An excerpt from my new book.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”—Benjamin Franklin
The US Supreme Court has often had to balance national security concerns with First Amendment rights, but they have always focused on narrow issues that reasonably represented actual threats that required strictly limited exceptions. The case of TikTok v. Garland (2025) seems to have thrown this balance completely in favor of security, actual or merely claimed, and the impact is unlimited.
In this case, the Court upheld a law that barred TikTok from operating in the United States unless its Chinese owners divested from the social media app. The Court found that the national security interests of the United States were sufficient to justify the restriction, despite arguments that it violated free speech rights. It’s not clear exactly what threat was posed, other than in the vaguest terms. Somehow the free speech rights of millions of Americans who used Tik Tok to express themselves could be eliminated on a whim. They are pressured to return to US social media which is now dominated by oligarchs (some of whom own those channels) who are willing to kowtow to right-wing leaders.
This leaves the future of free speech in the USA in doubt, so I’m posting this while I can. The US government has embarked on a radical suppression of “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” (DEI). They are telling corporations and individuals how they must think and act about an ideal of fairness. Current leaders have identified equity (which means “fairness”) as a Marxist sentiment (see OMB memo of January 27, 2025). We may all one day have to answer, “Are you now, or have you ever been, in favor of DEI?”
Los Angeles has long been one of the most diverse cities in the world, hosting communities from every corner of the world. I particularly treasure my friendships with people of many colors, cultures and the full spectrum of gender: Blacks, Asians, Latinx, Indians, Samoans, Filipinos, Africans, Iraqis, Persians, Arabs and Israelis. Christians, Jews, Muslims and some with more esoteric beliefs or no formal religion at all.
Sadly, the entertainment industry does not reflect the diversity of its home. Nor does my own resumé. Most of the people I’ve worked with have been white and male, though I’ve had the pleasure of important collaborations with a number of people of color and many women. Things are changing, slowly, and I have personal observations to share about the way things were and are (for what it’s worth.)
Prejudice, which is sometimes illegal, is almost always hidden. The general patterns are clear, but it’s difficult to prove the individual instances. Sometimes it’s no more than a feeling one gets when dealing with it. One way to detect people with prejudice is to observe the identity of the people they surround themselves with.
At the time of this writing (2024) political events have given prejudice new life in new disguises, particularly against migrants and transgender persons, but aimed at all minorities. Cowards always attack those they think are weak, or who are perceived as soft targets who cannot fight back.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) are under attack by conservatives in the governments of the US and UK. It’s puzzling, because DEI is good for almost every business and almost all consumers. The concern of the ruling class seems to be less about the “D” and the “I” and more about the “E” for Equity. They fear anything that offers the majority a realistic shot at economic fairness.
DEI results in products that more people want to buy. If I’m promoting a film or a play, there’d better be some women and POC playing a prominent role, or I’m going to be unable to effectively reach some significant segments of the marketplace. It’s only natural that people want to see themselves reflected in the faces of their entertainment. They want the products they buy to suit their needs and desires, which may vary due to traits affected by their culture and identity.
DEI is an invaluable element of a merit-based hiring practice because it brings skills to the endeavor that might otherwise be neglected. It is not meant to favor any group of people over another; rather it encourages a wide range of qualified people to apply for positions that are otherwise difficult to fill.
As a marketing professional, I see DEI as an essential element of an overall plan to maximize the appeal of projects or products. If you eliminate DEI, you are writing off important segments of your market. For governments to try to wipe it out is counter-productive and anti-capitalist.
David Mamet, the playwright who has written many insightful and compelling screenplays, has become notably grumpy lately, complaining about how “woke” elements in the industry are preventing old, white Jewish men like him from getting ahead. He describes himself, accurately, as “embittered, dyspeptic.” He resents that his daughters, actresses Zosia and Clara, are called “nepo babies” simply because they got their all-important access and first steps from his position. He seems to think life should be fair, but he’d be the first person to tell you it’s not. I think Mr. Mamet should stick to fiction.
I’ve worked on many debut films for directors who later achieved significant success. I’ve supported Black, Asian, and female filmmakers at the start of their careers. For instance, I worked tirelessly on a Black female director’s first feature film, which focused on Black families. It was clear that the Black audience would be a crucial target market.
The director financed the entire $55,000 budget on her American Express card, leaving little for online promotion. However, she was a renowned PR agent adept at leveraging mainstream media, and the film itself was excellent.
I wasn’t directly employed by the director but by one of the lead actors, which is common. Directors typically collaborate with me to promote their films and appreciate my efforts. In this case, the actor I worked for provided the only significant online presence for the film.
I understood “Black Twitter” at the time and utilized it effectively. We garnered significant attention for the online accounts I managed, which served as the film’s only official presence. I provided almost daily updates as the film progressed from a single-house opening to a nationwide cinema tour. Ticket sales surged as soon as I began promoting each city. I believe the director recouped most, if not all, of her investment, and the campaign met its goals. This film launched a major career for the director, who has since directed several important feature films, documentaries, and numerous TV series, earning over 80 award nominations, including an Oscar nom.
While I can’t accuse the director of prejudice, I did sense a certain tension, unlike anything I experienced with other directors, Black or white. It felt as though she preferred working with a Black woman over a white man. She was never friendly to me, and I felt out of place. She might have had her reasons and certainly had bigger priorities, but for me, her first film was the last. This might not have been true in this case, but sometimes prejudice works insidiously. Perhaps my own misconceptions led to unnecessary tension. I’m very proud of my work and delighted by the director’s subsequent success.
If she was prejudiced, I can’t blame her for wanting to support Black women, and she did so admirably. I believe every minority has a right to some degree of “make-up” prejudice. I don’t think minorities should be accused of discrimination against the dominant group. There’s no such thing as racism against white males in America. While some Black people may dislike whites, it can’t be considered a completely irrational prejudice.
I belong to three recognized minorities: Jewish, LGBTQIA+ and old. None of those is greatly underrepresented in Hollywood. It’s undeniable that Jews played a major role in the establishment of the entertainment industry in New York and Hollywood, and many of their descendants and other members of the tribe retain important positions. Likewise, there have always been many LGBTQIA+ people among the creative and powerful in Hollywood: agents, directors, actors, writers, producers and “below the line”1F1F1F[1] workers.
There have been times when my status has been a disadvantage, and other times where it undoubtedly made things easier. There were some people who, due to ingrained prejudice, didn’t care to work with me, possibly because I was Jewish. Others may have been more comfortable with me as a fellow Jew. Some Christians perhaps wanted to access the mythological powers sometimes attributed to Jews when it comes to money and planning/plotting.
There were certainly some men who didn’t want a gay guy around. Perhaps they felt threatened in some way. Others, particularly women, welcomed my presence as a person who understood and supported their situation, or their audience.
Perhaps the prejudice against old people is the most insidious. Experience is not a great benefit after you hit 60 in Hollywood. There are common misperceptions that older people are not funny, energetic, knowledgeable, current or productive. It’s all too easy to discount someone’s ideas because they’re considered old-fashioned, only because the person offering the ideas is old.
When I was younger, I think some people wanted me around for my perceived energy and youthful thinking. It’s true I may be more cautious now that I’m older. I’m less willing to make a mistake, but that may create a perception of being slow or stubborn. I haven’t fallen behind, and I make a point to learn new things every day. Even so, I rely on my experience, which you can only do best as you get older. The logic and effectiveness of my decisions may not always be apparent to younger people.
Because these prejudices are, by definition, irrational, they are harmful. Nobody should hire me (or reject me) because of my status. If, however, I have gained useful insights as a result of my status, then it may be highly beneficial to include me. That’s where DEI comes in, to emphasize the value of considering minorities, with their diverse experience, for positions. We’re all better off for it.
[1] When budgets are created to estimate the costs of producing a movie, there’s a line to separate the up-front costs for salaries of top talent (actors, directors, producers), casting director, screenwriter and others at the higher levels. Usually, this is everything that has to be in place before principal photography can begin. Workers and associated costs are considered “below the line” if they’re incurred after filming begins: assistants, catering, studio rental, transportation, lighting crew, editing, post-production, etc.
