Update: Stealth NASA STEM Event is Actually A Stealth Sexual Harassment Event
Keith’s 8 August update: NASA MissionSTEM Summit 2016: Opening Session and Keynote Address – Live 9:30 -11:00 am EDT. No mention is made of this event or the opening webcast at NASA.gov, NASA’s education website, or NASA’s event calendar. Its almost as it NASA overtly decided not to tell anyone that this event is happening.
Oh yes: NASA TV actually cut off Tina Tchen from the White House in mid-sentence at 11:00 am EDT to show clouds from space.
Keith’s 5 August update: This tweet points to a link that just appeared on the NASA.gov website “MissionSTEM Summit 2016“. With the exception of a one-hour opening session on NASA TV the event is closed to the public. No agenda is posted. Media are not allowed to attend. It is good that NASA holds events like this. It is bad when they hide the very existence of these events until the last minute and denies full public access to discussions that have applicability in educational institutions across the entire nation.
Looking forward to the MissionSTEM Summit at NASA HQ next week. https://t.co/rlQMrBRjTN Seeking excellence through diversity & inclusion.
— Dava Newman (@DavaExplorer) August 5, 2016
Keith’s 4 August note: Apparently the huge STEM education event that Dava Newman described last week at the NAC is not a STEM education event after all. Instead it is an invitation-only event for NASA grantees to discuss sexual harassment policies. Some parts of it may be made public but media are not invited – nor can anyone just show up and attend. The venue, agenda, date, time etc. have yet to be released – and the event begins in just 4 days. Given that organizations such as the American Astronomical Society went to great pains to make their deliberations and policy development regarding sexual harassment very open and inclusive, it is rather strange that NASA has been so secretive about this event. Then again, NASA dragged its feet in responding to the issue in the first place. In addition to the secrecy surrounding this meeting, it is also odd is that NASA’s deputy administrator was so confused as to what this large event is all about – including her claim that it was all online.
Dava Newman’s Mission STEM Conference Still In Stealth Mode, earlier post
Maybe I’m missing something, Keith? This post has no additional news over the earlier post, only a different characterization?
The mission stem web page has been updated and now says that it is focused on diversity compliance as well as sexual harassment compliance. Why the term “STEM” is on it is a mystery. I would suggest it be retitled “diversity and sexual harassment compliance requirements for NASA grant applicants”
http://missionstem.nasa.gov…
Advancing minorities and stamping out sexual harassment are reasonable goals but they are not NASA’s primary goals. Personally I feel that if compliance with diversity and sexual harassment requirements placed on grant recipients is so complex that it requires an entire NASA organization and conference to explain, then maybe the requirements are more complicated than they need to be.
It may not be a primary goal but the law that NASA and other agencies are required to enforce is complicated and the penalties for non-compliance are severe. It is entirely reasonable for NASA to give detailed guidance to its grantees, scientists not lawyers, on the expectations and consequences.
Whether this should be part of the STEM office or not is a different question.
“penalties for non-compliance are severe”
Are you aware of any examples of grant recipients that were sanctioned by NASA for noncompliance with diversity or sexual harassment regulations?
“Whether this should be part of the STEM office or not is a different question.”
A good question. I thought it was part of ODEO:
http://odeo.hq.nasa.gov/ind…
“Are you aware of any examples of grant recipients that were sanctioned by NASA for noncompliance with diversity or sexual harassment regulations?”
Sanctioned _by_ NASA, no. But, there have been several highly visible cases in the astronomy and astrophysics community that indicate that clear statements of standards and expectations is a good idea.
One of my past employers had a two day course for people interested in or in consideration for management positions. The course explained both what the company and the law expect from people in supervisory roles. All of us were surprised by the liabilities. Some of us elected to stay in non-managerial roles. This wasn’t due to having anything to fear or hide but just not wanting to take the chance of making an inadvertent mistake.
If I were a NASA grantee, I would like to know how this would affect not just me but anyone working with me on the grant for whom I’d be responsible.
I agree there have been well-publicized instances of sexual harassment in the scientific community involving at least four universities with NASA research grants and in the NASA contractor community as well.
I could easily be wrong, but I’m just not aware of any of these well-publicized incidents resulting in sanctions by NASA against the organization holding the grant or contract.
I’m not aware of anyone sanctioned or penalized for noncompliance. I am aware of the amount of paperwork and institutional practices which are required for an institution to show that they are complaint. That paperwork has to be included with grant proposals; if it isn’t NASA can’t, legally, fund the proposal.
So, I can see some value in a meeting to discuss the details. Telling people what is necessary to demonstrate compliance, without going overboard and adding unnecessary work to the process. In other words, proving you are following the rules, but proving it in an expedient manner.
But I would expect that to be a meeting for the contracts and grants people at various institutions. It wouldn’t be a STEM issue, and I can’t see why it would be discussed behind closed doors.
Exactly my point. “Compliance” is, in practice, the “plan” for compliance that must be included in a proposal to win an award. These requirements aren’t created by or unique to NASA. they are part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and compliance requirements could be more efficiently provided to all affected organizations by the EEOC.
Sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination are prohibited by federal law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to universities, government agencies, and all employers in the country with 15 or more employees. The fact that an employer is a NASA grantee or contractor, or even NASA itself, makes no difference. Why would NASA have to provide a conference on compliance at considerable cost to the agency and its grantees?
As to diversity, as a physician I have personally worked with people who were homeless, with people struggling to recover from addiction, with people who lack adequate health care and education, with Native Americans on an isolated reservation in South Dakota. These people are all in need of basic services. IMHO the chance that any of these groups is actually going to be helped by the plethora of “diversity” programs is nil.
This is a genuine question, not a critique, and not directed only at one poster but this thread in general. Referring to this piece about grant recipients (not the other subtopic on NASA employee behaviors), what sanctions is NASA legally obligated – or even allowed – to apply, to whom, and where is that authority documented? On what basis would they do so? For a federal agency there has to be a legal structure authorizing anything it does. Granted it can be via layers of derivation and/or thin at times if an agency really wants to do something, but they can’t act based only on the absence of a prohibition. I’m not arguing that NASA has no such authorization but am genuinely asking if you know what it is or had something like that in mind when suggesting sanctions. BTW, I’m not in disagreement at all that a conference on it seems odd. I would imagine every University grant office has a program in place for this already, unless NASA has “NASA-fied” a government-wide process until everyone now needs special training on it.
Some centers seem to have plenty of problems with EEO compliance from what I have seen and experienced and from what is in the news recently about one of the center directors and his direction of who to promote, but no harm no foul especially since he was an astronaut under the observant supervision of another astronaut-minor reprimand. In industry the Director would have been canned and the injured employees would have earned a big judgement. NASA doesn’t worry about that. I know of mid level managers who were found guilty of personnel transgressions, and it doesn’t effect their careers one iota. A couple of those people have now been promoted to top level Directors. Fact is that while there is supposed to be training and compliance, higher managers seem to excuse themselves and no one is actually keeping track of anything but the numbers of complaints, and many incidents are never reported.The numbers don’t seem to mean anything. So the managers get ahead by getting away with it and the employees, if they complain, get the stick.
It could very well be that NASA is being forced to hold this ‘conference’ by one of the several policing agencies, like OPM, EEOC, or office of the Special Prosecutor, in response to prior infractions.