The Coq mailing list

[Yishuai Li <yishuai AT cis.upenn.edu>]

The same contents would be less controversial (and less visible in my
mailbox) if titled "Call for Registration: ShutDownPL 2020", and
clarify who "we" are.
(* English emails are terribly ambiguous. *)
Goal language (future emails) = Coq.

Talia Ringer <tringer AT cs.washington.edu> 于2020年6月9日周二 下午7:45写道：
>
> It would help to read the entire thread before responding. I already 
> addressed that we never intended for there to be an implicit universal 
> quantifier in there. English is ambiguous and this was an existential 
> claim. Which Christine has just mentioned she has constructively proven. 
> I'd say QED, but I have very strong political beliefs that acting as if 
> proofs are irrelevant is harmful, so I always use Defined.
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, 4:39 PM Randall Holmes <rholmes AT boisestate.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think it *is* irrelevant to the purposes of this list to point out 
>> that " We in the global programming languages community acknowledge that 
>> every institution in our society is built on a foundation of white 
>> supremacy—and our academic systems and research industry are no 
>> exception." is a universal statement -- and, as the outcome of the 
>> discussion reveals, false.
>>
>> Further, to say that this is false is not to refuse to take an anti-racist 
>> stand.  I'm not a racist.  I despise racism and oppose it in whatever way 
>> I can.  But it is false (and deeply relevant to what we are all doing) to 
>> claim that the research enterprise of mathematics and computer science is 
>> built on a foundation of white supremacy.  Such statements must be firmly 
>> challenged.  I suspect that people who make them (or chime in approvingly 
>> when they hear them) often are not really listening to what they are 
>> saying.
>>
>> There are powerful social forces at work (which are discouragingly hard to 
>> challenge, and sometimes disturbingly hard to even catch at work)
>> which make it difficult for black people, and women,
>> and members of other disadvantaged groups, to find their way into 
>> mathematics and computer science research and thrive there.  But the 
>> obstructions are not essential to the enterprise of mathematical, computer 
>> science, or even general academic research.  The program of mathematical 
>> and computer science research does not benefit from making it hard for 
>> blacks and women (and other disadvantaged people) to participate.  If we 
>> were more diverse...we would still be doing the same thing, and doing it 
>> better because there would not be artificial obstructions to finding the 
>> best people to do it.
>>
>> Like Christine, I acknowledge that the field is mostly white, and mostly 
>> male (and, even though I am an elderly white male myself) I find this very 
>> sad
>> and would be happy to work to make the situation better. To appreciate 
>> this fact is not the same, however, as to believe the amazing statement 
>> quoted above.
>>
>> Sincerely, M. Randall Holmes, Professor,
>> Dept of Math, Boise State University
>> The above remarks do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of any 
>> person or institution.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:33 PM Tadeusz Litak <tadeusz.litak AT gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Derek,
>>>
>>> On 09.06.20 23:46, Derek Dreyer wrote:
>>> >   a broad claim was made that "We in
>>> > the global programming languages community acknowledge that every
>>> > institution in our society is built on a foundation of white
>>> > supremacy—and our academic systems and research industry are no
>>> > exception."  I agree with this claim, as I'm sure do many others on
>>> > this list.  I guess perhaps you don't, in which case the announced
>>> > event is probably not for you.  But I don't see how you can argue that
>>> > there is anything unusual or unscientific or "political"
>>>
>>> if you don't see what is unscientific or political about the claim you're 
>>> quoting, or if you believe that this claim can
>>> be legitimately called "assumed knowledge" in any meaningful sense 
>>> (especially comparable to the lambda calculus
>>> capturing the nature of computation!), we might not share enough basic 
>>> assumptions (or axioms) to continue this
>>> particular discussion constructively. Which worries me given the respect 
>>> I have for you otherwise, but c'est la vie.
>>>
>>> It's one thing to have a political belief, no matter how outlandish, or 
>>> how popular. It's another thing to present it as
>>> a self-evident claim that every reasonable person must agree with, in 
>>> particular as an implicit view of the entire
>>> community. This is precisely the phenomenon described as "moral 
>>> grandstanding" and you cannot blame people for saying
>>> "not in my name, please".
>>>
>>> Whenever this happens, a conflict ensues.
>>>
>>> That's all.
>>>
>>> t.
>>>