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

[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]

[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.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Siri

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. ...

I was asking if you what you know about literacy for 9-12 year old students extends beyond having a personal opinion.

I have an opinion about that subject. I think my opinion is reasonably well-informed, but I also know that it's only an amateur's opinion.

Originally Posted by Siri

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.

You appear to have read more than I have. I know I haven't seen any copies of original documents; and until I do, I can only speculate about many things. I suppose I might come across as "talking around" what I know because I have very few hard facts, and I'm trying not to reach any strong conclusions based on hearsay or my speculations.

Blake

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Siri

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.

Just to further stir the pot, what is the Canadian equivalent (or do they even have an equivalent)? The original case was in Canada...

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Siri

Literacy for 9-12 year olds is no more a gendered topic at a public school than it is at a public library...If this were in the US it'd probably be a legal Title IX violation.

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?

Originally Posted by Siri

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.

Originally Posted by gblake

I was asking if you what you know about literacy for 9-12 year old students extends beyond having a personal opinion.

You might have been intending to ask that question, but what you actually asked was whether Siri M had a citation for the statement of literacy not being a gendered topic. The point being made was one of law rather than of opinion. (Of course, since Timmins is not a US library, this specific piece of US legal code is not completely relevant.)

Originally Posted by gblake

You appear to have read more than I have. I know I haven't seen any copies of original documents; and until I do, I can only speculate about many things.

The "original documents" on the Timmins Public Library web site have been removed, but while they were there you could have seen them by clicking on the link on the first page of this thread. I don't remember whether or not they made clear the status of the program as a reading program. The TPL June 2015 newsletter is still online, with the "For Boys ONLY!" prominent on page 3. The mention of the session on the first page is admittedly somewhat ambiguous as to whether it's being included as a literacy program along with the others listed in the same paragraph.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

You might have been intending to ask that question, but what you actually asked was whether Siri M had a citation for the statement of literacy not being a gendered topic. The point being made was one of law rather than of opinion. (Of course, since Timmins is not a US library, this specific piece of US legal code is not completely relevant.)

The "original documents" on the Timmins Public Library web site have been removed, but while they were there you could have seen them by clicking on the link on the first page of this thread. I don't remember whether or not they made clear the status of the program as a reading program. The TPL June 2015 newsletter is still online, with the "For Boys ONLY!" prominent on page 3. The mention of the session on the first page is admittedly somewhat ambiguous as to whether it's being included as a literacy program along with the others listed in the same paragraph.

I'll be more than a little surprised if the Title IX legislation or regulations say anything about whether or not keeping boys literacy on a par with girls literacy during ages 9-12 can be accomplished by investing equal effort into the boys and the girls.

When someone says that literacy among 9-12 year olds is not a gendered topic, I think that is what they are asserting, and I doubt Title IX contains any facts that would support the claim.

That is why I asked my question.

I believe I followed all the links that are in this thread, back when they were live. Nothing I read described the actual planned content of the program. The word "robots", or some variation of it was prominently mentioned in an announcement, but there was nothing I read that gave any more detail.

The robots might be inert action figures for all I know, or they might be pre-made motorized devices students would drive, but learn nothing about, or they might be roles that would be assigned to participants in a role-playing game, or ....

I don't recall anything that said or implied that learning about STEM was either directly, or tangentially the purpose of the program. I think many CD folks saw the word "robot" and assuming participants would be learning STEM material. That's an understandable assumption for CD readers, but as far as I can tell, we don't know if that assumption Is correct, or wildly incorrect, or somewhere in-between.

That is why I asked my question.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by gblake

The robots might be inert action figures for all I know, or they might be pre-made motorized devices students would drive, but learn nothing about, or they might be roles that would be assigned to participants in a role-playing game, or ....

I got the distinct impression that Lego Mindstorm was to be featured in the session.



Here's some more information from the library by way of a local radio station:

Timmins Public Library Chair and City Councillor Mike Doody says the entire incident was an “unintentional” “miscalculation” on the staffs part.

He says, this year’s robotics program is accepting 15 children. Currently, he says they have roughly 5 applicants registered so far.

So why was Cash, a young girl, allegedly turned away from the program when there were still 10 positions available? Her mother writes on change.org that Assistant Library Director Elaine De Bonis told her it’s because Cash is a girl, and the robotics program is geared towards boys to improve their reading skills.

Mike Doody elaborates on this claim [embedded audio]

He explains, the Library’s initial focus with the robotics program was to improve boy’s literacy through reading. How? He says, by creating incentives like the Robotics Program, boys are more likely to return to the library after the program is over to read. He says the library has found that girls are more likely to come to the library then boys are – hence, they don’t need as much initiative like the Robotics Program.

Another article from a Timmins newspaper has an actual quote:

“The feeling from staff was that young boys were falling away from reading programs,” Michael Doody, Timmins Public Library Board chairman said. “So, we decided to offer the 45-minute introductory robotics session to 15 boys to keep them engaged in reading.”

[TheBlenderMan]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I got the distinct impression that Lego Mindstorm was to be featured in the session.



Here's some more information from the library by way of a local radio station:

Timmins Public Library Chair and City Councillor Mike Doody says the entire incident was an “unintentional” “miscalculation” on the staffs part.

He says, this year’s robotics program is accepting 15 children. Currently, he says they have roughly 5 applicants registered so far.

So why was Cash, a young girl, allegedly turned away from the program when there were still 10 positions available? Her mother writes on change.org that Assistant Library Director Elaine De Bonis told her it’s because Cash is a girl, and the robotics program is geared towards boys to improve their reading skills.

Mike Doody elaborates on this claim [embedded audio]

He explains, the Library’s initial focus with the robotics program was to improve boy’s literacy through reading. How? He says, by creating incentives like the Robotics Program, boys are more likely to return to the library after the program is over to read. He says the library has found that girls are more likely to come to the library then boys are – hence, they don’t need as much initiative like the Robotics Program.

Another article from a Timmins newspaper has an actual quote:

“The feeling from staff was that young boys were falling away from reading programs,” Michael Doody, Timmins Public Library Board chairman said. “So, we decided to offer the 45-minute introductory robotics session to 15 boys to keep them engaged in reading.”

That makes a lot more sense as to why they only had it be boys only, if it was robotics as we all know it I would certainly have a problem with it but in this case I think they were justified in discriminating as they did. (my personal opinion)

[Madison]

Originally Posted by TheBlenderMan

That makes a lot more sense as to why they only had it be boys only, if it was robotics as we all know it I would certainly have a problem with it but in this case I think they were justified in discriminating as they did. (my personal opinion)

The content of the program is irrelevant given historical inequalities surrounding STEM education.

They could've meant to teach the boys to knit, but if the program is called "Robots - BOYS ONLY," it's problematic and, frankly, pretty idiotic.