On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7:48:50 PM UTC-7 Susan Rosine wrote:
Wow, this was well worth reading! What a great look into the process. Van definitely thought this out.Thank you for posting this here!Susan RosineBrightonOn Tue, Nov 7, 2023, 7:08 PM Rachel Kolokoff Hopper <hopko...@gmail.com> wrote:The underbelly of the decision…worth a read if you want to more fully understand.From Van Remsen, now former member of the NACC (North American Classification Committee.) If you don't know who Van is, Google him. Posted here with permission from Van.=======These are my formal comments to AOS leadership from back in early July from my position as Acting Chair South American Classification Committee. They made me swear to keep these secret until the final decision was made.=======Comments to AOS Council from J. V. Remsen (Chair and founder, South American Classification Committee, and member since 1984 of North American Classification Committee)• Diversity and inclusion. The English Bird Names Committee report is antithetical to the AOS mission with respect to diversity and inclusion. AOS includes many people who either like eponyms for their own sake or would rather not meddle with them for the sake of stability. These members have had little opportunity to express their views. Currently, only 4.2 % of SACC English names are eponyms. Many supporters of this tiny "market share" are afraid to speak out for fear of being called racists (as has already happened to Kevin Winker when he published his paper analyzing eponym comments in a Washington Post article.) To anyone who saw that recent AOS-sponsored "symposium" (actually a hybrid pep rally X fundamentalist big-tent revival meeting) on bird names , it was clear that contrary views were not welcomed.• Broader impacts. I am acutely conscious of my White Privilege status that has helped my get where I am. However, censoring all eponyms smacks of an attempt to erase the cultural heritage and scientific accomplishment of "Western" culture in the Western Hemisphere. Extremists on the political right will be grateful to the AOS for providing beautiful propaganda for their agenda.• Financial impacts: Because AOS names are used by federal agencies, the cost to taxpayers of those name changes needs assessment. USFWS, USDA, NPS, etc. all use standardized AOS names, and this has a trickle-down impact on state and local agencies. They already have to deal with some instability due to changes in species limits, but 150 immediate changes represents a new level of change. Just in the bird world, think about 4-letter banding codes: 150 would have to be changed and 150 would become obsolete.• Trivialization of AOS. A typical reaction to the controversy from the general public and scientists in other fields is (to paraphrase colleagues and friends outside the bird community) "of all the problems in need of solutions, the AOS is focusing on THIS!" It's a bad look for AOS.• Negative impact. The EBNC report ignores the potential impact that their recommendations will have on countries outside the Global North. If AOS adopts the proposal, it will be seen as a heavy-handed edict from the Global North without consideration of negative impacts. I have provided to President Handel a list of eponyms derived from past or present widely respected members of the ornithological culture of many South American countries, most of them citizens of those countries.• Global South. If everyone on SACC thought that canceling all eponyms would be an effective way to promote interest in or conservation of birds or remove obstacles to inclusion of under-represented groups, then we would be in favor of it. There is no direct evidence for any tangible, positive effect, other than to appease the BN4B people. In fact, I predict that the fallout will have the opposite effect on many in South America; see Pethiyagoda (2023) and Jost et al. (2023). I like to think we as a scientific society (AOS) base our policy changes on evidence, not rhetoric.• Justice. All but one SACC members are in favor of a case-by-case analysis to remove eponymous English for which continued use of that eponym is harmful to people or bird conservation. The argument that the simplest thing to do is delete all of them ignores the counterpoint that the simplest solution of all is to not remove any of them. Yes, the process will be messy for many reasons, but we have a sample size of 1 (i.e. McCown) that suggests that it can work, that NACC is open to that process, and that name changes are possible through NACC (and SACC) protocols. If all accusations of "criminal" activity were easy Y/N decisions, then democracies would not need their complex judiciary systems. To do otherwise is eerily reminiscent of historical purges by fascist, communist, and extreme religious groups.• Bird names for birds. The ENBC report takes it as a given that its new names will help people learn bird identification. I regard this a classic False Premise and will provide a separate document on this. The bottom line is that birds names aren't for birds – they are for people.• Shared vision. This entire controversy saddens me. If there were a way to quantify the moral/political views of NACC and SACC members in some sort of 3D multivariate space, I suspect that resulting cloud of points would be statistically indistinguishable from those of the EBNC or even BN4B. We would be on the same side of virtually any other issue. But here we are, tearing each other apart over English bird names.• Personal Considerations. If AOU Council adopts EBNC recommendations, then I will resign from AOS and NACC, and remove SACC from AOS. This could be interpreted as a threat to leverage the decision but is intended only as a full disclosure FYI. I cannot be a part of issuing an edict from the Global North to the Global South. At a strictly personal, emotional level, I cannot be a part of cancelling Ted Parker, John O'Neill, Gary Stiles, and others, or several personal heroes Charles Darwin, Emilie Snethlage, Helmut Sick, and others.• Trying to end on a positive note. The good effect of the EBNC report is that it has stimulated all of us to think more aggressively of concrete ways to improve diversity and inclusion in AOS, particularly from the SACC side (see suggestions from SACC members) in terms of South Americans.And finally Van posted:Rather than respond individually to so many inquiries through Facebook messages, emails, and texts, here are comments that can be shared widely.Even non-bird people have likely heard about this: the American Ornithological Society decided to begin the process of changing the common names of ALL birds named for people -- you can Google the announcement for details. Except this was NOT the American Ornithological Society per se but its leadership -- a tiny % of its members. In fact, they kept this a secret from the membership that elected them until it was a done deal, with a carefully orchestrated press release. We on the North American Classification Committee of AOS were among the only ones contacted back in June about this and were given about 2 weeks to respond. AOS leaders demanded we keep this secret from everyone, including all other AOS members. Every member of the Classification Committee was strongly opposed to a blanket purge; we all favored due process, i.e. a case-by-case consideration of the names based on people accused of terrible things; we advocated consultations with professional historians to make sure the facts were correct. We were ignored. (Myself and at least one other member have quit so far, in protest.)The AOS prides itself on Diversity and Inclusion and in being a welcoming society. Clearly this does not apply to those who like eponyms, either for the window these name provide into the history of ornithology or commemoration of those who built the AOS. Nor does it apply to anyone who wants to keep them just because they dislike the instability that changing 150 names would inflict. Those 150 names are only 4.2% of the standardized AOS names, yet AOS leadership -- who I now refer to as the Cancel Cabal -- does not tolerate the views of those who don't want most of them changed, which is certainly more than 4.2% of AOS membership. So much for "welcoming" and "inclusion". Would retaining most of that tiny 4.2% have been too much to ask, if only for tolerance of different opinions?It was pointed out by many on NACC that such an initiative would trivialize the AOS and lead to ridicule along the lines of "of all the issues birds are facing, THIS is what the AOS is focusing on!" Predictably, the public ridicule has already begun. Jimmy Kimmel ridiculed the AOS in his monologue. Now the AOS, not just its leadership, looks like a bunch of clueless fools.Additional: The Decree has been issued. NACC has also been removed from any say in English names, even on splits it institutes, possibly in retaliation. The only possibility for undoing this would be for a revolt of Fellows and EMs, but anyone opposed to the Decree will be labeled anything from insensitive to racist.Everyone -- Please don't perpetuate the confusion on where the decision came from. NACC had nothing to do with it -- we unanimously opposed it. Nor is it from the AOS per se. The Edict is from AOS Council, as if it is speaking for all its members.-----------------------Rachel Kolokoff HopperFollow me on iNaturalist
rkhphotography.net
ho...@comcast.net
Ft. Collins, CO
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To post to this group, send email to cobirds@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cobirds?hl=en?hl=en
* All posts should be signed with the poster's full name and city. Include bird species and location in the subject line when appropriate
* Join Colorado Field Ornithologists https://cobirds.org/CFO/Membership/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cobirds+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/c3fbcfa7-748c-4abe-9f45-193eba3fb26an%40googlegroups.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment