3 ms·

You completely misunderstand what I am saying. 1. I care about people, and believe that they have unlimited potential. If anything, this fundamental belief is

You completely misunderstand what I am saying. 1. I care about people, and believe that they have unlimited potential. If anything, this fundamental belief is the core of all of my interactions with my students. 2. I do not believe in bias against someone else because of something they cannot control. We call that discrimination. 3. What, then, do we call bias in favor of someone, also because of something they cannot control? By definition, it is equally a bias against everyone else who does not have that same attribute (again, something that they cannot control). Therefore, it, too, is discrimination. 4. I abhor discrimination, because it invalidates the accomplishments of everyone involved. This is true both those whose achievements were marginalized by the discrimination, as well as those whose achievements were enhanced by it. 5. I do not argue that people come from unequal backgrounds. What I am arguing, however, is that CS is the equalizer, based on your accomplishments, and your accomplishments ARE NOT limited by your starting position. This is true regardless of gender, race, sexuality, disability, or familial history. 6. Any single-issue outreach (like gender) is insulting, in that it ignores the rest of the person. It reduces them to a number as it relates to that issue. It is demeaning to the individual, and I refuse to participate in it. It is not just that I dislike it, but that I fundamentally disagree with the nature of its being. When I praise my students, it is because they earned it and they deserve it. If I were to suggest that perhaps CS is not right for them (which I have never done to any of the ~200 students that I have taught), it would also be because that was the right advice for that individual. This is why I disagree with these types of conferences. And yet, still, I am perceived as the bad guy...

Retra 11y ago
You're not the bad guy for expressing that discrimination is a problem, you're the bad guy for not doing so eloquently and revealingly. But discrimination is not inherently a problem, it is only a problem when it leads to bad decision-making, especially in the long term. If I were very short (a factor I cannot control) and I was responsible for reaching high places, it would be discriminatory to deny me the position, but it wouldn't be a problem. There's no mistake reaching such a rational decision, if it is in fact, rational. Which in this case, would imply there is no access to height-boosting equipment or reach-extending tools. >What I am arguing, however, is that CS is the equalizer, based on your accomplishments, and your accomplishments ARE NOT limited by your starting position. CS can be an equalizer, but your accomplishments ARE limited by your starting position. Discrimination invalidates accomplishments precisely because it limits your starting position. >Any single-issue outreach (like gender) is insulting, in that it ignores the rest of the person. I don't see how that follows. If I build a ladder for short people, am I insulting tall people? Am I ignoring them? Am I reducing them to a number? Or would a tall person be reducing themselves to a number by objecting (needlessly) to the construction of ladders?
- thelastguy 11y ago
  >If I build a ladder for short people, am I insulting tall people? Am I ignoring them? Am I reducing them to a number? The problem is that, you're not just building a ladder. You're purposely not hiring the tall peoples. Instead, you purposely hire the short people, because you perceived the short people to have a disadvantage in height. Then after you hired them, you build each and everyone of them a ladder, to make them as tall the the tall people in the first place, who, you could have hired in the first place, and wouldn't have needed the ladder in the first place if you hired the tall peoples in the first place. And not only that, the short people understands that this job require reaching high places, so most of them have already decided to go for another job, a job that they love that doesn't required them to reach high places with their hands. And then you're wondering, why don't short people comes for hire? I must enforce quote and force all jobs that require tall peoples to hire short peoples, instead of just letting things fall where they fall, naturally.
  - Retra 11y ago
    If you came to me looking for a job, and we've had this exact conversation, here's what I'd want to say to you: "My goal is to hire competent people. Technically competent and socially competent people. That means getting along with others and understanding their perspectives and priorities. I don't care how well you know some piece of software; you can learn that in a book. I can buy you a book. You can't learn basic human decency from a book. As someone who presumably cares about this company, I'm aware that we do not only sell products, but also culture, and if you cannot produce valuable culture, then you will not serve this company well. I will not hire you. Not because I have some quota to meet, but because I have standards to meet, and you do not meet them. If you want to be so myopic as to ignore gender issues (or any other issue that actually matter to people in this world,) then go do that on your own time."
    - thelastguy 11y ago
      On the other hand, if you come to my company, and every decision you make, you make because of a person's specific gender, then that's sexist, and I would no hire you either. All workers need to be treated the same (aka, professionally) no matter the gender. I don't need my workers to go around making decision based on whether the other work is male or female. That's sexist. People need to stop treating people differently base on their gender, and need to start treating all people the same, no matter their gender. When you do something because of a specific gender, that's sexism.

Retra 11y ago

You're not the bad guy for expressing that discrimination is a problem, you're the bad guy for not doing so eloquently and revealingly. But discrimination is not inherently a problem, it is only a problem when it leads to bad decision-making, especially in the long term. If I were very short (a factor I cannot control) and I was responsible for reaching high places, it would be discriminatory to deny me the position, but it wouldn't be a problem. There's no mistake reaching such a rational decision, if it is in fact, rational. Which in this case, would imply there is no access to height-boosting equipment or reach-extending tools. >What I am arguing, however, is that CS is the equalizer, based on your accomplishments, and your accomplishments ARE NOT limited by your starting position. CS can be an equalizer, but your accomplishments ARE limited by your starting position. Discrimination invalidates accomplishments precisely because it limits your starting position. >Any single-issue outreach (like gender) is insulting, in that it ignores the rest of the person. I don't see how that follows. If I build a ladder for short people, am I insulting tall people? Am I ignoring them? Am I reducing them to a number? Or would a tall person be reducing themselves to a number by objecting (needlessly) to the construction of ladders?

thelastguy 11y ago
>If I build a ladder for short people, am I insulting tall people? Am I ignoring them? Am I reducing them to a number? The problem is that, you're not just building a ladder. You're purposely not hiring the tall peoples. Instead, you purposely hire the short people, because you perceived the short people to have a disadvantage in height. Then after you hired them, you build each and everyone of them a ladder, to make them as tall the the tall people in the first place, who, you could have hired in the first place, and wouldn't have needed the ladder in the first place if you hired the tall peoples in the first place. And not only that, the short people understands that this job require reaching high places, so most of them have already decided to go for another job, a job that they love that doesn't required them to reach high places with their hands. And then you're wondering, why don't short people comes for hire? I must enforce quote and force all jobs that require tall peoples to hire short peoples, instead of just letting things fall where they fall, naturally.
- Retra 11y ago
  If you came to me looking for a job, and we've had this exact conversation, here's what I'd want to say to you: "My goal is to hire competent people. Technically competent and socially competent people. That means getting along with others and understanding their perspectives and priorities. I don't care how well you know some piece of software; you can learn that in a book. I can buy you a book. You can't learn basic human decency from a book. As someone who presumably cares about this company, I'm aware that we do not only sell products, but also culture, and if you cannot produce valuable culture, then you will not serve this company well. I will not hire you. Not because I have some quota to meet, but because I have standards to meet, and you do not meet them. If you want to be so myopic as to ignore gender issues (or any other issue that actually matter to people in this world,) then go do that on your own time."
  - thelastguy 11y ago
    On the other hand, if you come to my company, and every decision you make, you make because of a person's specific gender, then that's sexist, and I would no hire you either. All workers need to be treated the same (aka, professionally) no matter the gender. I don't need my workers to go around making decision based on whether the other work is male or female. That's sexist. People need to stop treating people differently base on their gender, and need to start treating all people the same, no matter their gender. When you do something because of a specific gender, that's sexism.