Back in 2017, we discussed why racism matters for science, in 2018 we explored the intersectionality of hate and climate denial, and in January of 2019, pointed you to now-rather-busy Professor Ibram X. Kendi’s anti-racism research. Since then, we’ve explained how racism is driving air pollution, highlighted the NAACP’s report on fossil fuel propaganda, spotlighted Nazis in conservative media and white nationalists in Oregon, reminded the environmental community of its own failings, called out the deniers attacking scientists for not being sufficiently racist, and, most recently, underlined the climate implications of redlining.
But if you’re still on the fence about the importance of anti-racism work for science and have some questions about it (or, perhaps more likely, you know others who have some catching up to do), a group of young academics have written a great FAQ on it.
Their Responses to 10 Common Criticisms of Anti-Racism Action in STEM provides the references to “scholarly literature” to which academics are accustomed, addressing some of the frequent arguments they’ve heard in opposition to anti-racism efforts in academia.
It starts (#1) with the most simple and straightforward opposition to efforts to diversify STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) by providing the evidence of racism that some still deny exists. The first evidence is the experiences of their Black and Hispanic colleagues, who themselves testify to the racism in recruitment and hiring, promotions, and other aspects of academia. The report then points to representational issues, followed by the history of science as a tool of white supremacy, from Henrietta Lacks to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, and then its present-day disparities in how the medical field thinks about and treats Black people.
Many of the responses will sound very familiar to seasoned climate change experts, for example the charge to “stick to the science” and not “politicize” STEM (#2). The authors name climate science specifically as a field where “scientific studies deal with politicized subject matter due to the implications of their findings.”
Each of the ten responses is around a page long, and written in language familiar to academics, with rigorous sourcing. Hopefully that will make it easier for those who, for example, think that because they’re personally not racist (#3), they also aren't “benefiting from the oppression of others.” The report details how the idea (#4) that who we cite, hire, award, promote and listen to in science is based solely on merit ignores (denies) the many systemic barriers BIPOC face, so those scientists who claim not to see color are in denial of racism’s impact, and how their “compliance perpetuates the system.”
Number 5 addresses systemic barriers to representation; Number 6 explains (again) how reverse racism isn't a thing; and Number 7 deconstructs the myth that "education is the great equalizer" and is sufficient on its own to eliminate systemic inequities.
Much of the latter half of the report could apply to the lack of diversity in green groups just as easily as it does the lack of diversity in academia. Number 8, in particular, has a clear climate parallel. It deals with the idea that “people should be allowed to express opinions and debate,” the same argument deniers use when complaining about being shut out of academia. The denial of institutional racism deserves no more debate than the denial of climate science, and engaging in such only elevates the denier and makes their views seem more normal in that they appear to be taken seriously as issues worth debating. Number 9 addresses whataboutist claims that addressing anti-Black racism in STEM discriminates or marginalizes efforts to combat ablesim, sexism, or discrimination against other communities of color.
Lastly though, the 10th issue is the one that talks the most about climate change, as it singles out Environmental Justice as an example of how the climate movement’s failure to incorporate diversity led to an uninspiring framing of “climate change through an academic and theoretical lens” as opposed to the EJ movement’s “lens of personal impact, driven by grassroots organizing focused on addressing the effects of environmental racism on individuals and communities of color.”
The more diverse viewpoints that are heard, incorporated and learned from, the less likely science, or climate campaigns, are to miss opportunities, alienate potential allies, and most importantly, inadvertently (or purposefully) perpetuate racial and social injustice.
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories: