Hacker News Reader

Comment by dozzie | Hacker News Reader

> Those are the places that truly strive to be inclusive [...] where technical merit alone being the deciding factor.

This is not "striving to be inclusive", it's "striving to be technical". Which is a good thing for technical conference.

You don't want to include minority just to include minority, you want to have best talks possible without regard of being given by minority or not.

View on HN

Having someone other than the typical speaker on stage actually has enormous value. It's not true that there is an objective way to judge the value, even the technical value, of a presentation, particularly before it is given. So while saying "we want the best technical talks" sounds good, refusing to consider other factors actually works against minorities who -- no matter how blind and merit-based _your_ approval process may be -- often face innumerable other disadvantages in getting to where they are, including an overwhelming lack of role models in places like technical conferences.

On the one hand I agree with you: some people face disadvantages and don't see role models, in tech conferences and other contexts, like actual jobs.

On the other hand that isn't fixed by buckling to vague accusations, attempts to ostracize supposed offenders, or enforcing rules of behavior that restrict who people are. Bias and exclusivity are real problems in tech conferences, in the industry as a whole, and in real life. Changing social norms has to be an organic process, not a battle of grievances and petty punishments and social media smearing.

I've been to conferences where people I don't want to listen to are speaking. I just don't go to their presentations. I'd like to think that when I pay to attend a conference the speakers and topics are chosen for relevance and quality. I'd also like to believe that everyone has an equal chance to get on the speaker list, by considering what they have to offer and how well they can present it, and not considering their personal disadvantages. We all have personal disadvantages, and favoring some over others changes worthwhile goals (respect, opportunity, inclusion) into bickering and vindictiveness.

tl;dr. Life's not fair. The sooner you get over the idea that it should be, the better.

Oh, there is a huge difference between the objective fact "Life's not fair" and the belief that it shouldn't be. No matter what your definition of fairness is.

If you try to balance speakers racially, you'll run into the problem that we often deliberately discriminate against certain minorities (usually the Chinese) in order to raise the technical value of talks by making sure the speaker can speak English clearly. In nearly all colleges, teachers and TAs in college must prove proficiency in speaking English before they can be hired to teach a class. This deliberately discriminates against foreigners who don't speak English well enough, or whose accents are too thick, for the students to understand.

Discrimination is not always bad. Discrimination is the morally-neutral act of comparing things on some criteria. Additional context is required to determine whether it is a bad use of discrimination. We should not strive to be inclusive of people who speak the conference language poorly, or, say, people who are crazy. Kevin's blog expressed concern over how to be inclusive of the mentally ill when choosing speakers. Was he joking? I don't know anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com