and not because it is hard either.
A few years ago there was a heated discussion about diversity statements, initiated by an opinion by my friend Abby. And I felt that either way, either side missed a critical point. A quick overview: Diversity statements are a requirement that some universities, some science foundations and some companies require. Abby argued against them, some people argued for her, some against. All in all, it was kind of ugly.
And what is really the issue, the real culprit, the thief in the night, could just get away.
Because you see, universities, governments, companies etc. can say that they required a diversity statement, and they are done. That they imposed a quota for the organization or attendance of a conference, and they did their duty. Alas, the hard part, to actually enable participation, is usually not given. It is not easy for a parent to juggle childcare and studies, it is not easy for a disadvantaged person to attend a conference or workshop or university in the first place.
Example: I attended a workshop in Oberwolfach a while back, and one of the participants, in fact an organizer, could not actually stay at the center, and instead had to stay with partner and child in a nearby hotel (this was a stupid COVID issue, but it felt like that this aspect of scientific life got sacrificed fast and without rational reason; whatever germs the partner or baby carried the organizer carried as well). That person consequently had no choice but to miss several talks because the next hotel was at a nontrivial distance.
I think when thinking about the increase of diversity we have to think about the real hurdles that a person has to face, and work against those as well. Unfortunately, they are sometimes the financially, mentally and logistically the more expensive ones.
It is, in essence, the difference between telling a story, and making the environment tell it. Because yes there are interpersonal, non-tangible issues. But sometimes also practical ones.
Thanks for the ideas and discussions
(also set up your fucking webpage. Goes for Or and Geva as well)
Ps: I am overjoyed that my friend Elena Arseneva is safe, plus I learned she does cool photography.
For a cup of coffee more 
Let’s fix by proxy.
I want measures like giving travel funds for interviews, summer schools and the like in advance rather than just as reimbursement. Things like childcare, and ensuring that everyone’s visas are financed (and supported as much as legalities allow). Things like flexibility in schedules and bureaucratic requirements as well as seamless health insurance covering any preexisting conditions.
Do any of these benefit just the specific groups I have in mind? No. They just might benefit everyone. But they will disproportionately benefit the groups that normally get disproportionately disadvantaged. And bring us another step closer to the actual goal.
I also want to hear people’s ideas for more proxy-measures. Help me make my blind spots smaller, please.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let me add that I am unsure about diversity statements. Certainly calling them “McCarthyism” I felt was a bit too much and belittles persecution. I think the problem is they have no meaning. They are busywork that can be faked by an AI. But then again, so are teaching statements. So, what would b a better measure, apart from practical ones? Certainly checking that a hire would not cause issues in this matter might not be a bad idea. But to scan for that…
Edit: I read Abby’s letter again, and I think I was wrong when I discounted the tendency for such a statement to have real teeth and impact. Anyway I will not edit my answer because I don’t believe in hiding stupidity. Thanks Misha Kapovich for pointing me to this.
LikeLike