This week I have looked at two internship positions at two well known London theatres. I do not qualify for one of these because i do not live in a certain area of London and I do not qualify for the other because I am not on the dole.
Lets start with the first one. This was for a well known (and internationally renowned) theatre. It was for a well known series of artistic programmes they run for creatives from all over the world. I could only apply for this job if I lived in the borough in which the theatre was based.
In relation to the second theatre, this paid internship was only applicable for me to apply for if I was on jobseeker's allowance as part of some sort of "arts jobs" programme. As someone who already has experience in working in theatres and wishes to learn more this is a bit of a kick in the teeth.
I understand the reasons for both of the above. At the end of the day it is about funding. One of the jobs will be through the apprenticeship scheme of the local council, and the other is from some sort of government initiative to get unemployed people some well needed experience. Both jobs were listed as 10-16k pro rata, which is decent for an internship.
However... (without becoming "daily mail" about it).... both jobs discriminate against sections of society. One discriminates against people who do not live within a mile of the theatre and the other against people who have a job, and in my opinion both are wrong to do so.
The fact that the theatre which requires you to live in its local borough is an internationally recognised theatre (complete with broadway transfers) seems hypocritical to me. Its not a case of me being annoyed I cant apply for this (Its not an area I'm interested in), Its more a case of the guidelines to get funding. I guess alot of people would see it as positive discrimination, but at the end of the day any sort of discrimination based on where someone comes from or lives is, in my eyes, completely wrong.
As for the other position which is only open to those on the dole.... I find it absolutely incredible that this job could quite possibly go to someone who is simply claiming jobseekers as they are waiting for a job in the arts to crop up (as insinuated by the name of the scheme that is supporting this job). Without sounding right wing, in my opinion, if you cant get a job that you want or are qualified for, you should still work. This may be a minimum wage job in something completely unrelated.... but the fact that someone is on jobseekers, or perhaps can afford to not work in a job they don't want to, should have no bearing on whether they should qualify for the job.
I guess both of these theatres have to add these stipulations so they can keep the internships running by accessing funding they possibly once received from different sources. But to disqualify genuine candidates from a job because of where they live or the fact that they are currently in paid work is in my opinion discriminatory and morally corrupt. The organisations involved are arguably putting two applicants out of a career in the arts because of these reasons. To someone who believes that the arts is an all-inclusive sector that genuinely can change opinions and influence the bigger picture, this is a blow. In a way I find it slightly hypocritical of the ethos of producing theatres.
I don't know the ins and outs of these decisions, and I suppose I never will. But in a way I am disappointed that two of London's big theaters, known for producing work from around the world and for pushing boundaries, would allow themselves to be so constrained by other restrictions.
