March for Science: Women in Engineering

Storify is closing and over the coming weeks, I will be migrating my posts to my blog. This is an archive of my article first published on Storify on 6 March 2017.

Indian woman solar engineer working — Storify.com/othersociology

Having already set off a thunderous round of critique the previous day on Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day, the March for Science Twitter account published a nearly identical post asking women to share the reasons why they left engineering. The response from scientists was equally critical.

With the Girl Day debacle fresh in mind, where March for Science asked “ladies” to explain the gender pay gap in engineering, the March for Science organisers tried a similar angle on 25 February 2017, again, in celebration of Girl Day. Despite the fact that the previous day’s offensive tweet had been deleted as a result of the critique, the March for Science team thought it would be wise to try again.

Are you a female who thought about doing engineering but decided against it? Why? What can the science community do better? #ScienceMarch pic.twitter.com/2Hzv2VqvRM

— March For Science (@MarchForScience) February 23, 2017

I discussed the fact that scientists had already provided useful resources and advice to enhance the March for Science diversity practices. The recurring mistakes, particularly one day to the next, were perplexing.

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834971398695092224

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834971964745756672

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834972484709437441

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834972757171425282

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834973114123497472

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834973707516817408

I noted that the March for Science history was chequered on equity and inclusion. It started with a hastily written then heavily revised diversity statement. In fact, the only reason there was a diversity statement in the first place, is that it emerged in response to critiques by people of colour scientists pointing out flaws in the march communications. After Professor Steven Pinker derided the diversity statement on Twitter, the March for Science team seemed to distance itself from its early promises on supporting diversity and intersectionality (a concept linking gender inequality to racism and other forms of social disadvantage).

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834974069455933441

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834974264373596160

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834974488915673088

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834974926658392064

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834975267172933635

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834975692609597440

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834975956058021888

Especially problematic is the fact that March for Science does not actively moderate discussions. Instead, its various social media accounts publish problematic questions and lead to controversy. At the same time, the March for Science social media administrators do not respond to conversations. When it comes to diversity in particular, this one-way approach to communication comes across as a weak commitment to inclusion.

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834976151504216065

Yea. Sigh
Yea https://t.co/fp7UP4ie57

— DNLee (@DNLee5) February 24, 2017

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834976475795210240

Equity and diversity work is difficult and requires perseverance. It is a specialist knowledge set that requires training and experience, whether through research, policy development or grassroots activism.

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834976726471999488

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834977298621181953

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834977702759149568

https://twitter.com/26pglt/status/835053370847043584

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834977948545372160

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834978145254047744

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834978393741352963

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834978807559835648

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834979245801644032

March for Science has made many promises to improve but it has not really delivered. Beyond a poor grasp of women’s issues in general, the organisers have not put a lot of public work on inclusion of people of colour; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual (LGBTQIA) people; and people with disabilities (let alone acknowledging that many people belong to more than one of these groups, which increases marginalisation).

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834979580305801216

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834979776322404352

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834979984250822656

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834980439026614272

The lack of engagement with followers is especially perplexing on diversity issues where March for Science poses sensitive questions.

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834981508813221889

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834981698899058689

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834981921868283908

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834982203742248960

March for Science seems to have a narrow definition of its audience and community by extension. The march reproduces the hierarchies and inequalities that persist in science.

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834982733210234880

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834983096336297985

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834983467968421888

March for Science relies heavily on its social media, and posts most frequently on Twitter. It is making many amateur science communication errors that are having a negative impact on their public image, specifically generating mistrust amongst underrepresented groups.

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834983741952925696

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834984591555350529

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834984871038574592

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834985026383044608

With such a high profile project and around two million followers across social media, it has been puzzling how volunteers have been selected, given there are so many experts who have offered their services.

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834985361344360448

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834985695030743040

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834985864706961408

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834986052800536576

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834986523581792256

Many scientists from underrepresented backgrounds have expressed their reticence to join the March for Science team. Without a clear framework for diversity, and following so much public miscommunication, it is hard to have faith in their internal equity processes and make the leap to join the cause.

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834986854134886400

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834987142140977152

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834987597155872768

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834987939486584832

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834988444187160577

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834988863781101568

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834989249673871361

Accessibility has been one of the major areas where March for Science is struggling to gain scientists’ confidence.

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834989724989153280

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834990010566766593

https://twitter.com/tinysapien/status/834990756389601280

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834990421059104768

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834991017006768128

Under the right guidance, all the mistakes made to date need not have taken place. Protest organisation is a specialist skill. With professional support, these issues could have been avoided long ago.

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834991499863449600

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834991733557473280

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834991997693747200

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834992315382976512

Hey, they changed their statement *gasp* what more can you expect? Meanwhile @OtherSociology is giving away free education. Go to her TL. https://t.co/i23yppALH2

— Marina (@MarinaBrownAjah) February 24, 2017

https://twitter.com/tinysapien/status/834993360494526465

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834992763745660929

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834992894314340353

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834993153736237056

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834993519903162368

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834993740922015744

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/834994414489501696

https://twitter.com/nicgaston/status/835017029627195394

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835020939330887684

https://twitter.com/nicgaston/status/835021836085690368

Response from March for Science

After its early missteps, March for Science acknowledged it needed to improve. They thanked people of colour in science for helping them see their errors. In recent times, however, the organisers have not reached out publicly to address the critiques. This is in spite of the fact that many scientists tag them in posts, let alone the public evidence of March for Science followers being attacked on the march social media posts.

White men in particular are coming to the defence of March for Science with racist attacks against underrepresented scientists who are trying to make diversity issues more visible to the organisers.

Community members are well aware of the toll of public critique. Women of colour, as well as White women and women with disabilities are doing the majority of support work in the face of this harassment. But where is March for Science’s concern for their own community?

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835371347328950272

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835371652380663808

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835372044099313664

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835372431569125377

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835372686473748480

The patterns of abuse from the public unfortunately comes with the territory of anti-racism and social justice work; however, other communities (both online and offline) take care to set up principles of public engagement. This includes explicitly disavowing abuse, and also investing in volunteers and social media managers to ensure the rules are being enforced. This helps to protect community members from attacks that can especially hurt people who are already vulnerable or marginalised, such as women of colour.

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835372921224757248

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835373357709217795

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835374085395787778

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835374501130985477

Three members of the March for Science National Committee have been doing more of the “front line” responses on behalf of March for Science: Dr Stephani Page, who curates BLACKandSTEM and who set up #MarginSci so underrepresented scientists could share concerns about March for Science; Dr Jacquelyn Gill, who has been trying to repair the diversity team’s public image of inaction; and Dr Ayana Elizabeth Johnston, who seems to have joined the National Committee more recently and is eager to extend support.

https://twitter.com/ayanaeliza/status/835327829449539584

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835379363260444672

I note that despite their valiant efforts, having three women (two women of colour and one White woman) do the bulk of the diversity work is a replication of gender inequity. Moreover, three out of over 20 core members on the central organising team is not a serious commitment to diversity by an organisation that has international influence.

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835379614776111104

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835379881881944064

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835380243812622336

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835380881472667648

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835381848482074624

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835381284008411137

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835382369666228224

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835383209361715201

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835383476224315392

March for Science has placed itself in a strange position of being a political movement that is trying to be both “apolitical” and “not a political protest.” It aims to challenge social policies on science, and yet claims to be about science, “not scientists.” In short, it has the hollow shell of a protest without any strong infrastructure and commitment to social justice. This is not how transformative protests work.

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835383780508495872

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835384145568116736

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835384569075392513

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835384772486545409

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835385114070659072

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835385700178501632

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835386056052633600

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835386471494242306

March for Science took close to 24 hours before it acknowledged its poor judgement. Even then the apology lacked reflection. While noting its phrasing undermined inclusion, they said sorry for “any harm we caused” and that they’re “learning” from the feedback.

The apology lacked impact as they did not specifically address what the issue was (reinforcing gender problems in science) and what they would do to stop this from happening again. Instead, the issue was ultimately the harm they “may” have caused, rather than the actual consequences of their words.

Thanks to everyone who pointed out some problematic tweets we made recently. Language matters, especially when it comes to inclusion.

— March For Science (@MarchForScience) February 24, 2017

We are grateful to have had folks both inside AND outside the march providing useful feedback about why these tweets were wrong.

— March For Science (@MarchForScience) February 24, 2017

We're sorry for any harm we caused. We're listening, and we're learning.

— March For Science (@MarchForScience) February 24, 2017

Science is strong when we listen to each other, and make space for our many voices. We're in this for the long haul.

— March For Science (@MarchForScience) February 24, 2017

Responses from scientists

Some scientists pointed out that even a slight change in the language used by March for Science could be a good start for progressive changes. For example, avoid dated sexist words like “females” which dehumanise women.

Read the whole thread. Yes, it's hard work. But wow at least get the simple part right: don't call your colleagues "ladies" or "females". https://t.co/0KHU5l60YS

— Risa Wechsler (@RisaWechsler) February 24, 2017

https://twitter.com/rittenhousewest/status/835023538843066368

https://twitter.com/seawall/status/835030760104996864

March for Science was also encouraged to question the premise of their sexist point of view. Professor Deb Verhoeven argued that instead of asking women why they left science, why not ask men why they discriminate against women colleagues? Her emphasis was on what men could do to stop this devastating pattern, rather than leaving the burden to women, as March for Science had done.

Let's fix it: Hey males. Why do you discriminate against women? What can the engineering community do?

— deb verhoeven (@bestqualitycrab) February 24, 2017

Other scientists noted that this was simply the latest in a seemingly endless cycle of mistakes proliferated by March for Science.

seriously, @ScienceMarchDC tweeted that after similar tweet was addressed 👇 #marginsci https://t.co/lmFhwYygr8

— 😷 Cleophus Velaryon (@HeyDrWilson) February 24, 2017

Also noticed @ScienceMarchDC has separated Principles & Goals from Diversity Principles. Why?

— Dra. Mónica Feliú Mójer (@moefeliu) February 24, 2017

It is classic thinking from academia to not be inclusive but to get the heat off one's back.

— 😷 Cleophus Velaryon (@HeyDrWilson) February 24, 2017

https://twitter.com/alie_astrocyte/status/834940845019189248

https://twitter.com/IamJadehawk/status/835047948161536000

https://twitter.com/BritePauchet/status/835138592045469696

#ScienceMarch: second verse, same as the first! Just replace "ladies" with "females" and ignore all previous critiques. https://t.co/dJP7M0m1qu

— Kristen Garofali (@kgarofali) February 24, 2017

esp sad given all the detailed resources you and others have provided (for free) as part of those constructive critiques

— Kristen Garofali (@kgarofali) February 24, 2017

Wherein @IBJIYONGI again, situates #ScienceMarch & #marginsci in its political context, as have @OtherSociology, @HeyDrWilson, @DNLee5. https://t.co/R8XuCEu7US

— Dr. Dawn Bazely is @DawnBazely@mastodon.world (@dawnbazely) February 25, 2017

Other scientists highlighted the insincerity of the March for Science apology…

https://twitter.com/tinysapien/status/835264757716373508

https://twitter.com/tinysapien/status/835264825437609984

While other scientists made a connection between previous “gaffs” and the current problem. This includes: losing credibility amongst scientists committed to equity and diversity; inability to thoughtfully respond to scientific critiques; and devaluing equity and diversity work.

C'mon @ScienceMarchDC – get your act together! No point in saying "we support everyone in STEM" when continuing to do things this way #FAIL! https://t.co/HcTVVuTxzF

— Dr Carly Rosewarne (@MicrobialMe) February 24, 2017

Certain factions within #science can do better by listening to feedback and ceasing to ask questions like this #marginsci @OtherSociology https://t.co/L3FFTAuRJ3

— Dr Carly Rosewarne (@MicrobialMe) February 24, 2017

what makes you think your march has any credibility after a tweet like this.

— Joseph Kohlmann · @jkohlmann@mastodon.social (@jkohlmann) February 24, 2017

So many things wrong w/ this tweet. @OtherSociology & others did you a huge service yesterday & patiently educated you & this is the result? https://t.co/skxi66kLsZ

— Dr. Rebecca F. Johnson (@RebaFay) February 24, 2017

Nice catch here. @docfreeride @neva9257 & I talk about this ALL the time: science doesn't have agency, scientists do https://t.co/PFkhMjC8O7

— Kelly Hills (@rocza) February 24, 2017

I think they need to be more transparent about how they are running & admit they are not coping well with critique.

— Dr. Rebecca Wragg Sykes (@LeMoustier) February 24, 2017

I find ack of any real dialogue from that account engaging with critiques from actual science community baffling.

— Dr. Rebecca Wragg Sykes (@LeMoustier) February 24, 2017

"oh, just learning! We're trying! Doing our best!"

Wokeness isn't really a "learn on the job" sort of thing.

— Kelly Hills (@rocza) February 24, 2017

I get the feeling they are reluctant to bring in experts for fear of losing control/credit for march

— MC Starskull ☠️ (@Summer_Ash) February 24, 2017

yeah, they were fine with bringing in experts for march logistics, permits, etc but apparently that’s it

— MC Starskull ☠️ (@Summer_Ash) February 24, 2017

I know several ppl behind the scenes constantly pushing them on this to no effect.

— MC Starskull ☠️ (@Summer_Ash) February 24, 2017

Scientists' reliance on common sense/intuitions over DATA when it comes to E&D is fascinating

— Dr. Janet D. Stemwedel, PhD 🏳️‍🌈 (@docfreeride) February 24, 2017

https://twitter.com/sciencegeist/status/835138211613638656

https://twitter.com/cricketcrocker/status/835138651537362945

https://twitter.com/cricketcrocker/status/835138966454095873

Scientists were baffled by March for Science’s continued reluctance to bring on more experts with specialist knowledge of equity and diversity, and science communication.

https://twitter.com/niais/status/835153771017592836

Ugh. The people running the Science March DC Twitter are absolutely clueless. Please read this thread. It's super important. https://t.co/Hpxu1CnyGd

— Dani MLT(ASCP) @warkittens@infosec.exchange (@War_Kittens) February 24, 2017

honestly whoever is running the @ScienceMarchDC social media campaign needs to address this. https://t.co/zBTeBKjWXI

— yummy crunch danger cereal (@itatiVCS) February 24, 2017

this is such a perceptive point. It's all been reaction, scrambling to repair damage.

— Dr. Rebecca Wragg Sykes (@LeMoustier) February 24, 2017

Some colleagues also emphasised that a few women of colour had already provided ample advice and resources that was being ignored by March for Science. I given some examples by my followers, though I note that other people of colour, especially Dr Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, have been leading the charge.

The march for science organisers are a state. But this thread is fab: https://t.co/tazkIii8by

— Dr Dani Rabaiotti (@DaniRabaiotti) February 24, 2017

https://twitter.com/Knhannah/status/835030155022106624

https://twitter.com/Knhannah/status/835031244995862528

https://twitter.com/PlanSciCRichey/status/835110595510820864

Thank you so much for sending this from @OtherSociology. A wonderful resource in itself, let alone the refs within it.

— Ken Pfeiffer (@ttMrBarrel) February 25, 2017

https://twitter.com/lastofminerva/status/835355922272669696

https://twitter.com/nathanpboston/status/835387976796491776

Harassment

Scientists reflected on the need for better responses and leadership on diversity. Planetary scientist and geology student Divya M discussed the frustration of being asked to discuss why women leave science, when in fact women like herself reach out for help in numerous ways, only to find inaction. Sexual harassment, erosion of professional confidence and the inhospitable environment in academia make staying in science a difficult feat on a day-to-day basis.

it's 2017 and time to self-critique your claims of "diversity"/"diversity statements" with an understanding of performativity

— Dr. Divya 🍉 (@Divya_M_P) February 24, 2017

that folks advocating for "apolitical science" are choosing which data/critiques to honor demonstrates the fallacy of "objective science" 🤐

— Dr. Divya 🍉 (@Divya_M_P) February 24, 2017

ok. @ScienceMarchDC why I've almost quit space science? Because people have always promised support but never followed through. Familiar?

— Dr. Divya 🍉 (@Divya_M_P) February 24, 2017

I've been promised official disability accommodations but had them held hostage b/c of office politics #marginsci

— Dr. Divya 🍉 (@Divya_M_P) February 24, 2017

I've reported men who've sexually and racially harassed me (as a minor) and seen no results #marginsci

— Dr. Divya 🍉 (@Divya_M_P) February 24, 2017

I've witnessed the compacency around #astrosh as friends and peers were afraid to continue their grad studies #marginsci

— Dr. Divya 🍉 (@Divya_M_P) February 24, 2017

your silence has been astounding but not new, + ironically relevant to your question last night and today #marginsci

— Dr. Divya 🍉 (@Divya_M_P) February 24, 2017

I've expressed discomfort w/sexual harassment @ ancillary science events & admins said my language was accusatory #marginsci

— Dr. Divya 🍉 (@Divya_M_P) February 24, 2017

most people did have my safety in mind (and I'm so grateful), but institutionally? Woc in STEM are powerless #marginsci

— Dr. Divya 🍉 (@Divya_M_P) February 24, 2017

your silence tells us you're willing to remain complicit w/i this institutional power scheme. & intent =/= effect #marginsci

— Dr. Divya 🍉 (@Divya_M_P) February 24, 2017

that I'm terrified my tweets will threaten my chances at grad school? that woc are made to be afraid? Same thing #marginsci

— Dr. Divya 🍉 (@Divya_M_P) February 24, 2017

all of these phenomena – imposter syndrome, the fear tokens experience – are detailed in free social sci papers #marginsci

— Dr. Divya 🍉 (@Divya_M_P) February 24, 2017

Accessibility

Other scientists and educators noted that accessibility remains a clear gap in March for Science operations. Event planning requires accessibility considerations from the very beginning, yet despite this being pointed out by numerous scientists, the organisers of the march seem to have made little progress.

https://twitter.com/tinysapien/status/834990756389601280

https://twitter.com/tinysapien/status/834991122078392320

https://twitter.com/tinysapien/status/834993360494526465

Summer Ash reshared some of the comments she had made during the recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting, which also had trouble addressing accessibility. Even a simple issue like roaming microphones for the crowd make an event restrictive for those who can’t walk up to a standing microphone. From small to big issues, accessibility considerations must be anticipated and catered for as part of the planning process. Again, there is a wealth of information on this, starting with the discussions on #AccessibleOrganizingMeans.

here’s one of my AAAS tweets: https://t.co/cPTrKANybY

— MC Starskull ☠️ (@Summer_Ash) February 24, 2017

Dear @aaas: my first time here, but do you really not have mics/volunteers for questions? This SEVERELY restricts who can ask Q. #AAASmtg

— MC Starskull ☠️ (@Summer_Ash) February 17, 2017

.@aaas this makes your meeting inaccessible to some of your members, audience & excludes them from participating. NOT COOL#AAASmtg #ableism https://t.co/7PaUs4D4bQ

— MC Starskull ☠️ (@Summer_Ash) February 17, 2017

.@aaas why are no speakers repeating the questions from the un-mic-ed audience? This is like Meetings 101. #AAASmtg

— MC Starskull ☠️ (@Summer_Ash) February 17, 2017

March for Science is also setting up barriers by not including people with disabilities as part of its leadership team and by not responding to and supporting the needs of disabled scientists.

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835173739671138305

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835174111785566212

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835174736158060544

As noted, Dr Jacquelyn Gill is on the March for Science National Committee. She has been reaching out to individuals to respond to concerns on accessibility and inclusion. Many scientists are watching closely for changes and hope these can be made soon.

Diversity is working with social media now to improve this. Stay tuned!

— Dr. Jacquelyn Gill (@JacquelynGill) February 24, 2017

https://twitter.com/CoreyWelch_STEM/status/835130612075769857

Transgender inclusion

I have previously noted that March for Science has not mentioned LGBTQIA people at all in its public communication. This pattern entrenches the erasure of gender and sexual minorities in science. Given that the Women’s March was criticised for being unwelcoming of transgender women, this is an issue that must be in the foreground of March for Science planning.

Alaina Daniels is a transgender woman middle school teacher who blends science and activism in the classroom. She is also an organiser of the New York City Trans* Teacher Network. She noted the importance of #MarginSci discussions and the multiple benefits in having a role model like herself attend the March for Science. The inclusion of Daniels and other transgender women educators and researchers is quintessential to progressive change in science.

As a #trans science teacher, I 💜@OtherSociology explanation why my students are pushed to #marginsci https://t.co/IXbN2GGTlH @ScienceMarchDC

— Alaina Daniels (@AlainaADaniels) February 24, 2017

.@OtherSociology @ScienceMarchDC They need to see people like them who are scientists and to learn science is an amazing tool for activism.

— Alaina Daniels (@AlainaADaniels) February 24, 2017

https://twitter.com/OtherSociology/status/835171677294112768

Turning away from the march

A few scientists, notably women who support intersectionality, have voiced their withdrawal of support for March for Science as a result of its continued mismanagement of diversity. Here are some examples.

Incisive thread by @OtherSociology including many reasons I can't support @ScienceMarchDC as a @nbinstem https://t.co/jHvjU3HOlH

— radhardened 📡🛰️ 🌈🍵 (@RadHardened) February 24, 2017

https://twitter.com/DanisCarrasco/status/835012181632540672

https://twitter.com/HereBeSpiders11/status/835030248962015232

Freelance journalist Brite Pauchet noted that many science organisations had publicly endorsed the March for Science, and wondered whether they’d be as supportive if they saw these exclusive dynamics.

https://twitter.com/BritePauchet/status/835192842406539265

https://twitter.com/BritePauchet/status/835194493255237633

https://twitter.com/BritePauchet/status/835195190814064644

Ramifications for March for Science Australia

Microbiologist Dr Carly attempted to engage a conversation in Australia about diversity issues. She asked the central Australian march as well as the local march in Melbourne what they planned to do about inclusion. She also challenged Australians to think about what would be unique about a march for science in Australia and how this might be communicated more broadly.

Hey @ScienceMarchAu @ScienceMarchMel have you been following the criticisms directed at @ScienceMarchDC? What are you going to do about it? https://t.co/wGGznyZQZ9

— Dr Carly Rosewarne (@MicrobialMe) February 24, 2017

https://twitter.com/DanisCarrasco/status/835018365039058945

.@DrEmmaLJohnston @dr_krystal a perspective – for @ScienceMarchAu to advocate for #science it must be inclusive. Point of difference to US

— Dr Carly Rosewarne (@MicrobialMe) February 24, 2017

What would you like to see happening? What is the best way to be inclusive?

— Dr Krystal Evans PhD (@dr_krystal) February 24, 2017

Dr Carly encouraged the Australian organisers to be proactive by reflecting on the global conversations about the central march in Washington and how to preempt such issues in Australia. It seems that the Australian organisers have not yet thought too deeply on diversity, although there is an acknowledgement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people alongside a diversity statement on their website.

.@DrEmmaLJohnston @dr_krystal is it not more important for @ScienceMarchAu to lead by example? Not just talk but do! It's much more powerful

— Dr Carly Rosewarne (@MicrobialMe) February 24, 2017

.@DrEmmaLJohnston @dr_krystal #scientists who experience exclusion at work feel the same about @ScienceMarchDC – we should do better in Oz!

— Dr Carly Rosewarne (@MicrobialMe) February 24, 2017

.@DrEmmaLJohnston @dr_krystal @ScienceMarchAu I'm opening up dialogue to find out where things are at – will it be a local focus? #marginsci

— Dr Carly Rosewarne (@MicrobialMe) February 24, 2017

.@dr_krystal @DrEmmaLJohnston @ScienceMarchAu a local focus on D&I so all can participate and have voice heard. Criticism of @ScienceMarchDC

— Dr Carly Rosewarne (@MicrobialMe) February 24, 2017

.@OtherSociology @dr_krystal @ScienceMarchAu @ScienceMarchMel yes! This can be achieved by having public faces of organising committees

— Dr Carly Rosewarne (@MicrobialMe) February 24, 2017

.@OtherSociology @dr_krystal @ScienceMarchAu @ScienceMarchMel visible diversity can be a great starting point

— Dr Carly Rosewarne (@MicrobialMe) February 24, 2017

https://twitter.com/DanisCarrasco/status/835041130282524672

.@OtherSociology @DanisCarrasco @dr_krystal @ScienceMarchAu it would be great if Oz addressed this head-on by putting it front and centre

— Dr Carly Rosewarne (@MicrobialMe) February 24, 2017

.@OtherSociology @DanisCarrasco @dr_krystal @ScienceMarchAu we can work out what it means to Australia and celebrate it, not marginalise it

— Dr Carly Rosewarne (@MicrobialMe) February 24, 2017

Yep, agree, inclusiveness (get it right) first. #ScienceMarch second.

— Richard McLellan  / kaarnka (raven/crow – Martu) (@RichardMcLellan) February 24, 2017

Hopefully the Australian march makes swift progress on diversity. As Dr Carly says, it’s one thing to say diversity matters, but another thing to actually take steps to ensure diversity is central to the activities of the march.

Summary

Even has I write there have been further issues with March for Science on diversity, which I will bring you soon. I’m afraid that this is a case study of ongoing problems, rather than a lesson of progress.

More than a series of mere “blunders” of language, as the March for Science organisers tried to downplay, the problems with diversity and the march can not easily be dismissed as “learning” mishaps.

Any grassroots organisation needs to take responsibility for its planning, transparency, public outreach and outcomes. March for Science continues to behave as if, because it is new at social protests, it has carte blanche on making mistakes. In this case, the “mistakes” reproduce the structural barriers and everyday harassment that people of colour, White women, disabled people, and LGBTQIA people face every day.

An organisation that has yet to tackle accessibility head-on is an organisation that has been set up to reproduce ableism, whether they consciously intend to or not. A social movement that hasn’t trained its committee members and outreach team to address public dialogue on inclusion is a movement that expects Whiteness to be the norm. A protest that has not put in place provisions to address the needs of LGBTIQIA people is one which does not deeply care whether gender and sexual minorities are properly represented, let alone whether they feel safe attending the march.

In short, the co-organisers are setting up an event that expects its supporters to look like the type of people that would feel comfortable at a Trump rally.

Doubtless, this is not the intention of March for Science. Without actively tackling its internal unconscious biases and the bigotry of its supporters, they will end up with a parade that does very little to bring together an accepting and multicultural community that loves science.

Social justice work is very difficult. It is expressly about changing the world. Science policies are never going to be changed by a group that is afraid to look inside itself and ask: who are we leaving out? And are we really askng for change, or are we supporting the status quo?

Gif of the day: reach for the stars

Providing public critique to a hugely popular account like March for Science is rewarded with incessant harassment, especially by White men who are relentless in their abuse. One of the ways to take away the sting and mental strain is to indulge in a little levity in conversations, particularly between women showing one another solidarity during tough discussions. In this spirit, I bring you the majestic gif of the day, thanks to Summer Ash.

During public discussions, men often try to establish their superiority by overemphasising their knowledge, even when they are not experts in our fields. Summer Ash reminds us that if White men can claim to be experts in equity and diversity in order to dismiss the importance of having underrepresented minorities at the March for Science, maybe a sociologist can pretend to build a spaceship and fly to the moon… where she can hopefully avoid online abuse as well as being called a female who must account for why she left science/Earth.