Petition to AOS Leadership on the Recent Decision to Change all Eponymous Bird Names (4 Viewers)

[qwerty5]

We also have a very beloved Second Amendment to the Constitution - the freedom of any individual to articulate ideas without threat of retaliation or legal sanction from the government. That freedom extends to employees of Utah's Division of Wildlife Resources.

Surely you mean 1st Amendment? I'm not exactly sure how free speech applies here. The Utah government is mandating the names for its own publications, I'm not sure how that could be interpreted to infringe upon an individual's free speech.

I'm also having a lot of trouble imagining the incentive for someone to interpret the law as excluding splits and lumps. Maybe I just don't have the mind of a politician

 

[Kirk Roth]

Surely you mean 1st Amendment? I'm not exactly sure how free speech applies here. The Utah government is mandating the names for its own publications, I'm not sure how that could be interpreted to infringe upon an individual's free speech.

I'm also having a lot of trouble imagining the incentive for someone to interpret the law as excluding splits and lumps. Maybe I just don't have the mind of a politician

Ha! - yes, the First, thank you. Let's hope that the Second Amendment doesn't become involved in the bird names argument!

Note that I used a publication only as an example, and only because there was a question about field guides.

The law says: "The division shall use the English-language name assigned to a bird by a naming entity that was in effect on January 1, 2020, when using an English-language name while engaging in the management of the bird or habitat for the bird.

"Management" can mean a lot of things, including being an interpretive naturalist. But the bigger issue is the mandate that the division "advocate" for a particular position - any division employee who decides to exercise their free speech by advocating for the other position while on the clock has technically created the test case.

In our current political climate where people are using or attempting to use the First Amendment to refuse everything from marriage certification to vaccines to messages on cakes, I don't think it takes much imagination for someone to refuse to use someone's mandated bird name. Or let me put it another way - it would only take one very passionate Bird Names for Birds supporter who happens to work for the Utah DWR in some capacity.

 

[Mysticete]

You know, looping in another recent discussion, the Mew Gull -> Short-billed Gull name change occurred in 2021. Does this mean that Mew Gull is still the official name of this bird in Utah?

 

[Swindon Addick]

I think the point you are missing is that it's a personal history for a lot of us. We've grown up with many of these names, and they have emotional attachment. Dismissing this as "whining" says more about your lack of imagination than anything. Disrupting stability in common names for no reason other than political correctness or ego is not a positive step. When taxonomic changes provide a compelling reason to invent a name, that's one thing, but just throwing away a patronym for no reason other than politics is another thing and I will continue to whine about it.

<Edit for context>
This post was moved from another thread, where an argument about this issue had broken out. I was objecting to it being discussed on that thread, hence the use of a word in the discussion that I wouldn't have used on this thread. I just wanted to clarify that I have no objection at all to people expressing strongly-held views about the issue on this thread, neither do I want to take a side in the argument.
<end of edit>

As I keep saying, I don't care about the issue. That doesn't mean I support what the authorities in the US are doing. I have no issue with you all complaining about it as loudly as you wish. I'd just like you to do it in threads that are dedicated to it, rather than threads like this where the English names are incidental to the taxonomy. There are multiple threads where the political issue is being discussed and as far as I'm aware no-one has invaded them to raise irrelevant questions as to whether some of the species in question are valid species or not.

My choice of the word "whining" wasn't intended to suggest that you're wrong, just that people are going on and on about one issue and it's annoying for those who want to talk about other things.

 

[Andy Adcock]

You know, looping in another recent discussion, the Mew Gull -> Short-billed Gull name change occurred in 2021. Does this mean that Mew Gull is still the official name of this bird in Utah?

Poll - Do you agree or disagree with the AOS's recent decision to abandon the use of eponymous bird names?

Given what I understand to be the polarised nature of US politics at the moment, this was an entirely predictable consequence of the BN4B / AOS decision. The proponents of the change should have foreseen that this was going to be seen as another salvo in the culture wars, this time originating...

www.birdforum.net

See post 820

 

[qwerty5]

In our current political climate where people are using or attempting to use the First Amendment to refuse everything from marriage certification to vaccines to messages on cakes, I don't think it takes much imagination for someone to refuse to use someone's mandated bird name. Or let me put it another way - it would only take one very passionate Bird Names for Birds supporter who happens to work for the Utah DWR in some capacity.

Yes, but all of those examples have some sort of religious connection. I could be wrong, but I'm not aware that there's any precedent for a claim to free speech that goes against the duties of your job. Advocating against the name change may go against someone's opinions, but, while on the clock, I'm not sure there's a right to do anything but leave. Of course the problem we have today is people being fired for their opinions expressed totally away from their job.

 

[Kirk Roth]

Yes, but all of those examples have some sort of religious connection. I could be wrong, but I'm not aware that there's any precedent for a claim to free speech that goes against the duties of your job. Advocating against the name change may go against someone's opinions, but, while on the clock, I'm not sure there's a right to do anything but leave. Of course the problem we have today is people being fired for their opinions expressed totally away from their job.

I would suggest doing some research if you are interested - two of my examples (Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission) and Kim Davis (the County Clerk in Kentucky) were both workplace-related cases. There are other examples (both "religious" and not - the motivations in many of these cases have been debated and I won't open that can of worms).

But First Amendment issues in a public workplace (such as a government institution, emergency responders, public schools, etc.) are notorious for being complicated and blurry - because the government itself can be in a position to impinge on someone's speech. If this were a private institution, like your office, or Chik-fil-A, or the AOS, then the First Amendment issues are much less, because each private institution has its "speech rights" too. (Cakeshop being an interesting exception). The latter cases are more in line with your understanding, but the former not at all.

 

[qwerty5]

I would suggest doing some research if you are interested - two of my examples (Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission) and Kim Davis (the County Clerk in Kentucky) were both workplace-related cases. There are other examples (both "religious" and not - the motivations in many of these cases have been debated and I won't open that can of worms).

I was aware of these examples, but I did refresh my memory a bit. Cakeshop was decided solely on the basis of religious discrimination by Colorado. The Supreme Court declined to rule on the free speech implications, but in 303 Creative LLC vs. Elenis, the Court ruled that Colorado's anti-discrimination law couldn't violate a private business's free speech rights. In any event, this example is specifically about private business, not government employees, a distinction I failed to recognize earlier.

The Kim Davis example is more a religious liberty question, since she stopped issuing marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs. At any rate she lost in court and the Supreme Court denied her appeal.

But First Amendment issues in a public workplace (such as a government institution, emergency responders, public schools, etc.) are notorious for being complicated and blurry - because the government itself can be in a position to impinge on someone's speech. If this were a private institution, like your office, or Chik-fil-A, or the AOS, then the First Amendment issues are much less, because each private institution has its "speech rights" too. (Cakeshop being an interesting exception). The latter cases are more in line with your understanding, but the former not at all.

I must admit, I hadn't really considered the difference between private employees and government employees. As you note, there is a difference. There most relevant court decision is probably Garcetti vs. Ceballos. The Court held that statements made by public employees pursuant to their job duties were not protected by the 1st Amendment. Even the dissent wouldn't have interpreted the 1st Amendment to protect speech that contradicts an employee's job duties. I don't see any way one could argue free speech protection for a government employee advocating against their specific job duty, unless I'm missing something major.

 

[Kirk Roth]

I was aware of these examples, but I did refresh my memory a bit. Cakeshop was decided solely on the basis of religious discrimination by Colorado. The Supreme Court declined to rule on the free speech implications, but in 303 Creative LLC vs. Elenis, the Court ruled that Colorado's anti-discrimination law couldn't violate a private business's free speech rights. In any event, this example is specifically about private business, not government employees, a distinction I failed to recognize earlier.

The Kim Davis example is more a religious liberty question, since she stopped issuing marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs. At any rate she lost in court and the Supreme Court denied her appeal.

I must admit, I hadn't really considered the difference between private employees and government employees. As you note, there is a difference. There most relevant court decision is probably Garcetti vs. Ceballos. The Court held that statements made by public employees pursuant to their job duties were not protected by the 1st Amendment. Even the dissent wouldn't have interpreted the 1st Amendment to protect speech that contradicts an employee's job duties. I don't see any way one could argue free speech protection for a government employee advocating against their specific job duty, unless I'm missing something major.

I think you and I are on a different pages. You seem to be arguing the outcomes of a potential case, and I don't dispute your interpretations. I also don't dispute that there are differences with past cases - but that leads directly to my point. My concern is that its something someone will want to test - regardless of outcome. "Doomed" legal efforts happen all the time (this week has featured some prominent front-page examples in U.S. papers!). Sometimes the point isn't the outcome, its the fuss that comes along with the trial. Once again, if I'm a lawyer who wants to make a name for myself in Utah, I see an opportunity here to do so - and to fold the birding, ornithology, and political worlds in here with me. I wouldn't say, "well shucks, Garcetti v Ceballos means I'm not going to run this up the flagpole." I think G v C etc. absolutely come out in court arguments, but by no means do I think it prevents a case from being seen or argued. And by no means does it do anything to quiet the escalation of tensions on this issue - I dare say that may have been the real point of the law to begin with. Anyone can disagree, but to me this has the look of a law practically designed to be challenged and just my opinion but I wonder if that was the whole point. Or certainly, it doesn't look written as if it is intended to de-escalate anything.

 

[qwerty5]

I think you and I are on a different pages. You seem to be arguing the outcomes of a potential case, and I don't dispute your interpretations. I also don't dispute that there are differences with past cases - but that leads directly to my point. My concern is that its something someone will want to test - regardless of outcome. "Doomed" legal efforts happen all the time (this week has featured some prominent front-page examples in U.S. papers!). Sometimes the point isn't the outcome, its the fuss that comes along with the trial. Once again, if I'm a lawyer who wants to make a name for myself in Utah, I see an opportunity here to do so - and to fold the birding, ornithology, and political worlds in here with me. I wouldn't say, "well shucks, Garcetti v Ceballos means I'm not going to run this up the flagpole." I think G v C etc. absolutely come out in court arguments, but by no means do I think it prevents a case from being seen or argued. And by no means does it do anything to quiet the escalation of tensions on this issue - I dare say that may have been the real point of the law to begin with. Anyone can disagree, but to me this has the look of a law practically designed to be challenged and just my opinion but I wonder if that was the whole point. Or certainly, it doesn't look written as if it is intended to de-escalate anything.

Yeah, I was missing your point. I stand corrected

 

[raymie]

I don't know if that has been brought up already or not, but it might be nice to send the petition of Cornell as well. I'm sure they'll change names if the AOS does, but at minimum it would be nice if they would retain all of the current names as an option.

 

[Andy Adcock]

I don't know if that has been brought up already or not, but it might be nice to send the petition of Cornell as well. I'm sure they'll change names if the AOS does, but at minimum it would be nice if they would retain all of the current names as an option.

The reality of all this is that I doubt you'll be seeing any of these changes in a field guide any time soon?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

The inordinate unpopularity of changing all eponymous bird and other organismal names | Bionomina

www.mapress.com

A proposal by Foley & Rutter (2020) to eliminate all eponymous English bird names was published in the Washington Post, a Washington D.C. newspaper. Fears (2021) reported in this same newspaper that a racist and colonialist history is perpetuated in some English bird names, especially eponyms, and that a social movement is working to change those names. These articles generated hundreds of online comments. I used sentiment analysis on these comments to quantify public reaction to this proposal and topic. Among the 340 scored comments to Foley & Rutter (2020), negative opinions outnumbered positive ones by 3.36:1. Scoring comments by relative magnitude of their sentiment (-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3) yielded an average score of -1.18. These results indicate this proposed action is very unpopular among these readers and causes pronounced divisiveness. The 570 scored comments to the Fears (2021) article were also negatively skewed (2.3:1), though less so (average score -0.58). Politicization and the left-right nature of the issue were rampant in the comments on both articles, indicating that the subject was immediately brought into the culture wars (i.e., conflict between liberal and conservative groups over cultural issues). The divisive nature of the topic was also evident within self-identified left-leaning respondents. These results likely underestimate public negativity to this proposal, because the Washington Post is a left-leaning newspaper. Similarly, Guedes et al. (2023) called for eliminating all eponymous organismal names, and a sentiment analysis of comments about that article was even more starkly negative, showing 90 % of commenters opposed. More data like these are needed. There is considerable risk that broadly de-commemorating eponymous organismal names will create more negative than positive outcomes (e.g., through asymmetric polarization and the culture wars). We must also ask: does excluding people who do not share our views achieve our objective of inclusiveness? When is it acceptable to take away someone’s hard-won knowledge by changing key terms in our shared biodiversity linguistic infrastructure? There are more constructive ways to address diversity, equity and inclusion.

 

[awiner]

The inordinate unpopularity of changing all eponymous bird and other organismal names | Bionomina

www.mapress.com

A proposal by Foley & Rutter (2020) to eliminate all eponymous English bird names was published in the Washington Post, a Washington D.C. newspaper. Fears (2021) reported in this same newspaper that a racist and colonialist history is perpetuated in some English bird names, especially eponyms, and that a social movement is working to change those names. These articles generated hundreds of online comments. I used sentiment analysis on these comments to quantify public reaction to this proposal and topic. Among the 340 scored comments to Foley & Rutter (2020), negative opinions outnumbered positive ones by 3.36:1. Scoring comments by relative magnitude of their sentiment (-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3) yielded an average score of -1.18. These results indicate this proposed action is very unpopular among these readers and causes pronounced divisiveness. The 570 scored comments to the Fears (2021) article were also negatively skewed (2.3:1), though less so (average score -0.58). Politicization and the left-right nature of the issue were rampant in the comments on both articles, indicating that the subject was immediately brought into the culture wars (i.e., conflict between liberal and conservative groups over cultural issues). The divisive nature of the topic was also evident within self-identified left-leaning respondents. These results likely underestimate public negativity to this proposal, because the Washington Post is a left-leaning newspaper. Similarly, Guedes et al. (2023) called for eliminating all eponymous organismal names, and a sentiment analysis of comments about that article was even more starkly negative, showing 90 % of commenters opposed. More data like these are needed. There is considerable risk that broadly de-commemorating eponymous organismal names will create more negative than positive outcomes (e.g., through asymmetric polarization and the culture wars). We must also ask: does excluding people who do not share our views achieve our objective of inclusiveness? When is it acceptable to take away someone’s hard-won knowledge by changing key terms in our shared biodiversity linguistic infrastructure? There are more constructive ways to address diversity, equity and inclusion.

This has been discussed before; its methodology is laughably terrible. (Seriously, online comments for a single article as a meaningfully representative sample?)