What does someone mean when they say, “Defund the Bird Police?”
And what actions can Congress take?
Distinguishing Science and Propaganda
Did you know that half a million tax dollars allocated by Congress for the most crucial scientific research is instead funding social events—sorry, networking events—for racial-segregation-themed birding clubs?
Ornithology is one of the disciplines leading the way in making a mockery of the National Science Foundation. Political Science is no longer funded by NSF—why should Political Ornithology be any different?
Avian conservation is an important cause. So is democracy. “Defund the Bird Police” does not mean that no federal dollars can be spent on avian conservation or ornithology research. That would be akin to the “Abolish the Bird Police” movement. Rather, if you hear someone say, “Defund the Bird Police,” they are only arguing that less funding should be allocated to the Bird Police. “Defund” in this instance means “defund” on a metaphorical level but practically, it would be wrong to accuse someone who wants to “Defund the Bird Police” of wanting to actually “Defund the Bird Police.” Rather, they seek systemic change.
Who are the Bird Police? This is not a reference to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, or any of the many government agencies who might police you if you do wrong by birds. Rather, the Bird Police are the Ornithological Gatekeepers—and in this instance, refers to those who have taken it upon themselves to police the common names of English birds at an incredible scale through one of the greatest mass cancellations of our time. These “Bird Police” have fueled a defamatory and malicious public narrative that indiscriminately and inaccurately tarnishes all of the most important figures in ornithological history.
How can I stop my tax dollars from funding Maoist propaganda operating under the guise of bird science?
ABOLISH THE NSF “BIO-LEAPS” PROGRAM
Luckily, because birding is a passion for so many wealthy individuals, ornithology has plenty of private funding. Ornithologists will have no issue funding whatever political theater they desire.
Yet this year, the United States spent half a million dollars of public money on political radicalization within the “ornithology community.”
Where did this money go? “(1) fostering stakeholder engagement among three ornithological societies, non-profit organizations, governmental agencies, and minority-serving institutions and societies; (2) providing educational and training opportunities in diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) for a postdoctoral scholar and summer Multicultural Academic Opportunities Program undergraduate scholars; (3) disseminating findings of the project beyond academia; and (4) broadening the diversity of scholars who are engaged in DEIJ research.
What does this translate to: Funding the racially segregated “flocks”—identity-based special interest meet-up groups—of bird professionals, per the half mil grant to Professor Shizuka at Nebraska and Professor Dayer at Virginia Tech. This very funding means the flights, coffee, and meals at the closed-door social meetings where plans to publicly vilify dead ornithologists are hatched are paid for by Uncle Sam himself.
The great cancelation of birds was funded by your tax dollars.
And what are these efforts at “training” and “disseminating” leadings towards, besides abolishing three centuries of ornithological memory and unjustly defaming many honorable men and women who worked to found the discipline of ornithology in the Anglophone academy? With $500,000 of government money that could address the homeless crisis, fund national security interests in the Middle East, or even—dare we say—fund actual scientific research? That involves actual birds?
Include Language in the Federal Spending Bill that Directs NSF to avoid wasting federal resources on ornithology research, unless the NSF Director certifies it is research vital to preventing imminent extinction loss
Considering how well ornithology and bird interests are privately funded, there is no reason to waste precious government resources on ornithology and those who use ornithology as cover for political propagandizing.
Considering how the BIO-LEAPS money has been allocated and spent—over five million federal dollars a year of “research money” dedicated to racially segregated social events for professors—the sound judgement of the Division of Biological Infrastructure (DBI) and the Directorate for Biological Sciences at large is quite doubtful. The DBI “envisions a robust and resilient national infrastructure that advances fundamental biological research to transform our future.” That seems to be code for: they don’t fund actual scientific research—they ‘invest in human resources,’ such as by politically radicalizing ornithologists. There seems to be a quite reasonable argument that the Division of Biological Infrastructure should be abolished.
Abolish the NSF Division of Biological Infrastructure—Fund actual research
--Direct the Department of Education to develop curricula on the history of natural history, especially ornithology, and review instructional resources on the history of scientific naming.
—Direct the Library of Congress to appoint an Ornithologist of Congress
The Ornithologist of Congress will compile an official list of the Traditional English Common Names for birds and keep the list updated as changes to scientific naming occurs; including the continuation of naming practices when new species are named for science using the conventional naming system. Allocate funds for public dissemination, education, and research related to the Official Traditional English Common Name Bird List, including grants for field guides that use the List.
If possible these costs will be adjusted for in the federal budget by the elimination of non-essential biological research by NSF or by adjusting budgets for conservation DEI across agencies.