I think it's also important to recognize the context. Even if there haven't been recent incidents in Code4Lib, there certainly has been a spate of incidents in the US recently. So I support this timely confirmation of our values to reassure people that Code4Lib is a place where they welcome and valued.
-Esmé > On Nov 18, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Joseph Montibello > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > - Have there been recent incidents of "... bigotry, intolerance, hatred, > harassment, and violence in Code4Lib" that warrant a re-iterated statement? > > I have been surprised in the past - when people have asked this question in > other library discussion forums that I've been a part of, the answer from > many people in those forums has been "Yes, that happened to me." (That's > happened often enough in different venues that I'm no longer surprised.) > Often those who have answered in that way have also said that they do not > want to discuss those issues further. Code4Lib has had discussions over the > past few years that touch on this as well. > > - What are C4L's desired outcomes of "diversity, equity, and inclusion", > and will such a statement improve the attainment of such ends? Is the goal of > C4L to promote "diversity, equity, and inclusion" within C4L, the software > technology community at large, or beyond? > > My own desired outcome, worth no more than a simple +1, is that diversity, > equity, and inclusion are normalized within C4L and in the realm of library > technology. I believe that the statement brings us closer to that by > explicitly addressing the lack of diversity in the tech sector. I hope that > as we get closer to that outcome, we will have a positive impact beyond this > little community. > > - What constitutes "bigotry, intolerance, hatred, harassment, and > violence" is not always obvious, and often needs to be teased out through > reasoned dialogue. > > I agree that reasoned dialogue is a valid approach to understanding things. > However, empathy is another valid approach to understanding things. Bigotry, > intolerance, hatred, harassment, and violence are all inextricable from human > emotions, so I (again, speaking only for myself) tend to feel that empathy is > a better guiding principle for dealing with these issues. > > - If inclusion spans "all technologists", then excluding those who dissent > or present points of view bordering on "bigotry, intolerance, hatred, > harassment, and violence" will be silenced, and likely to (further) develop > resentment and anger, leading to further division. Is it better to exclude > such people through language as forcefully as possible, or promote an > environment of reasoned dialogue and relating to the "other"? When people are > silenced they may go underground, and is it better to be underground or in > the open? > > I don't think we can have a group where people whose views border on violence > feel comfortable expressing themselves, and people who have been targeted by > violence also feel comfortable expressing themselves. Empirically, there are > plenty of professional spaces where diversity, equity and inclusion are not > happening, or not encouraged, or actively quashed. The statement Bohyun and > others have been working on reflects my personal belief that Code4Lib should > not be one of them. > > - Will this re-iterated statement promote self-monitoring and > self-censorship and thereby decrease diversity, one of the primary values of > C4L? > > Self-monitoring and self-censorship are already going on - in addition to the > things I mentioned in my answer to the first point, I would also draw > attention to Code4Lib's ongoing discussions of impostor syndrome. If we > choose to increase our local diversity by including bigotry, intolerance, > hatred, harassment, or violence, then we are choosing to also decrease > broader diversity by being just another group where those things are > normalized. > > Once again, just my two cents. > Joe Montibello, MLIS > Library Systems Manager > Dartmouth College > 603.646.9394 > [email protected] > > >
