[DuskStar]

> Demonstrably: Yes, or they wouldn't be asking for it.

Obviously, people never ask for things they don't actually care about.

IMO this is intended as something that is both unreasonable to include AND hard to object to on any grounds but reasonableness and practicality. "Don't you care about indigenous peoples, or are you some kind of racist?" And so it provides the ability to continue objecting to someone's behavior even if they make all the other requested changes.

[zozbot234]

The best response to that is malicious compliance: make the changes, but in a way that's as reasonable as possible, and as obnoxious as possible to the people who have actually requested the change. Like, have the acknowledgment line on the syllabus be: "ᴅɪsᴄʟᴀɪᴍᴇʀ: ᴛʜɪs ᴄᴏᴜʀsᴇ ɪs ᴛᴀᴋɪɴɢ ᴘʟᴀᴄᴇ ᴏɴ ᴛʀᴀᴅɪᴛɪᴏɴᴀʟ x-ᴛʀɪʙᴇ ʟᴀɴᴅ." or something like that. If the other side objects, you can stand your ground and point out that they are being unreasonable.

[DuskStar]

Nah, you need to add some attribution there - "DISCLAIMER: THIS COURSE IS TAKING PLACE ON TRADITIONAL X-TRIBE LAND. THIS DISCLAIMER BROUGHT TO YOU BY YOUR STUDENT UNION FEES"

[hug]

That's the worst possible response! The way you want think this man should cleverly manoeuvre out of people thinking he's behaving badly is by being deliberately malicious?

You think the solution is being obnoxious and doing that in such a way that is literally exact same amount of effort as just being nice?

Then, your imaginative response when someone points out that everything you are suggesting is shitty behaviour, the answer is to point back at them and say "no you"?!

[josteink]

> The way you want think this man should cleverly manoeuvre out of people thinking he's behaving badly is by being deliberately malicious?

Sure. When people are trying to sabotage his courses by continuously injecting their political, highly leftist and non-CS-related agenda into it, his response should be as malicious as humanly possible.

What's next? Should we let flat-earthers dictate how we teach science?

[zozbot234]

> ...being deliberately malicious?

Of course. After all, 'malicious compliance' is a relative term; the alternative is to ignore the request altogether and do nothing at all!

[hug]

You could just comply with the request in good faith, of course, which you still have yet to come up with any argument against.

[josteink]

I'm feeling a little sensitive right now about your use of "you". It feels very direct, hostile and threatening to me.

I would appreciate it if you could rewrite all your HN posts to exclude the use of "you" and rather use alternate grammatical forms.

It's not a big job really, so you shouldn't have any possible reason not to comply.

[hug]

While it's evident that some people are spiteful and ask for things they don't actually want just to be an inconvenience, I find it hard to believe that you actually think this is why every single indigenous person is asking for the acknowledgement. If you do believe that's the case, the only response I can make is that your belief runs counter to everything I've heard from indigenous people myself.

If we operate under the assumption that not every single person asking for a statement of acknowledgement is acting under bad faith, it's important to note that you haven't actually presented any reason about why it would be unreasonable to include.

Without a cogent argument against the inclusion of the statement, it's very sensible to point to the refusal to include the acknowledgement, and say "this person is refusing to do this simple kindness we have asked for, which makes him a bit of a jerk".

[DuskStar]

> I find it hard to believe that you actually think this is why every single indigenous person is asking for the acknowledgement.

A large part of it is that in the US (which is where this professor is located), the preferred nomenclature is "American Indian" or "Native American". (According to CGP Grey [0], the closer you get to a reservation, the more likely it is that "American Indian" or just "Indian" is the preferred term) Either way, "Indigenous Peoples" seems to be more of a Canadian or Australian thing, and I've never seen it used to refer to people in the states. This would imply that the request isn't actually coming from the tribes in question.

And IMO it would be unreasonable to include for the same reason that a discussion of set theory would be inappropriate in a history course covering the "New World" in the 1400s, even ignoring the fact that the term is wrong.

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh88fVP2FWQ

[hug]

"Indigenous people" is the superset of earliest known inhabitants. "American Indians" or "Native Americans" are the indigenous people the United States. My area of Australia, we'd be as specific as saying "Wurundjeri People". There is a matching level of specificity for the United States. Indigenous people is still the catch-all term.

> And IMO it would be unreasonable to include for the same reason that a discussion of set theory would be inappropriate in a history course covering the "New World" in the 1400s, even ignoring the fact that the term is wrong.

"Set Theory" has no overlap with "New World history", I agree. The Paul G. Allen Center for Computer Science & Engineering has a very real-world overlap with the land on which it is built.

[DuskStar]

> "Indigenous people" is the superset of earliest known inhabitants. "American Indians" or "Native Americans" are the indigenous people the United States. My area of Australia, we'd be as specific as saying "Wurundjeri People". There is a matching level of specificity for the United States. Indigenous people is still the catch-all term.

It might be the catch-all term! But you generally don't use catch-all terms when talking about specifics - it'd be like asking for a memorial for the Europeans who landed at Plymouth Rock. Yes, they were Europeans! But saying that, instead of 'British' or 'Pilgrims' or whatever, would be weird. I stand by my thought that if this was being pushed by the tribe in question, it would either mention the tribe by name or use American Indian.

Also, "Native Americans" refers to all the native peoples of the new world, while "American Indian" is restricted to those located within the US.

> "Set Theory" has no overlap with "New World history", I agree. The Paul G. Allen Center for Computer Science & Engineering has a very real-world overlap with the land on which it is built.

New World history has plenty of overlap with many things that could be called "western civilization", though. Perhaps a better comparison would have been to teaching the US constitution, since that's what enabled the society that they're learning New World history within. Or how electrical power generation works, since presumably all the study materials required electricity in distribution/production. IMO those are both at least as significant an overlap as the fact that they happen to occupy the same land.

[hug]

I suspect the person writing out the bullet points of the requests themselves is just a university administrator, but that the origin of the request is someone else. Unfortunately, both your and my side of this specific point is unknowable: I'd personally proceed with it as being a request made in good faith.

As for the second point you're making. I'm sorry, and I may be being obtuse right now, but I am struggling to parse how this is an argument against including an acknowledgement statement (in CS specifically or anywhere else).

[kelnos]

> Indigenous people is still the catch-all term.

Perhaps that's the case in Australia, but that term is very rarely used in the US. As the parent states, it's "Native American" or "American Indian" when reaching for a catch-all, followed by a tribe name when specifics are required. "Indigenous people" just isn't used really at all here.