To all those who were wondering, the answer is "Duh, yes"


The question? Read on.

To all of the bloggers out there wondering if people get up in arms about white-bread conference speaking rosters because they think conference organizers are outright showing bias against women (or minorities) when choosing those rosters, the answer is "Duh, yes!"

Folks seems to ask hoping it's merely a rhetorical question, the obvious unspoken response being "oh, don't you worry, no one is actually calling you guys biased...they're just whining and complaining about abstract concepts of balance and diversity."

I don't think so.

If you actually read the posts and comments of most women and men advocating for more diversity at conferences, you would find these statements to be fairly consistent;

1. Yes, we think it's important to achieve more diversity at conferences.

2. No, most of us have never advocated for any specific percentage break-down. To rail against the concept of going 50/50 because of various reasons (usually that it doesn't reflect the breakdown in the industry) is a straw man argument. (Although, I must say, I think any conference organizer could indeed achieve that if they wanted to without sacrificing quality.)

3. No, I don't believe I've ever seen anyone advocating for bringing on less talented, less qualified or less interesting speakers just to achieve some fictitious specific ratio of speakers.

4. The reason no one advocates for incompetent, unqualified speakers is because those of us talking about this issue believe there are competent, qualified, talented, skillful speakers out there who are not being leveraged.

5. And yes, most posts you read are perfectly clear about saying they do indeed think there is bias at work.

6. To ask whether folks are really accusing conference organizers of consciously and vocally choosing men over women (or whites over non-whites) is another straw man argument. That is not the kind of bias that most folks are talking about. In fact, if you really wanted to read what i and others say about it, without getting your defensive knickers in a twist, you would see cogent arguments that explain how both conscious and unconscious bias are both at work. And how it requires conscious effort to make sure one does not fall into that trap. It is really disheartening to me that so many folks out there hate the idea of having to be conscious or make an effort.

7. It is another failing argument to mention the "slippery slope", as though caring about diversity about gender and race will inevitably lead to caring about whether red-headed, left-handed Australians are represented. This is akin to worry that gay marriage will inevitably lead to legalized bigamy with animals. We are talking about demographic specifics that encompass large percentages of people, both in the work force and in the desired user base. Percentages large enough for you to care about. Percentages large enough to have an economic impact beyond the pure right and wrong argument. But more to the point: some industries may actually discover other demographics that should matter to them and that they should make a conscious effort to include. A political conference might need to make sure they represent voices across the liberal to conservative spectrum if they really want open, challenging discourse. A programming conference might want to make sure they have Windows, Mac, Linux and other advocates in the house to have the richest conversations. A conference on global poverty might actually want to hear from folks living in countries with varying poverty rates to best explore the causes and solutions of poverty. And somewhere there might be some conference that would benefit from red-headed, left-handed Australians being represented. I don't know why or how, but I also don't know why is it so scary to consider that?

8. Finally, am I some big proponent of biological determinism?Actually, no. It is not the very existence of our ovaries that might indicate that women would have something different and positive to bring to the table. It is the aggregate of our experience growing up in society, progressing through an educational system and advancing in any industry with those ovaries. Is it so hard to imagine that one has a different experience or receives different messages based on whether one is majority or minority, in power or not in power? I don't think it's so hard to imagine. And I don't think it's bad to explore the idea and find out.

Posted: Mon - February 26, 2007 at 07:41 AM       EmailFeedback

©