Diversity? That's for racists.(jamellebouie.net)
jamellebouie.net
Diversity? That's for racists.
http://jamellebouie.net/blog/2013/1/6/diversity-thats-for-racists
9 comments
First, there are lots of types of diversity of background, viewpoint, education, experience, and the like that you can't get without making sure you have diversity of race, gender, class, and so forth.
Second, there's a question about what the point of diversity is; nobody is claiming that reducing homogeneity is, in and of itself, a worthwhile goal. In CS at least, it's obvious to me that there's no particularly good (in the sense of intrinsic) reason that there are way more male than female, white and Asian than black and Hispanic, etc. people in the industry. This means that my industry is missing some two-thirds of the people who could be in it -- drawing from a pool that's artificially limited to maybe a third of what it could be. I work for a company that's having trouble hiring, and I use and contribute to several open source projects that are having trouble finding volunteers. If we can triple the pool of involved folks, my life gets personally better.
Meanwhile, it's not at all clear to me that it's the case that CS as an industry (or design as an industry) is missing a bunch of folks who are perfectly capable of contributing except that they have the wrong background or viewpoint. Background is very easy to fix (if you're motivated and have the right opportunities available to you); work-relevant viewpoints tend to actually be important, like whether you value being a stickler for style, and I think there's plenty of diversity in work-irrelevant viewpoints.
Relatedly, there's a question of accounting for privilege. It is entirely too easy for me to geek out with people who have all been programming since middle school, which can be legitimately intimidating to someone who's just picking it up and afraid of asking dumb questions (instead of merely seeming precocious). Class, and to a lesser extent race and gender, influence privilege and what opportunities are available to people. Things like viewpoint, not so much, and things like education are an effect, not a cause (since they're fixable, and since it's a good thing not to have diversity of education and merely to have everyone well-educated -- tying back in to what the point of achieving diversity is). Going out of our way to include people who didn't have the opportunities we had is a good way to counteract the effects of that unfairness.
Second, there's a question about what the point of diversity is; nobody is claiming that reducing homogeneity is, in and of itself, a worthwhile goal. In CS at least, it's obvious to me that there's no particularly good (in the sense of intrinsic) reason that there are way more male than female, white and Asian than black and Hispanic, etc. people in the industry. This means that my industry is missing some two-thirds of the people who could be in it -- drawing from a pool that's artificially limited to maybe a third of what it could be. I work for a company that's having trouble hiring, and I use and contribute to several open source projects that are having trouble finding volunteers. If we can triple the pool of involved folks, my life gets personally better.
Meanwhile, it's not at all clear to me that it's the case that CS as an industry (or design as an industry) is missing a bunch of folks who are perfectly capable of contributing except that they have the wrong background or viewpoint. Background is very easy to fix (if you're motivated and have the right opportunities available to you); work-relevant viewpoints tend to actually be important, like whether you value being a stickler for style, and I think there's plenty of diversity in work-irrelevant viewpoints.
Relatedly, there's a question of accounting for privilege. It is entirely too easy for me to geek out with people who have all been programming since middle school, which can be legitimately intimidating to someone who's just picking it up and afraid of asking dumb questions (instead of merely seeming precocious). Class, and to a lesser extent race and gender, influence privilege and what opportunities are available to people. Things like viewpoint, not so much, and things like education are an effect, not a cause (since they're fixable, and since it's a good thing not to have diversity of education and merely to have everyone well-educated -- tying back in to what the point of achieving diversity is). Going out of our way to include people who didn't have the opportunities we had is a good way to counteract the effects of that unfairness.
Yes, it's possible to self-select into a group of people who seem the same now, but that's still based on assumptions.
For example, until graduating high school, we were one of two "white" families in the entire neighborhood. Further, I didn't get my first computer until I was 16.. when I had saved up enough money at my minimum wage job to buy it myself. It only took two years. Finally, I was the first in my family to finish a full year of college and then the first to graduate. Only a few have followed me since.
Assuming you know who I am and what I am because I happen to look "white" and be male is insulting.
For example, until graduating high school, we were one of two "white" families in the entire neighborhood. Further, I didn't get my first computer until I was 16.. when I had saved up enough money at my minimum wage job to buy it myself. It only took two years. Finally, I was the first in my family to finish a full year of college and then the first to graduate. Only a few have followed me since.
Assuming you know who I am and what I am because I happen to look "white" and be male is insulting.
And you have no idea what it would be like to go through day-to-day life as a black woman. If your response to "You have privilege" is "I had it hard" you've already failed to even understand what the conversation is about.
I'm quite glad to see that the "uh guys, you might be privileged" meme is attracting enough attention and mindshare to draw this sort of opposition. It shows that the efforts of the parties that have been pushing it are successful at reaching the people they need to reach, and more importantly, working to change the shared perception of standards in various communities. You'll note that he speaks as a minority viewpoint trying to claim that the majority is crazy, not like a person in line with the prevailing views of the community who's quieting a lone crazy voice.
Note: Due to the highly charged nature of the subject matter, and likelihood of readers already having strongly entrenched positions, I realize that it will be anywhere from difficult to impossible for some people to 'hear' me on this. All I can ask is that you keep an open mind, and try to see it from the other side.
There's a negative and a positive way to approach the diversity problem, and unfortunately, the "uh guys, you might be privileged" camp have decided to run with the negative way, hence the (quite understandable) backlash.
Don't get me wrong, I understand and share the sentiment, but the inescapable fact is that saying "you're privileged" is not only inherently accusatory, but does more to emphasize (and reinforce) that which divides, rather than that which unites.
On the other hand, I've been very fortunate to be involved in advocacy groups like PHPWomen, which provide mentorship opportunities for female (PHP) developers, and connects them with conference organizers and major Open Source projects. They've been doing this for years (i.e. well before hating white male privilege was en vogue in the tech community), and they've been tremendously successful.
Guilt-tripping and divisiveness are toxic. If this is a problem you genuinely care about, the above might be a model to follow. Don't be reactive, be proactive.
There's a negative and a positive way to approach the diversity problem, and unfortunately, the "uh guys, you might be privileged" camp have decided to run with the negative way, hence the (quite understandable) backlash.
Don't get me wrong, I understand and share the sentiment, but the inescapable fact is that saying "you're privileged" is not only inherently accusatory, but does more to emphasize (and reinforce) that which divides, rather than that which unites.
On the other hand, I've been very fortunate to be involved in advocacy groups like PHPWomen, which provide mentorship opportunities for female (PHP) developers, and connects them with conference organizers and major Open Source projects. They've been doing this for years (i.e. well before hating white male privilege was en vogue in the tech community), and they've been tremendously successful.
Guilt-tripping and divisiveness are toxic. If this is a problem you genuinely care about, the above might be a model to follow. Don't be reactive, be proactive.
I am incredibly privileged. Both my parents are EECS professors, which means there were a lot of computers, a lot of computer knowledge, and a lot of computer books around the house when I was growing up; we had plenty of funding for me to go to a good college; and the university where my dad taught gave an incredibly deep discount on me taking classes there (three CS classes and one math class) my senior year of high school.
I've never seen this as an accusation. I don't even feel particularly guilty about it by itself -- but I do feel guilty when I see myself acting as if I have more aptitude or inherent capability than other folks who probably do but didn't have those opportunities. I think that's all anyone's asking for.
I've never seen this as an accusation. I don't even feel particularly guilty about it by itself -- but I do feel guilty when I see myself acting as if I have more aptitude or inherent capability than other folks who probably do but didn't have those opportunities. I think that's all anyone's asking for.
> inherently accusatory
It unequivocally is not. It is pointing out a fact: I am a white, upper-middle-class, English-speaking, computer-literate, straight, cisgendered, first-world male with a supportive family unit. These are all descriptors which lend me advantages--on average and in the long run--that people exhibiting other available descriptors do not have. No one has ever told me that I am a bad person for having them (or if they did, I probably brushed it off as a ridiculous notion), but they have asked me to recognize that it is so, and incorporate that understanding into my critical view of our culture.
That some take offense to facts would seem to me to be out of the hands of those pointing them out.
It unequivocally is not. It is pointing out a fact: I am a white, upper-middle-class, English-speaking, computer-literate, straight, cisgendered, first-world male with a supportive family unit. These are all descriptors which lend me advantages--on average and in the long run--that people exhibiting other available descriptors do not have. No one has ever told me that I am a bad person for having them (or if they did, I probably brushed it off as a ridiculous notion), but they have asked me to recognize that it is so, and incorporate that understanding into my critical view of our culture.
That some take offense to facts would seem to me to be out of the hands of those pointing them out.
'Hey nollidge, the sky is blue.' Seems silly to point out, no?
That's because nobody points out facts in a vacuum; people point out facts because of things like meaning and implication. The purpose of communicating new knowledge, or old knowledge put into a new context, is to produce a change in thoughts, actions, or behavior. This is not a complicated idea.
As an individual, operating under my own idea of what it means to be a 'good' person, I try to do my best to judge people on their character, not on superficial characteristics. Also, I feel like as a person, I have fairly healthy boundaries.
So, when someone communicates to me through implication, by emphasizing a series of facts, that I have a duty to violate my own sense of fairness and morality to rectify a broad, amorphous social problem of arbitrary criteria, yes, I consider that an attempt to violate my boundaries.
That's because nobody points out facts in a vacuum; people point out facts because of things like meaning and implication. The purpose of communicating new knowledge, or old knowledge put into a new context, is to produce a change in thoughts, actions, or behavior. This is not a complicated idea.
As an individual, operating under my own idea of what it means to be a 'good' person, I try to do my best to judge people on their character, not on superficial characteristics. Also, I feel like as a person, I have fairly healthy boundaries.
So, when someone communicates to me through implication, by emphasizing a series of facts, that I have a duty to violate my own sense of fairness and morality to rectify a broad, amorphous social problem of arbitrary criteria, yes, I consider that an attempt to violate my boundaries.
> people point out facts because of things like meaning and implication.
Yes, great, thanks. Now please explain how that meaning and implication is "inherently accusatory", rather than pointing out non-obvious facts to people who don't seem to believe them (cf. evolution, the big bang, etc.).
What is it that you think is being implicitly asked of you?
Yes, great, thanks. Now please explain how that meaning and implication is "inherently accusatory", rather than pointing out non-obvious facts to people who don't seem to believe them (cf. evolution, the big bang, etc.).
What is it that you think is being implicitly asked of you?
> What is it that you think is being implicitly asked of you?
Well, that's the real trick, since it's been hard to pin down to any level of precision.
But then, I'm not one of the people going around, sanctimoniously passing judgement on those who don't conform to my personal moral code.
But if you can find one of them, and get them to give you an unambiguous, noncontradictory explanation for exactly what they expect of everyone, I'd consider it a favor if you passed it along. :-)
Well, that's the real trick, since it's been hard to pin down to any level of precision.
But then, I'm not one of the people going around, sanctimoniously passing judgement on those who don't conform to my personal moral code.
But if you can find one of them, and get them to give you an unambiguous, noncontradictory explanation for exactly what they expect of everyone, I'd consider it a favor if you passed it along. :-)
So you can't even define what it is people are "implicitly" asking of you, and yet you're convinced it's "inherently accusatory", would "violate your own sense of fairness and morality", would "violate your boundaries", and the asker is being sanctimonious.
Pardon me if I do not take your Real Important Concerns seriously.
Pardon me if I do not take your Real Important Concerns seriously.
My apologies, I can see you don't appreciate being toyed with. ;-)
>but the inescapable fact is that saying "you're privileged" is not only inherently accusatory, but does more to emphasize (and reinforce) that which divides, rather than that which unites.
Sigh. I'm privileged. Saying that white men in the USA are privileged isn't an accusation, it's an observed fact. The fact that the response to it is "NUH UH, you're calling me names", is the reason that we can't have an educated discussion about privilege in our culture.
Sigh. I'm privileged. Saying that white men in the USA are privileged isn't an accusation, it's an observed fact. The fact that the response to it is "NUH UH, you're calling me names", is the reason that we can't have an educated discussion about privilege in our culture.
Calling out specific groups of people is confrontational, because it makes it about us-vs.-them. This should not be a controversial statement.
That's the reason you can't have an education discussion about it. Again, the better approach is to be proactive and promote inclusiveness, rather than re-summoning the ghost of white guilt, dressed up in new clothes.
That's the reason you can't have an education discussion about it. Again, the better approach is to be proactive and promote inclusiveness, rather than re-summoning the ghost of white guilt, dressed up in new clothes.
Saying that someone has privilege is not "calling them out". Jesus, quit being so defensive and putting words in my mouth. This is how every conversation goes with people who don't understand what the word "privilege" means. How else can I possibly say that?
I'm a white male, I have privilege. I'm also gay, so in that sense, I lose out on privilege that all straight people have. It's not a zero sum game. It's not something to feel guilty about. It's not an accusation. It's not anyone blaming anyone else.
Please learn what the discussion is about.
I'm a white male, I have privilege. I'm also gay, so in that sense, I lose out on privilege that all straight people have. It's not a zero sum game. It's not something to feel guilty about. It's not an accusation. It's not anyone blaming anyone else.
Please learn what the discussion is about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the word racist meant someone who classifies people based on race?
That racist could be using their classification in a 'positive' or 'negative' way depending on your viewpoint or desires.
Personally, I'd rather classify people based on decency, skills, and other material differentiators and leave both the 'positive' and 'negative' racists to the dustbin of history.
That racist could be using their classification in a 'positive' or 'negative' way depending on your viewpoint or desires.
Personally, I'd rather classify people based on decency, skills, and other material differentiators and leave both the 'positive' and 'negative' racists to the dustbin of history.
I'll correct you. That is wrong. "Racist" is a negative term. If it meant "classifying people based on race," then the word loses all meaning unless you are completely blind and never notice any of the physical or social characteristics that tend to cluster in human beings.
Historically, people who defend the status quo have tried to broaden the word as much as possible, because one way to "win a debate on the Internet" is to move the goal posts. e.g. If Alice brings up a subject about racism that Bob finds uncomfortable, he asks her if she considers herself Black. When she says "yes," Bob accuses her of being a racist. Alice now spends a frustrating hour debating the meaning of the word "racist" and Bob has neatly eased out of discussing her original disquiet.
Historically, people who defend the status quo have tried to broaden the word as much as possible, because one way to "win a debate on the Internet" is to move the goal posts. e.g. If Alice brings up a subject about racism that Bob finds uncomfortable, he asks her if she considers herself Black. When she says "yes," Bob accuses her of being a racist. Alice now spends a frustrating hour debating the meaning of the word "racist" and Bob has neatly eased out of discussing her original disquiet.
It see.
Then, I agree that 'racist' is a negative term, in that the motivation to segregate groups of people is usually to derive a undue benefit for either themselves or a particular group of people.
What is odd to me is that some people can engage in racist behavior, and yet feel the label doesn't apply to them because they are 'positive racists.'
Then, I agree that 'racist' is a negative term, in that the motivation to segregate groups of people is usually to derive a undue benefit for either themselves or a particular group of people.
What is odd to me is that some people can engage in racist behavior, and yet feel the label doesn't apply to them because they are 'positive racists.'
This Andy Rutledge fella seems like just the type that has an overly simplified, reductionist point of view, which is akin to a child's mind. "Capitalist idealists" are too often blind to the reality of the world, seeing privilege as some made up idea because they don't understand their own.
This is kind of disappointing that rather than looking at ourselves as part of a society and many communities, there is passive aggressive, smarmy, drivel like http://conferencequotas.com/.
I'd dare this fella to have a conversation with Eric Ries or Vivek Wadhwa and others. He'd get dummied into the next century, if this isn't a poorly thought out clumsy attempt at caricature/satire/parody.
I'd dare this fella to have a conversation with Eric Ries or Vivek Wadhwa and others. He'd get dummied into the next century, if this isn't a poorly thought out clumsy attempt at caricature/satire/parody.
> [...]if this isn't a poorly thought out clumsy attempt at caricature/satire/parody.
From the footer: "This site is satire. It pokes fun at the destructive idea of arbitrary diversity, or tokenism, and the people who promulgate it."
From the footer: "This site is satire. It pokes fun at the destructive idea of arbitrary diversity, or tokenism, and the people who promulgate it."
Didn't finish my sentence, if this isn't a poorly thought out and clumsy attempt at caricature/satire/parody, I don't know what is.
To have the right to free speech, we also have the responsibility to learn how to use it.
It's easy to be tounge in cheek biased/degrading towards others and say it is a joke.
To have the right to free speech, we also have the responsibility to learn how to use it.
It's easy to be tounge in cheek biased/degrading towards others and say it is a joke.
This post seems to have been removed from the front page.
I wonder why. (Not sarcastic, btw.)
Articles like this don't promote healthy discussion. Achievement gaps between races in different areas are a huge social taboo.
It's just not something that can be discussed calmly and openly in a semi-professional forum like this. So you get nothing but on side spouting politically correct cliches and the other side claiming that they are the truly politically correct ones.
It's just not something that can be discussed calmly and openly in a semi-professional forum like this. So you get nothing but on side spouting politically correct cliches and the other side claiming that they are the truly politically correct ones.
Noticed it as well, had to Shift+Ctrl+T to get back to it. Oh well, I can't take any more of "it's her fault" style responses from the HN community this week after the last volley of posts on this matter (which incidentally resulted in the woman's website being DOSd.)
People like this are obviously blind to the sort of misogyny and racism that still permeates human culture, especially U.S. culture, today, and don't realize what considering the people affected by these social diseases can do. When you consider the marginalized, the marginalized will get a voice, and this demonstrates that people besides white cissexual men can have a place in the community (in this case tech communities).
But then again, we're talking about adults who still use 4chanisms like "o hai!" (see: the footer of conferencequotes.com), so it's possibly just a matter of waiting for these people to grow old and get out of the way of more progressive-minded individuals who are building communities that can afford to value sensitivity and skepticism, without egos and masculinity complexes keeping love and rationality at bay.
But then again, we're talking about adults who still use 4chanisms like "o hai!" (see: the footer of conferencequotes.com), so it's possibly just a matter of waiting for these people to grow old and get out of the way of more progressive-minded individuals who are building communities that can afford to value sensitivity and skepticism, without egos and masculinity complexes keeping love and rationality at bay.
I wanted to not post, but this was too much greatness: https://twitter.com/andyrutledge/status/288048242590101504
This is beyond great too, stick around for the quiz: http://capitalismis.com/
This is beyond great too, stick around for the quiz: http://capitalismis.com/
capitalismis.com is satire, I hope?
I wonder how they choose books to read..