Diversity or mere division? Another reason the March for Science didn’t have much impact
|December 26, 2017||Posted by News under Culture, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science|
Physics Today’s media analyst., Steven T. Corneliussen, whom we quoted earlier on the downturn of pop science writing drew attention to the fate of the March for Science, as covered by Kate Sheridan and Lev Facher at STAT:
The event’s official diversity policy, posted just days after the march was announced in January, has undergone repeated revisions, and is now in its fourth version.
They were not inclusive enough, it seems.
The statement was designed to be an evolving document, Holloway said, but the massive early interest led to a level of scrutiny the march’s organizers didn’t expect.
It was rewritten and expanded in late January, and tweaked again in February to add language about disability and inclusiveness. The official Twitter account said that these changes were in response to “feedback” and “complaints” about the policy. (March 22, 2017) More.
There were issues about race and gender too. If you didn’t have a group gripe to air, it probably wasn’t worth going.
Trouble is, the marchers were all pieces from different jigsaw puzzles.
See also: Most of the pop science media are poised on the edge of the recycle bin… If popular science media don’t start looking seriously at covering non-naturalist, non-crackpot news, they will simply lose attention (the currency of the internet) to those who can risk it.