My first three reactions to this are:
1. This is an immense change in what the Academy sees as its mission.
2. Unlike other recent AMPAS decisions, this doesn't look hasty.
3. It's good they have 2 yrs to work out the kinks, because...there are issues. https://variety.com/2020/film/news/oscars-inclusion-standards-best-picture-diversity-1234762727/

One issue is that as written, it will be easier for studio movies to meet these standards than for indies. Some paid internships plus a diverse marketing dept., and a studio movie is covered. Indies may have to meet a higher standard that involves casting/content. >

There are also legal issues with asking about someone's sexual orientation/identity or disability status in the hiring process. And the moment when AMPAS will be forced to say whether Jews count or not could be ugly enough to blow this all up. >

The net result could be that these standards, by 2024, are relaxed JUST enough so that, guess what, basically every movie can meet them. And all that leaves out the question of how the industry will react to AMPAS essentially deciding that it is now a kind of regulatory agency. >

All that said, I think it will be hard to argue that these standards are excessively rigorous or steep, especially with rules that state that a movie only has to meet parts of 2 out of 4 standards to qualify. I will be curious to see how this unfolds. x

Day-after thought: The more I look at these new AMPAS rules, the more I think their only effect, as written, is to favor large companies. Studio filmmakers will literally not have to do a thing to meet these standards; the studio can take care of all of it via standards C and D.>

Internships paid for by the studio plus gay people and women in the marketing dept. and the job is done. It's indie moviemakers who will have to meet much more rigorous standards of casting and or production staffing if they want to guarantee eligibility. >

That isn't just an unanticipated bad side effect of these new rules; as far as I can tell, it will be the ONLY effect. And a diversity standard that is easy for rich companies to work around but more challenging for shoestring filmmakers is not a step forward. If anything...

...it's a side-door win for a traditionalist bloc in AMPAS that believes the Oscars should primarily celebrate big movies, not little indies. It's "You better nail it in terms of content/staff/casting UNLESS you have a studio that can pay for internships." That is not progress.

Last point for now: It is possible to meet these new Academy diversity standards without hiring a single non-white person on a movie. And it is a slam dunk to meet the standards without hiring anyone who is LGBTQ+ or disabled. So...is this stasis disguised as progress?

I want to note a couple of arguments for the Oscar plan, specifically two I've heard that I think have validity. One is that even the brief time studios and filmmakers will have to think about this might constitute a kind of gradual mental retraining, not just a formality. >

The other is that, even if the net result is nothing more than multiple paid apprenticeships for minorities in many different departments on many studio films, that is a tangible step forward. It's still the most amorphous possible version of diversity...

...in which different types of underrepresented groups are interchangeable (which is rarely a good idea), and "diversity" can mean anything from a film's content to, "Hey, can you find out if that black guy in marketing is gay, and ask the Academy if that counts as two?" But...

...I wouldn't want to argue that no good can come of this, or that the plan, albeit flawed, is not worth examining, discussing, and improving. Acknowledging that each group included faces different types of challenges would be a good place to start.