Diversity, Identity, and Racism in Neuroscience

A: The first question is, in your opinion, did the outcome or the discussions of the [racism in neuroscience] course differ from what you previously envisioned them to be? 

Y: I think they were more in depth, more personal, more situated to place than I ever could have imagined, and I really respected that everybody was really trying to connect it to their own work or their own lived experiences. I think that sometimes, when we talk about some of these [issues of racism in neuroscience/diversity] things, there can be a tendency to abstract and push it away from you, because it's a little more abstract. I felt just so grateful that at least to me, it felt like everybody really wanted to sit in [it] and relate it to their lives.

A: I noticed that too! I feel like [what] we consciously try to do is think about how tangibly [it] connects our work. The second [question] is: was there any particular topic that came up that was unexpected but most memorable in our discussions? Or it can be expected :)

Y: I put “futures'' [one segment about “moving forward”, one of the last discussions of the course] at the end, just because I guess it made linear sense, but I really appreciated that all throughout the class I feel like everybody was thinking about futures, maybe subconsciously thinking about if-what if this was a different reality, what if this was not the way it is, what if we had a mouse model for [for example] the Ponzi scheme, or something like that. I really enjoyed that because the whole point is that we can build different futures if we imagine them, and if we work together ... .and so that was really delightful.

A: And [the class] ended on like a positive note; there's still things we can do [to change].

Y: Totally! Another thing is that I was so happy that everybody was willing to share what brought them joy every week [in the beginning of the class students would take a moment to share what brought them joy in the past week; unrelated to course content]. I feel like sometimes I do this for [myself], because you guys [the students] have to know each other, “force” you [to] get to know each other (laugh), learn who everyone is! But I think that, to me, I felt like the class really enjoyed that, and that was really nice. 

A: I feel like we were also closer and connected after the class too, which doesn't really happen in a lot of the grad level classes, it seems very….[we go] in class and out of class we go to our own labs and do our own thing… 

A: Kind of pivoting [the topic] here, but what was your initial motivation to develop this course in the program? Was there a point in your own PhD journey or post-doc journey that you realized the issue of “racism in neuroscience” that was under-discussed?

Y: Yeah, sure! I think the motivation came probably [when] I was switching from my Phd, where I was in a Neurobiology department, to my post-doc, where I was in an Ecology and Evolution department, and even though my work is kind of at the intersection of both of those, the departments themselves are really different. Neurobio/neuroscience is really young, and Ecology and Evolution is really old, so I could see that [the field of] Ecology and Evolution was, [for] one, kind of stuck in their ways but, two, that weirdly made them more open about owning some of the really “messed up things” that have happened in that history. So much of ecology and evolution is so tied to colonialism, and I just didn't see that conversation happening in Neuro, so that was definitely one major motivation, and I think it was really important to me as somebody who's an Asian American and understanding that, as an Asian American in science, sometimes my successes or my presence in science can be used to undermine the success or the lack of other groups of people in science. That was very important for me to be like “no, I totally reject that narrative”, and I reject the desire to be close to the white power. I think that's what happens when we get pushed into the “model minority” [identity], and one way for me to do that--or one way that I think I've always been able to do that, is [through] thinking, through reading, writing, and synthesizing major topics. So that kind of naturally developed into the units that we had in class, which I found to be major themes that were coming up a lot.

A: The next [question] is, anecdotally, when other students looked at the [course] title about “Racism in Neuroscience” they were a little bit daunted that it was “neuroscience”, since there are lots of students in [non-neuroscience] backgrounds. Do you think there’s a difference in the content [that] would be covered if it was called “racism in psychology” or “racism in neuroscience”?

Y: First of all, that's really good to know! Because a lot of the class ethos is “being accessible” and also “being really local”, [and] what's more local than our department? The other thing is, this is a good reminder for me: neuroscience literally just means brain studies and I feel like that’s what everyone here studies. But it’s a good reminder for me that not everybody relates to the word in [the same] way. Undoubtedly the topic would be really different if it was racism in psychology, there will probably be different figures [in the field] that we spend time on, and we would probably talk about different sets of experiments, maybe different cultural changes that have happened in the field of psychology. Similarly, I really believe in the effectiveness of a class that's not necessarily generalizable. So again, [my] expertise is in evolutionary biology, and “racism in evolutionary biology” would be very different from “racism in neuroscience”, and I think it should be. The moments in our class where we talked about specific subfields like genetics or FMRI imaging, and things like that, it was really great to have folks who both did that in their research [to be] in the room and a bunch of people who didn’t. [Going back to the question], the content would definitely be different, but I hope that the class could still operate in a way where, even if you don't have direct expertise in it, you can relate to it.

A: Don’t worry, we are advertising for the class all the time (laughs). The next [question] is: when you offer the course again, possibly in the future, are there any new topics or units you want to cover in it?

Y: I kind of hinted and we talked a little bit about “pain”, but I want to talk more about pain research. Pain is just so multifaceted. I think we could spend as much time on it as we did on the study of violence [one of the segments in the course] and things like that. Another thing that implicitly came up is that, people who use animal models, I think there's a certain disconnect between some of the text that we read, or some of the practices, but how does this actually impact the actual scholarship of what [we] do? I would really love to explore that more. In Conviction [book that was assigned in the course], thinking about” the violent brain program” [read more about it here], and actually connecting to the research that you do, or the research that I do, actually drawing the line there. I think that that would be really worthwhile, and I think I would want to spend much more time on “futures”. 

A: Sounds good; then I’ll take [the course] again! So [this question] is all a little bit more about [your own] personal experiences. In the grad school or post-doc process, do you think diversity or the idea of diversity is something that is salient in your experiences? What were some things that you feel like supported or celebrated your personal story, or your diversity, or the lack thereof?

Y: I think a lot of it became just “necessary branding” and it became just a word that people knew they had to use, but there's a difference between saying it in an obligatory fashion, and I think, in my mind, really living the ideals and values which ultimately means changing systems that exist and not just people, and creating inclusive environments, and for those in positions of power [this means] giving up power, essentially. Especially when you see that that power causes oppression for others. [Clarification] Your question is about, if [this feeling] was salient for me?

A: [I mean] did you think about [your own personal cultural identity] a lot? [For example], if you woke up every day and didn’t have to think about being an Asian woman in science, and if [one] didn’t have to think about that, necessarily, that would be the privilege of someone who is not [BIPOC]. Like was that [feeling of otherness] salient?

Y: Absolutely. I think that the feeling of being marginalized is a part of my daily experience, but I think through graduate school, through student organizing, through community organizing, I think what I saw was really positive--the power of collective action. And also seeing where one can fit in that. Collective action doesn't mean everybody has to do the same thing, it means like you can be this quilt of different parts and pieces coming together. I think that that was definitely really encouraging. Part of it [for me] was going to grad school when Trump was being elected, and all the historical events that happened, and also moving from a really diverse, large city like Chicago to an extremely suburban, “hyper-privileged” suburb [which is where] Princeton is, and just experiencing what people were and were not willing to bring themselves to care about.

A: So the next question relates to the preface that I am writing [for this blog; see here]. In academia, especially in training, it's common to be identified by our objective productivity, output, or achievement ( like our scientific output), rather by our motivations or individual stories, experiences and background. A lot of students [like me!] struggle with this. Did you ever feel this in your grad school process, and how did you personally reconcile with this kind of dissociation?

Y: Absolutely. I think that when we say”grad student” as a monolith, that just doesn't make any sense. Yeah--I chose the grad school that I wanted to go to in part because of the science, but also because it was a school that offered me the greatest stipend. I had to support my brother who was going to college, and that was a really conscious decision for me to go to a particular place. When you're paid pennies, and you have to think about every penny, that changes how expansive you can be when you think about your future and your imagination. I don’t know… I felt two ways about it: because I always had one foot outside of academia, thinking about who else I had to support financially, that actually helped me kind of get through academia, because it forced me to make relationships outside of the university. I’ve had friends who did not understand at all what I was doing [people what weren’t in the “academic bubble”], and that actually helped my “survival” through the system, but it also meant that I just could never get behind the “be in lab until 2 am, do whatever you need to do for that experiment” [mentality] because it just couldn't apply to me [due to other obligations outside of school].

A: It's almost like “work life balance”, and the ideal shouldn't be “the research is a hundred percent of any grad student’s life”, or we could burn out.

Y: I also feel like when you only know academia, from undergrad to grad school, it can be really hard to know when you're being taken advantage of, because you're coming from the undergrad mentality: library until midnight, get as much as we can [done] and take all the classes that you can, go from one final to another final, like “get [any] sleep if you!”. It’s one thing when you are paying [tuition] to go to class--I’m not even saying [paying to go to class] is okay in that circumstance--but as a graduate student, you’re a worker, and you produce the knowledge of the university, so it can be very hard to get out of that mindset, and actually the way that the system encourages [grad students to feverishly work] is very exploitative. So I think for me that was a huge learning process like [realizing] this is actually not okay.

A: Like changing the way of thinking. [The last question] is also related to the [theme of the] preface: do you feel that there is a difference between one's academic persona versus a persona outside of research? What are some suggestions you would give to pre-doctoral students on this journey?

Y: I don't love the idea of restricting or hiding any part of who you are to get by. There have definitely been scenarios where I have had to in the past, especially when I think I've had less “power or privilege” in the positions that I was in in academia, for sure I've had to put that “mask” on and behave in a certain or expected way. But I really don't love that idea, and I really want to create spaces where that's not true. Which is not to say that everybody has to bring their whole selves, because some people really want a separation between who they are outside of academia, and who they are within academia. But definitely, it’s so much work, and it’s so exhausting to split yourself and to “live in two simultaneous timelines” of what you actually feel and what you're actually perceiving, and then what you feel like you're allowed to outwardly [act], and that creates so much distrust of yourself. At least that's how I've felt. I absolutely respect people who want privacy in their own lives and don't necessarily want to bring that back to work, because at the end of the day it’s a job. But I think there should be space for different perspectives, different voices, different senses of humor, different ways of “being a scientist” that's not the “dominant” [or most “idealistic”] way. 

Y: And for folks who are in the system now, and trying to find that balance, I think the most important thing is learning to trust yourself and learning to listen to yourself, especially when a lot of outside voices are not necessarily encouraging of that, and just taking time to spend quiet time with yourself, and nurture that voice, [practice] self understanding and self consciousness… because I think that voice really serves everyone. It's really important to have spaces where you can be your whole authentic self in academia. It doesn’t have to be [like] a Venn diagram, but it can be shifting all the time, but just creating and finding that community, wherever it is, so that you can always continue to cultivate that relationship and grow that part of you. Thirdly, at the end of the day, I feel like graduate students are way more powerful and so much more important to the university than they are told or experience on a daily basis. [For example] look at what has happened with student strikes in California, both in this year as well as through history… If you withdraw your labor, the university will grind to a halt. If everybody withdrew their labor, the university would stop, and so at the end of the day, I also feel like to a certain degree of  “f*** it”; bring yourself here in whatever way you want, and say what you want, act in the way you want because the university is for students. Without students there would not be a university. I think all parts of you that you want to bring into an academic setting, or university setting, should really have a place.

A: In my preface, I also quoted a little bit from La Paperson’s A Third University is Possible. And [definitions of] a “third university”; it was very inspiring [also a book assigned for the class].

-END-

External links to read more:

1. Rollins, O. (2021). Conviction: The making and unmaking of the violent brain. Stanford University Press.

2. Paperson, L. (2017). A Third University is Possible. Univ Of Minnesota Press.

3. Read more about Yan's course PSYCH540 Advances in Psychology course: Racism in Neuroscience

4. Student strikes in California is not new; for example, it has happened before in 1999. Read more here: Bacon, D. (1999). Graduate Students Strike on all university of California campuses. Workplace, 3, 38-39.

5. Read more about UCLA student strikes, updated in 2023 here: https://apo.ucla.edu/Strike-Updates-and-Support