Skip to main content

Let's Talk About Affirmative Action


Wanna make a room full of academics uncomfortable? Well, there are many ways to go about doing this, but among the most enjoyable and educational methods is to be the lone Black guy and say something like, "So let's talk about affirmative action!" Cue squirming and foot staring.

Well, that's basically what we at the Women in Astronomy blog were doing last week. Here's a lineup of the most recent posts:

- Joan Schmelz argues against affirmative action, with a fun plot twist!
What did I think of affirmative action? Did I think it had a place in modern academia? I answered that the physics and astronomy communities have suffered for too long under the yoke of affirmative action policies. (Not the answer you were expecting from the chair of CSWA? Please don’t stop reading here! There is a point to be made.) If policies give precedence to one gender over the other or one ethnic group over the others, then all science suffers. 
- I respond to arguments against brought forth by WiA blog readers
I certainly won't pretend that there is zero cost. There are cost-benefit considerations in any hire at any level of academia. Sometimes a department needs a radio astronomer, and this programatic consideration influences their final hiring decision. This may result in the dept. passing up a truly outstanding theorist in order to hire a radio observer. This is very unfair to theorists seeking faculty positions that year. It also means that the department didn't hire that really amazing theorist. That's a real cost. But the benefit may well outweigh that cost in the minds of the faculty in that particular department...
I think that this is one of the more important science policy issues to discuss in todays academy. My views on the subject have evolved back and forth rapidly over the past two decades. In high school, all of my friends and family were conservatives, so I was most certainly against affirmative action. Then, in college I was fairly ambivalent at first, and then I felt forced into a position of pushing it away when my campus' Minority Engineering Program director try to include me in the group. 

The reasons I was uncomfortable about joining MEP were complicated. One is that I was used to not really being accepted as a Black person, primarily because I, "talk white." Then again, I didn't have the easiest time fitting in among white people generally, because I am, in fact, Black. The other major reason is that I chafed at the idea that people thought I needed help just because I was Black, and being part of the Physics-boy culture, I didn't want people to see me as weak. In the end, I wore the African colors over my graduation robe, but I never really felt like I was a part of MEP.

Then in grad school I benefitted from a diversity program called the Chancellor's Opportunity Fellowship program, which provided me with 4 years of tuition and stipend. Again, I was afraid of being seen as weak and in need of special help because of my skin color. But then again, I wasn't about to give back four years of grad school support. I decided the best way to deal was to excel in my studies, which put extra pressure on me compared to my white peers, and I also made an effort to give back. For six years I participated in the MEP Pre-freshman science training workshop, and for four years I worked for Upward Bound. If I was going to benefit from it, I was going to give back some of my time and effort to help others, too. 

Eventually, I started recognizing the differences in my grad school experience and those of others around me. To be sure, we shared many of the same struggles. But I had additional struggles due to a constant awareness of my differentness and the social contingencies attached to my skin. Nothing like overt or institutionalized racism. But certainly a large injury caused by lots of little cuts (the concepts of microaggression and unconscious bias). 

Today, I'm a staunch defender of affirmative action policies, in their many forms. I've seen and experienced the detrimental effects of having a monochromatic field of science. I recognize how our science suffers when only a fraction of the talent pool is in play. I also recognize that I pursue my science at the pleasure of a society who lends a portion of their tax dollars to my exploration of the Universe. Black folk, latinos and women pay taxes, too. As a result, they have every bit the same right to participate as do white males. And once they do, we'll start solving long-standing scientific problems by bringing innovative approaches to bear. We'll also improve the academic work environment in the process, which will improve everyone's science. 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A view from your shut down

The Daily Dish has been posting reader emails reporting on their " view from the shutdown ." If you think this doesn't affect you, or if you know all too well how bad this is, take a look at the growing collection of poignant stories. No one is in this alone except for the nutjobs in the House. I decided to email Andrew with my own view. I plan to send a similar letter to my congressperson. Dear Andrew, I am a professor of astronomy at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). The CfA houses one of the largest, if not the largest collection of PhD astronomers in the United States, with over 300 professional astronomers and roughly 100 doctoral and predoctoral students on a small campus a few blocks west of Harvard Yard. Under the umbrella of the CfA are about 20 Harvard astronomy professors, and 50 tenure-track Smithsonian researchers. A large fraction of the latter are civil servants currently on furlough and unable to come to work. In total, 147 FTEs

back-talk begins

me: "owen, come here. it's time to get a new diaper" him, sprinting down the hall with no pants on: "forget about it!" he's quoting benny the rabbit, a short-lived sesame street character who happens to be in his favorite "count with me" video. i'm turning my head, trying not to let him see me laugh, because his use and tone with the phrase are so spot-on.

The Long Con

Hiding in Plain Sight ESPN has a series of sports documentaries called 30 For 30. One of my favorites is called Broke  which is about how professional athletes often make tens of millions of dollars in their careers yet retire with nothing. One of the major "leaks" turns out to be con artists, who lure athletes into elaborate real estate schemes or business ventures. This naturally raises the question: In a tightly-knit social structure that is a sports team, how can con artists operate so effectively and extensively? The answer is quite simple: very few people taken in by con artists ever tell anyone what happened. Thus, con artists can operate out in the open with little fear of consequences because they are shielded by the collective silence of their victims. I can empathize with this. I've lost money in two different con schemes. One was when I was in college, and I received a phone call that I had won an all-expenses-paid trip to the Bahamas. All I needed to d