Re: [Gendispatch] draft-knodel-terminology-02

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

On 8/9/20 10:49 AM, Nick Doty wrote:
> I’m grateful to the IESG for their statement noting the harm of exclusionary language, which is important to hear from community leaders.

   I certainly am not!

   The IESG statement is merely an assertion. It does not say how
language excludes or who is excluded by language. And it does this
intentionally because the reasoning is likely fallacious or faulty
and exposes the person making the assertion to uncomfortable
further questions.

   draft-knodel-terminology says the quiet parts out loud though,
something the IESG statement avoided. And while the draft tries
to be cute by saying those quiet parts out loud in a rhetorical
question, it's still a rhetorical question and the answer is implied.
Those quiet parts said out loud are that the exclusionary language
is "master" and "slave" and those excluded are black people. We are
asked to consider, "what impact [reading this word] might have on
black students who are debating whether or not to enter science and
technology careers at all?" The question is answered since the
draft goes on to recommend action to get rid of these words.

   The etymology of "slave" is "Slav" [1] and the Slavs are white
people from Easter Europe who were subjected to slavery from the 9th
century until the early 20th when the last of Europe's slave markets
closed. So if historical experience with slavery is enough to cause
someone to question whether to enter a STEM field after seeing the
word "master" or "slave" it should be white people, specifically
Slavs.

   But it's absurd to suggest white people do not enter STEM degrees
because of this word. So why would black people whose experience with
slavery is almost entirely in North America and whose experience is
dwarfed by that of the Slavs? And this is where the IESG statement
and draft-knodel-terminology fail.

   What they're saying is white people would never react that way but
black people would. It's fundamentally a racist statement.It's the
racism of diminished expectations of an "other" group. Take a look
at the make-up of the authors of draft-knodel-terminology and the
IESG: white, western-educated, affluent, the opposite of this "other"
group they're white-knighting for.

   draft-knodel-terminology is racist and unless the IESG can explain
themselves, the implication is that they are also making a racist
assertion.

   This has no place in the IETF. This draft should be dispatched to
the nearest round file and the IESG should retract their statement
and apologize for it.

   regards,

   Dan.

[1] https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=slave