Inclusivity or Tokenism? The only qualification the AHA was looking for was a female first name.

The proposed panel seemed like a perfect pitch at a time when scholars in many fields are studying postcolonial identity and diaspora communities. The idea was to have scholars who study different regions and time periods examine issues of collective memory and identity in post-World War II Germany, modern Pakistan, and Japanese diaspora communities.

The program committee for the next annual meeting for the American Historical Association liked the idea, too. There was just one little problem: The scholars involved are all men. “Since the AHA has a standing commitment to gender diversity on panels, the Program Committee has decided to require you to find a female participant, perhaps to serve as chair or a second commentator for your session,” said the notification the panel organizer received. Unless an acceptable additional participant is added, “we will be forced to reject your panel.”
[snip]
Ahmed and his fellow panelists have been rescued. Rebecca A. Goetz, an assistant professor of history at Rice University, is a specialist on early North American history. She wouldn’t normally have put herself forward for the panel, but since it appeared that there was only one relevant qualification (in the eyes of the AHA), and she admires the work of the scholars who might otherwise be shut out of the meeting, she has become the chair of the panel.

Ahmed said that he’s a fan of Goetz’s work, too, and has no doubt that she’ll offer some great insights, but when he sent in her name to the AHA, he just gave her name and institutional affiliation — not including any explanation of how her work would fit into the theme of the panel (the kind of explanation provided about the other panelists). No matter — the name “Rebecca” did the trick and the panel was immediately approved, no questions asked.
[snip]
While Goetz is happy to help out fellow historians, she’s more than a little annoyed about the historians’ policy — about which she previously had no idea. “It’s offensive because it installs a woman simply for the sake of having a woman on the panel,” she writes on her blog, Historianess. “I won’t be doing any serious scholarly work for this panel; I just show up and introduce my friends (I may also get to wear a t-shirt that says ‘token’). That’s a great way to encourage gender diversity: put the token in a position of little authority or consequence, just because he/she will fit the quota. Ridiculous, and offensive. In all my time in academia, I’ve never been treated this way.”

For extra credit guess the gender of the person who is president of the AHA.

Aha! You guessed.