Prohibit reverse-isms.

[kern]

This is perhaps one of the most controversial segments of codes of conduct, so would like to open a discussion around it.

[KyCodeHuynh]

I fully agree with this prohibition. Diversity demands not just tolerance, but respect, and that can only flourish in the absence of intolerance. That includes not accepting the false equivalence that diversity efforts are somehow part of the same problem we seek to combat.

Taking just racism as an example, one explanation puts it this way:

Does reverse racism exist? Not according to the antiracist definition of racism. This definition includes institutional power and not just the prejudices of a lone individual. As institutions which have historically benefited whites attempt to diversify, however, they sometimes favor ethnic minorities over whites. Their purpose in doing so is to right the wrongs of the past and the present against minority groups.

Of course, I would be amiss if I did not point out Time Wise's excellent essay on this, which should be read in full.

This same argument is extensible to the remaining reverse-isms.

All that said, I see no reason why those curious to explore the topic (e.g., they're wading into the discussion around the topic for the first time) should be discouraged from constructive dialogue. Those who are honestly curious should be engaged in meaningful discussion over why this issue worries us. Those who seek to undermine us as a community should reform or be shown the door.

[taywrobel]

No reason to explicitly ban reverse-isms. Just don't explicitly condone it either (as other code of conducts do). I feel like the inclusivity statement already covers this adequately with:

Although this list cannot be exhaustive, we explicitly honor diversity in age, gender, gender identity or expression, culture, ethnicity, language, national origin, political beliefs, profession, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and technical ability. We will not tolerate discrimination based on any of the protected characteristics above, including participants with disabilities.

(Emphasis added)

[rubinovitz]

@twrobel3 the issue is we have had people on several occasions disrupt inclusivity conversations with unsupported allegations of reverse-isms.

@KyCodeHuynh thanks for this. we'd definitely need concrete resources to put this in the CoC.

[tbarn]

I totally forgot to give my personal two cents on this:

When the TODO Group came out of their Code of Conduct, one of the biggest complaints was its lack of wording saying that they will not act on complaints about reverse-isms. They actually later added it.

This CoC definitely needs it. I've seen it on multiple occasions interrupt conversations on diversity. It does more harm than good when allowed.

[hellyeah]

@tbarn just to clarify, you're saying that we should include wording saying that we will not act on complaints about reverse-isms?

If so, I agree with that and would love to find the best Code of Conducts with wording on that. Looking at TODO's right now.

[rubinovitz]

@tbarn did you see the backlash to the github CoC and how they ended up
eventually taking it down and not giving a good explanation for this? Has
there been progress since then?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015, 5:31 PM David Fontenot [email protected]
wrote:

@tbarn https://github.com/tbarn just to clarify, you're saying that we
should include wording saying that we will not act on complaints about
reverse-isms?

If so, I agree with that.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#24 (comment)
.

[taywrobel]

I don't feel like the backlash to github's CoC section of allowing reverse-isms was unwarranted, and I think it'd be a mistake to add it to the CoC here. @tbarn, maybe I just don't pay close enough attention, but I haven't seen complaints of revers-ism interrupting diversity. Do you have any references or links to threads where this has happened?

In the end there is just fundamentally something wrong with condoning (which is for all intents and purposes the same as ignoring complaints about) racism/sexism/whatever-ism, just because the attacked party's race, gender, or sexual orientation is alleged to be "privileged" in some way. In the end it's still turning the other cheek to all of these "-isms".

If you want equality, treat all parties equally. I fail to see how that notion is so controversial, and as I said, the current CoC covers that already, with:

We will not tolerate discrimination based on any of the protected characteristics above

[tbarn]

@hellyeah Correct. I would not exactly look at TODO's as a great model, but they have taken stuff from other model code of conducts.

@rubinovitz I don't remember TODO's going completely down. Did GH have a separate one that did? TODO's didn't initially contain this language similar to what is proposed here. They got a lot of attention for not having it, but later made a good choice by adding it in despite some arguing against it. They also fixed other areas, which I found respectable.

@twrobel3 The examples are out there. I don't keep a catalog of links though. They usually occur very casually and are not completely blatant. They are usually also rarely called out by name.

[tbarn]

Ohhh, I found one GitHub repo that changed CoC: atom/atom#8206

It wasn't all of them though. This was those individual organizations (atom for example happens to be run by mostly GH) decisions, not TODO's.

[taywrobel]

Well, if you're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Especially as you make it seem like this is some large, conversation-disrupting issue, I would think that cases where it has derailed conversation would be plentiful and able to be readily recalled.

Currently, it just sounds like a lot of hand waiving around an issue that doesn't seem to be very widespread to me... And without an idea of how often this actually happens, it seems like the cost of alienating and isolating a fairly large group of people is not worth the perceived reward of keeping some topics on track slightly longer.

[rubinovitz]

@twrobel3 I think you're the only one here that doesn't think the issue is widespread. Maybe see @KyCodeHuynh 's response.

I think we're working on the best way to incorporate this while educating people as to what it is, how it occurs, and why it should not be occurring.

[tbarn]

@twrobel3 While I understand where you are coming from by placing the burden of proof on me, as someone who has been marginalized I don't always feel like having to prove to others that things aren't equal as is.

I don't see how this PR will alienate and isolate "a fairly large group of people." It will largely not affect most people since this will not be something they are possibly ever guilty of.

Here's a great read: http://geekfeminism.org/2014/08/22/words-arent-magic/
Also: http://jennifermann.ghost.io/minority-groups-in-tech-is-it-just-reverse-sexism/

These links and other similar posts could even be included as a way to help explain how reverse isms can be harmful, what form they can take, or what they are or are not.

[taywrobel]

@rubinovitz Where? Again, I'm not trying to be facetious. I look at a lot of threads on HH, and respond to a good amount. I cannot recall this happening. Maybe I'm just not noticing it and it's under my nose the whole time. If this is the case and it's widespread, again, I'd love to see some actual references to where it has happened in the HH community.

@tbarn "as someone who has been marginalized I don't always feel like having to prove to others"... Well, as someone engaged in a debate regarding the creation of a set of rules to dictate the behavior of others, unfortunately you do. Having been marginalized is irrelevant. Sonia Sotomayor has been marginalized, that doesn't mean she can just make supreme court decisions by herself and without evidence.

I agree, this PR won't alienate anyone. But this PR is the opposite of what you seem to think it is. This PR explicitly prohibits reverse-isms; it does not state that complaints regarding them won't be acknowledged. My position is that explicitly prohibiting them is probably an unnecessary over-qualification, since the CoC already prohibits racism, sexism, and discrimination by gender identity, among others, which "reverse-isms" are just a more specific type of.

My stance is that we should respond to and appropriately handle all racism/sexism/etc, bar none. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe some racism is okay, as long as the person being targeted is white. Maybe some sexism is fine, if the person being targeted is male. Maybe (and dear god I hope this is the case), that isn't what your actual position is. But that is the signaling that comes from adding language to a CoC stating that action will not be taken on claims of "reverse-isms".

[tbarn]

@twrobel3 I wish there was more trust in this discussion. Those who are marginalized have experienced some of these things first hand in their lives. Diversity work shouldn't be on the shoulders of those who are diverse.

Maybe you should PR a change in the line before it:

Our community prioritizes marginalized people's safe existence in the community. We will not tolerate posts encouraging:

It is a good point that the wording is different than other similar Code of Conducts. I looked more into the history of this line: 897b973

I think the big difference is "encouraging" about the things in the list and posting about them. It does not say you can't post about them right now. It says you can't encourage them.

[taywrobel]

I agree, the "encouraging" wording is a bit weird. Maybe we should loop in @evaz to this discussion, since she's the one that made that wording change.

But my point is the same, I don't feel like there is a need for this diff, explicitly prohibiting reverse-isms, nor do I feel there is a need to add a section explicitly condoning them.

Racism is racism, sexism is sexism, plain and simple. To say that that it's somehow okay or condoned because the receiving party is of the "privileged" race and/or sex is, itself, racist and/or sexist. I agree that conversations have the ability to be derailed if someone is crying racism/sexism, even tho I haven't seen that in the HH community, however I feel like the mods would be able to shut down those edge cases easily and for other CoC violations without declaring "We will not act on complaints regarding reverse-isms". That carries a LOT more weight, implying that some forms of racism/sexism is allowed.

Also, I do agree reverse-isms don't exist, but my reasoning is that I don't see the various -ism's as being directional. I just see it as having prejudiced stance against someone for their race/gender/sexual orientation. No extra qualifications necessary.