Phenomenal On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7:48:50 PM UTC-7 Susan Rosine wrote:
> Wow, this was well worth reading! What a great look into the process. Van > definitely thought this out. > Thank you for posting this here! > > Susan Rosine > Brighton > > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2023, 7:08 PM Rachel Kolokoff Hopper <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> The underbelly of the decision…worth a read if you want to more fully >> understand. >> >> From Van Remsen, now former member of the NACC (North American >> Classification Committee.) If you don’t know who Van is, Google him. Posted >> here with permission from Van. >> ======= >> These are my formal comments to AOS leadership from back in early July >> from my position as Acting Chair South American Classification Committee. >> They made me swear to keep these secret until the final decision was made. >> ======= >> Comments to AOS Council from J. V. Remsen (Chair and founder, South >> American Classification Committee, and member since 1984 of North American >> Classification Committee) >> >> • Diversity and inclusion. The English Bird Names Committee report is >> antithetical to the AOS mission with respect to diversity and inclusion. >> AOS includes many people who either like eponyms for their own sake or >> would rather not meddle with them for the sake of stability. These members >> have had little opportunity to express their views. Currently, only 4.2 % >> of SACC English names are eponyms. Many supporters of this tiny “market >> share” are afraid to speak out for fear of being called racists (as has >> already happened to Kevin Winker when he published his paper analyzing >> eponym comments in a Washington Post article.) To anyone who saw that >> recent AOS-sponsored “symposium” (actually a hybrid pep rally X >> fundamentalist big-tent revival meeting) on bird names , it was clear that >> contrary views were not welcomed. >> >> • Broader impacts. I am acutely conscious of my White Privilege status >> that has helped my get where I am. However, censoring all eponyms smacks >> of an attempt to erase the cultural heritage and scientific accomplishment >> of “Western” culture in the Western Hemisphere. Extremists on the >> political right will be grateful to the AOS for providing beautiful >> propaganda for their agenda. >> >> • Financial impacts: Because AOS names are used by federal agencies, the >> cost to taxpayers of those name changes needs assessment. USFWS, USDA, >> NPS, etc. all use standardized AOS names, and this has a trickle-down >> impact on state and local agencies. They already have to deal with some >> instability due to changes in species limits, but 150 immediate changes >> represents a new level of change. Just in the bird world, think about >> 4-letter banding codes: 150 would have to be changed and 150 would become >> obsolete. >> >> • Trivialization of AOS. A typical reaction to the controversy from the >> general public and scientists in other fields is (to paraphrase colleagues >> and friends outside the bird community) “of all the problems in need of >> solutions, the AOS is focusing on THIS!” It’s a bad look for AOS. >> >> • Negative impact. The EBNC report ignores the potential impact that >> their recommendations will have on countries outside the Global North. If >> AOS adopts the proposal, it will be seen as a heavy-handed edict from the >> Global North without consideration of negative impacts. I have provided to >> President Handel a list of eponyms derived from past or present widely >> respected members of the ornithological culture of many South American >> countries, most of them citizens of those countries. >> >> • Global South. If everyone on SACC thought that canceling all eponyms >> would be an effective way to promote interest in or conservation of birds >> or remove obstacles to inclusion of under-represented groups, then we would >> be in favor of it. There is no direct evidence for any tangible, positive >> effect, other than to appease the BN4B people. In fact, I predict that the >> fallout will have the opposite effect on many in South America; see >> Pethiyagoda (2023) and Jost et al. (2023). I like to think we as a >> scientific society (AOS) base our policy changes on evidence, not rhetoric. >> >> • Justice. All but one SACC members are in favor of a case-by-case >> analysis to remove eponymous English for which continued use of that eponym >> is harmful to people or bird conservation. The argument that the simplest >> thing to do is delete all of them ignores the counterpoint that the >> simplest solution of all is to not remove any of them. Yes, the process >> will be messy for many reasons, but we have a sample size of 1 (i.e. >> McCown) that suggests that it can work, that NACC is open to that process, >> and that name changes are possible through NACC (and SACC) protocols. If >> all accusations of “criminal” activity were easy Y/N decisions, then >> democracies would not need their complex judiciary systems. To do >> otherwise is eerily reminiscent of historical purges by fascist, communist, >> and extreme religious groups. >> >> • Bird names for birds. The ENBC report takes it as a given that its new >> names will help people learn bird identification. I regard this a classic >> False Premise and will provide a separate document on this. The bottom >> line is that birds names aren’t for birds – they are for people. >> >> • Shared vision. This entire controversy saddens me. If there were a way >> to quantify the moral/political views of NACC and SACC members in some sort >> of 3D multivariate space, I suspect that resulting cloud of points would be >> statistically indistinguishable from those of the EBNC or even BN4B. We >> would be on the same side of virtually any other issue. But here we are, >> tearing each other apart over English bird names. >> >> • Personal Considerations. If AOU Council adopts EBNC recommendations, >> then I will resign from AOS and NACC, and remove SACC from AOS. This could >> be interpreted as a threat to leverage the decision but is intended only as >> a full disclosure FYI. I cannot be a part of issuing an edict from the >> Global North to the Global South. At a strictly personal, emotional level, >> I cannot be a part of cancelling Ted Parker, John O’Neill, Gary Stiles, and >> others, or several personal heroes Charles Darwin, Emilie Snethlage, Helmut >> Sick, and others. >> >> • Trying to end on a positive note. The good effect of the EBNC report is >> that it has stimulated all of us to think more aggressively of concrete >> ways to improve diversity and inclusion in AOS, particularly from the SACC >> side (see suggestions from SACC members) in terms of South Americans. >> >> And finally Van posted: >> >> Rather than respond individually to so many inquiries through Facebook >> messages, emails, and texts, here are comments that can be shared widely. >> >> Even non-bird people have likely heard about this: the American >> Ornithological Society decided to begin the process of changing the common >> names of ALL birds named for people -- you can Google the announcement for >> details. Except this was NOT the American Ornithological Society per se >> but its leadership -- a tiny % of its members. In fact, they kept this a >> secret from the membership that elected them until it was a done deal, with >> a carefully orchestrated press release. We on the North American >> Classification Committee of AOS were among the only ones contacted back in >> June about this and were given about 2 weeks to respond. AOS leaders >> demanded we keep this secret from everyone, including all other AOS >> members. Every member of the Classification Committee was strongly opposed >> to a blanket purge; we all favored due process, i.e. a case-by-case >> consideration of the names based on people accused of terrible things; we >> advocated consultations with professional historians to make sure the facts >> were correct. We were ignored. (Myself and at least one other member have >> quit so far, in protest.) >> >> The AOS prides itself on Diversity and Inclusion and in being a welcoming >> society. Clearly this does not apply to those who like eponyms, either for >> the window these name provide into the history of ornithology or >> commemoration of those who built the AOS. Nor does it apply to anyone who >> wants to keep them just because they dislike the instability that changing >> 150 names would inflict. Those 150 names are only 4.2% of the standardized >> AOS names, yet AOS leadership -- who I now refer to as the Cancel Cabal -- >> does not tolerate the views of those who don't want most of them changed, >> which is certainly more than 4.2% of AOS membership. So much for >> "welcoming" and "inclusion". Would retaining most of that tiny 4.2% have >> been too much to ask, if only for tolerance of different opinions? >> >> It was pointed out by many on NACC that such an initiative would >> trivialize the AOS and lead to ridicule along the lines of "of all the >> issues birds are facing, THIS is what the AOS is focusing on!" >> Predictably, the public ridicule has already begun. Jimmy Kimmel >> ridiculed the AOS in his monologue. Now the AOS, not just its leadership, >> looks like a bunch of clueless fools. >> >> Additional: The Decree has been issued. NACC has also been removed from >> any say in English names, even on splits it institutes, possibly in >> retaliation. The only possibility for undoing this would be for a revolt of >> Fellows and EMs, but anyone opposed to the Decree will be labeled anything >> from insensitive to racist. >> >> Everyone -- Please don't perpetuate the confusion on where the decision >> came from. NACC had nothing to do with it -- we unanimously opposed it. Nor >> is it from the AOS per se. The Edict is from AOS Council, as if it is >> speaking for all its members. >> ----------------------- >> Rachel Kolokoff Hopper >> Follow me on iNaturalist <https://www.inaturalist.org/people/2339591> >> rkhphotography.net <https://www.rkhphotography.net/> >> [email protected] >> Ft. Collins, CO >> >> >> -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cobirds?hl=en?hl=en * All posts should be signed with the poster's full name and city. Include bird species and location in the subject line when appropriate * Join Colorado Field Ornithologists https://cobirds.org/CFO/Membership/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/c3fbcfa7-748c-4abe-9f45-193eba3fb26an%40googlegroups.com.
