Skip to main content

Oops, you did racism a favor

This is a guest post by Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, my astro/physics colleague and one of my social justice instructors. Chanda is intelligent and insightful, and an important voice in the astro/physics community. Here is another essay by her in which she states obvious, but too-often ignored truths and breaks down for folks why defensiveness is the wrong response to being called a racist. In the past she has bravely and honestly brought my mistakes to my attention, yet I have too often been defensive, deflective, whiney, and generally acted like a male, cis-gendered-straight-privileged child on many occasions. I've don this while calling on others to stop doing the same to me when I attempt to call attention to racist acts in my life. I have been wrong. My oppression in one area does not excuse me for using my privilege to oppress in other areas. Chanda has always been there to help me on my path, just as I'm sure she is accountable to people in her circles. Astronomers, physicists, readers: Listen up when Chanda speaks, especially when she spits hot fire, as she does below. Do not take her for some conjurer of cheap tricks. Below I am reposting her original post, which is here. See also her essay on "Let Physics Be the Dream It Used to Be."

A few weeks ago, an email with racist language targeting Native Hawaiians in it was widely circulated by two very prominent members of the astronomy community. After public and private outcry, they both offered apologies of sorts, although in neither case was the apology to the people who were the victims of the offensive language.

Several of us came together to write a statement about the use of offensive and racist language in sociopolitical discourse within the astronomy community, with the hope that our professional society, the American Astronomical Society (AAS) would endorse and publish the statement as a message to all members, racial minorities especially, that AAS was against racism.

Some 50+ emails later, the President of AAS Meg Urry published a letter about the incident. The letter had some strengths. It had some weaknesses. Its most significant weakness was essentially suggesting that making general statements about “senior white astronomers” was equally harmful as racism toward minorities.


I pointed out the problems on Twitter and soon after many white women in the astro community joined me, tweeting at Meg directly, discussing it with her on a phone call and discussing on Facebook that this was a problem. Eventually, Meg altered the letter while publicly complaining on Twitter about the strong reaction people had to this problem.

Here’s the thing. Meg and others seemed to think we were nitpicking for theoretical reasons and overblowing the whole thing. But in fact, less than 48 hours later, a prominent astronomer wrote a statement (that is not publicly available) in response to the dialogue about Meg’s letter that many took as an attack on me (which is why I feel entitled to write about this private statement), another Black scientist, a Latina scientist and several of our white allies. In it this astronomer proclaimed that racism against white people is a problem and suggested that some people of color and their allies in the community had created a hostile environment for white people. This statement came as an empowered follow-up to Meg’s words and the words of other white leaders in the community who defended her, as if saying that she made a mistake was an attack on her entire existence.

In other words, Meg’s mistake (and the defenses which compounded it) had real consequences. Although it was unintentional, Meg’s letter had given energy to the concept that white people can be victims of racism.

So, even when you don’t mean to, you can be doing racism a favor. And when people call you out on your mistakes and ask you to fix them, they are often doing it because they know that these consequences are coming. People who have taken their time to learn about and respect minority experiences know that we have to deal all the time with comments like, “you are a reverse racist” and “you are engaging in anti-white racism.”

When the leader of a national organization says something that at best ambiguously sounds like it might mean that anti-white racism exists, or suggests that white people with seniority, tenure, and even equations named after them are suffering the way Native American and Hawaiian undergraduates are suffering, that leader has provided problematic leadership that harms people in their community.

We all make mistakes. Part of genuinely taking responsibility for them is to understand and own the consequences.

And speaking of consequences, here are some: when a POC calls a white person’s actions racist, the white person might feel bad and also people might look at them negatively. When a white person encourages and/or directly participates in racism, they are contributing to a large set of social structures that are not only psychologically dangerous for POC but are also physically dangerous, especially for those of us who are Black, Native and Latin@.

Honestly, if I had to pick between being called a racist and the genuine fear I feel when I walk by police, I’d pick being called a racist. In that scenario, there’s no chance I will die, which is excellent.

p.s. Notably, the American Astronomical Society as an organization never got behind an anti-racism statement. By contrast, within days of the incident, Sarah Tuttle and I wrote a statement that has since garnered around 200 co-signers.


hsuper said…
An important post, and good that you recognize in your intro that even those within anti-racist movements need to recognize their own potential for oppressive behaviors.

I wonder, though, whether you should re-frame Chanda's actions and relationship to your behaviors in a more positive/constructive way. To say that she "calls you out" repeatedly, or is a "check" on you, is still centering the narrative lens on yourself, the person with more privilege and sometime-participant in oppressive discourse. As you're well aware, it's important to recognize when oppressed individuals and communities have expertise that they are *willing* to share with would-be allies/accomplices, and even more importantly, that is essential and valuable on its own, without relation to oppressions such as settler colonialism, racism, cis-normativity and sexism.

Which is to say, it seems that a better introduction than "Chanda calls me out/keeps me in check, and that makes her valuable" would be one that says "Chanda is smart and insightful, and an important voice in the astro/physics community and and here is another blog by her in which she states obvious-but-too-often-ignored truths and breaks down for folks why defensiveness is the wrong response to being called a racist." Or something to that effect. Which is relevant given the way that she has been attacked as "aggressive" or a "snake" or "overly emotional" in the past several days, due solely to her intelligent and informed observations of racism.

-Kevin Shawn Hsu
John Johnson said…
You're absolutely right, Kevin. Making the change now.
John Johnson said…
I should mention that the change was an easy one to make since I greatly admire Chanda's bravery, insightfulness, knowledge and intelligence.

Popular posts from this blog

The Long Con

Hiding in Plain Sight

ESPN has a series of sports documentaries called 30 For 30. One of my favorites is called Broke which is about how professional athletes often make tens of millions of dollars in their careers yet retire with nothing. One of the major "leaks" turns out to be con artists, who lure athletes into elaborate real estate schemes or business ventures. This naturally raises the question: In a tightly-knit social structure that is a sports team, how can con artists operate so effectively and extensively? The answer is quite simple: very few people taken in by con artists ever tell anyone what happened. Thus, con artists can operate out in the open with little fear of consequences because they are shielded by the collective silence of their victims.
I can empathize with this. I've lost money in two different con schemes. One was when I was in college, and I received a phone call that I had won an all-expenses-paid trip to the Bahamas. All I needed to do was p…

An annual note to all the (NSF) haters

It's that time of year again: students have recently been notified about whether they received the prestigious NSF Graduate Student Research Fellowship. Known in the STEM community as "The NSF," the fellowship provides a student with three years of graduate school tuition and stipend, with the latter typically 5-10% above the standard institutional support for first- and second-year students. It's a sweet deal, and a real accellerant for young students to get their research career humming along smoothly because they don't need to restrict themselves to only advisors who have funding: the students fund themselves!
This is also the time of year that many a white dude executes what I call the "academic soccer flop." It looks kinda like this:

It typically sounds like this: "Congrats! Of course it's easier for you to win the NSF because you're, you know, the right demographic." Or worse: "She only won because she's Hispanic."…

Culture: Made Fresh Daily

There are two inspirations for this essay worth noting. The first is an impromptu talk I gave to the board of trustees at Thatcher School while I was visiting in October as an Anacapa Fellow. Spending time on this remarkable campus interacting with the students, faculty and staff helped solidify my notions about how culture can be intentionally created. The second source is Beam Times and Lifetimes by Sharon Tarweek, an in-depth exploration of the culture of particle physics told by an anthropologist embedded at SLAC for two decades. It's a fascinating look at the strange practices and norms that scientists take for granted.
One of the stories that scientists tell themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, is that science exists outside of and independent of society. A corollary of this notion is that if a scientific subfield has a culture, e.g. the culture of astronomy vs. the culture of chemistry, that culture is essential rather than constructed. That is to say, scientific c…