Read on Twitter
As promised, here’s a thread highlighting some of the amazing points discussed at the Diversity in Neuroscience session at #SfNConnectome21! These ideas have been circulating for years & it’s such a wonderful relief to hear them articulated so well in a high-profile forum. 1/14
Community is an idea that comes up a lot when diversity & inclusion are discussed, but what’s important to realize is that finding diverse communities with whom you can identify isn’t just a matter of moral support (which is invaluable) but also a source of information; 2/14
A place where you can ask questions you might not feel comfortable asking otherwise, get relevant advice in safe environments, and see in the achievements of others the possibility of your own achievements (despite the systemic racism). 3/14
Speaking of systemic racism, we know that these include the larger issues like discriminatory admissions, hiring, and granting practices, but this also includes elements discussed less often, such as certain graduate school admission requirements: 4/14
For e.g., most research programs require lab or clinical experience, often in the form of volunteer work. Volunteering is a privilege – many students have to work while in school, and/or take care of family. These commitments don’t leave much time for anything else. 5/14
Certain programs exist which fund undergrad research positions, allowing students to get the experience needed while also providing a source of income. For this reason, some labs are eliminating volunteer positions, exclusively offering work-study positions for undergrads. 6/14
The panel also pointed out how much it means to us that this conversation is now a mainstage event rather than a backroom discussion. Recognizing the issues is of dire importance, but what’s even more critical is taking meaningful actions in the wake of these discussions. 7/14
Hiring diverse faculty, creating programs that lead to both the recruitment and **retention** of diverse students, and proper compensation for efforts to make academia a safe place for everyone are critical steps. 8/14
More often than not, a person of colour is assigned to chair an EDI committee, but isn’t compensated for this additional responsibility despite the fact that it adds to their workload. 9/14
This is what frames efforts to foster safe communities as a burden – not bc leaders don’t feel passionate about/don't enjoy the endeavour – but bc they don’t *count* in ways that are recognized by every institution either in the realm of achievement or compensation. 10/14
Another specific example here was when the founder of @BlackInNeuro pointed out that although everyone benefits from their efforts, the accomplishments of this group aren’t recognized in a way that moves the needle on her PhD, for example. 11/14
These efforts should count for something more in academia, especially because it shouldn’t have been on the students to build these communities in the first place. 12/14
Another important pt: When institutions do recognize diverse faculty, using existing mechanisms would be ideal. Why create new ones? What is achieved by a funding a separate BIPOC science award, instead of using honours that already exist, e.g. a young investigator award? 13/14
That brings me to the end of this thread, though it doesn't even come close to covering everything from the session – once again, a huge thank you to @DrJKhokhar, @FutureDrDukes, @okaysteve, Dr. Lisa Savage, & @SfNtweets for bringing this discussion into the spotlight! 14/14
