Last but not least: > If you made it this far through this post without your head exploding in conservative rage, maybe you’ve already accepted your capacity f

Last but not least: > If you made it this far through this post without your head exploding in conservative rage, maybe you’ve already accepted your capacity for implicit anti-Black bias. I have not. Let's look at what Ko is asking us to do: > Hire clusters of Black faculty advancing race and technology discourse. What is a "cluster"? Are we to hire these people specifically for their race? Can "clusters" of other races be allowed? What is the requirement to be allowed a cluster? > Promote Black faculty into academic leadership. (A bit, but not enough.) To the exclusion of others who have worked hard and deserve the position? Again, will this not result in people acting like Black folks in these positions have not earned them, even if they say nothing about it? > Partner with anti-racist K-12 partners to build pathways for Black students to computing and information programs. As opposed to all the racist K-12 partners who are ripping the computers out of the hands of these children. And, of course, completely neglecting the existence of White, Hispanic, Asian, Native, etc. populations who are also completely capable of being below the poverty line and would likely benefit from the same efforts. > Ensure Black representation on advisory boards, while avoiding tokenism (We’ve completely failed so far). You cannot ensure the representation of an identity group while not tokenizing. Ensured representatives ARE tokens. > Center Black scholarship in design, data, programming, and ethics courses, including scholarship about race and technology. I don't remember spending a lot of time learning about Edsger Wybe Dijkstra's Dutch background or centering discussion on that. I don't remember any political content at all outside of my political and social classes, because there was no time for that - it was an intent focus on the actual educational content. Universities already have various social sciences departments that provide Black history, Women's Studies, etc. as an attempt to handle this; does this have to be inserted into every single class? Of course, the only White studies are "critical whiteness studies" that seek to tear down the accomplishments of White people, the opposite of the classes afforded to other groups. > Develop a code of conduct for classes that create safe space for civil discourse about race and technology. I fear that "codes of conduct" are specifically written to exclude anything like what I have written above. > Ensure Black faculty and students have an excess of support to thrive. Again, what about other groups? Here's a tough one: how much additional support do you give a mixed-race person? There's no answer to this, much as there's actually not some huge pool of "support" sitting around that hasn't been allocated. The only way to do this is to simply say "give less support to White people". > Eliminate racially biased competitive admissions indicators like recommendations, extracurriculars, maybe even grades. Or do like some CS departments are doing: shift to a lottery. (We’ve made the most progress here, because I’ve been able to act unilaterally). Oh great, yes, let's take our most difficult subjects and simply remove the filters that have evolved in order to get the greatest chance of recruiting students who have a chance at actually succeeding in the program, and just switch to letting people in at random. Of course, if it was truly random over the whole populace, you'd again start to approach 60% White or whatever the pool of applicants looks like, and so you'll still likely need another filtering mechanism to ensure that doesn't happen. I'm so glad Ko can act unilaterally to change things like this with no insight or input from the local community whatsoever. Thanks, Amy, for your anti-White actions; I'm sure they'll make absolutely no difference in the world besides the advancement of your own career.