Comment by pseudosavant
5 days ago
For context, the first Grace Hopper Celebration was 1994, and had been held for the last 20 consecutive years. Long before DEI.
But when the powers that be are intent to kill off "DEI", and their definition includes anything related to women, this is what happens. Too many business cowards don't want to have problems with their merger, acquisition, IPO, FCC license, etc for supporting celebrating a great American like this, just because she was a woman.
There was definitely gender-based affirmative action benefitting women in 1994 - the term DEI is newer than that (as far as I'm aware), but the concept is definitely not.
According to the Wikipedia article on the event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper_Celebration_of_Wo...), "In 1994, Anita Borg and Telle Whitney founded the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing. With the initial idea of creating a conference by and for women computer scientists, Borg and Whitney met over dinner, with a blank sheet of paper, having no idea how to start a conference, and started to plan out their vision. The first Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing was held in Washington, D.C., in June 1994, and brought together 500 technical women.".
Having a specific conference for women in computing is definitely a DEI concern; from the very beginning, the entire point of having a formal celebration of Grace Hopper was to be a locus for this female-specific conference. Grace Hopper's importance to this conference is that she was a woman, not that she invented FLOW-MATIC.
Grace Hopper graduated from Yale with a PhD in 1933. In 1952, Professor Bessie Lee Gambrill became the first woman at receive tenure at Yale.
Many women mathematicians in computer science worked in the field because they were denied a university career path because of their gender.
As an example of how late gender equality arrived, Olga Taussky-Todd (Caltech) held only a “research associate” title from 1957 until Caltech made her its first female full professor in 1971.
https://mathematics.caltech.edu/about/prizes-awards/olga-tau...
It is not wrong to celebrate a more enlightened world by highlighting its trailblazers and encouraging others to follow their footsteps in breaking barriers.
If I ever got famous, I would hope that people would remember me posthumously by what I did rather than by the fact that I was the "first Bangladeshi" to do whatever. You just mentioned two women professors at Yale and Caltech. I am sure they did amazing things. But your post just says they were women and contains no reference to their actual lives' work.
4 replies →
Why do you find it concerning that a conference would focus on women?
I don’t think they were expressing concern, just the fact.
I read it as a damning indictment against anti-“DEI” fanatics that they’re on the wrong side of history when they push the envelope too far in the direction of “merit-based hiring”, as if DEI was something relatively-recently concocted.
Laughably, in the days before “DEI”, “merit-based hiring” usually equated to “good old boys club”. Based on the industries in which I’ve been involved, it’s still very much “good old boys club”, despite best efforts for DEI to try to make things more merit-based.
6 replies →
Huh? Someone saying something is a DEI concern does not mean they find it concerning.
3 replies →
[flagged]
22 replies →
[flagged]
[flagged]
It’s not really that simple. Read some of the accounts of the conference from recent years. The conference was falling apart even when companies were sponsoring it. I don’t know about last year’s conference but before that there were a lot of bad experiences and reports that it was turning into more of a job fair than tech conference, but even that wasn’t going well.
It was also getting very expensive. When a conference has a long list of sponsors and tickets also start at $600 minimum, it’s hard to keep that going in a year like this when everyone is dealing with large token spend budgets.
They likely could have survived with a right-sized event but they aimed higher than their budget allowed and hoped the money would appear at the last minute. It did not.
> It was also getting very expensive. When a conference has a long list of sponsors and tickets also start at $600 minimum
im in the conference business but just fyi thats actually cheap - venue, av and f&b alone cost many millions for a conference this size. a good rule of thumb on cost is $1-2000 per head depending on quality of event.
Isn't the problem here the Anita Borg foundation and not Grace Hopper?
> But when the powers that be are intent to kill off "DEI", and their definition includes anything related to women, this is what happens.
It's the other way around -- they want to do away with anything to do with women, and they used this DEI boogeyman to get everyone scared enough to go along with it.
[flagged]
> Before we try to rehabilitate "DEI" let's not forget what it was and is: universities and employers grouping people together based on skin color and treating them differently based on it, by applying wildly different standards.
One of the major problems with "DEI" as used in the vernacular is that people have trouble agreeing on the meaning of the term.
This results in partisans inventing their own fantastical definitions of it, which they use as bogeymen to encourage misogyny or race baiting.
DEI practices I've witnessed at the companies I've worked at include:
* Creating separate interview pipelines for "diverse" candidates, with multiple chances to re-try failed interviews (Asian and white male applicants get one chance).
* Financial penalties when quotas on the basis of race and gender were not met. Of course, the company portrayed them as bonuses rewarded for reaching inclusion milestones, but ultimately a bonus and a penalty are indistinguishable.
* Designating separate headcount pools for women and URM hires.
What was even more concerning was that the people who were privately the biggest proponents of these practices would, like you, publicly condemn the idea that DEI involves discrimination as racist and misogynist.
The confusion is the point. People who want to have racial preferences in admissions and hiring can’t use the phrase “racial preferences,” because it’s always been unpopular. So they used the term “affirmative action” instead. But that also came to be understood as meaning racial preferences. So then they switched to “DEI.” Now they’re throwing that label under the bus too. I suspect within a few years we’ll have a different label.
What are the odds of a black applicant for CEO?
IME black corporate board members typically come from a military, law, or medical background. White board members have a much more diverse set of backgrounds, including "son of former board member".
It’s the same group of people running the companies and boards as are running Harvard and the medical schools.
3 replies →
> Long before DEI.
This is simply not accurate. It is profoundly inaccurate