges will be taken away from anyone who has gone longer than 10 years without working in Hollywood, and Furst fears older members of the Academy have been unfairly targeted.
“The Academy Board of Governors has concluded that I am racist, not to mention, irrelevant. In fact, I am very far from either,” he writes in the letter published on Variety.com. “I was saddened, as well as offended, to learn the Academy Board of Governors has chosen to scapegoat the older members of the Academy in order to deflect the criticism about the lack of diversity this year… There is no evidence that old, white, male Academy members are racist, do not appreciate the art of minorities, or refuse to vote for minorities’ work…
“Diversity in film is important, and having that diversity represented in Oscar nominees is important… (But) the Academy can’t fight issues with diversity by engaging in ageism and sexism… Apparently, the Board of Governors believes kicking aside the older voters is some sort of a solution to a lack of diversity in the industry. But of course it isn’t.”
Furst goes on to insist the diversity problems stem from the distribution of films, explaining that many members are not able to watch all of the movies on offer before casting their votes on awards.
“One of the main reasons for the lack of diversity in nominees this year is that many members vote without watching all the films. I probably am in a minority myself, because I watched 95 per cent of the screeners (DVDs) sent out. That’s the minority you should be focusing on preserving, because that’s how you preserve integrity in the nominations. But I seriously doubt that ANY member of the Academy refuses to nominate someone because of their race, ethnicity or gender… This is an integrity issue, not a racism issue…”
He suggests Academy bosses should turn to online streaming so they can keep tabs on the number of films watched by members, and diversify membership by increasing numbers instead of excluding older voters.