[FRC Blog] Something New - SWE Grant

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Steven Donow

Agreed. They don't really define how this will be enforced other than saying pit admin will "verify" it. Let's also theoretically say that 'someone' will verify it during a match. What if my female driver happens to be a chairman's presenter and is missing that match? What if, assuming we need a female driver for all of our events, she ends up being unable to attend an event?

"Driver" being the distinction for a female leadership sounds very arbitrary when there are other (and, arguably more significant) leadership positions that a girl can hold on a team.

Furthermore, this grant defines Female far too loosely. Are we talking biologically female? Identifies as female? What about other cases, even dealing solely with biological gender there's more than just Male and Female...

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Katie_UPS

What would teams prefer be the criteria for this award?

I personally think the requirements for a female driver and 50/50 ratio be dropped. Requiring a driver/member of the drive team be female promotes teams give a female this position because of their gender which does the exact opposite of what the award promotes and eliminates females who are leaders on their team in areas of the robot or team management. Another problem I have is the need for "at least 50% of their teams members are female" as it starts pushing for teams to be female dominant or to just recruit a ton of females to get their numbers up. It also eliminates most teams who have females who work extremely hard in all areas of the team just because the guys still out number the girls. Its a little sad that a team with 3 girls and 3 guys are eligible in comparison to a team with 40 girls and 50 guys. It also bothers me that there are teams that tout their large ratio of females to males but go for quantity not quality.

The way gender equality gets pushed confuses me so much. All students are to be given an equal chance regardless of their race or gender.

[sanddrag]

I for one will not ever add students of a particular gender to my team nor put students of a particular gender in a particular role for the purposes of gaining eligibility for a grant.

If our current ratio of 12 females to 24 males, and our current leadership structure with females in charge of the public interaction, business operations, manufacturing, and design sectors of our team makes us ineligible, so be it. We'll need to look for funding elsewhere.

[Mastonevich]

Very amusing that many posts are stating what someone else should do with their money.

[Monochron]

Our team will continue to strive to provide excellent leadership opportunities, engineering opportunities, and professional experience to our female members rather than attempt to qualify for this grant. I imagine most FIRST teams will do the same. Encouraging affirmative action is neither gracious nor professional.




Now, to play a bit of devil's advocate, I think I can see SWE's line of thinking. Their goal may be to promote and grow programs where girls have ample opportunity to succeed. They may also think that their requirements (50%, female driver, etc.) indicate a program where girls have ample opportunity to succeed. I think this is strangely restrictive, but I can at least see their line of thinking. If a team is 50% female and at least one female is on the drive team, that team is almost certainly helping to give girls opportunities in STEM.

It worry's me though that they think that an organization that doesn't meet those restrictions is not worth funding. As if having less than 50% and an all male drive team means that you MUST be prohibiting females from excelling (even if unintentionally). If this is true, it is disturbing and sets a terrible example for FIRST. Maybe there is another way to explain the restrictive requirements...

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by Mastonevich

Very amusing that many posts are stating what someone else should do with their money.

I don't think it is that amusing. Some people think that this group is encouraging bad trends by the way they use their money.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Monochron

Encouraging affirmative action is neither gracious nor professional.

Could you possibly expand on this statement in order to make sure that no one misinterprets you?

[Shrub]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Furthermore, this grant defines Female far too loosely. Are we talking biologically female? Identifies as female? What about other cases, even dealing solely with biological gender there's more than just Male and Female...

I think they're just assuming cis female, or identifies at female. Indicating biological sex would risk outing a student who doesn't ID as female, plus the binary can of worms.

I think that a lot of the grant should also depend on if the females in question actually feel comfortable in the enviornment. Just because you do have a solid 50:50 or what have you ratio or a female on the drive team does not mean that all or even most girls on the team feel they are given the chance to speak their mind and allowed an equal chance to participate in what they want to participate inside the team. Especially if a team does try to get this grant by placing a female on the drive team and cause resentment with other members. Then it isn't really indicative of gender equality on the team.
Hopefully the details of the grant or criteria are a lot more specific on the form. I understand why they thought it would be a good idea to create a grant like this, though.

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by inkling16

Could you possibly expand on this statement in order to make sure that no one misinterprets you?

Yeah that's probably best. I am generally not in favor of affirmative action and was expressing my opinion that I don't believe it to be in line with gracious professionalism. I made the comment in hopes of discouraging other teams from promoting students based on their gender and not on their ability or merit.

It wasn't my intention to accuse or belittle with that statement.

[thegnat05]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Something along the lines of measurable attempts at progress, versus already achieving a goal (that could easily be unachievable by some of the best programs by circumstances outside their control).

I personally think that this would be a great way to determine if teams are promoting gender equality but would also be hard to measure. If you look at 2531's past members there have been very few girls on the team, maybe 4-5 total over 5 years. I was the only girl on the team my sophomore year of high school, but over the last year or so we have had almost 10 new girls join our 30 person team. This is because we have become a more active team in our school and community and because of this we have generated more members of all genders, but this is also because our head leader (myself) is a female. When people see me speaking for my team or demonstrating our robot they take notice that our team isn't just a 'boys club.' It is also very clear to the female members that they can be a leader and a valuable member of the team too. Something my team tries hard to convey is that I am not head captain just because I am female but I also wasn't overlooked because I am female. We are not 50/50 but we do our best to encourage females to join FIRST teams.

Going back to the "driver" predicament, I don't feel like this is necessarily a measure of leadership for all teams. I understand they are 'seen' the most at competition and for some teams their leaders are all on drive team but that isn't a universal leadership title. I am not on drive team at competition, my strengths lay elsewhere, but that doesn't mean I am any less of a leader. I don't really know what term could have been used instead to ensure that the team is represented by a genuine female leader.

Originally Posted by Shrub

I think that a lot of the grant should also depend on if the females in question actually feel comfortable in the environment.

Honestly, feeling comfortable is key. If teams have an environment that is overall inclusive and makes members feel comfortable then they will most likely generate more female members. Something that drew me to FIRST in general was how accepting and inclusive my team was to me. They didn't treat me any different because I was a girl and I honestly rarely noticed that I was surrounded by boys. To me, they were my teammates and I fit right in.

[jman4747]

It seems that whenever you target a group of people specifically you are always working on a flawed premise. We recruit mostly based on, do you want to join & are you old enough. Really the ideal way to recruit is to recruit, not to try to recruit more of this type of person or that type of person. The best you can do is make sure you are being fair.

I also think more people need to realize a lot of disparities are affected more by social implications. Whether or not the majority of FIRST teams are fair and non-discriminatory won't do as much as the media and culture do in encouraging an individual to pursue one path or another.

[JesseK]

I'm not sure what all of the fuss in this thread is. Some of us have been working for years to get a roughly even ratio. With that, girls will naturally make their way onto and off of a drive team.

Years ago I was against organizations which gave scholarships specifically to girls entering engineering in college. Why punish males for the decisions of the females' parents? Then I had an epiphany - the parents were the root cause and the female-only scholarships were merely a residual effect of someone trying to encourage a better balance. It was at that point I really got on board with some of the non-engineering things my team does.

For a different and culture-based perspective, watch your favorite animated movie on any child-centric TV network. The TV ads that are aimed at children these days still fall along traditional gender role lines. It seems to me like there are two major ways to mitigate this: products like Goldie Blocks, or encouragement of parents to simply turn off the TV and put Legos in their daughters' hands.

Full disclosure, we've had a girl on our drive team for 2 years now. This year we'll have a girl on the drive team and most likely a girl at human player. The girl on the drive team has shown a lot of maturity since her Sophomore year, which is why she's been on the drive team for longer than any other student in our history. Along the lines of what Libby said in her post, she is there because she is a remarkable decision maker, not because she's female.

[Arpan]

I would argue that this is an issue that needs to be fought culturally on a larger scale with stronger role models and legislation that prohibits or punishes gender-bent marketing and merchandising- but not within FIRST.

I'm a firm believer in a team that does not discriminate based on gender. Our team has had (brief) issues with mentors discriminating against women on the team and made sure that it would not happen again. That said, affirmative action - which is what providing financial incentives for teams that have specific roles (e.g driver) filled by women is- replaces one form of discrimination with another.

During the Summer of 2013, I worked at NASA's goddard spaceflight center as an intern. One engineering intern I knew had been contacted for her role specifically because of her gender to keep her project in a 50/50 split. Knowing this made her feel like an impostor in her field- she was just as qualified as the men, but knowing that she had been picked for her gender made her feel otherwise.

Working actively against active discrimination by making females feel welcome is excellent. Working against stereotypes is even better. Providing a financial incentive for teams to achieve gender equality (by cutting male members or recruiting more females) or for teams to promote females to positions of authority is, in my eyes, just plain wrong.

[Joe G.]

Another issue that I face with this grant is that even if a team selects members/leaders/drivers without using the grant as a driving factor, the mere presence of these grant funds will lead others to assume that female leaders would not have their positions without the grant money. Unfortunately, these toxic, negative attitudes will be directed most pointedly at the female leaders themselves.

It's a sad reality, but it's something that I see all the time around things like college admissions for engineering schools trying to improve their gender ratio. If a guy gets in, he gets congratulated. Unfortunately, if a girl gets in, there will be people who tell her "you only got in because you're a girl, it's easier for a girl to get in there." This will be heard no matter how accomplished the girl in question is. This mere suggestion not only cheapens the achievement in her mind, but also can lead people to value the wrong things about themselves.

I want my students, regardless of gender, to know without a doubt that if they earn a prestigious position within my team, that it's because they worked ridiculously hard to get there, and that they've accomplished great things. I want them to recognize the value of hard work, skill, dedication, and inspiration, and I want them to understand that no matter who they are, working at similar attributes will allow them to achieve anything they set their minds to. We will continue to push for increased involvement by all within our team, and continue to be mindful of and react to the unique societal pressures young girls can face when joining a robotics team in our approach to mentoring and supporting them, but we will not compromise the integrity of our team or undermine the hard work of each of our students in order to chase money and create feel-good stories. I want people to congratulate girls on FIRST teams in leadership positions on their technical and leadership accomplishments, and on being the best person for the job, instead of congratulating them for being girls on FIRST teams, and being the best girl for the job.

It's a sad, widespread reality of our culture, which isn't really addressed by throwing money at teams that have already achieved a high level of diversity. These teams are the ones who need the extra influence the least, it's the people who will make derogatory assumptions about female students whose culture we need to work on. I don't really have an answer here besides solid mentoring and more role models, but I don't think cash incentives is it.

I hope that the teams that receive this grant are aware of, and able to react effectively to, the negative attitudes and assumptions that some both outside, and potentially within, their teams will unfairly have towards female leaders who have worked incredibly hard to get where they are.

[Katie_UPS]

Originally Posted by Shrub

I think that a lot of the grant should also depend on if the females in question actually feel comfortable in the enviornment. Just because you do have a solid 50:50 or what have you ratio or a female on the drive team does not mean that all or even most girls on the team feel they are given the chance to speak their mind and allowed an equal chance to participate in what they want to participate inside the team.

Lets say a student didn't feel comfortable in an environment. Would they have the confidence to say so when the team could lose out on money if they told the truth?

Originally Posted by jman4747

We recruit mostly based on, do you want to join & are you old enough. Really the ideal way to recruit is to recruit, not to try to recruit more of this type of person or that type of person. The best you can do is make sure you are being fair.

What if your recruitment is inherently off-putting for people of a certain type (race, gender, religion, etc)? Why would it be bad for a team to look at themselves and explore why they are not diverse? Lets say a high school is 60% female (not unlikely) and a robotics team is 80% male (also not unlikely). Why is it absurd that the diversity of a team reflect the diversity of the school/community that the team pulls from?

Originally Posted by Joe G.

the mere presence of these grant funds will lead others to assume that female leaders would not have their positions without the grant money.

Pretty much any STEM-related accomplishment I've achieved has been belittled by someone "because you only got it because you're a girl." Girls already receive those comments anyways. Might as well get something for it.

Originally Posted by Arpan

Providing a financial incentive for teams to achieve gender equality (by cutting male members or recruiting more females) or for teams to promote females to positions of authority is, in my eyes, just plain wrong.

Man, that gender equality. What a bummer. I can't believe they actually want to support teams that encourage hands-on STEM exposure to females. It's not like research shows that its the most effective at getting girls into STEM.



edit: Why driver and not captain? Not all teams assign a captain (ie 148), but all teams have to assign a driver.