Link Search Menu Expand Document
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Computer Science and Society (Pilot)

Contents

Week 1: Introducing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) through the lens of belonging

Description

The course begins by connecting the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion to feelings of belonging and not belonging — feelings which we’ve all experienced at some point in our lives. This week, students explore: how might someone’s sense of belonging depend on the diversity around them? How might someone’s sense of belonging affect their ability to succeed? Do you think there are disparities in how often different people feel included in computer science settings? Students then connect their thoughts on these questions to measurable ways in which computer science lacks diversity, equity, and inclusion. Next, students work together to identify features of a more inclusive version of the academic computer science community. From these features, they will design their own community guidelines to help maintain the inclusivity of their discussions throughout the class. Finally, students will begin to explore how the frequency and depth to which we experience belonging relates to the concept of identity.

Learning objectives

  • Recount key course logistics, policies about discussion groups, and available resources for supporting inclusive discussion.
  • Define diversity, equity, inclusion, and identity.
  • Define gender identity and pronouns, and recount strategies for inclusively using others’ pronouns (e.g., how to ask what pronouns someone uses, what to do if you accidentally refer to someone with the wrong pronouns, etc.).
  • Describe specific examples and statistics illustrating ways in which the CS community has become more diverse, equitable, and inclusive, and ways in which it remains non-diverse, inequitable, and un-inclusive.
  • Reflect on and describe what a more inclusive CS community would look like.
  • Identify and suggest concrete community guidelines that, when followed, lead to inclusive discussions.
  • Reflect on one’s own identity as it relates to their experiences, sense of belonging, and advantages/disadvantages in education settings.
  • Moderate or participate in an inclusive group discussion on DEI-related topics.

Week 2: Systemic foundations of disparities in computer science

Description

The disparities in computer science we saw in week 1 are not incidental — they reflect disparities that exist in society. In week 2, students will build their understanding of systemic inequality, one of the major sources of the disparities we see in the CS community today. Students will first explore important examples of how the structures and policies of real systems can create and perpetuate inequities, even when the people working within those systems do no necessarily intend to do so. Then, through reflecting on and discussing the experiences that shaped their own paths to CMU, students will apply the concept of systemic inequality to explore explanations for disparities in computer science graduate programs. Finally, students will explore how systemic inequality can result in two people experiencing and being impacted by the same situation in totally different ways — a fact which motivates the next two weeks of class.

Learning objectives

  • Define systemic (structural) inequality, privilege, and intersectionality.
  • Recount disparities that exist in academic computer science at the PhD level, both in representation and how those that are represented experience graduate school.
  • Use the concept of systemic inequality to explain disparities in representation in elite PhD programs.
  • Use the concept of systemic inequality to explain disparities in experiences in elite PhD programs.
  • Use the concept of systemic inequality to explain how different people can experience the same situation in different ways.
  • Define disability and neurotypicality, and describe how these topics interact with systemic inequality.
  • Articulate the difference between a system that treats people equitably and one that treats people equally.
  • Self-reflect on how systemic factors influenced one’s own journey to a PhD program.
  • Moderate or participate in an inclusive group discussion on DEI-related topics.

Week 3: Hidden experiences with visible impacts

Description

One of the results of systemic inequality is that people of different identities may arrive at PhD programs having experienced society and systems very differently, and as a result, may also experience the same situations in PhD programs very differently. An imperative part of being inclusive to our peers is being aware of these differing experiences and struggles, in what situations they are likely to arise, and how they may impact someone’s actions. In Week 3, students will dig into stereotype threat, a rich and ubiquitously occurring example of how people may experience the PhD program differently as a result of their identities. In addition to unpacking the definition of this complex concept, students will explore mechanisms by which stereotype threat, despite often being invisible to an onlooker, can affect someone’s actions and impact their ability to succeed in graduate school. Finally, students will draw on existing research to identify strategies for mitigating the impact of stereotype threat in academic research settings.

Learning objectives

  • Define stereotypes, stereotype threat, and implicit bias.
  • Describe how implicit bias, stereotype threat, diversity, privilege, and systemic inequality can reinforce and be reinforced by each other.
  • Self-reflect on our own past experiences in which we may have experienced stereotype threat
  • Given a CS PhD-related scenario, identify the potential roles of stereotypes and stereotype threat
  • Given a CS PhD-related scenario, reflect on and describe how the participants might feel, and how stereotype threat might influence them to change their behavior
  • Articulate how differences in experiences due to stereotype threat can lead to disparities in opportunity in a CS PhD program.
  • Identify and evaluate evidence-based practices for mitigating stereotype threat in academic research settings
  • Moderate or participate in an inclusive group discussion on DEI-related topics.

Week 4: Inclusive intent versus inclusive impact

Description

This week, students will explore not only how others may differently experience the same situations, but how to be more inclusive to those differences. One important way we can do this is to contend with the difficult fact that even though we don’t intend to say things that convey derogatory or hurtful messages about certain identities, sometimes we may accidentally do so — and might not even realize it. This week, students will learn about how such exchanges, known as microaggressions, happen often and although they are usually subtle, they can have potentially severe impacts on the mental and even physical well-being of those who regularly experience them. By explicitly considering multiple perspectives in PhD-related situations, students will grapple with how well-intentioned statements may have unforeseen harmful impacts; practice identifying these potentially harmful impacts so that in the future, they can better anticipate them; and explore how to react inclusively when they have expressed a slight toward or about someone else.

Learning objectives

  • Define microaggression.
  • Recognize that, while using the term “microaggressions” as a well-defined category for exchanges is subject to ongoing discourse, the fundamental concept it tries to capture is well-documented.
  • Articulate why microaggressions in general can be hurtful and important to people’s experiences, despite being “micro”.
  • Articulate the differences between intent versus impact, and how this difference relates to microaggressions.
  • Given a CS PhD-related exchange, identify why that exchange could be hurtful and reflect on the perspectives of all participants.
  • Describe how effective apologies relate to the concepts of defensiveness, intent versus impact, and validation.
  • Moderate or participate in an inclusive group discussion on DEI-related topics.

Week 5: Supporting ourselves: mental health, boundaries, and self-advocacy

Description

In the final two weeks of the course, students will begin more explicitly building tools and skills to help them actively participate in fostering a more inclusive environment. Week 5 is motivated by the fact that advocating for ourselves and taking care of our own mental health and well-being are not only essential to our happiness as PhD students; these things are also an essential part of enabling us to support others. In week 5, students will learn about strategies for identifying their own boundaries and expressing them to others, even in settings that contain challenging power dynamics; how to actively cultivate support systems around them; and how to utilize campus and professional resources that can help. Then, students will practice applying these tools in various difficult scenarios that they or their peers might at some point face during our PhD.

Learning objectives

  • Define boundaries, self-advocacy, mental health.
  • Recognize the commonality of mental health issues in graduate students.
  • Recount specific examples of ways mental health issues often manifest in graduate students.
  • Reflect on why asking for help and setting boundaries in PhD programs is often difficult.
  • Recount and apply specific tools for identifying mental health issues or other well-being issues in oneself.
  • Identify strategies and campus resources, and how to utilize them, for maintaining and increasing well-being.
  • Given a challenging PhD-related situation, identify strategies and campus resources that can help.
  • Recount and apply concrete approaches to boundary-setting.
  • Identify one’s boundaries and rights, both in general and in provided CS PhD-related situations.
  • Reflect on connections between boundaries, self-advocacy, mental health, and allyship.

Week 6: Actively ensuring that others are included through allyship

Description

This week, students will learn about allyship as a framework for thinking about how they can support those around them in ways that are inclusive to their unique identities and experiences. Allyship is sometimes summarized as “see something, say something”, expressing the notion that being an ally entails speaking up when you see something happening that you think is wrong. This is certainly part of allyship, but as students will learn this week, allyship is actually a much more complex set of actions: it requires not only the courage to speak up, but the courage to step aside and give others a platform to speak, the courage to take responsibility for the impact of our actions, the effort of performing continuous self-reflection and self-education, and the lending of our time to help promote greater inclusion through structural changes. Given several PhD-relevant scenarios, students will reflect on which actions are consistent with allyship in that situation, what makes undertaking these actions challenging, and then practice overcoming these challenges to help actively ensure that others are being included.

Learning objectives

  • Define allyship and recount three broad categories of actions allies take: (1) listening and giving others a platform to speak, (2) speaking up and taking action, and (3) doing work on their own.
  • Describe, and explain the importance of, examples of some actions in category (1), including validating and believing others’ experiences, decentering oneself, and creating space for others to be heard.
  • Describe, and explain the importance of, examples of some actions in category (2), including checking in with others, reporting incidents or recurring issues of non-inclusivity, owning the impact of one’s mistakes (rather than defending one’s intent), working to make systemic change, and holding others accountable.
  • Describe, and explain the importance of, examples of some actions in category (3), including working through our own implicit biases, self-educating on DEI issues, engaging in inclusive research practices, seeking out new perspectives in who we talk with and what information we consume.
  • Identify concrete strategies for identifying and mitigating one’s own implicit biases.
  • Given a CS PhD-related situation, identify the potential harm occurring in the situation in terms of key terms from this class.
  • Given a CS PhD-related scenario, identify the potential roles of the various actions an ally could take, among those in the previous objectives.
  • Reflect on what is challenging about being an informed and effective ally.