A couple of days ago on Twitter,
Henry Gee, the senior editor of biological sciences at Nature, outed a
widely-read, oft-shared, and sometimes controversial anonymous blogger, Dr.
Isis. He took great glee in doing so because he didn't like some of her
blog posts in which she called out some outrageous and sexist editorial
decisions he had made (you may recall the awful "Womanspace" essay,
described and eviscerated here
by Dr. Isis), as well as her distaste for Nature’s
bleak record regarding women in the sciences. The reaction in
the scientific community online has been one of outrage that a senior,
white, male took it upon himself to out a junior woman of color, and did so in
such a publicly vindictive way, describing her as "inconsequential"
and threatening on Twitter to "add
(others) to the list" for daring to call him out for his boarish (at
best) behavior (see Michael Eisen, co-founder of PLOS, condemn Gee here.).
Please do not dismiss
this as "just happening online." Online (e.g. Twitter, blogs,
Facebook, etc.) is *exactly* the place where important discussions about gender
and color equity in the sciences occur on an hourly basis, it is *exactly* the
place where junior and other marginalized scientists are finding a voice to share doubts and build
power in a
system that constantly knocks us down, and it is *exactly* the place where a Senior Editor at the science journal with the
highest impact factor chose to publicly punish and damage an untenured
woman of color who dared to challenge him.
Please meditate on the enormity and injustice
of that.
As a biological anthropologist working
toward tenure, a paper in Nature could “make” my career. I have as-yet-untenured
colleagues at Ivies who get tsked-tsked for NOT submitting to Nature. The
reverence for impact factors requires us to consider this the pinnacle of
scientific publishing, at the same time that senior representatives of that
very same journal with public platforms show absolutely no
shame in trivializing
our efforts as scientists or our very real struggles as outsiders in the Old
White Boys Club. Struggles that make me feel like this a lot, and I actually have it
pretty easy.
This continued outsider
existence is what leads many to seek the clearly imperfect protection of an online
pseudonym. Pseudonymity
on the the internet has a long and defensible history, largely as
protection of some kind, often against reprisals by employers. Sometimes as
protection against cyber-stalking and sometimes real-life stalking and physical
assault. But another reason is that it can offer protection against the
clubbishness and bullying of privileged scholars with powers to hire, publish,
grant funds. The power to deem one as a scientist of consequence. The power to refuse
the pervasive poison that is their privilege and blindness. Henry Gee's outing
of Dr. Isis clearly illustrates the continued vulnerability of women,
people of color, and LGBTQ people speaking their truths and challenging Goliaths.
Nature may well have a binder full of
teh womenz (it’s so heavy, I hope they still have the strength to pat
themselves on the back!), but they also got a million problems, most of which
can be well visualized in a mirror, should they choose to look.
Hahahahaha! I know, I know. That's not gonna happen. So, fine. Nature, you are on my list. My list of overly inflated institutions that I've been taught to revere even when they've made it clear our kind isn't really welcome. I'm done. As long as you stand with Henry Gee and make no real efforts to change the climate for scientists like me, like Dr. Isis, like Danielle Lee, like millions of others, you won't be getting my papers (and trust me, I do some smoking hot, Nature-worthy science), you won't be getting my reverence. You don't get to push us around and have us thank you for it.
