Hi - It seems as though participants in this thread are operating with different understandings of what constitutes "institutional bias." A critical difference is whether *intent* is necessary for bias to exist. As I understand it, institutional bias can exist in the absence of ill intent, and can even be an unintended consequence of efforts to *reduce* bias.
If something about the way we do business makes it more difficult for otherwise qualified individuals from some group to participate at a given level, then we have to admit the possibility that we have a case of institutional bias. The available remedies might be worse than the problem, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that we're any better at this stuff than any other well-meaning bunch of people, and we shouldn't pretend that privilege doesn't exist, no matter how much that conflicts with our self-image fantasy of being a meritocracy. Embracing an ideal does not mean ignoring reality. For a hopefully non-controversial example, consider how excessively idiomatic English, over-reliance on sports metaphors, and obscure cultural references all serve as barriers to participation. It doesn't matter whether I intend to exclude anyone through, for example, my use of long sentences. But if my long sentences make it too much harder for others to participate, then I *am* part of the problem, and need to think about how that effect might be mitigated. Randy
