BAFTA has revealed the results of its independent review into the N-word controversy that erupted at the recent film awards on February 22, saying it revealed “a number of structural weaknesses in BAFTA’s planning, escalation procedures and crisis coordination arrangements” but found no evidence of “malicious intentions” or “institutional racism”.
The incident has cast a huge shadow over the 2026 awards show, when John Davidson, the Tourette syndrome activist and inspiration for the film “I Swear,” unintentionally shouted a racial slur while Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo took to the stage to accept the first award of the night.
There was a wave of outrage after the incident, much of it directed at the BBC after it broadcast an edited version that failed to cut out the racial slurs, despite a two-hour delay. But BAFTA has also come under extreme criticism. Particularly notable was the way the situation was handled, and host Alan Cumming’s immediate response to asking the audience to “understand” the symptoms of Tourette’s disease. Essentially, many were angry that their initial reaction was to prioritize providing context over caring for the immediate needs of Jordan, Lind, and the other Black people in attendance.
BAFTA’s board said in a statement: “While this was not unintended, this review shows that BAFTA’s plans and processes have not kept pace with our diversity and inclusion goals.” “We did not fully anticipate or adequately prepare for the impact of such an incident in a live event environment, and as a result we failed in our duty of care to those attending the ceremony and to everyone watching at home.”
BAFTA said it “sincerely apologizes” to both the black community “where the racist language used has caused real pain, brutality and trauma” and the disabled community “including those with Tourette syndrome, for whom this incident has led to unfair judgment, prejudice and distress”, as well as to its members, those who attended the ceremony and those watching on television.
“What was supposed to be a moment of celebration has been scaled down and overshadowed. We have written a letter of apology to those directly affected by that night,” it added.
A statement sent to BAFTA member states on Friday said work was “already underway” to address the review’s recommendations to “reduce the risk” of similar incidents happening again.
“Firstly, we are improving the escalation process and information sharing chain around the awards ceremony.Secondly, we are improving access and inclusion at events to take a broader cross-cutting approach to ensure that everyone’s needs and experiences are properly considered upfront. Third, we are addressing internal cultural gaps and knowledge gaps that may prevent BAFTA from achieving its commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion across our work.”
The day after the awards ceremony, BAFTA released an official statement claiming that they “take full responsibility for putting our guests in a very difficult situation and apologize to everyone.” In a letter to BAFTA members on February 24, BAFTA Chair Sarah Putt and CEO Jane Millichip said: “We acknowledge the harm this has caused, want to address what has happened and apologize to everyone.”
BAFTA’s findings were announced more than a month after the BBC revealed the findings of its own internal investigation into the incident. In response to questions from the UK government’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Davey said the BBC’s “initial evidence gathering” had established that no one on the broadcast truck heard Mr Davidson’s first utterance of the N-word while watching the live feed.
However, he pointed out that a second abuse occurred when Wunmi Mosaku won the Best Supporting Actress award, but they heard about it and deleted it. Davie claimed the error occurred when the editorial team started receiving reports of racial slurs (including from BAFTA) and assumed they had already been removed. He said the incident was a “real mistake”.
Earlier this week, the BBC’s own complaints department ruled that the broadcast of the BAFTA Film Awards was a “clear breach” of the broadcaster’s editorial standards, but that it was “unintentional”.
Read the full conclusions of RISE Associates’ independent review below.
This review was commissioned following an incident during the 2026 ceremony which caused understandable distress to attendees, viewers and staff. This situation involves a complex mix of obstacles, the risks of live broadcasting, and the use of a language with a deep and painful historical context.
It is therefore important to recognize both the sensitivity of the situation and the true impact it had on those who experienced it. The investigation found no evidence of malicious intent by anyone involved in conducting the event. However, a number of structural weaknesses in BAFTA’s planning, escalation procedures and crisis coordination arrangements were exposed. In particular, the organization was not fully aware of the nature of the risks associated with live broadcast appearances, early warning signs were not escalated and there was no clear operational chain of command, limiting BAFTA’s ability to respond effectively following an incident.
The incident also highlighted a broader challenge for organizations aiming to stage inclusive public events: the need to balance participant accessibility with the safety and dignity of others watching indoors and at home. Inclusion planning therefore needs to consider not only the needs of individual participants, but also the broader context in which participation takes place.
The recommendations in this report are designed to address these issues in a practical and appropriate manner. They focus on strengthening briefing processes, improving escalation and communication structures, clarifying operational leadership during live events, and supporting organizational recovery after an incident.
BAFTA remains a respected institution with a strong commitment to inclusion and the global creative community. We recognize the wide-ranging reforms introduced to improve diversity, inclusion and representation. However, these reforms do not protect BAFTA from criticism. No institution is subject to surveillance. The nature of this case requires careful consideration.
But describing this incident as evidence of systemic racism is a mistake because it misses the point. Systemic racism means racial bias is embedded in institutions, policies, and culture. Such systems produce discriminatory outcomes regardless of individual intentions. The available evidence does not support that conclusion here. Rather, the evidence suggests something different. BAFTA’s planning and risk governance systems have not kept pace with diversity targets.
The issues identified in this review are therefore best understood not as a failure of intent, but as evidence that existing systems were not sufficiently robust to the complexities of modern live broadcast environments. With clearer structures, stronger communication practices, and more comprehensive planning, similar risks could be significantly reduced in the future.
