Hello and welcome back. I'm Mary Kerchoff, Executive Vice President for Scientific Advancement of the American Chemical Society. Following Dr. Herbrowski's fantastic opening talk, we will now proceed with our first session, which presents established programs that work to build a climate conducive to DEI and or work to enhance DEI in the talent pool. This session is split into two panel sessions and will take us through to the end of day one. Before the first panel session begins, we are delighted to have Dr. Dauntari Sallings here to share relevant data that will help ground the subsequent discussions. Dr. Sallings is Assistant Teaching Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of California, San Diego, as well as the Associate Director of Oxide, which is the open chemistry collaborative in diversity equity, where he works to generate policy solutions that increase diversity and inclusion within the chemistry field. Please feel free to enter any clarifying questions you have in the chat during Dr. Sallings presentation. Dauntari, the floor is yours. Oh, thank you so much, Mary. It's a pleasure being here. And I'm looking forward to this this afternoon and all of the talks that are coming after this. So, you know, the title of my talk is Demographic Data Cultivating Change. And we, and when I say we, I mean our nation, our institutions, our departments, our research groups, we're at a tipping point with respect to DEI where opportunity meets needs meets time. And as a profession, our practices and policies and our procedures in the past, they're not guaranteed to actually produce a successful tomorrow. And in large part that's because the demographics of the people that produce past successes don't correlate to the demographics of the individuals that we will need to fill our future classrooms, our professorate, our research groups, our industrial teams and our institutions. Those are individuals that our practices and policies and procedures have marginalized. And we've created a climate where our profession and field is actually not their field of choice. And that really is the crux of what we're going to be battling. Let me see. So, the purpose of this presentation is provide a quantitative foundation for the following discussions. And in order to do that we need to define the stage that we're going to be discussing. Oftentimes, you hear the situation discuss in terms of say a leaky pipeline. I like us to actually reimagine the pipeline, because the pipeline focuses on losses. This is on the failure of individuals to matriculate. It puts blame on individuals in a lot of ways. So the right hand side of the screen you see an image with a ladder, and on every rung of the ladder, it notes educational or professional advancement. Now at every single stage or transition of this letter, the students or professionals have the opportunity to opt out. When I say opt out I mean leave our profession. So what we need to do is we need to motivate students profession and professionals to actually opt in. And then, you know, this is because we're, we're losing people to better choices. And we need to make the choice to stay in our, in our field or on our academic tracks, more attractive, so that more people are opting in. And because of that, and because of the setup, every single rung every transition that you see here, represents an opportunity where strategic interventions can be performed to increase the likelihood that people opt into this profession. During the next couple of days, you're going to hear interventions that occur at every stage of this letter. Yeah, I'll go ahead and plug outside at outside we believe that faculty play a central a critical role with respect to changing the demographics of our field as you see on the right hand side faculty interact with the large component of all of these particular cohorts.  We are engaged to affect the academic mission at every stage of this ladder. And as such the demographics of our professorate becomes a bellwether for inclusivity within our field. I mean if you think about it.  You know this is a path that's for you.  This is a table that speaks toward the professional advancement of four different cohorts.  The cohort has a set of bar graphs that indicate their relative percentage with respect to the US demographics percentage of individuals attaining BS degrees percentage of individuals attaining PhD degrees and percentage of assistant associated and full professors. You see the drop for each one of these cohorts, but oftentimes people focus primarily on the drop between between the US population in the bachelor's degree. There's nothing wrong with focusing on that drop, please don't don't get me wrong. But you know, there are also other drops here that are equally important. And I want to point out that the drop that that Oxide focuses on, for the most part, is a drop between the transition between someone becoming a PhD, and then becoming a full faculty member. And so my this drop is important to us is because this is a drop that colleges and universities can actually directly affect colleges and universities have a substantial and play a substantial role in the demographics of individuals that they hire. In addition to looking at the PhD to full faculty transition, we're going to discuss all of these transitions in greater detail. Now the data noted here comes from the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, and it was actually published in April so this is 2018 data that just got published. And as many of you know, the demographics of individuals that are black and individuals that are Latin X individuals that are Native American and individuals that a mixed race, often lumped into one combined category. And in this talk that combined category will be noted as underrepresented people of color, or you are PLC. And it's because collectively there are people of color that are underrepresented demographically within our respective fields within chemistry and chemical engineering.  And you know, as you see, if you look at the US population, the individuals and rolling into the college. You know that those numbers are pretty on point, they're commiserate right, you can see that these numbers don't really shift. So that means that we are currently enrolling individuals in the college at rates and percentages that are demographic demographically proportional to the US population. Now, with that said, if you look at the degrees conferred for both chemistry and chemical engineering, you notice that there's a substantial drop. So within the United States, 34% of the population come from your PLC groups. But 25.3% of our chemistry degrees come from that same cohort and 18.7% of our chemistry degrees come from that same cohort. So that's to say that we're losing here. We're losing opportunities. We're not attracting talent, and people are opting out. So, the question is, why. What can we actually do to make it such that our fields, our majors become the bills of choice for your PLC individuals. Because right now we're not meeting those particular standards right now they have choices, and we're just not their choice. So this is a similar table, also data pool from the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. And this table right here, this aggregates underrepresented people of color and tracks their matriculation through graduate school. So we're looking at the highlights of the percentages of individuals that are earning PhDs and masters. And, you know, it's pretty interesting because chemistry and chemical engineering are a little different here. For chemistry with respect to PhDs representation in chemistry significantly drops as you go from a BS to a PhD from 25% your PLC to 12.9%. That's a substantial drop. And this is indicative of lost opportunities to recruit and retain students that graduate within our respective field for chemical engineering. It's a little bit different. It turns out the representation within Kim E remains commensurate between individuals that attain their their BS degree and Kim E and their PhD. So we're going 19% to around 19%, which is pretty awesome. This means that that that with respect to opportunity demographic opportunity or availability. The Kim E field is actually moving forward at a clip that's commensurate that's that's a beautiful thing. But even though that's positive. Let's look at these numbers. 19%. And roughly 13%. Both of these numbers fall far short of being numbers that correspond to the United States demographic availability, which means that we can do more. And we have to do more to stay competitive as we move forward with research and not nation. All right, so that's the story of going from enrolling into college, getting your bachelor's degree, going from your bachelor's degree and getting up to your PhD degree. Now the next phase is going to be the professor. Data noted here comes from Zippia. And what I want you to note here is that this data tracks a demographic representation within the professorate of Kim E departments. On the right hand side, you have a table that has white Asian Latinx and black percentages of Falcon members from 2010 to 2018. And we're going to focus on the 2018 numbers because those are the most recently recent numbers that are shown inside this particular data. So, when we compare the percentages of individuals that earn PhDs versus the percentage of your POC faculty. You notice that there's a gap, right, we're looking at 19% versus 11.5%. This gap is quite substantial. But what it represents is truly an opportunity, because right now, hiring, you know, with respect to Kim E and faculty is not matching availability. So the question should be asked, you know, during the hiring pool. Are people choosing not to actually apply. What do your application pools look like, or are we doing a poor job of recognizing talent. I'm sure it's probably a combination of both, which means that these are fixes and opportunities that as faculty members and departments can easily be adjusted and change via effective practices and policies. So this right here is data that was generated by oxide. So in chemistry, we have a similar problem as Kim E. We're looking at our availability gap, which goes from 13% of PhDs for your POC faculty, PhDs versus 5.5% with faculty. This is significant. So we were asking ourselves or have to ask ourselves the same exact question. How we fell. A lack of individuals applying or are we not effectively noting talent. Now, those, those, those stories aren't happy stories, but there is some positive here. There's a positive trend in both the percentages and the total faculty members within chemistry. This data here between 11 and 2018 also happens to be the timeframe in which oxide has existed. And what I want you to note about these numbers is that while 4.65 to 5.5 feels and looks like a small number, it is actually quite substantial. We're looking at a 30% increase over seven years. And these are real value 67. You are PLC faculty to 87 your PAC faculty.  They're not great. I'm not wrong. I'm not saying this is spectacular. I'm just saying that it's trending in a positive direction. But the trend isn't substantial as substantial as we like it to be. But let's dive into how this is occurring a little bit more. Five minutes done. Sorry. Thank you so much. So, on the screen right now, this is some more data that's produced by oxide. You have this aggregated total faculty members for every single rank from assistant professors to associate professors to full professors. You also have the data for the total professors on here as well. And then in chemistry. What I want you to note here is that what we're really looking at is a change in the percentile of assistant professors. So for your PLC full professors, it was 5.5%. And I think the assistant professors with respect to chemistry assistant professors is 9.5% or 6.9.7% of the cohort as that's that's substantially higher value, right. So, this particular change has been positive. It doesn't quite meet total availability, but it's trending in the right directions, equally to be noted here you know that the associate professors have gone down. This trend is occurring because it reflects the, the diminishing aspects of under promotion within our field, meaning the associate professors are being promoted for professors. Right. So, all that being said, what conclusions that we pull from this demographic data that we have shows that we are both failing and succeeding more failing than succeeding. But what it does, it lays a platform or foundation for where we can compare and contrast. In the outside project we believe that that in order for the demographic data to effectively change. This requires a focus on the promotion from doctors to the professor. A focus on changing the demographics of the professor in a way that corresponds to the demographics of our nation. Overall the the numbers that demonstrate that we need systematic system systemic change is there. You can easily see that systemic change has to occur. In the outside perspective we believe that this requires intentional changes and policies and procedures. Like, you know, like this workshop that are designed to inform to motivate and to help structurally move the system in a way that's effective. And, you know, with that being said, the only way that can occur is that at every level of leadership. Someone is taking action. Right. That someone has ownership over the outcomes of demographics for your organization. So, I'll leave with this statement. There are a million paths for institutions to achieve inclusive excellence, but they can all be condensed into one. Make strategic efforts to improve yourself. Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the Sloan Foundation because quite honestly, then believing in oxide in a way that continues to fund us and resonating with our goals and aspirations has been something that's been very beneficial. The oxide board for always supporting us and helping us to continue to make steps forward to become a better program. So, I'd like to thank the trigger board, Hernandez, Hernandez who is the director of oxide, who has been my partner this entire time and he's, he's an incredible person to work with, and a great mentor. And also for both UCSD and Johns Hopkins for wanting to house oxide on their respective campuses and supporting both of us as you move forward in our professional careers. And here's the biggest component. We've worked with so many departments, and they partnered with us, and we've learned from them. And we've shared the information that we learned, and we very much appreciate that. Thank you for your time. Thanks so much Don Tari, you've really done a great job and laying out some of the data that's so important to helping us understand some of the bigger issues that we're facing and trying to address through this workshop. We have time for a couple of questions we've had several come in from the attendees. So the first one is, should we in this from Chris Banneke should we begin to include individuals that do not fit the gender binary in our studies. We absolutely should. I think that the for for producing that data. That's hard. You're asking people to provide information that that is invisible in a lot of ways. They have to help themselves, which makes it more, more of a, you know, of a balancing act. This is, I don't think whatever, at least not the next 10 years, get to the point where every single individual is going to feel comfortable with providing that data. But I hope that as we move forward, we begin to get better numbers and information pertaining to that particular cohort. Thank you for that. Now something I asked is, is all the data you presented limited to us citizens or doesn't include all nationalities. For the professorate data is all nationalities for the student data. It is national data. Okay, great. Thank you. I also question from Satna about is there an effort to fine grain the Asian data and a couple of may also ask this question in a different way. Asia has two of the most popular countries with different cultures and inherent cultures and heritage. And when you put them in the long category you're sort of missing those cultural identities. So is there any effort to fine grain that a bit more than the data you're currently looking at. Absolutely. And outside hex actually begun that with the way that we pull our chemistry faculty data. We've we just aggregated those groups so that we can actually dive in because each one of those individual cohorts are having different experiences. I would say that nationally, we're not at that point. And you may have noticed that there was some data missing from, you know, from chemistry, the disaggregated data for the PhD. That wasn't because I didn't want to put it. That's because that data wasn't available. So we were still not to the point that we're still pulling effectively census data for our fields in a way that's going to be effective. Thank you. Oops, I just lost that question. But does outside have any specific recommendations for changes to faculty search processes to improve our ability to fairly evaluate a more diverse applicant pool. Oh, absolutely. So one of the things we do is we have a national diversity at the workshop, where chairs from all over the nation come in the work and problem solve and produce recommendations. You go to our website, you'll see a list of recommendation that chairs from across the nation have produced now specifically to the hiring practices. This becomes an opportunity type scenario where when we fine tune searches that are really really tight. Oftentimes you may be missing out on excellent hiring opportunities because that person doesn't overlap with what you're searching for at this one moment. Right. But here's the thing, because the numbers are so small, you won't get that opportunity again. So when we fine tune our searches and make them so tiny, we're missing opportunities at great side with respect to great scientists. And because of that, it's making it more difficult for our application pools to be as diverse as we want. And one of the things that a lot of a lot of universities are doing is they're doing opportunities higher. They're as soon as they see an individual who who's an excellent opportunity, instead of waiting for them to fit a certain role. They're going after those individuals. And by doing that, they're producing demographics within the department that are much more commensurate with the US population. One last quick question because we're just about out of time. Do you have similar data for your POC going into industry? That's from Sammy Sigmund. I don't. I don't. But I'm not trying to be funny. I wonder if I can just do some subtraction here because that's where every between industry and government that's where everyone else is going. The competition is real. And to be honest, industry has been doing an amazing job, at least substantially better than academia of having their particular opportunities being something that people want to opt into. Great. Thank you so much for that excellent presentation. We're giving you a virtual round of applause, even though I know you can't hear it. And thanks so much for your presentation. Thank you. And with that, I'd like to introduce my CSR colleague Carlos Gonzalez of the National Institute of Standards Technology and Carlos will be leading us through the first panel session of this afternoon. Carlos. Thank you very and thank you for a very nice presentation. Data is very important. And I think you actually touch all the points that are important regarding data. So, welcome to the first panel session for this workshop. This panel session will focus specifically on established programs at work to build climates are conducive to diversity, equity and inclusivity in the chemical sciences. So we will hear from three invited speakers, each of whom will speak for approximately 20 minutes. Know that I will actually interject to give them the five minutes warning at the appropriate time. So we can keep up with the schedule. At the end of each talk, there will be time for a couple of clarifying questions. And most of the questions probably will actually move into the panel discussion that's going to start at two o'clock after all the presentations are done. And as a reminder, let me just remind it again that you can submit your questions to the Q&A feature in Zoom in the chat. With that, I would like to introduce the first speaker, Dr. Rebecca Rock, Executive Director of Merck Process Research and Development, which leads the Enabling Technologies Group. Dr. Rock has been actively involved in the external research community through academic collaborations, the creation of the Merck to University Lecture Series, and also recruiting efforts where she focuses on women in chemistry, diversity and inclusion. Rebecca. Great. Thank you, Carlos. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Thanks. Thanks for the invitation to speak here today. I'm really, I feel really privileged to be able to present on behalf of many outstanding colleagues I have at Merck to share kind of the what we've done for diversity, equity and inclusion. And I've titled this experiments in DEI because I do think we've treated DEI very much like an experimental science being scientists and engineers. And so I'm going to share some of that today, recognizing that since I only have 20 minutes, I'm going to treat this like a manuscript and you'll only get to hear some of the experiments that actually worked. But happy to chat about some of the things that were that were less successful as well. And so what you're going to hear from me today is sort of what these experiments were and how we went about executing on them and some of the some of the results from that. Before, before I, you know, before I speak to kind of what these experiments were, I thought it's important to capture kind of what my motivation has been. And, and Carlos mentioned the women in chemistry piece. Certainly that is something that that motivates me personally, based on my own experiences, and it served as sort of the springboard to become more interested in diversity equity and inclusion more broadly on a on a technical level. And I lead this group that that's called enabling technologies and I look at this as a bit of an experiment in diversity in an innovation incubator, if you will, because in a single group we've combined biologist chemists and chemical engineers with an eye toward getting out of each of these groups and if you, you look at the graphic you can see kind of the different capabilities that we have within the team but I think what's what's most important here is our vision statement that we will identify and leverage synergies that exist across the enabling technology to do the law for unparalleled delivery of enhanced capabilities right so this basically says we need to tap into that diversity in order to be able to innovate like we want. Since innovation these days occur so much at these interfaces. So, as I'm speaking on behalf of Merck I thought it was important to at least have a slide that captures all the resources that are available to us at the company and so we've buck I bucketed them into into three three categories. One is corporate resources so things like uncovering talent which talks about covering things like unconscious bias toolkits and as well as rewards and recognition. At the same time, as a big company we have 10 employee business resource groups that are that are populated, not by just individuals who fall into those categories but by but certainly by allies as well so things like the Merck lead which is the Association for employees of African descent and the Merck rainbow alliance. But really what what I'm going to focus on today is is some of the things that we've been doing in process research and development at Merck and I'll talk about some of the things that are that are captured on this slide. So, so how did we go about sort of bringing together our diversity and inclusion efforts at Merck in in process research and development. Well the story actually starts probably five or six years ago at a global chemistry event, when about a half dozen women approach the senior vice president in the organization to tell him that he in fact had a woman problem. And, and with this, we're launched a series of women in chemistry roundtables, where we solicited feedback from women across the organization to understand what these issues were and things that came up or things like sponsorship work life balance career and transparency in decision making and so the action that came from that was to was to really engage the leadership to lean into discomfort when it comes to diversity and in particular, a couple of our leads myself and Nara of our and cobble sort of took on a role of reverse mentoring so people, providing mentorship to people senior to us around our experiences and the experiences of those in the organization. And so having done that, it became apparent to us that some of the efforts we were making around inclusion, we're not limited to women, and in fact might have broader uptake I guess you would say if we brought in the focus to brought to diversity and inclusion in general. And so we continued on this path, thinking about things like talent development unconscious bias, and diversity and in assignments and for that latter piece you know what I'd emphasize, these were things like how do we develop our talent, defining what some of these assignments are things that are assignments that are career accelerating versus sort of more housekeeping types of assignments. And so that was successful. And then, then the organization evolved and in into process research and development, we became a modality agnostic groups so we brought in large and small molecules together. And we thought it was time to revisit this these round tables this time, sort of including people across across all the groups, not just women. We did handpick some of the attendees but in general it was random. So we hit about 30% of the organization for these round tables which were led by seven or eight D&I leaders in the organization. In order to get people to come we supplied snacks. So always always helpful there. And I think this was our first our first foray into really hearing hearing the voices of this, this broader PR and D organization, and understanding what was on their minds and the themes were similar, things like career development mentorship and sponsorship and inclusion. And this, from what we heard at these round tables, I think we were able to craft a plan of some actions that we were poised to take to really impact how process research and development approaches D&I. And I've just sort of mapped out on the bottom, sort of the continuum here of going from grassroots feedback to and listening to action and and at a feedback loop which which ultimately leads to continuous improvement. So it was important to put some structure in place around this and so I'm, I'm just going to provide on this slide a snapshot of how we organized ourselves just last year around diversity and inclusion in process R&D. And so one of the outcomes from these round tables was sort of the importance of building awareness to topics across the organization and to do that, we initiated D&I forums and we built a team. In this case I'm showing six, the six individuals who are the leads. So two leads across each of three of our larger sites and you can see the grassroots components highlighted in the graphic in the middle and each of these pairs of individuals had a small team who were tasked with sharing their wisdom and ultimately putting on programming that would be distributed to the organization. And I'll talk a little bit more about that in a few slides. Sort of connecting with this group where our process R&D D&I team composed of six executive directors, including myself, as well as two HR business partners. And ultimately, I think this group was tasked with setting the strategy for the department's D&I efforts and then executing on those priorities. At the same time, it's important to have the sponsorship from the upper reaches of your organization. And so our sponsors in this case were Mike Kress and Caroline McGregor. So VP level sponsors who are also able to provide us connectivity into broader Merck D&I efforts. And you can see it. I've drawn arrows that highlight going sort of from the grassroots forum leads to the PR and D&I team to the sponsors. But I think I can also draw reverse arrows. So I'm a chemist so these things are all in equilibrium. And the importance is that both ends, all pieces of this come together. The grassroots all the way up through the sponsorship. And so that's an important recommendation that I would make is that you kind of need the entire continuum there. So what are we going to do? So at the beginning of 2020, we laid out a series of focus areas that included things like improving diverse reputation at all level at representation at all levels within within the organization. Unconscious bias training resources around flexible work arrangements which obviously took on a different meaning during the pandemic. I wanted to provide resources around inclusive meeting norms that was something that certainly came came out of came out of our roundtables. But I'm going to focus on two major buckets, in particular sort of one that's that focuses on shared experiences that bring the broader organization together, as well as insights discovery training and so I'm going to start with the ladder. So what I should highlight about insights discovery is that is to while there are two things one, despite my championship here I am not a paid spokesperson. And to this is a tool, and so you're not limited to using something like insights but we have found it very helpful. And the purpose of insights is to bring organizations or bring people together to better understand their own as well as others communication styles. So with the idea that this will allow them to connect better with colleagues, and improve collaboration and in doing so they'll have a common language that they can utilize to highlight what what sort of their own styles are as well as understand why different people prefer different different different styles themselves. How did we go about this. So in as much as I had heard good things about utilizing insights. I didn't have experience with it and in order to provide that advocacy. The first step we took, or was to was was to go through it with my team so to to gain that experience, and it was very favorably received. And I'll show, and I'll show you on the next slide kind of what that actually looks like so. So we did that beta testing, and then felt it was important to get the executive level sponsorship so at that point we went through the very same training or similar version with our extended leadership team which included folks at the VP level the executive director level and our senior most scientists. That group was on board, we went and sort of enrolled the first line managers before in 2020 rolling it out to our broader organization. So we had we ended up doing this virtually last year, or the last bullet just the broader organization, do the pandemic, but we found that that has been quite effective. And importantly, we don't want to exclude new employees from from sort of becoming fluent in the language of insight so we have it set up so that new employees are on boarded with with going through the insights training themselves. So what does this actually look like in reality. So there is an online sort of personality test from which each employee receives their personal profile, which includes a page page and a half of of text that is eerily on point in terms of how you what you how you view yourself. And then that's followed by a two to three hour training on on the insights program and and how you might use it and in much like we like to do interviews using, we like to do you do structured interviews using the same questions. We've been we've managed to utilize the same facilitator for all these sessions so everyone is sort of being brought up to speed the same way. And finally, it's important that you don't go through, go through an initial training, but then to incorporate this in the day to day existence so whether it's development conversations team meetings and or just monthly tips and tricks. This is sort of part of the vernacular now. And so just two quick visuals. So, when you get your profile you find out what you will what you lead with. So they range from red, which is sort of more more determined to yellow which is sociable green which is more caring and blue, more analytical and you can see as scientists we have a lot of folks who lead with blue. I myself lead with red. But I think it's been really good for me to work closely with colleagues who lead with green as I learned to be a leader who leads with more vulnerability and empathy. And in terms of those monthly tips and tricks. This is just a graphic that shows how you can structure your meetings in order to leverage the different different communication styles different personality types along the way. Okay, so having talked about insights now I want to talk about some of the sharing efforts we we've carried out in 2020 into 2021. So revisiting our DNI forum leads our grassroots effort. Again, each of these folks has a, each pair of these folks has a small team at three different sites. And ultimately they put together seven or eight events in 2020 that that really brought diversity equity inclusion to our broader process research and development organization and so when the started off these were intended to be by site and in person. And so that was sort of how we operated in February. Everything changed very quickly. And so with that pivot, sort of the first three forums were, were all moved online, but also were driven by one of the respective sites. And they really the first three really focused on on things around cobit 19 things like psychological safety, maintaining social connections and fear and empathy so the mental, the mental health piece of sort of how we were working. I think in the second half of the year the group really hit its stride, as they then work together to assemble for that that really touched on contemporary topics, not that that that were that were relevant to the broader organization not by necessarily being the experts themselves but by working with folks who were who provided that expertise and even came as guest speakers and so things in this case by July. And I think it's poignant we're on where today is the one year anniversary of the killing of George Floyd so we ended up having that July discussion on black lives matter and fight fighting systemic racism. We talked we had an LGBTQ plus forum. We talked about the picture a scientist movie and, and, and ultimately circled back to the systemic racism question. So far for 2021 we've we've had one on allyship and, and next month we're going to be talking about working across the generation so these have been really effective. And moreover, sort of our dni forum leads have taken to providing monthly dni roundup emails basically a digestive information, as well as events that are going to be occurring so maze email focused on mental health awareness month. So, I think, just hats off to this, this, this team, because I think they've really been driving a lot of what we've done for diversity and inclusion in the organization. So the brilliant sort of sharing event that I want to focus on are some of the Ted style talks that we've done. So, so this, this originated as we circulated some 10 talks across the dni team that we thought would be valuable to the organization. But with that, we started to ask the question of whether there would be valuable value in some of our own team members giving Ted style talks about their personal experiences with diversity and inclusion. We found a really fortunate partner in this so this imagine at Merck organization have been created less than a year before and they focus on communication and in fact have expert coaches around Ted style talks. And they were eager to partner with us on on this initiative and so we sent out a back call to 1000 person organization and found six brave, well seven brave volunteers who are willing to go through some pretty intensive training and get out in front of the organization with dni theme Ted talks and what we did was we leveraged town halls by our senior leaders as appropriate for to to to to showcase these Ted talk so from that first cohort I just wanted to highlight one. I would love to share some of these videos with you so feel free to reach out to me offline if you're if you're interested but the very first one we did was by doctors Danny Shultz and Mike Pernott and their topic was hidden diversity from the standpoint that they both stutter. And what I will tell you is there was by the time they were done there was not a dry eye in the house. It really was moving and motivational to the organization to just kind of hear how diversity and inclusion really does impact people they know on a day to day basis in ways they might not have been aware of. So keep building off of the sector success of the first cohort we did do a second cohort of dni Ted talks. So, another half dozen talks. This time we got 12 volunteers, or 12 proposals and whittled it down to six. And I've just highlighted the individuals their photos and the topics here and I'll just sort of go around clockwise from the the lower left. So Alex Pavone talked about being sort of some of the challenges he faced growing up Latino and how that impacted his motivation and stem on talked about a building a sense of belonging and sort of some of the experiences he had growing up as as Chinese American. And Francois Lave talked about growing up as non native English speakers and then coming and working with us and sort of some of the challenges in in in language. T former talked about mental health wellness, as well as some of the challenge some of the challenges he faced growing up as non Asian American hate so very timely. G chi shared joined us from China to talk about influencing with empathy and Neil Stratman and Anne Mohan talked about talked about something that we don't normally talk about religion. And these, the outcome here was sort of the sharing of these personal experiences has been incredibly impactful for the organization. I think it's these are roundly lauded as some of the most impactful things we've done, just by providing that personal connection between folks you know, or folks you work with and and their dni experiences. Rebecca, we need to wrap it up. Great. Okay. So, so one thing that's important is that we, we don't, we don't stop our learning here and so we continue to bring in external speakers who are able to provide education to us on different matters around diversity and inclusion, and hopefully they get something out of the experience as well. And I'll, on this, on this next slide I'll just sort of quickly say, much like Don Terry's talk, we are interested in continuing to influence the field in terms of representation and so connecting with folks at the at the student level graduate students postdocs, as well as across across industry is something that is really important to us, and, and feel free to ask additional questions around that. And so with that I'll just thank my many, my many colleagues who are who are very committed. And I think where we've made tremendous progress along those lines and sorry for going long. A problem. Thank you, Rebecca for a fabulous presentation. In the interest of time, I will move all the questions to the panel session discussion. So let's move on to the next speaker who is going to be a Dr Miguel Garcia Gary by, we are going to see a guy is a distinguished professor of chemistry and Dean of the division of physical sciences at the University of California Los Angeles. Dr Gary by works pursue and advance a diverse impartial and inclusive academic environment UCLA Miguel. Thank you Carlos for the very nice introduction. Can you hear me. You can hear me. Yes, yes, yes, I can hear you. Okay, perfect. So let me see if I have control of the. I have control of the presentation. Anyway, so I want to start by mentioning that my preferred pronouns are he is him. I'm delighted to be part of this workshop I want to thank the chemical science around table for organizing this very very important topic. It's nice for me to be back in the chemical science around table I was part of the of the table around table for a while. So my presentation is entitled diversity in all dimensions people life experiences and ideas. But really, the, the, the, the, what we're trying to talk about here is climate and I think this all of this is important for climate. So perhaps a good place to start is, let me see I don't seem to have control of the. Okay. I'm going to need a little bit of help to advance I think for some reason. Okay, there we go. All right, so, you know, so it's, it's probably, you know, important to recognize that there are some advantages to having communities of scholars with common characteristics backgrounds languages and culture. And I want to focus on common scientific endeavors. So some of those advantages include, you know, is it'll be easy to challenge each other results and paradigms. We will share the same jargon, there will be no language barriers, no cultural misunderstandings, no interpersonal tension. Many things have been done well in that model and it works relatively well with here we see an image that includes a picture of the faculty at MIT in 1900 that includes about 25 Caucasian males and one Caucasian woman. And they were no doubt doing a good job, but perhaps it could have been better right. You might say well you know that was 1900s that doesn't happen again, but I actually discovered and if you can go to the next slide. The next image, which include that one, that actually includes the illustrious faculty of a chemistry department, probably in the late 80s summer round where there is 25 Caucasian male in the room. So there is still a lot to be done even though we're, you know, 20 to 30 years later if we go to the same slide to the next slide. I think it's important here that we all know that truly impactful scientific advances occur more frequently as a result of a diversified effort with contributions from scholars of different backgrounds right. And then maybe serious barriers to surmount by the intellectual diversity that comes from exposure to other disciplines of different jargon, other other scientific cultures will give scientists an edge. It allows them to establish profitable collaboration and help them establish more creative, be more creative. Even those interactions might have seemed irrelevant or even unnecessary. We have here an illustration by an image of James Watson, an American biologist and zoologist and then Francis Creek, a British physicist who have to combine two disciplines to really, you know, come up with a good model for DNA. The one thing that is missing here is we click the next slide is that the diversity required was actually more than that. So we needed a chemist that next rate crystallography crystallography, Rosalind Franklin, who brought a different perspective. But as we know history tell us that there were tensions between them and so that you know that it was it was not not an easy thing for science to advance in this context, if we can go to the next slide. So, you know, we propose that making science more inclusive to all people regardless of their gender ethnicity, cultural expression, you know, every, every dimension of diversity. It is not obvious how we will all contribute, but it's in fact proven in many different concepts that the results are good that there are in direct benefits to both science and society. The reason is in part because different people have different life experiences and perspectives that broaden both the range of questions and the means to obtain the answers. Now interaction across gender, cultural, ethnic, language, accent, abilities, religious difference, etc. can be challenging they can be as difficult as interactions across different disciplines, but their benefits are all worth it. If we click the next slide what we'll see is that groups of people who have a particular, you know, cultural environment need to adjust to be inclusive people who might not be, you know, able to participate in that environment as illustrated in a picture here where some people are, you know, having a joint experience with alcohol, but that would exclude people who do not consume alcohol. So the next slide. I want to talk about a couple of key concepts that they don't know, but it's probably good to put it in context because it allows me to make a transition. I'm going to call diversity the representation of a variety of human identities and live experiences. But that means that each and every once contributes to diversity, there is no one who doesn't have their own experience that brings it to the table. Inclusion is about having one's identity understood, respected and value. Inclusion is to be welcome and to be given the opportunity to develop our potential. Equity is about achieving fairness by providing people with what they need, so that they can attain that potential are called according to their circumstances, and we know that is there is a different between equity and equality. Now if we click next what we'll see is that there is another important concept that is dignity. The principle that all people have inherent value and should be treated as such. And the next one is justice and justice pertains fixing system and structures that prevent EDI and by all a dignity. Even though we focus on EDI most of the time, it turns out that dignity and justice are so personal that no matter who you are, you believe in those two things. And they really, if we click next, they will really develop the framework that academic institutions and we as a society take to address EDI. In the next slide we see that universities which play the role of both educational entities and employers have the obligation to comply with civil rights compliance. So civil rights has taken a centerpiece in everything that university do because that is the right thing to do no question about that. We need to protect you know the dignity of our students our employees and ourselves. And we need to be just and so that is all these different items that need to be looked at affirmative action title nine ADA. And we all aware of that, but this create a framework for a university that is a little complex as we can see in the next slide. The complex is very prescriptive is, you know, is defined by the law and universities adopted as their policies. So the law prohibits discrimination harassment and retaliation based on certain protected categories so there's race, ethnicity and color, and the list goes on and on right medical condition genetic predisposition and so on. So these are predescribed and there are other, you know, characteristics that might not be protected under the law, but that important to consider if we go to the next slide. What we'll find is that what this does it makes institutions like universities are others to really take a very, you know, a very detailed approach at a dealing with conflict. So if there are claims by students faculty or staff, who is the claim address to is it to the staff is it to the student is it to people, and each of those is covered by a particular portion of the civil rights laws. This creates a very complex infrastructure that turns out is going to be extremely expensive. What we've seen is that, as we see here in in a plug we see the growth in the number of title nine investigations that reach the federal level. These are continued to increase and rightly so right because this needs to this needs to be known. In fact, many of these reports are many of these statistics are under reported. So if we go to the next slide what we will see is that being reactive and only because it is the law. It is expensive is confrontational is toxic is wrong, because it doesn't cover everything that we need to cover. If we go to the next slide, what we see is that we need to be proactive we need to change the climate right. Let us try to define the final definition of our climate. So the university or departments that EDI climate can be defined as the current attitudes behaviors and standards of faculty staff administrator and students concerning the level of respect for individual needs abilities and potential. This includes the experience of individuals and groups on the campus or the department or the research group and the quality and extent of interactions between those various groups and individuals. Right. If we go to the next slide. We can recognize from these two figures here we have two images and the top image there is there is someone violating the dignity of somebody else. The noise that that makes everybody uncomfortable. Not only is that one person being affected by the whole environment is is this been poisoned when you have people like that. You see when the interactions are productive and constructive and we see in the bottom slide, you feel comfortable. Everybody can go to work and things happen well. If we go to the next slide, what we would find is that, in fact, even though we focus a lot of on compliance which is based on civil rights, you know, loss, and are basically dignity respect and access and freedom. There are many other aspects other other forms of human behavior that could create a good climate, including understanding consideration appreciation, empathy value, kindness support and so on. Not, not everything that is right in terms of civil rights is part of a good climate and vice versa. There are some aspects of the civil right compliance that are very prescriptive and really they don't do not contribute to a good climate they just contribute to to the law being followed and can generate a confrontational situation. So in the next slide, we go into, you know, what we need and then it's for organization sessions such as universities, departments and research groups to think about a transformational change to change from compliance to a good climate and a possible approach may include many different, you know, approaches. We need data. Don't just show us that we need a current climate based on data actions must be based on evidence. We need a change in leadership leadership style, we need a clear consistent commitment to EDI, not only by the leadership but by all centers of power right. All of us have some power over somebody else and we need to be cognizant of that and be respectful of those who fall under our power. We need to build trust through accountability and transparency consistent messaging, educate campus communities in relevant aspects of human behavior. We need to learn about social sciences sheet from cars and sticks approaches to a culture and not human connections and relationship building. So with the right guidance and leadership people will change one another. So if we click what we'll see is now that I will transition in something that is very personal that I've had experience on and we will go to the next slide. That would describe my personal perspective on on EDI climate. So I should share with you that I was hired at UCLA in 1992. I was the only Hispanic in the faculty in the chemistry department about out of about 50. I wanted to Hispanic in the physical sciences of about 200 profile artist here in the picture. He was a PhD student in the department he was one of two or three Hispanic students. He graduated in 1993. He went to do a postdoc at Caltech. He went to work at Proctor and Gamble and by 2005 he came to gave a seminar. And in the audience he noticed that there was a significant number of Hispanic students in the audience. And by that I mean probably about five or seven or eight. And you know after his seminar he told me well you know diversity wise things have certainly changed a lot. You know what can I do to help so he had something in mind. So we brainstorm about it and we thought well can we help change the climate that is changed the faculty of students attitudes. And if we go to the next slide. What we see is I should comment right so why could this be of interest to Raphael and Proctor and Gamble. And the most obvious you know thing to think about is they want to recruit a diverse workforce but also just as importantly we click next. What we will see is that of course they want to type into the buying power of the US Hispanic population which by today is more than $2 trillion. So it is just a smart business decision and is the right thing to do. The next slide what we will see is that our approach which is presented here and was developed in consultation with a group of your and grad students. So goes as follows so our goal was to change the climate in the UCLA Department of Chemistry and biochemistry. The next thing is to do that would be by empowering empowering students so Raphael and Proctor and Gamble gave us $10,000 per year for 10 years between 2005 and 2015 to establish this this program. So we let the students manage their funds, we help them develop a strong network we help students make professional contacts we help them prepare a strong portfolio. So the first strategy, the first item is really important, we will have the group of students invite influential URM and female role models for departmental seminars, and they will celebrate not only their science but also their identities. They would interact extensively with the speakers during a reception and meals. So they had the resources to throw out basically a large reception invite all the department and it was a very nice social location. The strategy which I have here in in red is the more probably just as important if not the most important. The strategy would be to be 100% inclusive in invite everyone including occasional males and international students and everyone who cares about diversity. The next event celebrate holidays, four of July Thanksgiving Cinco de Mayo, Holly, St. Patrick's Chinese New Year, etc. So celebrate diversity, and then promote leadership and community engagement among them, reaching out to K 12 schools and Community Schools. So in the next live what we will see is that this is a picture of the very first group of students this picture picture was taken in 2006, but this is the group that help us develop this process. And then I just want to say that this is a remarkable group of people who have been extremely successful, as you will see soon. What we will find is that this is a picture of the organic student for cultural diversity in science, which is what this group is called. This picture was taken by in about 2018 and you can see the Twitter, Twitter handler on top of you want to check it out. It's interesting. Five minutes. Five minutes. Perfect. Thank you. The mission statement tells us the organization for cultural diversity in science strives to create a welcoming community among graduate students in the sciences with an emphasis on increasing cultural diversity at UCLA. We want to project a positive portrayal of underrepresented groups and analyzing the sciences to undergraduate graduate students to academic and scientific community and to the public at large. We aim to provide networking outreach professional development opportunities to our members. So this is all about climate, you know, if we go to the next slide. We can we can this is from their website and you can see the website on top there. And they write professors are invited by the graduate student members based on their scientific success and status as traditionally underrepresented minority to give a research seminar and diversity seminar at UCLA. The addition of a diversity talk gives a speaker a unique opportunity to describe their journey to to to professorship and any unique hurdles that they may have overcome to arrive at their present position. This program has brought over 40 professors to UCLA and continues to be one of the most successful seminars attended by faculty and students. Next slide. What we see a sample of a representation of the organization for cultural diversity in the science lecture series programs through the years. What you see here is this is a constellation of science stars, who also happen to identify themselves as diversity scientists. We started with that natural to knock off from Velocity, then we had some stuff to bring up any Jacobson. So so many people who really have developed an incredible credibility and have had an incredible impact in science. So that our whole community understood, you know that there is a tremendous amount of credibility that can be developed, whether or not you are underrepresented minority. So if we click next what we'll see is that in the next time, the two most recent speakers was, you know, on May 3 2021 we had Professor Marquita del Carpio Landry from UC Berkeley, and if we click next on, we'll see that on May 18. We had Professor Rodney priestly from Princeton, and if we click next. We can see that as part of the professional development, the student organization actually have some students seminars, and here we see a seminar slide Marco Messina was now a UC presidential postdoctoral fellow in Professor Christopher Chang love at Berkeley. And he is basically going to be looking for a job so keep an eye on him. In the next slide we'll see that so what are what are those students now. So what we see here is a small collage with a representation where Luis campus Adam branch by and Marina recent this and Vienna assertia were part of the original group that developed the concept of the organization for cultural diversity. Steve Lopez now at Northeastern and Fernando river Roma at Central Florida are later alums and he will click next. This trend has has followed so most recently, the University of Southern California here in Los Angeles announced that they were hiring another member of this organization. Dr. Elias Picasso who will join the ranks in 2022. After finishing a poster with Eric Jacobson. If we go to the next slide then I want to give a shout out to Steve Lopez and another another one of the members of the group crystal Valdez, who you know they're so motivated and the level of leadership is so high that they created the Alliance for University in science and engineering to say in other words, bring the concepts and ideas of the that they developed that UCLA into the national level and this is a very exciting development in them in my last slide we can see that. Well, has the climate has changed in the Department of Chemistry at UCLA. I think it will be for me preposterous to say that there is a you know cause a effect relation here. Nonetheless, what you see here are the photographs and names of some incredibly amazing young scientists that have been hiring having hired at UCLA, during the time that the organization for cultural diversity in science has existed. I think this is a very diverse group. This is not only a diverse group this these are world leaders in their disciplines. And if you see here, this group is not particularly gender balance, but in 2021, the department has offers out to three women, one of whom has already accepted. This I can conclude by by in the next slide by just indicating that you know a transformation and organizational change for EVI from government dictated compliance to good climate is important will reduce the amount of conflict has the potential of saving a great deal of money. Not only in compliance infrastructure, but a good climate lead to faculty staff retention. It will give us a better and just work environment and a better standard of living. Now, a lot of this has to be done at the level of, you know, the dean, the president, the chair of the department, but there are many, many things that even someone a faculty member like I was when when they started this group can really have a significant impact. If we want to change the EDI climate we need to change leadership styles, and the people in the organization and we to do and we need to do that. To do that we need to be smart and intentional. And I think that summarizes my message I think the outlook is is is amazing and I'm very very warm by everything that I'm hearing today, and by seeing where our community is going so thank you very much. Thank you so much Miguel for a very nice presentation and I got to just say that I was one of those are really was happy to learn when you made it to UCLA a long time ago. You're my hero. So another has a question that says Miguel all good activities to our changing the climate are very good but what about contributions to product development and the science, how are contributions tracked and documented. What kind of innovations have a core. I mean that is a fantastic question right so the fact is that what we claim and what the data suggests is a diverse workforce, whether it is you know in industry or in academia will have better products. One of, one of the primary products of a university of an academic institution is is the workforce itself. So the students, the qualified students that will join, you know, the highly sophisticated economies that we want to have. They are really what what you can consider the main product and our students are going to do to occupy those jobs, and you know without with a much higher degree of diversity. So the science that has been produced in the department. I think that doubtlessly you know the by by every analytical method that you use the department has been doing extremely well. So I think as you look at every dimension of the output of a diverse group of both faculty and students I think it's easy to document that. I actually think that the ranks of UC, many of the rankings of UCLA have increased over this time period. And I think that's very important. That's what many institutions want to accomplish. I don't have another question but I do have a comment from Sabna Sarupriya said absolutely fantastic actions proposed by Dr. Garcia Gary by simple actions like celebrate different holidays. It's fun and inclusive, and you get to eat good food. Exactly. All right. Thank you Miguel for a very nice presentation so we move forward to the next one. So our final speaker of this session will be Dr. Travis York. Who is the director of inclusive stem ecosystems for equity and diversity at the American Association for the advancement of science. Dr York's research and work focus on catalyzing and sustaining systemic change and transformation to achieve inclusive and equitable access and progress through science technology, engineering mathematics pathways into the stem workforce. Travis. Thank you Carlos and thank you to everybody at the national academies for including me in this incredible workshop and and with these other really great presenters on. I'm honored to be here. Carlos can everybody hear me okay. Yep, yes. Okay, just double checking great. So, first and foremost, again, thank you everybody for for being here with us today and thank you to the fellow co presenters I have the very lucky task of going third in this panel and I get to capitalize on all the wonderful information that's already been shared. So I get to go go a little bit quicker in my intro here. The first thing that I wanted to just share with everybody is that my presentation today in my presentation today one of the established programs that I will be sharing about is our sea change initiative with at the triple AS. And I wanted just to briefly honor my colleagues at triple AS so on the screen here. I did want to share some of my other team members within ICD and that lead the sea change initiative, because it's this this work that I'll be sharing is certainly part of their genius and part of their hard work as well and so I just want to acknowledge as we think about the problem here in talk a little bit about this issue around how faculty are so important in this broadening our view around DEI and chemical sciences, and in particular about how building a more inclusive and diverse stem faculty is so important really to all of those rungs that Dorian shared with us at the very beginning of this of this panel, and really thinking about how both diversification of faculty support all students it's hard to be what you cannot see, but there's also a building a more inclusive faculty so that all stem faculty are more inclusive to support inclusive technology, inclusive advising inclusive research mentoring and how important it is for organizations to really think about institutions of higher education as organizations to think about their roles in really developing a more inclusive and diverse stem faculty. So, I think you're already a little bit aware. Dr. Bowsky nicely share with us that there are, there is progress that we are making in the area of diversifying faculty, but the students that we serve in higher education are far outpacing the diversification that we do see in faculty, and that persists into all other areas not from graduate students into graduate students for faculty but also in industry and so there are growing and growing concerns that we're, we're, you know, my question is always, will our institutions be ready for the students that they are serving. And I have some concerns about how our structures are prepared to do that. So, look at this data so one of the reasons I really love this work by Lee and co del is what you see here to two kind of numbers for each racial category and gender category in disciplines, and that first number that you see this is from a subset of the top 50 universities. And that first number that you see is actually the percentage of degree producers for PhDs, so the percentage or market share of PhDs produced by the subgroup in that discipline. And the second number that you see in brackets is a corresponding percentage or market share of assistant faculty assistant professors. In theory, what we would would imagine that we would see in a well operating system is that in these percentages in these market shares that a similar proportion or make up of at least the students graduating with their PhDs that we would see those demographic kind of proportions mirrored into a Travis I think you're breaking up to make careers. Carlos can you hear me I think I'm back. Yeah, you're back. Nice. Thank you. I don't know where I quite cut off. So, what I was talking about here is just a kind of a quick kind of look here at how the representation that we see for for degree in degree production does not follow into academic faculty so I'm going to keep going there apologies again for for the disruption, but I want to make sure that we're moving in our time still. Okay. And so this, this mismatch in representation, we can see that this happens, you know, across all areas and across all disciplines in the science and engineering workforce and really buy all of these underrepresented areas so here's a really nice demographic just for figure out just kind of showing both in in in gender and in race, the kind of flip flopping that we see occur here. We continue going to kind of make up some extra time. So, so part of what I want to share here is that, you know, I've been working on this issue for a little over a decade at this point in time. And I think part of the issues that I have kind of come in contact with really regularly is that I think that there's an issue around the existing conversations, and really about the existing conversations to challenges to increase faculty oftentimes I hear three prominent items. One, it's a pipeline problem the number of people graduating from underrepresented groups is just too small. Faculty and pro or presidents and provost say with there's just not enough people for us to hire. That is an issue in some areas, but it's not the full issue. The other issue that I commonly hear is that it's a hiring problem that there's implicit bias or lack of effort, or lack of a commitment from an institution to just hire that the candidates are there and they're not being hired, which some of the data that we just saw would would confirm. And then the third thing that I oftentimes hear institutional leaders talk about is the revolving door problem that it's a retention issue that faculty from underrepresented groups are less likely to get tenure and more likely to leave that perhaps there's not critical mass and so they don't feel a great sense of belonging in the academy. And one of the biggest issues is thinking about this conversation in these subsets or sub conversations, and not actually thinking about it in a holistic approach. And so why hasn't the needle moved. Well, it's because of that bifurcation of these conversations, and these challenges are oftentimes assumed to be due to kind of individual will and ability outside of an institutions control. And I think that that's a real issue. In fact, if we think about these issues as being only a product of individual will, it kind of absolves institutional leaders, institutional actors. By the way, when I say institutional leaders I'm not just speaking about senior institutional leaders with with kind of formal authority I'm speaking about kind of all leaders institutions. And so, this kind of promulgation I think really leads to making it less about an institution and more about an individual. And that's really what we seek to do at triple as, in particular with our initiative around sea change is we really try to think about this, not as an individual commitment, but about an institutional commitment. And we really think about this as moving from soft funded programs strategies implementations into hard funded institutional structural reformation. So, the problem that I think we see here when we are thinking about these in isolated categories and disconnected is that we tend to institutions tend to think about strategies they can employ. And strategies are very important. I don't want to be confused here, but strategies around individuals are a necessary but incomplete part of this puzzle. This is not just supported by us or this is not what I'm saying is not new I want to pay homage to the many may some publications that have really specifically spoken about the need for structural and systems train change and transformation. This quote by the way is out of the most recent sexual harassment. And here in fact, there is actually recommendations made around the project that I'm going to be talking about and how important it is for institutions to not just think about strategies, and, and single implementations or even sweets of strategies, but to really think about organizational and structural change. And I want to stress that this is a both and those programs are really really important, but they help individuals guide systems, and when the system is not working for more than half of the students that it is supposed to be working is broken. And so at this point in time, institutions of higher education are serving more underrepresented it's really historically underrepresented groups, then they are serving majority groups. And so they are the global majority. And if our systems are not working for those students, there's a really profound issue with those systems. So we have to evolve those systems to do what they're intended to do. And so we really focus in on with C change. So C change stands for the STEM equity and STEM equity achievement change program. It's an initiative that we launched in 2018. We started it in 2017 really launched in 2018 and C change really provides the scaffolding or a system it really provides kind of a process to guide institutions of higher education through context specific and voluntary change. I really think about this as the ways that we empower the people at institutions to use their context expertise to really understand what problems they're facing, how to build action plans that are responsive to their context and to the research that's available, and then make evidence based action plans to enact change and really sustain that change on their campuses. And this change that we're after is completely around transforming organizations of higher education to better support more more diverse STEM faculty, and in particular also more inclusive some faculty. So our program operates within the context of the United States, and we really focus on intersectionality within our program I'll talk a little bit more about the key pieces One of the key approaches that we take within our teaching initiative is really borrowing on ecological sciences, we use broth and burners kind of ecological approach. And here you see you can see in this kind of figure here. I, this is my interpretation of kind of some of the ways that I apply broth and burners approach in thinking about the kind of different types of systems that make up an institution of higher education. And what we find, especially when we're when we talk about kind of the recruitment hiring and retention of faculty, many of those structures existed the meso system and exo system. And these structures also have many, many points of what Kerry and America calls institutional discretion, where people individuals are making decisions, sometimes with or without systemic equity checks to support how those decisions are made. This is where sometimes people talk about implicit bias coming in for say faculty hiring committee. And so we think about these kind of discretionary spaces and we think about that in really in reality, there are two primary ways that we can encourage inclusive and equitable decision making. Through the development of individuals capacity, that's where a program like implicit bias training might help faculty understand how bias can play in, might help safeguard their that from happening in their own decision making. But that again is focusing on individuals. The second though is developing the capacity of organizations. And this is what I call equity system checks. There are in fact in processes and practices and structures that we can put in place to support individuals capacity as well. And so that those are structural spaces where you might kind of change the process in which faculty are hired or faculty are recruited across an entire system to make sure that it's equitable and to make sure that there are checks to make sure that institutions and actors are making decisions in line with the values that they hold for the institution. This is a model developed by Kimberly Griffin to really think about recruitment hiring transition and retention of faculty in a more holistic way. And this instead of as you heard me talk about earlier instead of thinking about these in isolated spaces we really focus on doing this holistically. Finally, real real change does require a long term commitment. So as institutions choose choose to join see change, which there isn't a designation kind of process appear review designation process within see change institutions are required to have regular reporting where they provide data and where that where the progress that they are making towards their goals are reviewed by professionals in the field to maintain the designations that they get. So if an institution becomes a bronze awardee. They have regular intervals where they have to continue to show their progress towards making change, because it really does require a long term commitment. Thank you. Also, part of what we do to kind of really catalyze changes we help institutional leaders think about common change traps. So having worked with institutional leaders provost presidents. Deans department chairs for over a decade. We've come to learn a lot of the change traps that people commonly fall into, for instance jumping from awareness, right into implementation without doing kind of root cause analysis to really understand what your idea is telling you about where common problems are and what is going on there so we really work to to build institutional leaders understanding and change processes. And then finally I would just kind of note that this isn't news. What part of what my my learning and lessons here have actually been seen in other research studies. So recent study by Larson and Austin found specifically advanced institutions found that there is no silverboard that best practices. Actually have mixed results across institutions. This, this study was done specifically on trying to increase gender equity. And so we really have to think about a holistic systems approach. And part of the way that we do this with institutions is thinking about action plans that really involve four frames. And so this is a four, the image I have on the screen here is the four frames model for creating inclusive organizations. And we think about action plans that need to cover every quadrant of these kind of four areas here. What does that mean, in particular for sea change. So there are a couple key considerations one I have mentioned earlier that we really focus on intersectionality being focus we really focus as a history of research has shown here on the intersections of race and gender and LGBTQ status and veteran status and persons with disability status. And we help institutions really dig into their data to find the hidden figures there and to really kind of understand many institutions come to us and say we actually don't have a lot of the data that you're asking us to get. And we under we actually, we say yes we understand that that's something that we need to work with you to help you understand what the reality of your campus really looks like. Another thing that we look at is differentiation across them fields, some fields are not all alike. And so being context dependent requires us to think about that. And then finally, another really important. Next to last another really important consideration here is that we have a very intentional focus on legal consideration. It is extremely important that in today's climate and in today's political and statewide kind of environments that institutions understand the legal ramifications of the work they're doing and that they gather the appropriate data to make appropriate cases for the actions that they are taking and how those actions support the mission that they are trying to achieve. And so we work with Education Council and other partners to really ensure that the, the capacities that we're building have this legal framing. And finally, we co construct all that we do with institutions. So what is see change, we have three pillars. The first pillar is our community, which is really kind of working with institutions around moderated conversations communities of practices and convenings we're launching on June 1 our port of call which is a virtual space. We also have the second kind of pillar of our of our program is called the Institute. We provide training to our see change members and to non see change members if any of you are interested, we provide trainings really to build a capacity of leaders doing this work and of these organizations. So there's three examples here around building gender equity, diversity in the law and talking about leaving the visited. And then finally see changes also this kind of awards or designation process.  The bronze award is really about institutions doing the work to understand the issues they're having. And then co constructing an action plan to move towards building a more equitable institutional structure to get a silver award institutions must demonstrate progress to that award. And the gold awards are really kind of what I think about as a lighthouse a beacon in the field, where institutions are actually supporting other institutions and other change throughout the STEM ecosystem. All of these awards are peer reviewed they're not chosen by us. But we have a panel panels of peer reviewers that work this. And then finally, see change also works at a top down bottom up space so while we do institutional words, we're actually in the process of piloting several other departmental awards where we're actually working with professional societies to co create the, the guidelines and the standards that would denote these awards so a similar awards process, and we really folk for harness these awards at the institutional and the department level in a way that allows institutions to pull each that both kind of zoom in and out between the institutional and departmental level in the ways that institutions can travel on this path. Finally, we're also just piloting work within the biomedicine awards to really help academic health centers and medical colleges, and thinking about how they also become more inclusive in their processes so not just traditional institutions of higher education but also other areas so that we can take a full systems approach. We're also looking at future directions that we're heading into. As I mentioned, we're piloting lots of new areas within within see change, and we're also moving into more and more institutions and more areas. And then finally we're looking forward to adapting this framework also within the two year college space within the next five years. So that wraps up my, my presentation right here around see change and I just also want to give gratitude, not only for all of you listening, but also to our funders in this space, and I'm happy to take questions in the time that remains. Thank you very much Travis, we have time for a couple of questions clarifying questions I have one here from Linda known. Since she has how is the data treating domestic versus international students. So in our data, and working with see change institutions, we actually do break out international versus domestic students. This is also really important for faculty. So, there's been a lot of research that has shown that there is a different effect that diverse faculty, whether they're domestically diverse or international have upon halo effects of the students they serve. And that in fact, increasing also the underrepresented faculty that are domestic underrepresented faculty have a differential and more positive effect for domestic underrepresented students. So we actually work with our institutions to track these separately so that they can get at these evidence basis. Thank you. There is one more from Anna Duran. She actually says Travis, one of the issues creating change traps is that usually the training education last for a couple of days, one day or two. And in most cases, there is no traffic of learning. Okay, processes designed to make sure that the concepts can be soft and shaded. What can we don't improve learning processes. Absolutely. I mean, and I've just hit it on the head. As far as we need to pay attention to the massive amounts of pedagogical research that our own institutions oftentimes are producing around how we change and how we build the capacity of individuals on our campus to really become more inclusive to understand diversity training. A great article a few weeks ago in the New York Times about this specifically related to industry. A one off training is just bad teaching theory right it's it this is the social sciences have actually made a lot of work. I am a social scientist by training, very happy to be accepted among the stem colleagues that I have. And this is this is exactly the point that what we have to do around building the capacity of individuals is to think about long term systemic growth. And so for faculty for staff for students, institutions need to think about professional development plans that include increasing capacity awareness and knowledge over the course of a career for a person at an institution. So for faculty, this is about their training and their development across their lifetime. Similar for institutional leaders, and I would say this is also really really important for governing boards, boards of trustees, you know, boards of visitors, depending on what your institution have. It's vitally important that our boards are also being trained and building their capacities, especially because most board members outlast presidents and provosts. And so when these board members understand the mission. The reason that diversity equity inclusion is a primary consequence for the success of the US talents pool for this morally correct thing to do. And all of these other imperatives, they can help guide the the institution for this not being a person's kind of pet project and more thinking about how this is a part of the institutions DNA. This is a part of who they are, and maintain this long term. Right. Thank you very much. I think with that, we're ready to move to our panel discussion session. So all of our presenters are going to be part of the panel. And so we have some of the new questions already that you have been sending to us I haven't some of those here and I will try to ask him, provided the time. And I will keep you know keep asking these guys are here to answer your questions. Okay, so with that, I will use my prerogative as a organizer or co organizer, and they're going to ask you a question for the panel. So I think it was mentioned a couple of the talks, the issue of conversations that need to have an honest conversations. Right. In reality, that poses a lot of problems right so how do you have this tough conversations with people.  So the question from for you guys is, how do we do that how do we actually make sure that we have a safe haven for people that might have opposite views about these issues. So they can start talking to each other they can start understanding each other. Any takers. I guess I can I can I can take care I can start so you know we have an experience in the UCLA campus and in a collaboration with the STEM fields but particularly the life sciences and the physical sciences. And we've been having a yearly workshop. It's an experiential experiential workshop that brings together about 40 faculty from all departments who have a conversation about difficult topics right about you know implicit bias you know imposter syndrome. That sort and I'm trying to understand the perspective of the students. And you know it is because you have a conversation in a setting that is kind of, you know, it's guided, but it's a safe space. So it is an opportunity for people who have not been exposed to it to learn about it. You know that the general thesis is that scientists are really smart people who some who mean well, but sometimes miss the target for whatever reason right. So so then the question is he in that assumption is correct that means with a certain amount of information, you can create in the framework with people who are willing tension, do not miss the target. Right so, and that that comes with information and knowledge. Again, you know, that knowledge often comes from the from the social sciences, because science is a is a is an endeavor that involves a lot of interactions and hierarchies things that that we are not particularly well trained to but once we are exposed to it I think we are more likely to understand all of that. But by doing it and in an environment that is a safe environment and having many different perspectives and having a discussion again that is based on data, we are we accept data most scientists accept data. Right. And that helps a lot that's that's what I've seen. Yeah, so I pick out the, the question I was actually go ahead Travis and now I'll finish. Yeah, sure. I was just going to add to that. I mean, I, I think that this is a really important question, right. I mean, I think right now we're, we're, you know, Americans find themselves in particular in a space where we have a lot of polarization in our country. And that polarization is on our campuses and in our families and all over the all over the place. And so I think it's, you know, it's a really important thing for us to attend to, especially those of us, you know, we're really committed to the I to think about, you know, how does the I not become a partisan, a partisan issue and how does it, how does it become, you know, how do we make sure that we're making efforts to build a more inclusive, a more inclusive culture a more inclusive society, part of the values that that all of that all Americans have and that all persons might have. And I think part of that is really approaching DEI as a journey. And in particular, creating space, you know, I think we have to create space for people to make mistakes. And because it's it's when people are fearful of making mistakes when they're fearful of kind of the repercussions that they oftentimes, you know, won't won't feel comfortable to grow and they won't, or they'll feel so uncomfortable being uncomfortable that that it doesn't work right so I think we have to approach these topics from from this kind of space of creating a learning dynamic, really thinking about inclusion and equity as a virtue, just like patients. It's something that we continue to work at, it's something that we all can grow in. And then, you know, I think the other, the other space of this is to really think about how, you know, institutions of higher education, in particular, must continue to think about the primary primary ways in which we educate students and build citizenry is by developing students capacity to critically engage with multiple oftentimes conflicting ideas. And so, you know, right now the big topic I think in the in the news is actually about whether or not institutions should allow critical race theory to be taught. This is to me one of these like huge like why would we even question this institutions of higher education should absolutely be encountering and helping their students encounter multiple theories, multiple viewpoints so that they can build the skills for how how they can continue to and build knowledge and and see themselves as agents of building a more just society. And, you know, I'm waiting and willing for the day that students that you know current students build an even better theory than CRT and show us, you know, even greater knowledge and capacity for us to make improvements in these areas. Thank you so much for that. So, since this is this question is related to as a follow up on what you guys have been discussing now I will just post it there this is from Cindy Lee. And she says, how can you convince colleagues to make contributions to the AI. What arguments can you can be made in a predominantly white institution in the south. I'll start off with some since I'm unmuted but I welcome the feedback from my colleagues on the panel for short. So it's interesting. There's. So there's some really interesting research that's come out recently about the differentiation between how people in the majority white people respond to messaging around the AI and how persons who are actually underrepresented respond to messaging around the AI. So for instance, white white parents and white students tend to respond very well to kind of economic arguments around the kind of prosperity of the US workforce you know there there is reality here where we're facing a STEM short shortfall depending on which researchers are correct that correct they all predict a shortfall how big the shortfall will be will be the real question. And so we need, we need every single student who's currently coming into stem to graduate in stem and we need more students to come into step right so there is a kind of workforce economic imperative that tends to work really well with industry leaders with with other faculty people in the majority. And there's also this ethical imperative that actually black and Latino families and black and Latino parents tend to respond much better to. I think that there's some research that's recently shown that this is in part because of wanting to make sure that their children are truly honored and respected at the institutions they go to. And that imperative question is much more based around the idea that be creating inclusive and equitable environments are just the right thing to do that being inclusive of all people is a fairness and a justice aspect. But I think there's also a couple other imperatives that are important here so there's the economic there's the moral imperative, but I think the other one that's really important in particular for stem researchers and faculty is a lot of the diversity of team science the science of team science, which has really clearly shown us that diverse teams of people from multiple backgrounds and diverse perspectives do better science. They, they are better at getting funding, they're better at creating problems to, sorry, creating solutions to problems that are more inclusive and have a bigger impact in society. And those teams also tend to do their work more quickly and more effectively so it's really kind of the, the, the argument for me around the science is, it's just better science. And I think that that goes very far with other stem faculty. Miguel Rebecca I'd love to hear your perspectives on this. I can add something relatively brief so in academic institutions like mine, our contributions to the by all faculty are required as part of the promotion and review process. So you know it's a top down approach. Leadership demands that, but the definition of contributions to diversity can be very broad. I think the intention here is more to have everybody be thoughtful about it. Put it in their mind and then you know some some of us contribute much more and some people will contribute much less but everybody needs to have a statement. And I think you know that that's helping change the climate in a global perspective. So that's just one of the many potential approaches. Yeah, I think from my perspective sorry my, my, my zoom had dropped them back. But I think, I think this concept of allyship is really important. And especially from the standpoint that, you know, most of, most of our leaders most of our decision makers fall into the in the that in group which doesn't include diverse diverse representation and so, so building that that that allyship is absolutely critical. And so I think that's, that's the centerpiece of that is building awareness of what the issues are, making it actionable, and understanding the importance of sponsorship and so you know I think I spoke about sort of the reverse mentorship that myself and a colleague did for members of our senior leadership team. I think that that proved transformative. It could have backfired. I'll be the first to admit that, you know, talking to somebody a couple levels above you in the organization and trying to educate them, and do it in a way that doesn't torpedo your career can be can be very challenging but but ultimately incredibly meaningful and so if you're willing to sort of take that plunge. I think I think it can be really impactful. I think, beyond that I think just the general emphasis on allyship and the benefits to your teams and your organization is something that that can't be emphasized enough. And so, finding for that, that allow you to talk about the importance of allyship and bring bring those in the in group into the conversation is absolutely critical. That's a really great going on in the q amp a I just pointing out some some really wonderful. Some like contributions to this conversation and in the q amp a. Thank you. And for you guys feel free to actually pick a one of the questions and answer if you want. Okay, so that's that's fine but I have one here. So, this is from faith Morrison and she has kind of speakers comment on the backslash against unconscious bias training. I can start on this one I think Travis actually provided a really meaningful answer for this question. When he was talking about about training in general right and the problem with most unconscious bias trainings is that they end up being one off. And then you give the appearance that you care about something. And then, and then there's no follow up and so, so it almost puts you in a worse position than then from where he started and so. So I think unconscious bias training itself is incredibly valuable and incredibly impactful for building awareness, but I think it needs to be part of a continuous dialogue and so if there's a training, you need to find group meetings or or smaller to continue that conversation provide resources to ensure that that that we're still talking about it and then it's not just that that one hit wonder so to speak. I would add that you know implicit bias is one of those topics that has been broadly documented scholarly and it can be proven really easily. So I think anybody who questions implicit bias just really hasn't taken the time to look at it the evidence is overwhelming and any one of us can do it you know through the, what I don't remember the name of the website thing is explicit implicit. Yeah, right. So, so it's just not not debate I think to say that implicit biases is not real or it's not important it's just being uninformed. It's really, really great. I think some of the backlash around implicit bias implicit bias train, I don't know if it's as much about the training or just the concept itself is, you know there's there's some debate from the researchers that study implicit bias training about kind of what are effective ways to actually try to mitigate implicit bias. And I think some of that work has has highlighted that it's it's quite difficult to remove implicit bias. And so a lot of the work in DEI has talked about how it's not, it's not necessarily the goal to try to remove implicit bias but for, for people to be, you know, I think there was this great term in the chat talking about race literacy for people to understand implicit bias literacy to understand what biases they may contain, and then to be proactive in asking others to check those biases or to kind of seek out alternative ways of thinking or models to try to mitigate that. And I think, you know, kind of from a very, from a very academic standpoint, Keegan's orders of consciousness, I think help give us a framework from which we can draw upon how to mitigate or transcend some implicit bias and not consenting as well have it but more that Keegan's orders of consciousness talk about how important it is in trying to create new mental constructions in both providing mentorship in that space, allowing individuals to be coached as they try to think in different ways, and to build a bridge into a different kind of mental construction. And to know that that when you're moving between orders of consciousness is quite common for people to do a back and forth as they're really trying to test out the ways of thinking repeatedly over time so it's not again it's not the one and done there is no magic bullet. Sorry I muted, sorry. Thank you so much. I'm from Samuela Sigmund. She has one very frustrating aspect of being faculty and staff in academia is our inability to interact with administrators, communicating with those at the decision making level is nearly impossible to have the top down, I mean the top down button up approach. How can we start to address the limitations for conversations created by a silent power structure. I feel like Miguel probably has some good examples. I certainly would be happy to, I'm happy to weigh in on this too. I think it's going to depend on the organization right and the personality of the leader of the other than the other leaders of the other organization. So yeah, it is obviously desirable that there are direct communication lines to leadership. You know that there are structures that allow for that communication to flow. I mean, you know, this is something that it should be known to the leadership that that we as a staff or as faculty would like to have that and just make it a, you know, may making a request about that I suppose that our organizations that are already very well connected from that perspective and others not so it's a bit of a continuum, but I think that every voice should be heard every contribution every contribution to a particular problem, or providing something to new to the organization should be not. I think that this is one of the spaces where, you know, organizations like Merck, you know, Rebecca slides around kind of mutual feedback loops and listening kind of spaces that's such a great thing that I think institutions and education can can learn from some institutions I think do have mechanisms that are are helpful here and I, I have so I'm a recovering faculty member I was a faculty member before I came into the association world. And I've worked at institutions that did this really well and I've worked at institutions where I felt similarly frustrated was like there's, there's no way for me to help in these situations or to voice concern. So, I think where I see institutions do this well, they're oftentimes multiple pathways to provide voicing. One of the things that I like to encourage faculty members who feel this frustration is to look at their faculty union or kind of shared governance structures. That's oftentimes there is some kind of formal mechanism within a faculty union or representation to allow for some allow you to navigate some of those faces. I think some kind of informal ways are that more and more institutions, thankfully, are are really thinking about how they create dedicated changes. So this is something that we do in C change. We actually advise team we advise campuses when they come into a member one of the first things we do is we help them create a dedicated team, and that team has to have both formal and informal leaders, and it has to have representation across all of the different stakeholders on the campus. Now, the problem you run into here is you can't have an effective any committee right we've all been on faculty committees where like, if the committee is of a certain size, hardly anything is getting done. So, the other thing that we do is we really coach our institutions in thinking about how they leverage feedback and voice from across their faculty from across positions and departments, and how they're going to synthesize and use that information. So we do a lot of work with helping institutions understand how they go under that feedback. And I think Adriana keys art has done some really helpful work in this, in this space. That's a helpful style and Rebecca. Yeah, I mean, so I'm I live in a different world. Obviously, by virtue of working in industry and there are pluses and minuses to that. You know, I think as it pertains to sort of access to higher ups or, or building awareness there. I think I think it's been pretty fruitful but one thing that's that sort of evolved over recent years is on an annual basis, I think, with us in the expectation is you set certain objectives for the year. And, you know, on a on a more microscopic level we started that with our leaders in the organization going back a few years that you that each manager, each director and above would have to set a diversity and inclusion objective for the year. And we would help them craft that. And ultimately when you set objectives you're held accountable for for meeting those objectives and I think it's been this year across all of Merck. Everyone in the in the actual bureaucratic system that we have is is there's a drop down so that everyone can now set a DNI objective and so I think, and as much as sort of going through that process can feel onerous. I think the fact that we, we have that mechanism that allows it to link us to accountability provides provides that that progression upward to get the attention of those in more senior positions sort of, so that everyone has to sort of stand up and take action. So I don't know if that's something that can be translated to academia, but just something that that I've seen in literature before and and seems to have been very effective for us. I have a question for that Rebecca follow up with what you said, because, you know, we live in an intermediate world between what you live and what these guys actually where they live. And so, regarding accountability, how will accountability lead to actually change of culture at the end that's what you want you want people to do this for the right reasons and now because they have to be accountable. Well, ultimately you're accountable for the success of your organization right and, and, and, and to that end, you know, the, the, the inherent belief is that providing that diversity and inclusion, that culture that climate is is endemic to what we want to do. So, in a scientific organization. The conclusion is that we should be able to innovate we should be able to deliver on the Merck pipeline needs by bringing in that diversity and inclusion and so I think that's where that's where the key piece of accountability is, is that we've got a portfolio of sounds of portfolio of products and deliverables that we're leveraging our efforts around DEI in order to, in order in order to accomplish and and recognizing that that that portfolio of opportunities is not static, and there are plenty of new, new modalities new, new, new, new opportunities that exist at interfaces of, of science. I think it's absolutely fundamental that we have a diverse team such that we can deliver on on that portfolio. Stay there, Rebecca because you have a, there's a question for you, what I think we actually expanded to the rest of the panel. This is for Anna Duran, she says Rebecca, is there an accountability framework, talking about accountability, and a set of metrics that assesses status of progress of the initiatives of Merck. I say, I think so. So, you know, I think, I think there are two, there are two things that that we have to do. And one has, you know, given that our journey hasn't been super long. You know, we've, we've sort of, we've said, if we, if we focus exclusively on metrics, then we're going to be sort of teaching to the test. We're going to be able to speak so we have to, we have to utilize metrics in, in a, in an intelligent way. So, so in the most immediate sense, you know, the feedback is anecdotal. But, but I think we do set our set a benchmark for ourselves in terms of the feedback from our HR organization there's a diversity center of excellence, with whom we collaborate and so getting the feedback on that from them on on to these and our progress is important. You know when it does come to metrics when we sort of start putting that out there I think there are, there are three things that we, we do look at recruiting retention and progression. And so, on the on the recruiting front, you know that that's pretty easy to put numbers to right you can see what that if you're taking deliberate actions, what the, what the outcomes of that are. So I think that's that's a leading indicator for retention and progression progression you know if it's if you link it to promotion that also you can you can capture. But if it's not promotion and it's just progression how do you do that and so I think the the lagging indicator there really does does center around sort of the overall diversity of the organization and so if we. We can agree that sort of the talent we're willing to recruit the talent we're looking to retain values, our commitment to diversity and inclusion, and has is their success is enabled by that commitment to inclusion our ability to retain all the diverse talent whom we're trying to hire is sort of an important metric that gives us a sense of how we are doing on that front. So how about the academia. Okay, sure. No accountability is critical of course you know again, it is a metric of success of anything that you are doing. So you know what what are the metrics that we will use in academia well demographics is one right so we see the changes or the persistent demographics in the student population in the faculty in the stuff. And we identify where you know when we don't have proper representation and keep an eye on that. Now, the one of the best metrics is something that President, Robowski mentioned, and that's the persistence of students in science. That is something that we have been following at UCLA very very closely for about five years now. And because it is a reflection of many factors is the general climate of the organization is whether or not we have inclusive education practices. And that's directly the faculty so it's a reflection of how the faculty are adopting a growth mindset. You know, it reflects your grading schemes. It is a really complex parameter that tells you why or why are students not succeeding in science in stem, whether they are underrepresented minorities, or they are from the global majority, right. So so there are there are a number of metrics, you know so and I think we are very vigilant as an organization I think everybody wants, wants our university to move the needle in that direction. I should say that the events of last year that from what happened a year ago, you know, the we everybody in our community has been deeply sensitized about structural inequities in our society. And I think everybody is convinced that it is a time not to just say it but act on it. This is the time to really move the needle. So we're very energized right now and probably that's one of the reasons we're having this this workshop. And I think we as a community. This is the right time really to make a significant progress. But yeah, metrics are important accountability is super important. So I know that we're coming close on time. And I saw several questions in the Q&A around strategies. So I'm going to put two resources into the chat for everybody I put two links there. One is a handbook chapter by Kimberly Griffin that I highly recommend a handbook of higher ed chapter. It is an exhaustive meta review of the social science around diverse of the strategies that work for diversifying faculty. And then the second is actually a summary that I wrote with Kimberly to to really that's really geared towards institutional leaders to help them kind of understand some of the social science research so if you're new to social science might start with the summary which is much shorter. But but I did want to kind of kind of, I hate to I hope I'm not harping here but I did want to kind of remind folks that that strategies are really a bandaid. They should be used as a stop gap measure to address a systemic issue. Right. And I just kind of want to hit that home again that like when your systems that currently are working aren't working well and you need to implement something to support that you know to support a group of people because the system means the system is failing them so you know the strategy these implementation strategies are great, and they should be used in tandem with evolving kind of structures and practices, so that the systems at large work for everybody. So just tossing that out there but to really helpful resources. All right, we're running out of time but I like to actually add this question and see if you can be brief that will be appreciated. This is from Sylvia zip. She's asked, is there a way for an incoming graduate student a student to find out which graduate departments are more supportive and mentoring nurturing retaining diverse talent. I'll quickly say, yes, speaking to other students and speaking to alumni from those spaces are probably some of the best ways you can do that. And I always encourage graduate students to not feel at all like to give them permission, you have permission to reach out to people and to say I'm looking at this program and I'd love to learn about your experience. So that's that's one way you can do it. I think the other way is to look for institutions that are participating in programs, like we've been describing, look to see what programs are participating in sea change or the Aspire Alliance or ACS is IGIN network. There are specific programs into this and that's a great way to kind of find out who's got skin in the game who's really doing this work. You know, interview the faculty, you know, contact the students but also talk to the faculty, you know, so you get a really good idea of what their mindset is and good, you know, faculty who are supportive you'll identify them immediately. So, and, and, you know, faculty like to good faculty like to talk to students take advantage of that. You know, you can extrapolate that to industry for when when you get through graduate school and you're looking for jobs and you choose to go into industry. You know you can you can certainly sort of ask the same questions of alumni and friends you have at various companies, but I think the other the other piece that applies broadly is follow follow different places on social media. You can certainly see there's a, there's that hashtag chem Twitter community, you know, which I think people do a really good job of publicizing what their, what their companies or their universities are doing to support DEI so it's just another way to bring visibility around such things. Thank you very much. I mean I like to thank all our speakers today and the panelists and the questions were excellent and I would like to thank you for your inspiring presentations and also your great insight. So, so good to you guys. Very nice. Thank you. Thank you for your formal adjourn our part one session one, and now we're going to go into a 20 minute break coffee break. Please make sure to return out to 50. Okay, Easter time so we can begin the next session. Once again, thank you to all the speakers this this morning, and on the on the panels.