4 ms·

Would you rather them have less qualified speakers for the sake of equality? give it a rest.

raganwald 14y ago
I find the assumption behind this statement offensive, deeply offensive. Nobody is saying "Nominate less qualified speakers," people are saying "Don't overlook qualified speakers who happen to be brown, beige, female, and/or fifty years old." If you could find someone beige AND fifty with 40,000 points on hacker news, a popular blog, and experience keynoting conferences, that would be great, wouldn't it?
- jonathanyc 14y ago
  How is the assumption behind your statement any less offensive? You're assuming that because there isn't "diversity" the organizers must be racist or biased. Give it a rest.
  - raganwald 14y ago
    "You're assuming that because there isn't "diversity" the organizers must be racist or biased" Whoa, nellie! That isn't the argument, not by a long shot. Let's take race out of this. I organize a tech conference. All the speakers are cyclists. Why? Because I asked everyone I knew personally to speak. I am not prejudiced against non-cyclists, it just so happens that because I cycle, I know a lot of cyclists socially. There is no malicious intent, but the result is not representative of the world we live in, just of a small pocket of the world. Furthermore, I have absolutely and positively overlooked speakers like Sandi Metz who are cyclists, but don't ride in Ontario, or Pete Forde, who lives in Toronto but doesn't ride. Whereas, if I sat down with the plan from the start to canvas the best speakers available, I would have cast a wider net than just my personal friends. I have no idea what process those organizers used, but judging by the result, it did not include reaching out to a large number of qualified speakers.
- ryguytilidie 14y ago
  I have to say, I disagree a bit. The author seems to throw a fit at the organizer and says "really? you couldnt find any qualified (insert non white male description here)?" It is a complete strawman. The organizer thought "hey let me invite the best people in the field, who are all very qualified" and the author assigned him the mindset of "I only want white males". This is what they came up with. If they sprinkle in a few women and minorities to appease people like the author, it is vastly more offensive imo.
- cantastoria 14y ago
  * I would explicitly not be satisfied with a process that resulted in 100% male speakers. I would have stopped once we’d reached, say, 17 male out of 22 possible speakers (being pretty conservative, I think) and insisted that the remaining five (a cool 22% female representation) would have to be women. * Nobody is saying "Nominate less qualified speakers" but what this seems to be saying essentially is "Nominate women because they are women". And nobody is saying Don't overlook qualified speakers who happen to be brown, beige, female, and/or fifty years old they're saying look at your speaker lineup and balance it out based on race/gender and age. They're advocating a purely aesthetic exercise which unfortunately just further stigmatizes those it's trying to help (i.e. "She's here because they just needed some women to balance out the lineup").
  - ryguytilidie 14y ago
    First Round Capital's "people" section always makes me think of this exactly. Note the people, then note the job titles. This might be the most blatant trying to look like you're minority friendly thing possible, short of maybe pasting a black face on a white partner. Pic: http://cl.ly/image/0X0r0D090l0X http://cl.ly/image/0X0r0D090l0X
- jonallanharper 14y ago
  No one cares what color or age you are raganwald. That's the entire point. If you identify yourself by your skin color, then you are in fact racist.
  - arrrg 14y ago
    Yeah, if I look away hard enough racism and sexism will just magically disappear! You people make me despair. It’s always the same shit.
    - antonID 14y ago
      The fact that a lineup of white male speakers (because a majority of programmers are male) automatically makes you think that it is an intentional act by the event organizers to discriminate against women/minorities is foolish and offensive. This is similar to I believe a couple summers ago when Square had their summer intern program going, and all of the interns were male (because no females applied) and Jack Dorsey was attacked on Twitter for it. Square did not discriminate against people, but of course people leap to turning these people into the villain instead of thinking that it may be possible that no qualified minorities/women were able to speak at the conference for one reason or another. The organizer of this event is right to ignore this straw-man argument of trying to call him a racist/sexist because he knows that the allegation is ridiculous.
      - raganwald 14y ago
        "automatically makes you think that it is an intentional act by the event organizers to discriminate against women/minorities..." Whoa, nellie! That isn't the argument, not by a long shot. Let's take race out of this. I organize a tech conference. All the speakers are cyclists. Why? Because I asked everyone I knew personally to speak. I am not prejudiced against non-cyclists, it just so happens that because I cycle, I know a lot of cyclists socially. There is no malicious intent, but the result is not representative of the world we live in, just of a small pocket of the world. Furthermore, I have absolutely and positively overlooked speakers like Sandi Metz who are cyclists, but don't ride in Ontario, or Pete Forde, who lives in Toronto but doesn't ride. Whereas, if I sat down with the plan from the start to canvas the best speakers available, I would have cast a wider net than just my personal friends. OI have no idea what process those organizers used, but judging by the result, it did not include reaching out to a large number of qualified speakers. So I raise my hand and ask, "Could this process be improved?" No accusation of deliberate malice or even incompetence, just asking how we can do this better.
- ryguytilidie 14y ago
  I posted this comment below, but I wanted it to respond to yours as well. Which would you feel less offended by: A group of white males that were picked soley based on their ability and nothing else. Orrrr....Something like this: http://cl.ly/image/0X0r0D090l0X http://cl.ly/image/0X0r0D090l0X, recruit a minority female, give her a lower job title and lump her in with the white males to look diversity friendly. Yay!
  - raganwald 14y ago
    False dichotomy. I'd feel less offended if the organizer responded to the question by saying "Here is our fully transparent process that involved reaching out to a large number of qualified people across various cultural lines, and this is the result." And speaking of false dichotomies, it's INCREDIBLY sexist to suggest that if a woman was be chosen, she was of lower quality than the men and was only picked for her gender. You're implying that women are not qualified to speak at conferences.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
arrrg 14y ago
How does that follow from any of this?
- ceras 14y ago
  I got the same impression from the article, actually. As a minority in CS, I find it offensive that people just want to toss us in there to add "diversity." I have no reason to think the event's organizers were being sexist or racist (and I don't suspect it), but if they deliberately set out to find women or Hispanics to speak and set a quota for it like the author suggested I would certainly find that offensive. Just my two cents. Edit: Just want to clarify that I think diversity in this field is a huge problem, and I care a lot about it, but the author's tone (he was immediately critical of organizers who may be innocent) and suggestion did not sit well with me.
  - arrrg 14y ago
    Where does the author make that suggestion? I see no accusation of sexism or racism. I’m sorry, but an all-male lineup really is not so great. It may not be literally ‘inexcusable’, but it’s pretty damn close. When you then get a hostile response that doesn’t even attempt to excuse (maybe there is a valid excuse of some sort), then that behavior is literally inexcusable. Yes, I do expect conference organizers to put extra effort into making sure the lineup is at least somewhat balanced. Just not being actively sexist (by, say, denying qualified female speakers) is most certainly not enough. When an all-male lineup is the result of their normal process then I do expect organizers to go the extra mile, looking for qualified female speakers. That’s all, and it’s really not that much to expect. I expect no one to relax their criteria for selection, but I do expect people to search harder. I think that’s very much needed.

I find the assumption behind this statement offensive, deeply offensive. Nobody is saying "Nominate less qualified speakers," people are saying "Don't overlook qualified speakers who happen to be brown, beige, female, and/or fifty years old." If you could find someone beige AND fifty with 40,000 points on hacker news, a popular blog, and experience keynoting conferences, that would be great, wouldn't it?

jonathanyc 14y ago
How is the assumption behind your statement any less offensive? You're assuming that because there isn't "diversity" the organizers must be racist or biased. Give it a rest.
- raganwald 14y ago
  "You're assuming that because there isn't "diversity" the organizers must be racist or biased" Whoa, nellie! That isn't the argument, not by a long shot. Let's take race out of this. I organize a tech conference. All the speakers are cyclists. Why? Because I asked everyone I knew personally to speak. I am not prejudiced against non-cyclists, it just so happens that because I cycle, I know a lot of cyclists socially. There is no malicious intent, but the result is not representative of the world we live in, just of a small pocket of the world. Furthermore, I have absolutely and positively overlooked speakers like Sandi Metz who are cyclists, but don't ride in Ontario, or Pete Forde, who lives in Toronto but doesn't ride. Whereas, if I sat down with the plan from the start to canvas the best speakers available, I would have cast a wider net than just my personal friends. I have no idea what process those organizers used, but judging by the result, it did not include reaching out to a large number of qualified speakers.
ryguytilidie 14y ago
I have to say, I disagree a bit. The author seems to throw a fit at the organizer and says "really? you couldnt find any qualified (insert non white male description here)?" It is a complete strawman. The organizer thought "hey let me invite the best people in the field, who are all very qualified" and the author assigned him the mindset of "I only want white males". This is what they came up with. If they sprinkle in a few women and minorities to appease people like the author, it is vastly more offensive imo.
cantastoria 14y ago
* I would explicitly not be satisfied with a process that resulted in 100% male speakers. I would have stopped once we’d reached, say, 17 male out of 22 possible speakers (being pretty conservative, I think) and insisted that the remaining five (a cool 22% female representation) would have to be women. * Nobody is saying "Nominate less qualified speakers" but what this seems to be saying essentially is "Nominate women because they are women". And nobody is saying Don't overlook qualified speakers who happen to be brown, beige, female, and/or fifty years old they're saying look at your speaker lineup and balance it out based on race/gender and age. They're advocating a purely aesthetic exercise which unfortunately just further stigmatizes those it's trying to help (i.e. "She's here because they just needed some women to balance out the lineup").
- ryguytilidie 14y ago
  First Round Capital's "people" section always makes me think of this exactly. Note the people, then note the job titles. This might be the most blatant trying to look like you're minority friendly thing possible, short of maybe pasting a black face on a white partner. Pic: http://cl.ly/image/0X0r0D090l0X http://cl.ly/image/0X0r0D090l0X
jonallanharper 14y ago
No one cares what color or age you are raganwald. That's the entire point. If you identify yourself by your skin color, then you are in fact racist.
- arrrg 14y ago
  Yeah, if I look away hard enough racism and sexism will just magically disappear! You people make me despair. It’s always the same shit.
  - antonID 14y ago
    The fact that a lineup of white male speakers (because a majority of programmers are male) automatically makes you think that it is an intentional act by the event organizers to discriminate against women/minorities is foolish and offensive. This is similar to I believe a couple summers ago when Square had their summer intern program going, and all of the interns were male (because no females applied) and Jack Dorsey was attacked on Twitter for it. Square did not discriminate against people, but of course people leap to turning these people into the villain instead of thinking that it may be possible that no qualified minorities/women were able to speak at the conference for one reason or another. The organizer of this event is right to ignore this straw-man argument of trying to call him a racist/sexist because he knows that the allegation is ridiculous.
    - raganwald 14y ago
      "automatically makes you think that it is an intentional act by the event organizers to discriminate against women/minorities..." Whoa, nellie! That isn't the argument, not by a long shot. Let's take race out of this. I organize a tech conference. All the speakers are cyclists. Why? Because I asked everyone I knew personally to speak. I am not prejudiced against non-cyclists, it just so happens that because I cycle, I know a lot of cyclists socially. There is no malicious intent, but the result is not representative of the world we live in, just of a small pocket of the world. Furthermore, I have absolutely and positively overlooked speakers like Sandi Metz who are cyclists, but don't ride in Ontario, or Pete Forde, who lives in Toronto but doesn't ride. Whereas, if I sat down with the plan from the start to canvas the best speakers available, I would have cast a wider net than just my personal friends. OI have no idea what process those organizers used, but judging by the result, it did not include reaching out to a large number of qualified speakers. So I raise my hand and ask, "Could this process be improved?" No accusation of deliberate malice or even incompetence, just asking how we can do this better.
ryguytilidie 14y ago
I posted this comment below, but I wanted it to respond to yours as well. Which would you feel less offended by: A group of white males that were picked soley based on their ability and nothing else. Orrrr....Something like this: http://cl.ly/image/0X0r0D090l0X http://cl.ly/image/0X0r0D090l0X, recruit a minority female, give her a lower job title and lump her in with the white males to look diversity friendly. Yay!
- raganwald 14y ago
  False dichotomy. I'd feel less offended if the organizer responded to the question by saying "Here is our fully transparent process that involved reaching out to a large number of qualified people across various cultural lines, and this is the result." And speaking of false dichotomies, it's INCREDIBLY sexist to suggest that if a woman was be chosen, she was of lower quality than the men and was only picked for her gender. You're implying that women are not qualified to speak at conferences.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

arrrg 14y ago

How does that follow from any of this?

ceras 14y ago
I got the same impression from the article, actually. As a minority in CS, I find it offensive that people just want to toss us in there to add "diversity." I have no reason to think the event's organizers were being sexist or racist (and I don't suspect it), but if they deliberately set out to find women or Hispanics to speak and set a quota for it like the author suggested I would certainly find that offensive. Just my two cents. Edit: Just want to clarify that I think diversity in this field is a huge problem, and I care a lot about it, but the author's tone (he was immediately critical of organizers who may be innocent) and suggestion did not sit well with me.
- arrrg 14y ago
  Where does the author make that suggestion? I see no accusation of sexism or racism. I’m sorry, but an all-male lineup really is not so great. It may not be literally ‘inexcusable’, but it’s pretty damn close. When you then get a hostile response that doesn’t even attempt to excuse (maybe there is a valid excuse of some sort), then that behavior is literally inexcusable. Yes, I do expect conference organizers to put extra effort into making sure the lineup is at least somewhat balanced. Just not being actively sexist (by, say, denying qualified female speakers) is most certainly not enough. When an all-male lineup is the result of their normal process then I do expect organizers to go the extra mile, looking for qualified female speakers. That’s all, and it’s really not that much to expect. I expect no one to relax their criteria for selection, but I do expect people to search harder. I think that’s very much needed.