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

[Damian Rouson]

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

> 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.
>

Unfortunately, that is insufficient to defend the inflammatory things Van
has written in this thread.  The fact that people defend and thereby enable
such communications is equally problematic and I hope our society someday
reaches a point when that becomes sufficiently clear that no one would feel
empowered to write such things to a worldwide body.  I won't hold my breath
until that moment comes.


>
> 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. )
>

Please (re)read Bryce's emails -- most notably the extensively annotated
argument that addressing diversity and inclusion is part of our jobs.
Narrower interpretations placed upon our roles by those who profess to
value diversity and inclusion has helped to work against those aims for
decades.  I am extremely thankful for communications from our leadership
explaining that doing so is no longer acceptable.


>
> 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.
>

Blaming this on the pipeline is a nearly ubiquitous approach by those who
are comfortable enough with the status quo to seek to explain it away.
Sorry, Bill.  Data and analysis both undermine the notion that the lack of
diversity we witness in this arena and others like it can be explained away
by pipeline issues.  I've watched many more organizations than this one
sloppily make such claims without bothering to look at the data and do the
analysis to support those claims.  We can do better.

Damian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20200603/87ac749b/attachment-0001.htm>