{"id":703,"date":"2018-04-25T08:15:29","date_gmt":"2018-04-25T08:15:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/achangeiscoming.net\/?p=703"},"modified":"2024-01-20T05:09:30","modified_gmt":"2024-01-20T05:09:30","slug":"sex-pleasure-and-diversity-friendly-software-excerpts-the-article-the-acm-wouldnt-publish","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/2018\/04\/25\/sex-pleasure-and-diversity-friendly-software-excerpts-the-article-the-acm-wouldnt-publish\/","title":{"rendered":"Sex, pleasure, and diversity-friendly software: the article the ACM wouldn’t publish"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\tSex<\/strong>, pleasure, and diversity-friendly software<\/strong> was originally written as an invited contribution to the\u00a0Human to Human<\/em> issue of XRDS: Crossroads<\/em>, the Association of Computing Machinery\u2019s student magazine.\u00a0 After a series of presentations on diversity-friendly software, it seemed like an exciting opportunity to bring broaden awareness among budding computer scientists of important topics that are generally overlooked both in university courses and the industry.<\/p>\n

Alas, things didn’t work out that way.<\/p>\n

Overriding the objections of the student editors, and despite agreeing that the quality of the work was high and the ideas were interesting, the ACM refused to publish the article. The ACM employees involved were all professional and respectful, and agreed on the importance of diversity.\u00a0 Still, due to concerns about discussions of sex and sexuality offending ACM subscribers and members, they would not even consider publishing a revised version.<\/p>\n

The CHI paper What\u2019s at Issue: Sex, Stigma, and Politics in ACM Publishing<\/strong><\/a> (authored by Alex Ahmed, Judeth Oden Choi, Teresa Almeida, Kelly Ireland, and me) explores some of the underlying institutional and sociopolitical problems this episode and others involved in editing the\u00a0Human to Human\u00a0<\/em>issue highlights, and proposes starting points for future action for HCI-related research and academic publishing practices.<\/p>\n

This revised version of Sex pleasure, and diversity-friendly software<\/strong> is written as a companion piece to What\u2019s at Issue<\/strong>. After a brief background section, it includes extended (and lightly-edited) excerpts from the earlier version of the article, and my reflections on the experience and the opportunities it highlights for software engineering. An appendix includes a brief overview of diversity-friendly software along with links to more detailed discussions.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Background<\/h1>\n

https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=8eYJ4dOBfMI<\/a><\/p>\n

The first version’s “background” section with intended as a quick overview for students and references for those who wanted to find out more.\u00a0\u00a0 As four-paragraph intros go, it was decent enough, with some useful links including Lynn Shore et. al.’s Journal of Management<\/i> paper “Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research<\/a>“, Candice Morgan’s Harvard Business Review <\/em>article What we learned from improving diversity rates at Pinterest<\/a> (a good overview of learnings from a program that incorporates many current best practices), and a resource page with definitions and videos on intersectionality.<\/a><\/p>\n

Still, there are much richer discussions of diversity in technology out there.\u00a0\u00a0 For example:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Kapor Institute’s Leaky Tech Pipeline<\/a>, summarized in Jessica Guynn’s Tech industry’s diversity efforts haven’t lived up to promises<\/a><\/li>\n
  • Atlassian’s recent 2018 State of Diversity Report<\/a>, summarized in Nicole Sanchez’ One Big Takeaway<\/a>.<\/li>\n
  • Safiya Umoya Noble’s Social Inequality Will Not Be Solved By an App<\/a> in Wired<\/em><\/li>\n
  • Shireen Mitchell’s INBOUND Bold talk Where Did Our Utopia About the Net Go?<\/a> (also at the top of this page)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    “Diversity” itself is an interesting subject.\u00a0Dafina-Lazarus Stewart’s observation in Language of Appeasement<\/a> that “by substituting diversity and inclusion rhetoric for transformative efforts to promote equity and justice, colleges have avoided recognizable institutional change” applies to the tech world and corporate America as well.\u00a0That said, many people working on diversity and inclusion in technology are also fiercely committed to equity and justice.\u00a0 It would be really great to have a term for “intersectional diversity, inclusion, equity, and justice with an explicit anti-racist, anti-sexist, trans-inclusive, LGBTQIA+ forward, accessible, anti-colonial stance”; Jill Dimond’s Anti-Oppressive Design<\/a> is one promising direction.<\/p>\n

    Sara Ahmed’s work is valuable for anybody working on diversity-related topics. \u00a0 On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Instituational Life<\/em> is based on qualitative research<\/a>, including semi-structured interviews and “ethnographic material derived from my own experience from working in what we could call simply \u2018the diversity world.\u2019”\u00a0 Her blog Feminist Killjoys<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>and videos like\u00a0Complaint: Diversity Work, Feminism, and Institutions<\/em><\/a> are excellent introductions.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n