If..Else Log

Earlier today, a rather provocative blog post was brought to my attention in which Chris Messina decried the rise of "White boy clubs" on the web conference circuit. In his piece, he admonishes event organisers for not doing enough to promote diversity amongst speakers and attacks white males for holding back and not sharing the power and privilege that they possess. Here are a couple of quotes from his post:

"We, as white men (of course I include myself in that), have a tremendous amount of privilege and power - power that many of us don’t know we have, power that many of us choose to ignore, power that some of us disclaim or shrug off. […] So this power that we white men have? It’s only power if we actually give it away and spread out our privilege as much as possible. In whatever form it might take, this potential power means nothing unless we actually use it - so by working to fix the problem, we’re actually proving what kind of man we are."

Desipte being late to the article, I was nonetheless intrigued to read a waft of nodding agreement from a number of individuals including from such voices as Tantek Celik and Tom Coates. All I can say is, wow. Did I really read the same article as everyone else?

Patronising ignorance

On reflection, I can see where I went wrong and so, as a member of the non-white minority, I must apologise and thank Chris for his generosity and assistance in helping out our repressed minority. His rallying call for the privileged white elite to share some their unfairly gotten "power" will finally give us a voice. No longer are we actively discriminated against and stopped from having a voice. Finally, we have someone standing up for us, someone who's not willing to (in his words) sit back and "choose to ignore [the power], power that some of us disclaim or shrug off". Finally, we can get all talk in the same room as each other.

Ahem.

Cooling the flames

I understand that Chris' intentions are good and that he's only making an observation on the disproportionate number of white males involved in speaking roles in web conferences (and perhaps, the industry as a whole). However, the way he approached it and the way he phrased it carried an unseemly air of arrogance and condescension¹ that really serves only to insult and inflame².

There's a number of points that I want to raise. Firstly, the anonymous nature of the digital web serves as a great equaliser. When it comes to blogs and podcasts, articles and discussions, we as readers are, on a whole, writer-agnostic. The gender, race, background or nationality is generally a non-issue. The web is a fantastic example of meritocracy; good content is acknowledged, discussions are open and there are no barriers to entry beyond the need to communicate well. On a lower level, the same is true of the industry as a whole. An ability to deliver, innovate, elucidate is welcomed and recognised irrespective of background.

There is an undisputable tendancy for event speakers to be white males. But that is a symptom of correlation not causation. There are more white males in the industry and perhaps, more importantly, a large proportion of those involved in or communicating the vanguard of technology are white males. Hence, on a sheer number level, it would be logical to expect that many of the speakers to be white males. The fact of the matter is that the list of speakers are people I want to hear from. Chris makes a big case of "Proactive inclusivity" ³ but he doesn't make mention of who he wants to include⁴. Discrimination is bad because it's inefficient; you exclude the best choices for a less optimal option because of an arbitrary measure. Skewed statistic are often indicators of discrimination but their existance isn't proof of discrimination. Sometimes, things are just as they are.

"monocultures produce monotonous culture"

This is one of the Chris' statements that I do agree with. Monoculture produce monotonous culture. But when has my race or my gender been the defining characteristic of who I am? I've met people involved in numerous interests, industries and with differing personalities, history and culture. Race and gender does have an effect but I've never felt that it's been one of the significant ones. I want diversity; I'm all for diversity. But argue for a diversity of thought and of experiences and not mere superficialities.

"there’s too much at stake, too much to gain and too many interesting voices out in that great bazaar that we’re missing out on that we must do more to encourage, support and welcome them where in the past we have failed."

There are interesting voices out there that aren't heard and we should be encouraging them and supporting them. But we're encouraging and supporting them because they are interesting voices and not because they are part of a minority. To do otherwise is the real injustice.

1. I feel that both the tone and the choice of words (e.g. "proud of yourself for making diversity a priority" and "degrees of chivalry") were ill-judged. [back]
2. I'll also acknowledge that my previous paragraph probably has the same effect. I'm aware that what I'm writing is probably just as controversial and, judging by the number of comments on Chris' piece, counter to the thoughts of many. However, I wished to illustrate my initial reaction which could only be classed as incredulity at the preposterousness of the piece [back]
3. Is it just me or does "Proactive inclusivity" sound uncomfortably close to affirmative action? Contrary to Chris' statement that such would economically beneficial, I fear it'll have entirely the opposite effect. [back]
4. I'm not going to be unfair and ask him who he'd drop though that would be the flip-side of that question [back]

-30-