Why conference diversity matters

Why conference diversity matters

In response to the latest spat regarding conference line-ups, designer Faruk Ateş says the web industry must prioritise diversity.

Much misconception appeared again amidst the recent debates spurred on by Edge Conference’s overwhelmingly-white male lineup: the idea that conferences only cater to people already well established in our industry, that there are no barriers keeping people out of our industry, that calling for more diversity is a demand for quotas, that role models only matter to those already entering our field, and the idea that quotas are only a bad thing, no matter what. Each of these misconceptions deserves lengthy examination and debate; alas, we are not afforded that scope, so I will try to impress upon you as concisely as possible why conference diversity matters.

Frances Berriman’s post has many good thoughts, but some backwards conclusions. Notably:

“Conferences are not the problem, they are just showing the symptoms of a severe lack of diversity, generally, throughout the industry. We can cover up the warts all we like with bolstered numbers of minority groups on stage, but we should probably be working out how to tackle the actual issue of why so few of them enter the industry, as novices/newbies/entry-levels/graduates etc., in the first place who would later become the experts we seek out to speak.”

This actual issue starts at birth, when infants are dressed in blue or pink based on their gender. Our entire society is still heavily sexist, but in subtle and ‘innocent’ ways that many people don’t notice or consider as being sexist. If we wish to tackle the root of the problem, we have to address the sexist influences that our entire society imposes on all of us, but especially young children growing up through age 20. And though we should absolutely try to improve society, it’s too big a problem for us to tackle in the hopes of improving our industry situation in the short term.

Plus, society is not our industry’s biggest diversity problem. Much more pressing is the attrition rate of women, with 52% of women leaving our industry, citing “hostile, macho cultures” as a primary reason.

Our top priority should be to reduce the number of women leaving our industry because they feel unwelcome or are treated unfairly (if not worse than that). When your ship is sinking, you plug the hole before you tell the shipyard it needs to build better boats.

Of course, plugging that hole is not enough to fix the greater problem. Unfortunately, a lack of diversity is not a simple problem with a simple solution. It is a systematic, highly multi-faceted, incredibly complicated, and finely nuanced problem. We need to address every problematic area, including teaching young kids and college students that there is an exciting career in tech waiting for them regardless of their attributes—because society currently tells them otherwise.

But in addressing these myriad problems, conferences have an important responsibility, one that their organisers may not always realise: conferences are influential representatives of our industry, to both in– and outsiders.

Because they are carrying the burden of representing us all, conference organisers will get under fire when presenting a homogeneous group as their event’s line-up. We must hold them accountable for the responsibility they have taken up by organising, all the more so because we want to be seen as a welcoming industry.

Having a homogeneous line-up also risks people of other demographics being less interested in attending or submitting their own proposals, which can stunt their professional growth (thus completing the circle of this ‘symptom’ becoming a cause of the problem). It is a needless risk that conference organisers take far too often, especially since more effective and valuable techniques for finding speakers have long been published. None of these solutions involve ‘tokenism’.

People also mistake a call for diversity in the selection process as a mandate for quotas (ignoring that quotas have a reasonably positive track record, actually), which it isn’t. Others prop up the “it’s either quality or diversity; you can’t have both” fallacy, as if taking diversity into consideration somehow affects your ability to judge quality at the same time. (If it does, I suggest you don’t do the speaker selection.)

Reaching out actively to groups outside the beaten path when announcing your Call For Proposals, and performing a blind selection on proposals received are just two of many simple steps an organiser can take to increase diversity. Simple steps that will help your attendees feel more welcome, and your event more highly rated.

As for members of underrepresented groups: if you’re interested in speaking at events, but you’re not emailing any organisers about it, it’s a pretty safe bet that some white man out there is. And he’ll definitely get it if you don’t try at all.

We need to better address the problem of women feeling unwelcome, underrepresented and underpaid in our industry, to stem the tide of them leaving. Conferences play an important role in setting the tone of the culture in which this occurs, as well as providing all-too important role models for people to aspire to. It’s not a solution that will fix all of the problems our industry faces, but it is an important step along the way to get them fixed.

While I’ve written about this topic for .net (at length) before, Sara Wachter-Boetcher perhaps said it best in her article Universal Design IRL:

“If we want a web that works for everyone, then don’t we need a web profession that reflects just as much diversity?”

Conferences reflect us as an industry, so I’d like them to reflect us in a way that I can admire.

Photograph: Dustin Diaz, Flash Bullet

7 comments

Comment: 1

The assumption that women are not fit for math and programming persists.

Last month a [very kind and well meaning] teacher told my wife that as our child enters middle school, the math will probably be too hard for my wife and a tutor might be needed. Really? The math studied by 11-13 year olds will exceed the capacity of a woman who studied AP calculus at 16, took upper division math topics for fun at university and builds programs to model specific statistical outcomes as a hobby? Perhaps if my wife weren't so good looking...

Comment: 2

This article is well written, but it all boils down to the same factor: Interest.

Conferences are a representation of our industry, and if our industry is 95% formed by white males (I don't know the exact percentage), so the conference line up will consist of 95% white males.

I, a white male (as the article's author), part of the majority, can affirm the following. I never tried to keep anyone out, I never had a negative attitude towards gender or race, and I welcome anyone who tries to get into the development industry. And it's not just not doing anything against the minorities, but I actually cheer and support these groups into coming in, we're hungry for diversity.

I learned the tricks of my trade through lots of research and dedication, because it interests me. And there's the key word again: Interest.

People are different, men and women are different, Europeans are different than Asians that are different than Americans that are different than Africans. And that's because we grew in different regions of the globe, in different cultures, families, times and under different governments. NOT because we are physically different, but because our societies are.

And because of that we all have our interests, and these interests differ. I never went into development because "Hey, it's full of white males!". No, I was interested in it, and it's the same reason why we have much more women involved in care and charity work. Because they have an interest in it.

For those shouting that the industry is not diverse, dive head on as we all did. Dedicate yourself, present yourself and make yourself known. Show yourself and shout when you want something. Participate in developer communities, open source your code, contribute. When you do that, people from the industry will support you. This industry makes people see and feel that they're working towards a much bigger goal. A humanity-wide goal, to improve everyone's lives. We are eagerly awaiting people that are willing to teach, discuss and improve our world, no matter the gender, race, sexual orientation or religion, so bring it on!

Meanwhile, shut it about physical differences. Stop this madness of "Ah! Group X and Y is not included! Racists! Bigots!". This will lead to the unnatural development of quotas and forced recommendations not based on experience or qualifications but on race and gender. This behaviour is much more discriminating, as you can clearly see who's not qualified and it's talking at a conference "because they allocated 30% for group X" or other political reasons. In turn, the qualified speakers, professionals and the audience will have the feeling that good people are being left out.

This advice is useful for every industry. Aim for diversity, but don't force people to do what they don't want to, and don't blame the ones in a certain industry for the lack of interest of others.

Thank you all, and good luck on your jobs.

Comment: 3

> This article is well written, but it all boils down to the same factor: Interest.

Sort…of. Interest is a part, sure, but the bigger problem is systemic exclusion. There is a huge amount of systemic exclusion that keeps people—not just women—from feeling welcome or appreciated or respected or "belonging" to our industry. Interest has to be kindled by something, it doesn’t just magically appear for people. Putting more diverse people in the spotlight kindles the interest to a wider and more diverse audience, thereby driving people from the non-dominant demographic to consider it. For some quick and obvious evidence of this, see http://www.netmagazine.com/news/web-heroines-runs-conference-women-121704

> And because of that we all have our interests, and these interests differ. I never went into development because "Hey, it's full of white males!". No, I was interested in it, and it's the same reason why we have much more women involved in care and charity work. Because they have an interest in it.

No, but you didn't look at that industry and felt that perhaps it wasn't for you, because there was no one in it you could identify with. But that's exactly what it's like for some people not belonging to the dominant demographic, and for some of them, it's enough reason to keep looking at more industries.

Additionally, schools need to fix themselves. All-girls schools for instance rarely encourage their students to consider a career in tech—obviously this is extremely problematic and a huge part of the problem. Things in this area may be getting better, but not nearly fast or widespread enough.

> Meanwhile, shut it about physical differences. Stop this madness of "Ah! Group X and Y is not included! Racists! Bigots!".

The only people using such language are people like you claiming that this is what's happening. It's not. Stop the madness of equating "Hey, this purely homogenous lineup is not awesome" with shouts of “you're racist and sexist!“ That's such a false equivalence that it makes debating this topic extremely tiresome with anyone who keeps insisting on that.

Lastly, if you're organizing a conference, or running a magazine or whatever, you're taking up a responsibility larger than your personal life & career. That means you're gonna have to learn how to deal with people giving you feedback and telling you you should do things you may not want to do. Why? Because you've taken up the responsibility of representing them, and just like a bad politician, if you don't do the job well, you're gonna get shit for it.

Comment: 4

First and foremost, before I start my answer, I would like to state that the language used in "Ah! Group X and Y is not included! Racists! Bigots!" was in quotes. It's not how I use the language, but how I saw plenty of people react when the conference lineups turned into news. Just so we're clear, I don't condone that type of language, and it really irritates me when people use it without trying to see what really is happening. Also, "people like me" is a bit vague. You don't know me, so please don't stereotype me.

When I chose my profession, I didn't directly analyse what type of people were in. It happened unconsciously, through reading posts and looking at the author's face, or videos, or any type of influence you're subjected to. But I wasn't aware of it. Heck, I'm not aware of it even today, although I can recognize what can influence me, I cannot pinpoint when it happened.

We all make these choices unconsciously, it has to do with survival. You calculate the odds of being successful at anything you do and, unfortunately, mixing with people you consider "your own type" is part of it. But we always have the people that ignore all that, and go to a profession that has a different dominant demographic. And guess what? They succeed, gain respect and become symbols of what everyone should be doing. An example of this is Jeremy Lin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Lin (by the way, I don't watch sports much, I remembered him from other articles stating the obstacles he had to overcome in order to become a successful NBA player).

The whole point of my previous answer was one: Stop worrying about diversity and let people choose what they want to do. Don't force quotas, don't blame conference organizers, don't blame the people in a certain industry for their lack of diversity. It all boils down to personal preference, and it happens since birth. It probably is the result of thousands of years of evolutionary behaviour. We cannot change it unless we change how the whole human race thinks instinctively, and that is an utopia.

My suggestion would be to incentive and give opportunities for everyone to take any job they want, but if they ultimately choose to do something else and are happy with it, why force it? Everyone plays with the cards they have available, and if in your mind you think you will probably fail if you go into an industry with a radically different demographic, it is just another situation you will have to consider before making your decision.

If you decide it's still worth it, give it your best and you may be successful. I say may be successful, not because of the demographic difference, but because not everyone is successful even if they're part of the dominant demographic and we all know that.

Sincerely, I would be happy if more diverse people came to our industry, but anything we do will just be a quick fix. Even if our entire industry become something extremely diverse and open for all, other industries may not. And we cannot hope to change that. We must strive to change only what we can, and what we can change is our own industry. Little by little, setting an example for other industries to follow. For that, I say let's do it. I'm doing my part already, by shouting to every woman I know how cool development is, and the ones closer to me are reacting very positively.

Comment: 5

> Also, "people like me" is a bit vague. You don't know me, so please don't stereotype me.

People like you who claim shouts of “racists! sexists!” to have occurred. Please point to some evidence for this, because all of the feedback I've seen to either BritRuby or EdgeConf was nothing like that.

> It happened unconsciously

You're right about this, but you come to the exactly wrong conclusion from this observation. You think that people are all the same, and will interpret—consciously or unconsciously—any given situation equally. That’s absolutely not true at all. (Some of) the same things that unconsciously drew you towards Tech drive other people away from it. That's not an "interest" issue, that's an inclusion/exclusion problem, and it proves that Tech is not an inclusive industry.

When your culture is systemically hostile to people not belonging to the dominant demographic, you're being exclusionary as a collective. Every individual in that collective may cry foul and say “But I'm not racist/sexist! I welcome diversity! They just need to show up” (and, as individuals, it might be true) but all that does is show that any such individual saying that doesn't understand how social systems work, how a large group of individually innocent white guys can easily come across as being (very) unwelcoming to women or non-white demographics.

> Don't force quotas, don't blame conference organizers, don't blame the people in a certain industry for their lack of diversity.

This is all terrible advice and victim-blaming. Yes, let's blame the underrepresented demographics instead! It's THEIR fault for not showing up! Stop blaming meeeeee, I'm just an innocent white guy!

I've written about all this before, so to avoid repeating myself, here is the rest:

http://farukat.es/p576
http://farukat.es/p586
http://farukat.es/p596
http://farukat.es/p615
http://farukat.es/p621
http://farukat.es/p631
http://farukat.es/p668
http://farukat.es/p669
http://farukat.es/p673

Comment: 6

I may have expressed myself in too narrow terms.

I never assumed everyone interpret everything the same way. There are uncountable factors that influence someone making a decision or interpreting a situation, and I agree with you on that. The question is what came first? Does this systemic exclusion exist because of interest patterns of demographic X, or the interest pattern of demographic X exist because of systemic exclusion?

To expand, have you ever considered that all we're seeing, dominance from demographic X in industry Y, has happened naturally and over a long time? That we as human beings are slightly different physically, physiologically and culturally? And that maybe, just maybe, some certain slight differences belong to a demographic as a whole, not to individuals per se, especially culturally?

That would explain why there's always a dominant demographic in an industry, doesn't matter which one. That would also show you that we should not worry about too much about it. Just live with it and accept it. We'll never acquire true equality everywhere. But...

That doesn't mean we should stay apathetic.

As an example of an industry that changed almost overnight. The food industry, while dominated by women for many decades, mainly because society imposed that women should stay at home and take care of the family, and that includes cooking, saw a massive change only in the last decade or so when it became the domain of men, with celebrity chefs popping up like popcorn.

And that was quite a big change on an industry that many considered unchangeable. Because there was now an interest from a group that wasn't the dominant demographic. The vision that cooking food could also be seen as an "exact" science (and I use the term exact very loosely) attracted the attention of men. Basically, number crunching, formulas and the like.

Most men have an interest in exact sciences. Most women in human sciences. Not all of course. But when did it become a problem?

And when I said "Don't force quotas, don't blame conference organizers, don't blame the people in a certain industry for their lack of diversity." I also didn't say to blame the minorities. You're trying to blame someone, I'm saying there's no one to blame.

My theories are not outlandish. I may provide no facts but they make sense if you try to see things by a different angle.

Anyway, we differ on opinions and that's a good thing. At least we're able to maintain a civilized discussion, which I always appreciate. And I also appreciate you taking the time to answer and expose your thoughts. We will not be able to change each other opinions, here and now. But I'll read all the material you sent to me, and I'll surely tweet you about the knowledge I absorb. I always have in the back of my mind that anything I say can be wrong at any time and I'm always reviewing my concepts.

I wish you pleasant development projects and discussions.

Comment: 7

> To expand, have you ever considered that all we're seeing, dominance from demographic X in industry Y, has happened naturally and over a long time? That we as human beings are slightly different physically, physiologically and culturally? And that maybe, just maybe, some certain slight differences belong to a demographic as a whole, not to individuals per se, especially culturally?

This belief is the actual definition of racism. So precisely, in fact, that it seems almost directly lifted from a dictionary definition of racism. I'm stunned that you used this as an argument.

> My theories are not outlandish. I may provide no facts but they make sense if you try to see things by a different angle.

Every horrible thing humanity has done throughout history can be justified by “it makes sense … from a certain angle.” For instance, the Crusades. If your belief is that all non-Christians are heathens who deserve to die if they don't convert, the crusades make a lot of sense. That doesn't make them or that belief acceptable (or not demonstrably offensive and, yep, outlandish).

Is your belief in this matter as vile and horrendous as the Crusades were? Of course not. But it is similarly flawed and fundamentally offensive, ergo, outlandish. The reason we rely on studies and evidence is precisely to eradicate people’s outlandish beliefs that are based on opinions and theories, rather than evidence and facts.

And therefore, speaking of evidence, here is some more:

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2011/researcher-reveals-how-%E2%80%9Ccom...

That link proves your theories and beliefs on why tech is male dominated are based on a false understanding of history and reality, in other words, your beliefs are based on a lie (and thus you should stop having those beliefs). Women dominated software engineering originally, until it became clear that software was more complicated and prestigious (and financially rewarding) than hardware engineering, and men then started actively pushing women out of the field (by discouraging managers from hiring women). They used actual smear campaigns against women to do this. The reason women completely dominated software originally? Because it was seen by men as the “simpler” work, thus “a woman’s job.”

And that's how we *actually* arrived at this sexist culture in tech today.

We're not just “differing in opinions” here; this is a mismatch of theories vs. facts and evidence. My “opinions” are not something I put together in my head based on what I think I know, they are simply reformulations of facts derived from numerous studies and countless hours of research, put into this topic by myself and thousands of other people. That's why we provide evidence and cite sources in this important debate, so that a countering theory must first prove itself empirically at least _somehow_, before it's worth taking seriously. Because just slinging theories and opinions around without doing any research, without coming up with any facts, that’s a massive waste of time, and leads to people just clinging to their own beliefs in the end anyway—since neither can prove the other's theory wrong.
June issue on sale now!

The Week in Web Design

Sign up to our 'Week in Web Design' newsletter!

Hosting Directory
.net digital edition
Treat yourself to our geeky merchandise!
site stat collection