Award Naming Discussion
The leadership and many members of SSB are disturbed by the vicious nature of some of the responses to the proposed award name change. It is possible to argue against a name change without, for instance, asserting ignorance of “younger members”, singling out individual members of our Society, or disparaging others based on racial or gender identity. As SSB leadership, we uniformly condemn such comments, which undermine the goal of making our Society inclusive and welcoming. We urge members who are engaging in this harmful and negative behavior to stop.
As referred to in our previous communications, the award name change is motivated by good governance practices of avoiding named awards, especially due to the naming’s real exclusionary effect for people from historically excluded groups (see for instance, Pourret et al. (2021) and Bazner et al. (2020)). In SSB’s case, there is only one named award, but the council would have proposed the same action if we had dozens of named awards.
Knowing the affection many of our members have for the namesake of the Mayr award, and how in other societies awards have been renamed due to problematic namesakes, we mentioned Mayr in the statement to explain that this change was not about him per se. As stated above, our decision to move forward with the proposal of a change in the name of the award is based on named awards in general, rather than on any specific characteristics of Mayr himself.
Moving forward, we insist that any debate among SSB members be conducted with mutual respect and with the goal of reaching outcomes that will uphold the principles of the Society. We know this is challenging when opinions are strong, or when core aspects of identity and a diversity of lived experiences are being considered. There is a lot of hard work to do to improve SSB and the broader scientific community, beyond addressing named awards. We, therefore, hope that individuals will conduct themselves with kindness and sensitivity, and engage in further work to ensure that SSB and systematic biology become more diverse, equitable, and inclusive.
Signed
Brian O’Meara
SSB President
[email protected]
Laura Kubatko
SSB Past-President
[email protected]
David Baum
SSB President-Elect
[email protected]
References and Further Information:
Original statement explaining the proposal: https://www.systbio.org/award-naming.html
SSB Legacy Committee: https://www.systbio.org/legacy-committe.html
Bazner, K.J., J. Vaid, and C.A. Stanley. 2020. “Who is meritorious? Gendered and racialized discourse in named award descriptions in professional societies of higher education” Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 34(2): 108-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1735559
Pourret, O., P. Anand, S. Arndt, P. Bots, A. Dosseto, Z. Li, J.M. Carbonne, J. Middleton, B. Ngwenya, and A. J.V. Riches. 2021. “Diversity, equity, and inclusion: Tackling underrepresentation and recognition of talents in geochemistry and cosmochemistry” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 310: 363-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2021.05.054
For more on the early history of this award: Funk, V.A. and D. Cannatella. 1999. “The Society of Systematic Biologists’ Awards in Systematics” Systematic Biology 48(4): 832-837. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2585349
For more on the early history of the Society of Systematic Biologists (in chronological order):
Savage, J.M. 2001. “Remembrances and Reflections: Early Days of the Society of Systematic Zoology” Systematic Biology 50(1): 4-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150117515
Funk, V.A. 2001. “SSZ 1970–1989: A View of the Years of Conflict” Systematic Biology 50(2): 153-155. https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/50/2/153/1698252
Hillis, D.M. 2001. “The Emergence of Systematic Biology” Systematic Biology 50(3): 301-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/106351501300317923
Felsenstein, J. 2001. “The Troubled Growth of Statistical Phylogenetics” Systematic Biology 50(4): 465-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150119297
Donoghue, M.J. 2001. “A Wish List for Systematic Biology” Systematic Biology 50(6): 755-757. https://doi.org/10.1080/106351501753462795
As referred to in our previous communications, the award name change is motivated by good governance practices of avoiding named awards, especially due to the naming’s real exclusionary effect for people from historically excluded groups (see for instance, Pourret et al. (2021) and Bazner et al. (2020)). In SSB’s case, there is only one named award, but the council would have proposed the same action if we had dozens of named awards.
Knowing the affection many of our members have for the namesake of the Mayr award, and how in other societies awards have been renamed due to problematic namesakes, we mentioned Mayr in the statement to explain that this change was not about him per se. As stated above, our decision to move forward with the proposal of a change in the name of the award is based on named awards in general, rather than on any specific characteristics of Mayr himself.
Moving forward, we insist that any debate among SSB members be conducted with mutual respect and with the goal of reaching outcomes that will uphold the principles of the Society. We know this is challenging when opinions are strong, or when core aspects of identity and a diversity of lived experiences are being considered. There is a lot of hard work to do to improve SSB and the broader scientific community, beyond addressing named awards. We, therefore, hope that individuals will conduct themselves with kindness and sensitivity, and engage in further work to ensure that SSB and systematic biology become more diverse, equitable, and inclusive.
Signed
Brian O’Meara
SSB President
[email protected]
Laura Kubatko
SSB Past-President
[email protected]
David Baum
SSB President-Elect
[email protected]
References and Further Information:
Original statement explaining the proposal: https://www.systbio.org/award-naming.html
SSB Legacy Committee: https://www.systbio.org/legacy-committe.html
Bazner, K.J., J. Vaid, and C.A. Stanley. 2020. “Who is meritorious? Gendered and racialized discourse in named award descriptions in professional societies of higher education” Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 34(2): 108-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1735559
Pourret, O., P. Anand, S. Arndt, P. Bots, A. Dosseto, Z. Li, J.M. Carbonne, J. Middleton, B. Ngwenya, and A. J.V. Riches. 2021. “Diversity, equity, and inclusion: Tackling underrepresentation and recognition of talents in geochemistry and cosmochemistry” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 310: 363-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2021.05.054
For more on the early history of this award: Funk, V.A. and D. Cannatella. 1999. “The Society of Systematic Biologists’ Awards in Systematics” Systematic Biology 48(4): 832-837. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2585349
For more on the early history of the Society of Systematic Biologists (in chronological order):
Savage, J.M. 2001. “Remembrances and Reflections: Early Days of the Society of Systematic Zoology” Systematic Biology 50(1): 4-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150117515
Funk, V.A. 2001. “SSZ 1970–1989: A View of the Years of Conflict” Systematic Biology 50(2): 153-155. https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/50/2/153/1698252
Hillis, D.M. 2001. “The Emergence of Systematic Biology” Systematic Biology 50(3): 301-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/106351501300317923
Felsenstein, J. 2001. “The Troubled Growth of Statistical Phylogenetics” Systematic Biology 50(4): 465-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150119297
Donoghue, M.J. 2001. “A Wish List for Systematic Biology” Systematic Biology 50(6): 755-757. https://doi.org/10.1080/106351501753462795