4 ms·

Reading the twitter stream (https://twitter.com/joshsusser/status/269844125363339264 https://twitter.com/joshsusser/status/269844125363339264), I find it odd th

Reading the twitter stream (https://twitter.com/joshsusser/status/269844125363339264 https://twitter.com/joshsusser/status/269844125363339264), I find it odd that one person comments that the lineup is "100% white guys", and then all of a sudden it's a foregone conclusion that the BritRuby organizers are sexist. Even @johnsusser is a bit much with his comment: @BritRuby I don't think adding diversity at the end works. You have to start with it as one of your goals. Who wants to be the token female? IMHO, I find that sentence insinuating that, unless you start with diversity as your goal, you are just racist/sexist/-ist. This is the wrong approach from the start; just perform a call for papers process and take the best ones. If one looks at the speaker list, they seem to be from non-3rd world countries. Where are the dirt poor people speaking at this conference? I'm going onto Twitter to state that BritRuby is class-ist. And while we're at it, I'm pretty sure (but I'm guessing here) that all of the speakers can speak. That's quite discriminatory to those people who cannot speak, but can code in Ruby. Should I continue or can we just get on with the conference and be inclusive, instead of this faux discrimination bullshit?

thisduck 14y ago
If you don't have diversity as one of your goals (either from the start or tacked on at the end) you are part of the system that perpetuates racism, whether you like it or not. 2010: "We're not racist, but oh look, we organized yet another conference with 100% white guys, wonder why that happened. But really, we're not racist." 2011: "We're not racist, but oh look, we organized yet another conference with 100% white guys, wonder why that happened. But really, we're not racist." 2012: "We're not racist, but oh look, we organized yet another conference with 100% white guys, wonder why that happened. But really, we're not racist." Yeah, okay.
- danenania 14y ago
  Actually, selecting speakers without regard to gender or race and ending up with 100% white guys (which is easily possible, since they are very overrepresented in the field) isn't racist or sexist, whereas selecting people specifically based on these traits would be racist and sexist, by definition. I think diversity is a worthwhile goal for a conference, but we shouldn't throw around these labels so freely (and incorrectly).
  - phillmv 14y ago
    Listen, white guy, the simplest counter argument is that white guys just aren't 100% of the field. They're probably <60-70% of the field. So yeah, you do end up with a problem if somehow, conference after conference, we only field white guys.
    - aw3c2 14y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kin... says that in 2001, >90% of the people in the UK were white. Got any sources for your <60-70% in the Ruby community?
      - phillmv 14y ago
        Yeah, 51% of the population are also women.
        aw3c2 14y ago
        Now you are trolling. Or do you have a source for that? It seems highly unlikely that a programming community would have such a high percentage of women. I would link to wikipedia for some verification of that feeling but all I could fine were biased feminist articles on that topic.
        phillmv 14y ago
        For posterity: I edited my comment to clarify my statement prior to seeing this comment. Half of all people are women. !caucasians and !males are probably at least 30% of the industry, especially when you consider how minorities are overrepresented.
        Yver 14y ago
        Since we're not citing any source, I'll say that population X is at least Y% of the industry.
- tinco 14y ago
  This is a ridiculous statement. If you want to be non-racist, diversity shouldn't even be a word in your vocabulary. The definition of racist is not 'have at least one of each in your audience'. It is 'do not discriminate based on race'. I won't accept any accusation of racism or sexism until I see a message from a minority that says, 'I have been disrespected on the count of me being a minority at this conference, and the organisation did nothing to make sure this would not happen again'. There being 100% white guys is not a problem. It is a problem when a black woman goes there, and she feels disrespected because of her sex or race. Tell me how a conference that is only attended by white men perpetuates racism? It just doesn't make sense, you should listen to Morgan Freeman more.
- markshead 14y ago
  If you have a goal of "diversity" that implies that you are going to treat people differently depending on their race and gender. Race and gender becomes part of the selection criteria. Isn't that pretty much the definition of racism and sexism? A system where the speakers are just randomly chosen from a pool of people who submitted papers would definitely not be racist or sexist, but it probably wouldn't meet your definition of diversity. (Probably wouldn't make for a very good conference either.) A fair system is one where race and sex do not influence the selection criteria. It cannot have diversity listed as a goal. If it is a goal then you have created a racist, sexist system for selecting who gets to speak.
- apawloski 14y ago
  I'm sorry for whoever downvoted you for disagreeing with them. Normally we're better than that. I'm on the fence for the kind of thinking you suggest. On one hand, the phenomenon you describe does happen -- it's what MLK referred to as "the mythical concept of time." That if an un(der)represented group just waits patiently, they'll be alright. The idea that they'll get rights when the courts decide so, or that they'll get a decent education when they test well enough, or that they'll get reasonable jobs when they can afford to commute there. I think people get upset about these observations because they think the observer is attributing malice. "Racist" is a strong term that elicits an emotional response -- people thinking of the Deep South in the 50s. I don't think that the British Ruby Conference planned on an all-white all-male conference, and I don't think any reasonable person believes that they explicitly denied presenters because they were black, or hispanic, or gay, etc. But it's also true that year after year we see this. To be transparent, as a white male, I sympathize with meritocratic thinking ("the best person should get the job"). And I understand why people get upset over affirmative action-like policies. But what we're doing now isn't working, and I don't know the answer. What I do know is that both sides need to be able to acknowledge that there are reasonable views and goals across the board in this debate. The emotional language that comes with this is polarizing, and people are defensive, and people are indignant, etc. We need to discuss this reasonably, and this is a forum that should be able to, but frequently doesn't.
  - mjg59 14y ago
    Year after year, new people start running conferences. And year after year, people have to point out that running a conference while paying no attention to diversity will (a) ensure that your conference fails to represent whatever diversity already exists in your community, and (b) do nothing to encourage further diversity in your community. It's unsurprising that the people who've been making these arguments over that time get frustrated - they've had to keep on making them in the face of wave after wave of naive conference organiser. Sometimes an emotional response is justified. Sometimes rational discussion gets you nowhere. Sometimes it really is just time for people to say that they are sick of this bullshit and they aren't going to take it any more. In this case, the conference organisers clearly weren't acting in bad faith - but nor had they put even the most cursory effort into making themselves aware of the issue. That shouldn't be considered acceptable behaviour these days, and if rational discourse hasn't led to it being considered unacceptable then maybe emotional responses will do.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  So what you are arguing is essentially 'if you are not with us, you are against the terrorists?' The only reason that strategy sometimes works (and it does by no means work in all cases, just see what happened to Pompey the Great when he tried it) is that there is some kind of punishment for those who are against you. If you want to win people over, don't be combative. Stand firm on your belief but hand over olive branch after olive branch -- people that will give people plenty of opertunities to change their minds and will leave a favourable impression, which will be useful later. What you have just done is the opposite of helping your cause.
evanphx 14y ago
The lineup was all invited speakers and there wasn't any diversity among those speakers, that's a bit of a difference between doing a CFP with regard to how people will see diversity at the conference.
revelation 14y ago
@johnsusser is exactly right. You can't add diversity at the end. So if you want to have more diverse people speaking at conferences, make sure you get more diverse people interested in school. Don't give a conference flak because biases in school and society have emptied their prospective diverse speakers to a pool of zero people.
- _pius 14y ago
  If you want to have more diverse people speaking at conferences, make sure you get more diverse people interested in school. Don't give a conference flak because biases in school and society have emptied their prospective diverse speakers to a pool of zero people. You can't possibly think that there are no non-white or non-male developers qualified to speak at this conference.
countessa 14y ago
it's easy to sling mud, and I'm fighting my knee jerk reaction to sling some back but I wonder if Josh was provoked into that comment, otherwise it seems unnecessarily aggressive....especially given that the ruby community is probably poorer for not having the conference at all.....nose, face, spite etc.

thisduck 14y ago

If you don't have diversity as one of your goals (either from the start or tacked on at the end) you are part of the system that perpetuates racism, whether you like it or not. 2010: "We're not racist, but oh look, we organized yet another conference with 100% white guys, wonder why that happened. But really, we're not racist." 2011: "We're not racist, but oh look, we organized yet another conference with 100% white guys, wonder why that happened. But really, we're not racist." 2012: "We're not racist, but oh look, we organized yet another conference with 100% white guys, wonder why that happened. But really, we're not racist." Yeah, okay.

danenania 14y ago
Actually, selecting speakers without regard to gender or race and ending up with 100% white guys (which is easily possible, since they are very overrepresented in the field) isn't racist or sexist, whereas selecting people specifically based on these traits would be racist and sexist, by definition. I think diversity is a worthwhile goal for a conference, but we shouldn't throw around these labels so freely (and incorrectly).
- phillmv 14y ago
  Listen, white guy, the simplest counter argument is that white guys just aren't 100% of the field. They're probably <60-70% of the field. So yeah, you do end up with a problem if somehow, conference after conference, we only field white guys.
  - aw3c2 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kin... says that in 2001, >90% of the people in the UK were white. Got any sources for your <60-70% in the Ruby community?
    - phillmv 14y ago
      Yeah, 51% of the population are also women.
      - aw3c2 14y ago
        Now you are trolling. Or do you have a source for that? It seems highly unlikely that a programming community would have such a high percentage of women. I would link to wikipedia for some verification of that feeling but all I could fine were biased feminist articles on that topic.
        phillmv 14y ago
        For posterity: I edited my comment to clarify my statement prior to seeing this comment. Half of all people are women. !caucasians and !males are probably at least 30% of the industry, especially when you consider how minorities are overrepresented.
        Yver 14y ago
        Since we're not citing any source, I'll say that population X is at least Y% of the industry.
tinco 14y ago
This is a ridiculous statement. If you want to be non-racist, diversity shouldn't even be a word in your vocabulary. The definition of racist is not 'have at least one of each in your audience'. It is 'do not discriminate based on race'. I won't accept any accusation of racism or sexism until I see a message from a minority that says, 'I have been disrespected on the count of me being a minority at this conference, and the organisation did nothing to make sure this would not happen again'. There being 100% white guys is not a problem. It is a problem when a black woman goes there, and she feels disrespected because of her sex or race. Tell me how a conference that is only attended by white men perpetuates racism? It just doesn't make sense, you should listen to Morgan Freeman more.
markshead 14y ago
If you have a goal of "diversity" that implies that you are going to treat people differently depending on their race and gender. Race and gender becomes part of the selection criteria. Isn't that pretty much the definition of racism and sexism? A system where the speakers are just randomly chosen from a pool of people who submitted papers would definitely not be racist or sexist, but it probably wouldn't meet your definition of diversity. (Probably wouldn't make for a very good conference either.) A fair system is one where race and sex do not influence the selection criteria. It cannot have diversity listed as a goal. If it is a goal then you have created a racist, sexist system for selecting who gets to speak.
apawloski 14y ago
I'm sorry for whoever downvoted you for disagreeing with them. Normally we're better than that. I'm on the fence for the kind of thinking you suggest. On one hand, the phenomenon you describe does happen -- it's what MLK referred to as "the mythical concept of time." That if an un(der)represented group just waits patiently, they'll be alright. The idea that they'll get rights when the courts decide so, or that they'll get a decent education when they test well enough, or that they'll get reasonable jobs when they can afford to commute there. I think people get upset about these observations because they think the observer is attributing malice. "Racist" is a strong term that elicits an emotional response -- people thinking of the Deep South in the 50s. I don't think that the British Ruby Conference planned on an all-white all-male conference, and I don't think any reasonable person believes that they explicitly denied presenters because they were black, or hispanic, or gay, etc. But it's also true that year after year we see this. To be transparent, as a white male, I sympathize with meritocratic thinking ("the best person should get the job"). And I understand why people get upset over affirmative action-like policies. But what we're doing now isn't working, and I don't know the answer. What I do know is that both sides need to be able to acknowledge that there are reasonable views and goals across the board in this debate. The emotional language that comes with this is polarizing, and people are defensive, and people are indignant, etc. We need to discuss this reasonably, and this is a forum that should be able to, but frequently doesn't.
- mjg59 14y ago
  Year after year, new people start running conferences. And year after year, people have to point out that running a conference while paying no attention to diversity will (a) ensure that your conference fails to represent whatever diversity already exists in your community, and (b) do nothing to encourage further diversity in your community. It's unsurprising that the people who've been making these arguments over that time get frustrated - they've had to keep on making them in the face of wave after wave of naive conference organiser. Sometimes an emotional response is justified. Sometimes rational discussion gets you nowhere. Sometimes it really is just time for people to say that they are sick of this bullshit and they aren't going to take it any more. In this case, the conference organisers clearly weren't acting in bad faith - but nor had they put even the most cursory effort into making themselves aware of the issue. That shouldn't be considered acceptable behaviour these days, and if rational discourse hasn't led to it being considered unacceptable then maybe emotional responses will do.
tomjen3 14y ago
So what you are arguing is essentially 'if you are not with us, you are against the terrorists?' The only reason that strategy sometimes works (and it does by no means work in all cases, just see what happened to Pompey the Great when he tried it) is that there is some kind of punishment for those who are against you. If you want to win people over, don't be combative. Stand firm on your belief but hand over olive branch after olive branch -- people that will give people plenty of opertunities to change their minds and will leave a favourable impression, which will be useful later. What you have just done is the opposite of helping your cause.

evanphx 14y ago

The lineup was all invited speakers and there wasn't any diversity among those speakers, that's a bit of a difference between doing a CFP with regard to how people will see diversity at the conference.

revelation 14y ago

@johnsusser is exactly right. You can't add diversity at the end. So if you want to have more diverse people speaking at conferences, make sure you get more diverse people interested in school. Don't give a conference flak because biases in school and society have emptied their prospective diverse speakers to a pool of zero people.

_pius 14y ago
If you want to have more diverse people speaking at conferences, make sure you get more diverse people interested in school. Don't give a conference flak because biases in school and society have emptied their prospective diverse speakers to a pool of zero people. You can't possibly think that there are no non-white or non-male developers qualified to speak at this conference.

countessa 14y ago

it's easy to sling mud, and I'm fighting my knee jerk reaction to sling some back but I wonder if Josh was provoked into that comment, otherwise it seems unnecessarily aggressive....especially given that the ruby community is probably poorer for not having the conference at all.....nose, face, spite etc.