For a second year in a row, all of the 20 acting nominations for the Academy Awards 2016 went to white actors. As happened last year, this has resulted in a heated debate about racial bias in the Oscars, and the opinions of film artists and activists vary from a blatant denial of racial bias to an outright allegation of racism. The nomination process for the Oscars appears to reflect institutional bias, given that racial privileges, choices, and networks seem to perpetuate a dominantly white organisation in which the inclusion of non-whites is either an exception or a token. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science, the organisation behind the Oscars, is by its very construction and perpetuation, an overly white organisation. Its membership is limited to mostly white actors, writers, directors, and other professionals. New members must be sponsored by two current members from within their own field or be nominated for an Oscar. There is further scrutiny involved, and the final decision lies with the Board of Governors. According to a 2012 study, with more than 6,000 voting members, the Academy is predominantly white ( 94 per cent of members) and predominantly male ( 77 per cent). Black members account for just 3 per cent. Moreover, within its various branches, whites represent 98 per cent of producers, 98 per cent of writers and 88 per cent of actors. Thirty-three per cent of members are previous winners of or nominees for Academy Awards. In other words, the dominance and perpetuation of whiteness are hard to ignore (adapted from Syed, 2016).

Questions
1 Read the entire article (see references) and discuss the extent to which institutional racism may be a factor in the nomination and award of the Oscars?
2 Critically discuss this statement: 'The dominance and perpetuation of whiteness in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science are hard to ignore.'