The Coq mailing list

[Mehmet Oguz Derin <mehmetoguzderin AT mehmetoguzderin.com>]

Agreeing on the opinion above, isn't working on PL extremely niche globally? I think it can be detrimental to the already small (connected) community if we start to bring in political agendas during societal intensity now and then. And I am talking as a person of disadvantaged grounds on many levels.

Good luck to all,

Oguz

On 10 Jun 2020 Wed at 03:56 Dominique Larchey-Wendling <dominique.larchey-wendling AT loria.fr> wrote:

Dear all,

I strongly *believe* that for this scientific community particularly, enforcing

the difference between beliefs and proofs is of utmost importance.

To my knowledge, this mailing list has always been about proofs

and methods to build them, and because of that, mostly gentle

as far as I can remember.

While I can certainly understand the importance of the concerns that

are discussed right now, I do not think this is the place. There are plenty

of forums to discuss political matters.

Best,

Dominique

---

De: "Talia Ringer" <tringer AT cs.washington.edu>
À: "coq-club" <coq-club AT inria.fr>
Envoyé: Mercredi 10 Juin 2020 01:45:05
Objet: Re: [Coq-Club] Shut Down PL

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.