"I Cannot Be A Person I Am Not"

Sonia Ortega

National Science Foundation

Program Officer, K12 Grant Programs

The first conversation I had with Sonia was back in 2008 in Milwaukee. I was attending the Ecological Society of America's (ESA) annual conference as a SEEDS Mentor and heavily motivated to take a stab at science journalism. My goals were to connect with science writers, understand the current relationship between researchers and journalist, and interview some folks. And what better way for me to dive in, head-first by interviewing people of color about well,...diversity!

I was referred to Sonia as a good person to talk to about diversity. Little did I know that she was an extremely well respected professional in the society and gave me one of the most memorable interviews during that conference.

One of the stories she told me captured my emotions because it was a story of the empowerment she held with her being a Latina in science and a minority at Duke University in the 70’s. She persevered through some of the toughest times in her career and I gained a sense that she had a really deep understanding of diversity efforts in science careers. 

I was excited to speak with her again, four years later. Our conversation was to me… refreshing. And I was reassured by her ability to naturally articulate her perspective. I think you’ll see that she is one that can truly say she plays a positive and proactive role in inclusion at the National Science Foundation (NSF). 

RR: Can you give me a quick and dirty summary of Sonia Ortega? How did you get to being at NSF?

SO: I came here because I was very curious about how the National Science Foundation (NSF) worked. At the time I was a Marine Biologist Researcher. I was approached by a colleague who told me about a position he thought would fit me like a glove. And my first response to that was,

“You mean being a government beaurecrat?" I said, "No way!” But when he said it was a temporary position only for a year or two, I though one year is one year. And I though one year would be great, but one year turned into 23!

It really did change the way I saw my life. I was trained as a Marine Scientist and at that time I was thinking about continuing my research. I knew very little about federal organizations. The only thing I knew about NSF was this is where you apply to get funding. I didn’t know the processes or anything else.

I started to see myself less as a Marine Biologist and more as a person who likes to make a difference and work with people. I started questioning how I can have more of an effect on people rather than doing research. That’s when I made a switch. And the idea that when you’re here, you’re working at a national level and you really can influence a lot of things and really make a difference. That’s how I ended up staying here for so long.

But along with what you said before, I come with a background. I cannot be a

person that I am not. So in everything that I do, I bring my background in terms of my ethnic background, ancestry, the way I grew up and was raised, the way I think. I was raised in a family of very strong women and I bring that because that’s how I was raised. That’s who I am and what makes me who I am; both the cultural background and the experiences I had when I came here. Without knowing the language! All those things made me the person I am. You also become very sensitive to some of the issues, especially those you experience on your own.

RR: And there’s definitely the pathway where you started in Costa Rica and went to Duke. Going back to that statement, “I cannot be a person that I am not", I think for me and some colleagues of mine, we are often challenged in academic career choices (or even environmental professions in general) to express themselves, because the choices are dominated whites and don’t reflect all other cultures involved.

So I want to ask a two part question here, (1) I’m sure that the world was much different when you were at Duke at that time, versus now a days. But how was it then, (to still be who you are in that time) versus now a days where it is more diverse and the struggles you had back them may not have been what the challenges are now and (2) what does that mean to us now?

SO: I went to school in the mid-70’s. It sounds like a long time ago... and it was. There was no Internet, Facebook, cell phones, no word processing. These were the old times. There were typewiriters back then, to give you a sense. There were no mentoring programs, websites for you to connect to others. I didn’t know organizations that existed like the Society for the Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS). Being in the south, it was a different world because I had to work so hard just to survive. There were a couple of graduate students around, some professors, but no resources at least that I knew about that I could go to. I tried to as much as I can, to swim and stay afloat.

I think that now its much different. Social media for one, the opportunities for students are more transparent and available and people can communicate easily with other students. You can find out what’s where, go here and there, you can Google pretty much anything you want. And that is a big, big difference between then and now. Also some universities are more aware of the need of diversifying their faculty members, providing students with trainings and training programs. None of those things were around before.

RR: And I can’t really imagine…one reason why I decided to continue was because SEEDS was there and I latched onto SEEDS as a sense of community for me. 

I’ve also read in your profile, that mentors have helped you through it. Can you identify any other ways, at that time, helped you stay motivated?

SO: Well, I asked myself many, many times, “Why am I doing this? I’m here away from y family, I barely spoke the language, I am having a very tough time. Why am I here?” I can just go back home and forget about it. But there were a couple of things that kept me going.

One was that perhaps it was a sense of responsibility because I got a fellowship and I felt kind of obligated to. It was the opportunity that I had and

there was maybe fear or the idea that I finally got an opportunity to change my life. And if I don’t do well and if I throw away this opportunity, I might not get another one. So the idea that I got something and I had to do the best I could, that somehow got me going.

I started looking at the alternatives, and I said well, if I don’t do something, if I don’t finish this degree, if I quit what are my options? My options

were very limited. Whereas finishing it, this may take me somewhere. And it did! One thing led to another and I look at it in retrospect and I said, “Thank god I stayed and I kept at it”! Maybe it was fear, or the sense of going back saying that I failed. Something kept me pushing to say, “I cannot fail” It was very difficult. Looking back it was one of the hardest things I have done. And every time I think about it I say, "Oh, my gosh!"

I look at my nieces and nephews, and I say, “Look, no one said it was easy. I did terribly on my GRE’s, but you have to keep at it because this is the thing you want to do and it will lead you to a better life”. Education; once you reach it and get it, no one can take it away from you. That’s what kept me going.

RR: Can you identify any of those things that made you feel like quitting? Can you identify specific struggles within yourself that pushed you to your limits?

SO: I’m just very stubborn. Since I was a kid I would just refuse to give up. For example, writing. Reading or writing papers was hard because I didn’t’ have command of the language. Giving a talk, my first seminar I was absolutely terrified. And I went to one of my classmates and handed them a list of words I didn’t know how to pronounce. And I asked them if they could pronounce them for me because I don’t know if people are going to understand what I have to say. I gave my talk and I was absolutely terrified. Some of the grad students were very, very critical to everybody, not just me. That was hard.

I felt very isolated at Duke. Duke is a very prestigious institution with high standards. I had no clue what I was getting into. It was very high pressure there. The very first semester I didn’t feel supported by anyone.

One thing that changed was when I moved from the main campus to the Marine Lab. That completely changed because I was horrified of the Department Chair and really afraid of a lot of the people on the main campus. But when I made the decision to go to the Marine Lab, I felt really free. I felt like, "Wow! This is what I came here to do." That’s where I had my mentor and the people there were very open and I felt much more welcome there. If I stayed on main campus I probably would have failed.

RR: and this was a phD program?

SO: a Masters program

RR: This might sound weird for me to ask but, you said you were afraid of the Deptartment Chair. What were you afraid of?

SO: Oh, I was terrified of the Dept Chair! I was soo intimidated that I would practice what I was going to say every time I would go into his office. And I went to him to move to the marine lab (because I needed permission), he automatically said, OK! And I was soo relieved that it was that easy.

RR: Well, was it because he was the "Department Chair" or was there something specifically about him that was intimidating?

SO:  I don’t know, maybe it was a combination of both. You know, he was very biased and he actually made a comment to one of my professors saying that I wasn’t smart enough to be in graduate school because I didn’t speak English and I was just trying to learn more about graduate school. He had his biases of, “Well, you know she’s here but she’s not like all the other grad students.” Of coarse I wasn’t! So, when I finished I was really temped to do something terrible, but I didn’t. I had to give a seminar to finish off my Masters degree, and I was really tempted to start speaking in Spanish, and at about 5 minutes into it, I might just stop and say, “I just wanted to give you a sense of what I went through when I first came here”. But I didn’t do it. I figured they might just fail me. But the thought occurred to me!

But you know after my talk, the Department Chair came to me and told me I did a good job! And I thought, "Gosh, this guy actually acknowledged that I did a good job!"

When I went back to get my PhD, things were much different. By then I was much more confident. I already had my MS, I spoke English, I had research experience, I knew exactly what I wanted to do, and I was older. When I went back I was very independent. I had my committee and told them exactly what I wanted to do.

RR: So you got your phD at Duke as well?

SO: No, at the  University of South Carolina. And part of the reason is because, and I tell people this and people don’t believe me…"I had a very good mentor at Duke. He was my advisor and was so good that I married him!" So, I couldn’t stay at Duke for an obvious conflict of

interest. I started looking where I could go and still be close by. I applied to South Carolina where I can still commute and travel back and forth. It was an 8hr commute and that was hard, but we also did research together since he’s in the same field. We would do a lot of our work in Costa Rica working in the field.

RR: So there was a stronger support system that you ended up with.

SO: Oh my gosh! It was like night and day. And he spoke Spanish because he had spent some time in Venezuela. So when I first met him he said that he had just come from Venezuela and wanted to speak Spanish. But I told him, “I don’t want to speak Spanish, I know Spanish. I want to improve on my English. I want you to correct me!” And he did. He was correcting me constantly. He was very good at correcting me. That really was the big change personally and professionally. And things did change quite a bit.

RR: Something I observe mainly in the academic realm of students and their experiences, is a different kind of understanding of diversity with respect to racial dynamics and socioeconomic differences between international students versus students who have grown up in the US. What is your perspective with what those differences are when we talk about increasing diversity in environmental careers?

SO: Right, because I had no clue about these things when I came to the US. And I was treated as an international student because, I was back then. I went to school not even thinking about these issues of diversity, in the 70’s, 80’s. No one was talking about it, and I didn’t even know what the issues were. It wasn’t until I came to the NSF in ’89 that I started being aware of all these things. Partly because I started working with some issues related to underrepresented minorities. I started seeing a whole world open up to me cause I didn’t even know about these issues of women and minorities. And all of the sudden I started to see all these issues I had very little knowledge of because I was concentrating so much on getting my degree.

For the last 20yrs I’ve been involved quite a bit through organizations like SACNAS. And there is a big difference in being a foreign student versus growing up here. I have colleagues here that are Hispanics or Latinos, growing up in CA or TX, and have had a very different experience than mine. And when I lived in New Mexico I was there for 3 years. It was a different environment where I was able to see the differences and what it means to be here as a different race or ethnicity than the majority. People look at you differently. It was an eye opener for me to start learning, seeing, and being more observant of people. What happens with the way people approach you or don’t approach you, and a lot of the times it’s not what people say, it's the things people don’t say that are as important.

RR: And in a sense, it is the actions that aren’t spoken about that reveal the truth about the situation. And the interviews here, if anything are meant to drive that out of the individuals. Is there anything you can specifically point out, maybe a general observation that makes you feel like okay, “Here’s what I recognize in something I'd like to change to include more groups or different perspectives”. Can you identify things that tend to happen And what can be done?

SO: Well, here’s my experience at NSF: If you really care about those issues, that’s the main thing. I think all of us have the ability to change something if you want to change it and are aware of it. Here at NSF, I’ve made it one of my personal goals to be as inclusive as I can in a lot of the actions I have been involved in. For in, every program I was running at NSF where I had to put together a panel of reviewers, the first thing I always thought was, I want to have this panel as diverse as possible. And the first people I want to invite on this panel were people of underrepresented groups. Because, I can always fill these seats with the majority but those underrepresented groups are in high demand and they are very busy people. So I’m going to ask them first, way ahead of time because they may commit to something else. And others would often ask me how I do it. And I would say, “Well, because I make that a special effort. I’m aware of it and I want to make a difference.” When I came here to NSF, the panels weren’t very diverse. Because look at who puts together the panels; the people who may not be aware or care about the issues so they aren’t going to put the effort.

I’ve done a lot of those things here at NSF; its always on my mind. It’s part of me that I notice things. Say I go to a group, like in this conference recently. They gave us evaluations for the event and asked us if we have any suggestions or recommendations. And I said, “Yes I’m very disappointed about how little diverse your group is”. And they didn’t say anything and were probably not aware. Yes, it was a great conference, I enjoyed it and met interesting people. But I started counting. There were like 500 people on the list of participants so I started counting the number of Hispanic last names, I see and I count only 10!

It’s that awareness; it’s the first thing. Some people aren’t even aware of it. Because, why should people be aware unless it’s your thing? Unless it affects you or unless you’re mandated to do it. Whenever you have a diverse group of people, people with different perspectives or different ways of seeing things, the outcomes are always better than when you have a single group of people that are all alike. And there is scientific evidence of that.

But its that first step that people need to take and take with them everywhere, anywhere. Whenever you have the opportunity to invite someone, when you are going to invite a group, be aware of it, and think about it. It has to be one of your priorities or one of the things that moves you.

RR; Sure, the common frustration is that a lot of people come across those that don’t care or are not aware. And sometimes that can be a delicate conversation to say, "Well, this is what I value, this is what my priorities are." That dialog becomes difficult because if there are others that don’t value it but have good intentions, they often don’t know how to approach it. So, how do we (or do we even make efforts to) have them understand it? Or is it on their own pathway whether they do it or not. And I think you spoke about it before when you said, “I have to speak about it, I have to say it in the evaluations”.

SO: Yes, but you also live by example. By doing the things you can do, others will notice. And here at NSF, people do notice. I mean, you go through my panels and it’s very obvious what I do and people comment about it. So all I can say is, “Let me know if you need people to serve on your panel”, or offer my connections to others putting panels together. Helping out my colleagues who might not be thinking about it may or may not invite them, but at least you’re making an effort. And some have asked for help and some are just helpless.

I think some people have good intentions and those are the ones you can help and influence for the better. Not everyone is going to be sensitive, of coarse.

RR: Is there anything you can say about today and modern times for 2012, the state of the world now?

SO: Well I just got back from spending a couple of months abroad in Southeast Asia. And one of the things I realized is that the world gets smaller as we develop all these connections. And the opportunity is really up for grabs for just about anybody. For the young people, the world is open to many more opportunities these days, but you have to be very open-minded about them. People have to be willing to take some risk in places you never thought about. For those who are looking for career opportunities and exploring, I think people needed to be looking worldwide. Look beyond boarders, even beyond their own fields and be a little bit broader in their perspectives. Start looking for other things like having your own business, being an entrepreneur, or working abroad or doing things that during my generation, when I was a grad student we weren’t even thinking about. Now it’s a different world. On one hand its smaller, on the other hand its wide open. Especially for under-represented students. I see opportunities world wide, but for whatever reason, I don’t think they are taking advantage of them. Its one of the things for underrepresented students, its particularly a challenge to go abroad or do something different.

Sonia's visit to Malaysia

You Tube: [youtube=http://youtu.be/mNGV-uu47d8]

RR: Do you think the sciences will ever get to that point where you’re see a diverse palette of people?

SO: Well, it depends on where you go. Like when you go to orgs like SACNAS meetings and its like, OH MY GOSH! This is how it should be everywhere! And its interesting to see that I’ve been going to SACNAS for over 20yrs now and that organization is much more diverse than it was back then when I joined. It was mostly Mexican Americans and Native Americans. Now you see the whole world as the majority of people. Some white people are there because the conference offers a lot that can benefit everyone. You see all these ethnicities and its kind of very refreshing to be there and of coarse you don’t see it in other gatherings.

I’m not sure how long it will take but I know that the world will continue to diversify everywhere, especially here. Look at where we are now, the demographics. You can’t deny the changes in the country. I think it’s going to continue as time goes by. People are mixing. You see something that I didn’t see when I first arrived there. All kinds of combinations of people together from diff races, backgrounds, there’s a lot more of that. I didn’t see all of these mixed couples when I was in graduate school. You see them now on campuses, which is great!

I think the world is opening up a little bit more. Look at these issues of gays and more tolerance. Ten years later I find out some of those kids I went to grad school with are gay but they were in the closet. And now there is a little more openness. It’s still not perfect, but openness to accepting people who are different from you, thinking different...that’s great! Its part of having a diverse group of people. Back then, it wasn’t that we didn’t have the people, but we didn’t have the thinking that we had to be inclusive; that the world was composed of people of different make-ups and ways of viewing the world.

To learn more about Sonia Ortega and her work, check out her profile on the Multicultural Environmental Leadership Development Initiative (MELDI)

Knocking Down the Diversity Box

Amber Finely

Executive Director, Northstar Council

Amber holds a pretty special place in my life. Our friendship really began when we became SEEDS students back in 2004. As young adults in the thick of our undergraduate experiences, we met during what many students felt like, was one of the most amazing SEEDS field trips ever. We were in Calgary, Canada. Since then we’ve been close friends, attending many of the same SEEDS events and conferences, collaborating on projects, and visiting with each other when she’s in town.

An amazing aspect of our friendship is that who we are as individuals has always stayed integral to our interactions. More importantly, we share a similarity in how we see the world. When we talk "diversity", we touch on all its aspects of race, culture, ethnic identity, and what it means to be a person of color in the sciences. Many times those conversations were provoked by actual experiences we had on the grounds together in the context of an “us versus them” circumstance.

 The projects we’ve collaborated on range from workshops on diversity, facilitating deep dialog, and even creating the ambitious SEEDS alumni network we called, SNAP (SEEDS Network for Alumni and Professionals). So, it was only natural for me to ask her to contribute to The D Word and offer her perspective as a female, single mother, and Native American Scientist.

Amber is of Mandan-Hidatsa-Lakota-Dakota ethnicity and is the Executive Director of a North Dakota-based non-profit organization, Northstar Council. Their aim is to strengthen and empower indigenous people through research, education, and community development. In our conversation, Amber brings to light this notion that diversity has always been placed in a “box” and it’s time to start breaking down those walls, one by one.

 RR: Describe how you got started with career and where you are now.

AF: I started my education at Fort Berthold Community College (FBCC). I was always interested in science and good at math. I ended up in advanced math classes and as a result met an important figure, Trudy Ruland who nominated me for the Gates Millennium Scholarship (GMS). I was part of the inaugural GMS and used those funds for my first year at FBCC. That catapulted me to move on. At that time I just had my daughter and it allowed me to finish one degree.

I was also introduced to groups like AISES (American Indian Science & Engineering Society)and SACNAS (Society for the Advancement of Chicanos & Native Americans in Science), which built my interest in Biology. With the GMS I transferred to University of North Dakota (UND) thinking I wanted to be veterinarian because I was always interested in working with animals. So the options were to major in Biology as Pre-Vet or take Fisheries & Biology and be Pre-Vet. I chose Wildlife Biology because I was interested in wildlife and working outdoors. I stayed at UND for 5 years before graduating. I met you three years into it; in 2004 and that was the first time I was introduced to the SEEDS Program, the concept of ecology, and the fact that scientists gather for annual meetings. Prior to that I didn’t really know that academics went to conferences, present work, etc…I just thought we get a degree and do some sort of technical job with your hands experiencing the field. I didn’t know there was this other part, where you get together and discuss the work.

The Calgary field trip with SEEDS opened my eyes to the idea of doing things outdoors and going beyond a Bachelor's of Science with higher degrees. I was able to attend more SEEDS field trips after that. And all that experience built upon each other, I continued an interest in Ecology. Since I was pretty far into my degree, I didn’t want to switch gears, which is probably why I didn’t take that step to go fully into Ecology.

I did my Masters Degree in Environmental Management at University of San Francisco (USF). This campus was more diverse, smaller than UND, and in the Bay Area where I grew up. I felt like going home and gaining a new perspective from a more progressive view and approach on the environment. In contrast, North Dakota, where I am now, caters to hunters thinking of wildlife to preserve for hunting vs. preserving for the sake of preserving.

As I continued my MS, you and I continued with SEEDS and decided to develop SNAP together, which is an important group to have because undergrads need to see some of the success stories whether they continue into hard science or not, like myself. I realized I’m actually good at teaching. And to me, it was more important to see more people of color in ecology and in sciences, so I realized that there needs to be more teachers that look like students of color and are able to relate to them.

I really didn’t get into Biotech and hard science research was because I realized it would take up a lot of time away from raising my own daughter; I would sacrifice family time. So it was a natural choice to avoid those things because they were not aligned with what I valued. I don’t feel bad for it, but I can understand why especially single parents won’t go down that road and say, “I want to dedicate my life to travel places to study a certain type of fungus or some small insect that has absolutely nothing to do with most important thing in life, which is my family”.

I see a trend that natives usually tend to have kids much younger and start families earlier than the average American. So, if Ecology isn’t going to offer opportunities that include family, or things that are going to allow us to bring our families with us, or compensate for those areas where we’re not the average student, then we probably won’t accept positions anyway. We’re not going to pick research over family.

After completing my MS, I came back to Grand Forks and applied for multiple jobs with no luck. It fell into place that a group of us Natives with families and degrees all lived in Grand Forks. We were looking for something unique to us and we just weren’t finding it in the community. So, we put together a non-profit organization that was perfectly aligned with our interests; Northstar Council. Here, friends and colleagues put together a new approach to science for our kids; a new way to engage Native Youth in the field without making them feel stupid, incompetent and unable to perform tasks. It would also help urban natives connect to their own culture even if culture was not reflected where they live right now.

RR: Do you think that the tendency to sacrifice family life in academic achievement is linked to cultural disparities? Can any single parent, white or not, say the same thing of rejecting a position because it doesn’t allow them to have a practical life?

AF: I’m not sure, but it does play a role. I think its not only white people. Anyone who is trapped in this idea that in order to be successful in this society you have to be a good consumer in society, then that means you have to have lots of money in order to reach areas of success to maintain this type of lifestyle. For myself and I think most Natives, it doesn’t matter how rich or famous you are, if you’re not taking care of your own and your own kids with a good upbringing, then you’re not really a success. You’re failing along the lines and you’re a bigger failure if you chose to allow society to raise your child instead of raising them yourself. In some ways it can be said for the average American, you MUST be a consumer if you want to be successful or else you’re nothing. And I don’t agree with that, that’s not a measure of success.

RR: And with regards to being a science professional it means publishing and in order to publish you work lots of hours to do the research, etc…

AF: Right, and often times when that happens, those who suffer the most are the ones we care about the most. I’ve read several stories of successful scientists who are married couples bringing their families with them into the field. And that’s a great success story for them but that doesn’t happen for most people. In reality, the opportunities where you can bring your kid aren’t available for everyone. I also don’t think that most Natives relate to the idea of publishing, owning knowledge, or taking credit for knowledge that has inherently been there the whole time. And the idea of somehow professing yourself as the “discoverer” of this knowledge. We know that publishing is an extremely important part of academics and research, but I feel like it is a major area of disconnect for most people of color. Not because we are lazy, but because culturally this is the complete opposite of what it means to be honorable and humble, two cultural values that are highly regarded amongst Natives.

RR: Can you talk about the great work you are doing now?

AF: I’m the Executive Director of Northstar Council, a state recognized non-profit working on submitting papers to get to 501c3 status. In the meantime, the main goal is to have a Native American community center for Grand Forks, North Dakota. We started with Native families that continue to reside here after graduating from UND and who really felt a disconnect in community. UND provides Native services but they’re restricted to students. When it comes to needs of the community, there are no resources besides directing them to the social service agencies to help. Our mission is to create a community center for Natives that has an emphasis on culture, services, and outreach into communities. We not only want to provide cultural awareness, but cultural inclusivity. Making us more a part of the tapestry than relics of the past.

Our program, All Nations Culture Camp (ANCC) is funded through the North Dakota Medical Association. It aims to bring Native Science to two middle schools in North Dakota by presenting lessons of Native Science. Native Science and culture comes first, then we help students link this to Western Science. Lots of times, the students identify it as native culture and they don’t realize it’s connected to science until we start connecting the dots with them. Some ways we help some kids define what science is in general. Then they start to make connections that the knowledge is not only textbooks or what western science shows them.

We also have a summer session for ANCC, which is much more culturally based. We work more with language, crafts, and traditional activities for 4^th-8^th grade students. Northstar Council also offers community sweat lodge at a site we maintain outside city limits. We invite Natives and Non-Natives; all that want to participate.

RR: Along your pathway, you have gained lots of experience and knowledge with diversity and equity within different contexts, especially in the sciences. Would you say there were any specific incidents or lightbulbs that went off in your head about the state of diversity while on your journey?

AF: Yes, when I was younger I was naïve or not able to recognize what I would now identify today as racist or demeaning to me or other people. One by one many of these experiences, opened my eyes to the way mainstream Americans view Natives and their role in society. Sometimes in high school playing sports, there were some with racist attitudes and comments towards Natives. And this is in North Dakota where the norms of people are that "we are a nice state with people that are homegrown, hardworking and persistent”. And that’s the American way here. They fail to acknowledge how this state was settled in the first place. They are ignorant to how that has affected the relationship between Natives and non Non-Natives.

When I got to UND we had the Fighting Sioux logo and I didn’t know it was big controversy until I got to campus. I started hearing what Natives were saying and experiencing some of the proof that some people are denying “the existence that Natives were being mistreated without anyone being reprimanded”. I began organizing and stepped into my activist role of, “Stop stereotyping us, treating us inhumanely and start accepting our opinion about this logo that you love so much. Just because majority likes it, it doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do.”

I spent time protesting the logo with the Vice President of the UND Indian Association and we became poster children of a campaign that was everything "anti-logo". I started getting weird looks, people hesitant to talk about anything sports or careful to say anything to offend me. And prior to this campaign, before I took a very public and vocal stance against the logo, I was able to experience this “fly on the wall” role in the classroom. I have red hair and am light skinned, and I don’t have the stereotypical Native look to me so, I got to hear some Non-Native people’s opinions about Native people based on the fact they didn’t like the logo. When I would speak up in defense, it always made things awkward. And whether they felt a certain way or not, you always feel on guard all the time and it’s a weird feeling to be in class where you can’t relate to anyone because there is this other thing going on and it has nothing to do with academics or anyone’s ability to understand an academic topic.

So this experience enlightened me to be more aware about how I felt Natives and other minorities are constantly perceived. Even as minorities we often times stereotype or put other minorities into these categories as well. That triggered a response to your idea of diversity and ecology and why it was important.

Really, we do filter ourselves a lot in order to fit into the classroom, we filter ourselves to make our plead to why Native research is valid and important and how its going to benefit society in general and sometimes that means that we have to pull back on own cultural values in order to be successful or bring out what teachers want to hear out of you or develop a research project that will be validated. If you end up with people who don’t know anything about Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) or Native Science, its tough because you have to explain why it isn’t a waste of two years or your time. Its frustrating for me and I would like to be in a place where there are more people understanding of it and value it as a serious research component and contribution.

RR: Four years ago, you were in the midst of graduate school and your mindset then was different. Now you’re the ED of an organization focused on Native communities and engagement. What in that four years have you learned and where are you with diversity in your career?

AF: We can’t just put diversity and multicultural education into a box. It doesn’t fit nice and neat and it’s always going to be considered separate if we don’t start incorporating it into everything. Instead, it’s this question of, “How do we fit it [diversity] into Ecology, Biology, etc…?" We try to get students to conform to the rigors of the academic disciples that are out there.

RR: So, this blog is focused on, but not exclusive to, people of color working in the environmental fields. But if the option is to NOT conform to the box, then how do we prevent ourselves from making our own separate boxes and working in silohs?

AF: We touched on this last night and started with our education system and how white-washed it is. It’s hard to (1) have this idea that somehow we can turn people’s cultures into some type of academic discipline. Like they can be studied and anyone can be experts on them. And that’s not necessarily what culture is.

Culture is a living thing. You either live the culture or you naturally become part of it and aware and understanding of it. It’s not possible to teach that perspective from a classroom, non-experiential and dislocated. Its kind of funny when you see institutions putting together ethnic programs and they keep putting cultures into these disciplines and trying to make them fit into the system of academics that clearly does not share the same values as the cultures they are trying to represent. It’s even more embarrassing when institutions have instructors not of these cultures, usually white, chairing these ethnic studies departments and even worse teaching what it is “to be” these cultures. That’s sort of what I get from the classes. They are there to give a completely sterile point of view on how America interacts with these cultures as opposed to actually having some culture there. It’s a mockery of the cultures and a disservice to the students and the institutions.

So a lot of people who would be able to teach the languages of those cultures aren’t going to be the ones who have PhD’s or tenure at an academic institution. But doesn’t that barrier devalue the information that they have? I don’t think so. But how do we now say to that institution, “Hey, you need to change your standards for someone to be teaching at college level.” We see lots of Tribal Community Colleges employing people with BS or MS and even that creates a barrier because people who maintain cultural knowledge are automatically weeded out. There is no Master’s degree in how to be Hidatsa, Mandan, Dakota, Cherokee, Cree, Anishinabe, Crow, or any other tribe. What academics fail to realize is that those people who hold that sacred knowledge and would know what and how to share that information have spent just as many years of rigorous work to obtain that knowledge.

Part of problem is that we’re adding more barriers every time we’re saying there’s a minimum amount of education that one must have to be a teacher and we miss out on individuals. Not disregarding the skills for teaching, syllabus creating, currculum development, etc…Yes, everyone should have it, but do they have to take on a whole degree where they have to take all these classes that may not have any meaning to what they will actually teach? That’s what we’ve agreed to as the standards to our students at Northstar. We are falling short of including all teachers of knowledge, especially those that hold knowledge that cannot simply be taught in a classroom, but must be lived.

RR: Well, that brings up a lot of hurdles because success is institutionalized and to get to that point where you will see more engagement of folks, the institution needs change itself in process of how they get to higher degrees.

AF: Yes, and I think right away it’s a turn off. I’m Native so I can only speak from my point of view. I don’t know how some of the other cultural minorities are doing, but we see that in order for students to be successful, they have to conform to what the institution already has in place. Then what we end up seeing is this, “living in two worlds”. And why do we have to continue to be code switchers and switch back and forth from, “okay this is my academic/scientific voice and I don’t feel much place for my cultural voice to be part of that?”.

At the AISES conference we talked about coming up with terms like TEK and Native Science and really there is no such thing. Its just knowledge. It was just a way of being. You didn’t have to label it. It’s information that was always there. And people earned it by actually living it. We actually went out and you learned how to hunt and you learned how to make artifacts, you learned how to put together your regalia. Our culture already teaches this by living it. But now Western academics is trying to do this idea of “experiential learning”. That was what cultures were already using as a way to teach their children. And then they were told that wasn’t the way they should be taught; they need to sit in a classroom, they need go learn all of these academic disciplines in order to be successful.

I think change will have to come from somewhere and it’s probably from the most influential place that it can come from. And that would be from the parents. [Parents] being the first teachers of students being able to say, “I don’t agree with the way the system works and I don’t like what I’m seeing happening and I want to see something better and something different for my children.” I see why lots of native kids disconnect from the school system and the academic system because it doesn’t offer them something that is somehow going to relate to them or lead into something beneficial.

There’s also so much emphasis on the idea that in order to be successful you have to make a lot of money, that you have to be able to sustain a certain type of lifestyle. I know for a lot of natives, that doesn’t matter. They can be as poor as it can get, but because they are rich in culture, they’d much rather have that then any financial wealth. Sometimes, especially academic institutions try to draw us in by saying they will provide us a better lifestyle, allow us to do so much more, and contribute to our community. But who is to say that Natives aren’t doing all those things already? In order to get something to change we do have to change the way everyone looks at academic success.

When we think about how we train teachers we’re not getting enough minority teachers in the classroom and male role models. The rapidly changing demographics are now 53% female scientists, but it’s disheartening to think about how much we lose out by not being able to interact with someone they can relate to. Even if its just that students get that ONE teacher, to get ONE experience with one teacher that IS, it makes such a big difference for them and changes the success rate of that student in whether they pursue an education. I appreciate institutions doing teacher trainings and multi-cultural education, but the approach is still, “us vs. them”. What can we do FOR them as opposed to, how can we engage them in how we make curriculum beneficial and relevant TO them? We know the disparities in getting students to come to class. Teachers not being understanding of that and systems not apathetic weeds certain students out.

In Grand Forks, the graduation rate is 42%, so not even half of our Native students will graduate. So what happens to the other 58% of those that chose to drop out or go a different route because they don’t feel welcome in the school district and can’t contribute? The answer is not to constantly put them in special education classes or go into intervention programs. If you’re putting them into intervention, you’ve already failed that student. By then it’s already too late, they are already dislocated from the system. Programs are not working like expected.

If kids don’t want to graduate in general, then what happens when we want to draw them into the sciences? We make it into a scary

subject that doesn’t relate to us at all; new language, new way of thinking…This is why we still have same the conversation and questions like, “Okay we have 3 token students of color here, how do we get some more of you, etc….?”

RR: Anything you can say specifically as it relates to environmental careers and making it more of an inclusive effort?

AF: We need to have constant conversations about diversity. Not saying that diversity programs should be done with, but there needs to be more investment in that. Let’s look at the fact that SNAP is still in its development phase. It’s a really great idea but we don’t know how to make it happen. Partly because there’s no investment in it. And not to the fault of the director of program, but there is also our response and the work for us (students) to get people invested in it. There are a lot of SEEDS students that have gone on to be very successful professionals that enjoy the research aspect of Ecology. Those professionals are still also culturally relevant to up and coming SEEDS students.

Lots of people go through tough economic times, but the first things to go are these programs that are successfully getting students of color into fields they say they are lacking of that engagement. It’s problematic when we create these groups like TEK (Traditional Ecological Knowledge). It becomes an “us vs. them” again. TEK has tried to incorporate them selves into the whole ESA conference program, but in general ESA doesn’t really believe or support those types of sections. They say, “Oh, now we can boast we have this section”. But what can we say about incorporating TEK into ALL of the sections of ecology?

RR: It’s a band-aid effort to a discrepancy in diversity engagement strategies.

AK: There needs to be more work to incorporate that to the whole. For example, the TEK talks during conferences, why isn’t that being presented the same time these other mainstream ecological talks are doing their talks? They have a tendency to box everything up and sometimes things don’t fit nice and neat into a box. We need to have these cross-disciplinary interactions and discussions going on. Isn’t that what Ecology is about? Relationships and how they are intertwined and what reactions they have upon one another?

I just think the [ESA] society in general has to step up their game as well. I don’t know that I’m invested enough in ESA to make that one of my goals. Because people are interested in SNAP bringing some culture to science, it would be nice to have instead of trying to separate it out like its a different thing.

RR: Any last words about diversity?

AF: I do think conversation needs to be had beyond two people.  The ecological community needs to talk about it in a real sense and not pussy-foot around it. Not just saying they support and want to see more people of color, but engaging cultures. Most troubling thing is that there is no expression of culture in sciences.

I think about the AISES. They do such a great job of doing both; of honoring hard science and acknowledging students successful and acknowledging parts of their culture; elders, prayer, unexpressed knowledge. I would like to see the mainstream societies like ESA be able to do some of these things. But what we see is this very cookie-cutter way of doing research and presenting to each other. We see few and far between where people actually bring culture into it.

I also think about Tyrone Hayes where he ends all of his discussions with a rap. He has all these conclusions, and throws a piece of himself in there. And maybe people think its funny and maybe some don’t respect him as much, but he’s still doing himself. He’s presenting who he really is. That’s cool and we need to see more of that. We need to see more people being able break down the sides of the box and say this is still Ecology even if we’re bringing our culture into it, even if we’re not doing it the way that Western science says.