Subtle -isms at Hacker School

I also think that codifying subtly is a snipe hunt. In doing so, It's conditioning people to be afraid to speak lest someone be offended. The throwaways here are evidence. It's encouraging hypersensitivity.

I'm also going to point out that rather than attacking my argument, you called my thinking sad. In my reading of the rules, that's a no-no. I'm glad we're not following those rules here, because now we can have this argument. At least until we declare a moratorium on argument.

A lot of people seem to be concerned about the chilling effects that these policies could have. This is a valid concern, as nobody wants to be in a place where they're constantly second-guessing everything they say.

The nice thing is that we don't just have to speculate, and we can look at what has actually happened at Hacker School, and the feedback from those who have actually experienced the environment seems overwhelmingly positive, both for people who have been traditionally marginalized and for those who have been unintentional marginalizers.

disclosure: I'm not a Hacker Schooler but I know Nick and Dave well. I've seen first hand how deeply and genuinely they care about making Hacker School both extremely inclusive and also free for open discussion and transparency.

Both responses assume that the assessment was correct, and that's a problem. The subtly critical part of the exchange takes place in public. If there's agreement that may happen publicly, but if there's disagreement it happens privately.

FTFA:

After this, we ask that all further discussion move off of public channels. If you are a third party, and you don't see what could be biased about the comment that was made, feel free to talk to faculty.

It then become the responsibility of those around you to go find out what really went on when someone made an unfavorable claim about you.

I realize the goal is to avoid prolonged "No it wasn't" "Yes it was" exchanges but this approach is asymmetrical in favoring accusation over rebuttal.

If someone says "hey, we should work on addressing this sexism," and the response is, "be quiet, there isn't any sexism, you just hate fun," that seems pretty stinking sexist, doesn't it? Dismissing someone's concerns by saying they aren't real doesn't address the concerns, it just sweeps them under the rug because they aren't perceived as being important enough to give a shit about.

If some group has evolved office slang that includes saying "Quit being a ginger" to people who make dumb mistakes, and then that group hires some redheaded dude, wouldn't it be within his rights to say "hey guys, it's kind of weird to use 'ginger' as a euphemism for 'dumbass'"? Yeah, maybe he's "invading" and stepping on the group's ability to insult people at the expense of other groups, but it doesn't mean he's wrong.

It is important to note that very few of the people who use these linguistic constructs are being intentionally sexist in doing so, and as such nobody is taking hurt or offense away from the use of "guys" to refer to a mixed-gender group or anything like that. This is not an exercise in respecting others' sensitivities so much as an effort to recognize the way our actions subtly reinforce the problematic and undoubtedly biased power structures that exist in our current culture. As others have pointed out in this thread, the participants in Hacker School share a common interest refusing to reinforce said power structures, and as such put rules in place to codify that commitment to helping one another change the way they interact with the world.

As others have noted, these are not accusations--which would certainly not be appropriate or productive to whip out in the middle of a meeting--but gentle reminders amongst like-minded people to watch the way their words impact the world around them.