If bookburning was going on throughout the country, would literature scholars
be justified in protesting? Or would they be perceived as being biased and not
objective?
________________________________
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> on behalf of John A. <omnipithe...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 7:10:33 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Does Marching Delegitimize Science?
I would like to know if anyone else is concerned whether scientists
participating in a march, which is inherently political, may further erode
public confidence in science as objective and nonpartisan.
It seems to me that given the current climate, any march in protest of
specific policies runs the risk of being seen—or misrepresented—as an attack on
the majority party, which would only further reinforce certain stereotypes of
scientists, and make it all the easier for politicians to dismiss them as just
another special-interest group that can be safely ignored.
The fact is that a march presents no rational arguments, invites no
constructive dialogue and changes no minds. The format of a march lends itself
to confrontation and exclusion—the very opposite of the successful engagement
which science so desperately needs. Worse, it surrenders any message to
interpretation by the media, and may ultimately serve to trivialize the very
issues the marchers had thought to support.
I have to wonder at the effect on science policy, if every person who had
planned to march instead scheduled meetings with their senator, representative
and local state delegate. A face-to-face meeting in a quiet office or
conference room, without the noise and shouting of a protest march, has a far
better chance to be effective. Politicians can always shrug off a
thirty-second clip on the news, especially if it shows chanting, drumming and
handwritten cardboard signs. But when local constituents schedule an
appointment and present their concerns like professionals, the information has
a better chance of being considered and remembered.
Not all politicians will make themselves available, to their discredit; but
for those that do, a face-to-face meeting opens the prospect of real dialogue
and follow-up contacts, with the potential for long-term exchange. I would
suggest that this sort of patient, personal and nonconfrontational approach may
be far more valuable to the scientific community than participating in a brief
event which is structurally incapable of presenting complex concerns with the
nuance they deserve.
Respectfully,
J. A.
