Serious engagement by the authors (notably the corresponding author & the author with a Nobel Prize) with the critiques of the piece.
A thing that has happened:
Corresponding author of the piece asked a bunch of the people who posted critiques to contribute personal statements to the "Diverse Views in Science" site (which you can find here: chemistrycommunity.nature.com/channels/diver… )
Can we talk about this article (published today, simultaneously in a number of journals)?
Because I don't think it's doing the work its (many, many) authors hope it will. nature.com/articles/s4155…
Overall, this article strikes me as milquetoast. To the extent that it is staking a position, it's a position that I'd hope would be utterly uncontroversial: STEM fields should not exclude marginalized groups.
And I am delighted that the authors of the article are going on record as being against the exclusion of marginalized folks from STEM.
But being against it is a lot easier than giving an effective action plan to dismantle the structural & social arrangements of exclusion in STEM.
Just over a week ago, this video was posted: chronicle.com/article/My-Pro…
Since then, a bunch of folks have described my participation in it as brave.
To me, it does not feel particularly brave. What I said on camera was nothing that I haven’t said before.
Perhaps the first time I spoke of these things, I was brave. But now, as I keep speaking of them again hoping *something* happens this time…