There was definitely gender-based affirmative action benefitting women in 1994 - the term DEI is newer than that (as far as I'm aware), but the concept is definitely not.

According to the Wikipedia article on the event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper_Celebration_of_Wo...), "In 1994, Anita Borg and Telle Whitney founded the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing. With the initial idea of creating a conference by and for women computer scientists, Borg and Whitney met over dinner, with a blank sheet of paper, having no idea how to start a conference, and started to plan out their vision. The first Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing was held in Washington, D.C., in June 1994, and brought together 500 technical women.".

Having a specific conference for women in computing is definitely a DEI concern; from the very beginning, the entire point of having a formal celebration of Grace Hopper was to be a locus for this female-specific conference. Grace Hopper's importance to this conference is that she was a woman, not that she invented FLOW-MATIC.

▲

carefulfungi an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Grace Hopper graduated from Yale with a PhD in 1933. In 1952, Professor Bessie Lee Gambrill became the first woman at receive tenure at Yale.

Many women mathematicians in computer science worked in the field because they were denied a university career path because of their gender.

As an example of how late gender equality arrived, Olga Taussky-Todd (Caltech) held only a “research associate” title from 1957 until Caltech made her its first female full professor in 1971.

https://mathematics.caltech.edu/about/prizes-awards/olga-tau...

It is not wrong to celebrate a more enlightened world by highlighting its trailblazers and encouraging others to follow their footsteps in breaking barriers.

▲

Geezus_42 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why do you find it concerning that a conference would focus on women?

▲

datsci_est_2015 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don’t think they were expressing concern, just the fact.

I read it as a damning indictment against anti-“DEI” fanatics that they’re on the wrong side of history when they push the envelope too far in the direction of “merit-based hiring”, as if DEI was something relatively-recently concocted.

Laughably, in the days before “DEI”, “merit-based hiring” usually equated to “good old boys club”. Based on the industries in which I’ve been involved, it’s still very much “good old boys club”, despite best efforts for DEI to try to make things more merit-based.

▲

jjgreen 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Huh? Someone saying something is a DEI concern does not mean they find it concerning.

▲

a-french-anon 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because it undermines claims of equality? Make conferences for everyone, men and women.

And actually, don't give gold stars to people just for being women (as in, would the same person as a man receive even half the attention), this is the worst way to belittle actual achievements coming from them.

	▲	an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

smolder an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

"where is the conference celebrating white men?" -how you sound

	▲	pelagicAustral an hour ago \| parent [-]
		He doesnt sounds like that at all. Whatever is left of your brain, get it checked.