Sign this petition to allow girls in robotics! (at Timmins Public library)!

[Foster]

Originally Posted by Siri

In other news, just hit this in my research:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...184721564.html

Timmins Public Library reverses decision on boys-only robotics event after girl's petition

I'd like to remind you that this is "CD", the use of outside research to find out facts is completely against the proper use of this forum.

----

I have to say that this is the first time I've seen a change.org petition work.

I also liked this:

... the library’s board of trustees’ chair Michael Doody issued a statement Thursday changing its mind.

"The Timmins Public Library Board and staff wish to apologize to the public and Science Timmins for the misunderstanding related to the Robotics event which was designed to encourage improved literacy through reading," Doody said.

He said the event will now be open to all children between the ages of nine and 12.

Cash’s mom, Caroline Martel, told Yahoo Canada News she’s happy for the victory, but she still takes issue with Doody's statement.

“We are happy that they are opening it up to everyone, but this was not a misunderstanding. It was gender discrimination. I am disappointed that no one thought to apologize to my daughter, but that they have no problem naming and apologizing to Science Timmins and the public," she said in an email.

Umm, you got your daughter in which was your primary mission. And NOW you want an apology?

[ehochstein]

Originally Posted by Siri

In other news, just hit this in my research:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...184721564.html

Timmins Public Library reverses decision on boys-only robotics event after girl's petition

The following quote is taken from this Library publication.

Robotics For Boys
ONLY!
The Timmins Public Library
and Science Timmins are
joining together to bring a
special program geared towards boys aged
9 to 12 years old.

I am quite happy that the decision was reserved and it is now an inclusive program.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

In the cases you list though, women have their own groups for basically the same things. That does not seem to be the case in this instance with this library. If the library were offering a girls class and a boys class I doubt there would be a complaint, but because they are offering a class that excludes girls without any alternative, the case could be made that it's discriminatory.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this should go to court; I was merely making the observation that if the family wanted to pursue legal action they would probably have a good chance of winning based on examples I've seen of other cases somewhat similar to this. I also think that the library is being stupid for opening themselves up to the potential legal issues (and the costs associated with fighting it) that such litigation would impose, and that the very simple solution is to either hold two classes or not block girls from joining it if they're interested.

Ok then... What about football? That's a guys-only activity at every school I've ever heard of...

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Madison

Is it the programming that prevents said erosion or that it is for boys only?

Madison - Please pardon my thickheadedness, I'm not exactly sure what you want to learn, and whether you are posing a hypothetical/rhetorical question or wanting to dig into the actual experiment I described.

If you want to learn more about that actual program, certainly PM me and I'll put you in touch with someone who can get you answers.

Originally Posted by ehochstein

The following quote is taken from this Library publication.
I am quite happy that the decision was reserved and it is now an inclusive program.

If (and I emphasize *IF*), you discovered that boys in this community in the targeted ages are falling far behind the girls in scholastic achievement, and if you found out that one consequence was that the boys soon join street gangs that carry out many violent crimes against women (and men), and if you found out that this program was a program with a highly specialized lesson plan (focused on all sorts of young-male needs (the robot isn't the purpose of the program)) that is going to try to quietly steer the most at-risk students in that community away from a bad path; would you still be happy?

What I described here is unlikely, but it is certainly possible. I would want to know more about the situation before becoming happy or sad.

Originally Posted by Siri

... Blake, I do believe that you're the one who asked us to send money to the library--what would amount to $2,500 total--not only without knowing whether this is due to financial or other acceptable reasons, but without having any idea whatsoever what the library would do with that money. I'm all for giving both sides the opportunity to explain their case, but can we all please refrain from making up positive claims in order to deliberately use them against opposition supporters?
...

I don't think I made up a positive claim.

I tried to do two things, to make a point.

1) I tried to take the petitioners' positive claims about the library's good works at face-value, more or less. That is a more nuanced attitude than simply saying everything on the Internet is bogus. I think it was a reasonable risk.

2) I tried to pretend I was there. If I were talking face-to-face with the petitioners, I doubt the conversation would have gone more than five minutes before I suggested that they form a club/team. I don't know if the library's plan was a good one or a bad one, but I do know that no one in that community has to change it one iota, in order to enjoy learning about robotics. Where there is a will, there is a way.

If you like, I'll modify my suggestion into either sending the money to the petitioner, or to some well-known trustworthy steward.

My advice to the world in general: At the individual club/team, and the local tournament levels, be a force for positive change, but don't squabble over STEM programs like they are a scarce resource that only some illuminati from the secret-handshake cabal can supply (and insist that they supply your fair share to you). Instead, just do it (yourself); and leave any misguided folks/programs behind you eating your dust.

Blake

[Siri]

Originally Posted by gblake

I don't think I made up a positive claim. ...

If you like, I'll modify my suggestion into either sending the money to the petitioner, or to some well-known trustworthy steward.

My advice to the world in general: At the individual club/team, and the local tournament levels, be a force for positive change, but don't squabble over STEM programs like they are a scarce resource that only some illuminati from the secret-handshake cabal can supply (and insist that they supply your fair share to you). Instead, just do it (yourself); and leave any misguided folks/programs behind you eating your dust.

For the record, I read your positive claim as being an unvoiced assumption that this was somehow a financial constraint. I haven't yet seen any evidence of this anywhere.

That aside, I think you bring up a very good point with "don't squabble over STEM programs like they are a scarce resource that only some illuminati from the secret-handshake cabal can supply". I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but I think there's something about STEM programs that we as a community don't acknowledge very often: to the average consumer--the target of culture change--STEM opportunities are still a scarce commodity, and they are supplied by special people. I think we sometimes forget from the inside how difficult this is for many other organizations/individuals. We all know many, maybe countless teams that have folded, or that continue to show up with boxes of parts or kids that didn't know they needed Core Value and Project components. The folks who run successful teams are celebrated as impressive individuals. And I'm not even talking about Paul Copioli or John Larock; think about the team down the street from you that survived a teachers' strike or a elementary school XC cutback, or a change in leadership, or the loss of a JC Penney grant.

Providing a STEM program is fun for many of us; it's motivating; it's worth the sacrifices we make and the attention we give it; it may even be intuitive. But it's not easy. It's important to acknowledge that not all consumers make good suppliers, and it's important to acknowledge that it takes more to be a supplier than money and even interest. Maybe you do the rest naturally for robotics, or maybe you're that kind of person in everything you do (kudos). But as we try to permeate the culture with new programs, remember that it's not just about STEM resources, it's about people. We need to win over people who are willing to take responsibility, give it initiative, commit to the time and effort, do their homework, accept support where it's hopefully available, navigate bureaucracy, and on and on. Next time you think spreading STEM is just about dumping LEGO parts on LEGO enthusiasts, remember all the projects we haven't finished that are still sitting in our garages or on our hard drives.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Siri

For the record, I read your positive claim as being an unvoiced assumption that this was somehow a financial constraint. I haven't yet seen any evidence of this anywhere.

You give me money and a motivated parent who knows students that want to form a STEM club or team, and I'll give you back a club or team. Money makes stuff happen.

I wasn't trying to say that the library was advertising a boys-only program because the library was short on funds, I was saying that a good-sized dose of money would make the subject of that particular boys-only program essentially irrelevant.

With enough money you can equip a team, and hire a full-time coach/teacher/mentor. With far, far less money than the cost of a full-time coach, you can still get the job done. With a $2500 budget, one motivated parent, and one motivated student; I'll bet on success.

Originally Posted by Siri

That aside, I think you bring up a very good point with "don't squabble over STEM programs like they are a scarce resource that only some illuminati from the secret-handshake cabal can supply". I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but I think there's something about STEM programs that we as a community don't acknowledge very often: to the average consumer--the target of culture change--STEM opportunities are still a scarce commodity, and they are supplied by special people. I think we sometimes forget from the inside how difficult this is for many other organizations/individuals. We all know many, maybe countless teams that have folded, or that continue to show up with boxes of parts or kids that didn't know they needed Core Value and Project components. The folks who run successful teams are celebrated as impressive individuals. And I'm not even talking about Paul Copioli or John Larock; think about the team down the street from you that survived a teachers' strike or a elementary school XC cutback, or a change in leadership, or the loss of a JC Penney grant.

Some folks in the world of educational/inspirational STEM programs have a tendency to over-complicate those programs. It's natural. But... When speaking to novices, I try to steer them toward the simpler programs, and to point out to them how low the barriers to entry are.

For example:

Start with either an VIQ/FLL team, or a VRC/FTC team. For all of those except the FTC team, I know the basic kitbot can be built and programmed in one day. I assume an FTC bot can be built quickly too, but I don't have recent direct experience.

After getting that done, a team can spend any remaining time in the calendar year learning/teaching everything the team will need in order to observe/learn/network/etc. (and OBTW compete) in a tournament in year one, and to continue growing in year two (It's not about the robot!).

And for the love of Pete, unless they are in an area that already has a strong tech-savvy adult/mentor infrastructure, plus a strong economic infrastructure; don't drop a JC Penny grant on a virgin community, and expect them form a low-risk FRC team. Kudos to anyone who has put down roots and thrived as an FRC team after a cash kickstart, without first having a FTC/VEX and/or FLL/VIQ foundation in place.

Before anyone writes it, I agree that I am oversimplifying, but I'll contend that I'm only oversimplifying a little. Encouragement, mentoring, and other forms of help are important to any new team at any level; but are they essential? I have personal experiences that tell me they are not, if you choose the program wisely.

Originally Posted by Siri

Providing a STEM program is fun for many of us; it's motivating; it's worth the sacrifices we make and the attention we give it; it may even be intuitive. But it's not easy. It's important to acknowledge that not all consumers make good suppliers, and it's important to acknowledge that it takes more to be a supplier than money and even interest. Maybe you do the rest naturally for robotics, or maybe you're that kind of person in everything you do (kudos). But as we try to permeate the culture with new programs, remember that it's not just about STEM resources, it's about people. We need to win over people who are willing to take responsibility, give it initiative, commit to the time and effort, do their homework, accept support where it's hopefully available, navigate bureaucracy, and on and on. Next time you think spreading STEM is just about dumping LEGO parts on LEGO enthusiasts, remember all the projects we haven't finished that are still sitting in our garages or on our hard drives.

Connecting this back to the topic... We agree more than we disagree, but our responses to the hypothetical cash-infused library situation might differ.

If I had $2500 to offer the petitioners, I would tell them that they absolutely don't need any help from their local library (other than perhaps the use of a meeting room once per week); and if I had $2500 to offer the library, I would tell them that they absolutely can (and should) form an open-admission robotics club to complement any special-purpose clubs their community might need.

Yes - My attitude comes with a built-in assumption that if anyone spent just a little time looking, they could find at least one motivated, responsible adult, and at least one motivated student; and that if those two know how to use a web browser, they will have an embarrassment of help at their fingertips.

If these imaginary club(s) are successful, some time in the not to distant future, after they have put down some community roots, the club(s) might want to try a year of FRC competition.

Blake

[Brandon Zalinsky]

Hey guys since everyone dislikes inequality in STEM opportunities, can someone please start a petition to get this shut down?


In all seriousness, I think all these programs are fine, I would just like to see consistency in people's arguements- if you jump on a bandwagon against a STEM boys-only program, you should do the same for a STEM girls-only program.

[Nemo]

Boys score lower on reading tests than girls. That's a problem since reading affects every other area of academic achievement. Boys also have lower high school graduation rates and fewer boys attend or graduate from college.

If you wanted to create a targeted program that tries to address that gap, you'd probably want to base it around something that boys like, such as robotics.

I can see why there's a righteous backlash given the under-representation of girls in STEM stuff. Excluding girls was a whiff, but I suspect that these people had their hearts in the right place when they stumbled into this thing.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Brandon Zalinsky

if you jump on a bandwagon against a STEM boys-only program, you should do the same for a STEM girls-only program.

There aren't fewer boys pursuing STEM compared to girls.

Boys are not consistently conditioned, from a young age, to believe that STEM careers are out of their reach or beyond their capability.

It is in no way unreasonable to recognize that our culture -- to its detriment! -- has a deleterious impact upon young women's ability to have meaningful, lasting impact on their own future.

Taking action to correct that impact is a moral imperative; claims about discrimination against boys, in this area, are ridiculous on their face and represent a fundamental lack of awareness of the benefit, as a man, this culture provides you.

Be part of the solution.

[Karthik]

This petition has generated a lot of attention in the mainstream media. Here's a link to an article on the Cosmopolitan website.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics...1440_203830209

Great job by everyone here helping spread the word in the petition's early stages.

[gblake]

Karthik - Without hearing more from the program's planners, I don't disagree with or applaud the change in the library's program.

The Cosmo article does have a large audience, but to me it also seems rather self-serving, in a specious, echo chamber, sound bite sort of way.

[Chinmay]

Really glad she was able to get into the program and that girls are now able to participate.

The best analogy I've heard for this kind of situation that Madison is describing (for anyone asking why I don't sign petitions against girls only programs) is: "In Mario Cart, you don't get Blue Shells or Bullets when you're already in First Place"

[Brandon Zalinsky]

Originally Posted by Madison

Taking action to correct that impact is a moral imperative; claims about discrimination against boys, in this area, are ridiculous on their face and represent a fundamental lack of awareness of the benefit, as a man, this culture provides you.

It's incredibly unfortunate how often legitimate points in discussions like this are met with some variant of "check your privledge!!!". How would your response differ if that was posted anonymously?

All that matters is that both boys and girls get an equal oppourtunity, with reasonably close to equal effort, to explore STEM careers. If this requires specifically gender-targeted programs, I am perfectly fine with that- it just has to be consistent. It is a single boys-only program in a province where there are, for example, over 200 FLL teams. Therefore, by my estimation, there are other opportunities closeby. If you are against some one-gender programs but not others, you are not being part of the solution.

I just want consistency and more information about this situation.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Brandon Zalinsky

It's incredibly unfortunate how often legitimate points in discussions like this are met with some variant of "check your privledge!!!". How would your response differ if that was posted anonymously?

My response wouldn't change because the argument you present comes from a privileged point of view.

All that matters is that both boys and girls get an equal oppourtunity, with reasonably close to equal effort, to explore STEM careers. If this requires specifically gender-targeted programs, I am perfectly fine with that- it just has to be consistent. It is a single boys-only program in a province where there are, for example, over 200 FLL teams. Therefore, by my estimation, there are other opportunities closeby. If you are against some one-gender programs but not others, you are not being part of the solution.

Girls are not getting an equal opportunity to pursue STEM-related topics. Consequently, additional effort is required to correct our course.

A sleepy driver lets their car drift slowly toward the side of the road until they are awoken by a rumble strip. The driver is now aware there's a problem. A slow course correction -- one given equal effort to the drift that led them off course in the first place -- leads to disaster. Swift, immediate action is required.

There is a problem getting girls interested in STEM. Swift, immediate action is required. Continuing to stay the course leads to disaster.

[MechEng83]

Originally Posted by Madison

A sleepy driver lets their car drift slowly toward the side of the road until they are awoken by a rumble strip. The driver is now aware there's a problem. A slow course correction -- one given equal effort to the drift that led them off course in the first place -- leads to disaster. Swift, immediate action is required.

And sudden knee-jerk course correction leads to rolling the car over, leading to disaster.

No one (I've seen here) is saying there isn't an existing problem with the participation of girls in STEM. No one is seriously advocating we eliminate girl-targeted STEM activities. We disagree about the best way to make things fair and equitable (which consequently are charged words that are ambiguous in their interpretation)

Lastly, I'll leave this here