The Other Sociologist

Analyzing the March for Science Diversity Discourse

Posted on Tuesday, 11 April, 2017Monday, 17 February, 2025 by Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

This article was first published on DiverseScholar, on 27 March 2017.

Given the high profile of the Women’s March against the Trump Administration on January 21, 2017, the March for Science (MfS) seeks to rally against the science policy changes, funding cuts, gag orders, and the administrative overhaul of science organisations by the Trump Government.

The March for Science is scheduled to occur globally on April 22 in over 400 cities. The aims and functions of the march have been drastically altered in the first two months of its existence, especially as the organisers began to receive critique from the scientific community regarding diversity issues. By setting up the march as being “not political” and by reproducing various problems of gender inequality, racism and other forms of exclusion, the march organisers have inadvertently created an anti-diversity discourse, which has been subsequently adopted by a vocal majority of the MfS supporter base.

In sociology, the concept of discourse describes how language comes to convey and justify dominant ways of thinking, talking, and behaving. Discourses are built around the social identities, values, interests, and power of dominant groups. This means that the stories we tell about “why things are the way they are,” reinforce the status quo, and thus justify the reasoning, policies, and practices of groups that already have institutional control.

The idea that White men are the taken-for-granted norm of what it means to be a scientist is learned early in school, and then reinforced throughout education, career progression, prestigious prizes, and the publication and funding systems. Institutional mechanisms in science serve to reinforce a discourse that naturalises White men’s dominance in science.

My article on DiverseScholar shows how the MfS organisers have come to reproduce the existing discourse of science, by normalising the interests of scientists who are White and from majority backgrounds. I present an analysis on public reactions to the third (of four) MfS diversity statements that reflect this position.

I analysed 354 comments and over 3,300 reactions to the MfS diversity statement. There were two broad response types to the March for Science diversity statement on the public Facebook page: comments were either discouraging or encouraging of the MfS diversity statement.

The discouraging comments fell into four sub-groups: people who felt that diversity was either politicising or dividing the practice of science; and those who felt that diversity was depreciating or distracting from the goals of the march more specifically.

The encouraging comments included individuals who felt uniquely positioned to be informing others about why diversity is important to the march, and supporters who thought that diversity is enhancing science more generally.

Discourses reflect the history, culture, identity, and politics of those in power. To make the MfS truly inclusive, the organisers need to think more strategically about how to manage misconceptions about science. They will also need to be more proactive in promoting a new discourse about the march.

Read more on DiverseScholar. Cross-posted on my website.

Interview: Bill Nye And The Science March

Posted on Sunday, 2 April, 2017Thursday, 25 April, 2019 by Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

I was interviewed for this article by BuzzFeed on March for Science:

“It took one tweet by one high-profile male scientist for the organisers to completely retreat from the diversity statement that they put out” Zuleyka Zevallos, a sociologist at Swinburne University in Australia, told BuzzFeed News. “It’s important because it shows that there’s a wavering commitment to diversity that is swayed by the status quo in science.”

I welcome the news of the three new honorary co-chairs of the march: Bill Nye, Dr Lydia Villa-Komoroff, and Dr Mona Hanna-Attisha, however there is a lot of work ahead to address diversity within the march. The news is also soured by the fact that Nye was going to be announced solo.

I was interviewed twice as a result. In my first interview I conveyed strong disappointment at the decision to make a White man the face of the march and noted that a woman of colour would have been a step forward. I also argued that the organisers needed to appoint transgender women and women with disabilities to address key gaps in leadership. Around this time, the STAT News article came out (for which I was also interviewed) and caused more controversy and so the organisers held off on announcing Nye. And so while these two accomplished women of colour scientists are wonderful leaders, they are, nevertheless, an afterthought. Their inclusion is also an outcome of strong negotiation by one of the women of colour on the committee and public lobbying by underrepresented scientists. Nye’s comments in this article are counter-productive:

“With respect to diversity — is that the key word here? There’s a diversity committee on the march, and they’re working this problem. I was born a dorky white guy who became an engineer. I’m playing the hand I was dealt. We can’t — this march can’t solve every problem all at once.”

The only reason Nye can make this argument – that diversity can wait and that it’s someone else’s problem – is because he’s a White man. His comments are ill informed and will only feed the detractors. Moreover, Lydia Villa-Komaroff and Mona Hanna-Attisha are practising scientists who have made a huge impact on pressing issues (insulin research and exposing lead poisoning in the Flint water crisis, respectively). It goes to the heart of problems in science that a White male personality gets top billing over more accomplished women of colour researchers.

Looking forward to better leadership moving forward, and for the march to make concrete progress on equity, inclusion and accessibility.

Whiteness in Parliamentary Debates of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act

Posted on Friday, 31 March, 2017Monday, 25 May, 2026 by Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

The front of Parliament House, showing a white building, with a colonnade façade and a four-legged steel flagpole, where the Australian flag flies. There is a paved areas and grass on either side

Politicians embody state power. They create laws and are elected to represent democracy, however, many of their decisions maintain racism and social inequality. In this sense, they personify institutional racism. A clear example is former Attorney-General George Brandis, who was one of the key drivers to amend 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. He worked alongside Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (considered a “moderate” Liberal politician), to weaken racial protections.

The March for Science Can’t Figure Out How to Handle Diversity

Posted on Thursday, 30 March, 2017Saturday, 2 February, 2019 by Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

This article was first published on Latino Rebels on 14 March 2017.

Inspired by the impact of the Women’s March, March for Science (MfS) emerged from a series of social media conversations. The ScienceMarchDC Twitter account was set up on January 24, and a Facebook page three days later. Their follower base ballooned from a couple of hundred people to thousands. At the time of writing, the Twitter account has 337,000 followers, the public Facebook page has more than 393,000 likes, and the private Facebook community has over 840,000 members. There are currently 360 satellite marches being organized in various American states and in many cities around the world.

The MfS organizers go to great pains to separate science from politics, and science from scientists, as if practice and policies are independent from practitioners. For example co-chair and biology postdoctoral fellow Dr Jonathan Berman says: “Yes, this is a protest, but it’s not a political protest.” Another co-chair, science writer Dr Caroline Weinberg, recently told The Chronicle: “This isn’t about scientists. It’s about science.” These sentiments strangely echo other highly publicized opposition to the march, and are being replicated in some of the local marches. The idea that a protest can be “not political” and that science can be separated from scientists are both political ideas. These notions privilege the status quo in science, by centring the politics, identities and values of White scientists, especially White cisgender, able-bodied men, who are less affected by changes to the aforementioned social policies.

The topic of diversity has dominated online conversations between many scientists across different nations who are interested in making MfS inclusive.

Even as the movement gained swift momentum, the leadership and mission were unclear in one key area: diversity.

Discussions over the march are important not just due to the planned demonstration. The debates matter because they reflect broader issues of diversity in science.

Harmony Day and Racism in Australia

Posted on Friday, 24 March, 2017Tuesday, 26 May, 2026 by Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

A community of migrants sit on a lawn, watching performers on a stage in the distance

On Twitter, on 21 March 2017, celebrity chef Adam Liaw started a great conversation, by tweeting: “It’s #HarmonyDay so I want to be a bit frank about race.” Australia celebrates multiculturalism on Harmony Day annually, the same day as (the frankly more significant) International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Liaw’s conversation was more aligned with this international event. Off the back of proposed changes to legal protections against racism, and two cases of racism in the arts and academia, it’s never been clearer, the importance of maintaining a sustained focus on proactively working to end racial discrimination.

Individual Racism Distracts From Structural Change

Posted on Monday, 27 February, 2017Tuesday, 26 May, 2026 by Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

The Aboriginal flag flies in the foreground against a clear blue sky, with the Australian flag in the lower background

“When we focus on the individual, or the individual instance of racism, we actually miss out on looking at society and how it continues to perpetuate these sorts of structures that discriminate against these groups of people… We seem very keen to pin it on individual people rather than actually re-imagining a society that exists and doesn’t elevate these sorts of dialogues.”

Sociology of Waiting in Line

Posted on Monday, 20 February, 2017Sunday, 21 June, 2026 by Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

When I visited the Anne Frank House, I lined up for the better part of three hours. The experience was well worth it. The house, converted into a museum, is narrow and dense with people. There is rich information about Anne, her family, her religiosity, and of course there is much education about the Holocaust. Visitors can see the fragile pages of her original journals, video interviews with her father, friends and others who have been impacted by her bravery.

People line up down the street of the Anne Frank House

Sociology of Gender in Jean Paul Gaultier’s Work

Posted on Monday, 20 February, 2017Sunday, 21 June, 2026 by Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

Purple light shines on three slender mannequins wearing sailor-themed clothing

The Jean Paul Gaultier exhibition at the National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne, made some interesting comments on gender.

Mardi Gras Fair Day at Newtown, Sydney

Posted on Sunday, 19 February, 2017Sunday, 21 June, 2026 by Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

A fair in the background, with people walking, stalls, and a van. A sign says: Fair Day

Over the weekend, in Newtown, the annual Mardi Gras Fair Day presents a family-friendly event, with hundreds of stalls, food, live music, Sports Village, DoggyWood, and many other gorgeous places to rest.