White Privilege Conference 17

Last week and this weekend I attended the 17th White Privilege Conference, held in Philadelphia. The conference examines the challenging concepts of privilege and oppression, and helps participants build strategies to advance equity and inclusion in their lives and their institutions. I was a first-time attendee. The conference was both challenging and informative, and while it was personally very enjoyable for me, it was not necessarily so for others. As a senior white male, I have a lot of privileges, and whether I intend it or not, whether I am aware or not, these privileges generally come at the expense of others. This conference does a great job of opening eyes to this inequity and to illustrating the difference between intent and impact.

White people who want to improve the experiences of others have to work against the socialization and norms of society, which convey fear of people of color, of Muslims, of transgender people, of people with disabilities, and so on. If it was possible to be unaware of this fear and its impact before, this year's presidential campaign should make it clear to anyone, regardless of her/his/their politics, that we live in a divided and troubled society.

The conference title suggests an opportunity for white people to learn about their privilege, and indeed this is a big part of the experience. But who are the teachers? Is it people of color or other white folk?

The language can be off-putting or uncomfortable to those unused to social justice terminology. A person who has never recognized their privilege, never learned how other people are treated differently, can easily deduce that being told they have privilege is the same as being told they are a bad person. My advice is to get over it, just as you got over your PhD qualifying exam. Being an astronomer conveys many privileges, and so does having a college degree or being white in a department store. What is bad is when privilege combines with stereotypes and power to create systemic oppression. By oppression I mean unfair, unequal treatment that limits the ability of others to achieve their goals or potential. It does not have to be a conscious act of the privileged.

There are plenty of examples of oppression of women in astronomy ranging from men speaking over and not giving credit to women, to biased hiring and promotion processes, all the way to sexual assault. The oppression is greater for women who are also racial, religious, or sexual minorities. While the focus of the White Privilege Conference is on race dynamics, there is a strong current of intersectionality.

The conference had a remarkable set of plenary speakers and workshops, and participants got many opportunities to see white privilege in action. This ranged from a white male speaker who took extra time and said he would do so despite being asked by the organizers to conclude his talk, to many black people bearing the burden of white people's anxiety and microaggressions. This is hard work, and those with privilege have a difficult time unless they can show great cultural humility, as described by pediatrician and social activist Melanie Tervalon.

UPenn psychologist Prof. Howard C. Stevenson summed it up very well in his concluding plenary address. "Courage is seeing yourself as the racial elephant." I recognized the truth of his statement, "You are the elephant in the room." As a senior white male, I carry that with me and must never forget. Stevenson's concluding question turned this revelation into the possibility of healing: "Are you ready?" That is, am I ready to call out the elephant of my white privilege and then to use that privilege to halt oppression and serve others?

As lawyer, activist, and inspirational speaker Vernā Myers said in her keynote, "When enough of us are willing to forfeit our privilege, then all of us get to live in justice."

Are you ready? Are you willing? Come to the next White Privilege Conference and see!

AASWOMEN Newsletter for April 15, 2016

AAS Committee on the Status of Women
Issue of April 15, 2016
eds: Daryl Haggard, Nicolle Zellner, Elysse Voyer, & Heather Flewelling

This week's issues:

1. Sexual Harassment – Changing the System I

2. AWIS Webinar Series on Sexual Harrassment

3. APS Releases Report on LGBT Climate in Physics

4. Allies and Microaggressions

5. Seven Graphs to Make You Gasp

6. How to Submit to the AASWOMEN newsletter

7. How to Subscribe or Unsubscribe to the AASWOMEN newsletter

8. Access to Past Issues

Sexual Harassment – Changing the System I

[This post is Part 1 of an expanded version of my World View column in NATURE, Change the System to Halt Harassment from 08 February 2016. Universities and their senior staff must do more to deter, detect and punish all forms of inappropriate behavior – JTS]

With the issue of sexual harassment in the news, one hopes that student groups, academic departments, and university administrators are discussing what can be done to eliminate this vile plague from our community. There are fundamental flaws in the current system where Title IX offices are set up to protect the university, where all the pressure for righting these wrongs is placed on the shoulders of young women who are often in the most vulnerable stages of their careers, and where such harassing behavior can remain an “open secret” for years if not decades. In short, we have to find a way to change the system – to train those with privilege, especially senior men, to become not only allies who can support individuals but advocates who will add their voices and prestige to fight for right, to create a “safe space” where anyone facing sexual harassment can get help and advice, and to shine a light on the harassers who still operate in the shadows, destroying careers with their unprofessional conduct.

The Women In Astronomy Blog has already published advice for anyone facing sexual harassment, but here I focus on what can be done by people with power to begin to change the system. The target audience for this post includes senior academics and department chairs, but please don’t stop reading if you are not one of these! Sometimes senior people might want to help but don’t know how, or don’t consider this is a priority, or don’t think they have time. It might be your job to show them how to help, or convince them that this is important, or persuade them that they need to make time for this. Also, if you are not a senior person now, you will be some day. When you are chair of your department, will you know what to do? 

Becoming Allies and Advocates

Many senior members of our community admitted to knowing the “open secret” mentioned above. How can it be that so many did so little for so long while so much damage was being done? Think of all those young women, undergrads at a nationally renowned university, who left the field because their professor made a creepy advance. Think of all the discoveries they could have made but never will because they left astronomy before their careers had even begun. 

AASWomen Newsletter for April 08, 2016

AAS Committee on the Status of Women
Issue of April 08, 2016
eds: Daryl Haggard, Nicolle Zellner, Elysse Voyer, & Heather Flewelling

This week's issues:

1. The Myth and Reality of Meritocracy

2. Techies

3. Review: Rise of the Rocket Girls

4. Upcoming Webinar from AWIS: "No Means No: Respond to Harassment in the Moment"

5. FACT SHEET: Breaking Down Gender Stereotypes in Media and Toys so that Our Children Can Explore, Learn, and Dream Without Limits

6. Women Are Still Perceived as Unfit for STEM Fields, a Wellesley College Study Shows

7. How to Submit to the AASWOMEN newsletter

8. How to Subscribe or Unsubscribe to the AASWOMEN newsletter

9. Access to Past Issues

Techies

Techies project by Helena Price

Techies is a portrait and interview project by Helena Price that focuses on sharing stories of people who tend to be underrepresented in the greater tech narrative. The project has two main goals: to show the outside world a more comprehensive picture of people who work in tech, and to bring a bit of attention to folks in the industry whose stories have never been heard, considered or celebrated. The belief is that storytelling is a powerful tool for social impact and positive change.

Women-in-Astronomy-Blogger Jessica Kirkpatrick was on of the 100 "techies" profiled. Her interview discusses her experience as a woman in astrophysics, a person with a disability, a woman in tech, and a Bay Area native who has watched her home town dramatically change by the rise of Silicon Valley.

Read Jessica's full interview, and interviews of 99 other underrepresented folks at Techies Project. Helena will be tweeting highlights from the interviews and posting them on Medium for the next 100 days.  Follow the project here: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Medium.

The Myth and Reality of Meritocracy

This guest post is written by Carolyn Brinkworth (she/her/hers), Director for Diversity, Education & Outreach at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. This piece is a modified excerpt from her upcoming Master’s Critique, “From Chilly Climate to Warm Reception: Experiences and Good Practices for Supporting LGBTQ Students in STEM”

One of the persistent and prevalent beliefs affecting STEM fields is the “myth of meritocracy” (McNamee & Miller, 2004) - the belief that science rewards scientists of equal aptitude with equal rewards, completely independent of their gender, ethnicity, race, or any other characteristic not related to their academic ability. The idea of meritocracy is seductive, because we’re taught that it’s the bedrock on which science is based; it’s the belief that good ideas rise to the top, and our community treats all good ideas the same, no matter who develops and presents them. Unfortunately, a raft of research clearly demonstrates that this is not the case, and if we persist in this unsubstantiated belief in meritocracy, it perpetuates an uglier myth - that the lack of diversity in STEM is due to a lack of aptitude amongst those who are underrepresented in our field. It places the blame for the underrepresentation of students of color, white women, LGBTQ students, students with disabilities, and those at the intersections of all of these identities, firmly back on those who are underrepresented, because the myth of meritocracy falsely suggests that if they were good enough, they would have risen to the top along with their ideas. The myth, in reality, creates the opposite effect of true meritocracy - a stifling of the best science and our brilliant young scientists, and a reinforcing cycle, where underrepresented scientists are less likely to be recognized for their research, which restricts their access to professional opportunities, which leads to fewer networks, and less opportunity to prove their merit in the future.

The research busting the meritocracy myth is plentiful. Many of us have already heard about the famous resume studies (Betrand & Mullainathan, 2003; Moss-Racusin et al. 2012; Equal Rights Center, 2014), in which resumes of people of color, women, and now LGBTQ people have been shown to result in fewer callbacks to interview, and a lower assessment of a candidate’s ability compared to identical resumes purporting to be from white, straight men. Alongside these classic examples of unconscious bias, there is a deep body of research that speaks to the damaging effect of STEM departmental climates, which continue to be largely male-, white-dominated, and overwhelmingly heteronormative. These studies show how departments and institutions undermine meritocracy, as they require underrepresented scientists to expend energy navigating “chilly” or hostile work/study environments rather than having the freedom to concentrate fully on their studies and research. In a study of STEM students, Seymour & Hewitt (1997) found that a student’s persistence in STEM was unrelated to their aptitude but instead depended on their ability to tolerate the difficult social aspects of majoring in STEM, and that the culture in STEM was largely oriented towards the needs of the white, male students. In a study of gender experiences in workplaces, Eisenhart & Finkel (1998) found that this cultural streamlining towards the dominant group can be invisible to all groups: both men and women in the study reported equal treatment, despite the researchers’ objective observations of inequality in the workplace in favor of the male students and employees. Johnson (2007) found that this belief in “colourblind” and “gender-blind” meritocracy can negatively affect non-white, non-male students, reporting that:


“This match between Whiteness, maleness, and the characteristics needed for success in science was hidden in this setting by the silence about race, ethnicity, and gender, which was in turn hidden by the rhetoric of meritocracy. This silence prevented students and professors from seeing how ethnic, racial, and gendered dynamics helped determine which students found it easier to thrive.”


Cech & Waidzunas (2011) describe this phenomenon in more detail for LGBTQ students in STEM, describing how STEM workplaces often, intentionally or unintentionally, promote a “technical/social duality,” with STEM students and professionals sorting characteristics into either “technical,” i.e. related to subject matter and technical expertise, and therefore highly prized, or “social,” i.e. not related to technical expertise and therefore dismissed as irrelevant. Climate and workplace issues related to gender, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and any other personal characteristic, are therefore relegated to a secondary issue, and are rarely discussed in STEM environments, despite the significant effect they can have on the well-being and persistence of students who do not fall into the white, male, heterosexual, able-bodied “norm.” In fact, any attempt to discuss issues of diversity and equity within historically white, male, heterosexual spaces can be met with significant resistance, or “blowback,” with faculty, staff, and students questioning the relevance of the topic to their workplaces (Hill, 2009). This refusal to discuss social aspects of the STEM culture can be extremely stressful to underrepresented students, who are already being required to do extensive emotional work to navigate these “chilly” climates (e.g. Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Yosso et al, 2009; Fouad et al. 2012). In many cases, the silence leads to worse academic and mental and physical health outcomes for those we should be nurturing and celebrating as they start their science careers (Meyer, 1995; Meyer, 2003; Huebner & Davis, 2007; Nadal et al. 2011; Bockting et al. 2013).


The best way to support these students is to talk about these issues, educate ourselves about our biases, look closely at our existing mechanisms and policies to ensure that they are equitable for all, and to advocate for policies that can level the playing field for those who are underrepresented in our field. I’m proud of the way that the astronomy community has increased its efforts to tackle these issues head-on, through the work of the Equity in Physics and Astronomy Facebook group, the Inclusive Astronomy 2015 conference, the work of the CSWA, CSMA, SGMA, and the newly-formed Working Group on Accessibility and Disabilities (WGAD), through the increasingly strong response to the sexual harassment incidents that have plagued and continue to plague our field, and through the many ways in which individuals are working in their own departments to create spaces for all students. It is also not enough. I encourage everyone, especially those in positions of power in our field, to read the upcoming, extensive recommendations from the Inclusive Astronomy 2015 meeting, which outline myriad ways to improve access, retention, and climate in our workplaces for underrepresented groups. It is only through taking a critical look at ourselves, our own institutions, and the climate of science as a whole, then working to affect real change, that we will be able to achieve the reality of meritocracy in the sciences, in place of the myth.

References:
Bertrand, M., Mullainathan, S. (2003). Are Emily and Brendan more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. (No. w9873). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Bockting, W.O., Miner, M.H., Romine, R.E. et al. (2013). Stigma, mental health, and
Health, 103(5), 943–951.

Cech, E. A. & Waidzunas, T. J. (2011). Navigating the heteronormativity of engineering:
the experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. Engineering Studies, 3(1), 1-24

Eisenhart, M., & Finkel, E. (1998). Women’s science: Learning and succeeding from the margins.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Equal Rights Center (2013). Federal Contractors Show Anti-LGBT Hiring Bias. Downloaded from http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/DocServer/Freedom_to_Work_6.16.14.pdf?docID=2481

Fouad, N. A., Singh, R., Fitzpatrick, M. E., Liu, J. P. (2012). STEMming the tide: Why
women leave engineering. Downloaded from
http://www.studyofwork.com/files/2011/03/NSF_Women-Full-Report-0314.pdf

Huebner, D. M., Davis, M. C., (2007). Perceived antigay discrimination and physical
health outcomes. Health Psychology, 26(5), 627-634

Hill, R. J. (2009). Incorporating queers: Blowback, backlash, and other forms of resistance
to workplace diversity initiatives that support sexual minorities. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 11(1), 37-53.

Johnson, A. C. (2007). Unintended Consequences: How Science Professors Discourage
Women of Color. Science Education, 91(5), 805-821

McNamee, S. J., Miller, R. K. (2004). The meritocracy myth. Sociation Today 2(1)

Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and
Social Behaviour, 36(1), 38-56

Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and
bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin,
129(5), 674-697.

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoli, V. L., Graham, M. J., Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students, PNAS, 109(41), 16474-16479

Nadal, K. L., Issa, M.-A., Leon, J., Meterko, V., Wideman, M. & Wong, Y. (2011).
Sexual orientation microaggressions: “Death by a thousand cuts” for lesbian, gay and
bisexual youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8(3), 234-259.

Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving. Boulder, CO: Westview Press

Yosso, T. J., Smith, W. A., Ceja, M., Solórzano, D. G., (2009). Critical race theory, racial
microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard
Educational Review, 79(4), 659-690.

AASWOMEN Newsletter for April 1, 2016

AAS Committee on the Status of Women

Issue of April 1, 2016

eds: Daryl Haggard, Nicolle Zellner, Elysse Voyer, & Heather Flewelling

This week's issues:

1. On My Side: Creating Supportive Research Group Spaces    

2. Dear Senior Astrophysicists, Physicists, and Planetary Scientists  

3. Nominate a Worthy Scientist for an AAS Prize

4. SMD seeking volunteer reviewers for proposals to Astrophysics and Planetary Science
5. House Passes Bill to Inspire Girls and Women to Enter STEM Fields

6. Women and Minorities Are Penalized for Promoting Diversity

7. SETI Institute to Lead New STEM Project with Girl Scouts: “Reaching for the Stars: NASA Science for Girl Scouts”

8.  Rising Stargirls Teaching and Activity Handbook 

9. How to Submit to the AASWomen Newsletter

10. How to Subscribe or Unsubscribe to the AASWomen Newsletter

11. Access to Past Issues of the AASWomen Newsletter

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. On My Side: Creating Supportive Research Group Spaces    

From: Jessica Kirkpatrick via womeninastronomy.blogspot.com

Reposted (with permission) from the blog of Dr. Angela Little.

Research group spaces play a key role in academia for getting feedback on work-in-progress. Getting feedback can sometimes be a scary or frustrating thing to do, depending on the culture and practices of a particular group.  In this audio piece, I talk to graduate students and the lead faculty member of a math education research group at UC Berkeley. We discuss aspects of how they try to create a constructive and supportive culture for feedback. I hope this piece is a helpful conversation-starter.

Read more and listen to the audio piece at

http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/2016/03/on-my-side-creating-supportive-research.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Dear Senior Astrophysicists, Physicists, and Planetary Scientists 

From: Josh Tan [joshuapaultan_at_gmail.com] 

An open letter to senior scientists regarding the ongoing issue of harassment in our community has been signed by more than 300 people. 

Please read it at 

https://sites.google.com/site/openlettertoseniorscience/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Nominate a Worthy Scientist for an AAS Prize

From: Heather Flewelling [heather_at_ifa.hawaii.edu]

“Some institutions are very good at nominating their outstanding faculty for AAS prizes and awards, but others are not. As a result the nomination pool does not accurately reflect the talents of the eligible astronomers.

The AAS has addressed this to some degree by allowing self-nominations for all prizes, but … some astronomers are not comfortable nominating themselves. So it's up to the rest of us to find those long-overlooked giants in the field, the rising stars at institutions that don't aggressively nominate, and the quiet but profound field-changers who don't make waves, and to get them the recognition they deserve.

But getting someone nominated is not as simple as firing off an email to the AAS Secretary. It's a lot of hard work.”

Read more at

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1118606474481&ca=b26df612-e2a9-48e3-90ff-652e02707591

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. SMD seeking volunteer reviewers for proposals to Astrophysics and Planetary Science
From: Christina Richey [christina.r.richey_at_nasa.gov] 

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate is recruiting reviewers for ROSES proposals to Astrophysics and Planetary Science. We especially encourage post-doctoral fellows and other early career scientists to volunteer. The following programs are currently listed: Astrophysics Data Analysis, Exoplanets Research, Emerging Worlds, Solar System Observations, Cassini Data Analysis, Maturation of Instruments for Solar System Exploration.

If you are interested in being a reviewer, please go to 

http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/volunteer-review-panels 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. House Passes Bill to Inspire Girls and Women to Enter STEM Fields

From: John Mather <johncm12_at_gmail.com>

“The House easily cleared legislation sponsored by Rep. Barbara Comstock that would call on NASA to continue three initiatives supporting women’s involvement in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and aerospace, and develop a plan to leverage NASA’s workforce to inspire girls to enter these fields.”

Read more at

https://www.aip.org/fyi/2016/house-passes-bill-inspire-girls-and-women-enter-stem-fields

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Women and Minorities Are Penalized for Promoting Diversity

From: Elysse Voyer [elysse.voyer_at_gmail.com]

By Stefanie K. Johnson and David R. Hekman

Roughly 85% of corporate executives and board members are white men. This number hasn’t budged for decades, which suggests that white men are continuing to select and promote other white men.

It is well known that people tend to favor and promote those who are similar to them — and that this in-group bias is problematic because it reinforces stereotypes and inequality. However, while it is a common tendency, not everyone is allowed to advocate for their own group. Sometimes when women and minorities promote their own group, it garners criticism from others.

Read more at

https://hbr.org/2016/03/women-and-minorities-are-penalized-for-promoting-diversity 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. SETI Institute to Lead New STEM Project with Girl Scouts: “Reaching for the Stars: NASA Science for Girl Scouts”

From: Heather Flewelling [heather_at_ifa.hawaii.edu]

“NASA’s Science Mission Directorate selected “Reaching for the Stars: NASA Science for Girl Scouts” as a new, 5-year space science education program that will bring together Girl Scouts with scientists, engineers and educators at NASA and beyond. 

“Reaching for the Stars” will partner the Girl Scout’s national movement for girls in grades K-12 in a variety of activities that span local troop programs, Girl Scout camps, and events like the upcoming 2017 solar eclipse that will engage girls in space science.”

Read more about this program at

http://www.seti.org/GirlScoutStars

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Rising Stargirls Teaching and Activity Handbook 

From: Aomawa Shields [ashields_at_astro.ucla.edu]

The Rising Stargirls Teaching and Activity Handbook has been released. A brief post about the handbook, with a link to download it, is available at

http://variablestargirl.com/ 

or you can downloaded the handbook directly from 

http://www.risingstargirls.org/ 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. How to Submit to the AASWOMEN newsletter

To submit an item to the AASWOMEN newsletter, including replies to topics, send email to aaswomen_at_aas.org 

All material will be posted unless you tell us otherwise, including your email address. 

When submitting a job posting for inclusion in the newsletter, please include a one-line description and a link to the full job posting. 

Please remember to replace "_at_" in the e-mail address above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. How to Subscribe or Unsubscribe to the AASWOMEN newsletter

Join AAS Women List by email: 

Send email to aaswlist+subscribe_at_aas.org from the address you want to have subscribed. You can leave the subject and message blank if you like. 

Be sure to follow the instructions in the confirmation email. (Just reply back to the email list) 

To unsubscribe by email: 

Send email to aawlist+unsubscribe_at_aas.org from the address you want to have UNsubscribed. You can leave the subject and message blank if you like. 

To join or leave AASWomen via web, or change your membership settings: 

https://groups.google.com/a/aas.org/group/aaswlist  

You will have to create a Google Account if you do not already have one, using https://accounts.google.com/newaccount?hl=en  

Google Groups Subscribe Help: 

http://support.google.com/groups/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=46606  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Access to Past Issues

http://www.aas.org/cswa/AASWOMEN.html  

Each annual summary includes an index of topics covered.