Thread by @TrevonDLogan

"You Can't Be What You Can't See" is a popular phrase we use to talk about the importance of mentoring and role models for women and underrepresented minorities in certain fields. I'm here to argue that the phrase is pure crap, is ahistorical, and actually harmful 1/N

The implicit assumption behind the phrase is that women and underrepresented minorities need role models to envision themselves doing certain things (STEM major, college graduate, etc.). This implies that these groups are inherently imitative-- they'll do as they are shown 2/N

Notice the language we use about white male innovators: bold, imaginative, groundbreaking, visionary. All of that language is about new ways of doing. Clearly, there was never an example to follow. They are allowed to be innovators and reimagine things, others need examples 3/N

Throughout history we have WAY too many examples of women, Black and Brown people who did what was never done before. More often than not, they were either ignored or punished for being innovative, or their ideas were stolen from them. Why? They couldn't be innovators. 4/N

We know many Black inventors had to create fake white men as the "inventors" of their products because that was the only way they could be brought to market. It's not about examples, it's about society unwilling to allow this innovation to come forth. 5/N

Blacks in STEM met with hostility. Like David Blackwell not being allowed to attend lectures at Princeton because he was Black, or Sadie Alexander moving into law because she could not find employment as an economist. (Whisper: if these are the role models would you do it?) 6/N

Telling the stories of these examples is to drive home the point-- there ARE examples, but they reveal a shameful truth that we haven't changed the culture of these fields very much. Look at tech 50 years ago and look at it today. Is it better? Is it worse? The same? 7/N

Instead, we are encouraging people to enter into these disciplines. But have we addressed the cultural changes needed? Even worse, we've assumed that women and URM can only imitate the example laid before them, so we've assumed innovative inferiority from the start. 8/N

Notice the other end-- the lack of innovative superiority of white men has been exposed again and again. Many of these innovators come from wealth, and many have been hailed but turn out to be frauds. Meanwhile, Blacks go without venture capital funding. Make it make sense 9/N

All of this is to say that we need to question the assumptions behind these phrases and what they imply about ability, originality, innovation, and persistence. It's not about needing an example, but being allowed to be the things that are not thought about. 10/N