Thoughts on the AGU debate about ideological diversity

It’s been a few days since our opinion piece on social conservatives in research was published in Eos, the news journal of the American Geophysical Union. I wrote the piece with two other BYU professors after a controversy about a faculty advertisement on AGU’s job board. In early October, AGU pulled the ad after a brief debate on Twitter because of BYU’s hiring policy that excludes most LGBTQ+ candidates.

We knew the article would be controversial and we were worried about its main message not coming across as we intended. After watching the responses online (mainly on Twitter but also through personal email) for a few days, I wanted to share some reflections and lessons I’ve learned. Jani and Jamie were co-authors on the piece, but because I don’t speak for them, I’ll use “I” from here on out.

I wrote the piece for two main reasons. First, I really believe that diversity is important in science. If groups or individuals don’t have the opportunity to participate fully in research, this creates a serious injustice and it degrades the quality and credibility of science. There are many groups and individuals who have been or remain excluded from full participation in science, including indigenous peoples, other ethnic and racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, people from impoverished communities or countries, and women. Second, I really care about a host of environmental and social issues that science has something to say about. We continue to lose ground on climate change, loss of biodiversity, and alteration of biogeochemical cycles, and we are not moving quickly enough to reduce pollution, which kills ~12 million people every year—about 20 times the number who are killed by all forms of violence.^1,2

The central thesis of the paper is that partisan and ideological divisions currently keep us (AGU and the US generally) from addressing the socioecological issues above. Because these issues involve the whole human family and all of the Earth’s ecosystems, I want us to work towards equality and sustainability (which are inextricably interwoven) as quickly as we can.

From my experiences in Utah, Alaska, and throughout Europe, I view the largest threat to progress on these fronts as polarization and dehumanization of ideological opponents. I am optimistic about so many things in the world, but if we stop caring about other people and seeing them as complex humans, the gains we’ve made and the future of progress are in peril. While many factors contribute to separation and hate, the loss of relationships with ideologically diverse friends and colleagues is a major factor.

The article hoped to make a case that including people we disagree with ideologically is the best way forward, not because ideological diversity is more important than the other dimensions of diversity mentioned above, but because building relationships can fight against the dehumanizing separation that has divided our politics and threatens our communities. I don’t want people who support Chinese reeducation camps or LGBTQ+ exclusion to be a part of our community because I agree with their positions. I want them to be here so they can see there is another option (potentially decreasing hate and discrimination) and so we will be more likely to see them as real people (potentially decreasing hate and mistrust). Ideological diversity isn’t some smoke screen covering tolerance of intolerance, I sincerely believe that inclusion and compassion will move us faster and farther towards equity and sustainability than will exclusion.

Many people disagree with me on this, which is healthy and helpful. I just had never heard the case for inclusion made, and I wanted to add it to the discussion. There are many cogent and potentially better arguments that can be made, and I hope my community makes an informed and open decision after consideration of all these viewpoints.

But on to the lessons! Along with a bunch of inane observations like “wow, most people didn’t read the article before wading into this,” here are a few thoughts.

1. Take time to think over it in different ways: When a position or set of positions doesn’t fall neatly into the usual arguments, it can be disconcerting and challenging to both sides. I see why people often equated, “they don’t agree with pulling the discriminatory ad, therefore they must be anti LGBTQ+,” but that is honestly incorrect. Similarly, when I responded hastily to a Tweet that felt malicious initially, I often regretted it later. After letting the ideas soak and float around each other for a while, I often saw a deeper and more interesting point that the person was making.
2. Don’t misinterpret anger or even bigotry as bad intent: It is easy to get defensive and aggressive on Twitter but remembering how much pain and fear people feel can increase compassion and dialogue. I have felt very threatened by some of the things said about me and especially about my lab members since the article was published. Heck, I didn’t even know that Twitter gave “vulgar and offensive” warnings until I ventured onto some of the threads about @thermokarst. From that place of indignation, I said some things that weren’t as considerate or thoughtful as they should have been. My failure should remind me that others who are saying such things aren’t bad people, they are just experiencing a lot of pressure and frustration. This discussion has given me a greater understanding of the depth of pain that many people are living with, and I am grateful for that perspective. I truly empathize and care about all who have been hurt or are being hurt by intolerance and hate.
3. Do your best to not make (and not respond) to dumb arguments: In high school debate, you lose by default if you don’t address all your opponent’s points. In real life, instead of responding to bad arguments, bring up the good ones that aren’t being discussed. Fighting against arguments made in bad faith isn’t worth your breath. An early version of the Eos article addressed an argument I often hear about why there are so few conservatives in research: they’re not smart enough. This is a classic discriminatory argument that is factually untrue and just dumb. After feedback from several wise mentors, I removed the sentences responding to that argument that didn’t merit a response.
4. Judge ideas on their merit: Judging someone’s arguments based on their identity is good politics but bad science. One of the most common criticisms I’ve gotten is that I shouldn’t be a part of this discussion because of my gender, race, and socioeconomic background. You are free to only listen to certain people, but I am interested in every good argument, whether from the New Yorker, Mother Jones, Fox, Breitbart, or anywhere on the social or ideological spectrum. No side or perspective has a monopoly on good thoughts and practices. My scientific and religious principles require me to take truth and goodness wherever I find it.
5. Be nice to investigators: When someone comes to church for the first time, don’t complain about what they are wearing or how they talk (at least if you want them to come back). Likewise, if someone is interested in learning about your worldview, don’t complain about superficial or even substantial differences in vocabulary or understanding. When somebody is new (or not), being patient and persistent with clear explanations rather than waiting for a gotcha misstep will increase the listening and learning.
6. It is never too late to discuss and explain: I often hear the argument (and have sometimes made it) that “the time has past for discussion,” or that “there is no excuse for not knowing.” Whether it’s LGBTQ+ inclusion, climate change, abortion, eating meat, or any other important issue that not everyone agrees on, I believe we should always be willing to explain the issues and answer questions about why we should care. We can be indignant that our values aren’t understood and shared, or we can use the question as an opportunity for reflection and sharing. Before, during, and after important decisions, we should be ready to discuss, respond, and show compassion. Otherwise, the transitions will be harder or not happen at all and the decisions will be less likely to stick.
7. Make it personal: Everyone you interact with online or in person has a unique story. Remembering that there is a person behind each Tweet and idea—even the hateful ones—a person with successes and suffering, and a person that we do not know can help us treat each other with a little more kindness and compassion. Even if you think that is dumb (civility or kindness), thinking about the person will help you identify what arguments will help and which will hurt your cause. Everyone is a person.

Because I sometimes can’t help myself, I’ll bring up another super divisive issue in closing. Abortion is a surprising partial success story of the value of including others and making progress towards shared goals through ideological partnerships. There are radically different beliefs about how choice and abortion should be thought about. There are those who want to legally punish women who seek abortions, those who want to physically harm the physicians who perform abortions, and those who want to legally or physically limit those protesters. Amidst all this acrimony, the rate of abortion has fallen every year since I was born (you’re welcome). Neither side has given up its values, but the interaction between those extremes and thousands of nuanced positions in the middle have helped achieve a broader shared value of having fewer abortions. Addressing deep cultural issues requires more than just a law or change in the market. It requires meaningful discussions, real relationship, forgiveness, and reconciliation. That is why I believe we should include and love our enemies in our society and social circles.

Whatever happens with LGBTQ+ protections in the Supreme Court or eventually in Congress if we ever can break the partisan paralysis, we are still going to need dialogue and relationships to change hearts and minds. I don’t think you’re evil if you take a more coercive path (legal or cultural regulation), but I hope you’ll at least think about the importance of seeing the humanity and good on the other side.

1. Lelieveld, J. et al. Cardiovascular disease burden from ambient air pollution in Europe reassessed using novel hazard ratio functions. Eur. Heart J. 0, 1–7 (2019).

2. Landrigan, P. J. et al. The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. The Lancet 0, (2017).