Learning from Discomfort

All learning begins when our comfortable ideas turn out to be inadequate - John Dewey

This update is meant to hold the Computer-Human Interaction community accountable to its responsibilities for solidarity with oppressed peoples. If you are here for my Neurodivergent Burnout content, this is not that. If you are an academic of any flavor, please read.

The past 5 years of CHI

In 2019, at the Association of Computing Machinery’s annual Computer-Human Interaction Conference (CHI) in Glasgow, Scotland, it was announced that CHI 2020 would take place in Honolulu, Hawai’i. By the time of this announcement, there had already been internal questioning and pushback about this decision. Indigenous Hawaiians have been protesting over-tourism and its effects on Hawai’i’s ecology and the local community since at least the 1990s. It is known that large-scale international conferences have an outsized environmental impact both local to the selected venue and globally from fossil fuel emissions. Yet the Committee responsible for venue selection pressed on. Announcements are not made until a contract for the venue has already been signed, and certain financial obligations are made binding.

That summer, the protests by locals against the defacing of Mauna Kea by a new telescope development on the Island of Hawai’i reached international recognition, although protests had been ongoing against construction on this site since as early as 2009. Despite the spiritual significance of the mountain to Kānaka Maoli and the area’s unique and fragile ecologies, research projects continued to exploit the mountaintop for telescope development, where many projects have been built without permission and some have even since been abandoned.

In 2020, the global coronovirus pandemic caused the event, along with many others to be canceled. However, the CHI Executive Committee did not authorize the cancelation until WHO declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, allowing them to postpone the conference without breaking their contract with the venue. CHI is not unique in this, but I think it bears stating that organizations like CHI chose their financially binding contracts, and their personal devotion to CHI as a staple event for the discipline, over the mortal safety of not only its own members, but those in the community in which the events are hosted.

The pandemic also canceled CHI 2021 in Japan. However, in 2022, CHI was held as usual, in New Orleans, despite calls from the disabled community to reconsider the ongoing public health crisis, which disproportionately impacts Black communities thorughout the nation, and in New Orleans in particular. Not only did CHI 2022 go on, but many attendees, including leaders in the community, flaunted lax masking practices. Many people reported at least half of each of their organization’s attendees contracted COVID at the event.

CHI 2023 was held in Hamburg, Germany. Most attendees had abandoned masking. As expected, despite dedicated work by lower-level volunteers, there remained critical accessibility issues as a result of higher-level decisions, as has been the historic standard. It is worth noting that there was even a Crip Sit In protest organized at CHI 2019, in which the disabled community at CHI advocated for more equitable treatment by the organization, which continues to make venue choices that inhibit our participation.

I bring up this brief context to highlight that while CHI is often lauded as the star venue for Human-Computer Interaction research, it has never been welcoming to all HCI researchers. Marginalized scholars remain excluded through negligence and active disreguard throughout all levels of the Special Interest Group’s hierarchy. Those scholars that have made it through to larger rooms of power have been repeatedly victimized for speaking out against the systemic harms of the status quo.

Which brings us to today.

CHI 2024 is to be held in Honolulu, Hawai’i. And though there has been dissent about this decision among members of the Steering Committee and Executive Committee, no public statement on this choice had been made until a few days ago. The statement comes in reaction to Dr. Josiah Hester’s call for a CHI boycott. Dr. Hester is the ONLY Kānaka Maoli faculty in the ACM SIGCHI community, according to our own surveys. His isolation speaks to the systemic exclusion of Indigenous people in academia.

Dr. Hester’s call for a boycott comes after the devastating West Maui fires, which have utterly destroyed the historic community of Lahaina, which has remained a central site for Indigenous leadership for centuries. Dr. Hester has provided all the information necessary to understand the historic fight for Indigenous sovereignty in Hawai’i, the resistance to tourism, the causes and consequences of the fires, and even provides a comprehensive decision chart to help those scholars who feel unsure of their options. The site provides clear and direct connections between individual actions and larger systemic consequences for the local people, making certain to convey that this is not an idealistic or metaphorical exercise in conscientious objection but a call for direct action guided by pragmatic and nuanced concerns.

Any genuine teaching will result, if successful, in someone's knowing how to bring about a better condition of things than existed earlier. - John Dewey

CHI’s statement is utterly inadequate and devastatingly impersonal, irreflective, and unconvincing. They begin with a dismissive and inaccurate summation of the concerns against a CHI in Hawai’i, limiting them to a metaphorical and superficial understanding of decolonization and as a general environmental concern, rather than as a specific and direct plea from the local community which will suffer direct material consequences as conferences continue to convene in a grief-stricken, resourcce-deprived community. The steering committee does not consider this participation in resource hoarding, ecological contamination, and grief voyeurism to be a “Force Majeure” for cancelation and transition to Virtual-only offerings for the 2024 cycle. For context, the “Force Majeure” is the requirement by which a venue contract can be broken without financial consequence, meaning that the committee is chosing to let a contract which benefits an oil and gas corporation dictate their moral actions.

Other arguments made by the committee include an appeal to the financial consequences to the broader SIGCHI community, the professional consequences to the Organizing Committee, and to vulnerable students and early career scholars.

These arguments are disengenous and disrespectful. Everyone calling for cancellation fully understands that there will be fincancial consequences. Those consequences are logical consequences of making the bad decision to schedule the conference in Hawai’i in the first place. Saying outright that these consequences will limit SIGCHI’s ability to support marginalized scholars just belies the truth — support for disadvantaged scholars has never been a priority. Furthermore, the financial consequences to the local people of Hawai’i are far greater, as it has been proven time and again that the tourism industry does not benefit the Indigenous people or even the local economy in any meaningful way.

Secondly, the Organizing Committee cannot allow themselves to be used as a shield against critique and resistance. Organizing Committee members are slected after venue selection, and are often put in the position of making the best out of the circumstances they are given. That said, I personally call on the Organizing Committee to resist in-person CHI 2024. Your integrity in the face of this controversy is far more valuable to our community than your commitment to a historically exclusive system of power.

Finally, many people have come out in defense of “vulnerable students and early career scholars” who will be impacted by the loss of a critical networking event. They also use this veneer of vulnerability to defend why people cannot boycott submissions to CHI, as it is often claimed that CHI publications are an essential accolade for hiring and promotion. I’m always curious who they mean when they say vulnerable. I’ve never met a marginalized scholar who felt welcome and safe at CHI. As I detailed earlier, CHI has never been for all of us.

As part of my action to support those students and early-career scholars who will lose networking opportunities in refusing to attend CHI, I am hosting monthly mentoring sessions.

Disabusing a Myth

Now, there are some people who are truly unable to decline. Students whose advisors will threaten their assistantships if they do not participate, especially those who may also be deported from their country of study, may indeed be forced to submit, review, and volunteer for CHI.

Some faculty may have an explicit requirement for CHI publications in their tenure expectations (I'm dubious, but I know it is possible…)

For almost everybody else… here is my advice.

You've been lied to. Publications in CHI are NOT the ultimate career achievement. They are not a golden ticket to landing a job. They are not the only prestigious venue for publishing HCI work. The HCI community's fixation on CHI as the ultimate value venue is an unhealthy, manipulative, fabrication sustained by self-interested late career scholars, highly effective sponsor propaganda, and the universally exploitative academic publication model.

SIGCHI is massive, and there are several smaller CHI affiliated events that have solid quality review and publish in the same ACM Digital Library.

Many of the conferences now have associated journals. I don't know if you know this, but the Human-Computer Interaction publication model IS NOT NORMAL. It is extremely unusual to submit finished papers, undergo rapid review, acceptance and publication, and then present final, inalterable work to a room of your peers. Every other discipline uses conferences to DEVELOP AND REFINE projects— to get feedback and advice, and ultimately to craft the best possible outputs for the project. Journals are where thoughtful review of these iteratively developed works are usually conducted. In fact, there are MANY computer science departments around the globe that have to be EXPLAINED TO about the "prestige" of CHI and other conference proceedings venues. For more traditional departments, the unique nature of our conference proceedings can be a barrier to understanding and situating a candidite’s achievements.

HCI is a large discipline, and CHI is not its only top venue. HFES (Human Factors and Ergonomics Society) is also a strong venue with a great quality journal and a conference proceedings cycle. ASEE, the American Society of Engineering Education, is also a fantastic venue for work related to HCI pedagogy and education applications. IEEE has many solid journals and conference proceedings venues on a diverse array of topics, including VR/AR, ubiquitous computing, games, machine learning, and Technology and Society. The International Journal of Human Computer Studies (IJHCS) is an excellent journal that many people in CHI support. There are several humanities and technology venues that would be delighted to receive the work produced by our Critical and Sustainable Computing track, such as Techné and Catalyst, and are especially open to submissions which push traditional boundaries in form and format.

I meet students who firmly believe they cannot get a job without a CHI pub. This is absurd! We cannot let our community be held hostage to this One Venue any longer. Especially given the outsized influence of certain academic genealogies in our discipline. 

I am not saying that we should abandon CHI forever. But I am saying that the EC and SC were asked, repeatedly, well before final announcements, not to host in Hawai'i. And now we are left with no other option but to collectively demonstrate our commitment to justice. 

If you believe that HCI should be for social good, if you believe that technology should be developed ethically and deployed justly, if you believe that we are responsible for how we use technology, and for the consequences, you cannot simply participate in a CHI as Usual.

This CHI is not Usual.

It is in an occupied land where the native peoples are forced by the tourism industry into poverty. It is in a land that has been systemically neglected and left vulnerable to climate disaster. It is in a land that is currently grieving an incalculable loss of life, culture, and place. And it is in a venue that actively participates in the exploitation of local labor, and the theft of critical natural resources, including and especially WATER.

Is your career, which does not realistically hinge on this one event, in any case, truly worth complicity and compliance with this injustice?

What can you do?

Below, I provide a simple guide to supplement Dr. Hester’s existing flow chart. This guide is meant to support those CHI members who are presently already entangled with the CHI 2024 conference and are looking for actions they can take to hold CHI accountable to its unethical decision to schedule and remain in contract with a venue which exploits the Native Hawaiian Community.

These actions are most effective if they are done TOGETHER.

Collective non-participation and disruptive action is VITAL. However, just because you feel alone, this is not a reason to remain silent and avoid the discomfort of acting with integrity and conviction. Any of these actions taken alone will result in your removal from the position, the removal of your paper, etc. Taken together, we can disrupt CHI and achieve our goals for Justice.

1. For all members at any level:

   1. Decline to serve, refuse to participate in duties related to on-site activities, refuse to submit, and refuse to register UNTIL

      1. This is the easiest action to take

      2. It also abdicates any further action power you might have

      3. Done collectively it is the most devastating and powerful action

   2. Attend any and all relevant committee meetings and Town Halls with your mouth taped shut and the background provided by Josiah. Refuse to participate in discussion UNTIL…

2. For Authors

   If you wish to support Hawai'i, you should not submit your work. If you are a student in a lab and may have your assistantship canceled by your advisor for your refusal, then I understand your situation. I encourage students to form a whisper network list of Advisors that are threatening their students for their conscientious objection to CHI in Hawai'i. I encourage you to write in the acknowledgements that you were forced to submit this work against your will.

   1. Refuse to submit revisions UNTIL

   2. Refuse to submit camera ready UNTIL

   3. Prepare to release your cameraready for free to the public and Refuse to sign the author agreement.

      1. This is the most disruptive act you can take, especially when coordinated with a critical mass of colleagues.

3. For Reviewers

   1. Refuse to submit reviews UNTIL

      1. This is the most disruptive act you can take, especially when coordinated with a critical mass of colleagues.

      2. Alternatively you can organize with your ACs to hold your reviews off of PCS UNTIL

   2. Refuse to participate in discussion UNTIL

4. For ACs

   1. Refuse to recruit reviewers UNTIL

      1. This is a conscientious objection to putting reviewers in the position of an ethical dilemma until CHI resolves its ethical misconduct.

      2. Alternatively you can organize with your reviewers to hold their reviews off of PCS UNTIL

   2. Refuse to complete 2AC UNTIL

   3. Refuse to release Meta Review UNTIL

      1. This is the most disruptive act you can take, especially when coordinated with a critical mass of colleagues

5. For Student Volunteers

   1. Refuse to complete trainings UNTIL

   2. Refuse to book travel UNTIL

      1. This protects you from financial losses

      2. If you refuse to come, CHI cannot run. You are ESSENTIAL.

   3. Refuse to do your duties onsite UNTIL

      1. This is the most disruptive act you can take, especially when coordinated with a critical mass of colleagues

      2. This action is only for those SVs who are pressured into attending by their direct advisors and even funded to attend through their institution and are not booking their own travel.

UNTIL

1. CHI breaks their venue contract for Hawai'i.

2. CHI commits to robust, inclusive, accessible virtual conference options for 2024.

3. CHI arranges for virtual ticket sales to benefit the Maui People’s Fund.

For any action you take,

Submit the action you are taking and the list of these demands in writing to the the relevant committee chairs (ex. Student Volunteer Chairs or the AC of your review assignments), the Program Committee, and General Chairs.

Get connected

I understand that many people feel conflicted, and do not know how they can take action when they feel alone. Therefore, I am organizing a list of dissenters. I have been vocal about my commitments to justice in HCI since I was a student, both online, in person, and in academic writing. The data you submit will not be released to anyone, and connections to other dissenters will not be made without the express permission of all parties. My first intent is to collect data on the numbers of dissenters, and then, if possible, to coordinate action between members of volunteer groups. I am not using Google or Microsoft products to collect or store this data, nor am I using products associated with my institutional affiliation. You can enter your information in this form, if interested.

Closing notes

I have written this as myself, and not as a member of AccessSIGCHI. Although some people have helped proofread this letter, the words and actions described here are my own. I know that I will recieve criticism for the directness and harshness of my language, in particular in my conviction that the actions/inactions of members of the higher level committees are inadequate at best and unethical at worst. I am sure some will say that I have not been careful of the feelings of the many volunteers it takes to manage CHI every year.

I want to say ahead of time — I do not care. I have been assaulted at your conferences. I have been verbally abused at your conferences. I have been openly mocked by senior scholars at your conferences. I have had people try to retract my work. I have had reviewers write far more insensitive things to me than I have written here. An in-person CHI will actively participate in the theft of critical resources from a grieving community and I do not care about your feelings. Only your actions.

May the discomfort you feel lead you to new knowledge and renewed action.