If anyone is marching in D.C., please contact me. I'd love to meet up afterwards. And please stop by The Nature Conservancy tent <https://www.nature.org/science-in-action/april-22-march-for-science.xml>, too!
Best Kat Katharine L. Leigh My Linkedin <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/katharine-leigh/9a/175/482/en> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Amanda Emmel <asem...@ucdavis.edu> wrote: > Hi John, > > We are scientists, but we are also citizens (hopefully) informed by our > history. Mass movements are a tried and true way for a populace to push for > change, especially during times when certain populations have felt that > their voice is not being heard by those in power. Delegitimizing this > method of expression is common and easy nowadays with the help of corporate > media, whose execs more often than not have alignments with those being > called out by the public. Delegitimizing protest is also dangerous and > requires being pretty blind to history. > > Such wonders as the weekend, child labor laws, the minimum wage, women’s > suffrage, civil rights for folks of color, & more were all brought to you > and me by public dissent and protest! And while our society likes to > heroize individuals like Dr. MLK as if there was one messianic figure who > led us all to the light, all of these changes are the result of huge > numbers of imperfect people demanding them and working consistently. Most > mass movements (the successful ones) do in fact have well-thought out and > established complaints and goals that they are striving for, if you pay > attention and listen to those involved. > > If politicians choose to ignore science, I would argue that it is not > the scientist’s responsibility to present themselves as politically inert > in all facets to be taken seriously. If your research and methods are sound > and supported by the scientific community, there is no reason for your > integrity to be questioned by uninformed politicians. The science itself is > objective. Whether corrupt or ignorant individuals will plug their ears, we > can’t control, other than by speaking out and persistently revealing the > truth. Silencing academics has never gotten a society very far. In fact, > it’s one step in the development of fascism. > > I would encourage any activist to schedule meetings with their > representatives, but protest is an additional and valid form of expression > – we can have both. Next time you find yourself mildly inconvenienced by a > protest, or stuck behind a highway blockade, consider not dismissing the > crowd as a bunch of raucous hooligans. They’re loud because they want to be > heard, and maybe they’re angry for good reason. And not every participant > has the ability to have an artisan-made protest sign. cardboard works. Next > time, try and listen to what they’re working for and why – you might find > that you agree with them. And you can still tell your representatives all > about it. > > Respectfully, > > A.E. > > On Apr 18, 2017, at 14:10, John A. <omnipithe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I would like to know if anyone else is concerned whether scientists par= > ticipating in a march, which is inherently political, may further erode > pub= > lic confidence in science as objective and nonpartisan. > > It seems to me that given the current climate, any march in protest of = > specific policies runs the risk of being seen=E2=80=94or misrepresented=E2= > =80=94as an attack on the majority party, which would only further > reinforc= > e certain stereotypes of scientists, and make it all the easier for > politic= > ians to dismiss them as just another special-interest group that can be > saf= > ely ignored. > > The fact is that a march presents no rational arguments, invites no con= > structive dialogue and changes no minds. The format of a march lends > itsel= > f to confrontation and exclusion=E2=80=94the very opposite of the > successfu= > l engagement which science so desperately needs. Worse, it surrenders any > = > message to interpretation by the media, and may ultimately serve to > trivial= > ize the very issues the marchers had thought to support. > > I have to wonder at the effect on science policy, if every person who h= > ad planned to march instead scheduled meetings with their senator, > represen= > tative and local state delegate. A face-to-face meeting in a quiet office > = > or conference room, without the noise and shouting of a protest march, has > = > a far better chance to be effective. Politicians can always shrug off a > th= > irty-second clip on the news, especially if it shows chanting, drumming > and= > handwritten cardboard signs. But when local constituents schedule an appo= > intment and present their concerns like professionals, the information has > = > a better chance of being considered and remembered. > > Not all politicians will make themselves available, to their discredit;= > but for those that do, a face-to-face meeting opens the prospect of real d= > ialogue and follow-up contacts, with the potential for long-term exchange. > = > I would suggest that this sort of patient, personal and nonconfrontational= > approach may be far more valuable to the scientific community than partici= > pating in a brief event which is structurally incapable of presenting > compl= > ex concerns with the nuance they deserve. > > > = > Respectfully, > > > = > J. A. > > >
