The Origins and Growth of Social Movements on Broadway
How is Broadway trying to close the gap between the positive on-stage representation and backstage oppression of its Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour members?
The Broadway industry has a reputation for being an inclusive space where underdogs are embraced. Shows that champion diversity and inclusivity have been embraced and celebrated on Broadway, most notably since Jonathan Larson’s revolutionary RENT opened in 1996. The show highlights the intersectional struggle of New Yorkers with intersectional marginalised identities at the end of the millennium: queer, part of the Black, Indigenous, People of Colour (BIPOC) community, starving artists, living in poverty. In a more tangible way, organisations such as Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS has been holding fundraising campaigns to donate to LGBTQIA+ causes, raising more than 300 million USD since it was first founded in 1988 (BCEFA, 2024). Following RENT, shows like Wicked, In the Heights, and The Prom were able to become beacons of progress on Broadway, featuring stories that celebrate unconventional underdogs. Stories like these, representing groups with marginalised identities — BIPOC and queer, most frequently — were increasingly welcomed on Broadway stages.
Furthermore, the staging decisions of shows like Hamilton and the revival of Stephen Sondheim’s Company were able to adopt a trailblazing and progressive approach in their storytelling. For instance, Hamilton exclusively casts BIPOC performers to tell the history of an overlooked American founding father, making a statement that American history also belongs to BIPOC in spite of the oppression they endured, and putting their own spin to it as an act of self-liberation (Brantley, 2015). The 2019 revival of Company on Broadway — which premiered in London’s West End the year prior — adopted a ‘gender-bent’ approach in which the lead role of Bobby, originally written as a male part, was rewritten as a female part (Paulson, 2021). Both Hamilton and the Company revival serve as a display of the expansiveness and adaptability of theatre as an art form, showcasing its capability to bend the rules as a way to reflect the shifting state of the society.
However, the seemingly progress apparent on the Broadway stages is not accompanied by a foundational change in the system of the American theatre industry. In the wake Black Lives Matter movement in June 2020, there was growing awareness that the Broadway industry has been getting away with showcasing stories that champion progressive values while the off-stage working conditions often do not reflect those same values (Mamo, 2020). It confronted the Broadway industry with the reality that they are deeply entrenched in systemic injustice, and that their inclusivity is not intersectional. While Broadway holds a reputation for being progressive, their inclusivity is mainly focused on the queer community, often overlooking other aspects of intersectional marginalised identity that shape a person’s life experience. With this strong momentum fuelled by frustration, BIPOC theatre workers began to come together and mobilise social movements in a shared pursuit of dismantling systemic injustice on Broadway. This marks a new era for the industry — one where the workers found the courage to use their voice to challenge the previously unchallenged power structure — in spite of the risks of career reprisal.
This research aims to understand the efforts that have been made in closing the gap between the positive BIPOC representation on Broadway stages and the oppression this very group endures backstage. It will do so by studying the origins, growth, and decline of Black Theatre United (BTU) and We See You, White American Theater (WSYWAT), two organisations that specifically aimed to address racism against BIPOC theatre performers.
Methodology
This research undertakes a qualitative approach to conduct an in-depth discussion of systemic injustice that manifests as racism against BIPOC theatre performers on Broadway and its broader implications to the American theatre industry as a whole. It does this through a case study approach, examining the successes and failures of two significant social movements seeking to address this problem: Black Theatre United and We See You White American Theater.
The analysis of these two cases will be structured according to Blumer’s four stages of social movement theory, substantiated with an analysis of the corresponding factors from the Structural Strain theory in the following structure:
- Emergence stage: transpiring event, oppression, recognition
- Coalescence stage: ideology
- Bureaucratisation stage: resource mobilisation, support
- Decline
Aside from providing a comprehension of which factor plays an integral role during each stage of the movement, this structure also facilitates a cohesive and flowing narrative. This is especially essential for conveying the story of the rise and fall of social movements on Broadway chronologically from beginning to end.
In establishing the ‘oppression’ factor, this thesis will retrieve stories detailing instances of racism toward BIPOC performers that were circulated in the media. Data from The Visibility Report: Racial Representation on NYC Stages in the 2018–2019 Broadway season, released by AAPAC in 2021 will substantiate the evidence of Broadway’s power structure being the reason of prevalent racism toward BIPOC theatre-makers. In discussion about the ‘recognition’ factor, headlines from mainstream media outlets will be used as an evidence of widespread recognition regarding Broadway’s racism.
Moving on to discussion about BTU and WSYWAT’s growth, their manifestos: BTU’s A New Deal for Broadway document, along with WSYWAT’s open letter and list of demands will provide basis for discourse content analysis. Doing a side-by-side analysis between the two organisations throughout all the four stages and six factors will give prominence to the granular distinctions between the two organisations’ activism, despite going through the same stages and identifying with the same factors.
Based on this analysis, the research will shine a light on how the fundamental structure of the Broadway industry contributes to the creation and perpetuation of the systemic injustice that their BIPOC members endure, and the structural aspects that determine the success and failure of social movements. By identifying the areas in which these movements have thrived and failed, this paper aims to equip future individuals and/or collectives with better understanding when it comes to initiating, organising, and mobilising the necessary social movements that will have a significant and long-lasting impact that improves the industry’s working conditions.
Discussion
1. The Emergence Stage of Social Movements on Broadway
According to Christiansen (2009), the emergence phase of any social movement sees a widespread discontent about a certain social condition (p. 2). At this stage, the discontent manifests in daily conversations and media coverages, as strategic efforts to create a social movement is still yet to be seen (2009: 2). To trace the widespread discontent that spreads in the Broadway industry and its manifestation in conversations and in the media, this section will look at three out of the six factors of the Structural Strain theory: 1. Transpiring event, 2. Oppression, and 3. Recognition.
It will first establish the murder of George Floyd as the transpiring event that catalysed discontent, leading to conversations about the impact of systemic injustice on Broadway, manifested in the ongoing oppression of BIPOC theatre artists. This oppression will be unpacked by tracing the power structures on Broadway, and how they perpetuate racism toward BIPOC performers. It will conclude with the recognition, outlining the surge of information shared online about the mistreatment of BIPOC Broadway workers.
1.1. Transpiring Event
The police brutality that resulted in the death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020 catalysed a surge of Black Lives Matter protests, bringing the problem of systemic injustice in American institutions to the forefront (Mink, 2020; Mputubwele, 2023). Realising that the Broadway industry is not exempt from the entrenchment of systemic injustice, Broadway shows — which act as individual production companies — voiced their support to the BLM movement (Evans, 2020). Among the shows that posted their statements of support on social media were Hamilton and Hadestown, both critically acclaimed shows with the most Tony wins in their respective opening year (Tony Awards, 2024). Lin-Manuel Miranda on behalf of the company of Hamilton denounced systemic racism and white supremacy, and extended an apology for not pushing the message earlier and more firmly (Evans, 2020). The Hadestown company posted their commitment to “fundamentally alter the systems [of white supremacy and injustice] that have led to the hate, division, and intolerance” (Evans, 2020). Other key players in the industry such as The Broadway League also posted on social media denouncing “injustice towards people of colour”, and committed to providing a safe space for diverse stories that foster understanding among different groups of people (Evans, 2020). Picking up on the momentum, BIPOC theatre artists also took it to their social media not only to denounce racism, but also to address their experience with it in the theatre industry (Playbill, 2024).
The police brutality that cost the life of George Floyd, among many others, therefore became the catalyst of a reckoning within the Broadway industry. In particular, it confronted industry members with the reality that just like most American institutions, Broadway is built upon systemic injustice (Worland, 2020). This realisation prompted a series of acknowledgements of this problem from production companies, along with other significant associations within the Broadway ecosystem, such as The Broadway League and Playbill (Evans, 2020; Birsh & Birsh, 2020). These institutions’ condemnation of systemic injustice as the root cause of George Floyd’s murder signalled a stance that systemic injustice should not be welcomed in any institutions, including their own. This reckoning led to several of these institutions to commit to “alter the system” in the case of Hadestown, and “provide a safe space” in the case of The Broadway League (Evans, 2020). George Floyd’s murder also built the momentum for Broadway workers to finally speak up about their experience with racism as a manifestation of systemic injustice within the industry.
1.2. Oppression
Racism toward performers
Racism on Broadway can happen at any point during the production process, especially in rooms where any BIPOC individual is the ‘token’ minority (Fieberg, 2020b). During the BLM upsurge, BIPOC theatre performers used the momentum to talk about their own experience with racism on Broadway. This is not to say that racism on Broadway only affect the performers and not the crew members, but the performers was getting more visibility (this might speak to the power dynamics even within the marginalised group). For this reason, the following instances of racism toward performers should be considered as only the tip of the iceberg, as they only represent a small percentage of the BIPOC performers, and does not cover the ever-broader backstage positions in the theatre industry.
In early June 2020, Broadway for Racial Justice (BRFJ), a grassroot organisation that provides financial and emotional support for Black artists, released a video compiling 20 stories recounting instances of racism experienced by BIPOC performers in theatrical productions across the country in a variety of different settings (Fierberg, 2020b). In one instance, a group of a White director/choreographer, associate choreographer, music director, and artistic director gave the only Black actor in the supporting role in a production ‘the silent treatment’ after they reported an incident of cultural appropriation to the company manager (Fieberg, 2020b).
Additionally, the director told them to make sure they “riff a lot” to impress the audience (Fieberg, 2020b). Asking a Black performer to do a specific type of vocal acrobat perpetuates a racial stereotype that all Black people sing the same way — reducing their individual artistic abilities and style. In a regional production of The Wizard of Oz, the only Black actor was cast in the non-speaking role of a monkey (Fieberg, 2020b). Another actor in an Off-Broadway production was told by the dance captain that they “cannot be Black and late” (Fieberg, 2020b). In another production, the only Black actor among principal roles was given a lower actor/tech contract, requiring them to do double-duty work for less pay, while their White counterparts received higher paying principal role contracts with less obligations (Fieberg, 2020b).
BFRJ’s series of stories highlights three standout points regarding the oppression of BIPOC actors in the theatre industry:
First, most stereotyping behaviours and commentaries were targeted against the ‘token’ coloured person. The expectation for BIPOC performers to exhibit a certain set of artistic abilities based on their skin colour often subjects them to being typecast. This typecasting hinders them from achieving their full potential with their unique individual talents, which fits with Maboloc’s claim that oppression hinders people from the opportunity to grow (White, 2022; Maboloc, 2018: 1186).
Second, the racist comments and behaviours were always exhibited by White people, whether they were fellow performers or someone with decision-making power. In other words, the power to oppress is not only held by those in higher positions, but also White peers in equivalent positions. This highlights Young’s (2009) assertion that imbalanced power dynamics–both in the structural and racial sense in this case–gives the dominant group the power to get away with subjugating the marginalised (pp. 60–61).
Third, the escalation in these stories often began as soon as the discriminated BIPOC individuals spoke up about their experiences of being discriminated. This explains the prior silence regarding mistreatment of BIPOC individuals in the industry, as speaking up leads to career jeopardy. Adams (2020) attributed this to prioritising White comfort, substantiated by the actor and director Schelle Williams (Aida, The Notebook, The Wiz) who attributed her silence arising out of career and self-preservation (Fieberg, 2020a). This pervasive racism aligns with Maboloc’s examination of the reality of prejudice and discrimination, where cultural differences play a key role in unfairly elevating certain groups above others (2018: 1186). The ongoing oppression of BIPOC theatre artists and the silence surrounding it have rendered their comfort, wellbeing, and safety secondary to their White counterparts; and they remain powerless to change industry practices.
This section has demonstrated the systemic racism and oppression faced by BIPOC theatre performers, the obstacles it poses on their wellbeing and career advancement, and their powerlessness in altering the system.
Having seen how systemic racism poses obstacles on the wellbeing and career advancement of BIPOC artists and leave them in no position to alter the system, the next point of focus naturally shifts to the bigger picture of Broadway’s power structure, which will provide an explanation as to why and how racism has prevailed in the theatre industry.
Power structure
One way to understand the roots of systemic injustice on Broadway is by tracing the power structure in the industry. In 2021, the Asian American Performers Action Coalition released The Visibility Report: Racial Representation on NYC Stages covering the 2018–2019 season. The report covers data from non-profit and commercial theatres within the New York City territory, showing an overarching finding that NYC theatres including Broadway are only diversifying their stages without addressing the fundamental problem of systemic racism behind the curtain (AAPAC, 2021: 35). AAPAC’s finding provides assistance in understanding how performative representation on NYC stages perpetuates BIPOC oppression in the Broadway industry.
On the top of the Broadway pyramid are the leaders of three dominant organisations that own the majority of all 41 Broadway theatres: Robert E. Wankel of the Shubert Organisation (17 houses), James L. Nederlander of the Nederlander Organisation (9 houses), and Jordan Roth of Jujamcyn Theatres (5 houses). Wankel, Nederlander, and Roth — who are all White — are entitled to use their own “subjective criteria” to decide which shows get a Broadway stage, hence controlling the entire production pipeline of the industry (AAPAC, 2021: 31).
Next in the hierarchy is Broadway producers. In the 2018–2019 season, BIPOC producers only made up a total of 6.4% of producers across the 38 shows that opened throughout the season (AAPAC, 2021: 29). Out of all these shows, only 11% were written by BIPOC, and only 6.2% were directed by BIPOC (AAPAC, 2021: 18, 22). The dominance of White leadership in the industry continues to permeate individual production companies, reflected in the all-White general managers across all Broadway stages, down to their teams of designers — including costume, set, lighting, sound, video design — who comprised a mere 7.4% of BIPOC (AAPAC, 2021: 26). However, despite this clear lack of representation of BIPOC in executive and artistic leadership positions, the 2018–2019 season saw 41.4% BIPOC performers on stage, a 2.9% increase from the previous season (AAPAC, 2018: 12). Although the majority of roles still went to White actors, the 2018–2019 season also saw the highest percentage of BIPOC bodies on stage compared to available previously recorded data.
Warren Adams, a choreographer on Motown the Musical (2013), criticised Broadway’s inclination to work with all-White production and creative teams even in stories steeped in ethnic culture, thus creating an “illusion of inclusion” through tokenism on stage (Adams, 2020). Other BIPOC artists, including Ariana DeBose (Hamilton, West Side Story), shared Adams’ sentiment, elaborating that this practice appropriates the production of coloured narratives for White profit (McPhee, 2020).
DeBose’s claim is supported by AAPAC’s finding that out of five Broadway productions written by at least one BIPOC writer, none was directed by a BIPOC director (AAPAC, 2021: 25). This indicates that White directors on Broadway have the full advantage in shaping the narrative of these stories. Together with the almost exclusively White leadership on Broadway, these numbers reflect Broadway’s alarming contentment at hiring almost exclusively White people at the helm. This gives away Broadway’s unchallenged status quo, pointing to what Charles Tilly coined as “durable inequality” in the system (Young, 2009: 363). In a system that abides by durable inequality, the least privileged members will remain hindered from developing their careers to the fullest potential (p. 363). Moreover, the overwhelming lack of BIPOC representation in leadership positions renders them powerless in altering the hiring practice, unless the dominant power takes the initiative to implement change. As Young (2009) asserts, institutions must be the one to acknowledge and rectify these inequalities by intentionally accommodating marginalised groups (p. 363). In this case, BIPOC’s chance to fill leadership positions on Broadway depends on White leadership’s willingness to acknowledge their role in perpetuating inequalities and rectify the situation by making room for BIPOC leaders.
With Broadway’s power structure demystified, it is evident that the injustices in the industry stem from a power imbalance, with top positions with decision-making power occupied by White individuals. Subsequently, the need for a reform within the industry was more deeply reinforced when media outlets began to turn their spotlight toward racism on Broadway, indicating a widespread recognition from the general public outside of the Broadway community — which will become our next focus.
Recognition
Smelser’s Structural Strain theory identifies “recognition by people of that society about the existence of the problem” as one of the six factors required for a nascent social movement to grow (Sen & Avci, 2016: 128). Previous sections have established that production companies like Hamilton and Hadestown, and vital institutions such as The Broadway League acknowledge the systemic injustice on Broadway that especially curbs BIPOC artists’ opportunities to succeed in the industry. This section will further explore the spread of this recognition among broader industry members, as the news picked up in both Broadway-specific and mainstream media.
Playbill.com, one of the leading theatre publications, played an active part in circulating stories about racism on Broadway to a wider audience of theatre enthusiasts through their dedicated BLM page, established on June 2nd, 2020. This section saw more than 70 BLM-related articles published in its first month (Playbill, 2020). As a trusted news outlet for the Broadway community, Playbill plays a vital role in connecting the industry members — theatre makers and fans alike. This function makes Playbill an incumbent component of the Broadway ecosystem, supporting the industry outside of the production companies.
Mainstream media outlets such as Time Magazine (Chow, 2020), PBS (Brown & Davenport, 2020), Variety (Rico, 2020), Deadline (Evans, 2020), Refinery29 (Komonibo, 2020), and Vulture (McHenry, 2020) followed suit in picking up on the influx of stories. The headlines on these news outlets had a similar tone around Broadway stars calling out racism in the industry: Variety used the title: “Broadway Stars Call Out Racism in the Theater Community”, Vulture wrote: “Black Theater Workers Call Out Racism on Broadway”; Refinery29 addressed an added layer of problem: “Broadway Stars Call Out Racist & Silent Theater Community”.
As the media amplified the news of Broadway’s prevalent racism to reach the general public, the Broadway industry faced the challenge of living up to its reputation as an inclusive space for marginalised groups (Seymour, 2021). Leveraging this timely momentum, BIPOC theatre artists began coalescing to speed up this change. Black Theatre United (BTU) and We See You, White American Theater (WSYWAT) were among those who emerged, proposing two particularly different ideas that they believed will move Broadway forward and away from its oppressive practices. Their contrasting approach makes for an insightful examination in pinning down the ultimate determinant of their success and/or failure, which we will explore next.
2. Growth and decline
According to Christiansen (2009), the coalescence and bureaucratisation stages follow the emergence stage of social movements, signifying their growth (p. 3). In the coalescence stage, the reason behind the initial discontent becomes demystified, and leadership emerges as “random upset individuals” started to organise (Christiansen, 2009: 3). The “ideology” factor from the Structural Strain theory fits in this stage, as members of the oppressed group began to organise themselves in pursuit of rectifying their situation. In the Broadway context, BTU’s proposition involved the predominantly White key players on Broadway (localised to NYC theatre landscape) as active participants to solve the problem, whereas WSYWAT positioned White American Theater (working in the space of the broader North American theatre landscape) as an opponent.
The difference in ideology and approach was entrenched in the bureaucratisation stage. As social movements start to operate at a high-level organisation and rely on trained staff with expertise to carry out their organisational functions, their adeptness in mobilising resources and gaining support from power elites — the two remaining factors in the Structural Stain theory — are challenged (Christiansen, 2009: 3; Sen & Avci, 2016: 128). BTU’s localised movement and collaborative approach enabled them to gain moral resources from allies and power elites, in the form of legitimacy, solidarity, and sympathetic support to the movement’s goals (Jenkins, 2001). On the other hand, WSYWAT’s disruptive and confrontational approach dissuaded people from getting behind them–proving the aforementioned point in the oppression section about the prioritisation of White comfort being a hindrance for systemic change (WSYWAT, 2020b). The resulting outputs from their opposing approach reinforce White power as the determining factor of success. With support from White allies, BTU continues to operate as of June 2024; whereas with the lack of it, WSYWAT was last active in March 2022.
To set the stage for an expanded discussion on their growth, the following section will provide an overview of BTU and WSYWAT’s work, encompassing their background, initiatives, and achievements.
Overview: Black Theatre United
Black Theatre United (BTU) was founded in 2020 by a group of prominent Black actors, including Tony winners Audra McDonald, LaChanze, Vanessa Williams, and Brian Stokes Mitchell. The organisation’s ideology to respond to racism on Broadway is to make Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, Accessibility, and Belonging (EDIAB) practise mandatory throughout the industry (BTU, 2021: 2). In 2021, the tangible manifestation of their ideologies was released as ‘A New Deal for Broadway’ document, an industry-wide agreement to ensure EDIAB across the theatre industry. A New Deal for Broadway successfully brought industry leaders together and secured their commitments to implement actionable changes across the industry (BTU, 2021: 2). It was workshopped for six-months during the Commercial Theatre Summit by BTU members and the original signatories, with external facilitation by Kenji Yoshino and David Glasgow, two experts from NYU School of Law’s Centre for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging (BTU, 2024). The document contains the organisation’s joint commitments, followed by joint commitments of industry leaders including theatre owners, producers, unions, and creatives including directors, choreographers, music teams, designers, casting directors, composers, and playwrights. Among these signatories are The Shubert Organisation, the Nederlander Organisation, and Jujamcyn Theatres.
BTU’s commitments encompass the roll-out of mandatory, industry-wide EDIAB training program, and ensuring the industry’s accessibility for socioeconomically diverse talent by providing mentoring, sponsorship and paid internships (BTU, 2021:3). Furthermore, the joint commitments from various industry leaders and working groups ensure a working environment that adheres to EDIAB core principles and involves a “critical mass of Black professionals” across industry leadership, creative team, management team, production crew, and cast (BTU, 2021: 7, 10, 12). Critical mass is defined as a sufficient number of Black professionals to mean that it does not weigh anyone to take on the role of token diversity, or to be perceived as one (BTU, 2021: 7, 10, 12). The overarching point of their commitments is to diversify talent, productions, casting offices, and vendors such as ad agencies, accounting firms, publicity offices, and law firms in a way that is not performative. Acknowledging the diffused nature of the industry which leaves them with “no central oversight or coordination”, BTU also drafted a procedural commitment in which the signatories are expected to engage in ongoing dialogues to “achieve greater consistency” across the industry. The plan outlines a commitment to have progress and accountability measures meetings held twice a year through 2022–2024 (BTU, 2021: 13).
Overview: We See You, White American Theater
We See You, White American Theater (WSYWAT) is an anonymous collective originated by 33 BIPOC theatre-makers in June 2020 following the murder of George Floyd. The collective made their first social media appearance with an open letter signed by more than 300 BIPOC theatre-makers, accompanied by a petition (Clement, 2020). The letter called on predominantly White theatre institutions to acknowledge their active participation in perpetuating discrimination against BIPOC artists in the theatre industry through repeated acts of tokenism and the various ways they exploit BIPOC for the sake of garnering positive media publicity and grants (Clement, 2020). The petition that accompanied the open letter gained more than 50,000 signatories in 24 hours, further underscoring the urgency for revolution in the American theatre (WSYWAT, 2020a).
The following month, WSYWAT released a 29-pages list of demands drafted by 25 committees within the collective. These demands were listed under nine areas: cultural competency; working conditions and hiring practices; artistic and curatorial practices; transparency, compensation, accountability, and boards; funding and resource demands for BIPOC theatre organisations; visibility, equity and transparency, and protection in commercial theatre and Broadway; unions; press; academic and professional training programs (WSYWAT, 2020c). WSYWAT distributed this list to over 350 predominantly White institutions and leaders on their watch list, seeking for a response that indicated those institutions acknowledge the problem and were taking the necessary measures to meet the demands (WSYWAT, 2021). In the span of 7 months, WSYWAT documented in their accountability report, released on February 11, 2021, over 120 institutions that responded to their demands by (re)forming anti-racist policies (WSYWAT, 2021).
In between the open letter, the list of demands, and the accountability report, WSYWAT shared ten testimonials from BIPOC theatre-makers detailing their experience with racism in the theatre across America, and a series of “face cards” of the leadership position in major theatre institutions (WSYWAT, n.d.). The testimonials detailed instances of racist commentaries and behaviours toward BIPOC actors during the audition process, in rehearsal rooms, and theatre-related events; and also toward BIPOC in executive positions in predominantly White theatre institutions (WSYWAT, n.d.). The face cards revealed the immense lack of diversity in leadership positions in The Broadway League, eight prominent regional theatres, Juilliard School; Actors’ Equity Association, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), and League of Resident Theatres (LORT) (WSYWAT, n.d.). Exposing the almost exclusively White leadership in American theatre institutions substantiated WSYWAT’s message about the systemic nature of injustice in American theatre, as the industry is built on a network of predominantly White institutions.
2.1. Coalescence
Ideology
The Structural Strain theory asserts that the development and the spread of an ideology purporting to be a solution for the problem is required for any growing social movement (Sen & Avci, 2016: 128). According to Ann Swidler, an American sociologist and professor of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, ideology is a highly articulated, self-conscious belief and ritual system that is offered as a possible unified answer to solve social problems (Swidler, 1986: 279). As ideology is often implicit and assumed within the context of social movement (Beck, 2013: 1), the analysis of BTU and WSYWAT’s ideologies will be based on the approach they adopt throughout the course of their activism. This section will highlight the differences in how BTU and WSYWAT present themselves to the public, the scale of their movement, the way they position themselves in relation to the majority, and the collaboration they foster with internal or external parties.
Ideology: BTU
In line with Christiansen’s (2009) point about the demystification of the reason behind the unease characterising the start of a coalescence stage of social movement, BTU started to organise themselves after the growing consensus pointed to systemic injustice as the reason of the killing of Black people in the US. The coming together of 19 Black theatre artists who co-founded BTU marked their initial point of coalescence (Fierberg, 2020c).
BTU presented themselves as an organisation that operates under the mission to protect “Black people, Black talent, and Black lives of all shapes and orientations in theatre and communities across the country” against racist ideologies (BTU, 2024).
To achieve their mission, BTU started their activism at a localised scale concentrated in the core of Broadway. A New Deal for Broadway was first circulated among institutions and individuals who operate within the NYC theatrical scenery. The targeted focus on the source of the American theatre pipeline demonstrates BTU’s deep understanding of the industry’s intricacies, particularly Broadway’s significant influence on the entire American theatre landscape.
BTU’s ultimate approach is to use their influence in the industry to connect and converse with powerful Broadway producers and union representatives about improving the current state of the theatre industry that is deeply entrenched in systemic injustice (Fieberg, 2020c). This once again illustrates BTU’s strategy of targeting the top of the chain, demonstrating their understanding of the importance of persuading those with the most power to control the industry to take actions that can meaningfully improve the industry. As a result, BTU’s movement is collaborative in character. The 85 signatories of BTU’s A New Deal document act not only as allies who share the same anti-racist ideology, but also participate in the eradication of racism by putting the commitments such as “to never again assemble an all-White creative team” into action (BTU, 2021: 10).
BTU’s solution in overcoming racism in theatre is therefore aligned with Young’s idea that institutions must explicitly acknowledge differences and take action to compensate for disadvantage; reassess the attributes, positions, and actions in place; and intentionally accommodate and empower the marginalised group (2009: 363). By drafting A New Deal, BTU has done the work of reassessing the state of the industry, identifying the areas that need improvement to make Broadway a safer work environment for BIPOC artists. BTU proposes the implementation of mandatory EDIAB practices across the industry and the assurance of a critical mass of BIPOC professionals in every room (BTU, 2021: 7, 10, 12). This aims to rectify the industry’s previous underrepresentation of BIPOC theatre artists, which made them vulnerable to suppression, whether intentional or not. By committing to the actions outlined in A New Deal, theatre institutions therefore acknowledge the deprivation of BIPOC artists’ rights and demonstrate their intent to accommodate a safer space where BIPOC artists can fully flourish without having to suffer through oppression and deprivation.
Ideology: WSYWAT
WSYWAT’s initial point of coalescence began as 33 BIPOC theatre-makers met on Zoom after BIPOC theatre artists started to publicly address their experience with racism in the American theatre (WSYWAT, 2021). Their first move as a coalition was the drafting and release of their open letter (WSYWAT, 2021). In an Instagram post chronologically tracing their activism, WSYWAT revealed that in the early stage of their coalescence process, each of the 33 BIPOC theatre-makers were assigned to call 10 other fellow BIPOC theatre-makers to sign and share the letter (WSYWAT, 2021). This equipped them with a strong number of 333 support upon the release of their open letter (WSYWAT, 2021), indicating the prevalence of the problem and the urgency for reform.
WSYWAT positioned themselves as a collective of BIPOC artists who have been watching White American Theater’s wrongdoings toward BIPOC theatre-makers.
“We have watched you exploit us, shame us, diminish us, and exclude us. We see you. We have always seen you. And now you will see us.” (WSYWAT, 2020b)
The approach WSYWAT took was “us against them”, indicating a populist ideology characterised by tension between a blameless, hardworking in-group and an evil out-group, often identified as “the corrupt elites” who are held responsible for depriving the people (Hameleers & Schmuck, 2017). WSYWAT carried this ideology into action in their mission to introduce White American theatre to the harms they have imposed toward BIPOC theatre-makers. The coalition released testimonials from BIPOC theatre-makers who experienced racism in theatre and a series of face cards revealing almost exclusively White leaderships in major theatrical institutions in the US (WSYWAT, 2021).
WSYWAT did not just lay out the problems, but also offered a solution to fix systemic injustice in American theatre by proposing a set of demands which they distributed to over 350 predominantly White institutions and leaders. In seven months’ time, over 120 American theatre institutions form anti-racism policies as their response to WSYWAT’s demands (WSYWAT, 2021). The participating institutions primarily operate in a regional scope, illustrating the effectiveness of WSYWAT’s decision to focus on the broader American theatre landscape. Together with BTU, both movements have a complementary quality to each other in covering all bases of the American theatre industry: the core Broadway institutions and the regional institutions.
Another notable point of difference between BTU and WSYWAT is how they exert their credibility and interact with the power holders to achieve their goals. Hameleers & Schmuck (2017) assert that persuasion is more positively accepted when it comes from a credible source that people “support, like, and feel similar to”. The anonymity of the people behind WSYWAT’s operations, although different from BTU’s utilisation of star power, still proves effective in exerting their credibility. WSYWAT used the enormous number of “the people’s support” encompassing more than 300 original signatories of their open letter and more than 150,000 signatories of their petition to put pressure on predominantly White theatre institutions (WSYWAT, 2021). However, although their credibility was proven through numbers, WSYWAT lacked a likeable quality when compared to BTU. While BTU embraced an amicable approach when addressing the oppressors and treating them as collaborators, WSYWAT addressed the same group of people with a tone of animosity. As opposed to BTU’s invitation for theatre institutions to be active participants in creating a “new” Broadway, WSYWAT’s demands were delivered with more accusatory language such as the following point under the “We demand that you prioritise the cultural care and feeding of BIPOC artists” headline:
“Don’t try to make one of us your pets. Stop pitting us against each other or attempting to use us to control one other. Doing this encourages lateral violence.” (WSYWAT, 2020c: 4)
WSYWAT’s confrontational tone of voice — which conveyed the frustration and rage resulting from decades of oppression — challenged their opponents and audience alike to look beyond their wording to understand where the coalition came from and where they intended to go. Furthermore, this proves WSYWAT’s point in their open letter about how predominantly White institutions are wrongfully threatened by cultures that are different from their own (WSYWAT, 2020b). In the past, unwillingness to confront the reality of their own racism has led predominantly White institutions to prioritise their own privilege over BIPOC artists’ safety (WSYWAT, 2020b). The use of their tone of voice thus insinuates WSYWAT’s intention for American theatre institutions to confront their own internalised racism. This approach challenged institutions to focus on the core message rather than how it is conveyed, in order to move forward with fixing the theatre industry.
Similarly to BTU, WSYWAT also conformed to Young’s idea that eradicating oppression requires institutions to acknowledge the reality of oppression and take action to rectify the situation (Young, 2009: 363). WSYWAT’s actions throughout the course of their activism had been directed toward pushing theatre institutions to acknowledge racism and transform their practices, so that they no longer accommodate and perpetuate systemic injustice. However, WSYWAT’s approach translated as hostile, pressuring powerholders to meet the coalition’s terms instead of incorporating them as a part of the movement. This demonstrates that WSYWAT also abided by Maboloc’s idea that in order to overcome oppression, power holders must be pressured to enforce a change in the system (Maboloc, 2018: 1195).
2.2. Bureaucratisation
According to Christiansen (2009), in the bureaucratisation stage, social movements operate at a high-level organisation, coalition-based strategy, and started to rely on trained staff with specialised knowledge to carry out their organisational functions (p. 4). To demonstrate these qualities within BTU and WSYWAT’s movements, the next section will look at the two remaining factors in the Structural Strain theory: resource mobilisation and support from power elites.
Resource mobilisation
According to the resource mobilisation theory, the five categories of resources include material resources, and intangible resources encompassing human resources, social-organisational resources, cultural resources, and moral resources (Crossman, 2020). In BTU and WSYWAT’s context, the most valuable resources would be the intangible ones. In both of these movements, resource mobilisation occurred through their founding members’ capability to put their social network and influence within the industry into action. These actions demonstrate their possession of cultural resources — shown by their ability to lobby industry leaders, conduct summits and town halls, and draft agreement/demand documents. By mobilising these resources, BTU and WSYWAT ultimately garners moral resources in the form of endorsement from allies and institutions which in turn elevate the movements’ legitimacy.
Resource mobilisation: BTU
BTU demonstrates their high-level of organisation through their arrangement of five-months summit involving their 19 founding members, 85 industry leaders who are also the original signatories of A New Deal (McPhee, 2021). This makes BTU’s the first reform that successfully brought together all areas of the Broadway industry: theatre owners, producers, creatives, casting offices, and unions (McPhee, 2021). By connecting with industry leaders with whom they have previously worked and collaborating with outsourced experts to facilitate their summit, deliver EDIAB training, and provide consultation in the drafting process, BTU exhibits an aptness in mobilising their social-organisational resources. This speaks to how resourceful and valuable BTU’s founding members are as the organisation’s human resources (Fieberg, 2020c). Tony winner Brian Stokes Mitchell, one of the founding members of BTU, acknowledged that the organisation is conscious of their influential power within the industry that enables them to have one-on-one conversations with White industry leaders (Fieberg, 2020c).
BTU then deployed their cultural resources, shown through the interplay between their self-awareness and resourcefulness in dealing with their internal shortcomings. BTU’s founding members had the self-awareness to acknowledge that crafting a comprehensive industry-wide EDIAB plan requires a specialised knowledge which they were lacking — hence outsourcing professional assistance from EDIAB experts. This collaboration with subject matter experts enabled BTU to develop a long-term plan with actionable steps and procedural measures, ensuring regular reassessment of their progress and results, and facilitating discussions on potential accountability measures (BTU, 2021: 13).
Resource mobilisation: WSYWAT
Similarly to BTU, WSYWAT also demonstrated a high-level of organisation since the very beginning of its coalescence process. Starting from 33 members in the initial meeting who then drafted the open letter, WSYWAT managed to put together 333 original signatories within the first week of the coalition’s existence (WSYWAT, 2021). As the coalition made the decision to put together a list of demands, they formed 25 committees of BIPOC theatre-makers to work on their collective demands WSYWAT, 2021a). Once the list of demands was finalised, the coalition was able to distribute their list of demands to over 350 predominantly White institutions WSYWAT, 2021a). This shows the founding members’ astute capability as the coalition’s human resources to organise themselves and utilise their social-organisational resources: first by having each of the founding members connect with ten other fellow BIPOC members of the industry, and second by building a watchlist of predominantly White theatre institutions across the US.
While BTU harnessed their cultural resources through external collaboration, WSYWAT’s cultural resources hinged on their own lived experiences. This enabled them to address areas needing improvement within the industry and propose solutions in the form of their list of demands. WSYWAT’s efforts throughout their activism — from garnering members and support, to drafting demands, and running their social media account as their main medium — ultimately proved their proficiency in conducting organisational functions that advanced their movement, effectively mobilising their cultural resources.
In BTU and WSYWAT’s context, the mobilisation of human, social-organisational, and cultural resources ultimately resulted in garnering the support from BIPOC members, allies and power elites who are a critical resource that is key to mobilising these coalitions’ ideologies into action.
Support
In addition to high-level organisation and reliance on trained staff with specialised knowledge, the bureaucratisation stage of a social movement is also characterised by the implementation of coalition-based strategy. According to Structural Strain theory, support from alliances is a crucial determinant of a social movement’s effectiveness, as a lack of openness from power elites and members of society to embrace change can put a premature end to the movement (Sen and Avci, 2016). For BTU and WSYWAT, the difference in their ideologies manifest in the way they strategise their alliance. The following section will expand on their strategy in garnering support.
Support: BTU
BTU’s overarching strategy in forming an alliance is to win over Broadway power holders to listen, understand, and finally support their cause. In a Playbill interview with BTU founding member Brian Stokes Mitchell, the Broadway veteran explained that the momentum of the BLM movement has opened up the possibility to have conversations about racism with predominantly White theatre institutions, which was not possible before, as the reckoning has made them more willing and open to listen (Fieberg, 2020c). Winning over the most powerful theatre owners as allies and securing their commitment to making EDIAB practices in the theatre mandatory in the long-term increases the likelihood that other theatre institutions will follow suit.
This particular coalition-based strategy exhibits BTU’s dexterity in strategising to aim for the uttermost fundamental institutions upon which the industry is built, thereby taking advantage of the systematic trickle-down effect in the industry. The understanding about how the system that initially administered injustice can be the same system that administers an industry-wide change makes BTU’s coalition strategy a game-changer for Broadway. As regional productions largely depend on the shows that are being produced on Broadway (The Smith Center, 2024), commitment from the creators to ensure a critical mass of Black professionals in every room will be more likely to transfer to the regional production as well.
Furthermore, the continuous nature of the live theatre industry ensures that theatre keeps regenerating with every passing season; every passing show. This means that every subsequent production by producers who have signed A New Deal; brought to life by creatives, casting offices, and unions who have also signed the document; and housed in venues owned by Jujamcyn, Shubert, or Nederlander — who all have agreed to the document — will be conceived in a safe environment for BIPOC from the very beginning. Once Broadway has presumably played their part in setting an exemplary EDIAB practice, the responsibility to set the same EDIAB standard will be regional theatres’ to retain. This way, BTU’s original signatories transcend their initial role as moral resources. While moral resources traditionally lend their endorsement to elevate a movement’s legitimacy (Crossman, 2020), BTU’s allies are the movement’s most powerful resource to be mobilised.
Support: WSYWAT
As BTU covered the grounds of forging alliance with Broadway’s core institutions and individuals, WSYWAT’s ultimate strategy in building coalition was by garnering support from BIPOC theatre-makers, the broader community members, and theatre institutions who responded to their demands. However, in WSYWAT’s case, strength in number did not necessarily translate to an equivalent power in regards to moral resources. Compared to BTU, WSYWAT noticeably faced more resistance in public discourse as seen in its comment sections, mostly attributed to the unapologetic and brash approach of their communications. (WSYWAT, 2021).
On a post addressing WSYWAT’s upcoming town hall published on April 5, 2020, Instagram user @gabe.lozada addressed their issue with WSYWAT’s “creepy game of asymmetric information”, in addition to the lack of actionable steps to follow through their list of demands, the anonymity of the coalition, and the “snarky” tone of their social media posts (Lozada, 2021). The comment also addressed an issue about merchandising and its questionable relevance in regard to the movement’s objectives (Lozada, 2021). This example illustrates how the “unlikeable” quality of WSYWAT’s delivery poses a greater barrier for the coalition to gain support, even from people who share the same anti-racism ideology with the coalition. The dislike for their tone then led to the scrutinisation of the coalition as a whole. The two things this example proves are the truth in the argument that likability plays a role in making a persuasive message more acceptable (Hameleers & Schmuck, 2017); and solidifies the ground for the coalition’s issue with the industry’s prioritisation of undisrupted White comfort (WSYWAT, 2020b).
WSYWAT made a counter argument against this criticism in a series of posts. They labelled the resistance against their activism as “tone-policing”; a “divide and conquer strategy” in motion; and “White supremacist red flags in institutions” (WSYWAT, 2020d; 2020e; 2020f). They asserted that these tactics are ultimately an act of suppression and invalidation toward their movement, first by “focusing on the tone of what is being said rather than on the actual content”; followed by prioritising White privilege and comfort; fostering mistrust among BIPOC theatre community members who strife toward a common objective. As a result, these strategies to break down the movement cultivate a culture of fear and scarcity that ultimately sustains a culture of systemic imbalance (WSYWAT, 2020e). The resistance in receiving WSYWAT’s sentiment is a demonstration of how BIPOC community has to fight to make their voice heard in an industry where the majority of leaders do not look like them — thus not empathising with their experience and struggles; and where those majority voices are regarded in higher esteem compared to theirs.
Two contradictory truths apply in WSYWAT’s case. The first one is the coalition had successfully garnered moral resources in the hundreds of BIPOC artists who support their open letter; hundreds of thousands voices from the community who back their petition; and the over 120 theatre institutions who formed anti-racist policies as a response to WSYWAT’s demands. The second truth is that the support in number did not equate to moral support whatsoever, leaving the coalition lacking in the “solidarity and sympathetic support” sense of moral resources (Crossman, 2020). The reluctance to offer moral support for the coalition due to the discomfort imposed by their disruptive and confrontational approach proves the point in case that the industry as a whole — regardless of their skin colour and stance on racism — festers a certain degree of internalised racism. This unconscious bias conditioned them to favour undisrupted comfort, even when presented with the reality of racism in the industry.
3. Decline
As BTU and AFECT have gone through the emergence, coalescence, and bureaucratisation stages in their lifespan as a social movement, the natural next stage in their life cycle is decline (Christiansen, 2009: 2). For both movements, the support (or lack thereof) from predominantly White institutions ultimately became the key determining factor of both their fates. With the support of predominantly White institutions, BTU was rewarded with decline by success; whereas on the other hand, without the support of White American Theater, WSYWAT was repressed into their demise.
Decline: BTU
BTU’s decline can be attributed to their success, as the organisation has succeeded in securing a long-lasting commitment from predominantly White institutions and other power elites in the American theatre industry to transform their EDIAB practice, ensuring a safer working environment for BIPOC (BTU, 2021). BTU’s success is aligned with Blumer’s theory that successful social movements are often smaller and localised, with very specific goals (Christiansen, 2009: 4). Indeed, A New Deal was originally targeted to Broadway specifically instead of the broader landscape of the American theatre industry. Their purpose with A New Deal was also solely focused on the implementation of EDIAB practice, making it more viable for BTU to achieve their goals.
Decline: WSYWAT
By contrast, in WSYWAT’s case, the organisation was ultimately pushed toward decline by means of repression. While WSYWAT has received overwhelming support for their cause, the firm resistance to their ideologies has caused significant hindrance for the collective to move forward toward their goal, especially when compared to BTU. The attack against their approach led to internal organisational failure as WSYWAT struggled to get their message across as a coalition. However, the fact that WSYWAT’s demise is a result of repression over their voice and expressions serves as living proof that implicit manifestations of racism such as tone-policing and divide-and-conquer are still very much alive on Broadway (WSYWAT, 2021). This alone strengthens WSYWAT’s position and the need for its existence in the first place.
Conclusion
The Broadway industry has seen multiple efforts to close the gap between the on-stage representation and backstage oppression of its BIPOC members. Despite production companies and other theatre-related institutions publishing online statements condemning systemic injustice, the initiatives for a concrete, actionable plan to break BIPOC theatre artists free from systemic injustice in their industry came from within the BIPOC community in most cases. Beyond BTU and WSYWAT, many other organisations have felt compelled to take actions upon the discrimination behind the curtain being brought into light. However, dissecting the entire life cycle of these two organisations has allowed for a deeper, more insightful understanding about the apparent unspoken rules for success when it comes to creating change in a predominantly White industry such as Broadway.
Spurred by the Black Lives Matter movement in early June 2020, the Broadway industry was confronted by the reality of its own longstanding systemic injustice. One of the most concrete manifestations of this injustice is racism toward BIPOC performers, which was conventionally kept in silence prior to this transpiring event out of career and self-preservation. This points to the fact that White comfort has always been the main priority in the industry. Examining Broadway’s power structures helps to fathom the logic of this inclination, although it does nothing to justify the discrepancy. With three White men controlling the entire pipeline of the American theatre industry — worth noting that in reality it streamlines to the global theatre pipeline — the natural tendency is to fill the leadership positions with other White people who are already ahead with their access to and connections in the industry.
As seen in AAPAC’s report, this process keeps repeating itself on every layer until it reaches individual theatre institutions, where the lowest number of BIPOC representation is zero in General Managers positions, and the highest number of representation across production and creative team is 11% BIPOC writers. However, these numbers were hidden behind the hopeful facade of 41.4% BIPOC performers populating NYC stages in the 2018–2019 season — marking the highest BIPOC representation onstage of all time. Creating an illusion of progress in diversity was a successful attempt at distraction for a while, until BIPOC artists took a career-jeopardising step by coming forward to share their firsthand experience with racism in the theatre, amplified and circulated by mainstream media outlets that picked up the news. With the devastating lack of fundamental change in the system exposed to the public, the industry was pressured to do a better job at matching its practices with its reputation.
The space where White American Theater’s initiatives and actionable steps to dismantle systemic injustice should have been was filled by BIPOC theatre artists who, in spite of their lack of experience with activism, managed to come up with more than a few proposals to improve their workplace condition. However, the requisite key of success is still held by White power, as shown by the comparison between BTU and WSYWAT.
Playing by the rules of the White majority, BTU shows advanced mastery in its bureaucratisation stage. The organisation was able to garner valuable support from key players, advancing the organisation in the strife of achieving standardised EDIAB practice across the industry. The lack of resistance from White American Theater allows the movement to sustain until present day in June 2024. Even so, BTU deserves recognition for organising themselves in high-capacity, especially in expertly mobilising their resources: their founders’ star power, their connection to industry leaders, and their humility not only to localise their movement to Broadway, but also to reach out for assistance from subject matter experts when they recognised their own shortcomings.
On the flip side of the same coin is WSYWAT, whose fate to decline by repression was preordained the moment they disrupted White comfort by confronting White American Theater with the ways it has been complicit in perpetuating BIPOC oppression. Although not without its own shortcomings — questions relating to their transparency and accountability have arose in the lead-up to their premature demise — WSYWAT have exposed something more profound than White fragility: a deep-seated internalised racism within the community of BIPOC theatre-makers. It has also proven that the overwhelming support from BIPOC and White allies: hundreds of prominent Broadway stars and hundreds of thousands signatories behind their open letter and petition, does not hold a candle to the resistance of key industry leaders. The coalition was susceptible to harm without solid support from the Broadway’s core White institutions.
However, the success of garnering enormous mass support and mobilising over 120 theatre institutions across North America is not to be dismissed. This effort put significant pressure on White American Theater to enact systemic change and recognised smaller theatre institutions as indispensable building blocks of the American Theater industry. That being said, even in their demise by repression, WSYWAT remained victorious as it reinforced their central argument: systemic injustice cannot be fully dismantled unless White power, allies, and the subjects of oppression are all willing to work through their discomfort — both White discomfort and BIPOC discomfort with White discomfort.
Dissecting the granular difference that determined BTU and WSYWAT’s respective success and demise is only the beginning of a much needed manifesto for future movements intending to follow in their footsteps. In this minor thesis alone, following the particular thread of Structural Strain theory in a hyper-localised context of BTU and WSYWAT has led to the discovery of the unspoken rule to ensure a prolonged life for social movements on Broadway: Do not disrupt white comfort.
Both BTU and WSYWAT have made a significant impact in Broadway’s social movements arena. BTU shows that equipping themselves with a comprehensive understanding of how the industry works, along with carefully calculated and precise moves, have kept them in the game. Playing the long game increases BTU’s chance to create an evolutionary change within the industry, even if it takes a long time. BTU has done what WSYWAT could not do, but the reverse is also true. Without a comparison against WSYWAT’s demise, it might have taken longer to recognise that the prioritisation of White majority can be both: a tool for change and a tool to suppress change.
This exploration of the life cycle of BTU and WSYWAT was only a minuscule representation of the broader effort to dismantle injustice in the Broadway industry. The assorted manifestations of systemic injustice in the theatre industry complicate the efforts to tackle them — making the 2020 surge of new initiatives look sporadic and rather directionless in nature. However, it is also the defining characteristics of bona fide movements such as the Civil Rights Movement, Me Too, and Black Lives Matter itself. This might indicate that the bona fide movement that will ultimately close the gap between Broadway’s progressive persona and oppressive practices is still in agitation.
Limitations
The discussion in this research was limited to BTU and WSYWAT and its effort in tackling racism on Broadway, particularly against performers. Other organisations might provide even richer insights toward the studies of social movements on Broadway. The lack of comprehensive data regarding BIPOC representation in other backstage positions also posed a limitation to observing how whether or not the onstage/backstage dynamic play a role in affecting how injustices manifest for both groups of theatre artists. The discussion in this research was also limited to how the injustice manifests as racism toward BIPOC performers, but not its deeper financial implications, which ultimately affects not only BIPOC theatre artists’ career trajectory, but also their livelihood. This research also had limitations in discussing about how power imbalance also makes theatre workers vulnerable to verbal and physical abuse from powerful bully as reported in the case of mega-producer Scott Rudin. This leads to the need of a further discussion about intersectional marginalised identities in the theatre, as they might be the group that needs the most protection and support in the industry. A discussion about audience’s role in enforcing change is also needed to holistically encompass the theatre ecosystem.
