I'd like to share an interesting and inspiring #BlackInMicrobiology fact that I'm willing to bet most of you haven't heard of! (1/8)
Arthur Kornberg was a Nobel Prize winner who was known for his work concerning the biosynthesis of DNA.
In 1953, he opened his very own lab and one of his first hires was the incredible Ernest (Ernie) Simms, an African American lab technician from St. Louis. (2/8)
Despite having little formal education, Simms became revered as an excellent scientist. He was an instrumental part of the research team that eventually isolated DNA polymerase I (for which Kornberg was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1959). (3/8)
Shortly after Kornberg became the chair of the Microbiology department at Washington University in St. Louis (the same place where he, Ernie, and others made the monumental discovery),
Stanford made an incredible offer and hired almost the entire microbiology department! (4/8)
Every single member of the department left except a handful of lab technicians, including Ernie Simms...despite Kornberg seriously wanting him to go to Stanford. (5/8)
For the next two years, Ernie Simms played an extremely important role in keeping microbiology research and teaching going at WashU while the school searched for a new department chair. (6/8)
In 1971, Ernie Simms was promoted to the rank of Associate Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, despite not even having a bachelor's degree! (Talk about BRILLIANT). (7/8)
Ernie was widely known for his love of teaching students of all backgrounds and his extreme dedication to the mentorship and advancement of minoritized students at his institution. (8/8)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/Our findings suggest that student evaluations of teaching seem to measure *conformity with gendered expectations* rather than teaching quality
A cause for concern given the integration of SET data into performance profiles, and management and organisation of teaching practice
3/Before I go on, in terms of the necessarily binary reporting, it is very important to say here that we recognise the ‘pluralities inherent in gender(s)’ that complicate simple binary approaches to gender (Weerawardhana, 2018, p.189), and we do discuss this in the paper
On important background, in March 2020 the IOC recognised harassment and abuse as a current human rights challenge, and in particular recognised that LGBTQI+ athletes are at “particular risk of harm and structural discrimination”
3/n
The IOC now recognise female eligibility regulation *as an organisational violence issue* and as systemic discrimination
[I'll do another tweet thread on this later, drawing on my own research on this]
I want to address a narrative that we see around women’s sport and inclusion (particularly from those who seek to exclude trans women & women with sex variations from women’s sport), and how this narrative is part of a bigger pattern that functions to keep women small
2/n
I have been hearing more frequently the narrative that women's sport apparently exists as a 'protected category' so that women can win (because, on this account, without it no woman will ever win again)
3/n
This is:
a) *not* the reason why women's sport exists as a category,
and b) it is *not* true that no woman will ever win again.
This narrative is profoundly paternalistic and keeps women small.