is burning down to my bones Welcome back, everyone,
to the Bone Club. It's been quite a while since
we last spoke. I think it's been, what, Stephanie,
Thanksgiving? Something like that. Since we had
all the craziness that is the holidays. I hope
everyone had a wonderful holiday break, wonderful
winter break. Today, we are very fortunate. We
are joined with Dr. Sean Tallman, Associate Professor
at... Boston University, one of my alma maters,
which I really loved being there. How are you
doing, sir? I'm doing well, thanks. Thank you
for having me. It's nice to be here. How are
you all? Can't complain, can't complain. Definitely
trying to get back into the swing after the holiday
season for sure. But I guess we can just kind
of start out because maybe some of our audience
doesn't really know who you are. Can you just
give a little bit of background on maybe like
why you chose anthropology, what type of research
you enjoy doing, things like that? Sure. Yeah,
so I, so as Ashley said, I'm an associate professor
in. anatomy and neurobiology. So we have a masters
of science in forensic anthropology program,
which Ashley attended. And so I've been here,
gosh, almost 10 years, which is crazy. Time goes
by incredibly fast. um but um so i got into anthropology
i mean kind of like probably a lot of us where
in you know i didn't really know what it was
fully uh though i grew up definitely with national
geographics and being excited by the social and
natural sciences um but i didn't fully know what
it was until i took a class at community college
in seattle where i grew up and took a cultural
anthropology class and absolutely fell in love
with it and then decided to take physical, then
called physical anthropology class, and also
fell in love with that. And then decided to take
an archaeology class and fell in love with that.
And then a linguistic anthropology class and
really liked that. And then realized, okay, I
think, you know, this might be something I want
to pursue. But what does one do in with a bachelor's
at that point, you know, in anthropology, but
I ended up, you know, doing a field school, an
archaeology field school in the American Southwest
and fell in love with field work and travel.
And that has been a huge part of my. my process
in anthropology. And then I took a second field
school to study the human skeleton and did it
through Campsville and learned human osteology
through Dr. Jane Bijkstra. So that was an amazing
experience because I transferred to the University
of Washington and we didn't have any sort of
representation of human osteology, bioarchaeology,
or forensic anthropology. So yeah, I... really
got excited about the idea of studying skeletons
from archaeological record. So the idea of bioarchaeology
really excited me. And then when I graduated,
I worked at Starbucks, like many of us do, work
as a barista with an undergraduate degree in
anthropology, until I got into a graduate program
at SUNY Binghamton and moved across the country
and started a master's there, working with Donnie
Stedman. And then, yeah, I was really... going
with the idea of bioarchaeology. And then kind
of as I progressed in that, I grew more uncomfortable
with the idea of working with indigenous remains
without sort of more descending community involvement.
And that was very early in the process. We're
talking like early 2000s -ish. So it wasn't like
it is now. And so I felt kind of, or very uncomfortable
with that process. The NAGPRA process and the
consultation process I love, but the, you know,
studying remains that... the communities didn't
know we had or something that kind of bothered
me. And then I took a forensic anthropology class
and got excited about that. And then. Ended up
moving back to Seattle after my master's and
worked in cultural resource management as an
osteologist and archaeologist for a couple of
years and worked or taught night classes at a
community college and then did night inventories
for museums who found human remains in closets.
And then I grew antsy again being in Seattle
and applied for jobs all over the place and got
a job in Hawaii. at the Central Identification
Laboratory. At that time, it was JPAC. Now it's
obviously the DPAA. And then moved out to Hawaii
and lived there for six years and worked as a
forensic anthropologist. And then decided after
about six years of that, that I was at the point
of wanting to go back to do my PhD. So then I
went to the University of... Tennessee in Knoxville,
where Donnie had moved down from, from SUNY Binghamton.
So I was able to rejoin that mentor -mentee relationship
and had a wonderful time at the University of
Tennessee. And then ended up getting a job here
at Boston University when I finished up at Tennessee.
Impressive resume. That's pretty awesome. I mean,
I know. It's definitely always fun to hear who
people worked under and who their mentors were
and things like that. Because I know it's one
of those things that who you worked under definitely
shapes how you think and how you enjoy research
and what you end up doing research on. Because
I know for myself, going into grad school, I
knew I wanted to do DPAA. I was like, this is
the job. And really didn't have... I don't know.
I guess I was a little naive at that point. So
I didn't have really any idea of anything at
20. And so working under my mentor, Alicia, I
was just like, she really shaped how I thought
about anthropology and what I thought about science
and all of those types of things of like my,
I very much, when I went into forensic science,
I was coming into it because I had. thought I
wanted to go to med school to be a pathologist
and all that stuff. So I was like, science is
a hard science and anthropology is a hard science.
And then she was just like, hold up. Let's give
some culture back to this. And that really shaped
everything. So it's nice to see where you came
from and all of that. Yeah. And there's so many,
I mean, the field is so small, which is, I think,
one of its strengths in that we can all kind
of... you know do the red string tying people
together on the wall and see where people come
from and people's trajectories and sort of um
yeah where they've been so i think that's really
exciting and for me it's always it's been nice
in that i i mean i I never really had a plan
plan of what I wanted to do. I was open to many
different things. So I said yes to a lot of things.
But yeah, I never even really thought that I
would be a university professor necessarily.
I knew that a PhD could help in getting there
if I wanted to do that. But even when I was getting
a PhD, I didn't think I was going to be an academic.
So I think just having people, you know, I, you
know, some of the students I teach now, or just,
you know, students now in general, seem to be
very, very, very focused, which is great. It's
cool when you figure it out right away. But,
you know, for a lot of us, it's a very like,
you know, meandering path as to what we do and
that there isn't necessarily an end goal because
the process is the important part. But that,
you know, a lot of us, yeah, didn't, don't have
specific five or 10 year plans. It's cool if
you also do, because I know that there are exactly
dingy in the ocean, but maybe dingy in a pond.
Yes, exactly. I mean, for me, it was what I found
interesting is my, the people I studied under
with my master's degree, Dr. Prince Zinni, Dr.
Pakenis, they had one school of thought. And
then I go up to Toronto and I have Tracy Rogers,
which is a vastly different school of thought.
So now I come out as this weird. hybrid this
werewolf werewolf of of you know philosophy is
that a bad thing though yeah i think oh no i
don't think it's a bad thing i think it's a perfect
thing i encourage i when i mentor students and
when i encourage students i tell them try not
if you can to have to go to the same school for
everything, to have the same advisor for everything.
You need that variety. You need to see what those
schools of thought and those philosophies look
like in teaching and in real world. That straight
path can be a problem. It's not necessarily bad,
but it can be. Yeah, I mean, I'm definitely...
I lucked out in mine because I was definitely
the, I have my five -year plan. I have like just
a very, this is what I'm going to do. And these
are the steps to get there. And I didn't think
I would stray from it at all, which is now looking
back, I'm like, oh, that's so not how you do
anthropology and also not how you should do life.
And like, it's good to have a plan and like work
towards goals and stuff. But I was like. Very
naive at 18 when I was making decisions for the
next 80 years of my life. Yeah, if you're 18
years old, create a life plan and stick to it.
Didn't work for me. There's so many different
things you can do with an anthropology degree,
right? And so, yeah, it's hard to... be on a
very straight and narrow path with a specific
goal because all these other interests and all
these other really cool things might come up
along the way to distract you in a good way.
And having many different skills is good, obviously,
for the job market too. Well, the reason why
we asked you to come on with us today is there's
a topic that has been floating around for a while.
Diversity. equity, and inclusion. And I just
want to talk to you about this because I know
you've published on this in a variety of different
ways. You and I have actually published a paper
together on this, actually a paper and a popular
press paper together on this topic and things.
So just wanted to get your understanding on where
things sit and how things go forward. And one
of that is... We have this concept of DEI and
what diversity is, what equity and inclusion
is. And several years it was once very favorable.
Now it's very much toxic for some reason. But
how do you define these concepts and... operationalize
them? Because they are rather nebulous terms.
I mean, anything can be considered diversity
almost. Yeah, great, great question that might
not have a very succinct, straightforward answer.
But I think, I mean, with, yeah, I mean, I feel
that, you know, diversity, equity, inclusion
initiatives obviously have been important in
improved, well, in some ways they've been. important
in improving the inclusion of multiple different
mindsets and world experiences and worldviews
and perspectives and lived experiences. You know,
and, but I, you know, don't think it's beyond
critique, right? I think that there's a lot of
this. that early and quick adoption of DEI without
actually doing it and having it much more as
a performative thing versus a true fundamental
part of an institution or one's behavior. So
I think that, you know, I don't always think
that it's, you know, 100 % always good and obviously
not 100 % always bad. I think that For a field
like anthropology, which has been founded or
was founded on majority cisgender white males,
and we are still struggling with the issues that
were initiated during the formation of our field
right we're still dealing with issues of race
and racism um of inequity of structural violence
and structural vulnerability of course issues
with gender and sexuality i mean not not issues
in that there are um uh different experiences
with that but that there's critique of of those
experiences so i think that we're still we're
still dealing with that as a profession and and
you know the field has been has been confronting
that for a while. And I think that that's something
that needs to happen. And so I think that, yeah,
we are at an interesting time right now where
we're being told sort of on a government basis
and maybe institution basis, depending where
we're at, that DEI is now out and we need to
not focus on that. I still think that it has
obviously, you know, I'm pro in most ways and
that think that it has a lot of merit in that.
I mean. There are studies to show that diverse
lived experiences in working groups, whatever
sort of field we're talking about, results in
greater productivity and more interesting things
and innovation and advances in that field or
in that particular topic. Anthropology and biological
and forensic anthropology is no different in
that. So, yeah, I think it's an interesting time
that there is this critique right now. At the
same time, I think a lot of us are still doing
what would be classified as DEI work, right?
And even at our institutions, I know that not
every institution right now is the same by any
stretch. But, you know, they might be rebranding
or renaming DEI offices, say, at some universities.
largely that work is still continuing, even if
they're avoiding sort of the quote unquote problematic
words that are flagged by the administration.
They're still doing that work to increase inclusion
of students and of faculty. And, you know, in
some respect, in my experience, I know that that's
not true across every state and across every.
university within those states. So I'm definitely
coming at it being at a private institution in
the Northeast. So in a very, you know, liberal
part of the country, in a very liberal city,
in a very liberal institution. So, you know,
not that we haven't rebranded things at the university,
but the work is still kind of, you know, still
going on. um and and so and i think that work
will continue kind of no matter what um sort
of obstacles are thrown our way um whether it
be from the administration or um from our own
institutions or from our employment um because
i think those of us who have been involved in
this work and who have been interested in equity
in our field and equality in our field have seen
the benefits of efforts. They're not perfect.
They can't solve every problem by any stretch,
but the mindfulness that has come about in the
self -reflection, both individually, but also
collectively as a discipline, I think we see
the benefits of that. Those of us who have been
involved in this process in, I must say within
the, I mean, recently within the last six years.
five, six years, I mean, really since 2020 -ish
or, you know, late 2000s. So I think, you know,
it still has merit and it's still important.
And that, yeah, there might not be an easy definition
other than really trying to make space for people
with diverse lived experiences and identities
within the areas that we work. um and um and
and trying to prioritize that in a way um because
we know that that does result in a better field
and in a stronger science um and and to me like
i mean i'm still fascinated by skeletal biology
by forensic anthropology methods and biological
anthropology methods um but you know this sort
of quote unquote again diversity equity and inclusion
realm um really is also getting at human behavior
and human you know biocultural realities in in
a different way that is then just studying not
i don't mean just but just studying a skeleton
or looking at a skeleton or crunching statistics
so i think that that is something that excites
me because we can see that there is a benefit
to this Yeah, no, I'm glad you said that. That
was kind of something that I was thinking as
you were talking was like, I guess this topic
really is twofold in the sense that they interact
with each other, though, is like, there's both
diversity in our field, like, who are the practitioners?
What types of experiences are going into the
science? And how is that affecting the science
that we're doing? But then also the diversity
of the work that we're doing in the sense of
like, who are the decedents? Who are we essentially
studying? And, you know, more often than not,
we're not necessarily, I mean, I guess outside
of my job, but you're not necessarily getting
just your like typical white guys, you know,
you're getting a diverse population that you're
trying to put a name to and trying to help ID
and get those families some answers and those
types of things. And so. You really have both
diversity of practitioner and of specimens, not
the right word, but, like, the... Decedents.
Yeah, the decedents, like, who you're trying
to help. So, definitely just, yeah, I'm glad
you said that. I think a lot of times that can
get lost, and, like, it's not just, oh, I want
to, you know, I want more populations to, like,
help my method, which is good. But it's also
you and your mindset can help interact with what
methods you use and how you define new methods
and things like that. Yeah, I think excellent
point, Stephanie. I think that, yeah, right.
When we're talking about DEI, diversity, equity,
inclusion sort of mentality, we can think about
it, yeah, from a practitioner perspective and
from training perspective, right, with our students.
who we are as a makeup of a community of scholars.
And yeah, and then what we can also say about
the people that we study and the people that
we work to try to identify or to say something
meaningful about in a scientific way. So I think
that. that it applies to yeah many different
sort of levels and many different components
of the field um and that all of them are important
because without the diversity of practitioners
say we wouldn't think to ask certain questions
about who the people are that are dead and why
they ended up dead and how we could say something
meaningful about their potential self -identity
or you know state -sanctioned sort of identity
or what have you so i think that um i mean they're
obviously all interrelated um and that we need
to like think about them together and not just
like um that that we're just thinking about student
diversity or just thinking about uh practitioner
diversity but the whole the whole sphere yeah
it's definitely the you affect your science and
your science affects you type of thing so exactly
um when when looking at though the practitioner
and student side of DEI, one of the common critiques
that I always hear is that DEI dismantles meritocracy.
And I have a hard time both debating the point,
but also saying that, you know, arguing that
DEI can enhance meritocracy by trying to eliminate
and point out that, look at these people who
have long been excluded and the merits they have
achieved. I know I'm wording it sort of pretty
strange, but does DEI eliminate meritocracy?
And if not, how can we better argue? that this
process enhances it, or at least is an equal
part of? Yeah, that's a good question, actually.
And yeah, I have heard that over the years many
times before as well, both within our field and
say within an institution or university setting.
You know, I think that anybody who goes through,
say, any sort of grad program, and even before
grad school. But if we're thinking about people
who are trying to professionalize in the field,
you know, with forensic anthropology or anthropology,
usually you need an advanced degree somewhat,
not that you can't work with a bachelor's, but,
you know, you usually need to go a little bit
further. There's always going to be meritocratic
principles baked in into grad programs, getting
in. I mean, we may have like gotten rid of some
of the standardized testing procedures, though
I think universities are now bringing them back
in in a lot of ways. You know, the the say the
grade point average, you know, we still have
to look we still have to look at these. these
sort of bare minimums um for certain thresholds
right and otherwise like the university would
be upset if we just quote unquote took everybody
right we we one we can't there's not enough space
uh that's not like we can't take everybody um
as much as we'd like to take more people uh at
every level we you know we can't um based on
resources and everything so There's always I
think in academia There's always gonna be meritocracy
that is always going to be in there like you
can never get rid of it even if we wanted to
and I don't even think that diversity equity
inclusion initiatives are working opposite or
working to dismantle all of meritocratic principles
um but they're adding nuance to the um say any
person's application um they're adding nuance
to who that person is right so i think that um
It doesn't inherently or doesn't need to inherently
dismantle it completely, and I don't think it
ever will or could. You know, I'm pro getting
rid of standardized tests in many circumstances,
you know, but we still have certain things to
look at when we are, say, looking at grad student
applications or undergrad applications. So, like,
there's still going to be something there. that
is going to be based on sort of your typical
sort of progression and passing certain thresholds.
I think that the, again, the diversity, equity,
inclusion sort of perspectives on this can help
to supply like information about a person that
isn't just, okay, they're a straight A student.
Like, I mean, right. And especially now, like
so many people are straight A students, right?
I mean, like we have like, I don't want to just
say that it's just because of great inflation,
but just that, you know, like, especially once
you get higher in, say, grad school or in your
training, everybody has great grades, right?
It's like. You know, rarely do you encounter
people that are like truly doing bad in classes
because they want to be there. And that's, you
know, they want to be there, not because classes
are easy. But so I think that having those lived
experiences to augment the already, OK, yeah,
they can do the work. They know how to analyze
a skeleton. They know how to do the basics. You
know, they know basic forensic anthropology.
But what else can they provide that is interesting,
that is motivating? their potential research
questions, that is motivating their perspectives
on how they are going to interpret evidence,
whether that be, you know, the skeleton itself
or the skeleton plus, you know, cultural artifacts
or objects. So I think that, yeah, I don't think
that it is. like getting rid of meritocratic
principles at all um but that is it's nuancing
um the perspectives of the people um and and
really helping to see who is has novel and interesting
questions too about research and about what how
they see the field um so I I still think that
it has a place and that also I mean, again, this
is my experience, but the people that are asking
that question or challenging that question have
been, in my perspective and in my experience,
straight white men who have been like, it's been
meritocracy is being gotten rid of because of
DEI measures. And I came up through the meritocratic
way. They might not say it in this way, but that
they came up that way and they were successful
in it and therefore other people should do the
same. it's coming from you know a certain cohort
of people within our field or with probably within
any field um so it's it's not um uh yeah it's
coming out uh from a very distinct group of people
i guess does it um real quick one of the the
things though that i think about is when you
have that argument about the the uh sort of that
death of meritocracy or the non -death of meritocracy
when it comes to meritocracy and meritocratic
principles and DEI is, well, you can evaluate
things blind. For example, the recent Supreme
Court ruling 2022 and 23, I think, on affirmative
action and just review blind. Is it possible
to review blind and still achieve the outcomes
needed that DEI wants to profess or even that
meritocracy proclaims to profess? that the meritocracy
i was speaking of is what we normally hear from
from a certain cohort yeah uh no i mean i i don't
think so um yeah i don't i mean the the quote
-unquote blind sort of um or kind of making everybody
even or equal sort of like in any sort of assessment.
I mean, we know that not everybody has access
to the same resources to get to where they need
to be or to get to where they are now. Everybody
has taken diverse pathways to get to where they're
going. People have had opportunities. Others
have not had opportunities. And I think like
if you're approaching any sort of decision making
about who should get in or get a job or get into
a program or what have you. I mean, ideally,
I think that those should be considered to some
extent. I think that knowing a person's background
and where they come from and why they want to
go into the field and what motivated them, sometimes
that motivation might come from a lived experience
that is, as somebody who's been not in the majority
of thought in a lot of ways or or could have
had um uh you know been um sort of ostracized
in many ways other people could you know be a
part of the majority but i think that just knowing
those perspectives is interesting and and helpful
and can only help um because i think i mean there's
been studies i mean i don't think within anthropology
specifically or i can't think of any necessarily
specifically but that you know again, kind of
all things considered or all things sort of equalized,
that if we didn't have these sort of checks and
balances with DEI, and I think that that's what
DEI kind of offers is a potential for making
sure that we aren't just accepting everybody
from one single demographic. And, you know, I
think there's been studies to show that, like,
well, you know, if everything were equal, like,
and if we just selected who we absolutely thought
based solely on meritocratic principles it's
it's going to be potentially majority white people
right in in and that's not because they they
are the best at getting these through these meritocratic
principles right or wealthy yes exactly right
right whole whole slew of reasons why right more
resources more money more time more more what
have you so i think that that The diversity,
equity, inclusion initiatives can serve as sort
of a checks and balances to the meritocratic
principles. So I think the two can actually work
together and that it's not necessarily like one
or the other. And even now with if we're just,
say, supposed to do meritocracy or based whatever
we're deciding on meritocratic principles. it's
still hard to, like, you can't tell somebody
to not write about their lived experience in
a job application, in a grad school application,
in a personal statement, in a cover letter. Just
looking at someone's CV, you know a lot, too,
about what they have had opportunities for or,
you know, like, you can see a lot already. And
you can't turn a blind eye, I think, to knowing
that stuff also. So I think that... even if it's
not officially there, that those perspectives
are still coming through and potentially informing
the reviewers, right? They're still adding something
or biasing, you know, in a good and or bad way.
But I mean, biasing the people who are making
the decisions about who should get. whatever
is being applied for. So I think that those things
are still like, you can't take, you can't take
away people's lived experiences, especially like
in academia, where so much of what we do is like
motivated by, I don't, it could be where you
grew up. It could be your challenges that you
faced. It could be that you're just fascinated
by something, you know, something that's very
personal to a lot of people about why they want
to study what they want to study. And in, in
many fields that's embraced and that's great
because it's a great motivator. And it's a very
good way to get to productive, interesting research.
So I think that it would be hard to ignore these
things that make us unique and human and that
show us our... our challenges that we've faced
in our our applications to either grad school
or to a job because you have to pour so much
of your personal self into these things so you're
not just giving like if if it were just meritocratic
we would literally just submit you know our our
transcripts and a standardized test right and
then nothing else and then i mean even then the
like thinking about like what classes I took
even in undergrad like all my electives tell
you about me and so like even if I just submitted
my transcript you're still learning okay well
what did she take electives in what did she find
interesting or you know having kind of like how
you're saying earlier that like once you get
to a certain point most people have good grade
point averages because they're interested in
what they're doing so then like even seeing my
transcript if I have you know high A's and all
of these classes, but a C in this class, it might
not be because I was bad at that class. It might've
just been, I didn't care about the class. And
so it's like, even I think, I don't know, for
me, the people that like try to tout that merit,
like merit is the only way to like get an answer
are also the same people that believe that people
in themselves can be objective to begin with.
And it's like, you can't because we're people.
And so like, even having, like numbers don't
mean anything without context behind them and
so trying to pretend that you know you checked
these boxes means something the meaning you place
on that is based on your own lived experiences
and so but yeah i think that's a good point that
the people that um yeah i agree with you stephanie
that the people that um proclaim that say meritocracy
is is being confronted or dismantled because
of dei um are are similar are in that same group
of people who think that you know we're completely
and can be completely objective when we need
to be or you know all the time when we analyze
a skeleton or do whatever we do um and that you
know obviously there's been a lot of um um discussion
about that over the the years so yeah i think
it's all related i think for sure i say for i
guess the from your own perspective when maybe
not being able to call a dei or whatever i guess
how do you go about implementing those same principles
without it being clear stated i guess in today's
world Community Connections Committee. Right.
Yeah, there's been obviously a lot of renaming
of committees and of offices in universities.
I must say, again, I'm at Boston University.
It's a private institution. So it's under sort
of, I think, different sort of, you know, sort
of mandates than a public institution, though
not without critique or not without people critiquing
the university. Thankfully, my institution has
not gotten rid of diversity. People still hold
that title in, say, their actual job title, like
an associate dean or a dean of whatever diversity.
They've changed some of the terminology, but,
you know, none of the actual aims have changed.
They've done a little bit of reorganization with
offices. But again, nothing has been completely
dismantled, thankfully, at our institution. I
know that that's not true across institutions
at all. So I'm not saying that that's something
that everybody is experiencing. But what I am
seeing is that, okay, so maybe there's been a
slight change of name in something. We are still
doing the same thing. basically, at least as
an institution in the way that we're thinking
about things. That's not, you know, obviously,
like if we apply to, say, a federal grant, if
you are doing stuff where there's sort of like
trigger words that the administration is looking
for, then, yes, you have to sort of bend to those
or in your application. And I mean, another thing
is that what I've been hearing people say, this
is not I have not done this. I've not applied
for a federal grant. um like this um but that
that um yeah you don't put the sort of dei language
in your um grant application but you do you do
the work once you get the money um who's gonna
know uh i mean yeah you have to report uh but
you could also be very selective in the way that
you use language to report what you're doing
so it doesn't mean that that is inherently gone
i mean it could i mean it's obviously having
a negative effect on what is getting funded and
what sort of questions and projects and communities
are being offered resources. So, I mean, not,
not to say that, that you can just sort of brush
it off by any stretch, but I think that, that
people are so impassioned by this because the
work needs to still happen, that they're finding
ways to do it. And so for me in particular, I
mean, like, again, I've had very little, I mean,
I've been on a lot of DEI related committees
at the university level. And but like there's
been nothing inherently told to me that I can't
do a certain thing. So my own sort of private
or not private, but my own website about the
forensic and bioanthropology laboratory group
within our department, I have not changed at
all. And diversity, equity, inclusion have been
featured on there for years. I didn't change
any of that language. You know, I identify on
that website as, you know, a gay male and that
that's been an important part. And that has motivated
me. in sort of the way I'm thinking about the
field in some ways. And I think it's hugely important
to my students. I mean, we get applicants and
people that come to the program because I think
of this diversity, equity, inclusion work. So
because people, students often want professors
and universities that are dedicated to this.
And so... for myself it hasn't dramatically changed
much and in fact you know again i i have the
luxury again i i don't think that everybody has
this luxury but i'm like i can sort of double
down in doing my dei work i can publish a lot
on this stuff and i'm still continuing to i could
do a podcast like this and not thankfully, knock
on wood, not worry about it jeopardizing my career.
And so, again, I think that not everybody can.
So I don't expect everybody to be able to do
that. But that it hasn't. for me changed much
other than motivating me to continue doing the
work and to make it visible that i'm doing the
work um and to to being um up front with that
um and again i think this this is it reminds
me of a similar though different but a similar
time where you know we were starting the the
diversity the Diversity and Inclusion Committee
through the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
Anthropology Section in 2017, 2018. And there
was initial pushback about starting a diversity
committee within the American Academy of Forensic
Sciences. There was verbal pushback. And we were,
you know, a lot of us were sort of shocked to
hear that people had a problem with that. But
that also motivated us. That absolutely was like
kind of a nice, I mean, not nice, but it was
a good impetus for us to like define what we
want to do. Realize that, no, this is important
for a community of forensic anthropologists.
um that we want to do this work and this is what
we need to do and so i think it like knowing
that there were sort of detractors actually helped
fuel sort of our motivation and our fire to do
the work where if like everything is fine all
the time you might not be challenged to take
sort of that next step to say double down on
something or to be like no no this is actually
important and i'm i have to verbally or in writing
defend this in some way or argue for it um because
if everything is you know sort of hunky -dory
the whole time that you know we could stagnate
so As much as I am very bothered by what's happening
politically and with the administration and particularly
with science and the effects of science and healthcare
and the universities and marginalized communities
in general, but I still think that people are
rising to the challenge. And it might be taking
us a little bit to figure out how to do that
and how to operate that way, but that we're still
doing that work. So, and that's important. With
that, though, you know, as we've noted, for a
while, DEI seemed to have some favor within academia.
There was pushback, but there was some favor.
And in the last few years, particularly this
last year with the administration, there has
been considerable pushback, relentless assault
on anything even remotely diversity, considered
diversity. Where did things go so wrong in your
view? And how can we bring this into balance?
This seems to be a societal question. DEI is
either the devil or it's good. And I figured
there has to be a balance somewhere. I'd say,
I don't want, I mean, I'm going to let you answer
too, Sean, but I think for myself that, that.
difference is mostly just a lack of understanding
of what it even is because I think a lot of times
people who I mean like my own father like who
really thinks that this is like this horrible
thing and I'm like I don't think you like I try
to spend a lot of time being like I don't know
if you know what you're talking about actually
like what you're saying and what I'm saying or
going across from each other and not meeting
anywhere in the middle because we're talking
about very different things. And so I think for
me, when I come across people that, like, you
know, do think DEI is the devil or whatever,
it's asking a lot of questions to them of, like,
well, what do you see as bad? Like, what is,
why are you thinking the way you're thinking?
Because sometimes the thought process helps explain.
oh, maybe what they're saying isn't what they're
actually thinking. And there is actually some
crossover that we can come together on some beliefs
while, you know, you just hear the sound bites.
You might think, oh, we have nothing in common
and we can't ever come to an agreement of any
kind. I don't know. That's just what I tend to
do. Yeah, that's interesting. Yeah, I think a
great question. And again, not an easy, straightforward
answer. But I think that like, I mean, right.
So if people are arguing DEI is either the best
thing ever or the worst thing ever. I mean, rarely
is anything, any one initiative or any sort of
group thought 100 % good or 100 % bad, right?
Like meritocracy isn't necessarily 100 % bad.
It's not 100 % good, right? So I mean, there's...
all this it's all sort of gray area right as
with most things and depending on context too
it's gonna it's gonna matter so it's not it's
never it should never be black or white right
that that that dei is always going to be 100
good i think that within like the academic sphere
and the university sphere i think that there
was a lot i mean if we're thinking you know this
if this got really up and running in the 2020
in 2020 really in post 2020 but you know with
uh the murder of George Floyd and and racial
reckonings and COVID and I mean all the things
that drove us into sort of self -reflection um
you know both self for the discipline and for
our own sort of work um that that there was obviously
a lot of um sort of posturing, right? Or a lot
of like jumping on the bandwagon of DEI right
away, right? Like universities did it. There
were diversity statements everywhere. There was
like, you know, these things that were just like,
okay, this is what we need to do now. So it was
sort of obviously a reaction to what was going
on sociopolitically. Almost a more formative
reaction. At a lot of places. Right. Yeah. And
I don't think that that was inherently bad either,
but that also there wasn't a ton of follow through
with a lot of these. So like they would do one
diversity statement and be like, okay, we did
our work. Now we have it up on the department
or on whatever website that people can see that
we did the work and we're done. And so there
was a lot of this posturing with DEI, a lot of
performative DEI work, or just really not anything
really happening after they sort of initially
got groups together, you know, communities together
to talk about this stuff. So I think that there,
I mean. there's rightfully a critique of that
right that that you need to follow through with
whatever initiative that you're sort of taking
on or whatever um you know torch you're gonna
you're gonna sort of bear and and run with that
so i think a lot of institutions i mean you know
not just colleges or universities but like i
mean many different places did this right where
they did some of the work in the beginning and
didn't do anything you know later on so i think
that there's a big critique there. And I understand
that critique and that wasn't a good thing. So,
you know, I think that that's one place where
it was starting, you know, to be questioned.
I think also not defining whether it be an institution
or... what have you, like not defining what they
mean by diversity, equity, inclusion, or whatever
terms that they're using. Right. And not just
saying DEI, like, I mean, obviously like it makes
sense to say DEI, you know, in certain contexts
versus saying the whole thing out all the time.
But I do think that like actually saying diversity,
equity, and inclusion, saying that out in conversation
with people is more helpful than just DEI, even
though everyone knows what DEI stands for. But
like, how can people be actually against inclusion,
right? Like, so like when you kind of list it
out, it's like diversity, equity, and inclusion
in and of themselves on their own, even if we
just take the Merriam -Webster definition, you
know, like they're not bad words, right? But
like together, DEI is bad. So I think that like
even just spelling that out and saying what you
mean, particularly as an organization that has
power, right? that has some sort of sway in either
getting students or getting people employed or,
or what have you, um, I think is really important
too. And not just being like DEI, um, even though
I understand like in, in conversation, we do
that. So, um, yeah, I think defining what you
mean. Um, and again, I don't think organizations
and people have been good with that, um, defining
what they mean or saying what they mean other
than DEI. Um, and, um, And doing the just performative
stuff without any sort of real follow through.
And then, of course, with, you know, since January
or since the last election, I mean, that, you
know, that that was just another huge blow, right,
to any sort of diversity or seemingly a huge
blow to diversity, equity, inclusion initiatives.
Though, again, I mean, we're seeing that, like,
say. The court proceedings and the legal ramifications,
like the administration isn't necessarily winning
in these things that they're trying to stop.
Like they may have paused things for a while
and that people might have preemptively stopped
doing DEI work. But when it is coming into the
courtroom and sort of the decisions, a lot of
those are being lost, right? And that they're
kind of in our... quote unquote, or whoever the
group is that is sort of pro -inclusion and pro
-science and pro -that. So a lot of it is sort
of ruling in sort of our favor. It's just taking
time to get there, right? So I think that, yeah,
I mean, obviously this year has been an immense
challenge, especially with like the premature
acceptance of whatever these... these rulings
are right like if they like just okay capitulation
yeah right yeah just like saying yes right without
being like wait do we have to and and why are
we doing this now is there any legal recourse
to doing this or not doing this right now um
so you know i think that that has has um obviously
uh been a challenge but but again i think that
that that legally um Things haven't panned out
for the administration in a lot of ways, even
though it's it's not been an easy battle and
that is paused and stopped. I mean, to some extent,
but some of the work that's happening, but that
that people are still finding ways to do that
work, which which I find exciting. I think hopefully,
I mean, we'll only get better over these next
few years, too, even if it will get not better
politically. But knowing that we do have three
more years of whatever this is, do you see any
short -term and long -term ramifications related
to this dismantling? Particularly, not just in
academia, but I think particularly within the...
A lot of forensic anthropology is in government.
It's not just in academia. Do we have that ramification?
Yeah, well, I would be interested to hear what
Stephanie thinks about this. Yeah, I'm sure.
I mean, yes, there is going to be that. I mean,
I think, you know, funding, I mean, getting grant
federal grants is going to be a challenge for
just just inherent topics. that we want to study
right i mean studying women was problematic right
deemed problematic like uh like studying trans
people is doing probably like so just even just
the topic of the whatever group right or the
name of the group um not not to mention that
they're not to mention the d dei component but
just like who who is being studied or what resources
are being provided so i think um So, yes, that's
going to, I think, remain a challenge, though,
hopefully getting a little bit better, especially
with some of these rulings that are coming out
that the money that was not given to people is
now are given to institutions and things are
being sort of given back, even though there's
been damage, of course, done. And just kind of
hope it doesn't get to the Supreme Court. Yeah,
yeah, yeah. So I think, yeah, I don't know. I
will be. it will be interesting to see i think
i mean six months ago uh and earlier i would
have been like oh my gosh it's we're like this
is the worst right i mean it is it's pretty bad
but i mean like there is no coming back from
this now i'm seeing like because we've gotten
used to some things a little bit um and that
things are still sometimes operating again depending
on the context and where we're at um that I have
a little bit more hope now than I did, say, six
months ago or last January or something. So I
think that, yeah, I don't think it'll be completely
dismantled in my perspective. But again, I'm
operating from a private institution in a very
bubble space of Boston, surrounded by other...
you know somewhat like -minded institutions and
people to some extent not that there's not um
a diversity of thought here but um yeah so but
from a government perspective stephanie i'm curious
you know what you yeah it's it's different um
i guess the best way to put it is kind of how
you were saying earlier that like the names have
changed but the work still kind of being done
in the sense that like Like we were mandated
to take off like pronouns at the end of our signatures
and things like that. But it's definitely like
the conversations are still being had, just not
written or not, you know, like those types of
things. I feel like I've, I've had a lot more
like, I don't know, scuttlebutt, like water fountain
conversations that. honestly are better than
any written conversation that I've ever had because
people are like truly coming together to be like
what what do we do how do we you know like how
do we work within the system but also not be
okay with this that like the things that we're
not okay with um I definitely like I know when
we got told to like take our pronouns out of
our email um like signature for all government
work stuff I are like because I'm a contractor
our SNA contractor said we could keep it in our
SNA emails but we just couldn't do it if we're
emailing via like our government email and I
like went I literally had a meeting with my like
managers and I was just like so the actual text
of the like guidance that was given to us it
was that we had to take it out of our digital
signature if I just hand wrote it into every
email would I get in trouble and they were like
I mean doesn't that kind of go against the spirit
and intent and I was like yes but that's I want
to go against the spirit and intent actually
and so like there's definitely some like I don't
know weird circular cap fighting back against
some things that like maybe you can't explicitly
go against because then you'll get fired or whatever
i say have you but there's definitely more conversations
that are being had than probably ever before
which well i wish it didn't have to come from
something bad happening to make these conversations
happen it's nice that they are happening um we're
like i know We've definitely had lots of conversations
within the last couple of years at work of like,
I mean, this is more method based than necessarily
like employment based, but like, what are we
like, what are we doing for ancestry? What, what
does this mean? How do we go about like the,
yes, most of the population that we're working
with are white men in their twenties, but it's
not everyone like. The Korean War and Vietnam
War definitely had more diverse populations than
that. And how do we go about writing that? How
can we do what the field is pushing for and what
we ethically believe is correct to do for our
science while not writing something that's going
to get flagged somewhere down the line? And so
it's definitely been interesting to see. hear
those conversations being had um even if kind
of behind closed doors so so hopefully not dismantled
i guess is the answer but yeah it just looks
different i wonder thinking about it not just
for for government workers but for academic workers
for anybody within forensic anthropology and
anthropology in general what we're not stupid
people most of us follow politics to some extent.
But I think going forward, looking at how funding
has been weaponized, particularly against anything
that looks like DEI, part of our unofficial job
description is studying and understanding politics
in the now and in the future. Because this is
going to change. In three years, there's going
to be a new administration. There's going to
be new policies. But the radical shift that has
taken place and the norm -breaking that has taken
place this term has sort of opened the door for
the future. And now, as anthropologists, I think
we have to... observe study and almost predict
what's going to happen to make sure that we can
adjust going forward before the adjustments even
really needed i don't know if we can necessarily
predict i mean we can have some best guesses
i guess but i think if we're trying to predict
human behavior then we're almost doing what they're
doing, but on the opposite end. And so I think,
well, it's good to be preemptive and like, you
know, work towards... Well, preemptive is, I
think, is a better word than predict. What I
mean is, I think for us, when it comes to what
has taken place, it took academics, researchers,
anthropologists, for us specifically as anthropologists,
almost six months. It took us half a year to
realize how to work with and within this administration.
In future, we can't take six months. We're going
to have to look at before that. We're going to
have to say, all right, this is coming in. How
do we address it? And that requires us sort of
knowing. that political structure and knowing
that political mindset that we haven't really
had to do before. We've been in our scientific
bubble of, okay, I can write my grant, send it
in, it'll get approved or rejected based on the
merits and come back. Now we have to sort of
look at it like, well, what's going to be politically
favorable? and this administration or in the
if we're talking about a year out the incoming
administration if they're whichever one gets
elected rather than you know all right i can
just write whatever i need to i think to a certain
extent though that we always kind of had to do
that i mean now it's definitely the administration
has been a bit more explicit and like you can't
say these words like if I had tried to get grant
funding for my thesis, it would have been like
said no, because I have the word bias in there.
And arguably almost my research was to try to
make people more objective. And so like what
they kind of would have wanted, it still would
have been said no because of bias. And so like,
I think it always was kind of there of like trying
to. I mean, think about like when you write resumes
and do any cover letters, like you tailor it
to who you're talking to, to a certain extent.
And so I think that's always been true. It's
just definitely, I think with what's going on
now, the like research that the field has been
getting into seems to be more in opposition of
what the administration wants. And so I think
that's why it feels so like. So drastically,
like we can't do anything anymore. But yeah,
I don't know. There was a little bit of a difference
before this term. The NIH, the NSF, the NIJ,
well, the NIJ is still kind of giving us grants,
which is great. But these were almost semi -autonomous
independent agencies. That no longer exists.
They're no longer independent agencies. And admittedly
no longer independent agencies. So we have to
follow what the administration is doing. There
is no more even slither of daylight between the
two. But I do think that that's always been the
case, right? I mean, like the NSF is appointed
by the president. Higher ups of the NSF, right,
are like appointed by any president. So I think
we've had to navigate this stuff before. Right.
I mean, Trump's first term. And then prior to
that, there were other things that we had to
navigate. So, like, I think that we always have
to, like, be cognizant of the sociopolitical
landscape that we're working in and that any
grant you have to sort of be aware of that. And
so I don't think that I mean, yeah, like it seems
more extreme right now because there's so many.
words and groups targeted groups that you know
we can't um focus on in our our uh studies supposedly
but that um i think we always have to do that
um but i also think that like i mean again well
i think that in certain ways like the cat is
already out of the bag or the toothpaste is already
out of the tube or whatever like you can't put
it back in in that like again a lot of us and
again, I'm sort of collective us, have seen the
benefits of what these diversity, equity, and
inclusion initiatives can do and perspectives,
whether it be write a paper, whether it be get
a group of people together to write a paper,
whether it be to do a poster or a presentation
at a conference, whether it be a website, whether
it be to do a committee or be on a committee.
um we see the benefits of these um and and it's
not just because we drank the kool -aid right
i mean we we see that it is beneficial and that
it is helping people um and and strengthening
the field too um and then i mean i look at my
students and i mean they there's no question
that they are way more interested in i mean just
even like 10 years ago when i started teaching
versus now i mean students have changed so much.
And it's so exciting to see that students have
no issues with, I mean, you know, like whatever,
you know, gender and sex terms and whatever,
like all this stuff is so exciting. Like they
are like so comfortable and so interested in
like challenging the, like the bad system or
the oppressive system. And so like, I get motivated
from them also because of like, well, they're
going to be the future workers and leaders and
whatever of our field, right? So they seem pretty
cool with things. And I mean, yeah, they are
worried and frustrated and scared of what's going
on for sure. But that, I mean, the papers that
they choose to write on, the people that they
choose to write on, the topics that they're doing
for their theses, I mean, are reflective of like...
what could sometimes be dei labeled right but
that but like we can thankfully still do that
um and it's so it's it's motivating to see that
right that that um there's i think enough momentum
um in our field right now i know that we might
be stifled by uh the context in which we work
like the intersection with government and law
enforcement um but also this kind of is another
time that allows us the self -reflection to be
like how does our field intersect with what's
going on sociopolitically like like what like
does do our terms support what the administration
is saying you know if we use say biological sex
or biological male or biological female in our
reports Does that in some way support what the
administration is saying, that there are only
two, and they use biological sex all the time
in their definition of what they mean as binary
male and female. So like, if we're using that,
I mean, that's just a small example, and I'm
not saying don't use it. I just, but like, you
know, even the terminology, is it supporting
what the administration is saying, even though
we know? that that is not true biology and true
biocultural reality, right? So I think that it's
allowing us now also to, again, self -assess
about how our field intersects and that, yes,
we were like, our field was in many ways legitimated
because of its alliances with law enforcement,
right? Particularly early on. And that has, it's
like sort of tendrils affecting our field now,
right? Like where we're still operating on that
five. race, ancestry, whatever your population
affinity, whatever you want to call it, it's
still race, right? It's still going back to the
old school race categories. So we're still operating
under that. We're still operating under the same
sex and gender categories that were found, you
know, founded in what like law enforcement uses,
even if we're trying to sort of diversify the
language or to like make the language more inclusive.
So like we've been legitimated by law enforcement
and by the government or the state sort of early
on. And that has sort of trickled down obviously
like history does um to today and so i think
that and and like do we want to be legitimating
what the state is doing right now i mean obviously
like jobs are important like like i'm not saying
don't work for the government uh but just like
you know we need we should be cognizant of the
work that we're doing and whether like we're
supporting these totally wrongful claims that
what they're saying about human biological variation.
So I think that there's a potential opportunity
now to sort of engage with that too, to be like,
what are we doing? And how is our history being
influenced by the sociopolitical landscape? Well,
and I know a paper that you and I and several
others put out talked about this almost to an
extent. on advocacy and now the coined term is
necropolisy and necroadvocacy and this concept
of we've worked so hard within our bubble, now
we have to work outside. We have to engage with
the outside spheres, the outside world to try
to not just explain, but engage with what our
research is, what it can do, what it can't do,
what we mean, because we do see a lot of our
research being malappropriated, misappropriated.
And to an extent, we have an obligation to say,
hey, wait a second, that's not what we mean.
And I think that all goes back to just like,
how, how good are we at explaining what we mean?
Because like language is hard, especially when
you're trying to explain something as complex
as people. And so really, which I guess kind
of goes back to what I was saying before is like
really having those conversations with people
who think exactly the opposite of you, quote
unquote, and trying to say like, okay, what did
you hear from what I said? And how can we go
about coming together to where you get a better
understanding of what I'm actually trying to
say instead of just what you heard me say? And
that's really hard because then you have to truly
understand what you're talking about, which is
hard. And then being able to explain it in a
way that other people who don't know what you're
talking about can understand and like trying
to find that happy balance of also. listening
where like i know that's one thing that like
i struggled with for so long of like just sitting
down and listening to someone who i completely
disagree with and just being like okay so i said
you know xyz about morphological sex but all
you got was they're a man and it's like okay
that's not what i said but why did you get what
why did you get what you got out of what i said
and how can we bridge that gap and i think a
lot of and maybe i'm overstating this but like
i feel like a lot of our field are pretty they're
not necessarily outgoing people in the way that
they want to just like have those conversations
where like you know a lot of us got into the
field because we like the science and we like
to be like inward a little bit and think about
the complexities of the human body but like that
also requires us we love studying people we hate
people yeah yeah but like it requires you to
be a people person like if you're going at least
in my own opinion like if you're going to be
a good scientist you have to be a people person
you have to be able to speak to the people you're
giving your science to in a way that they understand
And that's hard. I mean, because everyone's coming
with different experiences. So then you might
explain it one way to one person and they get
it immediately. And then you explain it exactly
the same way to someone else and they get something
completely opposite. And so it's just having
the patience to listen to a certain extent and
not just explain is what I've at least been trying
to do. For sure. Yeah, I think that's an excellent
point. I think that our field has not done a
great job with science communication. This could
be said also broadly for biological anthropology,
but I think specifically for forensic anthropology,
we haven't really done a great job at communicating
what our science can and cannot do. I think both
with the public, but then also the... people
in the organizations that we work with, with
law enforcement. So if our reports say are incredibly
short and we're just saying, you know, mail and
not giving any justification or explanation of
what we mean by that, like, yes, we're, we're
like reducing a very complex thing to like just
this, this one label. Right. And, and that we're
not say at, you know, adding a probability or
whatever, we're not sort of justifying why we
said it. We just say it to fit the needs of what
that. organization or what that law enforcement
organization wants then we're not doing the field
a good you know a service because we are not
explaining what we actually mean by that and
that that there's a lot of complexity even in
say sex estimation so like we're not doing a
good job with what we mean and i think about
this all the time when i see and do myself but
like uh like um presentations or lectures or
whatever on sex estimation and there's always
the female pelvis next to the male pelvis the
female skull next to the male skull and there's
like the obvious differences because they're
focused on the obvious differences so there's
only two forms right even if we're explaining
that yes there's gradients and there's scales
and there's measures and it's not just one or
the other and it's not black and white Like those
images are incredibly powerful. And so all science
communication like about this shows, I mean,
most of us will just put up, you know, a male
and female example, right? And that just like
not necessarily a gradient. And so we do this
when we teach undergrad classes, we do this sometimes
when we teach grad classes, we do this in science
communication stuff. And so I think that that
in and of itself is problematic, right? We're
like reducing this complex process of sex estimation
and what makes a person, whatever we're calling
that person, the biological processes behind
that we've like dramatically reduced down to
like these, you know, a binary, right? I think,
and then similar could be said about race, ancestry,
and population affinity that we've sort of, you
know, that we've reduced it down so much to make
it sort of palatable for the organizations that
employ us or that work with us that we have,
like, we just have reduced the science down so
much. And so I think that the field could greatly
benefit from better science communication, like
podcasts, like, Things that people who aren't
getting their PhD in the field, that have access
to this stuff. So I think... You know, YouTube
videos and Instagram and all the things have
roles in explaining what we do and don't do.
It just it obviously takes people that are interested
in it. Not all of us are capable or have an interest
or know what we're doing in that regard. So,
you know, it takes the right people to do that.
But that's why I think that we can also. benefit
from training in how to do science communication,
right? It's never taught how to do this stuff,
how to do a podcast, how to do, you know, a public
talk that like makes it, you know, sound understandable
for people. So I think that like we could benefit
from that training in whatever way to, yeah,
to better explain what our field can and cannot
do. So, wrapping up here, because we've gone
on for a while, there's one last thing I wanted
to bring up with you. And I don't want to go
into the backstory because it's a pretty complicated
case, but for those that are interested, I highly
recommend looking up some of the stories and
information regarding the University of Oklahoma
and... The essay controversy that took place
in the Department of Psychology there. I don't
want to release the names, but you can find them
pretty quickly on the news. But knowing that,
you have, you've followed it, you've paid attention
to it, right? Which, which? This is the student,
just briefly. So an undergraduate student turned
in an assignment that didn't follow the instructions
that, as we know them, the instructions have
been published out. They're out in the world.
The essay's out in the world. Failed to properly
cite anything, including the Bible that they
had reportedly cited or referenced, not cited.
Used only opinion and used that opinion to attack
fellow students. Admittedly, on a news report,
a local news report, didn't even read the article
they were supposed to reflect on, didn't reference
the article they were supposed to reflect on,
and it was grammatically well below what you'd
consider university level. They received a zero
and were asked to redo the assignment and went
to the university, to the governor of the state
of Oklahoma, and to a well -known student organization,
Turning Point USA. and claimed religious discrimination.
The University of Oklahoma has terminated the
graduate teaching instructor rather than backing
up the instructor. And a couple of things, I
worry about this for a few things. And one of
them is, well, this incident has received national
attention. Are we seeing similar instances around
the country? that are just not getting as much
attention. I recall at Texas A &M, there was
an incident where a student recorded a lecture
from a professor, and the professor, as well
as the department chair, and even the university
president, I believe, ended up being terminated.
So are we seeing more of these instances? And
in this particular case, Is it the fact that
the instructor of this case was a graduate student,
or was it that they were trans, or was it really
a mixture of both? The fact that both of them
made them vulnerable. And lastly, does this appear
to be a blueprint that can be replicated elsewhere?
Can any organization that says, we don't like
this faculty member, so we'll have a student?
turn in trash and then claim religious or political
persecution. And then universities back down
because they're afraid of the external pressures
rather than academic vigor. Yeah, that's very
complex. Yeah, events. I think, yeah, I mean,
good question. I don't know. I think that...
Unfortunately, I think this is going to depend
largely on the region of the country that you're
in also. Not to say that this wouldn't happen
in, say, Massachusetts, but that I do think that
like regionally that's going to like it's Oklahoma.
Right. I mean, not to say that, of course, it
happened there. It shouldn't happen anywhere.
But that there are more restrictive states or
states that are more concerned about. offending
or upsetting um their the people so i think and
it's a it's a public university so it's under
the thumb of state legislatures and governors
right so places like florida texas you know this
stuff could i think could definitely happen um
i mean the idea of students filming and recording
is you know terrifying and they could totally
do that um so i i think Yeah, I mean, I guess
I'm of a few minds. And then I think that, yes,
I mean, because this was sort of successful,
like, I mean, in getting somebody fired and having
it reach sort of national conversation, I think
that, yeah, that could be some motivation to
other places that want to get rid of people.
At the same time, I think that it... I don't
think it should be viewed as like a conspiracy,
like a, cause that's scary to think about it.
That like, that there's going to be people that
are always looking for, you know, trying to get
people out of academia or out of any sort of
organization. So I don't want to think that there's
going to be this witch hunt for people necessarily.
But I think it. What I think that it also says
is like, I mean, you, it's interesting because,
I mean, we think that the university, and again,
I'm thinking of a university and this is that
example, but that the university in some ways
is protective, right? Or it could be. It can
protect its students to some extent. It can protect
its staff and faculties to some extent. Because.
With these claims and with academic freedom and
with what science is and with what sort of the
goals of higher education are, that there is
seemingly some protections there until there
aren't. And then all of a sudden academic freedom
or whatever is incited to get rid of somebody.
And so I think that it's... It's scary to think
that the organization that you work for and that
you spend a lot of time and energy in and that
you especially as like a grad worker, you know,
like you are not getting paid well. Right. But
you are getting a degree and you are contributing
to the university by teaching and all this. You
know, the work, the labor that you're doing,
that the university should protect their people.
Right. And so I think that says. a ton, of course,
about that specific institution. I don't think
it necessarily has to say a ton about academia
at the moment, I hope, unless there's going to,
I mean, less like across the country, there's,
you know, cases of this happening, which I hope
not. But I think it says a ton about that university.
And that, I mean, i would hope that that i mean
that is going to affect who applies to work at
that institution right that is going to affect
the students that go to that institution i mean
it could motivate students to go to that institution
if you're under a certain mindset right it could
also motivate people to not go to that institution
um so i think that was that's an institutional
failure right and that's what i think is more
concerning that yes there's going to be these
complaints about professors about instructors
about curriculum that are brought up by people
in, you know, that disagree with what you're
teaching, but that the university should absolutely
protect you. And that it shouldn't have to go
up to the president to do this, but like, if
it does, then they should protect you too, but
that this should be handled. Hopefully you should
be protected. So I think that it says a lot about
that particular institution and how that can
happen. And it is scary to think about, but I
don't think. that it's necessarily an epidemic.
But I mean, the same could also, you could talk
about like what people are posting on Instagram,
right? People, professors are getting fired for
not speaking for the institution, right? And
they're personally posting things against wars
and against genocides and what have you. And
then concerned citizens like go up the chain
and make a complaint and that professor gets
fired. So that's how, you know, that's happening.
um where in again that where academic freedom
and where um you know um the right to say things
uh is out the window um where then where in like
academia that has been the safe space so i mean
those things do scare me and concern me for sure
but again they're taking place in very specific
locations across the country um in conservative
leaning uh governed areas um and which is not
good uh but that that um i don't think it's a
wholesale um attack or concern necessarily though
i mean it does absolutely concern me uh but yeah
i i don't know i i hope that this isn't a trend
that we're gonna see um i mean yeah i hope it's
not yeah i know i mean i'm definitely someone
that I post a lot on social media of my beliefs
and things like that. And I mean, I've gotten,
like, my dad's called me and been like, you're
going to get fired and everything's going to
be like, blah, blah, blah. And I was like, actually,
like, if I do for that, like, and this is probably
like a really privileged standpoint to have,
but I'm like, if I do, do I want to work there?
Like, and like, I can say that because, you know,
in my head, I'm like, well, then I'll just find
a different job. And that's a very privileged
standpoint to have. But it's like. I don't, I
don't know if I'd want to work at a place that
would fire me for saying genocide's bad. I don't
know. Like, okay. But yeah, it's, it's, we'll,
I guess only future will tell, but. Yeah. Like,
I mean, do you actually in like Canada, do you,
could you, do you see this happening? Canada?
I actually, you know, it was one of those things
where I would say. If you asked me a year ago,
I'd say no, it could never happen. But more and
more, I think it could in Alberta. Outside of
Alberta, I don't really see it happening. But
there's a reason why we call Alberta Texas of
the North. or Canadian, Texas, or however you
want to put it. It has the exact same mindset.
And right now they have a government that, hey,
what's Greg Abbott doing? Let's do the same.
And that is a problem. But also throughout Canada,
they have the faculty, even grad students and
graduate instructors and TAs and whatnot, graduate
staff. have rather strong unions compared to
what's in the United States, which allows for
a lot of those protections that we just don't
have here in the U .S. So that's why I think
with this case in OU, I wonder if part of the
reason why it was allowed to take place, yes,
it was a trans instructor, but also it was a
grad student. And grad students have almost no
protection. they can easily be jettisoned and
the university wouldn't, it wouldn't hurt the
university one way or another, even with a discrimination
loss. Right. Yeah. Yeah. I definitely, unfortunately,
yes, I agree that the grad students have far
fewer protections for sure. And that that, yeah,
was a part of this process, but I mean, who knows
what would happen if it were a trans professor?
I mean, I don't know. I can't, I can't say that
they wouldn't. do the same thing if it were a
trans professor uh it just maybe they just don't
know right and i think time will tell yeah i
think i i hope you are right that this is a one
-off and limited to just here but i worry if
particularly given the power of the student organization
involved it's one of the most powerful organizations
you know private organizations we have here.
This is the one founded by Charlie Kirk and now
run by Erica Kirk. They have a direct line to
the White House. Do they see it as a potential
way to get rid of faculty that they've long argued
need to go? Time will tell. Yeah, well, I hope
this serves as a motivation for, I mean, universities
and professors and departments or whatever level
we're talking about. I mean, to become I mean,
to be more savvy and to think about these things.
But I mean, to be savvy about this, not not saying
that they don't teach a certain thing, but just
that they they understand their their protections,
their limitations of what the university can
and cannot do. And that and just how we navigate
these these these confrontations. I mean, I really
yeah, I hope that it's just serving not just
it shouldn't be on the professor necessarily.
I mean, obviously, that's going to be on our
mind no matter what. But like it should be at
the higher levels of like, how can we protect
particularly the grad student instructors because
they have less protections than employees? But
that I mean, it really should be conversations
at like the presidential level of universities.
Right. Or of like dean levels, administrative
levels in how to not get to those levels. Right.
And how to actually protect. So, I mean, hopefully
that's motivating universities and that the impetus
or the onus isn't on the individual instructor.
I mean, obviously, like every instructor has.
um responsibilities and and to their institution
but that um that hopefully it doesn't come down
to just blaming uh and targeting uh an instructor
um but that this is like a you know a systemic
problem that needs to be handled from like administrative
levels right so i don't know i hope that they
become more savvy in navigating these potential
challenges Sean, I want to thank you so much
for joining us today. It's been a very informative
and I think for me, interesting conversation.
It's one I always enjoy discussing with people.
So I want to thank you for joining us this afternoon.
And for our guests out there. Is there a way
they can contact you if they have any questions
or things like that? Sure. Yeah. People are welcome
to reach out over email. My email is Tallman,
Tallman. at bu .edu. Also, if people are on Blue
Sky, though I don't really post that often at
all, but the Forensic and Bioanthropology Lab
Group or Fab Lab at BU has a, we have a Blue
Sky account. So you could do it that way as well,
but probably email talman at bu .edu is probably
the best way. But, and thank you so much for
the invite to talk with you all. It's been. a
pleasure even if it's a potentially stressful
conversation I mean you gotta have those conversations
and I think that's why stuff like this is important
because if we shy away from the hard conversations
then they never get had and things never change
and so I guess one thing that I kind of let's
talk into y 'all more to the audience but if
the conversation today like you know, made you
think about something different than you maybe
had before, or you have more questions, you know,
you can always reach out to us and we can give
you resources or other things like that. But
it's also okay to like, admit, oh, I didn't actually
understand this before. And maybe my mind's changed.
And that's okay to, you know, learning what diversity
is, unless you talked about it with someone who
understands it. you might not get it. And it's
okay to have not understood and want to know
more. And so, you know, do your own research,
find the articles, reach out to people who know
more than you, and that's all good. Make sure
the research and articles are credible. Yeah,
yeah, yeah. Don't do Wikipedia. You know. There's
some bad stuff out there. There is. people love
being reached out to about their papers and stuff
so if like students at all can't get access or
anybody can't get access to a person's paper,
reaching out to the authors, they will gladly
give you the paper for free. You should never
pay for a paper. So engaging with people about
their work, they love it. We love getting those
emails because we don't often, or it depends.
So it's nice to get asked to provide a paper
or to say that. I read your paper or can I get
this paper? Because I will gladly provide it.
So yeah, reach out if people can't get stuff.
I mean, I've definitely had people that are like,
can I have your phone number just to call you?
Because I want to talk about this thing. And
I'm like, 100%. I spent a year and a half on
this thesis. Yeah, I want to talk about it. Let's
go. And I'm sure it's the same for people who
spent six years on their dissertations or a lifelong
research on. you know a topic that they've had
lots of papers on um we do it because we're interested
in it so most people are more than happy to talk
about it maybe someone just finished their dissertation
give them six months so they can decompress but
i don't want to think about mine but yeah just
reach out and ask more questions and questions
are never bad so Again, I want to thank you,
Sean. It's been a very pleasant conversation,
very interesting one. And Stephanie, you and
I, we will next be, for those of you out there,
we will be live at New Orleans with the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting. Still going
to try to figure out how we're going to do it,
but we'll have a show there. You know, with a
party called Drink in Hand and everything else.
Of course. We've got to have good drink. But
yeah, thank you all again for listening and we'll
see you next time on The Bone Club. Bye. Bye.
Hello, friends. We here at The Bone Club understand
how difficult it is for students to break into
the field of forensic anthropology. To help with
that cause, we have decided to monetize in a
way... by setting up an account with Patreon.
All proceeds will be donated to the anthropology
section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
to help alleviate the cost of attending an annual
scientific conference for students. If you can,
we have set up four membership tiers with patreon
.com slash theboneclub that range from $3 a month
to our patrons of the bones at $15 a month. We
hope... some of you can join us in this worthy
endeavor of breaking down the barrier of cost
that keeps many students away from these important
conferences. So if you can, please join us at
patreon .com slash the bone club. Thank you and
may your skeletons always be complete.