A universal approach to end all discrimination #963
Conversation
Hi, I recently learned that the new version of Contributor Covenant is under development. I really like Covenant and all the ideas behind it. Might I make a suggestion? I reworded things a bit and added more protected classes. Here's my version of the first two paragraphs: “We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in our community a harassment and discrimination-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, health, national, ethnic or social origin, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, language, profession, citizenship, immigration status, origin, place of birth or residence, property or socio-economic status, criminal records, marital status, family status, pregnancy, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion or belief, sexual identity and orientation, political or other opinions, social identity, membership in a social group, or any characteristics other than that of individual merit. We pledge to act and interact in ways that do not contribute to systemic biases, but instead contribute to an open, welcoming, diverse, inclusive, and healthy community.” Why do I think it's important? In my opinion the current Covenant is leaving way too much space for discrimination. For example, people with health or mental health issues are still stigmatized, a lot of those with criminal records are PoC, and not only they are stigmatized, they're also often denied basic rights. Another group experiencing prejudice are immigrants. They are being discriminated against just because of their origin or accent or because they come from a different culture. I know the list is long, that’s why I added “social identity” and “membership in a social group.” This encompasses everyone who belongs to any stigmatized group. I think the list can be shortened if these two protected classes remain. On merit. You hear it often from the proponents of meritocracy, how nothing but the code itself should matter. And I agree with them. Person’s gender, race, sexuality, etc. should not be a deciding factor on whether or not they can be a member of the community. Basically what it says is that you can’t discriminate against a person for any reasons other than their professional behavior or quality of their work. I think no proponent of meritocracy will be able to argue with that. And finally, I think it’s very important to acknowledge and fight systemic biases. These biases are very pervasive and I believe we all should do our best to end them. Generally speaking, discrimination can be based on reasons that are arbitrary and superficial (unrelated to job and professionalism), stigmatizing (demeaning or subordinating based on identity), stereotyping (making assumptions about roles and competences based on group status) or reasons that are rooted in systemic biases (i.e. reasons that contribute to inequality, social segregation and hierarchy, or limit the opportunities of affected individuals) [see Jessica A. Clarke, Against Immutability, 125 Yale L. J. 2, 2015]. Instead of trying to list every protected class (which I kinda did), we can focus on the reasons behind discrimination, and try to prohibit them. For example, a sex worker, although not listed, is still a protected class because discriminating them falls under “membership in a social group” (sex workers are a stigmatized group), “contributing to systemic bias” (often sex workers are denied equal opportunities and mistreated) and “merit” (sex work is unrelated to their ability to code). You might think that my proposal is way too radical. And that’s ok. My goal here is to give you some suggestions and start a conversation. I really hope this will be somewhat useful.
|
Hi, Thanks for this PR, in the past I have also asked myself, what other characteristics belong in the protected groups and how specific we should be. I think that is a task/discussion to open seperately on goals for supported groups - if you're interested in starting that/proposing goals. I would strongly avoid, and flag the use of merit in the last sentence as it's a loaded word, well beyond meritocracy itself which has intentional or not, comes from a place of thinking everyone starts at an equal position, has equal opportunity etc. Which we know is not true. On casteism and merit: https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/how-historical-caste-privilege-became-modern-day-merit-lower-caste-upper-caste-7309875/ Mozilla's decision to remove meritocracy from governance: https://blog.mozilla.org/careers/words-matter-moving-beyond-meritocracy/ |
|
I see how problematic "merit" is. I think it can be replaced by "any personal characteristics that are unrelated to inherent job requirements" or something similar. Or it can be dropped out entirely. The reason why I included merit is just for meritocracy lovers to have less arguments. Which protected classes should be included? I'm not sure about that, that's why I tried to universalize the language and target the reasons behind discrimination. But Covenant is not a law or a court opinion so I think we should not limit ourselves when it comes to defining what characteristics to include. We can include marginalized groups that are usually not protected by laws. |
I don't think that this should be a protected status. I personally would like to limit the participation of someone if I found out they were an active participant in white nationalist organization (for example).
Same here. This is extremely broad. "Diversity of thought" is not the same as diversity.
This is very vague. I would need to see a definition for it. My gut would say it's too general.
I agree as well @emmairwin. Merit and meritocracy are extremely problematic as a concept. Meritocracy is the modern tech equivalent of the 80's "colorblind" theory to "solving racism". Meritocracy is ignoring systemic biases. In a racist system, it's not enough to be "not racist" one must actively work to be "anti-racist". Meritocracy as a concept seeks to hide our differences and our problems. We can't fix what we cannot see.
I think we should aim to be explicit when possible. Generalizing the terms also opens up a wide range of edge cases (see above). Before the Contributor Covenant people had wildly TOO general CoC documents like "be excellent to each other" and it clearly wasn't explicit enough, it was toothless. While it's true that the CoC isn't a binding legal document, it should provide psychological safety to maintainers to help them feel confident when exercising the CoC. And it should also provide clear guidelines to contributors which actions are and aren't okay. Looser defining characteristics can be less clear. At the same time, I'm curious if some of the other more specific characteristics you've listed roll up to some categories that are broader (allow for eliminating one or more characteristics) but aren't so broad that they invite bad faith actors. |
Hi,
I recently learned that the new version of Contributor Covenant is under development. I really like Covenant and all the ideas behind it. Might I make a suggestion? I reworded things a bit and added more protected classes. Here's my version of the first two paragraphs:
“We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in our community a harassment and discrimination-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, health, national, ethnic or social origin, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, language, profession, citizenship, immigration status, origin, place of birth or residence, property or socio-economic status, criminal records, marital status, family status, pregnancy, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion or belief, sexual identity and orientation, political or other opinions, social identity, membership in a social group, or any characteristics other than that of individual merit.
We pledge to act and interact in ways that do not contribute to systemic biases, but instead contribute to an open, welcoming, diverse, inclusive, and healthy community.”
Why do I think it's important? In my opinion the current Covenant is leaving way too much space for discrimination. For example, people with health or mental health issues are still stigmatized, a lot of those with criminal records are PoC, and not only they are stigmatized, they're also often denied basic rights. Another group experiencing prejudice are immigrants. They are being discriminated against just because of their origin or accent or because they come from a different culture.
I know the list is long, that’s why I added “social identity” and “membership in a social group.” This encompasses everyone who belongs to any stigmatized group. I think the list can be shortened if these two protected classes remain.
On merit. You hear it often from the proponents of meritocracy, how nothing but the code itself should matter. And I agree with them. Person’s gender, race, sexuality, etc. should not be a deciding factor on whether or not they can be a member of the community. Basically what it says is that you can’t discriminate against a person for any reasons other than their professional behavior or quality of their work. I think no proponent of meritocracy will be able to argue with that.
And finally, I think it’s very important to acknowledge and fight systemic biases. These biases are very pervasive and I believe we all should do our best to end them.
Generally speaking, discrimination can be based on reasons that are arbitrary and superficial (unrelated to job and professionalism), stigmatizing (demeaning or subordinating
based on identity), stereotyping (making assumptions about roles and competences based on group status) or reasons that are rooted in systemic biases (i.e. reasons that contribute to inequality, social segregation and hierarchy, or limit the opportunities of affected individuals) [see Jessica A. Clarke, Against Immutability, 125 Yale L. J. 2, 2015]. Instead of trying to list every protected class (which I kinda did), we can focus on the reasons behind discrimination, and try to prohibit them. For example, a sex worker, although not listed, is still a protected class because discriminating them falls under “membership in a social group” (sex workers are a stigmatized group), “contributing to systemic bias” (often sex workers are denied equal opportunities and mistreated) and “merit” (sex work is unrelated to their ability to code).
You might think that my proposal is way too radical. And that’s ok. My goal here is to give you some suggestions and start a conversation.
I really hope this will be somewhat useful.