Get Updates in your Feed Reader
‘White Boys Clubs’ and Historical Sensitivity
September 17, 2006
So, there’s a little bit of a mini-controversy brewing in our little corner of the world. This time it has to do with the ethnic/gender makeup of the Carson Workshop’s Future of Web Apps panel (and more broadly, the diversity in panels and events industry-wide).
Chris over at Factory Joe attended the Carson workshop and felt compelled to speak out about the lack of diversity in the invited panel speakers. In his blogpost The Future of White Boy clubs, he wrote:
As a white boy who attended yesterday and today’s Future of Web Apps summit, I feel compelled to speak up about a disturbing element of an otherwise well-produced event.
[...]
I talked to Ryan Carson and Lisa about this  about why there was so little diversity (especially gender diversity) at FoWA. Apparently they did dry to recruit some women speakers, but the two that came to mind didn’t respond in time; so the Carson crew got tied up organizing everything else and the matter fell by the wayside. Once they had their final speaker line up, it was too late.
[...]
And so then I talked to Matt yesterday and he pointed out that, well, maybe, the speakers represent the make-up of the community.
This is a sentiment I’ve read expressed across a few different comments and blog entries on this topic. And I’m here to call bull on the whole excuse. Because that’s what it is. An excuse. A big fat cop-out.
It’s historically insensitive and a real cop-out to flippantly use the “maybe it’s just reflective of the community” argument to fend off criticism of a lack of diversity. And I think we should be careful at how lightly we let it slip from our mouths. If history is anything, it is a reflection of us as people just what a bunch of bastards we can be. You, me, everyone. We should be learning from it and improving ourselves, not using the rhetoric of the past to brush off criticisms we’re just too lazy or unwilling to deal with.
Otherwise we’re just using same type of rhetoric that has in the past been used to defend or justify some really horrible behavior. You know, I could easily say “it’s just a reflection of the community” to defend how pasty white our U.S. Congress is or why so many big business leaders are white. Because it’s representative of the community? I’d beg to differ. And you if you think otherwise, you need to read book or two (but really read it, not skim it like you did in high school while you were waiting for Windows 3.11 to reboot).
So sure, I would say that the web app community leaders right now are probably whiter than bleached flour and got something hanging between the legs, but the community certainly isn’t so. And saying that is at best short-sighted.
Now, I’m not arguing whether Carson Systems should’ve done this or that. There’s already a solid discussion taking place and I’m sure Ryan and crew are sensitive to what is happening. I’m arguing the response to the criticism of the lack of diversity of conference panel.
Let’s not fall into the trap of being apologists for something we truly don’t believe in.
What to do? I think Chris is spot on with his approach to the problem:
Now let me suggest an elevation of the topic, because there’s really something practical and motivating about this power that we have. First of all, it’s not something shameful and it’s not something that we ought feel bad about; admitting and owning our historically exclusionary behavior will not emasculate us. On the contrary, to my thinking, taking responsibility and doing something shows a degree of chivalry that can reveal where true insecurity lies.
We should be using the situation to improve ourselves and empower others. Shrugging it off is not at all helpful.
Thanks for picking up this thread, Ryan. And I think you’re right to pick up the affirmative and positive message that I was positing: it’s not about laying blame (that’s always too easy and puts people’s backs up) but about looking squarely at the matter and acknowledging, hell yes, we can do better. And must.
-----
If minorities are being purposefully excluded from participating in anything, of course that’s bad. Very bad. But this current issue seems to be built on nothing. Didn’t we just establish that Carson Workshops DID try to recruit some non-white/male speakers? And that they didn’t respond in time to be included? Sounds to me like those individuals chose to not participate by way of inaction.
Sure, we need to be inclusive and encourage event organizers to be color-agnostic. But lambasting white speakers just because they’re willing and available seems pretty uncool (I am referring to the images at Chris’s website where he displayed pictures of speakers and slapped a “WHITE” sticker next to their face).
Different colors of skin is not diversity. Sorry.
I agree, Jared and I think you’re responding to Chris’ comment, not my entry (at least I hope so).
But just to be clear: I’m not arguing whether or not the Carson workshop was diverse enough or not. Not even close. I’m arguing that the response to an accusation of lack of diversity shouldn’t be brushed off with insensitive statements like “maybe it’s just reflective of the community.” Because we all know that it’s not.
Agreed, 100%.
And I agree with Ryan.
Carson Workshop did make an effort, though clearly it was not something that they were able to make good on—so it’s not the fault of the even organizers, the speakers and so on. It’s not about blame. But this is everyone’s issue inasmuch as all-male, all-white speakers do not reflect the wider community at large, most of all those involved in technology.
And this is an ongoing issue, not one that gets “solved once and for all"…
Surely this boils down to one thing - equality of access, and equality of opportunity.
The speakers at the FoWA conference, which I did not attend, where absoutely top-notch speakers, some of the most respected names in the web application development field. There is not one of them who “should not” have been there.
Would it have been fair to them, or to the paying attendees, to kick one of them off the panel to facility ‘diversity’?
If someone had been denied a place at the event on grounds of their colour and/or sex, then that would have been an issue worth discussing.
“Positive Discrimination” is always discriminatory, and rarely positive.
No one’s suggesting that anyone should have been “kicked” or that the speakers weren’t high calibre. That’s not the issue and avoids the crux of the matter: the gamut of speakers did not represent those who are building the future of web apps, and therefore, it’s hard to say that this conference was able to cover as many sides of the issues as possible—except for those important to white men.
For me, I know that my clients are not going to be building a business for only white men, so why should a conference (any conference, not just FoWA) that portends to be about the state and future of technology not include the best of the best representatives from all sides of the community?
This isn’t about positive discrimination or affirmative action, though effort does indeed need to be made in order to expand the demographics of the conversation. Truly you’re actually limiting the richness of the dialogue if the speakers only represent one or two walks of life. The issue is diversity of ideas and quality of content, which, more often than not, have to do with one’s background, one’s experience and one’s community. That any conference would only put up the white male perspective on stage and claim universality is simply wrong.
FoWA was a great conference; and it is my contention that it could have been even better had more communities been represented in the speaker pool.
I think this is an interesting issue. Being part of the whole “who’s building the next big thing in the interwebs” movement, and being mexican (born, raised, moved to SF one year ago), I have never experienced any sort of discriminatory treatment from the web community. I was a panelist at the last SxSW and no one so much as raised an eyebrow. Then again, I look like a white boy (not by any conscious effort on my part, mind you).
I feel torn on this, since I tend to be against the whole “political correctness” movement in general. In Mexico we don’t usually give a damn about these things (this got us in trouble with the US powers that be when our govt. released a postcard bearing the face of a stereotypical cartoon black kid as an homage to a 60’s comic book, by the way). Then again, it *is* desirable to have a wider array of representation. The problem seems to be that most of the people willing to self-promote (whore themselves out? =) ) are, indeed, white boys.
Then again, if this is about self-promotion, why don’t I see Paul Scrivens (of 9rules) as a speaker in more of these things? (it may have to do with the fact that he’s crazy, but it may also be that he’s being overlooked because --dare I say this-- of his skin color?).
Tricky, this one.
Chris, you say that this isn’t about “affirmative action”, but by definition I think that this is exactly what it boils down to. In theory I agree with all of this… but only in theory.
From a purely statistical and sociologic point of view, any time you place an open call for “representatives” from a community, a fairly accurate demographic sampling of that community should emerge so long as the following conditions are met:
a) There is equal access and privilege given to all individuals involved.
b) All individuals involved have a desire to participate equally.
There is no indication from what I read above that there wasn’t an equal opportunity given to all qualified members of the web dev community to apply for panel positions. If there was, and they were for whatever reason denied on the grounds of their demographic, then this entire argument would hold water.
Perhaps if there was an actual case example, such as a pissed off minority/female, or a group representing one or more pissed off minorities/females, there might be more to this (see point b). But until that comes to fruition this is all quite presumptuous.
And furthermore, the qualifications of these speakers should be strictly based on skillsets and experience, both in their profession and in their ability to deliver a public discussion. I’m not insinuating that there aren’t any qualified minorities or females for the job, but that one’s gender or skin color should not have any relevance in the selection process. Putting a person into a position based on superficial determinations in order to establish an air of visual diversification may feel like progress and look like progress, but it is not progress.
I believe that the community’s best talent will emerge naturally so long as the aforementioned points are met. I’d love to see more minorities and women having a larger influence at these things, but not because they’ve been plucked to represent their demographic.
It’s funny how when we try to defend civil rights, we sometimes end up being discriminatory ourselves. The idea that a white man cannot speak for a minority on the topic of web development is ridiculous. We all use the same Internet, so to suggest that we need to segregate ourselves into race or gender groups in order to accurately address the concerns of “our people” is an idea that sets us back 100 years. Sure, we ALL use it a little differently, but that’s a distinction made from person to person, not race to race or gender to gender. If we are truly a society that is tearing down the walls of discrimination by letting women and minorities into the world of the white man, then it has to be able to work the other way around, too.
Bobby, I think that you’re making a sound argument here but the “ifs” that you present are where things fall short.
Open access is not the same as equal access. And implicit discrimination is a much more modern and nefarious form of discrimination.
To be sure, as I’ve said before, I don’t have all the answers, nor do I think they even all exist yet. I do think, however, that 1) accepting that a mostly male and mostly white panel of speakers represents the widest array of opinions is misguided and 2) that I disagree with your assertion that there is equal access and privilege given to all individuals involved.
And this is where technology falls short at solving the problem, because we immediately get into matters of socioeconomics, and I’m even less an expert in that topic. However, we’re still historically behind Indian cultures in promoting distributed access to quality education (you could also look at the geographic diversity of speakers if you wanted to ignore race and gender and you’d find similar lack of diversity). That primary lack of access to opportunity the way “our daughters are raised” and educated has a lot to do with the underlying societal aspects of this issue.
So if we all had access to equal education, to equal economic opportunities, to equal representation in the courts and if there were representative numbers of each race, gender and creed in jail, then I might accept as true your second proposition. That that is not the case suggests that your logic fails on the first point and that finding a solution is not that simple, though I wish it were.
And that’s why I’ve advocated for ongoing awareness of and attention to the matter—since we can only improve and set an example in our small corner of the economy. Inasmuch as non-white or non-male folks are rising up in spite of the societal factors that otherwise keep their peers invisible, we should be seeking out those that represent or come from those backgrounds and giving them the mic such that we may someday get to a point where your #1 can be true and that #2 flows from that reality.
Thank you Ryan for remind all us white guys out there that we must work hard to be inclusive. I mean VERY hard. We have to be willing to endure and go the extra miles it takes to increase understanding among races and genders.