[J3] (SC22WG5.6224) [Fwd: [SC22] ISO Gender Action Plan Survey]

[Bill Long]

Hi Damian,

1) Van has already he is retiring this year, so his comments are not that determinant of the future activities of the committee. 

2) The “committee’s charge” is to produce a standards document for Fortran.  It is a stretch to expect the committee to cure any or all social ills.  I agree that we should treat people fairly and support the idea of equality of opportunity.    (The idea of everyone BEING equal is biological nonsense. That concept would apply only to a collection of robots with identical design, processors, and software. In the situation, I’m fine with objecting to favoritism toward the ones painted orange as opposed to blue. )

3) Van’s comments about the deficiencies associated with so-called “schools of education” are widely held  (especially by parents) and supported by significant evidence.  I have my own opinions about how teaching could be improved - for example require that someone teaching a subject (math, for example) have a college degree in that subject (and NOT in Education).  But there are very politically powerful unions behind the current system and they have no interest in change.   We could advocate for changes like that in education, though it is a double-edged sword.  In the process you end up peeling the most talented women out of teaching and into STEM careers.  Which is part of the reason for the current sad state of teaching.  (I had some really excellent women math teachers in secondary school.  Even in today’s imperfect, but improved, environment, I would expect that zero of them would have opted for teaching.)   These are really hard problems to solve. 

Cheers,
BIll
  

> On Jun 3, 2020, at 4:23 PM, Damian Rouson via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 

Bill Long                                                                       longb at cray.com
Principal Engineer, Fortran Technical Support &   voice:  651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development                      fax:  651-605-9143
Cray, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise company/ 2131 Lindau Lane/  Suite 1000/  Bloomington, MN  55425