Exploring the Cosmos of Colorblindness through Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Scientists, scientific knowledge, the scientific method, and the process to enter the scientific community combine to make up what I will refer to as the scientific spatial universe.  The authority given to whiteness makes the scientific spatial universe a racialized space that can be complicated for a black person to navigate.  Colorblindness must be rejected in order to accurately explore the scientist identity and scientific knowledge, but instead it is embraced and strengthened within the scientific spatial universe. Colorblindness is taken to an entirely new level due to scientific spatial universe’s declaration of objectivity in all processes, results, and achievements.  Black scientists are presented with a difficult dilemma when attempting apprenticeship into the scientific spatial universe.  The articulation of any barriers affecting black scholars on this journey qualifies as a distraction from potential scientific contributions which can prevent access into the scientific spatial universe. Even when a black individual gains entry and intends to make a contribution to the black community, this contribution can end up being counterproductive, because of the unique objectivity of the scientific spatial universe.  I will analyze the freeing appeal of this objectivity by examining Neil deGrasse Tyson’s racially motivated agenda upon entering the scientific spatial universe.  Then, I will assess how agendas like Tyson’s actually render racial inequalities more invisible by strengthening claims of objectivity.

    Before delving into his agenda, it is necessary to get a better understanding of the space he occupies in mass media; Tyson is a black astrophysicist who doubles as a world-renowned science communicator. Tyson is the host of Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey (television series) which is a follow up of Cosmos: A Personal Voyage (television series) hosted by Carl Sagan in the 1980s. Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey aired on Fox primetime March 9 2014 after being promoted during the Super Bowl and the World Series.  The show includes Tyson narrating unpopular but transformative stories of scientists to explore how humans discovered currently accepted laws of the universe.  Complex scientific topics are presented to the general public for a “transcendent experience”[1]. Cosmos is described by Tyson as finding and telling stories of science, scientists and culture[2]. After its original debut on Fox, Cosmos has been aired on the National Geographic becoming its most watched series ever— Cosmos has had the largest global launch in television history with 135 million viewers worldwide with 45 million in the United States[3].

    Tyson’s motivation for occupying such a visible space is his agenda to most effectively push back against questions about the competency of black scholars; he intends to do this by exercising authority over scientific knowledge and the scientist identity. It was 1989 when Tyson, a graduate student at the time, was asked to speak on Fox news about a blob of plasma coming towards Earth after an explosion on the sun. [4] Tyson recalls the panic of the meteorologist over the phone in contrast with his own simple assurances that the blob posed no threat to Earth-- the plasma was just a large collection of charged particles that would split positive and negative according to Earth’s magnetic field. At most, the meteorologist could broadcast the lights that would be visible from this interaction. Tyson agreed to make this clarification on television. Understandably, this sparked his excitement and he proudly announced to his friends and family that he would be featured on the local afternoon news.  Once he watched himself on the interview segment, it was not his hunger for fame that launched his agenda to become a science communicator.  Instead, Tyson realized that this was his first time seeing a black expert on television given authority over knowledge not specific to the black community.  Tyson believes this to be the first ever occasion of this type and does not see a black expert on television for another five years.  He identified a real problem with representation.  According to 1990-91 reports, white to black ratio was 94 to 15 for experts on television providing knowledge about “nonblack” issues.[5]  Black experts would have had to increase by 626% to catch up to white expert representation.   After his revelation, Tyson commits to his agenda of being a visible challenge to white people’s assumptions about the lack of competency in blacks.  He finds the intellectual superiority associated with the scientist identity and the objectivity of the scientific spatial universe particularly ideal for this.

    Increasing black expert representation on television is important work.  Data on black sound bites from 1997 reveals that out of 111 total sound bites for blacks, a mere 14 of those were professional experts and none of them an expert on science and technology.[6] The ratio of white to black experts in 1997 was 36:1.  Being an expert on “nonblack” issues is a critical freedom which black individuals find liberating.  For reasons that will be explored later, the scientific spatial universe guarantees this freedom through its commitment to objectivity.  By gaining access to the scientific spatial universe, a black scholar seems free to transcend blackness and enter into the white space.  Bringing this back to television, a visible black scientist could perceive this freedom to be not only liberating, but transformative as illustrated by Tyson’s agenda.  

    Essentially, the terms required for carrying out such an agenda in the scientific spatial universe undercut the impact of having a visible black expert.  For example, Tyson understands the terms of his agenda to require a version of racial denial common in colorblind ideology.[7]  This is illustrated when Tyson is confronted about a YouTube clip of him that began circulating on the internet.  Briefly about the clip, it captured Tyson’s commentary at a conference on religion and science hosted by the National Academy of Sciences.  In the clip, Tyson argues that it is more difficult for minorities and women to navigate science in the face of stereotypes surrounding intelligence about those groups.  This was in response to Larry Summers who has been known for making controversial statements about genetic reasons for men performing better than women in science and mathematics. Tyson specifically describes his own decision to major in astrophysics as a black male as “the path of most resistance” because he wanted to become something that was outside of society’s expectations for black males. He uses his own passion for discovery and intrigue about the Universe as his deflection mechanism to continue in astrophysics. He articulates the forces of society that face black scientists at every turn and the exhaustion of combating these forces.  All of this commentary took place back in 2005, which Tyson makes sure to clarify when questioned about it in 2014.

    When questioned about his 2005 commentary after this clip resurfaced online, Tyson responds by clarifying his colorblind intentions.  Tyson finds it necessary to clarify that he did not intend to bring up his blackness at that conference; it was just relevant to his answer to an audience member’s question.  In fact, Tyson wants it to be known that he would otherwise never have mentioned his own blackness or structural forces acting as barriers for blacks to enter the scientific spatial universe.  He goes on to explain that he does not give talks pertaining to blackness, specifying that he refuses to give Black History Month talks.  Tyson casually clarifies that since 1992, he has declined every single interview that could be categorized as having to do with black issues.  Ultimately, Tyson finds it freeing that his black identity never comes up[8]. The most important term that his space in mass media depends on is this denial of race.

    Colorblindness is so attractive to black scholars attempting to gain access to the scientific spatial universe because this transcendence of blackness appears to be freeing.   The appeal of this freedom should not be minimized.  In Patricia Williams’ Seeing a Color-Blind Future, a young Puerto Rican computer genius is described to love computers, because humans could not judge his appearance or his accent.[9]  Also as a science expert, you gain the authority to speak for science and the scientific community-- a group with the ultimate claim to objectivity that is just importantly majority white male.  It is liberating to be given authority over white knowledge. While Tyson thought he was carrying out his agenda, he really ends up strengthening science’s colorblind objectivity and does not transform that scientist identity after all. Tyson’s visibility as a black expert is overshadowed by his silence around issues because he leaves space for his audience to point to him as exemplifying a post-race society.  By denying race, Tyson denies differences between his experiences and those of white scientists. The scientist identity becomes one that overshadows all other identities but remains white.  Taking up the scientist identity and denying race appears to be at the very minimum an ideal coping mechanism for black scientists and at best a triumphant opportunity to uplift the black identity by mere association with it. Colorblindness seems to provide relief from the social inequalities connected to the black identity.  This method of escaping the realities of blackness may be appealing but is ultimately problematic.

    Tyson is proof that a black person can have access to the scientist identity, while the scientist identity and the scientific space remain white, because the objectivity of the scientific spatial universe goes unchallenged.  Scientists are still thought of as white males (and more recently Asian males). People can embrace a figure like Tyson, while at the same time maintaining this white male scientist identity as a part of the white spatial imaginary.  Take, for example, the controversy over Hunger Games’ character Beetie after fans realized he had been casted as a black man.  In Hunger Games, Beetie is one of the good characters and the source of scientific knowledge for a revolutionary movement in a dystopian society.  His character is depicted as no less than a scientific genius.  After the release of the film, fans took to social network and online venues to praise the film pointing out the inappropriate and inaccurate casting of Beetie’s character.  These white fans clarified that while race no longer matters, it is simply impossible to imagine Beetie’s character as a black man.[10]  White fans had developed preconceived images of a white Beetie based only on the basis of him being a “benevolent genius”.  This controversy over Beetie’s character is significant in my exploration of science’s colorblind objectivity, because of the way whiteness is still directly associated with the scientist identity.  White individuals are also assumed to hold authority over scientific knowledge. The white spatial imaginary will not allow white people to imagine a racially ambiguous scientist as a black person.  Again, Tyson’s agenda did not change the scientist identity, it just prompted justification for an exceptional few.  We have now seen the way a well-intentioned agenda can produce minimal transformation. Now, I will move forward in assessing the way such an agenda is used to render invisible real inequalities in science and in society.

    The ways that whiteness has been privileged in the scientific spatial universe is revealed upon examination of racial representation in the scientific community.  Specifically, 75% of bachelor’s degrees in physical sciences are given to whites when only 56% of the people age 18-24 are white[11]. As the racial and ethnic breakdown transforms, these achievement gaps will deepen and widen because representation at the top, specifically in STEM, remains unchanged. 82% of the science and engineering workforce is white or Asian[12]. As a science communicator, Tyson can be thought of as a national astrophysics teacher.  His being black is especially important given that only 3% of all Astronomy faculty members across the nation are black and in 2012, African Americans earned only 2% of physics PhDs in the US.  The 79.2% of physics and astronomy white faculty members are not forced to think critically about this lack of representation, because this is seen as non-objective and therefore separate from the scientific spatial universe.  Scientists themselves are silent when it comes to these inequalities. Following Tyson’s agenda, seeing the handful of black scientists should force those white scientists to reconcile what could be explained away as cultural interest or competency.  But it does not. Visibility is used to critique the black scholar’s choice not to attempt access to the scientific community and point to the fact that there are very few exceptional black people up for the challenge posed that is science.  Science is able to maintain its most essential claim to objectivity.  Colorblindness has been added to the scientific spatial universe’s definition of objectivity in the face of these inequalities.

    There are some scholars who argue against this claim to objectivity. Thomas Kuhn is a philosopher of science who asserts that what is thought of as “normal science” exists within a given “paradigm” and argues that transitions between paradigms mark important “scientific revolutions,” which are highly influenced by subjective forces.[13] These revolutions are the turning points throughout the history of science and eventually develop today’s scientific spatial universe.  These are also the same revolutions that the drive the narrative of Tyson’s television show, Cosmos. Objectivity is challenged by the fact that these turning points were subjective due to their dependence on social factors.  Helen Longino, also a philosopher of science, stresses these social factors that shape the production of scientific knowledge-- she critiques the purported objectivity of science based on this intrusion of social forces.[14] These social forces actually lead to a majority white male community that determines static standards for scientific knowledge.

    Interpersonal perceptions prove to be critical during the journey to enter into the scientific community.  Both Kuhn and Longino underline this peer review process that prepares students for membership in the scientific community and continues to govern scientists after entry.  Historically, science was not developed with this model in mind.[15]  During the early stages of science’s development, different men would often approach the same set of phenomena only to describe and interpret them in different ways.  These initial divergences disappear in the late 20th century at the same time when scientific knowledge became less accessible to the general population.  Interpretation of those same phenomena was decided by one group of men to make up accepted standards of the science we know today.  The separation of the scientific community form the general public is a result of this removal of scientific knowledge from public discourse.  Science is a particularly concerning vehicle for racial inequality today because of the objectivity claimed by this separate community of scientists.  Before this gap between the public and the scientific community, it was understood that subjectivity played a role in scientific theory development and theory choice[16].  Longino refers to the power of the current claim to objectivity as the positivist perspective-- connecting acceptance of hypothesis and theories to a public world that cannot disagree with them.  This positivist objectivity allows for subjectivity only in the initial formation of a scientific idea clarifying that this initial formation is a randomized factor that can be disregarded when thinking about context and the production of scientific knowledge[17].   The claimed objectivity of the scientific spatial universe is strengthened even more by the securing of a colorblind addition.  In claiming objectivity to science and therefore scientific methods, the extent to which that method provides means of assessing hypotheses in an unbiased manner is rarely called into question.

    Because the scientific community has been separated from the general public, scientific knowledge can be applied to societal events but can only be challenged by those with an authority in the scientific spatial universe.  One example from recent news, medical analysis reports in cases about police brutality are used because they capitalize on the objectivity attached with science to discredit racial explanations for the failure to indict.  The prosecutors in the proceeding surrounding Mike Brown’s death pointed to a strong convincing narrative supported by “credible witnesses, forensic evidence and three autopsies” implying the objectivity of a process that led to a biased outcome[18].   Science is called on in order to suggest the Grand Jury decision was objective and not at all related to excusing police brutality against blacks.  In the face of conflicting witness accounts and the personal account of Wilson, the indictment decision was justified based on scientific evidence supporting that Mike Brown was a danger to Wilson’s life and therefore Wilson should not be charged with anything.  Apparently science supports Wilson’s justification for killing Brown.  This example illustrates that in cases of police brutality and other violence against the black community, science can be applied to claim objectivity and colorblindness for biased outcomes.  When the objectivity of the scientific spatial universe is called on by events in society, it can shield them from having to respond to or question the role of race in those events.  

    We have seen the way Tyson’s colorblind framework ended up adding to an illusion of progress making the lack of progress actually invisible.  The objectivity of science appears to be freeing, but is being used to strengthen a colorblind objectivity.  Not only can well-intentioned black scholars end up adding a colorblind component to objectivity, but that same objectivity is being used to justify racist forces.  Being a visible black expert is important work to be done but in the scientific spatial universe requires articulation of structural racism that ultimately traps the black individual.  The trap: In order to gain access to the scientific spatial universe, a black scholar cannot bring attention to her blackness in risk that it can be perceived as distracting and take away from her authority over scientific knowledge.  At the same time, once black scientists gain access and authority, they must reject colorblindness and make the real injustices visible.  This means that rejecting this colorblind objectivity is not a simple process, but once a black scientist has the authority like that of Tyson, the colorblindness is inexcusable.  If not disrupted, it will continue to make racial inequalities in science representation invisible and allow science to be used to justify racist practices.

in freedom,

Jamelle

References

[1] National Geographic: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey/articles/meet-the-host-neil-degrasse-tyson/

[2] National Geographic

[3] The Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey-tv-686840

[4] HHMI interview with Tyson

[5] Black Image in the White Mind pg. 68

[6] Black Image in the White Mind table A.5 in appendix

[7] Racism without Racists

[8]  A Conversation With Neil deGrasse Tyson About ‘Cosmos,’ Race, and Celebrity in Grantland interview by Rembert Browne

[9] Seeing a Color-Blind Future

[10] Hunger Games and the Limits of White Imagination in The Huffington Post

[11] APS IPEDS Completion Survey

[12] Scientific American Journal

[13] Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. pp. 10-34, 92-110

[14] Longino, Helen E. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in ScientificInquiry. pp. 62-82

[15] Kuhn pg. 5

[16] Longino pg.64

[17] Longino pg.65

[18] Amid Conflicting Accounts, trusting Darren Wilson -New York Times article