The announcement of this year's whites-only Academy Awards acting nominees produced a flurry of #OscarsSoWhite articles - about the older, white, male voters who picked them, about the performances by black actors some thought were snubbed. The hastag, first created last year by April Reign, managing editor of BroadwayBlack.com, has
Should Chris Rock host the Oscar ceremony or boycott it?
Subscribe to listen
Comedian Chris Rock is set to host the Annual Academy Awards, but will he? Photo / Getty Images
America's race conversation has reached Hollywood in cinematic fashion.
And just as in politics, housing, the criminal-justice system, every American institution, it is characterized by those seeking a realignment of power dynamics and those who are angry about what that means for them, with a substantial middle trying to act as if nothing is happening at all.
Read more:
• Chris Rock scraps script after #Oscarssowhite outcry
• Quincy Jones may pull out of presenting at Oscars
Comedian Chris Rock, a longtime entertainment industry critic, is scheduled to host the Oscars for the second time this year (the first time was 2005). And the looming, open question leading up to the ceremony is: What is Rock going to do? It's a bigger, more historic question than which film will win this year's best picture award.
Rock has not issued a public statement about the Oscar controversy - he did send a tweet calling the Oscars "the white BET awards." But others are filling in the gap.
Rapper 50 Cent and Fast and Furious star Tyrese Gibson have urged Rock to boycott. Arsenio Hall and actor Marlon Wayans have said the cause is better served if he steps up to the mic. "There's no greater person to talk about this than Chris Rock," Wayans told People magazine.
That seems to be the prevailing opinion on social media.
One Facebook friend wrote: "The beauty of Rock hosting is that The Oscars already know where he stands on race in Hollywood ... They knew what they were getting and they booked him anyway. He is the perfect person to host, unless he says nothing."
Another said: "I think he will slice them up, and it will be painful and funny and won't make a difference."

I don't know what I think, but since I'm snowed in with time on my hands and a month until Oscar time, I made a list arguing for and against.
Rock should host the Oscars: As soon as he steps up to the microphone, he casts the lack of black actors and actresses onstage with him in stark relief without saying a word. Then he'll say word after biting word.
Rock should boycott the Oscars: Because the protest tradition is rich in America, and because we Americans vote with our feet. Rock's high-profile absence shatters the illusion that race and privilege in Hollywood are separate from the issues roiling the rest of the country. It shatters the illusion that there's always next year to get it right.
Rock should host: It will be uncomfortable to watch, just as it was uncomfortable for some of us to watch as the nominees were announced.
Rock should boycott: America always wants some of that black creativity - #squadgoals and "on fleek" - without the inequality, alienation and anger that give rise to it. "We take all we want from black culture, but will we show up for black lives?" says white hip-hop artist Macklemore in his newly released White Privilege II. This year, the Oscars script calls for all or nothing.
I'm not a Hollywood insider, and I don't pretend to know what Rock ought to do. But it is remarkable that we're asking this question, and waiting for him and other members of the powerful Hollywood elite to answer. To go on the record and be held accountable for where they stand. My prediction: This year's Oscar controversy will trickle down.
For the rest of us, I say: Look around. That #OscarsSoWhite hashtag (substitute your award, your company, your profession for "Oscars") may be coming soon to a theater near you.