31 / 124 A call to rethink ethics and equity in computing education. T HIS COLUMN...

Transcribed Image Text:

31 / 124 A call to rethink ethics and equity in computing education. T HIS COLUMN AIMS to build on and extend the field's under- standings of the nature of ethics and equity in comput- ing. Specifically, we argue that issues related to systems of power, which are often absent from conversa- tions around ethics in computing, must be brought to the foreground in K-16 com- puting education. To this end, we argue for a justice-centered pedagogy that centers power by explicitly acknowledging the ethical and political dimensions of com- putation and builds learning conditions so that everyone-including, but not limited to, students on computer science (CS) or engineering pathways-can understand, analyze, critique, and reimagine the tech- nologies that shape everyday lives. A power-conscious approach to eth- ics in computing highlights the socio- political and sociocultural contexts in which technologies are developed and deployed. To respond to the highly com- plex sociotechnical problems of the 21" century and beyond, future computer scientists and engineers need educa- tional opportunities that prepare them to understand and care about the far- reaching ethical and sociopolitical im- plications of new technologies. Yet, we must also fundamentally rethink who computing education is for. Serious ef- forts should be made at the K-12 and undergraduate levels to make the knowl- edge, skills, and tools to critically exam- ine the relationships between power, ethics, and technology available to all. Given rapidly evolving innovations and contexts of computing, we argue for two changes in our approach to ethics and equity in K-16 computing education: We must center power in discus- | well-intentioned conversations has sions of ethics in computing, by which we mean explicitly attending to how computing systems intersect with structures of inequality and hierarchy in society; and We must view engagement with the sociopolitical and ethical dimen- sions of computing as a core prac- tice made available to all students, whether or not they are on CS or engi- neering pathways. Equity Is More than Inclusion In recent years, the role of equity in CS education has increasingly become a topic of discussion. Much of this dia- logue has centered around the creation of inclusive learning environments in computing, particularly with regard to marginalized students and their com- munities. Yet, often missing from these MARCH 2019 been a robust consideration of equity in CS as it pertains to issues of ethics and power. In particular, the ways in which computational tools and technologies have multiple, complex, and profound implications for the lived experiences of nondominant communities have been largely ignored (for example, how ma- chine learning is changing law enforce- ment practices in communities of color, how automation technologies are re- shaping welfare eligibility,' or how com- mercial search engines reinforce racist and sexist bias). Leaving these power imbalances unexamined precludes deep engagement with issues of equity. In our view, because these complicated interactions of technologies and society shape how nondominant groups experi- ence and negotiate daily life and broad- er social systems, substantive discus- VOL. 62 | NO. 3 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM 31 IMAGE FROM SHUTTERSTOCK.COM 32 / 124 + acm Association for Computing Machinery ACM Conference Proceedings Now Available via Print-on-Demand! Did you know that you can now order many popular ACM conference proceedings via print-on-demand? Institutions, libraries and individuals can choose from more than 100 titles on a continually updated list through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Baker & Taylor, Ingram and NACSCORP: CHI, KDD, Multimedia, SIGIR, SIGCOMM, SIGCSE, SIGMOD/PODS, and many more. For available titles and ordering info, visit: librarians.acm.org/pod sions of equity in CS must intentionally Is she acting ethically? Or we might ask: include dynamics of power and ethics. A Reframing of Ethics in Computing While there have been a number of im- portant calls and initiatives to integrate ethics into computing education, the tendency has been to ignore how ethics are situated within larger political and ideological contexts. As a result, discus- sions of ethics are primarily framed as a matter of personal choice and respon- sibility. For example, the current ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Con- duct notes principles such as "Be honest and trustworthy" and "Know and respect existing rules pertaining to professional work." We have no bone to pick with uni- versally accepted traits such as honesty and respect, but we contend that orga- nizing discussions of ethics around the good or bad decisions/values of individu- al actors obscures more complex interac tions between ethics and technology. Moreover, an honest assessment of ethical behavior (for individuals as well as systems) must include analysis of how people's behaviors contribute to, resist, or otherwise intersect with struc- tures of inequality and hierarchy in soci- ety. For example, say an engineer works at a firm where she is instructed to write code that programs handheld helmet- mounted imaging systems designed for the military. The engineer does her job faithfully as an honest, hard-working employee. Her code is elegant, original, and well documented. Yet, by helping to produce this slick and sophisticated technology, she also contributes to the project of militarism around the world. Organizing discussions of ethics around the good or bad decisions/ values of individual How do broader ethical and ideological values guide innovation in companies like the one this engineer works for? Does the current and emerging land- scape of new technologies (and the in- stitutions and industries creating these technologies) collectively contribute to a more just and ethical society? Center- ing power in discussions of ethics does not mean answers to these questions are provided for students, but it does mean opportunities are intentionally created for students to discuss, debate, and ana- lyze what others have called the "macro- ethics" of technological systems. A Focus on Decoding Power A focus on power entails providing op- portunities for students to decode how computational systems, which we de- fine as coordinated networks of digital tools and devices (for example, the In- ternet, blockchain technology, surveil- lance systems), intersect and are inter- twined with sociopolitical systems (for example, racism, neoliberalism, mili- tarism, the U.S. immigration system). Decoding requires careful study of these different systems and the ways in which they interact. An unprecedented level of public debate recently has un- derscored the urgency of attending to these intersections in discussions of ethics and computing. How does racial bias shape artificial intelligence (AI) al- gorithms? How do theoretical advances in cryptography lay the foundation for mass surveillance? Why are engineers at Google and Microsoft raising con- cerns about their companies' entangle- ments with the Pentagon and Immigra- tion and Customs Enforcement (ICE)? Addressing these highly complex ques- tions requires a deeper understanding of how these technological systems interact with sociopolitical systems. For example, exploring racial bias in AI algorithms demands an understand- ing of visual cognition systems and sys- actors obscures more tems of race and hierarchy. Developing complex interactions between ethics and technology. a moral stance on war-related technolo- gies, and evaluating those of others, requires understanding not just how technologies may be used for unethi- cal purposes, but also how the politics of war and empire shape the technolo- gies that are developed in the first place. These are fraught intersections, where ethical dilemmas arise and thrive; where 33 / 124 + 0 technology and society collide to simul- warded a view of ethics rooted in the fundamental relationships between taneously create challenges and oppor- There are encouraging science and power. Especially in his tunities for education and social action. A Critical Practice for Democracy and Civic Engagement Focusing on power in discussions of computing and ethics foregrounds jus- tice and equity, and is thus a critical practice that can benefit all members of society. Democratic societies are shaped, filtered, enhanced, and circum- scribed by computing technologies and the algorithms driving them, yet these interactions between society and tech- nology are often difficult to discern. Full social and political participation hinges on the ability to perceive and interro- gate these interactions. Today's and to- morrow's civically engaged actors must have access to technology and oppor tunities to develop technical skills, but they must also possess the knowledge, conceptual frameworks, and vocabular ies to make sense of, vote, protest, de- sign, and advocate for socially desirable configurations between society and technology. Centering power in con- siderations of ethics prepares people to foreground how various forms of in- justice may be disputed or reproduced when considering interactions between technology and society. A Commitment to Traversing Disciplinary Boundaries Engaging the ethics and politics of com- puting demands an unprecedented and vigorous transdisciplinary dialogue between CS and the social sciences and humanities. Computer science instructors will need to move beyond decontextualized modules on ethics or individual courses on social impact that deemphasize moral and political ques- tions. Universities will need to create learning pathways where students gain knowledge and skills to build the tech- nologies of the future as they simultane- ously develop the sensibilities and intel- lectual integrity to question, modify, or reimagine these technologies. Toward these ends, there are encour aging cross-disciplinary developments on the horizon the field should support and continue to foster. Several univer- sities with highly ranked CS programs are expanding CS learning opportuni- ties in interesting ways (for instance, Northwestern's joint Ph.D. program in cross-disciplinary developments on the horizon the field should support and continue to foster. Computer Science and the Learning Sciences, and the new interdisciplinary College of Computing at MIT). The digi- tal social sciences and humanities have started to examine the intersections of computational tools and methods in fields such as history, literature, film studies, political science, philosophy, and sociology. Liberal arts colleges are beginning to introduce technology re- quirements and offer specializations in areas such as artificial intelligence and data science. Much of this work aims to unite computational and humanistic questions in novel ways and inspire new ways of seeing and thinking about com- putation and its place in our society and lives. In middle and secondary comput- er science education, however, ethical and political dimensions of computing tend to be sidelined, including within introductory courses such as Exploring Computer Science (ECS) or CS Princi- ples. A pedagogical focus on power and ethics in K-12 CS education has the ex- citing potential to forge new disciplinary bridges between the goals and practices of CS and parallel efforts to engage youth in civics and social justice. Additionally, intentionally broadening the intellectu- al and social purposes of CS could invite a wider range of student identities. History as Our Guide For computing education as a field to rethink ethics and equity in ways called for here will undoubtedly re- quire a hard (and perhaps uncomfort- able) epistemological and pedagogical pivot. We would do well, though, to remember a rich intellectual history of thinkers in our field who have laid a foundation upon which we may build. For instance, mathematician, philoso- pher, and pacifist Norbert Wiener for- later writings, he urged the field to take seriously the ways machines may alter society in ways that would challenge the very meaning of human life." More recently, Jeannette Wing's contention that computational thinking is "a uni- versally applicable attitude and skill set [that] everyone, not just computer scientists" can learn and use' helped spark an enduring debate about com- putation's transdisciplinarity and its untapped potential to inspire new ways of seeing the world. We see much value in these early formulations, par- ticularly with regard to their emphasis on the power of computing to transform society. Highlighting power as a con- ceptual and pedagogical approach lo- cates learning about computing within a justice frame that both complements and challenges previously articulated visions for computing education. Robust understandings of power, ethics, equity, technologies, and soci- ety as called for in this column-are key for the design of future tools and artifacts rooted in deep notions of the public good and social welfare. Future generations must possess the ability to critically analyze the affordances and constraints of technological advance- ment, as well as the moral imagination and technical skill to create with com- passion and ethical integrity. References 1. Eubanks, V. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile. Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin's Press, New York, NY, 2018. 2. Herkert, JR. Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics 11.3 (Mar. 2005), 373-385 3. Margolis, J. Stuck in the Shollow End: Education, Race and Computing. MIT Press, Boston, MA, 2010. 4. Noble, S.U. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. NYU Press, NY, 2018. 5. Vakil, S. Ethics, identity, and political vision: Toward a justice-centered approach to equity in computer science education. Harvard Educational Review 88, 1 (Jan 2018), 26-52 6. Wiener, N. Some moral and technical consequences of automation Science 131. 3410 (1960), 1355-1358 7. Wing. J.M. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49, 3 (Mar. 2006), 33-35 Sepehr Vakil (sepehr.vakil@northwestern.edu) is Assistant Professor, Learning Sciences, in the School of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern University. Evanston, IL, USA. Jennifer Higgs (mhiggs@ucdavis.edu) is Assistant Professor, Learning & Mind Sciences and Language. Literacy, & Culture, in the School of Education at the University of California, Davis, CA, USA. Copyright held by authors Follow these Steps: 1. Read the article in its entirety. 2. The article can be found here: 3. Vakil & Higgs 4. Analyze the topic and the content to see how they are related. 5. Pick out the main ideas (Who, What, Why, Where...) 6. Examine the points the author uses to support the position taken. 7. Review examples to determine whether or not they reflect the arguments presented. 8. Write a summary which identifies the author's main points. Complete 1-7, and add your opinion to finish this exercise. Your two-page summary will be reviewed, and if your summary contains an organized (2 points), clearly written summary (2 points) which describes the main points and the examples (4 points), and presents your opinion (2 points), you will earn 10 points. 31 / 124 A call to rethink ethics and equity in computing education. T HIS COLUMN AIMS to build on and extend the field's under- standings of the nature of ethics and equity in comput- ing. Specifically, we argue that issues related to systems of power, which are often absent from conversa- tions around ethics in computing, must be brought to the foreground in K-16 com- puting education. To this end, we argue for a justice-centered pedagogy that centers power by explicitly acknowledging the ethical and political dimensions of com- putation and builds learning conditions so that everyone-including, but not limited to, students on computer science (CS) or engineering pathways-can understand, analyze, critique, and reimagine the tech- nologies that shape everyday lives. A power-conscious approach to eth- ics in computing highlights the socio- political and sociocultural contexts in which technologies are developed and deployed. To respond to the highly com- plex sociotechnical problems of the 21" century and beyond, future computer scientists and engineers need educa- tional opportunities that prepare them to understand and care about the far- reaching ethical and sociopolitical im- plications of new technologies. Yet, we must also fundamentally rethink who computing education is for. Serious ef- forts should be made at the K-12 and undergraduate levels to make the knowl- edge, skills, and tools to critically exam- ine the relationships between power, ethics, and technology available to all. Given rapidly evolving innovations and contexts of computing, we argue for two changes in our approach to ethics and equity in K-16 computing education: We must center power in discus- | well-intentioned conversations has sions of ethics in computing, by which we mean explicitly attending to how computing systems intersect with structures of inequality and hierarchy in society; and We must view engagement with the sociopolitical and ethical dimen- sions of computing as a core prac- tice made available to all students, whether or not they are on CS or engi- neering pathways. Equity Is More than Inclusion In recent years, the role of equity in CS education has increasingly become a topic of discussion. Much of this dia- logue has centered around the creation of inclusive learning environments in computing, particularly with regard to marginalized students and their com- munities. Yet, often missing from these MARCH 2019 been a robust consideration of equity in CS as it pertains to issues of ethics and power. In particular, the ways in which computational tools and technologies have multiple, complex, and profound implications for the lived experiences of nondominant communities have been largely ignored (for example, how ma- chine learning is changing law enforce- ment practices in communities of color, how automation technologies are re- shaping welfare eligibility,' or how com- mercial search engines reinforce racist and sexist bias). Leaving these power imbalances unexamined precludes deep engagement with issues of equity. In our view, because these complicated interactions of technologies and society shape how nondominant groups experi- ence and negotiate daily life and broad- er social systems, substantive discus- VOL. 62 | NO. 3 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM 31 IMAGE FROM SHUTTERSTOCK.COM 32 / 124 + acm Association for Computing Machinery ACM Conference Proceedings Now Available via Print-on-Demand! Did you know that you can now order many popular ACM conference proceedings via print-on-demand? Institutions, libraries and individuals can choose from more than 100 titles on a continually updated list through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Baker & Taylor, Ingram and NACSCORP: CHI, KDD, Multimedia, SIGIR, SIGCOMM, SIGCSE, SIGMOD/PODS, and many more. For available titles and ordering info, visit: librarians.acm.org/pod sions of equity in CS must intentionally Is she acting ethically? Or we might ask: include dynamics of power and ethics. A Reframing of Ethics in Computing While there have been a number of im- portant calls and initiatives to integrate ethics into computing education, the tendency has been to ignore how ethics are situated within larger political and ideological contexts. As a result, discus- sions of ethics are primarily framed as a matter of personal choice and respon- sibility. For example, the current ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Con- duct notes principles such as "Be honest and trustworthy" and "Know and respect existing rules pertaining to professional work." We have no bone to pick with uni- versally accepted traits such as honesty and respect, but we contend that orga- nizing discussions of ethics around the good or bad decisions/values of individu- al actors obscures more complex interac tions between ethics and technology. Moreover, an honest assessment of ethical behavior (for individuals as well as systems) must include analysis of how people's behaviors contribute to, resist, or otherwise intersect with struc- tures of inequality and hierarchy in soci- ety. For example, say an engineer works at a firm where she is instructed to write code that programs handheld helmet- mounted imaging systems designed for the military. The engineer does her job faithfully as an honest, hard-working employee. Her code is elegant, original, and well documented. Yet, by helping to produce this slick and sophisticated technology, she also contributes to the project of militarism around the world. Organizing discussions of ethics around the good or bad decisions/ values of individual How do broader ethical and ideological values guide innovation in companies like the one this engineer works for? Does the current and emerging land- scape of new technologies (and the in- stitutions and industries creating these technologies) collectively contribute to a more just and ethical society? Center- ing power in discussions of ethics does not mean answers to these questions are provided for students, but it does mean opportunities are intentionally created for students to discuss, debate, and ana- lyze what others have called the "macro- ethics" of technological systems. A Focus on Decoding Power A focus on power entails providing op- portunities for students to decode how computational systems, which we de- fine as coordinated networks of digital tools and devices (for example, the In- ternet, blockchain technology, surveil- lance systems), intersect and are inter- twined with sociopolitical systems (for example, racism, neoliberalism, mili- tarism, the U.S. immigration system). Decoding requires careful study of these different systems and the ways in which they interact. An unprecedented level of public debate recently has un- derscored the urgency of attending to these intersections in discussions of ethics and computing. How does racial bias shape artificial intelligence (AI) al- gorithms? How do theoretical advances in cryptography lay the foundation for mass surveillance? Why are engineers at Google and Microsoft raising con- cerns about their companies' entangle- ments with the Pentagon and Immigra- tion and Customs Enforcement (ICE)? Addressing these highly complex ques- tions requires a deeper understanding of how these technological systems interact with sociopolitical systems. For example, exploring racial bias in AI algorithms demands an understand- ing of visual cognition systems and sys- actors obscures more tems of race and hierarchy. Developing complex interactions between ethics and technology. a moral stance on war-related technolo- gies, and evaluating those of others, requires understanding not just how technologies may be used for unethi- cal purposes, but also how the politics of war and empire shape the technolo- gies that are developed in the first place. These are fraught intersections, where ethical dilemmas arise and thrive; where 33 / 124 + 0 technology and society collide to simul- warded a view of ethics rooted in the fundamental relationships between taneously create challenges and oppor- There are encouraging science and power. Especially in his tunities for education and social action. A Critical Practice for Democracy and Civic Engagement Focusing on power in discussions of computing and ethics foregrounds jus- tice and equity, and is thus a critical practice that can benefit all members of society. Democratic societies are shaped, filtered, enhanced, and circum- scribed by computing technologies and the algorithms driving them, yet these interactions between society and tech- nology are often difficult to discern. Full social and political participation hinges on the ability to perceive and interro- gate these interactions. Today's and to- morrow's civically engaged actors must have access to technology and oppor tunities to develop technical skills, but they must also possess the knowledge, conceptual frameworks, and vocabular ies to make sense of, vote, protest, de- sign, and advocate for socially desirable configurations between society and technology. Centering power in con- siderations of ethics prepares people to foreground how various forms of in- justice may be disputed or reproduced when considering interactions between technology and society. A Commitment to Traversing Disciplinary Boundaries Engaging the ethics and politics of com- puting demands an unprecedented and vigorous transdisciplinary dialogue between CS and the social sciences and humanities. Computer science instructors will need to move beyond decontextualized modules on ethics or individual courses on social impact that deemphasize moral and political ques- tions. Universities will need to create learning pathways where students gain knowledge and skills to build the tech- nologies of the future as they simultane- ously develop the sensibilities and intel- lectual integrity to question, modify, or reimagine these technologies. Toward these ends, there are encour aging cross-disciplinary developments on the horizon the field should support and continue to foster. Several univer- sities with highly ranked CS programs are expanding CS learning opportuni- ties in interesting ways (for instance, Northwestern's joint Ph.D. program in cross-disciplinary developments on the horizon the field should support and continue to foster. Computer Science and the Learning Sciences, and the new interdisciplinary College of Computing at MIT). The digi- tal social sciences and humanities have started to examine the intersections of computational tools and methods in fields such as history, literature, film studies, political science, philosophy, and sociology. Liberal arts colleges are beginning to introduce technology re- quirements and offer specializations in areas such as artificial intelligence and data science. Much of this work aims to unite computational and humanistic questions in novel ways and inspire new ways of seeing and thinking about com- putation and its place in our society and lives. In middle and secondary comput- er science education, however, ethical and political dimensions of computing tend to be sidelined, including within introductory courses such as Exploring Computer Science (ECS) or CS Princi- ples. A pedagogical focus on power and ethics in K-12 CS education has the ex- citing potential to forge new disciplinary bridges between the goals and practices of CS and parallel efforts to engage youth in civics and social justice. Additionally, intentionally broadening the intellectu- al and social purposes of CS could invite a wider range of student identities. History as Our Guide For computing education as a field to rethink ethics and equity in ways called for here will undoubtedly re- quire a hard (and perhaps uncomfort- able) epistemological and pedagogical pivot. We would do well, though, to remember a rich intellectual history of thinkers in our field who have laid a foundation upon which we may build. For instance, mathematician, philoso- pher, and pacifist Norbert Wiener for- later writings, he urged the field to take seriously the ways machines may alter society in ways that would challenge the very meaning of human life." More recently, Jeannette Wing's contention that computational thinking is "a uni- versally applicable attitude and skill set [that] everyone, not just computer scientists" can learn and use' helped spark an enduring debate about com- putation's transdisciplinarity and its untapped potential to inspire new ways of seeing the world. We see much value in these early formulations, par- ticularly with regard to their emphasis on the power of computing to transform society. Highlighting power as a con- ceptual and pedagogical approach lo- cates learning about computing within a justice frame that both complements and challenges previously articulated visions for computing education. Robust understandings of power, ethics, equity, technologies, and soci- ety as called for in this column-are key for the design of future tools and artifacts rooted in deep notions of the public good and social welfare. Future generations must possess the ability to critically analyze the affordances and constraints of technological advance- ment, as well as the moral imagination and technical skill to create with com- passion and ethical integrity. References 1. Eubanks, V. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile. Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin's Press, New York, NY, 2018. 2. Herkert, JR. Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics 11.3 (Mar. 2005), 373-385 3. Margolis, J. Stuck in the Shollow End: Education, Race and Computing. MIT Press, Boston, MA, 2010. 4. Noble, S.U. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. NYU Press, NY, 2018. 5. Vakil, S. Ethics, identity, and political vision: Toward a justice-centered approach to equity in computer science education. Harvard Educational Review 88, 1 (Jan 2018), 26-52 6. Wiener, N. Some moral and technical consequences of automation Science 131. 3410 (1960), 1355-1358 7. Wing. J.M. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49, 3 (Mar. 2006), 33-35 Sepehr Vakil (sepehr.vakil@northwestern.edu) is Assistant Professor, Learning Sciences, in the School of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern University. Evanston, IL, USA. Jennifer Higgs (mhiggs@ucdavis.edu) is Assistant Professor, Learning & Mind Sciences and Language. Literacy, & Culture, in the School of Education at the University of California, Davis, CA, USA. Copyright held by authors Follow these Steps: 1. Read the article in its entirety. 2. The article can be found here: 3. Vakil & Higgs 4. Analyze the topic and the content to see how they are related. 5. Pick out the main ideas (Who, What, Why, Where...) 6. Examine the points the author uses to support the position taken. 7. Review examples to determine whether or not they reflect the arguments presented. 8. Write a summary which identifies the author's main points. Complete 1-7, and add your opinion to finish this exercise. Your two-page summary will be reviewed, and if your summary contains an organized (2 points), clearly written summary (2 points) which describes the main points and the examples (4 points), and presents your opinion (2 points), you will earn 10 points.