Re: [Gendispatch] revised

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

On 3/31/21 7:17 AM, Mallory Knodel wrote:
>
> On 3/31/21 9:35 AM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>>
>> On 3/31/21 6:10 AM, Mallory Knodel wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/23/21 10:12 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>>>>   There seems to be a desire to have the group focus
>>>>      (first/primarily?) on race as the single axis in which to 
>>>> discuss diversity
>>>>      and inclusiveness, e.g. [1]-- and that would be very divisive and
>>>>      destructive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think it would be destructive, as opposed to a first 
>>>> step because some think it is easier to handle?
>>>>
>>>
>>> This work hasn't been chartered to focus on race; we're focussing on 
>>> racism. Racism is systemic social oppression, so it's within an 
>>> institution like the IETF's remit to ameliorate these larger social 
>>> ills as they play out within its community, eg as through 
>>> initiatives like using inclusive language.
>>
>>   Uhm...no. Defining racism as "systemic social oppression" means 
>> that certain groups
>> (those who do not wield systemic power) cannot commit racism.
>
> It's not my definition.

   If it's not your definition then why did you say, "Racism is systemic 
social oppression"?

   Seems it most definitely IS your definition.

> We're not concerned with who is doing the committing.

   You're playing a semantic game. You're concerned with "what" is doing
the committing and that "what" is composed of people who have a certain
racial makeup.

>> Racism is actually the act of prejudice and antagonism against people 
>> on the basis
>> of their race.
>
> That's discrimination and hate crimes, et al. Those are prohibited in 
> the IETF by BCP 54.

   Actually no. It's not. It's EXACTLY what comes up when you google 
"definition of racism",
it's the common, accepted definition of the term.

> There are relationships between all of these concepts, but it's 
> important to be clear where TERM is focussed.
>
>>   And while this is, indeed, a social ill it is not up to a technical 
>> standards body like the IETF
>> to ameliorate it. We have protocols to finish!
>
> I said:
>
>> it's within an institution like the IETF's remit to ameliorate these 
>> larger social ills as they play out within its community, eg as 
>> through initiatives like using inclusive language
>
>>> We're not talking about individuals' racial identities.
>>
>>    You're talking about a group's racial identity. You treat 
>> individuals as members of a
>> group. I still maintain that is divisive and destructive and I don't 
>> think it's a good path
>> for anyone to go down, certainly not us.
>
> Research and academic scholarship has shown that for diversity, equity 
> and inclusion efforts to be effective that concrete actions have to be 
> taken, beyond just a vague commitment to do better. That just makes us 
> feel better temporarily without actually changing anything. The IETF 
> is doing concrete things, and it's really great to see. One of the 
> important elements is to _elevate_ identity because in an unequal and 
> exclusive community, bias is _hidden_ identity discrimination.

    Define "effective" as it relates to the core function of the IETF. 
What permanent
change do you wish to see?

   And I would love to see the scholarship you refer to, please send 
pointers (but if
it's behind a pay wall don't bother).

   In your hypothetical community A may cause B, but everywhere else an 
observed B
does not mean A.

> No doubt this is divisive, though IME it's uniquely acute in the IETF. 

   Really? So please do call out the racism and bias of the IETF, 
explicitly. Let me
remind you again that disparate impact is not evidence of racism and it 
is a fallacy
(specifically, the residual fallacy [1]) to claim otherwise. So, 
excluding disparate
impact, where is this racism and bias you speak of?

> It might also be temporarily destructive (anti-racism is about 
> destroying racism, after all). However, a strong and goal-oriented 
> (protocols!) community like the IETF will certainly survive TERM for 
> the better.

   You pit one group against another. That's destructive and it ain't 
temporary. The
whole "anti-racism" agenda is Maoist struggle sessions. it's the 
cultural revolution
all over again, you just haven't brought out the dunce cap (yet). 
Nothing good came
out of that nonsense and nothing good will come if we try it again.

   Dan.


[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4LjWMITwXs

-- 
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius