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

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I'm going to take this one line at a time.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

There's a big difference between hosting a targeted event and discrimination.

I disagree. A targeted event by it's very nature is discriminatory

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Every year I play in a men's softball league during the summer. Is that gender discrimination, because the city hosting the league doesn't allow women into it?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Is it somehow different if we look at their full offerings and see that, gosh, they also have co-ed and women's only legues?.

There's no difference. Both the women's and Men's league discriminate as to whom they allow to play.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

What about all of those public schools that have separate girls/boys sports teams? Is it gender discrimination to not let a girl on the boys soccer team, or a boy on the girls swim team?

Again, yes it is discriminatory.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Look at that libraries offerings - they offer a whole lot of stuff that isn't gendered. They have age ranges listed for many groups - is that age discrimination?

Anytime you exclude a group, you are discriminating.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

The key here, I think, is that the library isn't denying the girl the chance to visit, check out or read books, or join other groups. They just said no to joining this particular group. That doesn't make it discrimination.

That's like stating that it's OK for girls to be in high school but not take advanced calculus.

When someone is not allowed to do what another is allowed to do, due to a trait, then it is discrimination.

Now, that being said, we discriminate all the time, and many times for good reason. Not allowing someone to run a mill because they have not been trained to run it safely is a good reason to discriminate. To not allow a person to run a mill because she is female is NOT a good reason.

Truthfully, I believe that the library saw a statistic (boys literacy drops during summer vacation) and tried to address that without looking at the bigger picture and is discriminatory nature.

JM(NS)HO

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Brandon Zalinsky

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.

I don't think anyone on either side objects to programs whose curricula are specifically designed to help groups who benefit from the targeted assistance. The upset comes from two other places:
1) When counterpart specificity is not available for another group in need. [e.g. If everyone benefits from playing in either the girls or boys basketball league, you don't see people complaining.]
2) When the criteria for eligibility do not align with the foci of the curriculum.

Take your "Girls Rock" event. This and other STEM Girls events are specifically designed to help girls understand that stereotypes they face precisely because they are female are inaccurate and can be overcome. This is in fact a gendered event, and its program doesn't make sense for boys--it's not beneficial to them because they face different stereotypes.

Compare this to the library group. Its described curriculum is not a gender-targeted solution. They're not trying to help boys overcome stereotypes about truancy that they are exposed to simply because they are boys. (And this is a thing, but it's not what they explained.) The program in question is gender-neutral, and the eligibility criteria are not. I doubt anyone would be complaining if Timmins had advertised "club for students who struggle to maintain N-grade reading over the summer", because this is a reasonably targeted problem, just like "club for girls who want help overcoming gender-based stereotypes in STEM". Moreover, consider the case where Timmins had advertised what they meant, and a girl showed up with exactly the same testing patterns as a boy in the club. I'd wager that even people who are apt to forgive gendered programs would be upset. Because with true advertising, everyone realizes that this is not a gender-targeted solution. It's a gender-neutral solution subjected to a statistically consistent gender-based stereotype.

No unrelated attribute--gender, race, ethnicity, etc--should be used as shorthand for a problem that merely correlates statistically with it. If you mean people that struggle with reading over the summer, say that. If you mean people who struggle against gender-based stereotypes, say that. If Timmins were running a simultaneous program that was "Girls/Latinos/Caucasians ONLY Widget-X training club" because girls or Latinos or Caucasians are statistically worse at X, just like boys are statistically worse at reading, I'd be equally upset. Because they'd be stereotyping girls/Latinos/Caucasians the same way they're stereotyping boys.

Finally, consider the counterpoint for boys. If Timmins were running a club especially for say, boys who'd lost their dads and were struggling through teenagedom without father figures, no one would even blink. Because we understand that this is in fact a difficult situation specifically for the audience who meets the admission criteria. The program wouldn't be as helpful to a girl--and I say this as a girl who indeed lost her father at that age. I'd hope there's a counterpart club for girls. On the chance that there wasn't, I should be allowed to able to garner what I can from the boys' club. To be less melancholy, this is how girls get on football teams where there isn't enough interest to form a fitting-caliber girls' team. Despite low (arguably too low) numbers, girls have made it in such cases, and this is generally celebrated as in line with societal good.


tl;dr: Say what you mean. Don't rely on unrelated attributes to convey something that isn't related to them.

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

Not that I would encourage this, but I'm pretty sure if the parents were to sue the library they would win easily. Assuming this is a public library, this is a clear case of gender discrimination by a government entity. A good lawyer would have a field day with a case like this.

Just saying.

So, what you're implying is that every business who markets to a target demographic is racist/sexist/whateverist and should be punished. Sounds accurate.

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I disagree. A targeted event by it's very nature is discriminatory

It's discrimination, but is it an attack on social equity? No.

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Anytime you exclude a group, you are discriminating.

This statement is misleading. Was every team at a regional that didn't get picked excluded from elims? Yes. Am I discriminating by selecting specific teams? Yes. Am I attacking those I didn't pick? No. Is there a social justice battle to be fought? No.


Frankly, the quoted justification for an all-boys program sounds fabricated, whether that be by the parent or the librarian. The statement on cognitive decay in boys, even if it is true (I honestly don't know if it is), is weak reasoning for an all-boys STEM program. I have a feeling that either the librarian didn't know what to say to an unnecessarily angry parent, or the unnecessarily angry parent is demonizing the librarian.
In fact, if you actually read it, the librarian offers a reasonable compromise in allowing the student to waitlist. It's an all-boys program, and the librarian gave her an opportunity to join despite that. I respect the librarian's decision, and he/she has obviously been demonized in this situation. I'll vote for STEM for girls, but I don't support the idea that we should be trying to cleanse society of anything one person finds offensive for rash, unjustified reasons.
Target audiences are discrimination, but they aren't an example of social ignorance. An example of social ignorance would have been if the librarian explained that girls couldn't do STEM. An example of social ignorance would be to not develop an understanding before developing an opinion. The information provided in the petition is obviously one-sided and leaves out some vital details, including a proper dialogue and an explanation of the program itself. These holes, when filled, may allow us to develop a stronger understanding of the issue. Until then, we can fill those holes any way we want, but any opinion will be founded on vague, biased information.

[adammiller3122]

Just an update, the ruling has been overturned and it is now any children, not just males.

[artK]

I've read through this thread and related articles, and I don't see a justification for the demonization of the librarian and the Timmins event simply because it was exclusive to boys. The librarian seemed to do the best she could given the constraints she was given: namely, that the event was exclusive to boys, and a girl wanted to attend said event, so she proposed a waitlist, and with enough demand would bring it up the hierarchy to make it happen. She probably didn't have the authority to admit or deny the girl to the event.

Secondly, with regards to all-boys programs, I don't see a problem with them existing. In fact, I was part of the all boys FRC team 254, and have seen work done by teams that are all-male, all-female, and coed (The three Ames teams actually have one of each). They all ran with different ways of doing things at different levels, from the division of labor to what we had for dinner (one of the most important cultural lessons I learned on 254 was that you never say no to good barbecue ).

The students on the teams were also very different beyond the obvious gender differences. 254 students were typically people who might not be super worried about having perfect grades or stellar SAT scores (when I joined, I wasn't), whereas 1868 students sent at least multiple girls to MIT or Caltech or other cream of the crop engineering colleges each year (actual stats from 1868 are welcome). 254 taught me and my peers the value in putting in the effort in what we did, or why to fight the "cognitive decay" that could have happened (Even though classes got harder each term, my grades went up as did my involvement on the team). And from my experiences in all boys programs (high school, robotics, summer camps, etc.), that is generally what they are after. It would come to no surprise to me if this was the program's original intent, however poorly executed it may have been.

[gblake]

1) Discrimination is not always bad. The word picked up negative connotations in my lifetime, and many folks currently unconsciously interpret it or use it *only* to mean a bad thing. Other folks, use it without the negative baggage, either to make a point, or because they learned the original meaning of the term and have stuck with it. Don't let those different uses of that word cause you to get your wires crossed in this discussion. See here for what I think are crossed wires post 52.

2) Some opinions I have developed over the years that I hope will complement artK's well-written observations:

If you are ever asked to influence how limited resources should be used, at some point along the spectrum of contexts that range from family, to neighborhood, to community, to region, to society, you will almost certainly find that you don't have enough resources to solve, accomplish, satisfy, and act on the important problems, goals, needs and imperatives those resources can be applied to.

Along those lines, in this thread, I think I have seen explicit or implicit references and allusions to:

• Offering equal opportunity to all ___
• Acting on a moral imperative
• Satisfying ___ named need
• Countering current ___ imbalances
• Preventing ___ failures
• Nurturing above-average ___ performers
• Influencing future ___

Well, in my opinion, they (and any similar attitudes) all deserve a seat at the table. However, until someone convinces me that they know where the magic bag of unlimited resources is, I believe that each choice to invest in one is a choice to reduce the investment in the others. If I'm in the right ballpark with this sort of outlook, then some posts in this thread are simultaneously 100% right, and 100% wrong.

In my opinion, there is no one true cause that trumps the rest; and there is no universally "fair" approach to allocating resources. It's all a compromise.

Something important to someone always falls below the line; and the compromises that are made in pursuit of various important topics will almost always appear to be poor choices when viewed through other topics' lenses, or when viewed at an inappropriate scale.

So, if my thesis is still in the right ballpark, let's remember that in this thread, we are discussing both ideals and implementations. While those ideals might exist in black and white perfection; in the real world, with very rare exception, they can only be implemented as compromises in shades of gray.

Blake

PS:[LESS SERIOUS]The last I heard, there were 9000 virtual signatures on the virtual petition. If all 9000 petitioners had each endowed some trustworthy steward with 50 cents, the total would be $4500.

Regardless of what the library's financial situation is, with that much cash, the petitioner could be collaborating right now with the library to expand the library's plans to include not only a summer program for boys (and at-risk girls?) that would use robots to trick the boys (would robots be a good lure for girls?) into visiting the library and doing summer reading; but also a program that would would form a competitive coed robotics club focused on inspiring students to consider STEM careers, and a program that would create a STEM club that would offer less-outgoing girls (and boys?) a nurturing environment in which they could thrive.[/LESS SERIOUS]

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

It's discrimination, but is it an attack on social equity? No.

I never said anything about social (in)equality. All I was doing was answering his questions. ... and yes it IS discrimination.

Originally Posted by evanperryg

This statement is misleading. Was every team at a regional that didn't get picked excluded from elims? Yes. Am I discriminating by selecting specific teams? Yes. Am I attacking those I didn't pick? No. Is there a social justice battle to be fought? No.

I did not state that discrimination is always bad, in fact I showed an example when it is good and necessary. Discrimination does not always equal social (in)justice. The real issue is why the library was being discriminatory. What was their reasoning and thought process (and I doubt we will ever, truly, be told).

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I'm going to take this one line at a time.


I disagree. A targeted event by it's very nature is discriminatory


Yes.


There's no difference. Both the women's and Men's league discriminate as to whom they allow to play.


Again, yes it is discriminatory.


Anytime you exclude a group, you are discriminating.


That's like stating that it's OK for girls to be in high school but not take advanced calculus.

When someone is not allowed to do what another is allowed to do, due to a trait, then it is discrimination.

Now, that being said, we discriminate all the time, and many times for good reason. Not allowing someone to run a mill because they have not been trained to run it safely is a good reason to discriminate. To not allow a person to run a mill because she is female is NOT a good reason.

Truthfully, I believe that the library saw a statistic (boys literacy drops during summer vacation) and tried to address that without looking at the bigger picture and is discriminatory nature.

JM(NS)HO

Perhaps the issue here is the difference between the technical definition of the word "discriminate" - to note or observe a difference - and it's accepted sociopolitical meaning - To systematically treat a group in a negative manor. Sure, there are many examples of discrimination per the first definition... That's something we all do every day. The second difference is where there are significant issues, and, in fact, is an area where our country is currently experiencing some strong opinions and disagreements (for reference, Google anything regarding private businesses refusing to service gay weddings... I predict this is something that will end up before the supreme court in the next 5 years).

Personally, I don't see this particular instance as the sociopolitical sort of discrimination. They created a targeted class. There's no difference between this class an, for example, the Boy Scouts. Or the Girl Scouts. Or an all girls Catholic school, or an all boys military prep school. In each situation, the organization is targeting their efforts to provide a unique (and hopefully beneficial) experience for the community, one that they feel could not be delivered as effectively if the experience was opened to a wider audience. As the Supreme Court has previously ruled (For example, see Boy Scouts of America vs Dale, even if this is one case where I don't think the Boy Scouts were in the right), this is perfectly legal.

Let's face it... As a society, we have a bad history with discrimination. We discriminated against people based on both race and gender for a long time. We all know that our country was founded on the premise of white, male, land owners having the final say. We've come a long way since then. But because of that history, we, as a culture, have almost become oversensitized to it. We see anything that might, in some way, indicate a return to that way of life, and we label it. We push it forward as a Very Bad Thing and shame anyone who might speak a thought that isn't totally against it. Instead, we should be trying to avoid such sociopolitically charged words in order to have a civil discussion that doesn't paint anyone into a corner.

I'll leave you with a passing thought... The team I mentor, the team I've worked with for the past 9 years, is an all girls teams. They come from an all girls school, and have as part of their mission statement the desire to promote girls in STEM. It's something I strongly believe in. Is my team and it's school discriminating?

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

I'll leave you with a passing thought... The team I mentor, the team I've worked with for the past 9 years, is an all girls teams. They come from an all girls school, and have as part of their mission statement the desire to promote girls in STEM. It's something I strongly believe in. Is my team and it's school discriminating?

Yes, it is discrimination by the literal definition. However, in its sociopolitical definition, there is no discrimination because it is benefiting a classically underserved and neglected demographic, without any direct negative effects on other groups of people. This is why I find this quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Anytime you exclude a group, you are discriminating.

so wrong. I understand the literal definition of "discrimination," but using it in this manner ignores the connotation of the word. It ignores the dichotomy between discrimination as an action upon analysis, and discrimination as a form of social attack. Both definitions exist and are socially significant, and therefore both must be acknowledged.

Originally Posted by gblake

...let's remember that in this thread, we are discussing both ideals and implementations. While those ideals might exist in black and white perfection; in the real world, with very rare exception, they can only be implemented as compromises in shades of gray.

Spotlighted. This is essentially what I was trying to say above.

[VioletElizabeth]

Originally Posted by artK

I've read through this thread and related articles, and I don't see a justification for the demonization of the librarian and the Timmins event simply because it was exclusive to boys. The librarian seemed to do the best she could given the constraints she was given: namely, that the event was exclusive to boys, and a girl wanted to attend said event, so she proposed a waitlist, and with enough demand would bring it up the hierarchy to make it happen. She probably didn't have the authority to admit or deny the girl to the event.

Secondly, with regards to all-boys programs, I don't see a problem with them existing. In fact, I was part of the all boys FRC team 254, and have seen work done by teams that are all-male, all-female, and coed (The three Ames teams actually have one of each). They all ran with different ways of doing things at different levels, from the division of labor to what we had for dinner (one of the most important cultural lessons I learned on 254 was that you never say no to good barbecue ).

The students on the teams were also very different beyond the obvious gender differences. 254 students were typically people who might not be super worried about having perfect grades or stellar SAT scores (when I joined, I wasn't), whereas 1868 students sent at least multiple girls to MIT or Caltech or other cream of the crop engineering colleges each year (actual stats from 1868 are welcome). 254 taught me and my peers the value in putting in the effort in what we did, or why to fight the "cognitive decay" that could have happened (Even though classes got harder each term, my grades went up as did my involvement on the team). And from my experiences in all boys programs (high school, robotics, summer camps, etc.), that is generally what they are after. It would come to no surprise to me if this was the program's original intent, however poorly executed it may have been.

1868 alumnae, going to MIT :

Let me find my Chairman's binder We don't keep stats by year (except by memory), but we've sent 13 girls to MIT. We also send girls to a wide variety of other colleges, but that is by far the single biggest destination. The other colleges with more than one alumna are UC Davis, UC Berkeley, Harvard, Cal Poly, Case Western, and Stanford. We actually only have one alumna at Caltech that I know of.

I wouldn't say that we all are as academically focused as portrayed, but it's not an unfair generalization to make if you are making generalizations. I would say that it's not necessarily a gender thing--I know a fair number of guys with similar attitudes towards academics.

(This post doesn't actually have much to do with the discussion, but Art asked.)

[Siri]

Originally Posted by gblake

Well, in my opinion, they (and any similar attitudes) all deserve a seat at the table. However, until someone convinces me that they know where the magic bag of unlimited resources is, I believe that each choice to invest in one is a choice to reduce the investment in the others. If I'm in the right ballpark with this sort of outlook, then some posts in this thread are simultaneously 100% right, and 100% wrong.

This is where my disconnect happens. How does one jump from "there aren't unlimited resources" to "the qualifier to access should be gender". No one is complaining that there wasn't specifically a counterpart girls program, they're complaining that there wasn't any alternative for girls access to resources. Not a single person on this forum would've batted an eye if this OP had been "Timmins Public Library caps enrollment in robotics club for financial/other resource reasons", or even "robotics club enrollment is capped". Please point me in the direction of a place where this cap isn't assumed for some N, it's probably where we'll find that bottomless resource bag. And we probably would've clapped if the OP were "Timmins opens robotics club to help students who struggle with retaining skills over the summer".

Instead, in a program that is in no way gendered itself, girls were excluded simply for being girls. These resources weren't being used to help boys in uniquely boy ways (like access to Little Brother-Big Brother resources) or overcome uniquely male problems (like male gender stereotypes). Gender was being used as a proxy for a very real issue that's affects all genders, even if it's to different extents. That means discrimination should be based on the effect, not based on the gender. Using gender instead is what drives social inequality on both the male and female sides.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Siri

This is where my disconnect happens. How does one jump from "there aren't unlimited resources" to "the qualifier to access should be gender". ...

Access to what?

When you wrote "the qualifier to access" you didn't include what you thought would be accessed. What do you think was/is the event's nature? How much do you know about the event? How familiar are you with it's goals, its planned methods, or any other details?

If you have been assuming that the event was going to closely resemble the STEM education and inspiration programs that tend to dominate the CD mindset (programs that spend a lot of time teaching students about STEM topics), that might be one reason we are talking past each other.

Based on what has been posted here, and on my general prejudice that libraries are not bastions of irrational, hateful, or narrow-minded thinking, I have been assuming the event would be quite different from a typical VEX, BEST, FIRST, etc. event.

Blake
PS: Time for sleep now. I'll write an answer that tries to close the disconnect tomorrow. If you can shed some light on this post's question that will help me. I'll bet closing that gap is possible.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by gblake

Access to what?

When you wrote "the qualifier to access" you didn't include what you thought would be accessed. What do you think was/is the event's nature? How much do you know about the event? How familiar are you with it's goals, its planned methods, or any other details?

If you have been assuming that the event was going to closely resemble the STEM education and inspiration programs that tend to dominate the CD mindset (programs that spend a lot of time teaching students about STEM topics), that might be one reason we are talking past each other.

Based on what has been posted here, and on my general prejudice that libraries are not bastions of irrational, hateful, or narrow-minded thinking, I have been assuming the event would be quite different from a typical VEX, BEST, FIRST, etc. event.

The event itself is the resource to which I'm referring. It doesn't matter what robots it has or how much money (I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly). Think for a moment that you're that nine-year-old girl. The thing that hurts most sharply when this happens isn't that you're missing some specific NXT class or a Botball table, it's that a library official told you no because you're a girl. There was no substantive reason to put her through that, because there was no substantive reason to discriminate (dictionary term) in this case. Literacy for 9-12 year olds is no more a gendered topic at a public school than it is at a public library. Pushing it into being gendered inevitably creates the opportunity to hurt more people (including girls who would miss the enrollment cap in a gender-neutral program) than it could help. Even in programs that actually should be gendered, it's on the institution to make the case as to why to the public. If this were in the US it'd probably be a legal Title IX violation.

You may want this if you haven't seen it (just in reference to your self described general prejudice, which I also hold):
"As I said, I cannot add much more, but I will add this. With the exception of Assistant Director Elaine De Bonis, none of the library staff are to blame for the boys only program. In fact, most if not all of the (all female but one) staff tried to persuade the Assistant Director to make it available to both genders. In fact my friend at the library advised De Bonis not to use "BOYS ONLY" wording. She refused to listen. Nor are Antoine Garwah and Lorraine Cantin, who head Science Timmins, to blame for the faults in the program either. Their position on the teaching of science has always been Science For All." - Timmins Blogger

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Siri

... there was no substantive reason to discriminate (dictionary term) in this case. Literacy for 9-12 year olds is no more a gendered topic at a public school than it is at a public library. ...

Are you sure about that? If that field isn't your area of expertise, can you cite an authoritative source that confirms your opinion?

Originally Posted by Siri

... "As I said, I cannot add much more, ...

I take what I read in blogs with a large grain of salt. That said, I'm sure that I would have advocated different methods too.

Originally Posted by Siri

... Their position on the teaching of science has always been Science For All." ...

What I have read about this situation is that the event *wasn't* a teaching-science event. Those reports I read might have been wrong or misleading, but if they were right... that would be an important piece of information.

Blake

[Siri]

Originally Posted by gblake

Are you sure about that? If that field isn't your area of expertise, can you cite an authoritative source that confirms your opinion.

I did, Title IX. A public school or library (or any other education program) receiving federal funds in the US cannot exclude people based on gender. This is no more legal in the US than labeling a public school class "boys only literacy" and not offering a girls class.

No one is arguing that students don't benefit based on individualized attention or that types of attention cannot correlate to gender. The argument is that access to attention cannot be gender-based. Under resource limitations, you make it need-based or benefit-based unless (in the US) you'd like to lose a lawsuit.

Can you share what you've read about this curriculum rather than talking around it? From what I've read it's a literacy program trying to use robotics to help keep students reading over the summer. Public libraries run many programs to help keep kids reading over the summer, and the only one I have ever seen that isn't split gender (2 programs) or co-ed is this one that uses robotics.