Our panelists are discussing their journies into STEM & I'm seeing a very consistent theme of the value of historically Black colleges/universities (HBCUs).
As an HBCU grad myself, I can undoubtedly echo the value of HBCUs and the truly unique training they offer. #BlackInMicro
"You've got to he some type of super sleuth to find Black PIs working in academic spaces" - Jeffrey Handy
This is so true, and disturbingly so 😔
The topic of gatekeeping has come up once again. Institutions, are y'all listening? 👀
I'm loving this North Carolina HBCU pseudo-beef between Tina (NCAT) and Ron/Ninecia (NCCU).
As much as HBCU alums like to take jabs at one another, there's truly nothing but love there!
Dr. Scott is currently discussing the importance of well-structured programs for Black K-12 and college students to help facilitate their paths into science.
Dr. Scott and Dr. Elaine Vanterpool have both emphasized the value of the MARC program in their journey.
MARC = Maximizing Access to Research Careers. It is an NIH-funded program for minoritized students who want to pursue biomedical PhD programs. FYI, yours truly was also a MARC scholar 😉
We're thankful to have Dr. Johnna Frierson's perspective as a non-HBCU graduate, on the importance of having strong mentors at her PWIs.
She underlines that the key factors for success are the same (mentorship, support), but can be much more difficult to find at PWIs than HBCUs.
PWI = predominantly white institution
*Dr. Jeffrey Handy
• • •
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.