I've been seeing nothing good coming out of the latest round of proposed science marches. They haven't really listened or learned a thing in one year. A shame.
-
-
Replying to @OtherSociology
I harangued
@SeanGeoghegan at 4am on the disability access plan for Canberra. He had some answers....which was more than Melb last year....who I was also haranguing3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
This really is disappointing - considering that last year, all of us (and others) spelled out exactly what best practice should look like for science marches in Australia
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
There’s only white male Science Party types running Melb this year. No disability access info on Melb event page. (Or info on who’s in charge) Just a generic email for queries and some standard inclusion lip service text.
#showmedonttellme1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
The handover to the new set of volunteers may not be the best (understatement) and I think they're trying to do their best in a shorter time than last year. Calls went out for volunteers with few answering the call.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sean I'm sure you're trying your best, but intention does not equal impact. You are perfectly parroting the same excuses from last year. "Not enough time" being one. There's *always* enough time to be inclusive. It's about what you prioritise.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @OtherSociology @DrMel_T
Agreed. It may not in their priorities due to lack of handover or awareness. A small number of volunteers and lack of effective handover increases the likelihood of it not being prioritised. We need active participation from a diverse group of people, which sometimes is missing.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
1/ Sean but your comments are still coming across poorly. You might want to reflect on your logic. Lack of handover is not an issue, since these matters were thoroughly discussed & written about in multiple news articles & documented on social media. E.g.https://othersociologist.com/sociology-of-the-march-for-science/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
2/ This is also the second time today you're alluding to the "small number of volunteers" as a problem. POC & other URM do A LOT MORE with much less volunteers & resources yet we still manage to be inclusive. And for the record, minorities do much more volunteering than others.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
3/ You're also calling into question the fact that few people volunteered to your cause and linking this to lack of "diverse" volunteers. Why would underrepresented minorities want to volunteer when you all did not listen to us last time & clearly still aren't listening?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
4/ Don't ever blame volunteers. Or minorities. The Science March agenda is exclusionary, and it is repeating the damage all over again. This thread is so reminiscent of all the abuse & gaslighting URM copped last year. We aren't the problem. Inclusion is not hard.
-
-
Agreed - inclusion is essentially not hard, however it is not on everyone's mind and we're dealing with real people. The small numbers force the organisation closer to the single-point-of-failure mode of operation.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
"Inclusion... is not on everyone's mind and we're dealing with real people." WOW Inclusion is always on our minds. Underrepresented minorities are real people. White cisgender able-bodied people aren't the universal norm, Sean. Your excuses are getting more problematic.
0 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.