[diversity] [Ext] Notes from the RIPE Diversity Task Force on-line meeting, 27.6.2017

Hi Leo,

On 07/07/2017 15:16, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> I know that there was some pushback against measurements and targets.
> However, I think it is impossible to make progress unless you measure
> and have a goal to work towards. As such, I would strongly support a
> set of diversity measurements based around a number of key criteria:
> 
> - Age - Gender - National origin and/or country of residence

I think your idea of "progress" presumes the answer.

If you believe the goal is - as one participant espoused - to increase
the level of female participation until 50% of RIPE participants are
female (or more?), then measuring progress against this target is likely
to help achieve it.

However, if you believe that even having such a target is inappropriate,
divisive and (frankly) another form of bigotry, and that the appropriate
action from RIPE is to ensure that all participants are welcomed and
respected regardless of their sex, then establishing such measurements
pushes us down the wrong track. It also diverts attention from what
should actually be done.


> The notes suggested benchmarking against a technology industry norm
> of 15%. I agree that relevant external comparisons are important, but
> I think you need to be careful to make sure that the comparison *is*
> relevant. Where does this 15% number come from and is it the same
> across the RIPE region? Do all countries see similar levels of female
> participation? If there is a difference why is there a difference?


> Ideally, the target for diversity should reflect the proportion of
> suitably qualified people. I don't know what this is.

The implication here appears to be that we should have one target for
RIPE meetings held in Amsterdam and another for RIPE meetings held in
Dubai. I would regard this as indicating a weakness in the concept of
targeting.


> By the way, I had heard the term intersectionality before but did not
> really know what it means. I have now looked at the Wikipedia article
> on it and don't understand why it would be controversial. 

Intersectionality as a doctrine is closely associated with allegations
that Western societies are riddled with oppression, often that they are
uniquely oppressive (or at least that it is inappropriate to apply
similar standards of critique to non-Western societies). It was invented
for the purpose of "critique" of such alleged oppression, the latter
term being used as a label for a form of hybrid between analysis and
activism, where the analysis justifies the activism and the activism
requires outcome-oriented (i.e. prejudiced) analysis.

Examples of alleged forms of oppression include the one called
"patriarchy" (which apparently claims that that all men are inherently
part of an oppression system, a variant on "original sin"), that
capitalism and property ownership are a form of white supremacy
oppression, and other equally offensive doctrines. Needless to say, the
targets of such accusations frequently consider such claims hurtful and
unjust, and many who are not so targeted still regard them as political
and aggressive.

Of course, not every use of the term intersectionality implies the
speaker endorses all the extreme theories with which it is sometimes
coupled. But given its provenance its use would inevitably going to
provoke and anger, even if not intended. That is why I recommended the
term be avoided.

I hope that provides some insight,

Kind Regards,

Malcolm.


-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA