next »

[sockgumbee]

OTH--if you think the study and practice of science is devoid of ideology, I have a nice bridge to sell you--goes over the Mississippi, part of 35W. It's an engineering feat . . . More seriously, if you want a real life illustration, how many female, Native American, Latina/o, African-American, Asian-American rock-hounds/scholars do you know? Do you teach?

[I am constantly amazed that scientists think that science is pure--not sullied by the baseness of petty things like faith and love and hope.]

I'm amazed by someone who believes that science should be done differently depending upon your ethnic group.  You left out sexual orientation.  Should we expect gay geologists to reach different conclusions than straight geologists?  What about transexual geologists?  Do lesbian geologists fall into the women subgroup, the gay subgroup, or are they unique too?

I'm not saying that people don't approach any area of study without biases, we all do.  But I would say that in science, we should always strive to be aware of our biases, not celebrate them.  The goal is to have anyone be able to replicate your results, reach the same conclusions, etc. no matter what their gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

While I can understand different groups interpreting literature differently, or interpreting history differently (other, than, of course, objective facts like who was President of the U.S. in 1854), we were discussing the issue of when humans arrived in North America.  I don't think that's an issue open to interpretation based on your ethnicity or gender.  Either humans arrived over the Bering land bridge a few thousand years ago or they didn't. 

While Native American legends are interesting and may have a basis in truth, I don't believe the Navajo (Dine) legend that Shiprock in northwestern NM (Tse Bi dahi - "rock with wings") is the fossilized remnant of a great bird that carried the Dine to their homeland in the four corners area, nor do I believe that it's an Anglo-American "myth" that Shiprock is the eroded remnant of a volcanic neck.  While much can be learned about the Dine by studying their legends, I don't think you're going to learn much geology.

Rockprof, you seem like a nice reasonable person. So I ask a big favor. Please don't put words in my mouth or my post. I never said or implied that science should be done differently depending on your ethnic group. My question about "how many rock hounds do you know who are. . . " had to do with the glaring lack of people of color (and women) in the earth sciences. Is it really so hard to answer the question? I can only assume it must be because you turn it into something about my prejudice against scientific method.

Glad to know that you are willing to admit bias. One of the problems with bias though is often times we don't know the full extent of our bias. We can try but well we will always fall short.

Either they did or they did not . . . come across the Bering Strait? Hum, well even for folks that believe that to be true don't all believe that's the only way folks got here. There are new theories about multiple migrations over time via various methods. And we're talking a long time ago here. [Disclaimer, my views are different, however I give this information in the interest of balanced reporting] Anyway this leads me to one of the problems with the Bering Strait theory. The folks keep changing their minds about when it happened. That doesn't sound to 'factual' to me.

Re: Native 'myth' and hard science. What if the Dine' are speaking both literally and figuratively about the bird. Rocks move all the time. Though slowly, that would make geologic sense. But then you have to get into a different head to do that. And you have leave behind hard categories like science and myth.

Do you believe in Einstein's theory of relativity? One of the tenants is that a observer has an effect on what is observed.

I wonder if you know anything about the history of science and how politically charged it is. For instance, for many, many years only white, young healthy men were the subject of scientific study--as they were the ideal. So what might happen in a situation with old white guys, or baby whites or say white women was not important, (besides women were considered inferior men) let allow someone not white. So I ask you how many rock hounds do you know who are not white guys, like yourself? Because for many years only white men were thought capable of being able to do the kinds of thinking needed in the hard sciences. Oh, it was okey to use people of color in as part of science like the Tuskegee Experiment. And only since the 1970's has the use of women and people of color become important in perspectives on scientific findings--both as scientists themselves and being more than objects of curiosity (baring the exceptions before that). And I know I'm not talking about the earth sciences per se but I'm trying to make a point about scientific inquiry. if you take the position that if we try and be unbiased we scientists get a pass, you have to ignore an awful lot.

Sock Gumbee is tired so SG won't be writing about this anymore.

[larryc]

Hold the phone:
http://anthropology.net/2007/11/27/a-single-main-migration-across-bering-strait/

[tiooswaldo]

Yeah - but all that DNA evidence matching all that archaeological evidence matching all that linguisitic evidence is just

white guys

stuff larryc, can't you see?

[rockprof]

Regarding minorities in geology, Sockgumbee is correct in implying that there are very few.  In my experience African Americans just don't go into geology.  From professional meetings, to graduate schools, down to the CC level intro courses that I teach, I just don't see them in the field - and that's with a lot of attempts to recruit.  I have no idea why.

[malinche]

Regarding minorities in geology, Sockgumbee is correct in implying that there are very few.  In my experience African Americans just don't go into geology.  From professional meetings, to graduate schools, down to the CC level intro courses that I teach, I just don't see them in the field - and that's with a lot of attempts to recruit.  I have no idea why.

Just a minor point - African Americans are not the only underrepresented minorities in the sciences.  There are multiple reasons and factors that all interplay of one another as to why many minority groups don't make it into science/math fields.  And it all begins even before they stepped into kindergarden - they type/quality of public schools matters and does a simple thing like proper nutrition and whether a child is fed properly before and after going to school.  The US is just as segregated now as it was forty years ago, meaning that predominantly minority communities are still limited by socio-economic factors.  This translates into =if you're poor and black (or latino, American Indian, etc), you go to crappy schools. 

If you're are lucky enough to get into college, especially when no one in your family has gone before, these students tend to be practical and get degrees that the can quickly translate into economic/social gain.  First generation students in general do not consider graduate school b/c they have struggled financially to get through college and their families do not have experience with this to offer support as to how one gets through college.  And these factors only begin to touch the surface.  If your academic field does not understand or has not discussed these issues about minority recruitment, they are way behind the curve.  Any university recruiter should be able to explain to your department the challenges in recruiting minorities based on our unequal education system in the US.    And the lack of minorities is not only a problem in the sciences.  The American Historical Association has recently called the lack of minorities in history "a national crisis."  There are some good suggestions in the AHA's Perspectives that gives some good advice on how to begin recruiting minorities at the undergraduate level.  Just keep in mind that simply trying to recruit by spending money and time will not always be successful.  The success of increasing the number of minorities in academia will depend on changing the culture of minorities who struggle with the more pertinent issues of employment and housing, and changing our basic education system, including stereotypes about what subjects certain minority groups are interested in.

anyway, that's my two cents worth.

[rockprof]

Regarding minorities in geology, Sockgumbee is correct in implying that there are very few.  In my experience African Americans just don't go into geology.  From professional meetings, to graduate schools, down to the CC level intro courses that I teach, I just don't see them in the field - and that's with a lot of attempts to recruit.  I have no idea why.

Just a minor point - African Americans are not the only underrepresented minorities in the sciences.  There are multiple reasons and factors that all interplay of one another as to why many minority groups don't make it into science/math fields.  And it all begins even before they stepped into kindergarden - they type/quality of public schools matters and does a simple thing like proper nutrition and whether a child is fed properly before and after going to school.  The US is just as segregated now as it was forty years ago, meaning that predominantly minority communities are still limited by socio-economic factors.  This translates into =if you're poor and black (or latino, American Indian, etc), you go to crappy schools. 

This is really not true for our area.  I teach at a CC in a rural area.  The African-Americans and Latinos attending our institution are essentially middle class.  The never went hungry.  They attend the exact same schools all the white kids attend.  The still don't go into the physical sciences.  I think it's more of a cultural bias against going into sciences (other than medicine).

[sockgumbee]

There are a lot of reasons why people of color don't go into the Earth Sciences and other disciplines. I'm going to outline the reasons I know. Some of these reasons have been touched on already--so I don't feel like I'm writing the bible on this. Probably too long . . .

The nerd factor is a strong deterrent--both culture and lifestyle.
While not all scientists and historians have poor social skills, enough do to make the idea of working with these folks unattractive. Also its a luxury to not have to care much about personal appearance in the sense of being reasonably fashionable or kept. In that generally people will not think less of you because of this. Also a lot of people are uncomfortable with smart people of color. Want a pop culture confirmation?
Study Weird Al's video "White and Nerdy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xEzGIuY7kw&feature=related
The black dudes come into his obviously upscale, though "white bread' world at the start of the video. Every thing the title character does is upscale. Who plays badminton? Who can afford a Segway? Who can afford scads of action figures? Yeah, White and Nerdy wants to be friends with the gangstas ie black dudes who make vulgar hand signs. This video shows that being nerdy is a positive thing because even though the gangstas flip W&N off W&N is financially successful, extremely smart and seemingly secure. One thing that bothers me about this video is that I know Native Americans who play ping-pong, Latina/os who are into D&D, African-Americans who know pi to a thousand places . . . but they don't fit into the reality here. Only white guys in American mythology/popular culture can be smart and successful and it doesn't matter if they're clueless, cuz they make the rules, run the world. Nor does it matter that the minority people in the video are gangstas drinking 40 oz malt liquor out of a paper bag, instead of any number of other depictions of black or whatever people.

Most people of color I know put a lot of value on family and extended family. Which is not to say others don't but it's my white friends who are most apt to write off their family--not visit them or speak to them for years, not know what family members are doing, etc. The lifestyle of sciences often asks that people give up close family ties. And the culture supports this. So you'd be asking a person of color to give up a cultural value to become a scientist.

While poor people often don't have enough to eat, that's not always the case. Both my parent grew up poor but always had food. What's more evident with a lot of poor is lack of resources, access to resources and experiences that expose a person to knowledge and ability to negotiate different environments. While a person who is well off can have this lack of exposure also, it's less detrimental to them because they can choice to 'slum' or not. A poor person generally does not have that choice. And a person of color is going to be more likely to have to negotiate more different class and cultural worlds because of family and work worlds if they are to be 'successful' in the wider world.

The minority students you know and teach may be middle class but chances are they are one generation away from being working class or poor. Chances are they have working class or poor relatives. And just because they went to the same schools as the white kids does not mean that they necessarily have the same access to resources or have the same comfort level with school, education and the cultural at large.

Another issue is paying for school. I don't know for all other minorities but for Native American students there are some pretty wonderful grant programs for health careers.

Another issue is what the education means to the family and community. Many communities ask their best and brightest to take on careers that give back to the community in some way--one reason why health careers are popular--or to be a role model--lawyer, doctor. If you could show how a degree/career in Earth Sciences could help a person 'give back' to the community that you'd have a leg up.

Rock Prof if you have no idea why your recruitment methods work, here's some idea. Although I always felt intellectually prepared for school, culturally I felt like standing in the threshold. Even with professors I liked. Part of this is because I always had to meet my professors in their cultural comfort zone. They never had to venture out of theirs to meet me in mine. Or I would have been happy meeting in the middle. If you want to just recruit people who have dark skin or a different ethnicity, without looking at and adapting the culture of your discipline, department or school, I can't see that the situation will change.

Even though minority students might not 'do' science differently, when we look at the discipline discretely, they are often going to bring in a different set of values. If y'all can't adjust somewhat they won't come. But don't take my word for it. You should read some of the literature on why minority student stay out of the sciences, or why companies can't retain minority employees and/or poll the students you try to recruit.

Here's a big reason, when we study science in this country, its white men that get credit for discoveries, explorations. They are the big name scientists. This is disheartening, when one knows for example without the contributions of women, computers would not exist as they do today. Here's one example
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=3951187&page=1
This study generally also ignores the contributions of other cultures. What this does is create a disconnect for people of color/women. I know in my home and community there are smart capable people, yet my reality is not reflected in the education system, where at best my people are bit players at worse they are invisible.

This subject is such a hard one to write about as it's easy for some one to say--well white people are poor too, or well all white people are not nerdy. All I can stay to that is yes, but you're missing the point. If the ticket for inclusion in the sciences is that a person of color has to look like (ie dress, mannerisms, . . .), act like, think like the people who populate most of the sciences, it's just not going to happen. And what's even more insidious is that professors can say, in all honesty, that they don't try to keep people of color out. Yet the problem is that they don't try to create a culture that is welcoming.

[malinche]

Well said sockgumbee.

[conjugate]

Okay, in my time at an HBCU I saw a good many African-American students go into the sciences.  The place most of them could visualize themselves was medicine or law.  The reason?  Many of them knew, or knew of, role models — African-Americans who had earned degrees in medicine or law.  I can recall many guest speakers being invited to talk about career opportunities in cancer research, or heart disease research, or opportunities opened to minorities in a major study of heart disease amongst African-Americans, and so forth.  No geologists, no astronomers, no statisticians or physicists or accountants or electronics engineers or....

I think the discussion heretofore has neglected the role of the role model (so to speak).  In this instance, we have a chicken-and-egg problem; how do we recruit students who want role models when, in order to get role models, we need to recruit students to be role models?  Any suggestions?  Sockgumbee had a few good ideas that touched on this.

Some of Sockgumbee's other comments might have applied equally well to the biology and biochem fields, which can and do attract qualified African-Americans; so:

The lifestyle of sciences often asks that people give up close family ties. And the culture supports this. So you'd be asking a person of color to give up a cultural value to become a scientist.

That can presumably be overcome.  Perhaps the other obstacles can be overcome as well, but I don't know how to do it.  Mathematics has a shameful record in attracting minorities and women to the profession, so I'm clearly not alone.

[upanova]

Since there is no way of actually proving 'race' and many people are from mixed backgrounds, I've always wondered what would happen if someone from one category wrote down another. Why not write in "Native" since after all, we are all native somewhere?
That would show up the foolishness of the question.

[niceday]

Do you believe in Einstein's theory of relativity? One of the tenants is that a observer has an effect on what is observed.

Please... Please. Einstein's theory of relativity says nothing of the kind about people. It is of course true that being observed has an effect on sentient beings. But that has nothing to do with Einstein, theory of relativity, or with Heisenberg's work if that's what you were thinking of. Many philosophers and thinkers, and heck, probably most regular folks, have understood that for a long time.

::ducks out::

[tiooswaldo]

If a tenant is observed I imagine it changes their behavior..

(tee hee)

[petedondriac]

All this arguing about how to label people. I think the problem is that we do label people. Instead we should do our best to put on our race/ethnicity blinders and just hire whoever happens to be the best for the job. I have worked at several institutions, and oddly enough, the only truly diverse department was one that did not have an AAEO policy. By diverse faculty I mean that the composition of our faculty was representative of the general populace in any large North American city, at least upon a rough visual inspection.

Sockgumbe and Malinche started to address an interting issue I have also observed. It usually takes several generations to make a university professor. The first one makes it to high school, the next one to college, but seeks a "practical" profession, and the following generation, having lived in relative confort, then starts thinking about less practical means of making a living, in academia.  Hence, the diversity of a field is often associated with how imminently practical it happens to be (how likely it is that one would get a reasonable job upon finishing). Fields like agriculture, pest management, medicine and engineering are ethnically diverse whereas fields like medieval history, religious studies and ecology are less diverse. The pattern even occurs within a field.

I once worked at an institution that had a medical and a veterinary school side by side. Medical students were very diverse (a representative sample of people in any North American city) and many were the offspring of immigrant parents (is that 1st or 2nd generation Americans?). On the other hand, veterinary students were predominantly middle class white anglo-saxons.

I once worked at a southern university and I had to fill one of those self-identification forms. As usual I refused to classify myself. A few days later the chairman came to my office and urged me to change my "self identification" to one of the minority options. I do not consider myself a minority, but I guess he did, and obviously he did not understand the term "SELF-indentification". Which perhaps brings me to the start of this thread; contrary to what we would like to think (at least what I would like to think), when it comes to diversity and discrimination, it does not really matter what you think of yourself; what matters is what others think of you.

In any case, is it reasonable to expect a UNIversity to be really interested in DIversity?

[ttdwoc]

I attended a mandatory diversity workshop years ago where they flew in some Mexican-American diversity hotshot from California. He said "I LIKE being called Hispanic. I INSIST on being called Hispanic! Don't use [here he listed all the regular polite alternatives], they are disrespectful."

The gathered academics scribbled notes to themselves so they would not forget.

I still do not know of anyone who if asked of their heritage would say "Hispanic."  Most people identify themselves according to their country of origin or say that their parents are from Columbia, Brazil, etc.  As a historian I am conscious of the history that is attached to word Hispanic and the fact that it gives power to the colonizer and does not recognize mestizos or the indigenous people of the Americas.  I don't know how many Latinos understand the historical implications behind the term. I doubt my family does, but then again I'm the only one who has a college education.  However, I do know that many Latinos perceive the negative connotations behind this term, which is why they take more pride in saying, I am "Mexican-American," "Columbian-American" etc. 

I hope this cultural diversity big-wig was not a historian, but beyond what I've said above, I can only point to the fact that there is a reason why academics in these fields and organizations are moving away from using terms like Hispanic, Negro, and Oriental.

Malinche -I've been a lurker for several years, but your post prompted me to register so that I could respond. 

Some background:  I am part Arab-American, raised in California with family in Alta y Baja California (US and Mexico).  I grew up hearing Spanish 35-40 percent of the time, spoken by my family members and friends.

I left CA for grad school in New Mexico, where I was constantly begin corrected for using "latino/a" and told to use "hispanic" in the academy.  This is still the preferred term in NM, especially outside the academy.  I adjust my terminology when I leave the state. 

My own ethnic background is Arab, Northern European, and American Indian.  However, living in a traditional hispanic neighborhood in NM, understanding enough Spanish to follow a conversation and respond appropriately, having familia in Mexico, a husband with a first and last name that are frequently taken as 'hispanic" though he is not, plus having physical features that blend in easily here means that 9 times out of 10 I am mistakenly identified as hispanic.  I can't tell you how many times I have corrected this assumption...  I will only say that this assumption has made life easier for me than my Arab-American relatives in California; this is especially true for me flying in and out of Albuquerque. (So I guess I'm guilty of 'passing' for latina?)       

Having said all that, I'm not making any claims for using hispanic over other terms - just pointing out that here in NM it is still the preferred term.

I am very much troubled by the 'best guess" approach to tallying race...

[ttdwoc]

Argh - constantly being corrected... not begin corrected!