IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2021 - 6

Editorial

technological problem. It is a sociological, ethical,
legal, cultural, generational, educational, and political one as well.
Above all, perhaps, it is a political one because
equity, as a value, is not a homeostatic equilibrium
to which societies tend, but the product of a deliberate policy, enacted by a conscious legislative and
executive decision, in response to an expressed
preference of an electorate, and enforced by an
empowered judiciary. This process might entail a
radical reevaluation and reshaping of established
political, social, and economic systems, and it
requires not just legislative action but affirmative
action as well. It is not enough to abolish slavery,
and yet to discourage civic participation; nor is it
enough to declare universal suffrage, and yet to
indulge in voter suppression.
However, and perhaps inevitably, affirmative
action intended to produce a reduction of inequality between social groups, or a gain in equity for one
social group, might be misrepresented by vested
interests of another and so perceived as a loss-
the idea that when you are accustomed to privilege,
equality can feel like oppression.1
Regrettably, then, any attempt to promote equality or equity faces a backlash from those who feel
threatened by it, whether that promotion takes
the form of the suffragette movement, the civil
rights movement, the Occupy protests, Black Lives
Matter, or Extinction Rebellion (XR). In political
regimes with an authoritarian tendency but a deep
insecurity about their competence and legitimacy,
the reaction to progressive ideas is to rewrite school
curricula to prevent such ideas from even being
discussed.
For example, in Hungary, the proposed national
fundamental curriculum, which specifies the required
reading in elementary and secondary schools, has
been heavily criticized for pursuing a nationalist
agenda [9]. In the United Kingdom, in September
2020, the government issued " guidance " on how to
plan a curriculum for teaching " relationships, sex, and
health " [10]. (Or at least the headline was " Guidance:
Plan your relationships, sex, and health curriculum. "
In the text, there is a statement instructing teachers
and head teachers to read the " statutory guidance "
policy; following that hyperlink takes readers to a

1
The originator/origination of this quotation (thought) is hard to attribute precisely;
see https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/10/24/privilege/.

page that informs them that " the new curriculum will
be compulsory from September 2020. " 2)
Included in this " guidance " were sections on
" using external agencies " and " choosing resources "
(see Figure 1). In both these sections, passages
were banning the use of external agencies or external resources that were deemed to be promoting
" extreme positions; " and moreover, promotion of
any " extreme position " meant that all material from
that external agency had to be rejected, even if the
material were not extreme.3 Technically, for example, this means that material from XR promoting the
use of citizen assemblies [11] could not be taught
given the designation of XR's climate activism as an
extreme ideology [12].
Given that " equality can feel like oppression " and
disagreement with orthodoxy can be interpreted as
an " extreme political stance, " then proposing " AI for
equity " could be similarly misjudged, by some, as an
extreme political stance. But, if such a judgment is
to be made, it is worth evaluating the statutory guidance with respect to the actions of those proposing
that statutory guidance. So, let us deconstruct each
of the bullet points of Figure 1 in turn.
According to the U.K. government statutory guidance, examples of " extreme positions include, but
are not limited to: "
* promoting nondemocratic political systems
rather than those based on democracy, whether
for political or religious reasons or otherwise.
To begin with, the United Kingdom has been
here before with a conservative government legislating against " promotion " of activities of which it
disapproved. In the earlier case, this led to Section
28 of the 1988 Local Government Act which enacted
a " Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by
teaching or by publishing material. " Like all sloppily
drafted and ambiguous legislation (the definition
of " promoting " is not clear-is it recognizing that
it exists? Recognizing equal rights?), it caused considerable controversy and increased persecution
of a minority group. So, even the basic premise of
the guidance is flawed and that is even before interpreting what " based on democracy " means. There
2
Guidance is, in dictionary, defined as " advice or recommendation offered with
regard to future prudent actions. " Statutory is, in dictionary, defined as " actions that
are required by statute. " Orwell would have been impressed.
3
" Schools should not, under any circumstances, use resources produced by organizations that take extreme political stances on matters. This is the case even if the
material itself is not extreme, as the use of it could imply endorsement or support
of the organization " [10].

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine

https://www.quoteinvestigator.com/2016/10/24/privilege/

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2021