Redefining the meaning of “checking the right boxes”—achieving science equity.

“Did I just check the right boxes?”

I was in a conference room at New York University during the fourth year of my Ph.D. mingling with other Ph.D. trainees—all brilliant speakers hailing from prestigious institutions. I was coming from a city university. The NYU colloquium program, CoNNExINS, is designed to enhance diversity among postdoctoral trainees by encouraging underrepresented minority (URM) Ph.D. candidates to apply and present formal research seminars. I was bubbling with excitement to be chosen as one of the eight speakers to discuss my doctoral research at NYU. This opportunity promised valuable interactions with mentors and peers, offering advice and fresh perspectives on my work. But this excitement quickly evanesced, and self-doubt promptly took its place. All over again, I felt as lost as I did in the first few days of graduate school. I was plagued by flashbacks from those early years and the unsparing critiques from colleagues on admissions policies that consider various factors, such as the applicant’s race or socioeconomic status. I found myself questioning whether I truly deserved the opportunity. Was I selected because of merit, or had I simply “checked the right boxes” in a series of impersonal dropdowns and input fields on the application? 

As a first-generation American raised by a single mother in a socioeconomically disadvantaged New York City household, I regularly question the merits behind my selection in any application process. In the United States, Affirmative Action represents admissions policies that consider factors like an applicant’s race or K-12 academic background. Since the 1960s, it has aimed to address discrimination in higher education, especially at historically Caucasian-only institutions¹. The goal of Affirmative Action was to dismantle the structural barriers that denied URMs access to higher education. However, following the recent conservative trend in the United States, the Supreme Court made the (anticipated) decision to eliminate the Affirmative Action law. The decision reflects a lack of awareness regarding ongoing discrimination against URMs. Critics of Affirmative Action claim it stigmatizes URMs by suggesting they lack merit when admitted through this policy. In contrast, proponents recognize that Affirmative Action doesn’t provide automatic handouts; it offers opportunities to address educational disparities URMs have faced, ultimately striving for science equity.

Without Affirmative Action, future scientists may lack diverse mentors, risking a decline in institutional diversity among the student body. This could impact the future of science and equity^2,3, affecting both the diversity of students entering STEM fields and the retention of URMs in STEM disciplines. The problem causes an avalanche of effects—studies have shown that having role models in STEM enhances trainees’ sense of belonging and identity⁴. As a URM scientist myself, I resonate with the academic challenges that young women from underserved communities face along their academic journeys. Inspired and nurtured by URM mentors, I am committed to paying it forward by mentoring the next generation of URM students. I’ve mentored young women through the University of Washington’s Making Connections program, designed to increase STEM enrollment among URM students. These budding scientists bring fresh perspectives to their fields, offering unique insights into existing data. The absence of perspectives from URM trainees could mean that the next generation of URM scientists may not have the role models needed to navigate and overcome the same barriers that a URM mentor might have faced. The termination of Affirmative Action is also likely to exacerbate the underrepresentation of URMs in leadership positions, particularly in fields like biomedical research and education. Even with Affirmative Action policies in effect, the representation of URM faculty among biomedical research grant holders in 2021 remained at only four percent⁵. Science welfare is at risk—it’s essential to prioritize URM role models and promote initiatives that actively foster diversity, equity, and inclusion among URMs in education and the scientific community.

Affirmative Action and programs like NYU’s colloquium are a positive first step towards enhancing diversity and inclusion at prestigious academic institutions⁶. These programs provide an opportunity to evaluate the historical and current exclusion of URM scientists due to racial biases and systemic barriers⁷. However, there is still a lack of sufficient support for URMs to graduate with STEM degrees⁸. These disparities persist in several states (Figure 1), even as URM demographics continue to grow⁹. Alarmingly, demographic reports from 2012 to 2020 reveal that matriculated African American students in these states have seen only a marginal increase of under 1% across flagship universities despite a substantial 14% growth in student demographics⁹. To increase URM representation in STEM, a collective and persistent commitment is necessary. Academic institutions, their leaders, administrators, and scientists must collectively be dedicated to diversity and inclusion. 

Challenges in navigating the graduate school application process are often more pronounced for students from low-income and first-generation backgrounds, while those with familial ties to academia have advantages. To mitigate these systemic barriers and disparities, education initiatives like Científico Latino Graduate Student Mentorship Initiative (CL-GSMI)¹⁰ play a pivotal role. It equips historically marginalized students in STEM graduate programs with essential application information and mentorship, significantly increasing their chances of matriculation. This initiative not only achieves impressive acceptance rates but also fosters a sense of community among URM STEM students. It raises awareness and actively promotes diversity and inclusion among both mentors and participants. Overall, these initiatives play a crucial role in empowering URM students to overcome obstacles and pursue higher STEM education, contributing to greater diversity and innovation within the scientific community.

While education initiatives play a critical role in promoting science equity, they cannot fully eliminate biases, as beneficiaries often face extensive scrutiny of their qualifications. Misconceptions persist regarding URMs and Affirmative Action, with erroneous beliefs that URMs receive a “plus” in the application process, suggesting they gain access without academic merit¹¹. The prevailing meritocratic culture can leave URMs feeling inadequate when we succeed, making it challenging for URMs to advance science and assume leadership positions. The ruling on Affirmative Action and the emphasis on meritocracy can reinforce the belief that URMs only succeed because we “checked the right boxes.” 

Although this feeling of self-doubt is real, the belief of being undeserving is unfounded. Celebrating URM successes acknowledges the invaluable perspectives, critical thinking, and creativity that we bring to the scientific community, and tenacity in the face of adversity. In contrast to a meritocratic culture that perpetuates institutional oppression and hinders diversity, celebrating our successes demonstrates that barriers can be broken regardless of societal biases or systemic imbalances. By actively recognizing URM successes, we can achieve science equity. So, as I continue to fill out applications with impersonal dropdowns and input fields, I remind myself that my successes are valid and worth celebrating. I’m not just “checking the right boxes”; I’m using those boxes as a platform to reduce systemic imbalances and barriers in STEM—from societal biases to the cultural changes needed to support URM professional growth at all career stages. 

Works Cited:

1. Ax, Joseph. “What the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Affirmative Action Means for Colleges.” Reuters, 29 June 2023, www.reuters.com/legal/what-supreme-courts-ruling-affirmative-action-means-colleges-2023-06-29/.
2. Long, M. C., & Bateman, N. A. “Long-Run Changes in Underrepresentation After Affirmative Action Bans in Public Universities.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol 42. doi.org/10.3102/0162373720904
3. Garces, Liliana M., and David Mickey-Pabello. “Racial diversity in the medical profession: The impact of affirmative action bans on underrepresented student of color matriculation in medical schools.” The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 86, no. 2, 2015, pp. 264–294, doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2015.0009.
4. González-Pérez, S., Mateos de Cabo, R., & Sáinz, M. “Girls in STEM: Is It a Female Role-Model Thing?” Frontiers in psychology vol 11. 10 September 2020, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02204
5. “Racial Disparities in NIH Funding.” National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, diversity.nih.gov/building-evidence/racial-disparities-nih-funding. Accessed 7 Sept. 2023. 
6. Harris, Leslie  M. “Shades of Segregated Past in Today’s Campus Troubles.” The Conversation, 5 July 2023, www.theconversation.com/shades-of-segregated-past-in-todays-campus-troubles-38818.
7. Abiodun, Sade J. “”Seeing Color,” A Discussion of the Implications and Applications of Race in the Field of Neuroscience.” Frontiers in human neuroscience, vol. 13 280. 13 August 2019, doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00280
8. Riegle-Crumb, C., King, B., & Irizarry, Y. “Does STEM Stand Out? Examining Racial/Ethnic Gaps in Persistence Across Postsecondary Fields.” Educational Researcher, vol 48. 21 February 2019, doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19831006
9. Donadel, Alcino. “Minority Enrollment at These Flagship Universities Underwhelms Compared to State Population Gains.” University Business. 20 June 2023, www.universitybusiness.com/minority-enrollment-at-these-flagship-universities-underwhelms-compared-to-state-population-gains/.
10. Cadena, Melissa Andrea, et al. “Insights and strategies for improving equity in Graduate School Admissions.” Cell, vol. 186, no. 17, 17 Aug. 2023, pp. 3529–3547, doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2023.07.029.
11. “Myths and Facts about Affirmative Action.” American Civil Liberties Union, 4 Apr. 2008, www.aclu.org/documents/myths-and-facts-about-affirmative-action.

Author:

Jasmine Pathan (@jasmino_acid; she/her) is a neuroscience PhD candidate at the City University of New York, Graduate Center, and a freelance science writer. Additionally, she serves as the neuroscience student representative to the Biology PhD Program Executive Committee at CUNY, where she advocates for student well-being.

Editors:

Ananya Sen is currently a science writer at the Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology. She completed her Ph.D. in Microbiology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2021. She is an ardent reader and will happily discuss anything from Jane Austen to Gillian Flynn. Her travel goals include covering all the national parks in the U.S. with her sidekick Oscar, a Schnauzer/Pomeranian mix.

Roopsha Sengupta is the Editor-in-Chief at ClubSciWri. She did her Ph.D. at the Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna, and postdoctoral research at the Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, UK, specializing in the field of Epigenetics. During her research, she was involved in many exciting discoveries and had the privilege of working and collaborating with a number of inspiring scientists. As an editor for ClubSciWri, she loves working on a wide range of topics and presenting articles coherently, while nudging authors to give their best.

Illustrator:

Andreia Rocha did her M.Sc. at Universidade do Algarve in Faro, Portugal, in Oncobiology and moved to Vienna to complete her thesis at IMBA where she studied stem cells and focused on working with organoids while using them as cancer models. She is a research assistant at JLP Health, a startup company based in Vienna, Austria. She is also passionate about communicating science through art and illustration and wishes to combine the two careers in the future. You can visit her website and follow her on instagram.

This article was initially submitted to the ComSciCon Flagship 2023 Create-a-thon workshop and further improved by the editorial process at Club SciWri. Club SciWri and ComSciCon have a shared mission of helping scientists make science accessible for all.