With award season behind us, many see Bong Joon Ho’s “Parasite” Best Picture victory as the biggest upset in the history of the Academy Awards. Some point to the movie’s victory as a much-needed step towards diversity for the Oscars. But upon further analysis, the idea that this represents progress toward diversity seems misplaced.

According to the Los Angeles Times, in 2013, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, or the “academy” — the deciding body of both nominees and winners of the Oscars — was 69 percent male and 82 percent white, with a median age of 49. So, it comes as no surprise that people called for more diversity in the Oscars following 2015's lineup that featured no non-white actors. And this year, despite “Parasite” and Bong Joon Ho’s winning multiple categories, the diversity outcome was not much different.

Eight of the nine films nominated for Best Picture were about white people, six of which were about white men. This comes despite the academy’s pledge to be more diverse. One op-ed in the New York Times described the list of nominees as “a body’s allergic reaction to its own efforts at rehabilitation.” Some felt that there were plenty of non-white films and actors that were deserving of a nomination yet passed over, such as Awkwafina in “The Farewell” and Jennifer Lopez in “Hustlers.” All of which begs the question: How did “Parasite” win when the odds were so stacked against it?

On the surface, “Parasite” is a foreign film. It takes place in Korea, has an entirely Korean cast, and is spoken entirely in Korean. However, there is nothing uniquely foreign about the story — a criticism and satire of class struggle. Lower-class plight is translatable in any country, not least the United States.

“The Farewell” on the other hand, while more American in some major respects, is far less relatable in its central themes. Despite part of “The Farewell” taking place in America and being partly spoken in English, the story highlights an aspect of Chinese culture that is less relatable to an American audience. In the film, the family struggles with the emotional burden of preventing their beloved grandmother from finding out she has a potentially fatal cancer, for fear that letting her find out would be too much of an emotional burden. The respect and reverence of elders is an important aspect of Chinese culture, but is less emphasized in America. This cultural barrier makes it hard for a white audience, and the academy, to sympathize with the characters in “The Farewell”.

The story of “Parasite” would not look drastically different if told from an American perspective; the same could not be said for “The Farewell.” Therefore, while “Parasite” is a foreign film, it is an “acceptable” form of a foreign film for white audiences.

As the academy parades “Parasite” around as its token diversity film, I cannot help but be reminded of Harvard’s superficial attempts to listen to student’s discontent, especially in regards to diversity and inclusion on campus.

Students have been calling for an ethnic studies program for at least 48 years. And only this past June has the administration finally promised to begin taking steps towards developing the concentration by looking for potential faculty. But, despite its verbal commitment, the University has denied tenure to professors in the field, including associate professor Lorgia García Peña in November. A pattern begins to emerge when we look at Harvard’s treatment of students’ pleas for a multicultural center; for almost a half-century, students have submitted proposals and plans for a multicultural center, only to be repeatedly denied. In this regard, the administration’s commitment to diversity and inclusion seems a lot like the academy selecting nominees — mostly talk.

But last month, a student movement did gain some traction among the faculty and administration; in a somewhat surprising move, the faculty voted 179-20 in favor of divestment. Following the faculty vote, University President Lawrence S. Bacow said he will raise the vote with the Harvard Corporation, the University’s highest governing body, for consideration. I appreciate that a movement that has garnered such deep student support is being given the serious consideration it deserves. But, I am disappointed that other student movements, like calls for ethnic studies and a multicultural center, which have significantly more tenable goals, are not given the same serious consideration.

The Harvard faculty is 74 percent white. President Bacow seems to have taken this faculty vote — a vote of mostly white people — into consideration. And while I agree that the stakes of these movements are different, with climate change presenting a threat to survival, it cannot be understated that the movement for ethnic studies and a multicultural center is a nearly five-decade-long cause.

While both are student movements, the difference is how applicable they are to white people. Ethnic studies is not immediately and obviously beneficial to white people and, therefore, is not given the consideration it deserves. In the language of film, it doesn’t translate. Climate change, however, does.

If Harvard — and the academy — want to promote inclusion, they have to think beyond their own sensibilities. Students — and artists — of color should not have to translate.

Joshua M. Conde ’22, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Government concentrator in Currier House.