Everybody on this AGU thread, please step back for a second and take a breath. AGU has not abandoned its DEI values; it is facing many of the same attacks and constraints that we and our various scientific institutions are facing. AGU's latest statement follows.
"...AGU receives federal grant funds, which means we are subject to some of the Administration’s Executive Orders. We have profound concern for our members who are involved in activities called out in those orders and the risk to their employment, funding, and research."
"To ensure required compliance, certain pages on our website were taken down temporarily for review. These all have now been restored. Our work and what we stand for has not changed. And we strongly reiterated our commitment to the importance of our values, especially DEI. (see 2/3 From the Prow.)
AGU admitted just now in a call “Preliminary DEI language changes made across AGU website in anticipation of federal compliance requirements” . They reversed the changes because of outcry but seem to be pretending it wasn’t preemptive. Also: AGU GETS ONLY 2% of its budget from US fed
It's exactly what Tim Snyder talks about--"anticipatory compliance." But we (@AGU) are NOT a federal agency. We are an independent scientific society, created by and for scientists. Why is that hard to understand? & if federal dollars come with unacceptable strings, then we must cut those strings.
@naomioreskes.bsky.social. I'm curious to know if you have any thoughts on how we can remind AGU of this? It's mind boggling as to why all these scientific societies are acting like fortunate 500 companies that answer to shareholders rather than non-profit professional societies. Emails? Petition?
The Fortune 500 question - we learned in one meeting that 2% of AGU funding is federal and in a second that this is about US$1M per year. This suggests AGU operates on a $50M annual budget. If true - oomph!
My view is that AGU has evolved from a member-driven organization to a corporate-driven one. Instead of serving the interests of us, the main motivation is to preserve the handsome benefits packages of the management. Much like the evolution of colleges and universities over the past 50 years.
I just posted a thread on my experience...yes, AGU is a business. If AGU has $1M in fed grants and that is 2% of its budget...then is AGU's budget $50M ?!?!?!?!
In the call - I felt like there was an implied threat: we were told that if we lost the 2% AGU would have to review programs and possibly close them - and those funded programs are about inclusion
2% is not a big number. If they can’t absorb a 2% cut with a little creativity without cutting inclusion programs the maybe they need some better management skills and priorities.
Comments