3 ms·

> It really is quite pathetic that all it takes is one wannabe righteous whistle-blower to say something about race and an event can be derailed...in this case,

> It really is quite pathetic that all it takes is one wannabe righteous whistle-blower to say something about race and an event can be derailed...in this case, completely. Are you really focusing in on a single tweet as the cause of a conference being canceled? You think that they decided to fold up months of work and organizing just because Sarah expressed her disappointment and dissatisfaction? Blaming her for the organizers' decision seems super weird to me. Also... Iain's quote there misunderstands what it's like to be a minority. The problem is not being different (we're all different in various ways), it's being singled out for being different. That's also why BritRuby couldn't fix the problem by tacking on diversity speakers at the end, the damage was already done by then. My humble opinion is that they should have tried to weather the storm, issue a mea culpa and endeavored to do better next time. Instead we have flame wars.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
it's being singled out for being different. That's also why BritRuby couldn't fix the problem by tacking on diversity speakers at the end So it would have been better if they singled people out for being different and tacked on diversity speakers from the beginning? You either single people out for being different or you pick the best speakers and let the racial/sexual chips fall where they may. There really isn't a middle ground.
- fatbird 14y ago
  You're presenting a false dilemma. As the linked article makes clear, it's not either/or, it's about avoiding an initial mis-step that poisons the initial pool of speakers. The crucial part of the linked article is when he talk to Josh Susser, one of the initial tweeters who triggered the issue, and who organizes GoGaRuCo, which receives plaudits for diversity. GoGaRuCo very pointedly reaches out to evangelists in the community who will bring in a diverse selection of speakers, and then do a blind judging of submitted papers. The result is that, by making sure the pool of speakers is diverse to start with, they can pick the best papers blindly to gender and race, and still get diversity.
  - typicalrunt 14y ago
    The result is that, by making sure the pool of speakers is diverse to start with, they can pick the best papers blindly to gender and race, and still get diversity. By your logic, as a caucasian person I shouldn't submit a presentation to GoGaRuCo because they are determining the pool of speakers based on diversity (read: gender/race/taste), before they determine what I have to say. Since I somehow have a lighter shade of skin and because I have these dangly bits between my legs, I'm no longer eligible for inclusion into the speaker list. I'd call that a clear case of discrimination. Edit: Since I can't reply directly to fatbird, I'll reply here. I see we're using "diverse" and "diversity" differently here. Looking at your comment again, I can see how you are thinking. I personally don't know how BritRuby opened their CFP process. I assumed (ass - u - me, I get it) that they would just open up the CFP to the Interwebs and papers would just roll in. Maybe they did something differently, and narrowed their advertising for papers, there's not enough information to know whether they did that.
    - fatbird 14y ago
      They're not determining the pool of speakers based on diversity, they're making an extra effort to broaden the pool of potential speakers. They're not excluding white people or in any way causing white people a disadvantage. Unless, that is, you think that white people deserve not to have to compete with non-whites. I'd call that a clear case of discrimination.
    - fatbird 14y ago
      There seems to be some minimum age requirement before the reply link shows up. The linked article goes into the sausage making that got the BritRuby guys in trouble. I encourage you to read it fully because it's a really good read on how these things happen without malice or conscious racism or sexism on anyone's part. Short version is that they drew up a list of 15 initial invitees who were white males, without ever contacting prominent Rubyists in the area who weren't white or male, who would have been happy to attend and speak, and who were certainly of a stature to deserve to be invited. It's a classic example of systemic bias.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

it's being singled out for being different. That's also why BritRuby couldn't fix the problem by tacking on diversity speakers at the end So it would have been better if they singled people out for being different and tacked on diversity speakers from the beginning? You either single people out for being different or you pick the best speakers and let the racial/sexual chips fall where they may. There really isn't a middle ground.

fatbird 14y ago
You're presenting a false dilemma. As the linked article makes clear, it's not either/or, it's about avoiding an initial mis-step that poisons the initial pool of speakers. The crucial part of the linked article is when he talk to Josh Susser, one of the initial tweeters who triggered the issue, and who organizes GoGaRuCo, which receives plaudits for diversity. GoGaRuCo very pointedly reaches out to evangelists in the community who will bring in a diverse selection of speakers, and then do a blind judging of submitted papers. The result is that, by making sure the pool of speakers is diverse to start with, they can pick the best papers blindly to gender and race, and still get diversity.
- typicalrunt 14y ago
  The result is that, by making sure the pool of speakers is diverse to start with, they can pick the best papers blindly to gender and race, and still get diversity. By your logic, as a caucasian person I shouldn't submit a presentation to GoGaRuCo because they are determining the pool of speakers based on diversity (read: gender/race/taste), before they determine what I have to say. Since I somehow have a lighter shade of skin and because I have these dangly bits between my legs, I'm no longer eligible for inclusion into the speaker list. I'd call that a clear case of discrimination. Edit: Since I can't reply directly to fatbird, I'll reply here. I see we're using "diverse" and "diversity" differently here. Looking at your comment again, I can see how you are thinking. I personally don't know how BritRuby opened their CFP process. I assumed (ass - u - me, I get it) that they would just open up the CFP to the Interwebs and papers would just roll in. Maybe they did something differently, and narrowed their advertising for papers, there's not enough information to know whether they did that.
  - fatbird 14y ago
    They're not determining the pool of speakers based on diversity, they're making an extra effort to broaden the pool of potential speakers. They're not excluding white people or in any way causing white people a disadvantage. Unless, that is, you think that white people deserve not to have to compete with non-whites. I'd call that a clear case of discrimination.
  - fatbird 14y ago
    There seems to be some minimum age requirement before the reply link shows up. The linked article goes into the sausage making that got the BritRuby guys in trouble. I encourage you to read it fully because it's a really good read on how these things happen without malice or conscious racism or sexism on anyone's part. Short version is that they drew up a list of 15 initial invitees who were white males, without ever contacting prominent Rubyists in the area who weren't white or male, who would have been happy to attend and speak, and who were certainly of a stature to deserve to be invited. It's a classic example of systemic bias.