Page 64 - i1052-5173-30-10 + Annual Report

Does Our Vision of Diversity Reduce

Harm and Promote Justice?

Benjamin Keisling*, Raquel Bryant, Dept. of Geosciences, Univ. of Massachusetts, 627 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, Massachusetts
01003, USA; Nigel Golden, Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Univ. of Massachusetts, 160 Holdsworth Way, Amherst, Massachusetts
01003, USA; Laura A. Stevens**, Marine Geology and Geophysics, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, 61 Route 9W, Palisades,
New York 10964, USA; and Ellen Alexander, Dept. of Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences, Univ. of California, 595 Charles Young
Drive, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA

Geoscientists have a unique responsibility pervasive myth that is especially harmful to found to be incompatible with the diversity
to cultivate diversity among our ranks. First, geoscientists who claim multiple marginal- statements of several international organiza-
geoscience is the least diverse STEM field, ized identities (e.g., Mattheis et al., 2019). tions, the Geological Society of America
so we have the most room for improvement That dimensions of diversity are intercon- (GSA) included. Some BYU faculty members
(NSF, 2019). Second, our field faces a work- nected is central to Kimberlé Crenshaw’s saw this removal as its own kind of discrimi-
force shortage, despite growing demand for seminal analysis of Black women’s experi- nation (Abbott et al., 2019). The identities and
our expertise, due to the lack of robust mech- ence, where she coined the term intersec- perspectives of LGBTQ+ people cannot be
anisms to recruit, train, and retain diverse tionality (Crenshaw, 1989). In fact, Núñez et separated from their lived experiences of
cohorts (Wilson, 2014). Third, calling Earth al. (2019) leveraged this theoretical concept harm. Discriminating against LGBTQ+ peo-
“home” is perhaps the only common experi- to develop geoscience-specific recommen- ple in hiring is part of a larger system of dis-
ence between all people and thus access to dations for practicing intersectionality toward crimination that results in higher rates of
understanding and appreciating Earth must greater equity. harm, including homelessness, attempted sui-
not be limited by societal inequities. Decades Rather than the inclusion of one group cide, and murder (Durso and Gates, 2012;
of concerted efforts to broaden participation resulting in the exclusion of another, intersec- Human Rights Campaign, 2015; Dinno,
of marginalized groups in geoscience have tionality posits that DEI work centering indi- 2017). Our principles provide a way to distin-
resulted in no progress on a demographic viduals who are the most marginalized results guish separate experiences of harm and dis-
scale (Bromery et al., 1972; Bernard and in greater inclusion for everyone (Crenshaw, comfort: an honor code violation may be
Cooperdock, 2018). Therefore, we must go 1989). An intersectional approach to DEI asks uncomfortable, but does not cause harm.
above and beyond if we stand a chance of that we invest our energy in removing the bar- Alternative frameworks, for example those
fulfilling our responsibility. riers to participation for people who have mul- that center on treating people with “love” and/
Here we argue that efforts to advance tiple underrepresented or marginalized identi- or “kindness,” obscure the fact that difference
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the ties: those who are most at risk of being is not innate but emerges within a network of
geosciences must be rooted in a common excluded. established power relationships (Hearn and
understanding of the role of harm and justice Louvrier, 2016). As we dismantle systems of
in our vision of diversity. We provide three PRINCIPLE 2. THE ROAD TO oppression in geoscience, having opinions
principles and a set of recommendations that INCLUSION IS UNCOMFORTABLE that conflict with the core goals of inclusion
are widely applicable and relevant to the cul- FOR EVERYONE—THE MAJORITY will be uncomfortable. This is not marginal-
tural and historical specificities of our field. AND THE MARGINALIZED ization, and reckoning with our discomfort
We must not conflate being uncomfortable moves us toward greater inclusion.
PRINCIPLE 1. EVERYONE BENEFITS with being marginalized. Harm is insepara-
FROM A DIVERSE, VIBRANT ble from, and central to, marginalization. PRINCIPLE 3. WE CANNOT ASK
GEOSCIENCE COMMUNITY Therefore, the reduction of harm must be pri- MARGINALIZED PEOPLE TO DO
THAT CENTERS OUR MOST oritized in our DEI work. A recent example THE WORK TO ENSURE THEY ARE
MARGINALIZED MEMBERS from the geosciences illustrates this distinc- INCLUDED
Guiding frameworks for maximizing the tion. Last fall, advertisements for a faculty job Inclusion must not require that people
efficacy of DEI efforts can be found in the in Brigham Young University’s (BYU) geol- advocate for themselves, their own rights, or
literature. Much of this work rejects the ogy department were removed from numer- their own humanity. As Black queer writer
premise that the inclusion of one group nec- ous job boards because BYU’s honor code, and activist Audre Lorde laments, “It is the
essarily comes at the expense of others, a which prohibited “homosexual behavior,” was members of the oppressed, objectified groups

GSA Today, v. 30, https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG429GW.1. Copyright 2020, The Geological Society of America. CC-BY-NC.
* Now at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964, USA.

** Now at Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3AN, UK.

64 GSA Today | October 2020