More reactions to SCOTUS racism

There are many voices among #BlackandSTEM pushing back against Scalia's and Roberts' overt and covert forms of racism.

From Urban Scientist at Scientific American (Dr. Danielle Lee):

That’s what makes Roberts and Scalia words so worrisome. They legitimize and codify black participation in academia as inherently lower quality. They presume white is the default in science and minority participation is a distraction, a poor fit, unnecessary. It’s these presumptions - The Presumption of MisMatch, The Presumption of Intellectual Inferiority that feed into the poorest most often rolled out excuse for lack of diversity and inclusion in academia and the STEM workforce: We don't want to sacrifice quality for Diversity. Yeah. Tell me again how these systems don’t work to exclude.

Here's a series of Tweets from Dr. Jedidah Isler. An excerpt:

Students benefit from individualized instruction that capitalizes on their abilities. REGARDLESS of race. That's how edu works #BlackandSTEM

— Jedidah Isler, PhD (@JedidahIslerPhD) December 9, 2015

From Microbe Maven:

As an African American woman in higher education, I know all too well the prevalent idea that many minorities are only in school because of Affirmative Action. Many of us feel the weight of having to perform levels above our peers in order for our presence not to be questioned. Our mistakes are weighed more heavily by our advisers and supervisors in comparison to our white peers. We put increased pressure on ourselves to be perfect. We suffer from higher rates of impostor syndrome, anxiety and depression in a field that already has a high mental health cost because we are told over and over again both subliminally and in cases like Justice Scalia boldly that we are not equal. Our mental capacities are somehow more limited than everybody else’s.  

Add on top of this, the fact that Scalia felt the need to target black scientists in particular with his statements… It’s really hard for me to not be angry. 

Dr. Prescod-Weistein reveals what many "liberal" astro/physics professors and ultra-conservative , overtly racist Justice Scalia have in common: their views on affirmative action

I'm not mad at Scalia. I'm mad about how many people who sound like him have played a major role in my professional life.

— Dr. Chanda P-W (王嬋娟) (@IBJIYONGI) December 9, 2015

@IBJIYONGI @dawnbazely But idiots like Scalia give them legitimacy, and that's not right.

— Rashmi Sudiwala (@RashmiSudiwala) December 10, 2015

She's also quoted in this LA Times article. The article references the paper on "Mismatch Theory," that clearly (mis)informed Scalia's views. Sadly, it didn't reference any of the research that comes to the opposite conclusion about whether URM students are a good "fit" at major universities. Here's a summary about the work debunking the Mismatch paper:

To truly put the mismatch theory to rest, rigorous quasi-experimental evidence that focuses on the beneficiaries of preferential admissions policies is needed. But the current weight of the evidence leans strongly against the mismatch hypothesis. Most importantly, not a single credible study has found evidence that students are harmed by attending a more selective college. There may well be reasons to abolish or reform affirmative action policies, but the possibility that they harm the intended beneficiaries should not be among them.