Doc Hoff’s BlogBlog Project — “Girls Who Code: On the Fritz” by Lauren Savage
I’ve been sharing blogs written by my University of Delaware students since 2013. This blog, by Lauren Savage — a senior majoring in Political Science with a minor in Political Communication — was written for my National Agenda class this fall. Lauren links the gender gap in technology and computing with book bans and moral foundations. Lauren’s blog was selected by her peers as one of the best blogs of the first half of the semester.
The gender gap in the technology and computing industry has been increasing for 30 years; in 1992, 37% of computing jobs were held by women, but today that number has declined to nearly 24%. Hoping to reverse this trend, Reshma Saujani, CEO of Girls Who Code, decided to make a change. In 2019, Saujani set out to close this gap by engaging with girls through online resources, books, and clubs in schools across the country. Through this programming, the “Girls Who Code” non-profit organization promises to close the gender gap in entry-level technology and computing jobs by 2030.
Throughout their education, young women and girls are continuously discouraged from pursuing activities involving science, math, and technology, limiting their opportunities and ability to pursue careers in these fields in the future. The “Girls Who Code” book series serves as a valuable resource that allows girls to see themselves as being successful in pursuing science and technology. When school districts ban these books, it only furthers the disconnect between girls and the technology and computing industry.
An integral part of reaching girls and connecting them to the “Girls Who Code” message is through the “Girls Who Code” book series. The series features a group of girls who became friends through participating in their school’s “Girls Who Code” club. The book series allows girls who attend schools with limited access to resources, such as WIFI networks and technology, to learn about coding.
For example, in late September of this year, it was reported that a Pennsylvania school district had voted on and passed a book ban that included the Girls Who Code book series and other stories that covered LGBTQ+, women’s, and racial issues. The book ban lasted for 10 months and ended in September 2021. Jane Johnson, a representative from the Pennsylvania school district, statedLinks to an external site. stated that the district banned the “Girls Who Code” books in an attempt to “balance legitimate academic freedom with what could be literature/materials that are too activist in nature, and may lean more toward indoctrination rather than age-appropriate academic content.” In response to the school district’s statement, “Girls Who Code” CEO Reshma Saujani expressed to Business Insider reiterated the importance of the series in teaching girls how to code, stating that the ban “felt very much like a direct attack on the movement we’ve been building to get girls coding.”
The “Girls Who Code” book ban is an issue that directly impacted a small population of girls in a Pennsylvania school district, but its implications have sparked debate and conversation across the country. CEO Saujani argued that it is less about providing age-appropriate academic content and more about “controlling women and girls.” So, when dealing with a hot-button issue that involves a girl’s freedom and opportunity to learn, how can people come together to develop an understanding of this issue with which they disagree?
Perhaps the answer to solving polarizing issues, like the “Girls Who Code” book ban, lies in an individual’s ability to have productive conversations where they talk to one another on a human level. Jonathan Haidt outlines solutions to this dilemma in his book, The Righteous Mind. Haidt describes the principles of moral psychology, the first being “intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.” This means that individuals on both sides of the argument must connect in a way that is both respectful and deeply authentic or personal. People will respond better when others genuinely try to connect with them instead of approaching the disagreement in an attempt to change their opinion.
The second moral principle that Haidt presents highlights ways individuals can connect more effectively: “there’s more to morality than harm and fairness”. Each moral foundation plays an important role in how individuals can relate to each other based on their life experiences. For those on opposite sides of an issue, it may be difficult to connect based on the moral foundation influencing their opinions. Reshma Saujani expressed concern that the book ban directly attacks the movement she started to teach girls how to code. Applying the moral foundations theory to this situation, Saujani’s feelings seem to be rooted in the Liberty and Fairness foundations, because she wants to provide access to opportunities for young girls interested in computer programming. Jane Johnson and those on the other side of the debate, want to deliver age-appropriate content free from indoctrination. Thus, their feelings are fixed on fairness as they want to equip students with adequate learning materials.
There is hope; people on both sides of this conversation can connect based on their feelings of fairness, as they can on a variety of other issues that are polarizing our nation. Both Reshma Saujani and Jane Johnson want to provide the best educational experience for young girls. They can relate to one another based on their belief that these students should be treated equally. This is not to say that if everyone understood the principles of morality, the world would be free from disagreement and conflict. However, if we wish to overcome polarization, it is essential to recognize what moral foundations are at play, and how we can use them to understand each other best.
This blog was written by Lauren Savage, a senior majoring in Political Science with a minor in Political Communication, for my University of Delaware National Agenda class this fall, 2022.
