Add political beliefs to protected traits. #225
4 participants
I've gone back and forth on including political beliefs. The point is to call out specific marginalized populations that are frequent targets for abuse, and I'm not convinced that either liberals/progressives or conservatives/libertarians qualify as marginalized groups. Open to discussion.
FWIW, I think that political beliefs could be a valuable addition, but not because of the conservative/liberal/libertarian taxonomy. Rather, it is worthwhile to note that there are areas of the world where political oppression is very real. I don't think that in Western culture liberals, conservatives, or libertarians are particularly oppressed, and I am otherwise wary that this language could potentially be applied as a trump card to override other factors.
I'm on the fence, really. I could envision some interpretations of behaviors as not being attacks per se (for instance maybe derailing?), but I think a bigger part of me identifies that the political issue that gives me pause would be covered by "political attacks." On that basis, I'm leaning more towards not adding political beliefs, and instead sticking with the "political attacks" language.
The main issue I see is that some political beliefs may conflict with the code, and so it becomes impossible to respect both at the same time. For example, some people believe that trans people cannot really transition, and insist on using the incorrect pronoun or deadnaming them. It's a political belief and can't be reconciled with the rest of the code.
I don't believe the following statements are mutually exclusive:
- You have the right to contribute without being abused, insulted, or harassed because of your religious or political beliefs.
- A project's development channels are not a place for discussing religious or political beliefs.
We don't expect people to post about their sexuality (although we protect them from abuse based on that), we could coherently do the same for political beliefs & religious beliefs.
I think that refusing to use someone's desired name or pronouns would (at best) be considered harassment, and (at worst) be considered harassment and posting private information (particularly with deadnaming). I agree that we shouldn't scope protection of beliefs to allow for abuse.
I broadly agree with you, @mprelude. I'd just say that religious and political beliefs are generally ranked lower than the other things mentioned, in that (as you point out) we would expect people to respect things like gender identity above their own personal beliefs.
We should avoid a situation where people can claim that being "forced" to use a particular pronoun, or merge code from someone whose orientation they find upsetting for religious reasons, is a violation of the code or their rights.
As an example, on another forum someone was complaining that gay people ram their sexuality down his throat, constantly bothering him by discussing what they do in the bedroom. After some investigation it turns out that what he means is that when a gay person casually mentions in normal conversation their same sex partner (e.g. "my wife is an expert in this, try asking her"), to him that was interpreted and being forced to confront their bedroom activity and considered harassment.
This is why the Open Code of Conduct includes the reverse-ism bit. It's controversial, but it is there to deal with people complaining that their intolerance is not being tolerated. It's not just about listing things people shouldn't say or do, it's about protecting people's right to live normal lives without having to hide their protected attributes for fear of getting spurious complaints.
I broadly agree with you, @mprelude. I'd just say that religious and political beliefs are generally ranked lower than the other things mentioned, in that (as you point out) we would expect people to respect things like gender identity above their own personal beliefs.
Yes, to reiterate, I absolutely don't want to create a scenario where we're protecting political/religious speech to a harmful degree, but rather protecting people from harassment based on their (well known) political/religious beliefs i.e. "you support Donald Trump, you must be an idiot" or "you're a creationist, what do you know about science?" (I think all of us have seen creationist-bashing).
We should avoid a situation where people can claim that being "forced" to use a particular pronoun, or merge code from someone whose orientation they find upsetting for religious reasons, is a violation of the code or their rights.
+1.
As an example, on another forum someone was complaining that gay people ram their sexuality down his throat, constantly bothering him by discussing what they do in the bedroom.
This one, as you said, is an investigative task. If someone was going around literally ramming sexuality (of any kind) down others' throats, this would already fall foul of the 'sexual language and imagery' clause.
I am also of the (controversial?) opinion that by extending protection status even to groups which are not typically marginalised, we give those majority groups a vested interest in the CoC and help them to see it as their 'friend' rather than their 'enemy'. Giving everyone a stake in the health of a community can only serve to unite people.
Interesting point you make there, about trying to include people. I'm just struggling to see examples where specific protection for religious or political beliefs would not already be covered by things no personal attacks or perhaps something about not dragging politics into technical arguments.
One important difference to consider is that political and religious beliefs are a matter of choice. For example, having a Trump for President email signature or LGBT rainbow flag is a choice and arguably an unwelcome political statement that really shouldn't be brought in to the development of open source projects. On the other hand merely being gay is not a choice, and it is unreasonable to expect people to hide that fact when normal human interaction does sometimes lead to it being implied or revealed (as in the example of the spouse I gave above).
I can see it's a difficult one to call. For example, someone might reasonably want to say "this fix will be delayed because I'm busy at the Tea Party meeting this weekend". It could be argued that is not so different from saying "this fix will be delayed because I'm busy helping my boyfriend move this weekend".
I'm just struggling to see examples where specific protection for religious or political beliefs would not already be covered by things no personal attacks or perhaps something about not dragging politics into technical arguments.
Could you not say the same for any of those other designated groups, though? A prohibition on insults by definition would prohibit homophobic slurs or anti-Christian slurs, but we list those groups in order to make everyone feel that we welcome diversity.
For example, someone might reasonably want to say "this fix will be delayed because I'm busy at the Tea Party meeting this weekend". It could be argued that is not so different from saying "this fix will be delayed because I'm busy helping my boyfriend move this weekend".
+1 to this, clear example of where politics could come up in everyday speech, but often it's possible to tell political ideology from much more subtle choices of language. People who read Forbes or The Telegraph will be accustomed to different language to those who read Huff Post or the Guardian.
One important difference to consider is that political and religious beliefs are a matter of choice. For example, having a Trump for President email signature or LGBT rainbow flag is a choice and arguably an unwelcome political statement that really shouldn't be brought in to the development of open source projects.
I was thinking more in the instance of knowing peoples' political beliefs or religious beliefs from discussions outside of project spaces, and attacking or dismissing them inside of project spaces because of it.
I would tend to agree with you that putting political beliefs in signatures in an OSS space is inflammatory, and I would actually advocate at least a clause in the desired behaviours about avoiding political subjects in project spaces (Go code has some decent wording on this, I think).
protecting people from harassment based on their (well known) political/religious beliefs i.e. "you support Donald Trump, you must be an idiot" or "you're a creationist, what do you know about science?" (I think all of us have seen creationist-bashing).
I think this clearly falls under "political attacks."
Could you not say the same for any of those other designated groups, though? A prohibition on insults by definition would prohibit homophobic slurs or anti-Christian slurs, but we list those groups in order to make everyone feel that we welcome diversity.
I suppose there are two reasons.
There is a specific, severe problem in some areas. In an ideal world it shouldn't need to be stated that transphobia is unacceptable and falls under the standard prohibition of not making personal insults, but in practice it seems to be. My spell checker doesn't even recognize the word transphobia.
It prevents the reverse-ism issue. No-one can complain that simply failing to hide your orientation or skin colour or whatever is somehow a violation of the CoC, because it says specifically that such claims are themselves against the rules.
You can't tolerate and protect every point of view, because clearly some involve the oppression of others. Unfortunately you can't even state it that way, as some people will claim that others being openly female or black oppresses them (see the recent MRA reaction to The Force Awakens, for example). So you have to pick a side and state it.
So you have to pick a side and state it.
I think we got to the right point earlier; that being a protected group does not give you the right to use that status to mount an attack on a member of another group. The fact that someone is trans does not give them the right to harass the Tea Party member, the fact that someone is a Tea Party member does not give them the right to misgender a trans person.
The list of protected groups is not actually a part of the terms and conditions, it's just preamble as I read it, and does not infer any special rights on people because they belong to one of those groups. It's sad that any of this needs saying, but that's the state of a politically volatile society I guess.
You can't tolerate and protect every point of view, because clearly some involve the oppression of others.
This is part of my point though, we don't need to tolerate every point of view, we just need to tolerate the people who hold those views. If someone says on their Twitter, "marriage is between a man and a woman", we should tolerate (and not allow harassment of) that person as long as they keep their views off of project spaces.
I think it's important to differentiate between tolerating a person's existence, and tolerating expressions that person may make which explicitly violate our code of conduct.
I think we got to the right point earlier; that being a protected group does not give you the right to use that status to mount an attack on a member of another group. The fact that someone is trans does not give them the right to harass the Tea Party member, the fact that someone is a Tea Party member does not give them the right to misgender a trans person.
I agree fully here, it's just the practical implications... As I said, some people consider others not hiding their nature, or being "forced" to use the "wrong" pronoun to be harassment. At some point you have to say "no, not mis-gendering a trans person is more important than your right to believe they are still male/female and use your preferred pronoun".
This is part of my point though, we don't need to tolerate every point of view, we just need to tolerate the people who hold those views. If someone says on their Twitter, "marriage is between a man and a woman", we should tolerate (and not allow harassment of) that person as long as they keep their views off of project spaces.
I broadly agree, but again there may be issues. For example, legally a Christian baker might not be allowed to refuse to cater a same-sex wedding on religious grounds, but a same-sex couple's bakery might be able to refuse to bake a cake with the phrase "marriage is between a man and a woman only" on it. I'm not saying that is right or must be reflected here, merely that I'm not sure it's black and white that something said or done outside the project must be ignored.
A recent example would be that Eich guy who was briefly in some C level position at Mozilla. His views made his position untenable because some people refused to work with him or use Mozilla's products as long as he was in that position. Some people said this was a violation of his rights, others said that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences and you can't realistically expect people to separate what you say or do in your personal life with your professional life.
You can't avoid picking sides, because one way or another you deny someone their right to react in the manner of their choice to something another person does. Again, the key differentiation is between things that are a choice and things which are not.
I agree fully here, it's just the practical implications... As I said, some people consider others not hiding their nature, or being "forced" to use the "wrong" pronoun to be harassment. At some point you have to say "no, not mis-gendering a trans person is more important than your right to believe they are still male/female and use your preferred pronoun".
Then let's explicitly state this in the expected behaviours section:
- You are expected to respect the expression and identity of other users, for example by using the name and gender pronouns which that person requests.
A recent example would be that Eich guy who was briefly in some C level position at Mozilla.
The Brendan Eich boycott was counter-productive, though. All it served to achieve was to send a signal to conservatives and even libertarians that their worst fears are right, and that proponents of inclusiveness like you and me are out to exclude them for their "wrongthink". That's what I'm trying to avoid.
I believe that we're right. I believe that a diverse community will be more successful than an isolated one with a barbed-wire fence. I believe that if we give everyone a stake in this ideal, that they will grow to love it as they live in it. Perhaps that's idealistic.
You can't avoid picking sides, because one way or another you deny someone their right to react in the manner of their choice to something another person does. Again, the key differentiation is between things that are a choice and things which are not.
I'd like to lift this negative from the Go code, which I think sums it up and avoids taking sides:
- Discussing potentially offensive or sensitive issues; this all too often leads to unnecessary conflict.
Let's just not talk about whether gay marriage is right or wrong, whether Donald Trump is right or wrong, whether abortion is right or wrong. By concentrating on what we have in common (creating good software), we can avoid focusing on the things that divide us. We all have other channels to discuss our political views.
You are expected to respect the expression and identity of other users, for example by using the name and gender pronouns which that person requests.
I agree with the sentiment but feel that the statement is too specific.
All it served to achieve was to send a signal to conservatives and even libertarians that their worst fears are right, and that proponents of inclusiveness like you and me are out to exclude them for their "wrongthink".
I see what you mean, but I still think you can't get away from ultimately stating that one thing is acceptable and another is not. Either sexism is not acceptable under any circumstances, or it is acceptable if say you believe that one gender is inferior. You can only accommodate both views if ban people from talking about gender, but that would force everyone to use gender neutral pseudonyms and be extremely careful not to reveal any aspect of their true identity.
While I generally agree that it's best to avoid discussing such issues while developing software, at the same time I don't think people should have to avoid expressing any aspect of their identity that way. Of course, that can include religious or political aspects (I gave examples above, but would add titles such as Reverend or Senator). What I'm saying is that while all of that should be allowed and protected to some extent, when push comes to shove one right has to be maintained over another and any language has to make it clear which one has priority.
Again, the OCC is explicit about this, stating that it will prioritize certain things over others.
I think the difference between our arguments is that I'm talking about personal traits, and not activity.
Let me try to clarify a few examples to see where we both stand on this:
Sarah is a Christian, a political conservative and believes that marriage is a religious institution between one man and one woman.
Sarah tweets about this sometimes on her personal account, but doesn't mention it in the project channels and is cordial with gay members of the community.
Should Sarah be a welcome participant?
Bob is a passionate pro-gay activist who has seen Sarah's tweets. He posts quotes from her tweets to the project space and makes derogatory comments about Sarah's religion and her intelligence.
Should Bob be a welcome participant?
If I were in charge of this community in a BDFL role, I would absolutely welcome Sarah as long as her views on marriage stay outside of the project space, and would absolutely defend her right to participate.
If Sarah and Bob were reversed, and Sarah attacked Bob for his support of gay marriage, I would welcome Bob and defend his right to participate.
@CoralineAda I'm glad we are on the same page about this. Political inclusiveness matters more than ever with people feeling that we are "out to get them".
It seems like we agree, then, that we should protect people from harassment or discrimination, but not give them a blank cheque to discuss those views; i.e. it is OK for Sarah to be a social conservative, but she cannot use project spaces as a political soapbox. This follows precedent from sexuality & gender identity, as we would respect peoples' identities, but would not expect them to discuss their sex lives or post intimate details & pictures of their surgery in project spaces.
So, as we have already established that it is possible to protect a status without granting a 'blank cheque' for free speech, do you think the pull request is reasonable (possibly coupled with an extra prohibition on discussing sensitive & offensive topics)?
So to think this through a little more... if someone is socially conservative politically and believes that transgender people are, shall we say, delusional? Is expecting them to respect a transgender participant's pronouns an infringement on their political beliefs?
If I were in charge of this community in a BDFL role, I would absolutely welcome Sarah as long as her views on marriage stay outside of the project space, and would absolutely defend her right to participate.
Right, we would prioritize the rights of gay people over her political beliefs. It would be okay for someone to mention in passing that they have a same-sex partner (see examples I gave above) because that's a normal thing for anyone to do, but bringing up personal political beliefs on the subject is not acceptable.
if someone is socially conservative politically and believes that transgender people are, shall we say, delusional? Is expecting them to respect a transgender participant's pronouns an infringement on their political beliefs?
Yes, it is, but that's okay. We should prioritize transgender rights over political/religious beliefs.
Personal beliefs are not equal to protected characteristics. If that creates division then it's unfortunate, but unavoidable.
So to think this through a little more... if someone is socially conservative politically and believes that transgender people are, shall we say, delusional? Is expecting them to respect a transgender participant's pronouns an infringement on their political beliefs?
No, it's an infringement on their freedom of expression, which is fine because a project space is not a free speech venue. It's no different from asking people to refrain from using sexualised language.
I decided on not making political beliefs a protected class, but prohibiting political attacks.
Please see rich diff, my editor likes to trim trailing whitespace.
Added political beliefs to the group of traits which we should protect from discrimination. Liberals, conservatives and libertarians should all feel welcome in a shared collaberation space.