Rebekah Mercer, a board member of the American Museum of Natural History since 2013, is being pressured by more than 200 scientists and other academics to step down from her position. Mercer is the daughter of billionaire Robert Mercer, and she earned her master's from Stanford University in management science and engineering. Rebekah Mercer and the Mercer family are huge Republican donors, and have donated millions in support of conservative causes, including support for groups that reject climate science.
Scientists claim that having Mercer on the board raises public doubt, and will lower the credibility of natural history museums which 78% of Americans believe is a trustworthy source of information. Although the AMNH states that educational content is determined by the scientists and not decided by the donors, many still suspect there may be bits of misinformation that still get put out. Nonprofit organizations rely on donors such as Mercer; however, considering her history of donating to groups that deny climate science, I question her motives. Having contributed so much, it would be difficult for the institution to ignore her requests if she had any in mind, and I find that influence on educational content worrying.
Do you believe a donor such as Mercer's background should affect her position on the board?
If Mercer does not step down, do you think public trust in museums will be affected?
Sources:
NYTimes
Huffington Post
9 comments:
I believe that Mercer's background should negatively affect her position on the board of the American Museum of Natural History. The board members are in charge of making important decisions and running the museum, so they should reflect the same ideas of the museum. Mercer's actions donating to groups that deny climate change and the Heritage Foundation, which promotes fossil fuel extraction clearly reflect her priorities and ideals that ignore science and the conservation of our natural resources and environment. Her motives and actions are unreflective of and don't represent the museum's mission, so Mercer should not remain on the board. If she does remain, I believe that there will be continued backlash and possibly result in a slightly lower trust in the AMNH, however I don't think that public trust in all museums will be affected.
Yes - although the AMNH does say that "educational content is determined by scientists" as opposed to donors, I think the people that make up the board should reflect the values of the museum. Therefore, I think her background should affect her position on the board, if she really will have much of a say in the exhibits and collections of the museum. If she doesn't step down, I definitely see public trust in museums being negatively affected, especially given how much press was given to this situation.
I do agree that it is a bit odd to have someone who does not believe in climate change be on the board of American Museum of Natural History, but I disagree with that Mercer's should affect her position on the board. She did earn her master's from Stanford University, so she probably does know what she is doing on the board. As you stated above, Mercer can't really influence the information the museum puts out. Everyone is free to believe in what they want, even if most people are in disagreement with it (I'm against Mercer's belief as well). I don't think we should discriminate against someone based on what they believe in. I agree with Ashely that there will be backlash against Mercer, but I think museums are still pretty credible in the public eye in general.
To an extent, I do believe that Mercer's background should affect her position on the board. So far, the museum has already issued a statement that they recognize the scientific data that supports the reality of climate change. Regardless of whether or not Mercer's family foundation donates to groups that deny climate change, while that may be a reflection of her personal beliefs, she also does seem to be qualified. She earned a master's degree from Stanford in management science in engineering, but she also attended Stanford University as an undergraduate from studied math and biology. While I personally disagree with her conservative beliefs, I do think her perspective can be valuable in other aspects. Climate change is an important facet of the information reflected in a natural history museum, but it is not the only one.
I think that Mercer's background should not affect her position on the board. I personally have different beliefs than Mercer, however, she graduated and earned her master's degree at Stanford University. She seems experienced and qualified, however, there are still concerns about how trustworthy she is. While that may be a slight issue, she should not be discriminated against for her beliefs.
I agree with Allie, in that Mercer’s political ideologies should not affect her position on the board. As others stated, it is a bit odd that she is against climate change but is on the board of the National History Museum, however I feel that this would be classified as discrimination in the workforce as an individual’s position in the workforce should not be affected because of their political beliefs. Although I feel extremely disheartened that she is against climate change, changing her position on the board for this reason opposes the basic american idea that everyone deserves an equal opportunity regardless of race, gender, religion and political preference. It is a shame that she in on the board at the National History Museum and still opposes climate change but I personally believe it would be an even greater shame if her position on the board were affected because of her beliefs.
I don't think that Mercer's background should affect her position on the board. That would be discriminatory based on one's political beliefs and is not acceptable and quite frankly, ironic, from mostly liberal protestors to do such. It would be the same thing as one conservative politically aligned museum forcing someone out just because they are a Democrat. I think that if she does not step down, people will trust that museum less because of the strong backlash against her position in the board right now.
I kind of disagree with the comments above me. The thing is, this is a Natural History Museum board position, it's not like a freaking McDonalds manager job or something. The thing with climate change denial is that it's been normalized into an acceptable belief to have or something just because a lot of people in our nation have it, even though it clearly goes against all science, reason, and well-being of our lives. Like let's say Mercer was a Holocaust denier or something, well she'd be booted in a heartbeat. I get that it's not exactly the same comparison, but you get the point.
Post a Comment