Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

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.

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?

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.

This is not to blame any volunteer or minority. Far from it. It is to identify mode of failure by a systems approach - a social construct to communicate these ideas to the future, in this case the next set of organisers. Embedding inclusion into a social construct is not easy.

Do you actually know what you're saying, Sean? Misusing the phrase "social construct" doesn't excuse what you're doing here, which is evading responsibility for: 1/ wanting a march that is not inclusive; 2/reproducing the same mistakes as last year b/c you didn't engage last time

Oh ... I see. You think I don't want to be inclusive. I haven't said that, but I apologise if I've given you that impression. I am speaking as someone who is advocating for inclusiveness but struggling to find traction with some and trying to understand their perspectives.

I am assuming that when you say "you" you mean me personally, not people in general. I hope I understand you correctly.