[J3] (SC22WG5.6225) [Fwd: [SC22] ISO Gender Action Plan Survey]

[Damian Rouson]

Van,

This latest response is absolutely horrific and doubles-down on defending
an inaccurate understanding of our committee's charge.  Bryce communicated
quite clearly that your previous email was unacceptable. This one is even
worse.  I hope some action will be taken to ensure that the committee is
not subjected to further divisive and corrosive communications.

Damian

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 2:07 PM Van Snyder via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
wrote:

> Brian Friesen bfriesen at lbl.gov Tue Jun 2 17:45:16 EDT 2020 wrote
>
>    Gender imbalance in computer science and other STEM fields has been
>    studied in enormous depth... there is a wealth of information which
>    can help us to understand it in more detail.
>
> Bill Long longb at cray.com Tue Jun 2 18:25:30 EDT 2020 wrote
>
>    Brian is right that the issue of few women in the computer field has
>    been studied exhaustively.   While the WG5 effort is good-
>    intentioned, I fear it is focused at the wrong end of the career
>    pipeline.
>
> So it's not obvious why UN/ISO need J3 and WG5 to waste our time to
> study it in further detail. Perhaps ISO should study the existing in-
> depth studies instead of doing yet another one. These pointless and
> repetitive studies might be part of the reason that ISO standards are
> so expensive. If ISO stuck to standards instead of thought policing,
> maybe their overhead would be lower.
>
> My remark that the survey is absurdly irrelevant politics follows from
> an observation that the only reason for such surveys is an asssumption
> that "inadequate" diversity is somehow the fault of everybody who isn't
> sufficiently diverse. I find that proposition intensely offensive.
>
>    "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
>
> Gender diversity (or the lack thereof) is not the collective fault of
> WG5 or individually of every WG5 member -- unless you're one who
> believes that every social evil implies collective instead of
> individual guilt. Any individual who opposes any kind of diversity can
> rightly be castigated. Any group that opposes any kind of diversity as
> a matter of policy can rightly be castigated. But I don't oppose
> diversity, and wouldn't join a group that does. Assuming everybody is
> at fault is profoundly offensive. It's not my fault that primary school
> teachers who don't have any knowledge or understanding of science,
> technology, engineering or mathematics start at a very early age to
> convince minority and female children that "STEM are anti-social, and
> even if they aren't, they're too hard for you." I observed this first-
> hand with my own daughters, and my friends' neighbors', and colleagues'
> children. This starts in our schools of education. My son-in-law had to
> take a Master's Degree in education to get a certificate in the county
> where he teaches. He calls it a "Master's Degree in Drivel."  That's
> where UN/ISO should start if they really believe it's their
> responsibility to address the problem. That's where I started, with my
> local school board and PTA, and the California State Superintendent of
> Public Instruction (whose daughter was in my Russian class in 1963).
>
> Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash brycelelbach at gmail.com Tue Jun  2
> 21:13:02 EDT 2020 wrote
>
>    I also want to make this clear: comments like this are not
>    acceptable.
>
> Thought police are not acceptable anywhere. If Bryce really believes
> that thought policing is important, perhaps a career move from SC22 to
> a twitter or facebook censorship position would be in order.
> Fortunately, the WG5 mailing list does not yet have a censor.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20200603/f7d46b0a/attachment.htm>