Robert Duncan McNeill Explains Why He Won’t Be Directing ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Season 2

After playing Tom Paris for seven seasons on Star Trek: Voyager, Robert Duncan McNeill has spent his time primarily behind the camera. He has dozens of producing and directing credits to his name from the last two decades, including recently helming an episode of The Orville. In the latest installment of the official Star Trek site’s profiles of Trek actors-turned-directors, McNeill talks about his experiences directing for Voyager and Enterprise, but he also explains why he won’t be directing for the latest Star Trek show, or at least for now.

Hoping for opportunity to direct, applauds Discovery for seeking more diversity

When asked if he would be interested in directing for Star Trek: Discovery, McNeill revealed he had a meeting with a producer from the show to talk about exactly that:

I wanted to direct Discovery. I met with their producing director. I didn’t know the show that well, but I met with him on their last hiatus to talk about season two. I also produce now. So, I hire a lot of directors. The last few years, there’s been a seismic shift in terms of the priorities toward female and diverse directors. That reality now has meant that what used to be normal, which was a lot of white guys, to be quite honest, has changed. Some shows are mostly women directing. I think Jessica Jones, last year, had all female directors. Handmaid’s Tale. A woman may direct the next Star Trek movie. Most importantly, it’s a wonderful thing that’s happening. I’m proud that on other shows I’ve produced — The Gifted, The Arrangement, Girlfriends’ Guide to Divorce — I’ve brought in female directors. But, to answer your question, Discovery does a limited number of episodes and a priority there is to get female and diverse directors, so there are fewer opportunities for people like me, which is a great thing. But, yeah, if the opportunity arose to direct Discovery and I fit what they needed and it fit my schedule, I’d love to do it.

This is not the first time McNeill has talked about directing Discovery. At Star Trek Las Vegas last summer, he revealed that he was in discussions to direct an episode for the first season, but he wasn’t available to fit the show into his schedule at the time. Maybe the planets will align for McNeill if there is a third season.

Robert Duncan McNeill directing his first episode of Voyager (“Sacred Ground”) in 1996

Diversity for Disco’s director chair

Diversity and female empowerment has been a much-touted element for Star Trek: Discovery. There is also a lot of diversity behind the camera, with a number of women and people of color in the writer’s room and heading up various departments, including costumes and production design. However, as noted by McNeill, white men continue to dominate the industry when it comes to directing. Discovery’s first season had some diversity with directors, with three out of thirteen being non-white men: Hanelle Culpepper, Lee Rose and Olatunde Osunsanmi. For comparison,  two of the directors for the first season of The Orville were not white men.

Executive Producer/Director Olatunde Osunsanmi

A complete list of directors for the second season of Discovery isn’t yet known, but McNeill’s comments indicate producers are hoping to show even more diversity. It is reasonable to assume that Osunsanmi, who is also an executive producer and was recently named as the Toronto on-set producer/director, will helm at least one episode. Hanelle Culpepper is also expected to return.

Other season one directors known to be returning are Doug Aarniokoski and Jonathan Frakes (who will actually direct two episodes). And executive producer and co-creator Alex Kurtzman directed the season premiere. That leaves about half the season to add more diversity behind the camera for Discovery’s second season.

Hanelle Culpepper directing Star Trek: Discovery season one

What about Dawson?

If the producers of Star Trek: Discovery want more diversity behind the camera and someone with a lot of experience, they would do well to consider McNeill’s former Voyager co-star Roxann Dawson. Since leaving Trek she has had even more experience helming TV shows than McNeill. Some of her more recent jobs have been for high-profile and well-regarded series such as FX’s The Americans, HBO’s The Deuce, and Netflix’s House of Cards. Dawson wrapped filming on her first feature film (Breakthrough) in May, although post-production may keep her schedule too busy to return to TV before Discovery wraps season two in November.

Roxann Dawson on set of the PBS series Mercy Street in 2016

Star Trek: Discovery is available exclusively in the USA on CBS All Access. It airs in Canada on Space and streams on CraveTV. It is available on Netflix everywhere else.

Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at TrekMovie.


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’d definitely want to see Roxann Dawson as well. Maybe they can get them for one of the new shows they are developing.

I agree – I thought she was a pretty good director from episodes I’ve seen of hers. Might be hard to get Roxann Dawson right away though. Looks like she just finished shooting her first feature film, so I’m sure she’ll be in post-production for a good while after that.

Directing a movie from inception to delivery to the studio for final polishes a 9 month to 1 year adventure. Plan your time accordingly.

Oh boy, I see this getting real ugly real fast lol.

But yes I would’ve liked to have seen him direct too. I have seen all his Trek work obviously and a lot of his other stuff on other shows. But its not like they don’t want white guys at all because Frakes is directing two this season.

Assuming there is a third season maybe it will happen then. And we know other Trek shows are coming but those are farther down the pike of course, but there will be future opportunity.

And congrats on Roxann Dawson on her first feature! I plan to see it just because she made it. Supporting the Trek family any way I can!

Congrats to Roxann Dawson. I felt that a number of her episodes of Trek were directed really well (Dead Stop was a particular fave of mine). She’s obviously talented but her gender should have nothing to do with it.

Duncan McNeil is wrong when he celebrates fewer (great stuff that he didn’t say “less” lol) opportunities for him (i.e. the white man). Ideally, there should be more opportunities for everyone (it shouldn’t be a zero sum game) and if he’s the best person to direct a particular episode of DSC, he should. By definition, the best person stepping away makes the final product worse. I want to see the best Trek possible, I don’t care whether it’s Duncan McNeil, Dawson or Osunsanmi in the director’s chair.

I agree, this should be how its done, and isn’t this how life should work, the best person for the job regardless of how they look and other things. This is how we’ll have true equality, by getting people based on their talents and abilities instead of other factors.

“Duncan McNeil is wrong when he celebrates fewer (great stuff that he didn’t say “less” lol) opportunities for him (i.e. the white man). Ideally, there should be more opportunities for everyone…”

That’s a very nice and happy thought, but by applying simple 3rd grade math, there are simply going to be less opportunities for the lesser talented levels of white men working in Hollywood. And this is needed, and is a good thing, even though its going to cost some their jobs. As an example, those fictional kind of lovable “white dude” losers from the show Entourage, who based all of their “work” on just paling around to get guy-to-guy connections, would be laughed out of much of Hollywood today. The times are changing.

Let’s please be direct be honest about it and not naively claim that “everyone” will get more opportunities. We are entering a much needed transition period to a more diverse work force in Hollywood, and there will obviously be some losers, especially in the near term. No need to pretend otherwise. And those lesser talents probably should be weeded out.

” Ideally, there should be more opportunities for everyone (it shouldn’t be a zero sum game) and if he’s the best person to direct a particular episode of DSC, he should. By definition, the best person stepping away makes the final product worse.”

He is correct if the goal is diversity over the best for the job. If they are actively searching for more non-caucasian directors, then caucasian directors will not get their shot at the job at all just because of their race. But, if they are just opening up the search radius to actively include ALL applicants… Then yes, there are not fewer opportunities for non-caucasians. Only that the ability to get jobs has become more difficult as there are now additional qualified applicants to get past. Which, in a perfect world, the way things should be anyway.

The old-boy network has been the white old boy network, so opportunities must be offered those who are not part of that network. Many talented POC have not had the opportunities afforded not-so-talented whites who got jobs simply because they were part of the traditional network.

It’s not that hard to understand. Equity includes giving the people who haven’t previously had the chance, a chance if they are good enough to cut it as directors, actors and so on. They are equal, in other words, except in experience.


And it is a total false narrative fairy tale that the white old boy network itself was somehow a fair and balanced labor meritocracy within its “exclusive” club devoid of royalism, elitism, cronyism, nepotism, chauvinism, etc. It “employed” slave labor, which by the way is yet to be entirely eliminated from our planet, precisely because it holds no particular allegiance to a fair merit-based labor system.

I mean how did the absolutely NOT merit-based Weinstein employment practices get exposed and people still hold onto this fantasy that it wasn’t the norm but some sort of aberration in Hollywood’s otherwise absolutely fair and balanced employment practices?

And don’t you love how now these merit-based fantasists are now sticking the word “natural” onto it as some sort of excuse to claim if everybody just leaves everything alone a fair an balanced system will “naturally” descend from the heavens like magic, i.e. there’s no hard work required for a fair system to arise?

” Equity includes giving the people who haven’t previously had the chance, a chance ”

Yeah, I believe that was inferred in my comment.

Yep. Ugly, and fast.

It’s just the unfortunate reality that with a limited number of opportunities, it’s important to prioritize those whose voices should be heard over those whose voices have been heard loud and clear. Someday in our Star Trek future, we’ll have equal and numerous opportunities for everyone. Until then we gotta actively shift the balance so we can get there.

I think we need to go through a time where there are less white men doing things, so it becomes normalized to have a diverse set of people doing said things. Yes, in the short term it may mean the best person is not getting the job, but in the long term it will get is to the point where we don’t need to worry about it anymore.
As it is now, white men (which I am one of) seem to be ‘the best person’ way too often. If we don’t do something to change, it will remain the white boys club forever.

You know things are going down the drain when decisions are made not by who is best for the job but whose skin color or biological sex is agreeable and politically correct. We used to call that racism and sexism. Very sad to see McNeill has been inflicted by this disease as well.

Exactly. Like when white guys are hired for the job because they are white guys which has happened for too long ;)

When’s the last time that happened?


I believe the whole reason for the directing changes in the second season is supposedly because the answer is, last season??!

That’s exactly how I feel about it! If some woman with darker skin color is best for the job, give it to her! If it’s a gay hispanic man, give it to him. If it’s a straight white man, give it to him! But please make it based on talent and not other factors, just to be political correct (God how I hate that term)…

Who has suggested that they’re not giving the job to talented, qualified people?

Maybe O’Neill just isn’t on the A-list. Either way, he’s not hurting for work. There’s a lot of TV being made right now.

Sorry, McNeil


I didn’t say that that wasn’t the case. Just that whole “I’m happy they’re giving more jobs to women, diverse people, etc.” is crap. Give jobs to talented people, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, skin color, age, etc. *That’s* to be desired, nothing else. (And I didn’t say that he doesn’t mean it like that, it’s just not coming across that way to me)

Closed for trolling

Good. Glad to see Dicovery is working to not give an unfair advantage to a slim minority of the human population that has inherited a kiddie booster chair/headstart/cheat sheet in life due to racism and sexism keeping others down and them artificially up. This white (gay) guy loves it! :)

So you, as a consumer, would rather have an inferior product created by people hired for “diversity”, than to have a high-quality product created by people hired for their merits?

Here, have a little list of people we owe for Star Trek:
Cinematography: Kepler, Lumiere, Melies.
Science fiction: Verne, Wells, Gernsback.
Television: Tesla, Edison, Marconi.
Spaceflight: Von Braun, Tsiolkovsky, Oberth.
Star Trek: Roddenberry, Coon, Justman.

What do those people have in common? No, it’s not their skin color, you racist. It’s the fact they were geniuses. On the other hand, diversity hires don’t tend to be geniuses. If they were, they wouldn’t have to rely on diversity quotas to get hired.
Case in point: check S.J. Clarkson’s resume. Does it scream “genius” to you?

There seems to be a general consensus these days that minorities don’t have to prove anything. That they don’t have to show any effort. That their minority status is somehow enough to qualify for anything. But, you know what? Von Braun wasn’t hired because someone said “We need more Germans on our team.” He first had to prove himself, and THEN he was hired – not because of his minority status, but despite it.

Also, why advertise your bedroom habits to random strangers? Are you expecting to get hired, too? :-P

Who says they’re not qualified or the best people for the job?

The extension of your argument: by casting Uhura and Sulu, they took jobs from two better, more qualified, white male actors.

Do you guys even *watch* Star Trek?

Seriously. These comments are so antithetical to the ideals of Trek.

They’re just trying to expand the pool of possible talent to a wider reach than it has in the past (which was mostly white men). That doesn’t mean they are only making these choices based on gender or ethnicity, but to make sure that everyone has a fair shot when it comes to hiring.

– Here, have a little list of people we owe for Star Trek:
Spaceflight: Von Braun,[…], Oberth. –

What do we owe them for? The episode “Patterns of Force”?

Check NASA’s history, and you will see that Von Braun played a major role in the whole space/rocket program. Does that make everything right that he ever did in his life? Of course not. But he was a genius nevertheless…

I don’t deny that he was a genius. I only say if you say von Braun and Star Trek you also say:

Kodos from TOS’ “The Conscience of the King”
Gul Darhe’el from DS9’s “Duet”
and Crell Moset from Voy’s “Nothing Human”

Associating German nationality with Nazism – how very progressive.
Yes, they did work for the Nazis – pursuing an academic career in 1930s/40s Germany meant having no other choice – but above all they were scientists without whom modern spaceflight programs wouldn’t exist. No one ever claimed that tbese people were saints though.
And by the way, speaking of Hermann Oberth, there’s also the much more explicit Trek connection of a ship class being named after him.

It is a nice euphemism calling it working for the Nazis instead of being an actual member of the NSDAP and SS and being responsible for the death of slave labours and bombing civilian targets in benefit of scientific research. But if you are useful for Americans they will clean your files and call you a hero.

Yup, that’s what you Americans did (assuming you are one), so live with it ;-)


While I agree with your education of others in the postwar tolerance of intolerable Nazis, it is an absolute false narrative to seem to indicate that only “Americans” engaged in it. The Russians had their protected Nazi rocket scientists too, for example.

And the Brits, Ruskies, Yanks, etc. all despicably engaged in shielding Nazi intelligence “assets” in order to enhance, so they believed, their own spies and their own intelligence gathering activities both foreign and domestic.

From the story: “As for Discovery, eleven of the thirteen directors for the first season were white men.”

McNeill doesn’t say that he was told he wasn’t hired because of diversity.

And are you kidding me about the “advertising your bedroom habits” stuff? Jesus.

“Case in point: check S.J. Clarkson’s resume. Does it scream “genius” to you?”

To play the Devil’s Advocate here… Maybe she has never had a real opportunity to show her “genius”? Yes, there absolutely has been, and still is, sexism and racism in hiring practices not only in Hollywood but across the board. That said, IMHO, it does not feel right (to me at least) to fight racism with… More racism.

And BTW… I would not call Roddenberry a genius. That would be among the last adjectives I understand would be appropriate for him.

^ This. It’s arguments like this by Boze and other men on the internet that drive me nuts because they believe that hiring for diversity presupposes they somehow weren’t chosen for their merit. The “best person for the job” I guess comes into question for them when they hear talk about diversity casting. But many people can be the best person for the job. People from all backgrounds have the potential to be the best, which is the point you are trying to make with your whole white men contributed great things too, but if that’s how you feel then you shouldn’t have a problem with diversity casting, because it’s doing exactly what you’re looking for: finding the right person for the job. Who also happens to be a woman. Who also happens to be black. Who also happens to be gay. All these groups of people who aren’t straight white men are equally qualified to do the job. So let them have a shot and stop complaining?

You seem to be arguing that white men just naturally produce better TV, because, tautologically, TV to date was run by white men. Logically, you’re falling into the trap of survivorship bias, which Wikipedia describes as “the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias.” You’re intentionally ignoring the fact that Western/European society of the 19th and 20th centuries, with minor exceptions, derived its wealth from colonial exploitation, via slavery and/or later, a racialized underclass, and was, pretty much, screamingly racist. We’ve had *less than a century* of equal rights in the United States, coming after 400+ years of slavery and then 80+ years of ‘separate but equal’ segregation. Do you really think everyone is on the same playing field? And that the playing field is level? Ava Duvernay is a great filmmaker, and so is Jordan Peele, and the fact they are African-American informs their work and makes it unique. Part of the reason their work is notable, is that they are exceptions in Hollywood. I mean, it’s not really that hard to go on YouTube and consume decades’ worth of old TV shows and see that the casts were white, the hosts and guests were white, the anchors and reporters were white, the audiences were white. TV and movie producers and executives are still largely white men, and they have a bias to hire people like themselves. It still isn’t really a club that is welcoming to women or minorities. I work in tech. Tech is filled with white guys from middle-class to upper-class families who had access to good educations (and thus, networking among other elite families); home computers at an early age, and often, access to capital to start companies. This wealth is often inherited and sometimes you can trace it back to the Mayflower and thus, colonialism. I mean, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos were *already rich* before they started their companies, they weren’t scrappy kids from the Bronx. They and many of the Stanford crowd have a hiring bias towards other people like themselves. This is slowly changing. Partly because companies are realizing they have been ignoring markets and leaving money on the table, but also because more diverse teams have been proven to work together better, and produce better products. (Compare to: facial recognition that doesn’t work on dark skin, health apps that don’t include period tracking, etc.) So SJ Clarkson isn’t a genius? She’s *just* a solid bankable choice who can turn in a good product on time? Well, I mean, there are literally hundreds of average white dude directors working in the industry who are just like that. Not everyone is the next Kubrick. *JJ Abrams* is not the next Kubrick. Justin Lin certainly isn’t. *Nobody* who has ever directed a Star Trek film can be said to be the next Kubrick, and it wasn’t their job to be Kubrick, it was to make fun sci-fi adventure movies that brought in big audiences and made money. Why, all of a sudden, does SJ Clarkson have to be exceptional, to be worthy of the job? Surely she was hired because she is good at her job – exactly the point you want? Meritocracy? Doesn’t that counter your argument that ‘Minorities don’t have to prove anything?’ You want SJ Clarkson to prove she is a genius before you would allow her to work on anything, and you wouldn’t ask that of a man. While we’re on that topic: The history of women and minorities in science fiction (and science, for that matter) is one of erasure. Rosalind Franklin, the woman who discovered the structure of DNA (only to have Watson and Crick take her name off the paper), for one, among, sadly, many. (Do your own homework, don’t sealion me.) We forget that it was Mary Shelley that literally invented the modern science fiction novel with Frankenstein in *1818*, inspiring Verne et al much later. And the readership of novels was (and still largely is) female. Without that readership, and fandom, would we even have the modern SF golden age we have today? By contrast, every working minority person I know, in both the arts and in science, has to be TWICE as good as the average white straight dude who gets the benefit of the doubt just for showing up. And they have to work MANY TIMES as hard just to get through the day, in a society that constantly tells them they don’t belong, they don’t have worth, that cuts them down with everything from cruel jokes to harassment to straight-up murder. I… Read more »

>Case in point: check S.J. Clarkson’s resume. Does it scream “genius” to you?

There seems to be a general consensus these days that minorities don’t have to prove anything. <

Huh? Clarkson's directing resume is huge compared to what Nimoy & Shatner's directing credits were prior to Trek 3 & 5. It's also much larger than Frakes's was prior to First Contact.

Absolutely: She’s got a pretty impressive TV resume (and Jessica Jones is pretty cinematic).

Like a lot of other directors, Abrams started in TV too before getting his first big movie.

So did he only get the job because he was a man?


And Nimoy & Shatner being minorities themselves shows what boneheaded nonsense the notion “…these days that minorities don’t have to prove anything.” is in holding Clarkson’s far more extensive resume up against there’s.

Another point to be taken here – DC Fontana couldn’t use her first name and get jobs in the 60s. Her job started as “assistant” although her capabilities were quite a bit more. And I would argue that without Fontanta’s shows and her rewriting of some others that we wouldn’t be taking about this show now. Roddenberry had the beginning idea, but without Coon, Fontana, John AND MARY Black, and Bjo Trimble, there would not have been 50 years of Trek, or even 3.


Exactly, Roddenberry created STAR TREK precisely because the network script vetting process in the 1960s was anything BUT a meritocracy.

Warning for trolling, locking thread

Sexist and proud of it, huh?

There continues to be little diversity at the executive level, so the execs are eager to make the lower-tiered positions be as diverse as possible.

Bingo! Took the words out of my mouth.

Apart from the woman atop National Amusements herself (and she’s the daughter of the owner, not that she doesn’t do a good job), pretty much every executive at Viacom and CBS and every producer of the show itself is a white man. In fact, they just *fired* two show runners, one a woman, one a gay man. (The second gay male show runner fired, in fact.) So let’s have a little virtue signalling, so long as it doesn’t affect us…


“Apart from the woman atop National Amusements herself” – Nachum

There’s something about those words that you chose to string together that paints a picture in my mind that makes me feel guilty about enjoying it as much as I do.

Um, yeah. Unintentional.

Um, we do know why they were fired, right? Being a minority does not give you an excuse to act like an a$$hole to your co-workers.

Mirror Galt,

Everything old is new again. This is the same paint Bennet and his NBC cronies tried to use to paint NBC of the 1960s as “diverse” and forward thinking when they were far from it.

Sadly, there’s some truth to that. Honestly, the whole “wearing diversity as a badge”-thing is making me sick. My hope is that the whole discussion will grow more civilised over time. As it stands though, there seems to be a certain need for formative measures until diversity can function as a baseline instead of a trendy badge.

I think you’re justified in feeling that the conversation around diversity can become exhausting over time. But I also believe that now more than ever, it’s a conversation that needs to be had openly and often. So yes, I too hope the discussion matures down the line. In the meantime we must actively fight the racism and sexism that grips our time.

A well-meaning word of advice to this guy…the “Kevin Smith, poorly dressed nerd, I refuse to groom my beard and I look like I just got out of a dive bar at 2 AM” look is no longer cool in Hollywood. Looking presentable and professional “is in” again, and I would personally credit the Me Too and diversity movements for bringing the professionalism back into the sci-fi/action/comics movies/TV genre.

First impressions are important, even in Hollywood. Men now need to bring their A game to the table or risk not automatically getting the job — for a change! This is a good thing.

PS: He is also grossly exaggerating his point as both Frakes and Kurtzman are directing this season…could it instead be that they simply wanted to distance themselves from Directors from the Voyager series given that that was not exactly the high point for the franchise? So he is kind of whining in a backhanded complement way…actually, The Orville is a better fit for his talents.

I think he was just being honest, and I appreciate it in this era of being scared of telling your opinion otherwise you’d be labelled with some weird labels. Besides he didn’t say anything too insulting, instead he appreciated the fact that there was more diversity going on. First impressions are important I agree, but don’t you believe in the saying “do not judge a book by its cover”? The guy may look like he got out of a dive bar at 2.AM but he could also be a talented genius who gets the job done.

It’s a bit sad that diversity needs to be regulated by decree, so to speak. But at this point, I suppose it’s a “necessary evil” needed in order to get people on board who maybe wouldn’t have had a chance in the past. One step on the road towards a true “colourblind” (and “gender-blind”) policy.

Still, why do I get the feeling that we (and by “we” I basically mean the whole Western World) had already been closer to that point. It’s a gut feeling and I’m probably wrong – McNeill has been in the business for quite a while and he points out a present-day “shift”.
I guess it has something to do with those issues running rampant these days with a lot of noise sorrounding them – a whole lot of loud discord – and it all seems so unnecessary because anyone of a halfway progressive mindset would say: “Yeah, of course this woman/man of this colour or that colur can direct that show – I don’t care as long as he/she does a good job”.
And yet the truth is that you can hardly get rid of issues in the “background” if you don’t kick them to the fore at some point…

It took a hundred fifty years (and counting) of regulatory decree for access to education by people of color (ancestors of slaves, in many cases) because, as it was argued, educating ‘those people’ was a pointless exercise because they were mentally inferior. It’s not a ‘necessary evil’ to acknowledge that wrongs occurred, it’s a necessary step to address the problem for healing and reconciliation to take place. Just pretending racism and sexism is no longer a problem allows those practice it to perpetuate it.

That’s pretty much what I said. My comment was entirely in favour if such a policy, merely pointing out that it’s sad that it needs to exist in the first place.

Seems to me that a problem with hiring to meet diversity quotas as opposed to hiring on talent and qualifications is that it hides any factors back down the line that might be skewing the talent pool in favour of one group. If the talent pool is skewed but the demographic of those hired looks fine, not only will the product suffer but the educational and socio-economic factors that skewed the talent pool in the first place will remain hidden and unchallenged.

Who says there are diversity quotas? And who says the hires aren’t qualified?

Nobody says the hires aren’t qualified, but did you read the article? Mr Robert Duncan McNeill says it himself that he couldn’t direct an episode of Discovery because of diversity quotas. He seems to be okay with it, but there is absolutely a priority to get diverse or females people aboard, which can be considered as a quota even if they don’t openly say it. Here is the excerpt:

“Discovery does a limited number of episodes and a priority there is to get female and diverse directors, so there are fewer opportunities for people like me, which is a great thing.”

That doesn’t mean quotas. Maybe they had other reasons for not hiring him. He also says they offered him a job in season one and he wasn’t available.

“As for Discovery, eleven of the thirteen directors for the first season were white men.”

I think it means exactly what is reads like, and you are too blindsided to see the argument. He may not openly say it, but he definitely insinuates it.

I should probably have said “hiring EXCLUSIVELY on talent and qualifications.

He was offered a directing job for a first-season ep and had to turn it down.

I think Hollywood sees itself as being so progressive (and in some cases it is) but if the #metoo movement has proven anything, it demonstrates that it needs to catch up with the rest of N. American society with regards to equality and harassment. As Patrick Stewart said a few months back, sadly we all know what the term “casting couch” means, so if ST Discovery wants to help nudge along equality when it comes to Directors, then I am okay with it. I know some will say PC is out of control BUT IMHO, that is a cop out and a term that is often times inappropriately used – and for SOME, this is just such a case. One thing I will point out to us smug males here in N. America, white men only make up about 12-14 percent of the world’s population. For a show that is supposed to depict the human race in an idealized future, I think they are trying to do a good job both in front of and now behind, the camera.

LMAO Hollywood catch up with the rest of North America? Are you talking about Canada? The men in America are often as bad as those in Hollywood. That’s literally the point of the me too movement, to expose disgusting men everywhere, not just Hollywood. Men are finally on notice: you can’t be a pig and expect to get away with it anymore. Not just Hollywood but everywhere.

‘Diversity’ is not some boogeyman coming after white men. It’s just breaking up the ol’ boys club that has propped itself up at the expense of others. It’s allowing talented individuals to have a chance, instead of white men hiring white men either because of blatant racism or sexism or just because it’s all they know and they don’t want to risk changing things. This change may seem imbalanced at first, but once more non-white or non-male people have their chance to establish themselves, then ‘forced diversification’ will become unnecessary and the playing field will be level.

While I agree that opportunity must be given, I also think that many people are using the “forced diversification” excuse to give themselves better status in life regardless of their talent and just because they belong to a certain group. I just don’t want opportunists to rise up from this and take the jobs of people that deserve it more. Somehow these days we can’t criticize them, but women and people from different races can also be these opportunists, so I still say we need to vex people effectively before hiring them for jobs before looking at their gender or race. What am I trying to say is that untalented people shouldn’t use these modern movements to put themselves into higher position just because they are gaining newfound power.

Why do you have this fear that other people “deserve” it more?? This is the part of these so-called pro-diversity arguments that doesn’t add up. Stop presupposing that diversity casting will take jobs from the most-deserved. You know how many people in history got the job not because they earned it? Like half of the entire current US administration? It’s this assumption and fear that’s undermining your argument. There’s nothing to suggest that diversity casting will keep the “right people” out of the job. Don’t propagate that myth.

The point is that if they’re being hired for reasons of diversity, they’re not necessarily being hired because they’re the best people for the job. They may well be, but that’s incidental. Having said that, as you say, there are probably often other biases in play when hiring the non-diversity candidate… someone you play golf with for instance.

The point is that (a lot of the time) they’ve been hired for reasons of [non-diversity], they’re not necessarily being hired because they’re the best people for the job. See how this works now?

Well done Ashley

Perfectly stated. I wish people would get this.

White men have created an unfair system. It’s now becoming unfair against them to compensate.
And eye for an eye, as it were. Soon we’ll all be equally blind.

By the way, if true, this happens to be very illegal.

The show is filmed in Canada. Not the backward United States with the racist in the White House who was put there by racists. Canada’s own Prime Minister’s cabinet of ministers is gender and racially diverse. (And this would not be illegal in the US anyways, ever hear of affirmative action?) I know education is not the US’s strong suit but Canada, as you might it know, is your neighbour to the north… and you must have heard about affirmative action? With 11 out of 13 directors for Discovery season 1 being white men, how is giving jobs to people who are not white men “discrimination?” Don’t white men get enough unfair advantages given to them like cheat sheets and kiddie booster chairs in life? (White gay guys speaking here) And when white men stop getting even a little preferential special treatment they feel entitled to they then cry “discrimination!” Again, 11 out of 13 directors in season one were white men. Newsflash: 11 out of 13 humans are not white men… time to stop the discrimination against women and people of colour :)

Few Americans know that Canada has an official government policy of not just English French bilingualism but also the Federal government adopted “official multiculturalism” as a policy back when Justin Trudeau’s father Pierre was the Prime Minister. Unlike the so-called “melting pot” that came before it. Thirty years later, Toronto is probably the most multicultural city in the world, surprisingly even more so than NYC – and whites with a European ancestry now are a minority in the city. I know the shows creators are there because of the cost advantages but having the show in Toronto also seems somehow appropriate.

Closed for trolling

I think Robert Duncan McNeill spoke clearly and compellingly. I hope he and Roxann Dawson will find the time to return to direct Trek. (Maybe LeVar Burton, but those two have been more prolific as directors.) When it comes to a commitment to diversity, many others have already said what needs to be said. Many people’s understanding of equality does not include taking into account that folks in jobs like this (and in most jobs) don’t just get them because of some objective meter for talent. They get jobs because of who they know. Just like most of us Trekkies want to see former Trek directors direct Discovery. why? Because they are members of our circle, our family. It’s subjective.

But if you want to create opportunity for more people you have to chose to change the paradigm. There are a plenty of talented, brilliant artists who seldom get the chance to shine because people like them were never thought of as “viable” candidates. And if you are never in the room when the decisions are made, you can never open those doors. That’s changing. In the long run, this will make the system more competitive in so many ways. But remember, these directors are the creame of the crop; they’re all extraordinary artists and each will bring something fresh to the table.

If you want something different, then do something different.

“so there are fewer opportunities for people like me, which is a great thing….”

Listen to how brainwashed that sounds.

People are so busy patting themselves on the back for being progressive when really racism and sexism are making a comeback. The only thing that has changed is the target. The US is roughly 75-80% white and 50% male afterall… is hiring a white male that far out of the question?

They should hire the best person for the job, regardless of their background.

Tay Dervis,

Every US census that I’ve looked at since my birth says women outnumber men. Where are you getting this 50% male US figure?

Omg, really?

I said roughly, but looking it up it’s a 51/49 split. Not a significant difference.

Tay Dervis,

Re: Not a significant difference.

Significant enough to show that affirmative action for white minority males over white majority females has NEVER gone away and that the sexism that you assert is making a comeback, never left to allow such a thing to come to pass as you claimed.

Lol ok pal, thanks for chiming in. Apparently two wrongs make a right.

Tay Dervis

Re: two wrongs make a right.

I’m not sure that I catch your drift? Are you saying that it is somehow wrong that women who where denied jobs because of the unfair ongoing affirmative action of hiring the propertied white male minority disproportionately for centuries have the right to sue for violation of their civil right under the equal protection clause of the US constitution? Or is it that you just object to the fact that they’ll settle out of court for better NDA bound contracts?

I’m positive you don’t catch my drift. I’d simply prefer to see the end of racial/sexual discrimination…. as opposed to just reversing the flow of it. This “sins of the father” mentality is not how to solve problems.

Agree or disagree fine whatever… All I’m saying is sex/race shouldn’t matter. Why are you so defensive over that? (rhetorical question)

There is only one wrong here, racial and sexual discrimination. The steps taken to correct the situation is ‘a right’. Are we clear on that?


Re: There is only one wrong here

Agreed. And I am not even sure people who keep citing “two wrongs don’t make a right” even have a clue what nonsense that supposed rationale is.

Clearly, denying farmers their property rights is a “wrong” as wrong as denying artists their copyrights. Ergo, slavery shouldn’t have been ended because it wrongly denied plantation owners their property rights and everybody knows: two wrongs don’t make a right.

Exactly. It shouldn’t be part of the decision at all.

The best willing and able director should get the job period, no matter what they’re background may be. But that’s not what is happening.

How about getting the best person for the job, regardless of gender, skin color, religion or sexual orientation?

Amen! (I’ll probably get trolled for saying THAT.)

I think that’s what they are doing. There is nothing wrong with casting a wider net to find the best candidate.

There’s also nothing wrong with hiring a white male, if he’s the best candidate.

Frakes is directing two episodes, Kurtzman 1, if you read the article. There are plenty of white men still directing episodes in television.

just curious if anyone asked him if he’s part of, or interested in the development of the Starfleet Academy series, since he had worked with those producers, as a producer, on Chuck?

And additional he was introduced to Star Trek in an episode, which could regarded as something like a “Starfleet Academy” pilot.

Everyone relax: plenty of white men still directing big films and tv shows, plenty of white guys getting lead roles.

Case in point, most of the top movies so far in 2018 all star white men and are directed by white men, including 7 of the Top 10 domestic films:

Infinity Gauntlet (Russo Brothers)
Incredibles (Brad Bird)
Deadpool 2 (David Leitch)
Solo (Ron Howard)
A Quiet Place (John Krasinski)
Ready Player One (Stephen Spielberg)
Peter Rabbit (Will Gluck)
Oceans 8 (Gary Ross)

But increased focus on diversity has meant 2 of them are directed by non white men:

Black Panther (Ryan Coogler)
Jurassic Park (JA Batona)

And you’d be hard pressed to claim directors like Coogler, Bayona, and Duvarnay are only getting opportunities because of their race: they are all extremely talented.


Last I checked OCEANS 8 may feature male actors but women are the stars.

And a white male director.

I hope you’re not implying that it being a female-led film is somehow a problem, or means that there are less roles for men, or that it’s “diversity gone mad” because once again: the only top 10 domestic film to have a female lead/cast.

If it was just a clarification that’s fair but my focus on that list was the directors.

I often hear people say “just get the best talent!” But the truth is if minorities and women are not given opportunities to direct and act, how are they ever going to prove their talent?

“I often hear people say “just get the best talent!” But the truth is if minorities and women are not given opportunities to direct and act, how are they ever going to prove their talent?”

Exactly. If there isn’t a deliberate effort to widen the talent pool, nothing will change. Television is making great strides, Hollywood still has a long way go.

Hmmm… men directed the top 10 best films of the year? Step it up ladies

So, 12 episodes about? 6 ethnicities, one each sex? Is that not logical?

I vote for McNeill for the white male. Sorry Frakes.

Maybe next season they’ll swap Frakes out with McNeill. Or they could do like a Trek directors reunion and have a different director from Trek’s past in the seat every episode

“But, to answer your question, Discovery does a limited number of episodes and a priority there is to get female and diverse directors, so there are fewer opportunities for people like me, which is a great thing.”

Utterly, utterly ridiculous. The fact that he keeps trying to delude us (and himself) that this is “a great thing” is so sad. We’ve gone from one extreme to the other, the world we live in the last few years, sadly.

How about hiring with a priority for TALENT, not gender, race, sexuality. Pick the best person for the job, if they’re a straight white male, great. If they’re a blue, gay female, great. Just don’t swap one case of casual sexism/discrimination for another.

I wish people like him would have the balls to argue about meritocracy being the first priority when hiring staff, not gender, but unfortunately it would be a PR disaster thanks to some easily outraged people in 2017/2018.

Unfortunately, I think many people are being dishonest about these issues. Those in the public eye doubly so, since they see the consequences of speaking against the status quo. Let me just say this, nothing forced has good results in the end. I think people should have dealt with these in a more polite and patient manner, instead of just taking up arms over it. Change takes time and through education instead of scorched earth tactics.

Yes. And since when did the concepts of, “color and gender blindness” become abhorrent ideas?? Only in today’s “enlightened and progressive” society. It’s truly doublethink. Smh.

The problem with this idea is that there was no color and gender blindness before at all, you had token people who weren’t white or male, but that was the exception, it was in reality an all white men’s club.

Yeah the ideal would not ‘require’ diversity, but we have to start correcting the problem that exists before we can reach equilibrium.

This is like the asshole who respond to Black Lives Matter with All Lives Matter, as if that wasn’t already understood. Looking to hire more women and minorities does not preclude getting the best for the job, it just means you have more candidates to look through than the normal white men.

Ugh, exhausting to see the same wrong idea repeated again and again on this article. See other comments. There’s a fallacy in your thinking. And I’m positive that you’re one of the easily outraged people you speak of, given how upset this completely inconsequential bit of casting news has made you.

If the dude is capable, and they refuse to hire him because they only want to hire women.. that’s discrimination. You get the best person for the job, and If that’s not McNeill, then tell him that and hire the women that are objectively better. This quota thing is BS.

And understand it’s BS because they have hired male directors.

You said if McNeill is “capable.” That’s a really low bar to set for the director of your series. Do you want a capable director? Or do you want an excellent director? Well, you have two excellent directors to choose from, white dude and not white dude. Who do you hire? Seems like you’ve already made up your mind about who should be given the job. But you’re right: anyone can be excellent at the job. The producers are hiring them. So what are you carping about?

I’m not carping.. I honestly don’t care who they hire on this mediocre show….. I’m saying it sounds like they’re not out to get ‘great directors’.. they’re out for box checking a demographic box so they don’t miss out on being woke or whatever the hell that is.

Guys, he’s making an excuse. As the article points out, 10 out of 13 DISCO episodes last season were directed by white males. It also mentions several episodes slated to be directed by white males this season. All of the comments about quotas (which even he does not allege) or hiring someone other than “the best person for the job” lack foundation (at least if you assume that “best person” is likely to be a white male). The truth is simply that, at least for this season, DISCO has tapped directors that are not him. Rather than simply acknowledge that, he suggested a non-performance-based rationale for why that might be the case. And rather than being zapped as anti-feminist or anti-minority, he put in a good word for diversity hiring. None of that means that he was passed over for diversity reasons. If he were better than Jonathan Frakes (or others actually tapped for the job), he’d be in the director’s chair.

I don’t agree, I think you are deluding yourself if you really think this quota thing doesn’t exists (do you think they would really come out and spell it out?) I don’t think Robert Duncan McNeill is the kind of guy who resorts to making excuses, I prefer to think what he says is true. Have we really come to the age where people can’t say what’s on their mind because of the fear of being labelled as something they are not? Simply because of the fact that they are observing, thinking and analyzing instead of blindly following a bandwagon that is starting to disregard basic human rights in the guise of social activism.

Calm down what kind of reaction is this to what bluespark said? Why does this quota myth bother you so much? All this hubbub over nothing. Why don’t you wait and see the result of all this so-called diversity casting before you start decrying the end of Hollywood and society as we know it? This is so ridiculous.

I am just saying, scorched earth tactics will not work, it will not have the desired effect. I am all for diversity and equality but this must not be as part of an “agenda” or a “movement”. This must be a natural part of life, and to do this we must use education. We must teach the kids from a small age that this is the normal way that things need to be done. Movements and agendas pass, education doesn’t, it stays with you for the rest of your life. I can understand everyone wants their words heard, but equality comes with inclusivity not exclusivity. Everyone needs to come together and try to understand each other regardless of their political, gender or racial backgrounds, only then can we talk about full equality. This is not about a group taking over at the expense of other, this needs to be about full equality. This is why the quota myth bothers me, because it shouldn’t exist, and it doesn’t lead to equality in my opinion.

I have middle-eastern parents and am gay. I guess I might qualify for more stuff because of this sort of incentive, I just worry people are being picked – not because of their ability to tell good stories, direct characters, film, pace, watch continuity, design… instead, they’re picked for reasons which ultimately I feel, patronize. I couldn’t give two figs for Robert directing or not directing but where I feel Discovery has dropped the ball is not successfully fitting into that rich 50 year tapestry – by it’s selective visual reboot. I begrudge it’s designers and exec for trying to reinvent the wheel and realising how laboured their efforts for diversity are – I have even less respect for the show… and that’s coming from a creative, ‘diverse’ guy that is in the arts. Discovery makes my blood boil more and more.

Well said

I agree with the Disco criticism portions of your argument, not so much the worry about people getting picked without being qualified. Good thing that’s not gonna be an issue, cuz why would the producers hire unqualified people? And if you think about it, if you have problems with the creative direction of season one, that includes a lot of white male directors who definitely weren’t judged based on anything but their competence as directors. So like, yeah, Discovery needs to improve from season one. I don’t see how hiring diverse directors makes that less likely to happen.


Re: …why would the producers hire unqualified people?

Because, for the most part, the whole recent MeToo movement has exposed for all to see that the whole notion that the Hollywood based entertainment industry since the invention of the motion picture was ever largely, for the most part of its history, a “meritocracy” as a pure fairytale as fictitious as the stories being projected on its screens? And people with meritorious talent and qualifications got their stories made in spite of it and NOT because of it.


I am looking forward to Season 2. It is about time to have Women Directors and I agree with Mr. McNeill’s opinion. I would love to see both Roxann Dawson and Robert Duncan McNeill direct an episode of Discovery.

This story was written in a way to rile up the trolls.

Sadly most of them aren’t just out for lulz but actually believe they have a point

There’s no trolling here. Forced diversity is not a good thing. Natural diversity absolutely is, but there’s nothing natural about only hiring women directors. It’s discrimination, just swung back the other way.

I agree, and I should say forced anything is not a good thing, if you force something on anyone, whether it is good or bad, there is bound to be resistance to it. This kind of thing needs to happen in the long run, through education, through understanding, through empathy and without furthering the division and separatism that is already prevalent.


I would advise you to learn from history and read up on Neville Chamberlain where you would learn that you can’t put a halt to the atrocities of evil by appeasing it.

To wit, I paraphrase “I would say forced anything is not a good thing. if you force something on any Nazi, whether it is good or bad, there is bound to be resistance to it. The cessation of Nazi atrocities needs to happen in the long run, through education, through understanding, through empathy and without furthering the division and separatism that is already prevalent in the Nazi philosophy.”

Yeah, but your mistake is thinking that everyone that doesn’t think one way is a Nazi. Look, I am not even American and I hate your President, but you can’t automatically label people as Nazis. It is not evil to try to understand another person, try to reach an empathy with them. It is the easier path to take when you just label someone as evil and nazi and be done with it. What is harder is to understand and try to emphatize with these people. While I don’t agree with many of the things currently going on in the world, I try to understand them before reaching a conclusion. I understand, you want to nip people like Trump in the bud before they contaminate the system with more of their way of thinking, but this is not gonna happen through their own methods. It is important to analyze and understand all points of view before reaching a judgement. This is a fight that will not be won by extremism, but by passion and caring. I have a feeling Anthony will close this now that Nazis are mentioned :))


That was NOT the point of my example, i.e. everybody’s a Nazi. However, I am an old American that was born and raised in its South under its very active “separate but equal” laws at the time, and I can assure you that this particular breed of racism and sexism is as evil and deadly (Perhaps not in its absolute efficient numbers but as a kin philosophy in which the rounding up and killing of those outside its ranks are routinely espoused and such routine killings did and still occur.) as that practiced by the Nazis.

There’s no “understanding” or appeasing it away.

Look, I am just looking at this from an outside perspective, but what you are suggesting is extremism and extremism in both cases is not gonna unite a nation and you’ll continue living separate lives. I am not condoning racism, I am just trying to see the common way out of this. Now, perhaps if I visited and lived in the areas you mentioned I might have a different opinion on it, but I don’t want to lose complete hope in the goodness of people. Perhaps its just a matter of experience, but as a philosophy I am opposed to extremisms of all kind. Also don’t you believe positivist attitudes can also be extremist? and that this is not necessarily good all of the time. What I am trying to say is I don’t want to see one form of extremism replaced by another form of it.


Idealism is fine. But I object to the fact that it is being used to perpetuate a false narrative fairytale that there ever existed a fair and balanced meritocracy to “return” to. The meritocracy that you are proposing is revolutionary much as the American Revolution itself was and there was and isn’t any “nice” way to implement such without upheaval with its opportunities for wrong things to happen.

As long as slave labor was accepted, and by the way it has as yet to be eliminated from our planet, there was and IS no fair and balanced meritocracy based labor market, and it is going to take far more than waving Merlin’s magical wand to give birth to one.

I agree about the fact that the existing meritocracy was based on everything but merit, but I think as long as a human element is involved in hiring for jobs, this sort of problem will exist. I mean women will consider hiring women first, people from different backgrounds and colours will want to hire people from their own culture, unless they somehow completely eliminate the human factor from the hiring practices then there will never be a truly “real” meritocracy.


Please cite an example from mankind’s long history of righting wrongs where nothing “wrong” happened on the course to correction?

There’s no trolling here. Forced diversity is not a good thing. Natural diversity absolutely is, but there’s nothing natural about only hiring women directors. It’s discrimination, just swung back the other way.

You claim you aren’t trolling, but then base your arguments on strawman claims that aren’t true. Where exactly in the article does it say that they are ONLY hiring women directors? From my perspective you are not only a troll, but a racist and bigoted one at that, making no effort to understand the subtle nuances at play in correcting a serious problem in our society today.

…. Tick tock goes the clock as we see this forced diversity continue its go.

Hiring Manager interviewing Robert McNeill “So, I see you used to work as an actor on Star Trek Voyager. You have experience in both producing and Directing. That is all awesome information based on your resume I’d say you are a perfect fit! One second, I have phone call” -Hiring manager picks up call nods his head a few times while talking and then hangs up. “Well, that was my boss and he said we are only hiring minorities and women. Sorry bud, but just because you are good know the source material and can probably create something fans really like we just can’t hire you, cus your a white male.”

…. Stop goes the clock as the left just found it wasn’t telling the time as they like it.

Later that day:

Hiring manager: Wow, I had no idea you used to act, too, in addition to your extensive experience as a media executive and producer. And you’ve won an Emmy! You even directed two episodes of Star Trek Voyager. This is exactly what we’re looking for, and based on your qualifications, I’d say you’re hired!

Nancy Malone: That’s wonderful. Happy to hear it, ma’am. Voyager was a wonderful experience and I’m looking forward to making more Trek.

HM: You know it’s crazy, there was a guy in here earlier who I almost hired on the spot, but I’m glad I looked a little deeper in my search before I made a decision. You’re clearly the right person for the job.

You see how it works?? One white male gets turned away, another equally competent person steps up. Enough with this “diversity casting is the apocalypse” nonsense. It’s garbage.

Except that’s not how things are going. The door is literally being shut in white males faces. It’s cutting off (at least) half of your potential hires for the sake of “diversity”. The right person isn’t conclusively being picked for the job, if they were, then EVERYONE would be considered.

Directors are being hired based on their gender, and skin colour first, talent second. That isn’t right. It’s 100% discrimination.

I’m not saying the right person for the job can’t be female. Of course it can. But hire on suitability and talent first. If that means hiring a straight white male, great. If it means hiring a black, gay female, great. Just don’t forcibly cut off a big chunk of your potential workforce because they’re white. Or because they’re male.

That sort of thing happened in reverse a few decades ago, and how did that turn out?

Happy to hear this! Who knows what incredible directors are waiting to be tapped to create the best Trek this team can make? Maybe next season McNeill can snag a spot. Now I’m wondering who on the Disco cast will be the first to take the director’s seat…

All I care about are the quality of the stories.
If they keep producing quality episodes, Then, I don’t care who the directors are.



He is happy to lose out on a job because of his gender and color? Is he really normalizing sexism and racism????? Seems like it to me. I don’t care who directs my Star Trek. But this guys a little crazy. Directors should be hired on merit alone. Not race or gender. Damn just let John Frakes direct the whole show. Hes the best Star Trek director there is!

He has to say he is “happy” or else be banned from Hollywood altogether. This is really a new low. At least in the past a person could call out racism and sexism for what it is – but now you have to approve of it when its done to you so that you can have any hope of work in the future. It’s collaboration in the worst sense.

That being said, I see that there are “plenty” of white men directing these episodes – but why is “plenty” even an issue? The question shouldn’t be how many whites, blacks, latinos, men, women, etc. are directing – the question is whether the most competent people are directing. Reverse racism and reverse sexism is still racism and sexism.

See people don’t seem to realize they are actually doing the exact same thing as they are fighting against, or they don’t want to realize. I believe this is not an issue of equality, I think I realize now that people don’t actually want equality. Everyone wants to look after themselves and this results in the separatism currently seen in the world.

I’m not worried about this. Since Kurtzman plans on having more Trek-related shows produced, I can see RDM directed a ‘Trek show in the near-future. But I AM surprised that RD hasn’t been slated to direct an STD episode by now.

So basically, what he is saying is that the people who make these decisions are racist and misandrist. They discriminate against him not because of his qualifications, but because of the color of his skin and his gender. That’s about as anti-Star Trek as it gets.

Exactly, and people consider this as part of Trek. It isn’t. Remember in Trek we had the prime directive, it basically said that you shouldn’t influence or force your culture on other species. Isn’t doing “forced diversity” the same thing. Basically you are trying to force your idea on to others whether they want it or not. Star Trek had a optimistic and hopeful future, where people lived together as one because they learned how to live together and didn’t totally dismiss different sides because they didn’t think like them. It realized that only through empathy, understanding and conversation can problems be solved, not by forcing anything on one another whether it was necessary or not. The moment we stop labeling people as one thing or another because they are thinking differently from you is the moment we will be closer to the enlightened future of Trek.

More important–it really looks bad for the group you are trying to help. If you are a woman, or a person of color, and you get a directing job, or any job, due to your race and gender, then people will think that’s the only reason you got the job. They are automatically going to assume that you are less qualified and were given this hand out.

What does that do for people who actually ARE qualified? I feel the same way about affirmative action. Why would I go to a doctor that I feel only got into his med school because of race or gender? I want a good doctor, not a diverse one.

I believe in equality of OPPORTUNITY, not equality of RESULT.

Wow a lot of racist post here.

So disappointing. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, so long as it’s white and male.

Yeah it’s disgusting. No wonder not much people post here. Just the same old haters over and over.

Don’t you mean “So long as it’s not white or male?” That is the topic here. Or do you think what is being done is a great thing? That a man should be judged not by what he can do but by what he looks like and identifies as.

Is it racist? I’m pretty sure we are calling out Racism and Discrimination based on both Skin Color and Gender. So, if we call it out in defense of a white male we are racists?

Nothing can compare to the shittiness of STD.

They don’t want Roxann Dawson. Why? Because she actually knows Star Trek, and she has the clout to say no to Kurtzman and co. Anyone actually wonder why they get Gilmore Girls writers to write for them? Because they don’t have the sci-fi street cred, and it doesn’t matter if they butcher the script.

Kevin should use the Cosmic Key to visit the Sorceress so she can zap him back in shape. 2 points to whoever gets the reference


But if the Sorceress does that wouldn’t that make Kevin one of the MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE?

+2. You have the power!

Gotta say I love that Star Trek the production is actively trying to make the world more like the one we see in the show. I also admire McNeill’s attitude. It’s not like being a white man is a disadvantage in the industry; just not as big an advantage as it used to be, and if it means more diverse voices are heard then everyone’s a winner.

I can’t believe there are so many people that don’t understand this. Y’all keep assuming there’s already an even playing field and that this just tips the scale in favor of diversity, and that the ‘poor white males’ that keep getting picked on are losing out. But the scale has already been tipped in favor of white males for a long long time, and forcing diversity is only an attempt to level things. YES, in a perfect world, they’d be hiring based on talent alone, but that’s not the world we live in right now. Including more diverse hires may eventually lead us to that world though. And it’s not as if everyone that’s been hired before was perfect for the job, sometimes they were HIRED BECAUSE OF THEIR SKIN COLOR OR GENDER, BECAUSE THEY WERE WHITE AND MALE. These guys have connections and those connections like hiring their own. This isn’t a hard concept to understand, but then I think quite a lot of you do understand this, and just think that white men are obviously the best choice anyway. Even if that’s your mindset, consider this… When white men aren’t automatically being picked because they’re white men, and there is more competition in the hiring process, white men are going to try harder to impress and produce better content. Theoretically, we win because we’re getting the best out of everyone.

You can’t level a scale by flipping it over. I’m sorry but becoming a Racist against whites and sexist against males does not fix the situation. It creates an entirely new problem and when the general populous is mostly White and Male eventually they go from ignoring/accepting to taking back what was once theirs again. I don’t think you will like what happens when that occurs. No one likes to be discriminated against. Not One Person.