Underrepresentation of minorities is an ongoing problem on television, whether it's racial minorities, ethnic minorities, religious minorities or LGBT. The flip side of underrepresentation is representation. The process of attaining representation often involves a progressive gain through activism and agitation. Once that's achieved however, the characters are no longer fictional characters but serve as representatives for an entire minority group.

On "Star Trek", Martin Luther King dissuaded Nichelle Nichols from resigning by telling her that her presence mattered. Whoopi Goldberg came to "Star Trek The Next Generation" for a similar reason. Avery Brooks who portrayed Captain Sisko on "Star Trek Deep Space Nine" insisted on being a strong father figure to his son in order to provide a role model. "Star Trek The Next Generation" gave us a disabled ship's pilot. The original plan also called for a Hispanic female security officer. But still controversies have and continued to rage over the lack of a gay character.On"Buffy The Vampire Slayer" controversies raged over the presence of gay characters. What is forgotten in all this is the obvious. Fictional characters are not real. At the heart of it that is the problem. Real people represent role models. Fictional people do not.

The concern with providing role models for youth is an abiding one both for conservatives and liberals who insist that public entertainment, particularly television and film, model their system of values in order to better transmit those values on to the next generation. Neither side of course views it from that perspective. As they see it, their values, whether it is opposition to smoking, opposition to premarital sex, opposition to racism, opposition to drinking, opposition to or support for homosexual are the only proper values there can be and public entertainment is obligated to duplicate and preach those values at the risk of boycotts and even threats of government regulation.

The obsession with creating and providing proper role models in entertainment is linked to the disconnect between those groups which consider themselves the guardians of public values and public entertainment. It is a disconnect that is as old as human history and civilization. What the artists and entertainers do and what the crowd enjoys rarely overlaps well with what the intellectual and religious elites desire to see. While the crowds seem willing to do what the religious elites who posture as their moral superiors claim is best for them, in practice they seek out exactly the things the religious elites condemn. And while the artists and entertainers are naturally inclined toward the more progressive values of the intellectual elites, the rigorous and relentless ideological censorship can quickly diminish their enthusiasm and spark bouts of rebellion.

At the heart of it entertainment is not progressive, it is not a means of conveying religious or moral values. In fact entertainment works best when it subverts those values and thus offers its audience novelty and a taste of intellectual and sensual freedom. With the weakening of both Church and State as arbiters of morality, television and movies have become battlegrounds in the "war for the soul" of the audience. A war the audience has never asked to be part of or party to.

Ideally a fictional character acted in film or TV is the product of a collaboration between a writer, a director and the actor or actress. The goal is to create a true person on stage or set. A person who may be fictional but is in a sense real. That character is himself or herself though subordinate to a larger story within the confines of the fictional universe in which the story takes place.

Role models however quickly begin to follow different rules because they become an aspect of an agenda outside the story. They begin to transcend the story, in ways both positive and negative. Minority actors and producers increasingly voice the complaint that they are unable to do their jobs normally, because they no longer have characters to work with, but have to fit into the slot of a role model.

Role models, unlike characters, are expected to be portrayed positively all the time. A story and a character's moment may call for him to get drunk, but that results in protests from activist organizations who find it offensive. A character may be obligated to cheat on another character, but that too is countermanded because it may be behavior that is appropriate to the character and the story, but is inappropriate for a role model.

The trap that's then created is one that limits the portrayal of minorities because such minority characters will have to function as role models and the limited portrayal feeds the vicious cycle so that those who are portrayed by definition have to become role models, since they are underrepresented. As so often happens, both sides react in ways that unintentionally continue to perpetuate the ongoing problem.

Of course the one thing a role model character can't do is die. Death after all nullifies the existance of the role model. Yet Joss Whedon had built up"Buffy The Vampire Slayer" on the premise that anyone could die at any time, beginning with the gruesome murder and devouring of Principal Flutie in the first season by students turned into animistic hyenas. The collision was bound to come when "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" added Tara as a character.

As a character Tara had rather little to offer. She was awkward, painfully shy, quiet and avoided everyone's attention. In some ways she resembled the original Willow who had appeared in the unaired "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" pilot, only to be replaced by a thinner perkier model. Her only special ability, magic, was already more than duplicated by Willow herself. That made Tara fundamentally redundant. That left her one purpose there, which was to be Willow's girlfriend. But of course on "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" characters who have no purpose but to be someone's boyfriend or girlfriend have to eventually die or at least get their own spinoff series. Tara did not get a spinoff series. She lingered on aimlessly for two seasons.

The one episode fully centering on Tara and her background, "Family" told us little about her, except that she had a mean family, only furthering adding to her portrayal as a victim. The end of season five gave us a major plot point involving Tara being tortured and victimized by Glory. The end of season six gave us the brutal and senseless murder of Tara, only further building her victimization, and driving Willow temporarily insane.

The furor over this was predictable, even if Joss Whedon couldn't have predicted it. Tara had little function on the series except to prop up a relationship with Willow which itself served little function except to present a model gay relationship on television. For most of her time on the series, Tara was a shy nervous presence standing in a corner somewhere and trying to vanish. When she finally did vanish, all hell broke loose with Joss Whedon, who had put Tara on the show in the first place, being accused of homophobia.

The form of the accusation was that ending a Lesbian relationship destructively was itself homophobia, ignoring that most relationships on Buffy ended destructively. Angel reverted to his full blown demonic self, tried to wipe out Buffy's friends, forcing her to cast him into hell. Jenny Calendar lied to Giles and was murdered by Angel setting Giles off on a mission of revenge. The list goes on and on. Yet role models are supposed to be immune from the inevitable course of events in the Buffyverse. Everyone else could die horribly, but Tara couldn't. Every other relationship could end badly, but Willow and Tara couldn't.

That is the danger of role models. Actors find themselves inhibited by having to occupy not a character, but a symbol who represents something more to others. Producers and writers find themselves coping under the watch of self-appointed activists. Activists find themselves having to fight over the portrayal of fictional characters. The resulting cycle is a waste of productive energy for everyone involved. Characters who could be genuinely meaningful, are prevented from emerging fully as real people. Instead they're confined to simplistic forms, as Tara was. Stories that could be truly meaningful are never allowed to be told.

And that is the worst loss of all.