The presidency of Donald Trump has created a lot of social unrest. It has also resulted in significant protests. Most notably to date, The Women’s March on Washington which saw millions of people worldwide come out against Trump and his policies. The march was widely lauded but did garner significant criticism for issues of inclusion & intersectionality.
That is why it was so disappointing to discover that other movements, hoping to protest Trump or his policies were not paying attention. Trump
Trump, unsurprisingly took aim at science. He tried to stop scientific agencies from discussing scientific facts (that Trump disagrees with) on their social media. Which caused some accounts to go rogue and others to create alternate accounts that were separate from their official social media from which they share factual information.
Under this political climate, it is unsurprising that the scientific community decided to fight back. It is also unsurprising that after the success of the Women’s March that a March for Science is being proposed. Unfortunately, the organizers have not learned from the mistakes of the Women’s March.
The March for Science’s webpage does include a diversity statement. It reads,
We will both have a diversity committee and a diverse steering committee that represents people of
many backgrounds and identities.Science is done by POC, women, immigrants, LGBTQ, indigenous people,
people of all beliefs and non-belief. We hope that this diversity is reflected in both the
leadership of the march and the march itself.
This statement leaves out disability. An oversight that disabled activists have been bringing to organizers’ attention since the page was published on Jan. 21. It took them five days to respond with this tweet.
Two days after that and they still haven’t even updated the text on their website as a placeholder while they work on a comprehensive statement on inclusion.
This is concerning because the March for Science has no transparency and this lack of transparency has me worried that the leaving out of disability may be just the beginning of inclusion issues.
It is, after all, easy to throw together a generic diversity statement. It is another thing entirely to follow through. Nowhere on the webpage, Twitter or Facebook is there a list of existing organizers or a system in place to ensure inclusion and diversity. When asked about any of this they point to a painfully insufficient Google Doc. There is no way to leave feedback.
People who ask questions are given the brush off with vague statements that answers are forthcoming.
Their twitter account has over 250,000 followers which speaks to widespread interest but there is very little evidence of follow through. They appear to be primarily running on popularity rather than concrete planning.
Basic things like a date and a visible organizing structure should have been in place before any social media went live.
Another major concern is the basic lack of a clear objective or message. The goal seems to simply be to “defend science” which is commendable, particularly when the President of the United States appears to be so averse to facts.
Officially their goal is,
The March for Science is a diverse, nonpartisan group that defends and celebrates
publicly funded and publicly accessible science
as a foundation of American freedom and prosperity.
Science guides nearly every aspect of our lives and it is critical that political leaders and policymakers
support scientific research and incorporate science into their decision making.
Issues come up when the march is also billed as non-partison and other statements are made claiming that science apolitical. I don’t understand the first statement considering that this march is driven by a reaction to a very real political climate that is a response to government actions and statements.
The statements about science being apolitical, are just inaccurate and come from a very rose-tinted view of science as objective and free from bias. This is not true and the denial of a long history of scientific bias stands in direct opposition to the idea of inclusion seeing as disabled people, women, immigrants, people of colour and the LGBTQI community have been on the violent receiving end of scientific bias for centuries.
For example Darwin’s interpretation of racial superiority in “The Descent of Man” or the Canadian, American (and yes Nazi) eugenic programs. Science has predominantly existed to serve and benefit nondisabled cis straight white men. That reality is not just ancient history it is a contemporary fact.
Science is not free from bias and is not some bastion of objectivity. Science is a product of the people who create it and we currently live in a world where the fear shouldn’t just be the silencing of scientists but accountability for the people performing it.
Failure to recognize the fallibility of science is exactly how harmful science happens.
Sharing memes and platitudes about the supposed inclusiveness of the sciences obscures the reality and I’ve seen far too much of that when there has been too little concrete movement towards actual inclusion.
I have questions for the organizers of the March for Science that I would genuinely like answers for.
Who are you?
When is the march going to be?
How can you be planning T-shirt sales when there is no date set yet and so little transparency around organizing?
How diverse is the current set of organizers?
What is being done to ensure meaningful consideration of diversity at the march?
Why is the march slated as apolitical? Particularly because this march is clearly a response to a particular political climate?
Why do you think science is apolitical?
How can you defend the idea of science as apolitical when historically it has been used to predominantly benefit white cis men and has been used to dehumanize anyone who wasn’t a white cis man?
I also have some suggestions.
Get your organizational ducks in a row.
Set up a system of accountability so that your supporters know who you are.
Set a date so that planning for satellite marches can start to take place.
Create an actual document stating your goals and concerns. Something that is more realistic than “science is apolitical, for everyone and must be protected”
Talk about the actual dangers to scientific research we face and be clear who is threatening that research.
Set up a diversity team with diverse activists from within STEM fields
Stop celebrating how many twitter followers you have and actually start delivering on answers and planning.
Be more transparent about the planning process so that we aren’t stuck with vague “we’re working on it” answers.
Tell us what you are working on and give a timeline on when we can expect things to be done.
Learn from the mistakes of the Women’s March and help move us forward not backwards.
The March for Science has updated it’s diversity statement
The text now reads
In the past days, scientists have voiced concern over many issues – gag orders for government science agencies, funding freezes, and reversing science based policies. We recognize that these changes will differently and disproportionately affect minority scientists, science advocates, and the global communities impacted by these changes in American policies. Addressing these issues is imperative in understanding how recent developments will affect all people – not simply the most privileged among us. We take seriously your concerns that for this march to be meaningful, we must centralize diversity of the march’s organizers at all levels of planning. Diversity must also be reflected in the march itself —both through the mission statement and those who participate. We hear you, and thank you for your criticism. At the March for Science, we are committed to centralizing, highlighting, standing in solidarity with, and acting as accomplices with black, Latinx, Asian and Pacific Islander, indigenous, non-Christian, women, people with disabilities, poor, gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, trans, non-binary, agender, and intersex scientists and science advocates. We must work to make science available to everyone and encouraging individuals of all backgrounds to pursue science careers, especially in advanced degrees and positions. A diverse group of scientists produces increasingly diverse research, which broadens, strengthens, and enriches scientific inquiry, and therefore, our understanding of the world.
There is still no movement on a comprehensive mission statement and the website still has references to science being apolitical, which directly contradicts the new diversity statement. I took it upon myself to fix it for them
Image description: An altered screenshot from The March for Science Webpage from their FAQ section. The Question is “Isn’t science apolitical?” The original answer of “Yes. The march is non-partisan, but it is absolutely intended to have an impact on policy makers.” is crossed out with the following text added at the bottom,
No, of course it isn’t. If it was there would be no need for this march in the first place. Science has often been politicized or practiced for biased reasons. That being said this is not a partisan even. This is to champion the use of solid peer reviewed research by government. If you support that, this event is for you.
Here’s hoping that The March for Science works on the other issues I discussed in this post, or I’m genuinely concerned that the March for Science will never actually happen.