A response to a SIGCIS Command Line panel session presentation on PLATO
The link below is my in-depth response to a presentation given by Dr. Joy Rankin entitled “Performing Gender on PLATO” at the recent SIGCIS Command Line conference held at the Computer History Museum this past March. https://medium.com/@brianstorms/performing-history-on-plato-4c501b8f2068 Many assertions were made in that presentation that concerned me greatly and I felt it necessary to not only write up a detailed response based on my own decades’ worth of research into the history of the PLATO system and its community, but also I sought out and included comments from former PLATO people who were named in Dr. Rankin’s talk, about the presentation and the claims made therein. Every single PLATO person I contacted shared the same concerns. I welcome thoughts from fellow SIGCIS members. - Brian Brian Dear PLATO History Project Santa Fe, NM brian@platohistory.org
Dear Brian, I am perplexed by your lengthy attack on Joy Rankin's presentation. The author of a book, you castigate a scholar's 20-minute presentation. Most incredibly. Yyu criticize her for being ignorant of history, but at the same time, you do not consider your ignorance of gender studies to be a problem. This is the exact problem with privilege that SIGCIS and other groups are contending with. It's no longer a secret that there were a lot of women in computing. From Jennifer Light to Hidden Figures, we are sure that women were there. Recently, Marie Hicks has given us a solid study of how the women were filtered out through procedure and system. It is not that computing was from the start hostile to women, but it does seem as if as it developed it became so. This is in line with what other feminist historians of science have noticed (cf. Schiebinger's comment about the number of female astronomers). An analysis of this process is sorely needed. By the way, only a man could say that an attack on a woman was not important because others spoke up to protest. You might be interested in the rich and growing literature on microagreessions and how they impact diversity in STEM. Given the pervasive interest in enhancing diversity in computing and STEM more generally, I am uncertain why you feel PLATO or other projects have something to lose by contending with the experience of women in the field. I applaud Rankin and others for their solid work in this difficult area. Their findings are not, as you suggest, anomalous misreadings of history. Contending with the pervasive and persistent sexism (and other isms) in STEM will be the challenge of the current generation of scholars. I feel lucky to be at NYU, where such conversations are at least entertained without polemical attacks. Your screed, though, shows how far the profession has to go. Chris Leslie On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Brian Dear <brian@platohistory.org> wrote:
The link below is my in-depth response to a presentation given by Dr. Joy Rankin entitled “Performing Gender on PLATO” at the recent SIGCIS Command Line conference held at the Computer History Museum this past March.
https://medium.com/@brianstorms/performing- history-on-plato-4c501b8f2068
Many assertions were made in that presentation that concerned me greatly and I felt it necessary to not only write up a detailed response based on my own decades’ worth of research into the history of the PLATO system and its community, but also I sought out and included comments from former PLATO people who were named in Dr. Rankin’s talk, about the presentation and the claims made therein. Every single PLATO person I contacted shared the same concerns.
I welcome thoughts from fellow SIGCIS members.
- Brian
Brian Dear PLATO History Project Santa Fe, NM brian@platohistory.org
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
-- Christopher S. Leslie, Ph.D. Co-Director and Lecturer, Science and Technology Studies Faculty Fellow in Residence for Othmer Hall and Clark Street Chair, IFIP History of Computing Working Group 9.7 NYU Tandon School of Engineering 5 MetroTech Center, LC 131 Brooklyn, NY 11201 (646) 997-3130
I couldn't agree more. Thank you, Chris. --- S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D. Assistant Professor University of California, Los Angeles Department of Information Studies Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/ Blogging periodically at http://illusionofvolition.com
On May 22, 2017, at 19:06, Christopher Leslie <chris.leslie@nyu.edu> wrote:
Dear Brian,
I am perplexed by your lengthy attack on Joy Rankin's presentation. The author of a book, you castigate a scholar's 20-minute presentation. Most incredibly. Yyu criticize her for being ignorant of history, but at the same time, you do not consider your ignorance of gender studies to be a problem. This is the exact problem with privilege that SIGCIS and other groups are contending with.
It's no longer a secret that there were a lot of women in computing. From Jennifer Light to Hidden Figures, we are sure that women were there. Recently, Marie Hicks has given us a solid study of how the women were filtered out through procedure and system. It is not that computing was from the start hostile to women, but it does seem as if as it developed it became so. This is in line with what other feminist historians of science have noticed (cf. Schiebinger's comment about the number of female astronomers). An analysis of this process is sorely needed.
By the way, only a man could say that an attack on a woman was not important because others spoke up to protest. You might be interested in the rich and growing literature on microagreessions and how they impact diversity in STEM. Given the pervasive interest in enhancing diversity in computing and STEM more generally, I am uncertain why you feel PLATO or other projects have something to lose by contending with the experience of women in the field.
I applaud Rankin and others for their solid work in this difficult area. Their findings are not, as you suggest, anomalous misreadings of history. Contending with the pervasive and persistent sexism (and other isms) in STEM will be the challenge of the current generation of scholars. I feel lucky to be at NYU, where such conversations are at least entertained without polemical attacks. Your screed, though, shows how far the profession has to go.
Chris Leslie
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Brian Dear <brian@platohistory.org> wrote: The link below is my in-depth response to a presentation given by Dr. Joy Rankin entitled “Performing Gender on PLATO” at the recent SIGCIS Command Line conference held at the Computer History Museum this past March.
https://medium.com/@brianstorms/performing-history-on-plato-4c501b8f2068
Many assertions were made in that presentation that concerned me greatly and I felt it necessary to not only write up a detailed response based on my own decades’ worth of research into the history of the PLATO system and its community, but also I sought out and included comments from former PLATO people who were named in Dr. Rankin’s talk, about the presentation and the claims made therein. Every single PLATO person I contacted shared the same concerns.
I welcome thoughts from fellow SIGCIS members.
- Brian
Brian Dear PLATO History Project Santa Fe, NM brian@platohistory.org
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
-- Christopher S. Leslie, Ph.D. Co-Director and Lecturer, Science and Technology Studies Faculty Fellow in Residence for Othmer Hall and Clark Street Chair, IFIP History of Computing Working Group 9.7
NYU Tandon School of Engineering 5 MetroTech Center, LC 131 Brooklyn, NY 11201 (646) 997-3130 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
Yes--I heartily agree with Chris. Joy and others who are working on ignored or suppressed issues are welcome in the SIGCIS and our group benefits greatly from their work. I vividly remember how, when I came to my first SIGCIS in 2005 (at the insistence of of dissertation advisor), I was scared stiff that folks would think I wasn't doing "real" computing history because I was focusing on women, and labor, and had a feminist approach. I was relieved to find this was not the case, and I was endlessly thankful for Jen Light and Nathan Ensmenger, who came up to me and heartily welcomed me to the group not in spite of what I was working on but rather because of it. Over the years many other SIGCISers have been invaluable supporters of my work and have helped me in all aspects of my career. And yet, until recently, my topic and approach made me somewhat of an outlier, and I was always slightly nervous. Things have changed over the years and I hope the SIGCIS has gotten to be an easier place to be for folks who are telling new stories that we need to hear. As Vice Chair USA of the SIGCIS, and one of the organizers of Command Lines, I want to publicly go on record as saying Joy and scholars like her are welcome in the SIGCIS and folks who are trying to write histories that center previously-ignored or suppressed issues should not be subject to attempts to suppress their work within our group. Joy Rankin is a member of the SIGCIS and a careful scholar. She does not deserve a response like your Medium post, Brian, which quite frankly reads like a personal attack coming from someone with different political views. Many of your points miscategorize her work and misunderstand what she's said. What you've posted, Brian, is also pretty ironic, given that Joy's whole point is that this history has been suppressed. She is trying to correct the record and enhance our understanding. Those of us who work on previously "hidden histories" contend with a lot of doubt and a lot of pushback. The SIGCIS is here to support them as they do their work, not tear them down. In solidarity, Marie Hicks SIGCIS Vice-Chair (USA) Co-organizer of Command Lines (with David Brock, Laine Nooney, and Andy Russell) ______________________ Marie Hicks, Ph.D. Asst. Professor, History of Technology Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, IL USA mhicks1@iit.edu | mariehicks.net | @histoftech Programmed Inequality: How Britain Discarded Women Technologists and Lost Its Edge in Computing (MIT Press, 2017) www.programmedinequality.com On May 23, 2017, at 3:36 AM, Sarah T. Roberts <sarah.roberts@ucla.edu> wrote: I couldn't agree more. Thank you, Chris. --- S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D. Assistant Professor University of California, Los Angeles Department of Information Studies Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/ Blogging periodically at http://illusionofvolition.com
On May 22, 2017, at 19:06, Christopher Leslie <chris.leslie@nyu.edu> wrote:
Dear Brian,
I am perplexed by your lengthy attack on Joy Rankin's presentation. The author of a book, you castigate a scholar's 20-minute presentation. Most incredibly. Yyu criticize her for being ignorant of history, but at the same time, you do not consider your ignorance of gender studies to be a problem. This is the exact problem with privilege that SIGCIS and other groups are contending with.
It's no longer a secret that there were a lot of women in computing. From Jennifer Light to Hidden Figures, we are sure that women were there. Recently, Marie Hicks has given us a solid study of how the women were filtered out through procedure and system. It is not that computing was from the start hostile to women, but it does seem as if as it developed it became so. This is in line with what other feminist historians of science have noticed (cf. Schiebinger's comment about the number of female astronomers). An analysis of this process is sorely needed.
By the way, only a man could say that an attack on a woman was not important because others spoke up to protest. You might be interested in the rich and growing literature on microagreessions and how they impact diversity in STEM. Given the pervasive interest in enhancing diversity in computing and STEM more generally, I am uncertain why you feel PLATO or other projects have something to lose by contending with the experience of women in the field.
I applaud Rankin and others for their solid work in this difficult area. Their findings are not, as you suggest, anomalous misreadings of history. Contending with the pervasive and persistent sexism (and other isms) in STEM will be the challenge of the current generation of scholars. I feel lucky to be at NYU, where such conversations are at least entertained without polemical attacks. Your screed, though, shows how far the profession has to go.
Chris Leslie
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Brian Dear <brian@platohistory.org> wrote: The link below is my in-depth response to a presentation given by Dr. Joy Rankin entitled “Performing Gender on PLATO” at the recent SIGCIS Command Line conference held at the Computer History Museum this past March.
https://medium.com/@brianstorms/performing-history-on-plato-4c501b8f2068
Many assertions were made in that presentation that concerned me greatly and I felt it necessary to not only write up a detailed response based on my own decades’ worth of research into the history of the PLATO system and its community, but also I sought out and included comments from former PLATO people who were named in Dr. Rankin’s talk, about the presentation and the claims made therein. Every single PLATO person I contacted shared the same concerns.
I welcome thoughts from fellow SIGCIS members.
- Brian
Brian Dear PLATO History Project Santa Fe, NM brian@platohistory.org
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
-- Christopher S. Leslie, Ph.D. Co-Director and Lecturer, Science and Technology Studies Faculty Fellow in Residence for Othmer Hall and Clark Street Chair, IFIP History of Computing Working Group 9.7
NYU Tandon School of Engineering 5 MetroTech Center, LC 131 Brooklyn, NY 11201 (646) 997-3130 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
Colleagues, I read Brian's article and it seems to be a well-considered and respectful critique of another scholar's work. He did not just dash off a dismissal but addressed in detail what he sees as its shortcomings, with citations and quotations. I agree with Brian and everyone else on this thread that gender studies are valuable and necessary as we seek to understand the sociotechnical systems of innovations that led us to where we are today. But we must do this with solid scholarship, and in my reading of Brian's analysis and its extensive reference to objective data I cannot feel confident that Rankin's scholarship is robust in this regard. I do not believe this discussion is correctly about whether issues are being ignored or repressed, but whether those issues are being discussed with solid scholarship. I've never seen SIGCIS shy away from a contentious discussion, but I feel like Brian's concerns are being criticized in a similar 'ignored or repressed' fashion being implicitly asserted against Brian in this thread. Let Rankin respond, hopefully with the thoroughness of Dear's critique. To those who attack Brian's work as 'screed', I invite you to likewise respond with rigor. -- Ian On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:01 PM, M. Hicks <mhicks1@iit.edu> wrote:
Yes--I heartily agree with Chris. Joy and others who are working on ignored or suppressed issues are welcome in the SIGCIS and our group benefits greatly from their work.
I vividly remember how, when I came to my first SIGCIS in 2005 (at the insistence of of dissertation advisor), I was scared stiff that folks would think I wasn't doing "real" computing history because I was focusing on women, and labor, and had a feminist approach. I was relieved to find this was not the case, and I was endlessly thankful for Jen Light and Nathan Ensmenger, who came up to me and heartily welcomed me to the group not in spite of what I was working on but rather because of it. Over the years many other SIGCISers have been invaluable supporters of my work and have helped me in all aspects of my career. And yet, until recently, my topic and approach made me somewhat of an outlier, and I was always slightly nervous.
Things have changed over the years and I hope the SIGCIS has gotten to be an easier place to be for folks who are telling new stories that we need to hear. As Vice Chair USA of the SIGCIS, and one of the organizers of Command Lines, I want to publicly go on record as saying Joy and scholars like her are welcome in the SIGCIS and folks who are trying to write histories that center previously-ignored or suppressed issues should not be subject to attempts to suppress their work within our group.
Joy Rankin is a member of the SIGCIS and a careful scholar. She does not deserve a response like your Medium post, Brian, which quite frankly reads like a personal attack coming from someone with different political views. Many of your points miscategorize her work and misunderstand what she's said. What you've posted, Brian, is also pretty ironic, given that Joy's whole point is that this history has been suppressed. She is trying to correct the record and enhance our understanding.
Those of us who work on previously "hidden histories" contend with a lot of doubt and a lot of pushback. The SIGCIS is here to support them as they do their work, not tear them down.
In solidarity,
Marie Hicks SIGCIS Vice-Chair (USA) Co-organizer of Command Lines (with David Brock, Laine Nooney, and Andy Russell) ______________________ Marie Hicks, Ph.D. Asst. Professor, History of Technology Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, IL USA mhicks1@iit.edu | mariehicks.net <http://www.mariehicks.net/> | @histoftech <http://twitter.com/histoftech> *Programmed Inequality: How Britain Discarded Women Technologists and Lost Its Edge in Computing* (MIT Press, 2017) www.programmedinequality.com
On May 23, 2017, at 3:36 AM, Sarah T. Roberts <sarah.roberts@ucla.edu> wrote:
I couldn't agree more. Thank you, Chris. ---
S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D.
Assistant Professor University of California, Los Angeles Department of Information Studies Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/
Blogging periodically at http://illusionofvolition.com
On May 22, 2017, at 19:06, Christopher Leslie <chris.leslie@nyu.edu> wrote:
Dear Brian,
I am perplexed by your lengthy attack on Joy Rankin's presentation. The author of a book, you castigate a scholar's 20-minute presentation. Most incredibly. Yyu criticize her for being ignorant of history, but at the same time, you do not consider your ignorance of gender studies to be a problem. This is the exact problem with privilege that SIGCIS and other groups are contending with.
It's no longer a secret that there were a lot of women in computing. From Jennifer Light to Hidden Figures, we are sure that women were there. Recently, Marie Hicks has given us a solid study of how the women were filtered out through procedure and system. It is not that computing was from the start hostile to women, but it does seem as if as it developed it became so. This is in line with what other feminist historians of science have noticed (cf. Schiebinger's comment about the number of female astronomers). An analysis of this process is sorely needed.
By the way, only a man could say that an attack on a woman was not important because others spoke up to protest. You might be interested in the rich and growing literature on microagreessions and how they impact diversity in STEM. Given the pervasive interest in enhancing diversity in computing and STEM more generally, I am uncertain why you feel PLATO or other projects have something to lose by contending with the experience of women in the field.
I applaud Rankin and others for their solid work in this difficult area. Their findings are not, as you suggest, anomalous misreadings of history. Contending with the pervasive and persistent sexism (and other isms) in STEM will be the challenge of the current generation of scholars. I feel lucky to be at NYU, where such conversations are at least entertained without polemical attacks. Your screed, though, shows how far the profession has to go.
Chris Leslie
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Brian Dear <brian@platohistory.org> wrote:
The link below is my in-depth response to a presentation given by Dr. Joy Rankin entitled “Performing Gender on PLATO” at the recent SIGCIS Command Line conference held at the Computer History Museum this past March.
https://medium.com/@brianstorms/performing-history-on- plato-4c501b8f2068
Many assertions were made in that presentation that concerned me greatly and I felt it necessary to not only write up a detailed response based on my own decades’ worth of research into the history of the PLATO system and its community, but also I sought out and included comments from former PLATO people who were named in Dr. Rankin’s talk, about the presentation and the claims made therein. Every single PLATO person I contacted shared the same concerns.
I welcome thoughts from fellow SIGCIS members.
- Brian
Brian Dear PLATO History Project Santa Fe, NM brian@platohistory.org
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
-- Christopher S. Leslie, Ph.D. Co-Director and Lecturer, Science and Technology Studies Faculty Fellow in Residence for Othmer Hall and Clark Street Chair, IFIP History of Computing Working Group 9.7
NYU Tandon School of Engineering 5 MetroTech Center, LC 131 Brooklyn, NY 11201 (646) 997-3130
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
-- Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate The Information School <http://ischool.uw.edu> Dissertation: "Why the Conversation Mattered: Constructing a Sociotechnical Narrative Through a Design Lens Archivist, Voices From the Rwanda Tribunal <http://tribunalvoices.org> Value Sensitive Design Research Lab <http://vsdesign.org> University of Washington There is an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."
Thanks for sharing your comments. My comments are embedded below.
On May 22, 2017, at 8:06 PM, Christopher Leslie <chris.leslie@nyu.edu> wrote:
Dear Brian,
I am perplexed by your lengthy attack on Joy Rankin's presentation. The author of a book, you castigate a scholar's 20-minute presentation. Most incredibly. Yyu criticize her for being ignorant of history, but at the same time, you do not consider your ignorance of gender studies to be a problem. This is the exact problem with privilege that SIGCIS and other groups are contending with.
I do consider my ignorance of gender studies to be a problem, and I pointed out to readers right up front that I don’t know much about the field. However, I did not write this article on the basis of gender studies. I wrote it because of numerous historical errors about PLATO, something I know a thing or two about.
It's no longer a secret that there were a lot of women in computing. From Jennifer Light to Hidden Figures, we are sure that women were there. Recently, Marie Hicks has given us a solid study of how the women were filtered out through procedure and system. It is not that computing was from the start hostile to women, but it does seem as if as it developed it became so. This is in line with what other feminist historians of science have noticed (cf. Schiebinger's comment about the number of female astronomers). An analysis of this process is sorely needed.
I agree with everything you say here.
By the way, only a man could say that an attack on a woman was not important because others spoke up to protest. You might be interested in the rich and growing literature on microagreessions and how they impact diversity in STEM. Given the pervasive interest in enhancing diversity in computing and STEM more generally, I am uncertain why you feel PLATO or other projects have something to lose by contending with the experience of women in the field.
Are you suggesting I am the “man” who somewhere said “an attack on a woman was not important…”? If you are asserting that, could you kindly point out where in the article I say that? Because that is not something I intended to say at all, and I have no recollection of saying anything of the sort. Also I am uncertain how you arrived at the idea that I might “feel PLATO or other projects have something to lose by contending with the experience of women in the field.” Where do you believe I said that in the article? In fact I believe PLATO has much to gain by studying the experience of women in the field. I went and actually asked a number of such women, people who actually used PLATO, and were present at the lab. They all felt this SIGCIS presentation’s facts about PLATO were full of errors. Why would it be okay to let such errors slide?
I applaud Rankin and others for their solid work in this difficult area. Their findings are not, as you suggest, anomalous misreadings of history. Contending with the pervasive and persistent sexism (and other isms) in STEM will be the challenge of the current generation of scholars. I feel lucky to be at NYU, where such conversations are at least entertained without polemical attacks. Your screed, though, shows how far the profession has to go.
Did you read the entire article? Because I cite facts galore to address numerous misreadings of PLATO’s history. And again, my focus is on the history of PLATO and pervasive misreadings of it. My mission is to set the record straight when the record is miscommunicated to audiences and no-one even questions whether what they’ve just been told is true or not. My mission is not to downplay nor ignore the interesting new insights being brought to the field of the history of computing by new researchers and scholars looking at pervasive and persistent sexism in STEM. I welcome such work, I applaud it, and I say so numerous times in my article. But I do believe a historian needs to get the underlying history right. - Brian
Chris Leslie
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Brian Dear <brian@platohistory.org <mailto:brian@platohistory.org>> wrote: The link below is my in-depth response to a presentation given by Dr. Joy Rankin entitled “Performing Gender on PLATO” at the recent SIGCIS Command Line conference held at the Computer History Museum this past March.
https://medium.com/@brianstorms/performing-history-on-plato-4c501b8f2068 <https://medium.com/@brianstorms/performing-history-on-plato-4c501b8f2068>
Many assertions were made in that presentation that concerned me greatly and I felt it necessary to not only write up a detailed response based on my own decades’ worth of research into the history of the PLATO system and its community, but also I sought out and included comments from former PLATO people who were named in Dr. Rankin’s talk, about the presentation and the claims made therein. Every single PLATO person I contacted shared the same concerns.
I welcome thoughts from fellow SIGCIS members.
- Brian
Brian Dear PLATO History Project Santa Fe, NM brian@platohistory.org <mailto:brian@platohistory.org>
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://sigcis.org/>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ <http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/> and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org>
-- Christopher S. Leslie, Ph.D. Co-Director and Lecturer, Science and Technology Studies Faculty Fellow in Residence for Othmer Hall and Clark Street Chair, IFIP History of Computing Working Group 9.7
NYU Tandon School of Engineering 5 MetroTech Center, LC 131 Brooklyn, NY 11201 (646) 997-3130
participants (6)
-
Brian Dear -
brian＠platohistory.org
-
Christopher Leslie -
Ian S. King -
M. Hicks -
Sarah T. Roberts