On 01/09/17 07:52, Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote:

Re-posting the below, which ended up on the wrong mailing list:

Hi,

I don't know if it's okay if I add my five cents (adjusted for inflation), but I'm reasonably well-read on this and adjacent topics, as well as included in the list of minorities that would be sponsored under the Outreachy program.

But I am unequivocally against such programs, on the simple grounds that it tries to combat discrimination _through_ discrimination, which is about as silly to me as trying to achieve world peace through war. It generates envy/antipathy in individuals from groups that are excluded from the given list of minorities, and it generates imposter syndrome in those who are, because they might only be hired/accepted because of their status as minority, rather than excelling in their skillset.

In this particular case, Outreachy, many of the people who are not eligible for Outreachy can already apply to GSoC and be accepted there.

So what Outreachy is doing in this case is simply making a lot of noise to attract women to apply for internships that are very similar to GSoC

It could be argued that Outreachy should simply direct those applicants to apply to GSoC though

In numbers: there are usually around 50 women selected in each Outreachy, while there were over 1,300 people, including women, selected in the current round of GSoC.

We also have many cases where a woman applies to Outreachy but we encourage her to duplicate her application in GSoC so she can be funded with Google's program. In these cases, when the woman is selected in GSoC, it is because her application is competitive with the male applicants and she deserves to be selected on merit. Yet we would not have met some of these applicants without the publicity created by Outreachy.

Some of the points made by Karen Sandler in her talk at DebConf address your concerns too:

http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2017/debconf17/debian...

I would be very against getting involved in this program, though I know that the FSFE currently practises positive discrmination selection standards for its internship program:

...

We want more women to be involved in Free Software. That's why we will give preference to applications from suitably qualified female candidates.

from https://fsfe.org/contribute/internship.en.html

I'd personally be a little bit disappointed if this carried any significance in my being selected as intern, because I do believe that I can hold my own with my unique skillset.

On Thursday, 31 August 2017 13:43:59 CEST Daniel Pocock wrote:

...

Increasing diversity could also help avoid situations like this in future.

I don't know if there is any evidence to suggest this. Where there are humans, things sometimes go awry. Having a more ethnically/sexually diverse cast of humans doesn't change that.

Be that as it may, I don't aim to change any hearts or minds. I just wanted to add my couple of cents.

Yours sincerely,

---

Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Carmen Bianca Bakker carmenbianca@fsfe.org wrote:

But I am unequivocally against such programs, on the simple grounds that it tries to combat discrimination _through_ discrimination, which is about as silly to me as trying to achieve world peace through war. It generates envy/antipathy in individuals from groups that are excluded from the given list of minorities, and it generates imposter syndrome in those who are, because they might only be hired/accepted because of their status as minority, rather than excelling in their skillset.

Thank you. Also, on a practical level, Outreachy's given list of minorities is very different from the list usually protected by law in European countries and I suggest that focusing on Outreachy as a discrimination correction measure can easily mean that non-gender-or-race discrimination is left unchallenged.

Sometimes things are fuzzy, though: is it disability discrimination to require an intern to move to a city where only about half the metro is accessible, or is it a necessary part of the job? Hmmm...

Regards,

Hello,

On Saturday, 2 September 2017 09:51:36 CEST Nikos Roussos wrote:

I don't see any discrimination here, and in general in any initiative that tries to help minorities.

It is discrimination by its very definition, though. That is: making a distinction between groups of people. This program most definitely does that. It distinguishes between a population it identifies as disadvantaged minorities (cis/trans women, ethnic minorities in the US), and a population it identifies as advantaged members of the majority group (everybody else), and treats those populations differently. One population is permitted an internship, and the other is not.

That is discrimination. What you probably mean, however, is that this is acceptable discrimination to you. I don't think like that. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I like to stay as consistent as I can in my beliefs/opinions: I loathe unjust discrimination.

Orwell put it well in Animal Farm.

Treating these efforts as discrimination means that we ignore the fact that we live in a world where not all people have the same opportunities and that people of certain gender or color are privileged.

I personally find this brush a little too broad. Gender and ethnicity aren't excellent indicators of levels of privilege. Take an orphan white boy, or a black girl born/adopted into a rich family, and this all falls apart.

You are right, of course, that _on average_ black people and women get the shorter end of the stick in many cases. And that ought to get fixed as soon as possible. But that, to me, is not justification for collectivist discrimination.

I also disagree that treating (positive/affirmative/reverse) discrimination as discrimination per se means ignoring the state of the world. You can be _for_ equality, but _against_ certain methods that might lead to equality. And I am wholly against this type of discrimination.

I very much prefer alternative methods. I really admire a lot of the LGBT community, for instance, in how they approached their struggle for equality. Their focus on love is exemplary, and the inclusion of gay characters/people in popular media -- often as equals -- has done more for them than anything else ever could.

And none of that necessitated active discrimination.

There is a well known comic strip that illustrates that fairly well. http://comediscovervcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/equity-graphic.j pg

I know this graphic. I choose to interpret it as class inequality, not gender/ethnic inequality. Low privilege is not by any means inherent to your gender or ethnicity. It is a possible indicator at best, but never absolutely inherent. Low privilege is, however, inherent to low income. In which case, I agree that the lower classes require more assistance than the higher echelons -- at the cost of those higher echelons.

To assume that minorities per se require assistance, is to me the soft bigotry of low expectations, which I eschew immensely.

But all that aside, I really don't want to cause a huge kerfuffle. I'm here for free software, and I've said my bit on this tangent :-) I respect your opinion, I just disagree.

Yours sincerely,

On September 2, 2017 11:45:20 AM GMT+03:00, Carmen Bianca Bakker carmenbianca@fsfe.org wrote:

Hello,

On Saturday, 2 September 2017 09:51:36 CEST Nikos Roussos wrote:

...

I don't see any discrimination here, and in general in any initiative that tries to help minorities.

It is discrimination by its very definition, though. That is: making a distinction between groups of people.

Of people that have same opportunities. So I'd say that these kind of programs are meant to reverse discrimination imposed already in our societies.

But you are right, that to some extend we define discrimination differently. I see no discrimination because these initiatives don't take away opportunities from other groups of people. They can still contribute through other ways that already exist out there and in general favor white males.

I very much prefer alternative methods. I really admire a lot of the LGBT community, for instance, in how they approached their struggle for equality. Their focus on love is exemplary, and the inclusion of gay characters/people in popular media -- often as equals -- has done more for them than anything else ever could.

Sure, but popular media are mostly in the hands of privileged people, so these examples are rare. Also part of the LGBT and fiminism community also organizes similar types of initiatives like django-girls, Ruby Girls summer of code, pyladies, cryptodinners, etc.

...

There is a well known comic strip that illustrates that fairly well.

http://comediscovervcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/equity-graphic.j

...

pg

I know this graphic. I choose to interpret it as class inequality, not gender/ethnic inequality. Low privilege is not by any means inherent to your gender or ethnicity.

Different type of inequalities definitely, but all are imposed by the structure of our societies. The equality vs equity paradigm is true for all of them.

~nikos

On September 2, 2017 2:32:03 PM GMT+03:00, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro wrote:

So that is not really discrimination, that is just matching a problem with a solution.

Exactly. You can't judge Outreachy and similar efforts in vacuum. You have to put them in perspective within the bigger picture of Open Source projects or Tech industry in general. Where we see extended discrimination against women and LGBT people.

Where I live (Greece) we have many initiatives that try to help refugees. I'd be surprised if people start opposing these efforts on the ground of discrimination against native people. And if you isolate them, you may end up in that conclusion. But if you see the bigger picture (how EU countries treat refugees) you realize that these initiatives are actually a fight against discrimination and racism.

~nikos