Patronizing Language (Issue 232)

[wareid]

Making some editorial adjustments to address the comments raised in issue 232.

Some notes on my edits:

• I have moved the patronizing language section out of microagressions as it applies not only to that topic but to behaviour in general
• I have simplified the description of patronizing language or behaviour to broaden it's scope while retaining the key points

I have also made a few small changes to microagressions to compensate for moving patronizing behaviour out, specifically expanding the scope of identity (we previously mentioned only racial identity).

Took out language examples as I feel they don't add to the text in a helpful manner.

---

Preview | Diff

[dbooth-boston]

I am confused by this PR. Is it intended as an alternative to the proposal that was made in #232 ? It does not seem to address most of the concerns raised in that issue. Based on last week's teleconference, I thought the group wanted to discuss #232 before making a PR for it, and I took an action to file an issue for it, to facilitate such discussion. Did I misunderstand the intended process?

[wareid]

Hi @dbooth-boston! I made this PR to help guide the discussion for the next meeting we are able to discuss this.

Based on your feedback in issue #232 we agreed that some amendment to this section was a good idea. After reviewing your issue and the language, I moved some things around to hopefully bridge the gap. I have done my best to balance the goals of the document with your feedback.

Feel free to comment on what I have done here or when it comes up in the meeting (we'll ensure it's mentioned in the agenda).

[cwilso]

I think the "particular" adjective was important here, and I would suggest adding it back ("Assuming that particular people..."). IMO, it makes sense to define concepts; the patronizing aspect comes in when it seems condescending, or as if the speaker believes their audience is inferior due to this knowledge differential. If I were giving a talk on a highly technical subject, it would make sense to assume that some concepts should be defined or explained; it's problematic if I do that because of irrelevant characteristics of my audience (your next point covers that well) or if I am condescending in presenting it. (Your third point covers this, too - so alternately, you could simply remove this line, although I think that leaves too much unsaid.)

[dbooth-boston]

1. I agree that this proposed text leave too much unsaid. To my mind, the point is not that we should not make assumptions about people or groups. Making assumptions is an inescapable necessity. The point is that we should not make such assumptions based on characteristics that are irrelevant to the work objective, such as appearance, nationality, gender identity, etc. For example, if we are trying to hire a programmer, and someone has a BS in computer science, it is completely reasonable to assume that that person knows how to program in at least one programming language, because that is a relevant assumption. We cannot make such assumptions based on the person's skin color, nationality, gender, or any other characteristic that is irrelevant to programming. That distinction -- between relevant and irrelevant characteristics -- is central the point that this bullet is trying to make, but not actually stating. I believe it should be stated explicitly, such as in the proposed text at: Issue 232 proposed changes #238

2. I vehemently disagree verbiage (such as this) that in any way encourages people to avoid defining their jargon. Failing to define one's jargon creates a less inclusive environment.

[wareid]

I left "particular" out because I believe anyone can be patronizing to another person, and moving the section out of microagressions makes that even more necessary. Being patronizing is an action centered around making assumptions.

I agree David that making certain assumptions is unavoidable, especially if you're in a situation where you are speaking to a group or are unfamiliar with your audience. The key is that there are things you can do in every situation to avoid being patronizing.

Here's the challenge, I am not a fan of making documents like these overly wordy and complex. The CEPC is meant to be a guide, not step-by-step instructions for how to behave. In fact, if we attempted to write a step-by-step guide for how to behave, we'd very likely be buried in comments asking for clarification for the remainder of our natural lives.

I absolutely do not understand your assertion that this prevents explaining jargon, David. At no point does this text suggest what you should or should not say.

[dbooth-boston]

I absolutely do not understand your assertion that this prevents explaining jargon, David. At no point does this text suggest what you should or should not say.

The text is under "Unacceptable behavior", so it is telling people what NOT to do. I.e., it is telling us that a speaker should NOT "[assume] that people or groups need concepts defined or explained to them". Since a speaker in front of an unfamiliar audience can never really know what the audience knows or doesn't know, the only safe course of action to avoid sounding patronizing would be to NOT define or explain one's concepts. Thus, in effect that guidance is warning people against defining or explaining their concepts.

To my mind, that guidance is exactly wrong. A speaker SHOULD "assume that people or groups need concepts defined or explained to them". I.e., the default should always be to define one's jargon. It should only be skipped if the speaker has enough relevant information about the audience to know that it can be safely skipped.

[cwilso]

I'm concerned about dropping this bullet entirely. I think point out that there are some comment triggers/identifiers of patronizing language can be illuminating. I probably used to say "well actually" a lot. I don't anymore. :)

[dbooth-boston]

I also think the "Well, actually" example is useful to include, because it helps to alert the reader to the existence of terms that may be neutral to the speaker, but nonetheless are triggers to some groups.

Since it is not possible to know all trigger phrases for all possible groups, I think it is helpful to sensitize the reader to be on the lookout for them. That example helped to raise my awareness in a way that a general statement would not.

[wareid]

I removed "well, actually" because:

1. It's not the only trigger phrase, but listing them all would be impossible, and not particularly helpful
2. I can name more times I've been personally patronized to without the use of that phrase than with it
3. In my experience with CEPC, putting in examples of things tends to lead to people using those examples as excuses for their behaviour ("I can't have been patronizing, it's not like I said 'well, actually...'")

[dbooth-boston]

["Well, actually" is] not the only trigger phrase, but listing them all would be impossible, and not particularly helpful

I agree that listing all of them would be impossible, and I can see that they don't help with the enforcement role of the document, but I think one or two examples are still helpful for educational purposes -- especially examples (like "Well, actually") that may not be widely known, though I think it's important to explain them. I think that helps alert the reader to be on the lookout for new ones that the reader may not know about. Both the "Well, actually" and "thug" examples were eye opening to me (as one data point). And once I researched those terms on the web, it was clear that I was not at all alone in being unaware of their offensive interpretation to some.

I can name more times I've been personally patronized to without the use of that phrase than with it.

Agreed.

In my experience with CEPC, putting in examples of things tends to lead to people using those examples as excuses for their behaviour ("I can't have been patronizing, it's not like I said 'well, actually...'")

Interesting point. But rather than removing examples, how about addressing that issue head-on? How about adding something like the following in the list of Unacceptable behaviors:

Feigning a lack of understanding of this code, such as pretending not to understand that examples of unacceptable behavior are merely examples, and do not constitute an exhaustive list of unacceptable behaviors.

[cwilso]

Love this.

[dbooth-boston]

Feel free to comment on what I have done here or when it comes up in the meeting (we'll ensure it's mentioned in the agenda).

This PR is pretty far from what I proposed in #232 , so it doesn't feel to me like the right starting point. I would feel more comfortable starting from the proposal as stated in #232 , so I've made a separate PR with that proposal as is: #238

[dbooth-boston]

Overall, I favor the language proposed in PR #238 and would prefer that that PR be used as the basis for discussion the proposal made in #232 .

[dbooth-boston]

1. Again, I think "particular groups" is not specific enough. The point is that one should not make assumptions based on characteristics that are irrelevant to the work objective.

2. I think the “So easy your grandmother could do it” example is not a great example, because it is not clear (to me at least, as reader) what point the example is trying to make. Why is that statement offensive?

• Is it because it says "grandmother" (gender-specific) instead of "grandparent"?
• Is it because it says "your grandmother (or grandparent)" instead of "a hypothetical grandmother (or grandparent)"?
• Is it because it refers to elderly people?
• Is it all of these factors?

All of the following describe classes of people, with varying levels of correlation to how easy a hypothetical technical task would be to them:

"So easy your grandparent could do it"
"So easy a 90-year-old could do it"
"So easy a four-year-old could do it"
"So easy a first grader could do it"
"So easy a high schooler could do it"
"So easy an undergrad could do it"
"So easy a high-school dropout could do it"
"So easy a sophomore could do it"
"So easy a total newbie could do it"

Would all of these be considered offensive? Equally offensive? I think it starts to get into a gray area.

All in all, I think the example should either be explained or omitted. I favor omitting it.

[dbooth-boston]

I think this bullet needs more work before it is included. It sounds like it is either about: 1. dominating the conversation; or 2. having an inflated perception of the value of one's own contribution, or both.

For point 1, section 3.2 already has a bullet for: "Repeatedly interrupting or talking over someone else." How about adding something to that bullet, such as this:

Repeatedly interrupting or talking over someone else, or unfairly dominating the conversation.

For point 2, if someone's knowledge really is "essential to a discussion", then it cannot be "off topic", so this sounds like it is about someone have an inflated self-perception. But I don't know how to say "Don't have an inflated perception of the value of your contribution" in a way that would be actionable guidance, so I don't have a suggestion for this one.

Also, I don't know what the phrase "interrupts the flow of the conversation" means in the context of a W3C working group. Conversation flow in a group teleconference can often be a somewhat disjointed, because people necessarily must wait their turns to speak. People cannot always make their desired points at the ideal moments. Is it possible to clarify the intent of that phrase? Maybe be more concrete?

[dbooth-boston]

I agree with removing these examples from this particular bullet, but I think it would be helpful to include "thug" elsewhere, as an example of a trigger term, as suggested in PR #238 .

I find "thug" to be a good example of a term that historically was neutral -- and still is for many people -- but for some now carries racial overtones. I think it's helpful to alert people to such examples.

[TzviyaSiegman]

@dbooth-boston Please be aware that @wareid and I chair this group and are the current editors of this document. We asked you to create issues, not PRs, so that we had a record of your issues to lead to productive PRs if any are needed. We understand that Wendy's PR was not what you requested verbatim, but we have been researching these issues for years and the current version of CEPC is based on broad consensus as well as AB, AC, and Director-approval. We do not make changes lightly, and we prefer to back changes up with evidence or cause, such as a request for a marginalized group.

Wendy included a link to your issue, which included all your concerns. Creating a separate PR (or several separate PRs) will muddle the conversation and potentially create merge conflicts in GitHub. While we don't formally restrict who can create PRs for this document, we ask you to please respect our group's culture and allow the chairs to lead the discussion.

[dbooth-boston]

Oops! Sorry, I was attempting to follow the group's culture, which is why I created PRs: that's what I saw that Wendy did, so I did the same thing. I did not realize that you only wanted chairs to make PRs.

We understand that [ https://github.com//pull/237 ] was not what you requested verbatim

As far as I could tell, it did not at all reflect the changes proposed in #232 , so it seemed to me that a better basis for discussion would be a PR that directly reflected the proposed changes.

[nigelmegitt]

Re #237 (comment), I just opened #242 : it seems unfair to expect people to follow a culture when there's no trail in the repo to find out what that culture is.

[dbooth-boston]

Comments:

• "using language that implies the audience is uninformed". This gets dangerously close to discouraging speakers from defining their jargon, which would be a harmful message to convey. Speakers normally SHOULD assume that their audience is "intelligent but uninformed" unless they have prior relevant knowledge about that specific audience.

• "making assumptions about the skills or knowledge of others". This phrase needs to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant knowledge of others. It is reasonable and necessary to make assumptions based on relevant knowledge of the audience; it is not reasonable to make assumptions based on irrelevant characteristics such as gender, nationality or clothing.

• I don't think "Well, actually" is a good example here, because it is not always used in a patronizing way. It is a trigger phrase for some people, and in that circumstance it is perceived as patronizing, but that usage and effect is not universal. I think it's better to use examples that are more universally patronizing. I think "I can't believe you don't know about [topic]" is a better example in this regard.

• "Assuming that particular groups of people are technically unskilled due to their characteristics". Again, this phrase needs to be qualified to address only irrelevant characteristics, rather than all characteristics: "Assuming that particular groups of people are technically unskilled based on irrelevant characteristics such as gender, nationality, accent, clothing, etc.".

• "So easy your grandmother could do it". As previously explained, I don't think this is a great example, because it is not clear (to me at least, as a reader) why that statement is seen as patronizing. Is "So easy an X can do it" always considered patronizing, for any X? I think any examples should either be immediately clear to the reader, or if they are not immediately clear, they should be explained.

It is very difficult to define patronizing behavior in a way that is both universal and does not run the risk of discouraging speakers from defining their jargon and context. I'm not sure it's worth trying. Overall I prefer the simpler approach in PR #238 .

[wareid]

Thanks for the feedback, just want to clarify a few things.

I believe I addressed this before on another issue or PR, but using the term "irrelevant" to describe characteristics or aspects of a person is not something we should ever do. We all bring our whole selves to the work we do, nothing is irrelevant.

Happy to remove the well actually example as I do think the other one is more clear.

The grandmother example is a good illustration of the point it's attached to. I've heard this phrase used a lot in relation to tech, because the assumption being made is that an older woman would not be technically proficient. Obviously that is not true, which is why we discourage people from making generalizations like that.

I'll also say again, the code is a roadmap, not an instructional manual. We cannot and should not be prescriptive about the extent and nature of each interaction people may have. We have to trust in the judgement and professionalism of our community, the code is in place to remind people what that looks like. We're asking for mindfulness and care.

[dbooth-boston]

Thanks for your response. Some further comments, and apologies for the length . . .

using the term "irrelevant" to describe characteristics or aspects of a person is not something we should ever do.

That does not make sense to me, given the context. The context was about making assumptions about others: "Assuming that particular groups of people are technically unskilled based on irrelevant characteristics such as gender, nationality, accent, clothing, etc.". I do not see how gender, nationality, accent or clothing should ever be considered relevant to assessing someone's technical skill. If you're suggesting that the word "irrelevant" should not be used in this context, then I don't understand why not. It seems like the right word to me. Am I missing something fundamental?

We all bring our whole selves to the work we do, nothing is irrelevant.

I guess I don't see it that way. I want a work environment that makes people feel safe, respected and appreciated. To my mind that means sometimes not bringing to work an aspect of one's self that may make others feel unsafe, uncomfortable or disrespected. The classic three no-no topics in polite company are sex, politics and religion. In my experience those three topics are pretty much off limits in the work environment also, in order to be respectful of people's differences. For example, although humans are innately sexual beings, in a work environment topics involving sexuality are very likely to make people feel unsafe or uncomfortable, and generally are not appropriate for the workplace.

It seems to me that a major point in establishing an equitable work environment is to to avoid discrimination based on characteristics that are irrelevant to the job requirements. To my mind that's a very important theme to convey in this document. It's also the basis of anti-discrimination laws. I don't understand how we can do that if we don't distinguish between characteristics that are relevant vs. irrelevant to the job requirements.

The grandmother example is a good illustration of the point it's attached to. I've heard this phrase used a lot in relation to tech, because the assumption being made is that an older woman would not be technically proficient.

I'm still struggling with that example, both because it is not at all clear to me (as reader) which aspect(s) of "grandmother" are seen as offensive, and because it seems to me that there is quite a gray area involved. Would "grandfather" be just as offensive? What about "grandparent", or "90-year old"? What about "grandchild"? "Or "first grader"? Or "total newbie"? It seems to me that a person's age has some relevance to a reasonable expectation of technical proficiency, though it's certainly not determinant.

If the point of the "grandmother" example is that it is offensive to state a gender when exemplifying an unskilled group, then I think that should be clarified, because I don't think that is self evident, given that another major component of that example -- age -- could just as well be construed as being the offensive element. Either way it seems more like an example of sexism and/or ageism than patronizing behavior.

I'm not trying to defend the use of "so easy your grandmother could do it", but I am trying to decipher the rationale behind viewing that example as offensive while potentially viewing other instances of "so easy an X could do it" as acceptable, because a key point of the document is to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. All in all, I think the example should either be clarified or omitted. I favor omitting it.

I'll also say again, the code is a roadmap, not an instructional manual. We cannot and should not be prescriptive about the extent and nature of each interaction people may have. We have to trust in the judgement and professionalism of our community, the code is in place to remind people what that looks like. We're asking for mindfulness and care.

Agreed. That's why I think we may be better served by not attempting to define patronizing behavior.

BTW, regarding the phrase "grammar or language corrections that were not invited", it isn't clear whether that is referring to a person's spoken language or to a published document. I suggest changing that phrase to "unwanted corrections to one's spoken language or grammar", because:

• If that phrase is referring to someone's spoken English, then some recipients might view such corrections as patronizing, but others may appreciate such corrections. For example, I appreciate corrections when I'm speaking a foreign language. But if I'm speaking English I would probably view such corrections as an annoying waste of my time.

• If that phrase is referring to a published document or group work, then in my view one NEVER needs to be invited to offer corrections. The mere act of publishing it or preparing it for publication represents an implicit invitation for critique.

As an example of patronizing behavior, the statement "I don't think you understood my previous comment..." seems problematic to me. Perhaps I am not understanding the context, because that statement seems completely appropriate to me if someone is feeling not understood. Maybe more context is needed?

Finally, I'm still concerned about this wording: "Intentionally or unintentionally making assumptions about the skills or knowledge of others, such as using language that implies the audience is uninformed on a topic". As explained before, I'm concerned that this document not discourage speakers from providing context and defining their jargon when speaking to an audience. But the phrase "using language that implies the audience is uninformed on a topic" may discourage speakers from defining their jargon, lest they be seen as patronizing.

[swickr]

s/your grandmother/someone with different experience/

[wareid]

I think I'd much rather explain why this particular example is problematic than try to change it. This is a pretty common colloquialism too, changing it would take some of the familiarity away.

[wareid]

@swickr I have added an explanation of the example to make more explicit the issue with that kind of language.

As mentioned in the meeting, I've also added a definition for patronizing. @a11ydoer you mentioned not being familiar with the term, could I ask if you could review the definition to see if it helps?

[nigelmegitt]

It seems like an odd choice to add a term definition for something that is used only once, and is explained in more depth in the place where it is used.

If keeping this, I would suggest changing "betrays" to "conveys" because I don't think we can constrain what people feel, even if they're feeling things we'd rather they didn't, but we can set constraints on how people behave.

[wareid]

I took this from Oxford, but I like the use of "conveys" much more.

Adding a definition was discussed because the term is not the clearest, people in the meeting mentioned not understanding it, and it's one of the fun english words with two definitions that have fairly different meanings.

[dbooth-boston]

1. Making unfounded assumptions about the skills of others is more an example of prejudice than of patronizing behavior, so I don't think it belongs here.

2. The phrase "using language that implies the audience is uninformed" is problematic as an example of patronizing behavior, because a speaker should always set the context and define jargon, even though doing so literally implies that the audience is uninformed on the topic. (If the audience were fully informed about the speaker's topic, there would be no point in the speaker presenting that topic!) The point is that neutrally assuming that an audience is uniformed does not constitute patronizing behavior. There needs to be an element of insult -- even if subtle -- to constitute patronizing behavior.

3. I suggest changing this whole "Patronizing language or behavior" section to:

Patronizing language or behavior, such as using language that insultingly implies the audience is uninformed on a topic, e.g., making statements like "I can't believe you don't know about [topic]".

[dbooth-boston]

This is more an example of prejudice than of patronizing behavior. And it is still phrased in an overly general way, because "characteristics" that are relevant to one's technical skill should be considered, while those that are irrelevant to one's technical skill should not. I suggest deleting this bullet from this location, and perhaps instead using the "grandmother" example elsewhere in the document as an example of prejudice.

[dbooth-boston]

1. This is more an example of boorishness or rudeness than of patronizing behavior. I don't think it's a good example to include here.

2. "I don't think you understood my previous comment" seems to me like a completely appropriate statement for someone to make if that person is feeling not understood, so if it is offered as an example of patronizing behavior I think it needs context to clarify why.

[cwilso]

I would be strongly opposed to removing this. This is very very common in practice, and it needs to be called out here. It is not just boorish or rude; particularly when repeated, it encourages bad conduct.

[dbooth-boston]

1. I don't think changing "betrays" to "conveys" is an improvement. Dictionary definitions are crafted extremely carefully. "Betrays" implies that the person patronizing another is pretending to be kind or helpful, while the actual motive is not so kind. This is an important element in the meaning of the word. If we include this definition I think "betrays" should be retained.

2. If we include this definition, we should give credit to its source.

3. I would not object if others think a definition of "patronizing" is important to include, but my preference would be to not include one, in order to keep the document from growing larger. In general, I do not think the glossary should be defining terms whose meaning is readily found in any dictionary. It should only be used for terms that have special meaning in this document.

[a11ydoer]

@wareid The current update is clear to me what "patronizing" means with examples. Thanks.