by Sean Tallman*, Professor of Anatomy & Neurobiology, Boston University. Note: The perspectives and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not reflect those of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
A recent decision by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) to eliminate an important and productive diversity committee (the Anthropology Diversity & Inclusion Committee, for which I was a Co-Chair)—and my consequent resignation as Chair of the AAFS Diversity Outreach Committee (DOC)—has sparked intense discussions in the forensic community about the AAFS’ stance on diversifying a problematically homogenous field and is mobilizing forensic scientists to confront issues of exclusion, bias, and racism and speak out about the importance of diversity.
The AAFS is one of the key forensic organizations in the world that promotes science and its application to medico-legal issues; however, it has struggled with diversity, equity and inclusion. In fact, a 2011 AAFS survey found that at least 84% of members thought that the AAFS should not do more do promote minority applicants or their participation in AAFS activities (Tallman & Bird 2020). However, a diversity of perspectives, experiences, identities, and viewpoints is vital to the sciences that can, for instance, determine manner and/or cause of death of decedents, positively identify human remains, and identify perpetrators of violent crimes.
The AAFS is currently comprised of 6,560 members divided into 11 distinct forensic disciplines, including Anthropology, which has 577 members; however, membership across the AAFS is steadily decreasing. Many of the forensic disciplines represented in the AAFS (e.g., Pathology/Biology, Odontology, Toxicology, Anthropology, and Criminalistics) are a part of the Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) fields, which also struggle with diversity through the “leaky pipeline,” wherein individuals from unrepresented groups disproportionately leave scientific fields at multiple stages (see Wagstaff and LaPorte 2018).
For years, colleagues and I have had conversations regarding the lack of diversity in the AAFS, particularly in the Anthropology Section where I am a Fellow, and we noted the absence of concerted efforts to address these issues by the AAFS. These conversations led two colleagues and I to organize an unofficial LGBTQIA+ and allies night out at the annual AAFS meetings, which have been overwhelmingly well attended each year since 2017. Also in 2017, the AAFS Anthropology Section Chair created a temporary ad hoc Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) Committee co-chaired by a colleague and I, and we assembled a diverse group of students and professionals to begin developing diversity and inclusion initiatives. We quickly realized that diversity efforts require long-term, sustained attention and argued for the committee’s permanence, which resulted in the Anthropology Section’s overwhelming vote to establish the D&I Committee as a first-of-its-kind permanent, standing committee in 2018.
Thus, anthropologists have prioritized diversity efforts more than other forensic disciplines, and the Anthropology D&I Committee has led the way in numerous diversity and inclusion initiatives—some of which have benefited the entire AAFS—including: developing a diversity and inclusion statement that was accepted by the Anthropology Section in 2019 and adapted/adopted by the AAFS in 2020; establishing a travel award for one student from an underrepresented group to attend the annual AAFS meetings; starting a mentorship program that matches mentors (professionals) and protégés (students) for a duration of one year; holding open forums at the AAFS meetings to discuss issues of diversity relevant to forensic anthropology; and organizing three scientific D&I symposia at the AAFS meetings, among other accomplishments. Moreover, the Anthropology D&I Committee has significantly improved the overall climate of the Anthropology Section by creating a more welcoming space and increasing inclusion—particularly for students and members from underrepresented groups—which is precisely what D&I committees are for.
Additionally, in 2017 the AAFS quietly established the Diversity Outreach Committee (DOC) to finally begin addressing AAFS-wide diversity issues. In an effort to liaise with the DOC and coordinate D&I efforts, I joined the DOC in 2018. In February 2020 I was elected by the AAFS Board of Directors as the new Chair of the DOC. Thus, as Chair/Co-Chair of both diversity committees in the AAFS, I ensured that there was no duplication of D&I efforts and streamlined D&I initiatives, while also bringing with me some of the successes established in the Anthropology Section to Academy-wide diversity efforts.
However, the DOC has been unable to produce deliverable diversity and inclusion initiatives or effect substantial change due to the Board having to approve each initiative, and D&I initiatives have not been prioritized by the Board. In fact, many of the initiatives accomplished by the Anthropology D&I Committee, including the mentorship program and travel award, would not have been possible through the DOC. Therefore, addressing diversity and inclusion initiatives through discipline-specific efforts has been more impactful and efficient compared to Academy-wide efforts, especially for disciplines like Anthropology that have prioritized diversity and inclusion concerns.
One of the first obstacles that I, along with both committees, encountered emerged from our responses to the disproportionate killings of Black individuals by law enforcement, as recently evidenced by the deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor, among numerous others. As one of the premier professional and scientific forensic organizations, we argued that it was critical for the AAFS to take a vocal and meaningful stand against the violent racism and structural inequalities that are plaguing the Black community. Sadly, this time of upheaval across the country presents an important opportunity for the AAFS to self-reflect and advocate for equality, antiracism, and Black lives in the legal, scientific, law enforcement, and educational contexts where we work, learn, and teach.
In early June, the Anthropology D&I Committee wrote and distributed an anti-racist statement to the Anthropology Section via an unofficial email listserv. We argued that silence and inaction in the wake of violent racism signifies complacency at best and supports racism at worst. In particular, we noted: “As anthropologists who value, uphold, and promote diversity in all of its varied forms, and as forensic anthropologists who frequently engage with law enforcement, acknowledging, calling out, and combatting inherent structural inequalities in the legal system is critical to dismantling racism and holding individuals and institutions, including many of our own, accountable.”
Concurrently, the DOC wrote a separate statement endorsing the Anthropology sentiments, where we advocated that “all of us, particularly White members, need to listen to and amplify the voices of Black and other POC AAFS members to better understand their lived experiences as minorities working and living in or adjacent to prejudiced, racist, and inequitable systems.” The DOC’s statement was sent to the AAFS President and Board, but was not accepted by the Board or distributed to membership. However, the dissemination of the Anthropology D&I Committee’s anti-racist statement to membership resulted in the committee being publicly scolded for speaking on behalf the AAFS without the Board’s approval—though we made it clear that we were speaking only as 10 anthropologists engaged in D&I work. We were issued a “cease and desist” letter and threatened with ethics violations for unsanctioned communication with membership and posting the anti-racist statement on social media and on the unofficial email listserv.
While the “cease and desist” presented an obstacle in communicating directly with AAFS members, the Anthropology D&I Committee continued our work, but we repeatedly faced significant roadblocks. For example, the Board criticized many of our actions, including holding open discussion forums at the AAFS annual meetings and in creating the mentorship program, which they argued were not approved by the Board. These initiatives were, however, approved by the Anthropology Section Chair and Secretary and we were never informed that they required higher-level approval.
The Anthropology Chair and Secretary wrote a letter to the Board in support of the D&I Committee that also requested space on the AAFS website so that we could provide documents and resources relevant to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Weeks later, on July 24, 2020, a reply letter from the Board arrived, “respectfully requesting the Anthropology Section dissolve the Anthropology Diversity and Inclusion Committee,” because they argued that one expanded DOC (from 11 to 15 members) will satisfy the D&I needs for each of the 11 forensic disciplines. They further argued that multiple diversity committees “dilute and potentially complicate our primary message,” which has remained undefined, despite my repeated requests for clarification. Following the letter, several Board members met with the Anthropology Section leadership and D&I Committee Co-Chairs.
In the meeting, the D&I Committee Co-Chairs and the Anthropology Secretary adamantly argued against the committee’s dissolution because of its ongoing successes and because the Anthropology Section voted for its permanence in 2018. Moreover, we argued that the individual AAFS sections benefit from tailored diversity efforts due to the unique challenges and needs of each discipline, and that D&I efforts require a multiplicity of voices and perspectives. The Board argued that multiple diversity committees duplicate efforts, which I assured—as Chair/Co-Chair of both committees—was not happening. At the end of the meeting, we agreed that the Board would draft a plan as to how they envision one large DOC would address the diversity needs of 11 distinct forensic sciences before dissolving the Anthropology D&I Committee.
However, on October 16, 2020, shortly after our meeting with representatives of the AAFS Board and without further communication or a proposed plan, the Anthropology Section received an email from the AAFS President which stated that the Anthropology D&I Committee is officially dissolved and that the role of the DOC Chair had significantly changed. This occurred without the AAFS Board or President initiating a conversation with the Anthropology Section regarding diversity and the impact of the D&I Committee and without my involvement. In the President’s email, and in another email from Anthropology Section leadership, the DOC and I were presented as integral participants in the discussion, planning, and decision for the committee’s dissolution, which we were not. I found it particularly unsettling that, in those emails, my role as DOC Chair was leveraged without my consent, support, or input.
Further, in my opinion, the D&I Committee’s dissolution by the Board is a direct punishment for authoring and distributing the anti-racist statement, as they fear such statements will offend law enforcement agencies and jeopardize the forensic sciences’ relationship with them. However, anti-racist statements are just that—expressions of antiracism that highlight the importance of human rights—and they are not necessarily anti-law enforcement. In fact, it is unproductive and dangerous to reduce the complicated processes inherent in racism and antiracism to simply being pro- or anti-law enforcement. Due to the inability of the Board to take a stance against racism and in their handling of the Anthropology D&I Committee dissolution that implicated me in its dismantling, I officially resigned from my role as DOC Chair on October 19, 2020.
In my resignation statement, I argued that the unilateral elimination of the Anthropology D&I Committee—without Section input—at a time when conversations and action in regard to diversity, inclusion, equity, and racism are occurring across the country is out of touch, dismissive, damaging, and ultimately revealing. The dissolution of the D&I Committee devalues the work that the Committee and forensic anthropologists have accomplished since 2017 and is an affront to a myriad of individuals that include students and professionals from underrepresented and marginalized communities, along with those of us that work to amplify representation.
Moreover, diversity and inclusion require multiple perspectives, voices, and experiences in order to be successful, and one size does not fit all with diversity and inclusion needs, especially in an organization that has 11 disparate forensic sciences represented. Diversity and inclusion work should not be managed by a small, elite, and authoritarian group of people, such as the AAFS Board, who lack transparency, diversity, or clear goals for increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion. Therefore, I contend, there is ample room for formalized diversity committees in every AAFS Section where its members want to create one and that any organization, particularly the AAFS, should support proactive D&I efforts.
I am disappointed, but not necessarily surprised, that the AAFS Board is currently positioning itself on the wrong side of history in its unwillingness to take an anti-racist stance and through its elimination of a successful, necessary, and member-enacted diversity committee. Their effort to stop a productive diversity committee and diminish its success is a testament to the Board’s White privilege and utter lack of interest in meaningful, inclusive change.
Additionally, the AAFS’ treatment of diversity and antiracism is resulting in angered members who do not want to be aligned with the organization and are choosing to leave. In an era of Black Lives Matter, social upheaval, critical race theory, and individual and organizational self-reflection, the forensic sciences need more discipline-focused diversity efforts (and committees), not less. In fact, forensic anthropologists largely agree that the lack of diversity and, relatedly, experiences of harassment and discrimination within the AAFS, are problematic and that the Anthropology Section can do more to increase diversity efforts (Tallman & Bird 2020), which supports the maintenance of a standing D&I committee. Such discipline-specific diversity committees and associated initiatives can play important roles in exploring and confronting how racism, bias, harassment, and discrimination intersect with the forensic sciences, which is long overdue. This is especially important now, when at least 87% (but likely more) of forensic anthropologists are white, and the recruitment and retention of people from underrepresented groups presents a significant challenge due to the field’s racist past and the maintenance of meritocratic processes that exclude diverse identities, perspectives, and experiences (Tallman & Bird 2020).
Further Reading
Tallman SD, Bird CE. Diversity and inclusion in forensic anthropology: Where we stand and prospects for the future. Forensic Anthropology DOI: 10.5744/fa.2020.3001. http://journals.upress.ufl.edu/fa/article/view/1271
Wagstaff IR, Laporte G. The importance of diversity and inclusion in the forensic sciences. NIJ Journal 2018;279:1-11. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/importance-diversity-and-inclusion-forensic-sciences
*Sean Tallman is a biological anthropologist specializing in forensic anthropology, human skeletal biology, forensic archaeology, and anatomy. He is currently an Assistant Professor in the Departments of Anatomy & Neurobiology and Anthropology at Boston University, where he teaches courses in human osteology, biological anthropology method and theory, bioarchaeology, forensic anthropology, and human rights. Tallman also heads the Forensic and Bioanthropology Laboratory Group, teaches, and advises students the M.S. Program in Forensic Anthropology at the Boston University School of Medicine. His research has appeared in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, Forensic Anthropology, Forensic Science International, and the American Journal of Physical Anthropology and he serves on the editorial board for Forensic Anthropology and American Anthropologist. He can be reached at [email protected].