 Welcome back, especially to, to those of you who are still with us, we will now go into a plenary session where again we can recognize people if we have time at the end. And Suzanne Barber who is the Dean of the Graduate School and Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapelville will provide a summary of the day which is an awesome responsibility and she does it so well. So, so first thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this really exciting series of workshops I know I've learned a lot and I hope others have learned a lot too. And I'm really excited that this community is coming together and having these conversations and I think one of the take home messages from all three workshops is really that sense of community the importance of the of the networks, the individual effort certainly, but also networks and and ultimately the institutions that we need to change. So throughout the three workshops, we've heard from past current and aspiring leaders. They've come from very different walks of life from different disciplines from France Cordova who spoke this spoke today she's an astrophysicist and former director of the NSF to the cellist and humanist and although we come from different spaces I think we all agree there there's a need for change if we're to broaden participation in STEM. There's a need to move past the deficit model where we we fault the student default the underrepresented in individual, and there's a need to start looking at some of the systematic changes the systems that have held us back and prevented us from achieving I think we all want to achieve. And so the first two workshops I kind of summarized all this in my mind is as being action that needs to be taken at individual level, and the level of networks and at the level of ultimately institutions and I think I still what I'm hearing today. I think today we unpack this little little bit and maybe put some meat on the bones. And so I'm going to frame my comments and those three, those three categories. And I'll start out at the individual level. Today, I think we've heard some really inspiring stories about the power of individuals to make change. I think that to Shirley Malcolm's comments about her lived experience in Baltimore. I'm not sorry not Baltimore Birmingham, and how it compelled her to leadership. And, and similarly how Dr Cordovo talked about how she had a leadership position and that allowed her to shine a light on the work that was being done by underrepresented scientists who are kind of toiling in the darkness doing wonderful things that other folks weren't seeing to paraphrase Dr Cordova, it's not in your genes or your physical appearance it's not that that determines whether you're a leader. It's the actions you take and the way you engage with life. And so this idea that we as individuals can engage with life, and in a way that ultimately achieves our goals I think is an important take home message from all three of the workshops. You know of course in order to do that we have to be at the right tables we have to be a part of the right conversations. So how do we get to those tables so we can be parts of those conversations. So Dr Sanchez Nieto offered a really interesting insight when she said, gave the story about challenging Francis Collins, and the idea that our little voice, you know, even if it means we have to be incredibly brave to stand up and and make our voice heard can be the start of something really important the start of that opportunity to, as an individual be invited to those tables where the important conversations are being had where the important decisions are being made. As Dr Taylor said at the beginning of the workshop there's a difference between leaders and leadership, and we all have the potential to be part of leadership, if we choose to act when we see injustice. Dr Tripathi also emphasize the importance of individual acts of leadership and the individual actions may seem like they're they're very small, but ultimately they add up and they push us closer to where we want to be. I think Dr Poojri offered some really important advice for leaders that we should all need. It's okay to make mistakes. We should always question our assumptions. We should emulate people who demonstrate curiosity and reciprocity to ideas and model and nurture a growth mindset. And I know those are the kinds of things as a graduate dean that I'm always asking our graduate students to aspire to. Well, many of us are way past graduate school, and I think we too should be thinking about moving forward with that growth So when we move beyond the individual I think we start getting into into networks, and we heard a lot of really interesting information about networks and some of the important work that they're doing today. I mean as far back as the 1970s, people like Dr Tapia were working with Lydia, for example, to start SACNAS to bring like-minded people together to affect change. And if you fast forward to the 21st century, Dr DePas talked about an intervention on this understanding interventions group has just launched today their UI impacts. That's designed to bring networks together to bring aspiring STEM leaders together with people who are already in leadership positions to broaden that network and enhance its impact. Dr Cordable I think offered some really interesting insights into the genesis of the NSF includes community, a nascent network that's been brought together to continue this really important work. And she mentioned Hillary Clinton in her comments and that really it put it in mind for me, a statement that Hillary Clinton made back in the 1990s, the idea that it takes a village. I think all of our speakers all the panelists throughout the three panels with throughout the three workshops would probably agree that it does indeed take a village to do the important work of broadening participation. And our goal I think our charge is to continue building those networks, building those communities as Dr Cordable did when she built the NSF includes community. Without the recommended we need to build and strengthen our relationships with other people who are committed to social justice. And I think it's really exciting to see that our three aspiring leaders who are in the last panel just a few minutes ago, are all building networks and they're using those networks to affect change. I think we all need to aspire to do the kinds of things that those aspiring leaders are doing and, and hopefully those networks are networks and ultimately come together in a way that we have that community that village that's about the change. So what do we want to change what do we need to change when we need to change the system. And then, and I think that starts with the institutions. At the very beginning of our workshop Dr Taylor reminded us that we need to move past the deficit model. We're not in the business of fixing individuals we're rather in the business of asking some really critical questions about the cultures of our stem institutions. Dr Pothi addressed this when she she discussed the push toward assimilation. And when why would we assimilate into a stem culture that's flawed a stem culture that doesn't recognize the value that we as as individuals we as different individuals bring to the table. I loved her comment that power likes to play dumb, and it does. So how do we educate power how do we turn that dumb off so the power recognizes the importance the value add that we as underrepresented scientists bring to the table. I think Dr Taylor made a really important observation at the beginning of our discussion today when he said, you got to adjust the message to meet the audience that you're trying to influence. So do you lead with social justice. Well, maybe not. Maybe the lead is competitiveness, and the degree to which this nation which has enjoyed the leadership in the world of stem and research and engineering for four years now, that that's on the brink of going away if we don't engage everybody in this important enterprise. And so I think this issue of how we tailor our message to meet the audience of our institutions becomes a very important part of the question. And Dr Malcolm said, we have to meet systemic problems in a systemic way. And that comes down to engaging institutions and how do we engage them. Well, I think both Dr Malcolm and Dr to pass emphasize the importance of data. And importantly that even more importantly, the importance of data that are institution specific that can really wake people up and make them recognize that the problem isn't in somebody else's backyard it's in their own backyard. And that provides us with a wonderful example of the power of admissions data at the University of Chicago, when a group of graduate students got together and pull the admissions data and put them out in front of folks and said, look, there's something wrong here. That ultimately led to a Brexit, so to speak, moving away from the GRE and so the change the machine of change starts to starts to work. And he also raised the really interesting concept that our HBC use actually MSI's in general have really unique cultures that embrace not just the four frames of academic leadership that Bowman and Gallus recommended, but also what he called the soul of leadership. He encouraged us to embrace MSI's as role models, institutions that are primarily white institution should be looking for looking to, for advice in terms of the context of the strategies the approaches to broadening participation. And I think although we may disagree on the impact that MSI's have had on the demographics of STEM faculty. I think we all agree there's a lot that we can learn from those institutions and a need to to sit at the feet of the master so to speak. I've heard about the importance of having great leaders at our institutions. And I think a really important insight that Dr. Topia made was this idea that change at our institutions, it really comes from from up top. It comes from on high. Those are the folks who have the power they're the ones who have the influence. They're the people who have the bully pulpit, I can cause a whole institution to change yes you have to buy and lower down but ultimately you have to engage in leadership as well. So how do we ensure that people who think the way we do, people who look the way we do people who have our lived experiences are in those leadership positions, so that they can affect that kind of power. So, so in summary, I think we need, I think what we've learned from these workshops all three of them is that we need the collective impact of individuals and networks to affect change in our STEM institutions. Dr. Taylor has gave us a lot of really important things to think about. And one of the nuggets he left us was with was this idea of first order change versus second order change. You know the first order change he said is basically rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. That's not what we need to do. Instead, we need to affect structural change by leveraging the power of the individual the power of our networks to ultimately address these these entrenched cultural issues that are within our STEM institutions. In the words of Dr Sanchez Neville, we have a really unique opportunity in the wake of a pandemic, we have an opportunity to be disruptive to have to affect that second order change in a very positive way. And the court of I asked us to take a risk and get it done. And so I say let's all commit to leveraging our individual strengths. Let's build communities and networks, and then let's change our, our institutions. As Dr Tripathi said, inclusive diversity is an achievable goal. And I think in the wake of these three wonderful workshops, we are on the brink of being able to make it happen. And that's just a brief summary of what I saw today. And I'd love to throw the floor open to questions and comments. And I'm not sure how we're going to moderate that and are we just going to have people raise their hand perhaps. I just wanted to say it was an excellent, excellent summary. You captured all the points that I heard is something that I missed so thank you. I thought it was great. Thank you Nora. I love your summary Susan but the question I have is if we have to get leaders up to the top of institutions so that they can have the right mindset to create the change. If people don't conform. How are they going to get those positions how are they going to make it up in these institutions that are so biased and that are all set up wrong. So is, is a strategy to conform, you know the edges and get there and then make the change, which is what the previous generations have done or is there another way I never really understood your summary on that point. Yeah, I didn't address it so it's a great question right and, and I'm sure everybody has it has an opinion on it I can share my own story and then interpret my story in the context of what I think we we heard today. So, so for my own poor story I basically did the good conform piece. You know I assimilated it in every way shape and form. And I knew that I was doing that because I knew that I wanted to aspire to a leadership position and ultimately have a bully pulpit, but, but I think had I not done that during the time that I was coming through. I don't think I'd be where I am today. Young people we heard from today, however, they're not conforming. They're disrupted they're pushing the envelope and I think, you know, key thing that Dr Sanchez never brought up is, the world is changing and that's what's just got just got thrown. We've moved from pre pandemic to post pandemic. I think the opportunity to be disruptive to be that that disruptive agent of change, the positive deviant so to speak. I think there's a very small window of time when it's going to be a little bit easier to do that. And I think you know these young people are doing it. I think we need to do it. No, I disagree. I disagree, because the young people from what I heard from the three young people is either they know of people who almost got sick, and some quit. Some died, something happened, and then to three people survived but they are not moving. They may not move up the academic ladder. Well, we won't know that. We won't know that for some time that that's a point taken. I don't know how the change will happen. Well, I think that in part some of the lessons come from those of us who came before. I mean, you heard from all a large number of the speakers today and before that that we didn't start out wanting to be leaders, I didn't want to start college with the idea that I would be a vice president for research, or even then I would be ahead of a lab. And so that's part of what goes on with disruptors is you do your thing. And some people are better at taking the easiest path, which is to be like everybody else as much as you can be given what you look like. I mean, the sometimes it's cultural and comes more naturally that some of us are more willing to swim through the current, and other people are really don't really want to do that they want to be more aggressive earlier. And I think that that's just partly human nature and partly the the the our particular national history. But I do think that it is a magic time, because there, there's so much ferment right now and my sense of the time is that there are people up in the majority who have seen what is happening and recognize that something must be done. You know, and often what they do is incomplete because they don't really fully appreciate the experiences that they're trying to recognize and bring forward, but they are able to make change Francis Collins is a good example of that. He started some good things. So, from many perspectives he had to be dragged into it kicking and screaming and it hasn't gone far enough. I mean the fastest way to introduce institutional change is to make it part of the money. It is the fastest way to get an inclusion to do whatever it is that you would like them to do. Howard Hughes is an example of an institution which recognize that after it wasn't certainly wasn't easy took many years and a lot of people in changes in leadership, but it is now at the end of encouraging and bringing up people like we heard today from Cody and Fatima. Those two are that Gillum fellowship allows them. Give something that they might not otherwise have, and whatever they end up doing they will be leaders. I think it's true of a viral who may or may not still be here. She decided not to go into an academic a standard academic career, but she's working with students. That's important. I will still nourish more students who will some of whom will go on and be leaders, because you know however you look at it. If you want to go to the top it's a pyramid, many more start at the bottom and end up at the top. And that is a function of the fact that leadership positions are rare. So, I think you sort of figure out what you can do is Francis, and then do it it's an opportunity for something and you do it and I think the young people today are more willing to do that. They choose their own path they won't be an academia necessarily, but they will make a difference. And I think wholeheartedly, thank you for, for, for your comments and I also, you know, I, one thing we haven't talked about is the role that our, our federal funding agencies play in all this too. You know, one, one thing we do on see us we're always pushing NSF and saying, look, you've got the purse strings, you know that is the biggest hammer carrot whatever you want to call it, that you can possibly have so when we, when we come to you with these issues when we talk about these cultural challenges are STEM institutions have what better way to inspire institutions inspire incentivize institutions to make a change them to talk about the money. Right. What said you have your hand. Oh, all right now you have your hand up. Say you have your hand up first you put it up a little earlier do you wear way before me. You know, just, just to add to Lydia's comments. One of the things that really excites me with what I see with the, the current generation of folks who are coming up through academia, including Korean. Is that they, when they, their generation of trained up in as undergraduates in this country. What's exciting is that there are disciplines that they were exposed to that many of us in stem, they didn't even exist at the time when I went to college like Cal State LA, you know fields like different fields of ethnic studies, gender studies. They didn't necessarily exist. Right. And this was true for the generations before me. So then there were the folks who brought their lived experience, you know they had very specific areas of scholarship but they were not emergent disciplines that we were really broadly training students in. You know the landscape for higher education is totally different now so many students who are studying STEM, you know most institutions country are getting that training and so they're equipped with fluencies and frameworks that we didn't have access to. And so what they're able to envision, you know, is truly convergent. And I think their, their leadership, their imaginings are actually really something to look to. And, and I also, you know, and I think of this also as like as a scientist who draws on tools from different disciplines, you know machine learning and what this can help us with respect to climate modeling. And I see the same thing with respect to what they're able to do when thinking about institutional change. I also am excited by the examples of leadership that we see that are bold that are brave. You know I see what's happening at Arizona State University at Brown University, right, and there are examples of at the very highest levels of leadership. There's people who are actually opening up space, right so Vernon Morris being hired at ASU, you know, and learning about how they're reshaping policy and in that case it's being you know the new school that he's director of it's kind of a incubator of sorts right, but what I'm seeing there is a real example of transformative leadership, and that's being done by opening up space for another leader, right. So Vernon, and then what I see at Brown University with the way they're approaching a lot of their strategies. I think that that's actually a really kind of exciting model, you know in that case. So there are some examples that I think we can, we can look to but the question is, you know, will we see enough, even if there are folks who've come through who have simulated which we all have done to varying degrees you know compared to the current of leaders, you know that still doesn't mean that we can't acknowledge that and then open up space right for leaders who are even more bold to also lead in our institutions. I just was going to make an observation that I always feel somewhat disillusioned when I hear younger or junior colleagues say well academia is not for me I'm living academia, and especially those who could become leaders or who could perhaps transform the institutions, and I agree with Suzanne that one potential way to change these traditional institutions is through the perks. Right now, it's really challenging to work with some of the institutions the dominated by mostly monoculture groups. Those are really challenges that we all need to work on and I would say that one example that we have to document that some progress has been made in terms of at least diversifying the workforce is with the private sector. The private sector is way way more ahead than the academic institutions. And the reason is that the private sector they know that if they don't diversify their leadership the workforce, the bottom line will suffer. Somehow we need to really place that message with the institutions I don't know how to do it whether it is necessary to do to do it through the political system or perhaps through the system that the junior colleagues today share with us. I think we need to kind of reflect on those approaches that we need to take in the future. And I want to thank you again for participating all of you who have been through all three of these workshops, and those of you who have attended. I have to say that of the attendees. When you come you do come for a whole panel or two. And that's, that's very gratifying. I also want to say that we will be releasing a survey. Your opinion is really useful someone asked earlier if there was any way that you could be of assistance and the answer is, yes, as we noted we will be doing a report on this it will both a journal type publication, and a longer report that we hope to get published. And certainly the paper we will distribute widely this recording will stay up, and it will be broadly available will be available the recordings of each individual talk will be available on this website for the indefinite future. I also consider putting up both the whole thing and the pieces there pieces of it on to YouTube directly. So please tell your friends and colleagues about it. And we'll get that will that will be helpful. So when you have a suggestion, we'll put a comments area on the website so that people can come and tell us their thoughts about what their responses to the talks, their suggestions for. How we might go about things. That would be terrific. So please respond to the survey. It really does inform the way which we go forward. And I hope you keep this in your minds and hearts, as we all go forward because I think we all have common goals. So thank you once again, and have a great weekend.