Gender Equality Initiative

[hershaw]

Hi All!

First things first! Here is the proposal

As we know, we've talked quite a bit about the gender inequality present in the student population of the Academy so we are going to address it with the attached proposal. Trigger warning, there is a quota mechanism in there. However, please do take the time to read it and understand that the quota is only as a deterrent. Success is defined as achieving the number that the quota calls for without having to use the quota and for this reason is set at a challenging yet very doable 30%.

[Rasmnev]

Before I give an opinion on this I would like to know how much of a difference would this have made if it had been implemented in batch 2?

[manuelfcreis]

Hey everyone,

While I do believe quotas can be an important measure to ensure equality I do believe the theoretical goal should be not to have a quota and have organic growth in equality and to achieve that some other measures are necessary.

I would say this initiative should be a bit more fleshed out in order to increase interest before the quota is needed. I'm not sure what the current marketing plan is but some measures I've seen having success in the past are:

• Workshops targeted to women;
• Talks on this issue;
• Specific market specially on areas that have a larger female population. I.e. if the marketing is too focused on computer scientists it won't attract as many women, due to the gender inequality on that sector.

In regards to the quota itself I agree with @Rasmnev and would like to know the effect on batch 2 (and 1 for that matter) but I am abstractly supportive of such a measure.

[Rasmnev]

I am by principle against any type of quota system. I think quotas are unfair, condescending and discriminatory in themselves and I cannot in good conscious support this type of measure. If you feel like the selection process/marketing is discriminatory in any sense we should definitely correct that, but I don't think discriminating against men is the way to go in order to correct discrimination against women or to solve the inability to reach the goals we set for the organisation

[rafaascensao]

Following @manuelfcreis comment, there are some coding workshops targeted to women here in Portugal (e.g. https://shecodes.io/). Maybe we can promote the academy in these type of events to get a bit more reach in this demographic.

[CatarinaSilva]

While I typically dislike quotas, I think having this goal (and having the purpose of achieving it without forcing a quota) is very nice. I definitely agree with trying to tackle it through finding better channels to get to prospective candidates, and in this context I can suggest a few things that I might actually be able to help with:

• asking to Women in Tech to spread the word (I know some people involved in this community, I can try to talk with them)
• shecodes (that @rafaascensao already mentioned) might also be a good idea (I know a girl that is teaching some topics there)
• trying to use our own networks to get to other channel

I obviously can't guarantee anything but at least I can try to contact some people :)

I have a few questions though, regarding the last batch process. Do we have any idea if the low percentage is because:

• women did not apply at all?
• women applied to late (50 candidates were already selected)?
• women applied early enough but did not pass the test
• women applied early enough and passed the test but gave up their places

Additionally do we have distributions regarding total numbers:

• how many men and women applied
• from which how many tried the tests
• from which how many completed the tests
• from which how many passed the test

I am not just curious about these, but I also think these questions can lead us to better understanding of possible strategies to get to the nice 30% goal without actually enforcing quotas.

[hershaw]

Hi all,

Thanks for the thoughts on the matter and taking the time to write them down. Firstly, I would like to reiterate once more that I would consider the initiative a failure if we end up having to use the quota. All energies and strategies will be put into achieving 30% without the use of the quota.

I'll group the responses and respond as best as I can to them but first

It is unfair

Most reactions that use the terms "unfair" or "against men" fall into this category so the response here applies to all of them.

This argument usually makes the assumption that the system with the quota is more unfair than without the quota which I do not think is the case. The reason is that there is no option for a fair system because a community that is dominated by one particular group develops lots of explicit and implicit biases over the time that it is. It may eventually self-correct and has been shown to in some cases but the process is usually very slow. Since there is no option for a fair system and waiting for the system to correct is very slow, I, and many others, argue that a temporary stopgap measure is necessary to speed up the course correction.

All that being said, this argument is the most difficult and subjective one to make which is why quotas must be viewed as a stopgap measure that cannot last for long.

So when it comes to choosing between the shit kebab and the shit sandwich, I'm advocating for the one that speeds up a positive systematic change.

Rather than a quota, we should concentrate on other things such as Marketing and Advocacy

We absolutely will and the quota is mostly a scare tactic to motivate this. The reason that it is set at a very doable 30% and not something higher is because I believe that it can be reached without having to use the quota. Nobody wants to use the quota and all of the suggestions mentioned in this type of response are tactics that should definitely employ to ensure that we don't.

You are all right to focus on this and if we do a good job with it, we should be able to start up Batch3 with at least 15 women without having to fall back on the quota mechanism.

I need to know about what the effects on the last batch would have been

This quota mechanism would have made precisely zero difference on Batch2 because we did not get enough women to pass the test. Note that as part of the conditions of the initiative, nobody may enter the academy as a student without passing the same test that everyone else is required to pass.

In terms of ALL the applications it looked like this:

So we had 27% female applications and then a 15% acceptance rate. However, as mentioned, the quota would not have made any difference in this situation because there were just not enough women to take and pass the test. It's not going to be enough just to get more women to apply, we need some thoughtful advocacy in some key places. Maybe some python tutorials at female-centric meetups with an academy pitch at the end?

[PedroGFonseca]

I think Sam has made the case very close to perfection.

A) Statements I believe most people can agree with:

• having an extremely skewed gender imbalance is problematic
• we have a number of tools other than quotas at our disposal that can and should be used
• only people who pass all criteria to enter (test) can enter
• the entrance criteria is not a rank (top X grades) but a threshold (anyone over Y grade up to Z people)

B) More statements I expect most people would agree with:

• quotas are a form of discrimination, and that makes their use undesirable
• there are other types of imbalance (e.g. race, disability) which could be corrected
• we would all prefer to have a non-gender-imbalanced Academy without needing the quota to kick in

C) Statements that are more contentious:

• the quota-backstop (the threat of a quota automatically kicking in) will motivate all of us to think of the gender imbalance problem as part of everything we do during the marketing to students
• If all else fails, it is best to have the quotas kick in than to move forward with an extremely gender imbalanced class
• A reasonable number for this automatic trigger would be 30%

On a personal level, having observed two full Academies by now, I am strongly convinced that having a quota backstop (i.e. an admittedly undesirable but less-of-both-evils provision that kicks in if all else fails) is necessary. I would not feel comfortable teaching a class which is almost entirely of a single gender, nor do I think that creating and maintaining a community (which is the mission) which has only men aligns with my values.

At the end of the day this is a values question, which is what makes it so deeply personal to everyone, be they for or against the quota-backstop.

Having though long and hard about the pros and cons, and accepting that there is no perfect solution, I am firmly in favor of having a quota-backstop. And I'll be among those fighting to avoid triggering it.

[PedroGFonseca]

What happens now?

[hershaw]

I'll go ahead and mark this closed and we can move to the other issue that you've opened about what to do about it next.