CSTA: Google Surveying Educators On Unconscious Biases of Students, Parents

theodp writes: According to a Computer Science Teachers Association tweet, Google is reportedly asking educators to assess the unconscious bias of students and their parents for the search giant. "We are in the early stages of learning how unconscious bias plays out in schools, and who would benefit most from bias busting materials," begins the linked-to 5-page Google Form, which sports a ub-edu@google.com email address, but lists no contact name. "This survey should take 15 minutes to complete, and your responses are confidential, meaning that your feedback will not be attributed to you and the data will only be used in aggregate form." The form asks educators to "list the names of organizations, tools, and resources that you have used to combat unconscious bias," which is defined as "the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner." A sample question: "Who do you think would benefit most from unconscious bias training at your school (or program)? Rank the following people in order (1=would most benefit to 5=would benefit least) training: Student, Parent (or guardian), Teacher (or educator), Guidance counselor, Principal." Google deflected criticism for its lack of women techies in the past by blaming parents' unconscious biases for not steering their girls to study computer science, suggesting an intervention was needed. "Outreach programs," advised Google, "should include a parent education component, so that parents learn how to actively encourage their daughters."

Comments

Please Stop. Enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing in western society stopping women from pursuing technical careers except women themselves. They are given every possible advantage.

Yeah, blame the parents

[MikeRT]

Of course the reason they didn't steer their daughter into computer science is "bias" and not "we are the two people who know our daughter the most for the last 18 years of her life and most likely can steer her toward what would make her happy." Because the happiness of diversity coordinators matters more the happiness of the actual women being fought over here.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[nospam007]

"As I have a daughter, I know better. Of course bias is a big part of it, expressed verbally and non-verbally. Parents and grand-parents who give their daughters princess dresses for christmas and act gleefully if the daughter wear it, express a bias."

Not only that. In Germany, they found out that teachers are unconscious biased against lower class pupils on the sole first-name the kids have. Because lower class parents often name their kids like celebrities or characters in TV-shows, while the more educated classes name their kids more traditionally.

If the kids are called Kevin, Bejoncé, Kanye or Ronny for example, they get lower grades for the same content.

The bias has even a name, it's called 'Kevinism'.

https://namecurator.wordpress....

http://www.ctvnews.ca/kevin-ch...

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, I have concluded that the only reason this is a problem for people is because it's a desk job with more men than women.
No one is researching the bias leading to medical schools with 90% women.
No one is researching the bias leading to 99% male construction workers, or garbage men.
That's the reason for my disdain for these people.
They don't care about equality. They care about being seen to care about equality.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[MikeRT]

Parents and grand-parents who give their daughters princess dresses for christmas and act gleefully if the daughter wear it, express a bias.

Shocking that parents are happy when their daughters like feminine things. It's almost like they don't think they're defective males and their views on clothing is orthogonal to computer issues.

Parents who at the same christmas complain if the daughter plays to much on the new computer express a bias.

There's nothing biased about that unless it's clearly hostility to the idea of women spending a lot of time on it. Unless she's doing "something geeky" with it like learning how to write code, doing semi-advanced artistic work, etc. then they probably have a point. I knew plenty of parents of boys who told their kids to GTF off their computer and go outside because all they were doing is surfing the web and playing games. Nothing biased about that either.

Television programming where the only computer affiliate is a dorky guy who might be brilliant at computers but is awkward at anything else expresses a bias.

And in real life, geek =~ dork to a lot of people, particularly women and particularly with younger geek males. A number of us grow to the point of being able to match the charisma and confidence of "normal men," but many of don't get there. We have not, and likely never will, reach a point where this stuff is considered cool on par with sports and stuff like that.

Most of the reasons why geek culture is considered more palatable is because the STEM industry booms combined with the decline in many fields has reduced our economic competition for social status. If you haven't been paying attention, the legal profession has been hit very hard by a glut of graduates and a dearth of positions that pay a wage better than a VB6 legacy app maintenance position.

Yes, you can actually spark interest in computer science. Yes, you can actually kindle the awakening interest and encourage it.

Yes you can do it. Statistically, you won't and for the same reason that you will never kindle an interest in "nurturing jobs" in a majority of males no matter how aggressive you are.

I know a very religious family that has a very good track record of getting their daughters into STEM fields. The older daughter was naturally interested, so they just put the opportunities there in front of her. You know how they got their younger daughter involved? They told her that if she couldn't prove how she was going to support herself on the degree, they wouldn't pay for it. Didn't matter to them what she chose, just couldn't be something stupid like a BA in Psychology or Political Science. Worked like a charm at motivating her to be practical. Turns out that rather than focusing on bias, forcing women to choose a productive major or simply not go to college on their parents' dime works pretty well.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[Runaway1956]

You point to some pink toys, as evidence that boys and girls are being treated differently. Now, look at those pink toys, and tell me more about them. WHY do pink toys increase a girl's interest? Come on, dig deep.

Mindless repeating of stereotypes. You are obviously superior, in that you mindlessly repeat liberal talking points.

I say again, if the girls WANT to work in STEM, get the hell out of their way. If they DO NOT WANT to work in STEM, STFU and let them do what they want to do.

Stop PUSHING the girls into occupations that they may or may not want. Just STFU and sit down, and let the girls be whatever they want to be.

The arrogant cocksucker who occupies the White House told women that he doesn't WANT them to be housewives. WTF does anyone care what he WANTS? Rhetorical question - I know exactly who wants the wives out of the homes, and I know why. Dragging Mommy out of the house opens the door for baby sitters, social workers, school administrators, and more to get involved in the child's life. So, Mommy is down the road, slaving away to earn some money (part of which the government takes away from her) to PAY for all of the baby sitting, etc ad nauseum.

Did I mention social engineering in my post above? Yes, I did. Social Justice warriors don't like the nuclear family, they don't even like an extended family. So, they are working to destroy the family. Social engineering. Look around you. It's blatantly obvious.

Re:Yeah, blame the parents

[AmiMoJo]

No one is researching the bias leading to medical schools with 90% women.

Actually there are people researching that. Lack of male nurses is a problem. The American Assembly for Men in Nursing offers support and scholarships in the US, for example.

No one is researching the bias leading to 99% male construction workers, or garbage men.

I spent five seconds searching for this on Google and it turns out that actually there is plenty of research and academic discourse on this subject, as well as newspaper articles and the like:

http://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/p...
http://www.academia.edu/634834...
http://www.equalityhumanrights...
http://www.theguardian.com/sus...
http://www.theguardian.com/sus...

People do care, you are just too lazy to even type a few words into Google.

Parents' superpower

[Jesrad]

Google deflected criticism for its lack of women techies in the past by blaming parents' unconscious biases for not steering their girls to study computer science, suggesting an intervention was needed. "Outreach programs," advised Google, "should include a parent education component, so that parents learn how to actively encourage their daughters."

Ah, parents. The supposedly superpowerful entities that can somehow control their children's career path over decades without even trying, yet keep failing to stop them from having underage sex or trying drugs no matter how hard they actively attempt to.

Why does this sound like Orwell or CP reeducation?

[swb]

Citizen, we are here to free you from your unconscious biases so that you may more thoroughly accept the wisdom of the party and refine your thoughts and actions for the glory of the party and the state.

Re:Haven't you guys see the *TRUE* picture yet?

[Curunir_wolf]

I think you could benefit from some re-education training...