Petition: Combating Systemic Racism in STEM

Systemic racism in higher education

August 30, 2020

The nexus of Black Lives Matter protests and a pandemic that disproportionately kills Black and Brown people

(1) highlights the need to end systemic racism, including in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

(STEM), where diversity has not meaningfully changed for decades (2). If we decry structural racism but return

to the behaviors and processes that led us to this moment, this inexcusable stagnation will continue. We urge

the Academy to combat systemic racism in STEM and catalyze transformational change.

Everyone in academia must acknowledge the role that universities—faculty, staff, and students—play in

perpetuating structural racism by subjecting students of color to unwelcoming academic cultures (3). Universities

are not level playing fields where all students have an equal opportunity to participate and succeed. The misuse

of standardized tests, like the GRE, excludes students who could have otherwise succeeded (4). Once admitted,

Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) face challenges when transitioning to college life (5) and are more

likely to be nontraditional students. Innovative pedagogies (6) and programs (7) can overcome these challenges,

including inequities in K–12 education, but are not yet widely employed throughout higher education. Reducing

structural racism in higher education will require evidence-based, institution-wide approaches that focus on

achieving equity in student learning. If we abandon the perception of “fixed” student ability, more BIPOC

students will succeed (8).

Academic culture also fails BIPOC faculty, who receive fewer federal grants due to systemic bias (9) and topic

area (10). BIPOC faculty are most likely to devote time to activities promoting diversity, which are devalued by

tenure committees and promotion review boards (11). BIPOC faculty are further disadvantaged in tenure

decisions through cultural taxation of unequal service and mentoring demands. Given these burdens, BIPOC

faculty cannot be expected to be the agents of change. Instead, nonmarginalized faculty, the most empowered

to make change, should exercise that power by joining BIPOC faculty in prioritizing recruiting, supporting, and

championing diversity. Catalyzing this culture shift in the Academy, however, will require making tenure

dependent not only on excellence in research, teaching, and service, but also meaningful contributions to

promote equity and inclusion.

The false dichotomy of “Excellence or diversity” must end. Diversity results in better, more impactful and more

innovative science (12), and it is essential to building novel solutions to challenges facing marginalized and

nonmarginalized communities. Making STEM equitable and inclusive requires actively combating racism and

bias. Every scientist should commit to reporting unfair practices to prevent the normalization of discriminatory

behavior. All faculty should examine their courses for performance disparities based on ethnicity and gender, ask

whether departmental and lab demographics reflect society at large, and work to remedy disparities. Breaking

down the barriers of systemic racism in STEM and achieving the promise of diversity, equity, and inclusion in

STEM requires unwavering dedication and real work. It is time to make the commitment to be an agent of

change.

Paul H. Barber1, Tyrone B. Hayes2, Tracy L. Johnson3, Leticia Márquez-Magaña4, and xxx signatories

1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. 2Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720,

USA. 3Department of Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. 4Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, San

Francisco, CA 94132, USA.

*Corresponding author. Email: paulbarber@ucla.edu

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1.K. Bobbins-Domingo, Anns Int. Med, 73, 233-234

2. R. E. Bernard, E. H. G. Cooperdock, Nat. Geosci. 11, 292 (2018).

3.M. Ong, C. Wright, L. L. Espinosa, G. Orfield, Harvard Educ. Rev. 81, 172 (2011).

4. C. Miller, K. Stassun, Nature 510, 303 (2014).

5. S. D. Museus, S. J. Quaye, Rev. High. Educ. 33, 67 (2009).

6. E. J. Theobald et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 6476 (2020).

7.B. Toven-Lindsey, M. Levis-Fitzgerald, P. H. Barber, T. Hasson, Increasing Persistence in Undergraduate Science Majors: A Model for Institutional Support of Underrepresented Students.

CBE–Life Sci. Educ. 14, 1 (2015).

8. E. A. Canning, K. Muenks, D. J. Green, M. C. Murphy, Sci. Adv. 5, eaau4734 (2019).

9. E. A. Erosheva et al., NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores. Science Advances 6, eaaz4868 (2020).

10.T. A. Hoppe et al., Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw7238 (2019).

11.W. R. Brown-Gaude, J. Social Work Educ. 45, 336 (2009).

12.B. Hofstra et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 9284 (2020).