There are several definitions of racism, one is essentially "making references to someone's race and implying everyone in that group is the same (in some attribute)", or more simply "anything based on race". Lots of people like this definition because it's a nice, simple and objective defintion and it means black people in the UK can be racist to white people, or that affirmative action is racist. I think this is the definition you're using.
There's another definition, which is that racist actions are actions that's designed to maintain & reinforce the institutionalised power structure among races. Right now, if modern UK life was a video game, "white male" would be an easier difficulty level than "black male". There are statistically less problems for the "white male" group. Racist actions is talk that re-enforced that imbalance, and attempts to undo the power imbalance is not racist. This definition is harder for some people to accept because it means that you need to look at yourself and think about what power imbalances you might be benefiting from, and it means that affirmative action is not racist, and attempts to stop is could be construed as racist (since stopping affirmative action can re-enforce power imbalances). This is the definition I use.
So no, complaining about the lack of non-white people is not racist.
I like the core thinking behind your definition of racism (that we should all self analyse and take affirmative action to fix problems), but I don't think it's necessarily helpful, or even logical to define racism in this way. If we all went around with highly specialised individual definitions for emotive terms then we're not communicating effectively, and probably needlessly annoying each other. I'm not sure I agree fully with any of your definitions of racism really. The sort of racism under discussion here is simply and obviously a) believing in racial inferiorities and then b) discriminating against them. Of course there exists a spectrum of racism here, and where observed actions appear on this spectrum is probably the most lucrative area to look at. Rational discussion can only occur once terms have been agreed and defined, and using your own definitions is not all that constructive.
That page includes a random sampling of definitions used by some sociologists. One of the definitions explicitly states that racism can only be committed by white people. When you get to the point where such a definition makes sense, you are outside of a reasonable discourse. Racism ceases to have any meaning as a term.
The other definitions are not redefinitions of racism, but appropriations of the more general definition to further the term. All depend on the notion that racism is dividing people into groups called races which contain people with identifiably similar traits.
As someone who has spent a significant portion of life in a humanities department, I'll say it's a stretch to say 'most' academic work goes by the vague definition posted above. Frankly that definition sounds like something I'd encounter in a first year paper rather than something a colleague would agree with, much less endorse. Further the academic world is much bigger than sociology, and even within the social sciences (e.g. economics) there is an insistence on using less fluffy and more logically consistent definitions.
> When you get to the point where such a definition makes sense, you are outside of a reasonable discourse. Racism ceases to have any meaning as a term.
A definition that makes sense and has no meaning. I don't know about racism, but you certainly seem to have lost sight of what "meaning" means.
I've never had any trouble understanding this definition of racism. When I was young and stupid, I thought myself extremely clever for seeing instances of reverse racism, but this was because I understood nothing about racism except that MLK Jr. gave this nice speech a long time ago and now bad things no longer happened. I thought it was this magical thing where there were black people and there were white people and I was yellow except not really so it was kinda weird and I didn't understand why the red people didn't seem very red.
Then I grew up and started understanding how power moves and manifests. It's very fuzzy. You don't see mathematical equations about how the election of the POTUS changes opinion in the Middle East, because we haven't figured out how to model that. Our understanding of power is extremely weak, compared to something like how many atoms of hydrogen are found in a molecule of water. To make this extremely stark, we don't understand power. We have a feel. An intuitive notion. That is all we have.
We do not have explicit forms of racial discrimination to any significant degree. But we do still have significant power imbalances that map suspiciously well to racial divides. These power imbalances are virtually impossible to quantify, because we have no idea how to do it, but we can infer them from statistical trends. We've chosen to call this racism.
That's language drift for you. There are reasons not to call it racism. Apologists, such as yourself, have enumerated a good number of them for us. But there are also good reasons to call it racism. First among these is that we do not need the more generic definition any longer. English speakers generally have difficulty finding instances of chattel slavery or explicit segregation laws. In both of these cases, we have more specific terms anyways. Second is that it signals the correct emotional reaction. Most people are offended when called a racist, because they've been trained to understand it is a bad thing to be. Used properly, it forms a foundation to change behavior. (And before you say that it is sometimes used improperly, this would be true of a different term as well; but a different term would not have the same, useful emotional charge.) Third is that the issue remains one of "dividing people into groups called races which contain people with identifiably similar traits". The generic definition still actually applies, but it does so more weakly.
I'm sure you take issue with all of these, but really? The definition could be improved. That doesn't make it meaningless, as demonstrated by the many people who use it in that capacity without a problem. It does make it difficult, as demonstrated by the many people who seem incapable of understanding it.
Of course, if sociologists accepted the former definition, they wouldn't have anything to talk about.
Conflating the two definitions and describing people as 'racist' for re-enforcing racial imbalances in society is disingenuous.
A lot of people oppose affirmative action (thus earning the label 'racist' according to the latter definition) not because they are prejudiced, but simply because they do not believe in the efficacy of the process.
"A lot of people oppose affirmative action (thus earning the label 'racist' according to the latter definition) not because they are prejudiced, but simply because they do not believe in the efficacy of the process."
As with many things in life, it's not necessarily what you say, but how you say it that determines context and intent.
No, he was suggesting a definition of racism that called anti-racist affirmative action as "not racist", and attempts to undermine affirmative action as "racist". That seems rather specialised to me, and at best a convolution on top of the sociological definition you linked to. Also, most modern academic work != a wikipedia link, do you have any other sources?
Again, your 'second definition' isn't diametrically opposed to the first, it includes the first. Defining 'racist actions' presupposes a definition race and in turn racism that you can't just toss aside. Defining racism as a systemic disadvantaging of certain races takes as a given the definition of racism as -- you guessed it -- the dividing of people into races and ascribing them characteristics en masse.
Yes, one is a subset of the other, but they are not the same. But ascribing characteristics to one race is not racism. Just like both are subsets of "a human behaviour", which is not racist.
Those aren't separate definitions. The second is simply a justification of certain forms of racism as worth the harm they cause to the victimized group because of the benefit to the disadvantaged group; it uses the first definition you gave in defining itself.
So yes, by your own definition, complaining about the lack of non-white people would be racist -- but worth it.
It's also worth noting that there is a difference between complaining about a lack of non-white people and complaining about the existence of a certain amount of white people on a panel.
The problem is that having conference speakers who happen to be disproportionate in race does not immediately translate to racism.
To say that the composition of a group of speakers is "designed to maintain & reinforce the institutionalised power structure among races" simply based off of the proportion of races of people in the panel is a logical leap that is not necessarily warranted.
If you're in a under-represented group seeing that "all people who do Ruby/Tech/IT/knitting/nursing/$ACTIVITY are members of $OTHER_GROUP" can be just another reminder that your group shouldn't be here, that you'll stick out, that you'll be the different one here.
We have numerous expressions in the English language saying that lots of little things can build up: The straw that broke the camel's back, death by a thousand cuts. Let's try to get rid of as many straws as we can, and get rid of as many cuts as we can.
I can't fathom why racial minorities would not feel welcome at such a conference. Do they think people are going to be surprised that they are in attendance, disapprove of them being there, or look down on them?
It's a programming conference, not a meeting of the KKK.
If you try hard enough you can be offended by anything.
Dell comedian? Comedians thrive on controversial material. Sounds to me like a tongue-in-cheek observational joke that is just as offensive to men as it is to women. "Congratulations, the IT industry is a sausage-fest, just the way you want it to be, right?"
CouchDB? Can't find a copy of the original presentation, but what's wrong with allusions to pornography? There are plenty of male porn stars, and plenty of pornography that degrades men?
Perks: Women? Again, an observation on the male dominance of the industry. Similar to the Dell comedian, this is much a joke aimed at men as it is at women; male geeks need to attend a code jam to come into contact with women, etc.
By definition complaining about a panel's being "100% white males" is suggesting the lowest common denominator of skin color and gender. The twitter complainers in this case did not care about the panel's nationalities, ethnicities, first languages, etc., just that they were white. The suggestion is clear.
It might not be racist, but could be ideologically charged.
The mere observation of an uneven distribution is not enough evidence for a power imbalance. It could also just be caused by deviation of interests, which would be totally fine.
Power imbalances cannot be reliably detected from the outside, so I won't comment on the ruby conf case.
Medical School? Like for doctors? I thought that was roughly 1:1, rather than 15:1 in tech? If the figures are well off and men are being systemetically disadvantaged due to their gender in medical school, then yes we should have affirmative active for it. I'm skeptical though because traditionally medicine has been heavily male dominated.
Yes we should probably do something to get more men into child care & nursing & primary school teaching. that wouldn't be sexist.
And yes, more men should do traditionally feminine activities. I'm male and took up crochet recently. I can empathise with women who work in tech. Tech is all male. Crochet is all female.
Will we ever see drives to increase white males into this profession? I doubt it
There are female interest groups to promote women in surgery, female only exam practice etc despite them making up the majority. Could there ever be male only revision sessions? Of course not, that would be sexist
> There are female interest groups to promote women in surgery, female only exam practice etc despite them making up the majority. Could there ever be male only revision sessions? Of course not, that would be sexist
Are women definitely the majority in surgery as opposed to medicine? My impression was that men dominated the surgical specialisms. This isn't really intended to be a knock on your argument but to ask you to double check this point.
In answer to the general point I have heard discussion of ways to encourage men to become Primary School teachers although that might have been more to balance out the role models for young children than being a matter of pure justice.
encourage men to become Primary School teachers although that might have been more to balance out the role models for young children than being a matter of pure justice.
There's another definition, which is that racist actions are actions that's designed to maintain & reinforce the institutionalised power structure among races. Right now, if modern UK life was a video game, "white male" would be an easier difficulty level than "black male". There are statistically less problems for the "white male" group. Racist actions is talk that re-enforced that imbalance, and attempts to undo the power imbalance is not racist. This definition is harder for some people to accept because it means that you need to look at yourself and think about what power imbalances you might be benefiting from, and it means that affirmative action is not racist, and attempts to stop is could be construed as racist (since stopping affirmative action can re-enforce power imbalances). This is the definition I use.
So no, complaining about the lack of non-white people is not racist.