Update on the Census, Reapportionment, and Redistricting

 

The first official Census took place in 1790 and was conducted under Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson; it was taken by U.S. marshals on horseback and counted approximately 3.6 million inhabitants.

The original legal purpose of the Census was to determine the number of seats each state gets in the House of Representatives. Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that an apportionment of representatives among the states must be carried out every ten years. Over the years, the amount of data collected has increased and we now also do the decennial census to

  • gain a better understanding of where people live and establish patterns of settlement, and
  • help determine the allocation of federal funds for community services, such as school lunch programs, and new construction, such as highways and hospitals.

As a result of the 2020 census, more than \$675 billion per year will be distributed to local, state and tribal governments for many purposes, including those just listed.

The Census is an expensive undertaking—estimates for the cost of administering the 2020 census are roughly \$15.6 billion, or about \$108 per U.S. housing unit.

The Census is also a big employer—the Bureau hired about 500,000 temporary workers across the country to help with the count. Historically, the Census was one of the first big employers for women.

What is (re)apportionment?

It is the process of (re)allocating the 435 House seats to the states.

Any method of apportionment for the House must consider three key variables:

  • the number of House seats;
  • the number of U.S. states;
  • the apportionment population (as reported by the Census Bureau) of each state.

The first congressional apportionment (in 1790) involved 15 states, and 105 House seats. To illustrate how we think about this—the population of Virginia was 630,560 at the time and the U.S. population was 3,615,920. Thus, one could say that the ideal number of seats for Virginia would be (630,560 ÷ 3,615,920) × 105 = 18.310. Of course, this is a problem, as the number of House seats must be an integer. Should we round up? Round down? An apportionment method will tell you how to do this rounding.[1]

The choice of method was not determined in the Constitution and so each decade a method had to be proposed in Congress and work through the legislative process. Following the first census, a bill was passed by both House and Senate and delivered to President George Washington for his signature into law; this bill included the proposal to adopt an apportionment method developed and supported by Alexander Hamilton. President Washington used the veto power to veto this bill, this was the very first presidential veto. Subsequently, a method developed by Jefferson was passed into law. It gave one more seat to Virginia (19) than did Hamilton’s (18). Virginia’s gain, incidentally, came paired with the loss of a seat to Delaware.

Several methods have been used throughout U.S. history, and other methods have been devised and debated by Congress but ultimately never adopted.

The Apportionment Act of 1941 fixed the method to be used—the Hill-Huntington method (also called Method of Equal Proportions)—as well as fixing the House size of 435 (with exceptions), at least until another law replaces this law. The map shows predictions for the change in seats from the 2020 Census, and the final numbers will be in effect for the 2024 and 2028 presidential elections.

Source: https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/esri-demographics/state-government/reapportionment-projections/

When the reapportioning algorithm is implemented, each state receives one Representative, as required by the Constitution, and the remaining seats are distributed using the Hill-Huntington method. Essentially, a ranked list is created that indicates which states will receive the 51st-435th House seats.

Biographical factets: Joseph Hill was the Chief statistician at the Census Bureau and mathematician Edward Huntington taught at Williams and Harvard and served as MAA president, AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) president, and AMS vice president!

And, on to redistricting…

One could say that the fun only begins AFTER reapportionment, as the redistricting process unfolds. Of course, there is a year’s worth of lectures possible on redistricting. I will limit myself to one short paragraph.

In listening to the January 29 edition of NPR’s “Politics with Amy Walter” conversation with Dave Wasserman, I learned that we are self-sorting geographically—in 1992, 38% of Americans lived in “landslide” districts and in 2020 it was 58%. Consistent with this, and as compared to 2011, there are more Republican trifecta states (now 23 versus 22 in 2011) and also more Democratic trifectas (now 15 versus 11 in 2011). This observation certainly implies we might see more partisan gerrymandering than last time. Many people—including many politicians—push for the redistricting process to be in the hands of commissions (as opposed to state legislatures). In the about-to-begin redistricting round, we have some states (including CO, MI, NY, OH, UT and VA) that have moved to commissions; some of these commissions are structured to be powerful, some less so. The strength in redistricting that a trifecta can bring is intertwined, of course, with who is in charge of redistricting in the state as well as with state laws and guidelines. All I can say is…….tighten your seatbelts.

The promised update on the Census

Oops, that turned into a lecture. I miss teaching.

My original goal when I sat down to write this was to provide an update on the status of the Census.

Census results are not all published at one time. This is what was supposed to happen:

Source: https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/the-2020-census

For a variety of reasons—including delays due to the COVID pandemic—the Census numbers for reapportionment that were expected in December of 2020 were not delivered on time. On January 28, 2021, the Census Bureau issued a statement announcing an April 30 delivery date.

In Congress, there are efforts to enforce the timeline. Senator Brian Schatz (HI), together with Alaska Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, will very soon (and depending on when you read this, maybe already has) reintroduce(d) the 2020 Census Deadline Extensions Act. This bipartisan bill reinforces the Census Bureau’s April 30 target date for the delivery of reapportionment data. The AMS has endorsed this bill.

Obviously, the March 31 date for redistricting data delivery will also not be met. The Census Bureau announced on February 12 that it will deliver the redistricting data to all states (and to the public) by September 30, 2021. According to that announcement, other support products that states will use during their redistricting process have already been delivered.

During the previous administration, work at the Census Bureau had become increasingly politicized. This eventually resulted in the resignation of its Director, Steven Dillingham, whose departure was applauded in the statistics community. During her confirmation hearing to become commerce secretary, Gina Raimondo stated her intention to depoliticize the Census, stating “The experts and statisticians at the Census Bureau are top notch, so I, once confirmed, intend to rely on them.”

One last thing: President Trump issued an executive order on June 21, 2020 that laid out a plan to violate the U.S. Constitution by excluding undocumented immigrants from the 2020 Census. And, on January 20, 2021, one of President Biden’s first executive orders overturned the Trump order.

And, finally, a very short note on why should mathematicians specifically care about all this?

Each step in the decennial three-step process—census, reapportionment, redistricting—involves mathematics and statistics; ensuring sound methodologies are used is important to the mathematical sciences community.

The Census uses sophisticated statistical methods and—for the first time—differential privacy to protect Census data. The American Statistical Association was founded in 1839 in part to support an accurate and reliable census. Data sets released by the Census Bureau, which is the nation’s largest statistical agency, are used by researchers across many fields and ensuring good quality data are released is also a priority for us.

Reapportionment is a fun math problem. You can find lots on the internet about the many apportionment methods. It is an important problem not only in apportionment of our Congress—countries that have legislatures elected via proportional representation use an apportionment method, an apportionment method must be used to calculate win/loss ratios for sports teams, and apportionment methods are used by insurance companies when two or more insurance policies are taken out on a property.

And, as most of you will know, there are mathematicians and statisticians around the country whose research focuses on redistricting and who have served the public by providing expertise to courts and line-drawers.

[1] For additional information, see Michael L. Balinski and H. Peyton Young, Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982)

Posted in Census, Redistricting | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The massive omnibus funding bill and what it means for the math community

 

As always, this post reflects only my own views.

This post is a bit late. In the days before Christmas, President Trump signed into law final appropriations of \$1.4 trillion for fiscal year 2021 (FY21). This includes roughly \$900 billion in pandemic-response funding. The House passed the bill with a vote of 359 to 53 and the Senate with a vote of 92 to 6. The 19 non-voting members were all Republican.

A very short overview of the annual appropriations process is found at the Office of Government Relations website (which now needs updating—the basic process and timeline are the same every year, but the numbers need updating).

In the pandemic relief, we were very much hoping to see provisions to address disruptions to research projects, which the Research Investment to Secure the Economy (RISE) Act had called for. Such provisions were not included. I understand that the RISE Act will likely be re-introduced soon.

Because the National Science Foundation provides more federal funding to mathematicians to pursue their research than any other federal agency, I point out that this huge appropriations package increases the NSF’s budget 2.5% to nearly \$8.5 billion. Once again, Congress did not accept President Trump’s proposal to cut the NSF budget (he had proposed a 6% decrease for FY21).

The American Mathematical Society had supported a request of \$9 billion for NSF in FY21,[1] seeking to address the effects of years of high-quality grant proposals that go unfunded due to limited funding. Those unmet needs continue. A 2019 National Science Board report stated that in FY18, “approximately \$3.4 billion was requested for declined proposals that were rated Very Good or higher in the merit review process.” The U.S. is leaving potentially transformative scientific research and efforts to enhance STEM education unfunded, while other countries are making significant investments.

With the final FY21 appropriations, NSF’s Research and Related Activities account—which funds six disciplinary research directorates—is increasing 2.6% to \$6.91 billion. One of these directorates is the Directorate for Physical and Mathematical Sciences (MPS), in which the Division of Mathematical Sciences (DMS) is housed. The Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) is funded separately (it is the only research directorate with its own funding line), and its budget is increasing 3% to \$968 million.

Congress does not specify how NSF should distribute funding across the six disciplinary research directorates (excluding EHR), and it remains to be seen how much of this money will go to MPS and then to DMS. However, Congress does provide instruction in an explanatory statement accompanying the bill.

From this statement, here are prioritization highlights of potential interest to you.

  • Included is a sizable increase in funding for quantum information science (QIS) including for National Quantum Information Science Research Centers.
  • There will be continuing increased focus on artificial intelligence (AI) research.
  • There is an increase—though a much smaller increase than to QIS and AI—in funding for NSF’s EPSCoR program, supporting projects in states that receive a low proportion of federal research funds.
  • Inside EHR, a number of programs that aim to boost minority participation at all levels—from high school through the professoriate (including NSF INCLUDES, which is popular in mathematics) are ensured stability.

This new bill comes about eight months after the \$2 trillion CARES Act. That law appropriated roughly \$14 billion to higher education, split evenly between money for students and for institutions. The new bill provides \$23 billion in general relief funds for higher education institutions. This does not come close to the \$120 billion requested by university associations. You are probably well aware that institutions of higher education are hurting. Fall undergraduate enrollments declined nationally 3.6%, from the fall of 2019. The most notable drop was among first-time freshmen, whose enrollment declined 13.1%. At two-year colleges, these numbers are 10.1% and 21%, respectively. While the \$23 billion is highly disappointing, here are some interesting positive pieces of news:

  • There are several changes to the Pell Grant program.
    • There is a new formula for Pell Grant eligibility. Students from families who earn up to 175% of the federal poverty line, or up to 225% for single parents, will automatically qualify for a maximum grant. Those who make up to 275% of the poverty line, or 325% for single parents, are guaranteed at least the minimum award.
    • The maximum size of Pell Grants is increased to \$6,495, reflecting an inflationary \$150 increase.
    • “Second-chance Pell” grants are being reinstituted, reversing a quarter-century ban on Pell grants for incarcerated individuals.
  • FAFSA will be cut from more than 100 to 36 questions (parents of high schoolers take note!).
  • \$1.7 billion of the \$23 billion is reserved for minority-serving institutions (and about \$1 billion for for-profit colleges).

Looking ahead

We continue to push for pandemic relief funding for the NSF (such as via the RISE Act, mentioned above), to fund science immediately useful to addressing challenges raised by the pandemic, and also to mitigate disruptions to science and to STEM students’ and researchers’ personal professional trajectories.

As mentioned, Congress does not dictate how the NSF divides up its FY21 appropriations amongst the various science fields. Pretty soon we should know how much every division is to receive, including DMS.

President Biden will issue his first budget request this spring (March? April?) for FY22. The AMS is working with CNSF to determine our target for NSF appropriations in FY22; this amount should be known within the next few weeks. There are two reasons why I am hopeful for a more significant increase to NSF funding in the next years. First is that Senate Leader Schumer has indicated interest in his Endless Frontier Act (see my June 9 and June 18 posts in this blog). Second, the budget caps put in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011 have now expired.

 

[1] This amount is as determined by the Coalition for National Science Funding, the Steering Committee of which I sit on. CNSF bases its request on a recommendation included in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Restoring the Foundation report: that to secure America’s leadership in science and engineering and to ensure a growing economy, federal science agencies should be funded at an annual increasing rate of 4% real growth – that is, 4% plus inflation.

 

Posted in Appropriations, Congress, NSF | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

It’s a new day in Washington—demographics of the new members of Congress & some early legislation to help science

 

JMM is over, back to politics and policy watching!

The first day of JMM was a horrific one in Washington, DC. It is shocking and disgraceful, but arguably not surprising that events unfolded as they did. The double standard of police treatment of these “protesters” as compared to the treatment of protesting Black Americans is despicable. Our President incited this violence, and I am counting down the days until he is out of the White House. [These views are my own.]

It will not have escaped you that politics in 2021 will be different than in 2020. We already have a new Congress in place—the 117th Congress began work on January 3. We will have a new President on January 20.

Several bills that would improve the profession for mathematicians—either very directly or in less direct ways—were introduced during the first week of the new Congress. These include a package from the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Chair Eddie Bernice Johnson and Ranking Member Frank Lucas:

The Supporting Early-Career Researchers Act addresses the immediate need to help early career scientists bridge the gap that exists due to greatly reduced hiring being done by universities and colleges. It creates a new postdoctoral fellowship program at the National Science Foundation to help support early career researchers whose employment opportunities have been impacted by the COVID-19 health crisis. The goal of this fellowship program would be to prevent the loss of research talent due to job market disruptions caused by any economic decline during and after the pandemic. We hope to garner support for this bill—you can reach out to your representative (10-30 seconds is all it takes) and ask them to support this bill, so important to the math community: https://www.ams.org/government/getinvolved-dc#/

The STEM Opportunities Act will support policy reforms, research, and data collection to identify and lower barriers facing women, minorities, and other groups underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) studies and research careers. This bill, if it were to become law, would help us broaden participation in the scientific workforce (which, of course, includes PhD mathematicians).

The Rural STEM Education Research Act addresses inequities faced by rural students that make it harder to access quality STEM education. These are driven by a wide variety of challenges, including shortages of science and math teachers, high teacher turnover, and difficulty in accessing computer-based learning technology. This would help prepare more rural students for college and thus, again, help broaden participation in the scientific workforce.

Now what about newly elected members of Congress? How are the demographics different than last year? Are there any new members with science backgrounds?

[Note: the numbers below reflect Senator Padilla replacing Senator Harris when she is sworn in as Vice President on January 20, but do not take into account the outcome of the January election for the two Georgia Senate seats. The Georgia election outcome changes the balance of women and Blacks in Congress. As of this writing, Kelly Loeffler is still in the senate and the numbers below reflect this. There may be other changes, too, that come about as a result of President Biden appointments and nominations.]

Women: As of this count, there are now 143 women in Congress, the largest number ever.

In the House, 27 of the 60 incoming new members are women. There are now 118 women in the House; 89 are Democrats and 29 Republicans. Of the freshwomen, 9 are Democrats and 18 are Republican. Republicans more than doubled their ranks; they had 13 last term.

In the Senate, there are a total 25 women—and only one new female senator, Cynthia Lummis who also happens to be the first female senator from Wyoming. With Kamala Harris leaving the Senate, there remain four states with two female senators—MN, NH, NV, WA.

Blacks: There are now 61 Blacks in Congress, the largest number ever.

Eight (6 Democrats, 2 Republicans) of the newly elected House members are Black and, together with the 50 re-elected Black members (50 Democrats, 0 Republicans), we have a total of 58 Blacks serving in the House. In the Senate, there are no newly elected Black members but there is one (a Democrat) who has been re-elected, and two that remain (one from each party, and were not up for re-election).

Latinos: There are now 44 Latinos in Congress, the largest number ever.

Six (2 Democrats, 4 Republicans) of the newly elected House members are Latino and, together with the 33 re-elected Latino members (28 Democrats, 5 Republicans), we have a total of 39 Latinos serving in the House. In the Senate, there is one newly elected Latino member (Democrat), and four that remain (two from each party, and were not up for re-election).

LGBTQ: There are now 11 LGBTQ members in Congress, the largest number ever.

Two (both Democrats) of the newly elected House members are LGBTQ and, together with the 7 re-elected LGBTQ members (all Democrats), we have a total of 9 LGBTQs serving in the House. In the Senate, there will remain 2 LGBTQ senators (both Democrats); neither was up for re-election.

What about science backgrounds? This is always a bit tricky to discern; it is hard to know who to count. Many scientists are very excited to have astronaut Mark Kelly (AZ) join the Senate; he has a bachelor’s degree in marine engineering and a master’s in aeronautical engineering. Other new senators with scientific training include:

  • John Hickenlooper (CO) who has a master’s degree in geology,
  • Alex Padilla (CA) who majored in mechanical engineering at MIT (note that his plan to become an aerospace engineer was derailed by the anti-immigrant politics of the 1990s),
  • Roger Marshall (KS) who studied biochemistry as an undergrad and is an MD, and
  • Cynthia Lummis (WY) who has two bachelor’s degrees–in biology and in animal science.

New House members with undergraduate degrees in science fields include

  • Barry Moore (AL 2) who studied agricultural sciences,
  • Scott Franklin (FL 15) who studied oceanography,
  • Nikema Williams (GA 5), who studied biology, and
  • Burgess Owens (UT 4), who studied biology and chemistry [Note: if you recognize his name for some reason that you cannot quite put your finger on it is perhaps, like me, you are a football fan. He played for both the Jets and the Raiders.]

Additionally, Jay Obernolte (CA 8) has a Master of Science in artificial intelligence.

Happy 2021! Let’s all hope for efficient and complete vaccine rollout, and peace in our streets.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What does the AMS DC Office have planned for JMM 2021?

 

The AMS has physical presence in four locations. Our headquarters are in Providence, RI and the print shop is in nearby Pawtucket. MathSciNet operations are in Ann Arbor, MI. The smallest office is the Washington, DC location. Two AMS departments call DC home—Government Relations and Education. Each year at JMM, the DC-based staff organize and run events. In 2021, we have our “usual” events, plus two special events.

Special (very special!) this year is “Envisioning the Future of NSF: A Guided Discussion with MPS and EHR Heads,” which will take place Friday, January 8, 4:30 pm — 6:00 pm [note that all times are MST]. Please join us in welcoming Dr. Sean Jones and Dr. Karen Marrongelle, the National Science Foundation’s heads of the Directorates for Mathematical & Physical Sciences (MPS) and Education & Human Resources (EHR). Dr. Jones, a materials scientist, began his service at NSF in 2009 as a program officer, and has been serving as Assistant Director of NSF/MPS since September 2020. MPS supports fundamental research in astronomy, chemistry, physics, materials science and mathematics. Dr. Marrongelle holds a PhD in mathematics education and joined NSF/EHR in October 2018. EHR supports STEM education at all levels. I will facilitate the conversation about Dr. Jones’s vision for the Division of Mathematical Sciences, Dr. Marrongelle’s vision for mathematics work in EHR, and their joint views on how the mathematical sciences fit with larger programs at the NSF.

Also special in 2021, we invite you to join AMS leaders for a community update on our equity, diversity, and inclusion efforts on Friday, January 8, 9:00 – 10:00 am. In 2020, the AMS Council established a new policy committee on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. The AMS participated in #ShutDownSTEM, where we paused our daily work in support of the Black community, recognizing that our mathematics community must play a role in nationwide efforts seeking fundamental change. The AMS Council, speaking on behalf of the AMS, issued a Statement of Support for and Solidarity with the Black Community and established a Task Force on Understanding and Documenting the Historic Role of the AMS in Racial Discrimination. This takes place Friday, January 8, 9:00 am – 10:00 am.

The events below run every year:

The AMS Committee on Science Policy will host a panel discussion titled Mathematics and Sciencethe view of a pandemic through a science policy lens” on Friday, January 8, 2:30 pm – 4:00 pm. Suzanne Weekes, SIAM and Worcester Polytechnic Institute will serve as moderator. Panelists are:
Margaret Callahan, U.S. Department of State
Edgar Fuller, Florida International University
Sara Del Valle, Los Alamos National Laboratories
Erin Heath, American Association for the Advancement of Science

The AMS Committee on Education will host a panel discussion titled “What do students need in the time of pandemic?” Thursday, January 7, 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm. Katherine Stevenson, California State University Northridge will serve as moderator. Panelists are:
Viveka Brown, Spelman College
Tasha Inniss, Spelman College
Pamela Harris of Williams College will facilitate a panel of students to reflect on these issues.

We usually also run a session where you can learn about the AMS Congressional Fellowship, as well as our two other DC-based fellowship opportunities (Mass Media and CASE). This year, we are not running this but instead I will hold “office hours” Thursday, January 7, 4:00 – 4:30 pm and Saturday, January 9, 11:00 – 11:30 am. Applications are now being accepted for the Congressional Fellowship, and you can drop by and talk to me about this great opportunity to spend a year working on the staff of a Member of Congress or a congressional committee, as a legislative assistant in legislative and policy areas requiring scientific and technical input. If you cannot drop by during those times, email me and we can set up a time to talk: kxs@ams.org

You can find full information about each event at the 2021 Joint Mathematics Meetings website.

 

 

 

Posted in JMM | Leave a comment

Where will you spend the AY 2021-22?

 

This time of year is a time when many of you will be making plans for the next academic year, or helping your postdocs find their next position. The AMS Congressional Fellowship can be a “postdoctoral” experience, or can be an option for an unpaid leave or sabbatical year for faculty members at any career stage. Retired faculty are also welcome to apply. I wrote about the Fellowship on October 14, and point you to that post again.

Right after I posted that piece, the Trump administration moved to restrict student visas, and make it harder for universities to hire faculty members who are not US citizens. These actions caused me to post two other pieces in quick succession (on Oct 16 and Nov 4). Many responded to the calls to action in those; thank you.

Let’s hope that 2021 brings a successful transition of power between Presidents and a vaccine available and distributed to all.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

In order to prevent an exodus of international PhD students, we must stand together

 

Editor’s Note: Andy Hardt and Mahrud Sayrafi–the authors of this post–are PhD students at the University of Minnesota. Andy is in his fifth year of graduate school, and working on his thesis research with Ben Brubaker. Mahrud is in his third year, preparing for his candidacy exam with Christine Berkesch. In response to the “duration of stay” rule discussed in this article, they were part of a group of graduate students who wrote a letter to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, signed by 61 graduate students, 9 postdocs, 42 faculty, and 9 alumni. I am very grateful for their interest and coordinating efforts to reach out to public decision-makers. This contribution is a great follow-up to my October 16 post.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has recently proposed policy changes that will “remove the duration of status framework that currently allows [non-immigrants] in F, J and I classifications to remain in the United States for as long as they maintain compliance with the terms of admission.” This proposal, by laying a myriad of potential pitfalls for international students hoping to study in the US, creates genuine barriers and also effectively sends the signal that they are not welcome here. We reject this.

For many of us, a personal joy in studying mathematics is the access to human connections that defy distance. Regardless of gender, race, or faith, the knowledge we pursue brings us together across continents, and we endeavor to share this knowledge freely and openly because a language never spoken aloud is eventually forgotten. Even more, it is not uncommon for a work of mathematics to contain ideas that originate across centuries and millennia, reminding us that these ideas have transcended politics and conflict to become a part of the human experience.

Therefore, not only for practical reasons, but also as a matter of principle, we must maintain a unified voice against all attempts to limit who can study in the United States.

As graduate students in mathematics, we will focus this post on the harm inflicted on current and future international PhD students. However, many problems discussed here apply to undergraduates, post-doctoral researchers, and others as well.

The policy change would have clear effects on PhD students. The current duration of status framework is designed to allow students to complete their degrees while designated university officials certify that they are in compliance with visa requirements. Instead, the DHS plans to limit visas to a fixed four-year period, with further nationality-based restrictions that will be discussed later. What this means is that–barring an unspecified, potentially onerous re-application procedure which may be rejected purely at the discretion of the DHS–international graduate students must complete their degrees in four years or less.

Most PhD programs are set up to take either five or six years, and the average mathematics PhD student takes just under six years to graduate. Many students take seven or more years, and quite often come out with a stronger thesis for it. This flexibility allows PhD students to spend time searching for the right field in their early years, broadening their interests outside their main area, and considering their thesis area with the slow depth that is necessary for true problem solving. In other words, the existing timeline is set up for doing mathematics, and is essential to the deep, deliberate thinking that leads to real breakthroughs. During their graduate school years, most students are responsible for teaching–some carrying a high teaching load–and might even be involved in department service. In fact, many mathematics departments depend heavily on their PhD students to teach their lower level undergraduate classes.

If this rule is implemented, it will likely have a chilling effect on the number of PhDs earned in the US by international students, who make up roughly half of the total mathematics PhDs given out by US universities. The additional bureaucratic burden will likely force smaller departments to reduce admission offers to students who they know may not have the chance to graduate in four years or whom they know they can’t treat equitably, while top students will opt for universities in Canada, Australia, Europe, or elsewhere.

For an indicative example, consider Fields Medalists–28 Fields Medalists out of 60 were affiliated with a US university when they received their award. However, only 14 Medalists were US citizens. This discrepancy is not surprising to anyone in the mathematics community, as the US attracts vast numbers of top researchers from other countries. In fact, this trend starts in the graduate schools: 20 of the 60 recipients got their PhDs from American universities, and almost all were still at US institutions when they received the Fields Medal.

Beyond just the top researchers, international students have a large, positive impact on our economy. According to a report by the Association of International Educators (NAFSA), international students contributed over $40 billion and almost half a million jobs during the 2018-19 school year. In addition, according to the 2019 Open Doors report, more than three fifths of international undergraduates receive the majority of their funding from non-US sources. Many universities rely on this funding to fill in gaps left by state and federal funding. For their part, international graduate students contribute to the economy either via international sources of funding or via the teaching and department service they do.

In other words, our educational system benefits from the skills of international researchers and workers. Indeed, even those not sympathetic to the plight of international students should oppose the policy change for its effects on the economy. Higher education is an important area where the US has a strong track record: we must ensure that the best science is done in the US, the best scientists come to the US, and the US economy has direct access to these researchers and their work. Sabotaging this competitive advantage will hurt everyone.

Furthermore, while taking over the responsibility of universities in monitoring and reporting changes of status by the students, the DHS has targeted certain countries for shorter maximum visas, up to only two years. This would virtually eliminate the possibility of pursuing a PhD degree, and potentially even some Master’s degrees, for students from these countries. This restricted list is comprised of countries associated with “high visa overstay rates” and those on “the State Sponsors of Terrorism” list. For reference, this rule would have prevented the first and only female Fields Medalist Maryam Mirzakhani, who was born in Iran, from completing her PhD at Harvard University in 2004.

The DHS claims concern for a “potential for increased risk to national security” posed by international students. International students do not, by virtue of their citizenship or immigration status, pose a national security risk, and we must be clear that such a statement has no basis in reality and should not be normalized.

Regardless of the declared motivations, the restricted countries are almost uniformly developing countries in Africa and Asia with few students currently studying in the US, resulting in a policy that discriminates on the basis of national origin. In reality, overstay rates of students have been decreasing since 2016 and reached 1.52% in 2019, according to annual reports from the DHS. Moreover, by disproportionately affecting international students born in the listed countries regardless of their country of citizenship, this rule sends a message to those already studying in the US that we do not want or value their contribution because of their ethnicity.

In our view, this policy does not serve the interests of the US. For those familiar with the history of mathematics, it might even be reminiscent of the fall of Göttingen. When asked whether mathematics at the University of Göttingen had suffered from the exclusion of Jewish mathematicians, David Hilbert responded: “Suffered? It hasn’t suffered, Mr. Minister. It doesn’t exist anymore!” Indeed, many mathematics departments across the US flourished after welcoming mathematicians fleeing Europe during this time.

Mathematics is done by humans; therefore, we need to tend to our humanity. This policy is needlessly exclusionary, and will harm our departments and communities. We hope you agree with us that it must not stand.

What you can do to help:

  • Call your state attorney general and ask them to file or join a lawsuit against the policy change.
  • Talk to your colleagues, and ask them to do the above as well.
  • Put pressure on your university to come out against the change.
  • Reach out to your international postdocs, graduate students, and math majors, and help them get the resources and support they need.
  • Read this post on Capital Currents.

 

Posted in Graduate students, Immigration | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Urgent Action Needed on New Immigration Rules

 

October 19 update: Thank you all for your interest. I received emails over the weekend from students, voicing concern and asking for further information about your own situation in light of the “duration of stay” proposed changes. First, this “proposed rule” is not in effect yet and it is unclear when and if it will be implemented. Legal action to stop this implementation is in process, and it is possible that the rule will be stopped. If it is implemented, it will certainly harm universities and affect international students. Second, your university will have an “International office” (or some title like that). I suggest you reach out to your own international office for guidance about your particular situation. If you cannot find yours on the university website, ask your Department Chair or Graduate Director.

There are new immigration regulations recently published by the Trump administration that will harm the mathematics community. Here are short overviews of each:

  • The Department of Labor (DOL) has published an Interim Final Rule for High-Skilled Wages, with comments due November 9; this went into effect October 8 prior to considering and responding to public comments. This will affect H1-B visas, and make it more difficult for highly-skilled foreign workers with college degrees to acquire visas. International math post-docs often are employed with H1-B visas, and many international faculty members join their university with an H1-B visa. Salaries will have to be raised significantly, and Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, the acting deputy secretary of homeland security, said he expected the changes to cut by one-third the number of petitions filed annually for the coveted visas. The new required minimum wages may not be tenable for institutions of higher education. The rule may also result in US employers being positioned to pay foreign-born professionals more than their similarly employed American colleagues.
  • On September 25, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making concerning the period of stay for foreign students and scholars in the F and J non-immigrant categories, with comments due October 26.  The rule will go into effect after the agency considers public comments. The new rule will eliminate the longstanding policy that allows students and scholars to remain in the US for “duration of status.” Under the proposed rule, “F or J nonimmigrants would be admitted into the United States for a period … not to exceed four years.” A typical mathematics PhD takes 5-6 years to complete. In addition, the duration of stay will be only two years for those from countries with visa-overstay rates greater than 10% and those non-US citizens either born in or holding citizenship of a country on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. Many of these countries are in Asia and Africa. The American Immigration Council has posted a very nice summary, which includes a list of these countries.

 What can you do?

 

1.      Give official comments, either by yourself, or with a group of fellow students or faculty.

a.      Feedback for DOL about the wage rule should be given here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/08/2020-22132/strengthening-wage-protections-for-the-temporary-and-permanent-employment-of-certain-aliens-in-the. Over 1000 comments have already been submitted.

b.      Feedback for DHS about the “duration of stay” rule should be given here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/25/2020-20845/establishing-a-fixed-time-period-of-admission-and-an-extension-of-stay-procedure-for-nonimmigrant. Over 21,000 comments have already been submitted. But, please, don’t think this means yours is not needed! If you choose to do this, I found these eight pages of instructions, sample text and talking points useful (a tad hard to navigate but, in the end, good language and advice); it was produced by the President’s Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration and NAFSA. You might jump to “Guidance on Creating your Comment Letter” which begins at bottom of page 2. The “Talking Points might also prove useful; they appear pages 4-8.

2.      Tweet or otherwise share about these rules in social media, in whatever ways you are active.

 

3.      Write to DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf, using this link. This link was set up by the American Physical Society, and we are welcome to use it. It allows you to customize and document how the rule will be harmful to science, the impact on you or someone you know, and how international students have been an asset to the US. Specifically, the link provides a prompt to enter your information (name and email) and then just three questions about the impacts of this rule and the importance of international students. Once you answer the questions, the software turns your answers into the body of your comment. You’ll then see a complete message, your answers bookended with a stock intro and conclusion, which you can edit before sending. Please note that this link is live, so only press send if you want to submit the comment.

 

Thank you for you interest, and for taking action to support our international students and colleagues.

Posted in Advocacy, Graduate students, Grassroots Leaders, Immigration | Tagged , | 3 Comments

What are your plans for the academic year 2021-22?

 

On the job market? On sabbatical next year? Looking for a new direction to go with your math background?

If you haven’t considered applying for the AMS Congressional Fellowship, I am going to try to convince you to consider it. The application portal is open until February 1. Feel free to write to me for more information and with questions (kxs@ams.org).

Your mathematical knowledge about how a disease outbreak might spread through a population, or about how a transportation grid might be made more efficient, or about what artificial intelligence can or cannot do, are just a few examples that could help shape legislation. Outside of direct mathematical knowledge, legislation is drafted regularly about college access and affordability, and broadening participation in science. As you might expect, this summer we have seen expanded interest in the latter, and we should soon see a legislatively-mandated report on racism in science.

The September 1 blog post was written by the 2019-2020 AMS Congressional Fellow Lucia Simonelli. Lucia worked on Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s climate team and is now Senior Policy Fellow at Carbon180. Our 2018-2019 fellow was James Ricci, who subsequently served a second year at the Department of Energy, in the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research. The 2017-2018 fellow was Margaret Callahan who now works at the Department of State as part of Advanced Analytics team in the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations conducting qualitative and quantitative research and analysis of global conflict issues to advise policymakers. Margaret was one of several mathematicians who served as fellows her year; I wrote an article about all of them and their placements which, if you are interested in this fellowship, I suggest you read. The complete list of all AMS Congressional Fellows is found on our website.

The fellowship is a fantastic opportunity, for mathematicians at any stage of career. For mathematicians who have been an academic for a while, it can engage you in a new way, provide you with a way to “give back” through public service, and prepare you to run for public office. It can provide you a way to help move Congress to understand the scientific enterprise and the needs and aspirations of those of us who work in higher education; enrich your teaching; and bring you to a new level as a leader in the academy. For earlier career mathematicians, the experience can also be transformative, and lead to a career path outside of academia. This might sound like a call for you to leave academia; please don’t misread my intention! I love higher education and loved working as a professor and department chair but fully understand that not all PhDs in mathematics do in fact want to travel that career trajectory. Plus, I am in a position to understand what *you* can bring to the government, and why *they* appreciate our help in building policy and writing legislation.

The AMS Congressional Fellowship is just one of many that mathematicians can apply for, to spend time working in the federal government. A recent article by Jennifer Pearl and Ali Nouri in Inside Higher Ed describes more of these. Jennifer and Ali were both fellows and have both spent their careers in government and working with scientific professional societies. Jennifer, a mathematician, served in the Executive Branch, at the National Science Foundation. Physicist Ali did his fellowship in the Senate. I know both of them, and had the privilege to work with Ali when I was the AMS Congressional Fellow, in Senator Al Franken’s office. As is so typical of the (very large) fellows’ cohort, both of them are smart and interesting people, with fun side interests and projects. Watch a few of Ali’s Above the Fray videos, to get an idea of the kind of way he is bringing science to a broad audience.

The fellowship year begins with an extraordinary orientation period. This is filled with presentations about how Congress works, the history of various science policy-making bodies, and networking sessions. Every single fellow I have ever talked to agrees that what is so striking about the fellows is that—like Jennifer and Ali—each person is incredibly bright and interesting and articulate. One thing that differentiates this group of scientists from others is the earnest enthusiasm for bringing scientific expertise to non-experts, and trying to use scientific expertise to improve our nation. The AMS fellow joins a much larger group of fellows, many of whom hold powerful positions in the federal government and across the country in state governments and on university campuses; this network of over 3400 mathematicians and scientists is, truly, amazing to be a part of.

Fellowship applications can be made through February 1, 2021. For more information and to apply, go to the webpage. For additional information, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me at kxs@ams.org.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

COVID & Racism, their effects on the university scientific enterprise and what Congress is doing (or not doing) about them

 

What a summer we have had.

The killing of George Floyd and others has sparked renewed outrage over systemic racism in our country. Protests and demonstrations across the nation are calling for real change.

The pandemic continues unabated at a cost to the health and livelihoods of millions of Americans and the loss of life for far too many.

The repercussions of these things are being felt deeply in the scientific community. How do early-career mathematicians make the research connections they need without being able to travel to conferences? How are we to sustain our nation’s research infrastructure when university labs have been shuttered? How can scientific evidence be used to address societal racism? How can we address racism within the scientific community?

I know many of you have been working on these issues all summer. And, many of you have been leading change, and the charge for change to dismantle racism in the math community for a very long time.

My goal here is to describe some actions Congressional members have taken over the summer to address racism and research relief for strained universities.

With COVID research relief, I am not talking about developing vaccines, or studying the transmission of the disease, or the designing and manufacturing of PPE. Rather, I am talking about how research done on university campuses—more broadly—has been delayed or disrupted by the pandemic and how Congress is thinking about helping out university scientists and science students as we rebuild the university scientific infrastructure through the pandemic and—looking to the future—when it subsides.

Here are a few examples:

  • Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chair of the House Committee on Space, Science and Technology, has called for a study of “the influence of systemic racism in academia on the careers of individuals belonging to racial and ethnic groups historically underrepresented in the scientific, technical, and medical workforce.” The AMS is one of over 70 societies that has supported this request.
  • She also introduced the Supporting Early-Career Researchers Act (HR 8044) which would help bridge the gap for recent PhDs, in an effort to keep them in the STEM workforce pipeline. This is a narrowly aimed bipartisan effort, requesting \$250 million of support for the NSF to “forestall the loss of research talent by establishing a temporary earlycareer research fellowship program.” Along with many other societies and universities, the AMS has endorsed this bill. At a much larger scale, to help all science rebound, there is
  • The RISE Act (HR 7308, S 4286), which is aimed at repairing the damage done to the research infrastructure and to researchers on university campuses. This bill has been introduced in both House and Senate and has bipartisan support. The AMS offers you the opportunity to ask your own members of Congress to support this bill. The request is for \$26 billion in emergency relief funding to be given to various science-funding agencies, including \$3 billion for the NSF. Funds that could, for example, be used to enable graduate students, post-doctoral researchers, and Principal Investigators to complete work that was disrupted by the pandemic.
  • The House Science Committee held a hearing on “The Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on University Research” , on September 9, focusing on the RISE Act. Committee members heard from scientists at Carnegie Mellon University, Purdue University, Oakland University and the University of Illinois system about how universities are approaching challenges to existing research and also for recruiting and nurturing students so that they begin and then stay the course pursuing their dreams of becoming scientists. The witnesses shared what the fall semester is looking like so far on their campuses. In her opening statement, Representative Haley Stevens noted “The impacts to our wider STEM pipeline could be devastating. Undergraduate students are missing out on critical hands-on training. Graduate students are worried there won’t be funding for them to finish their research projects and graduate. Post-docs and other early-career researchers are desperately searching for jobs in a severely contracted academic job market. Early data indicate that the impacts of these challenges are more pronounced for women and other groups historically underrepresented in STEM.” In his opening statement, graduate student Ryan Muzzio gave terrific and brave testimony. He spoke about the importance of traveling to perform research and network with colleagues and how disruptions to this have damaged progress toward his career goals; the “linchpin” role of graduate students in the education system; his concerns about his international fellow students and their situation; his own experiences as a black male student; and his concerns about job prospects. It was important to hear his perspective and I much appreciate the committee’s effort to include student voices.
  • The Promoting Fair and Effective Policing Through Research Act (HR 7252)—supported thus far only by Democrats—legislates that science would be used to inform policing reforms. It “directs the National Science Foundation to fund social and behavioral research on policing policies, including the causes, consequences, and mitigation of police violence, supports collaborative partnerships between social science researchers, law enforcement agencies, and civil society organizations; …..The bill also directs NIST to expand its biometric identification research and standards activities, with a focus on identifying and minimizing biases in such systems.”

The very wide range of challenges brought on by COVID has become the top concern for universities over the past six months. Before that, foreign ties and the current administration’s policy changes and investigations were the top issue; this remains a central concern for university research Vice Presidents. I have written about what the AMS (together with sister math societies) are doing to support our international students and colleagues, and also about balancing openness in science with security. I am really pleased that over 1500 letters have been sent to Congress using the AMS Take Action center through the link provided in my May 13 post on the President’s proclamation suspending the entry of immigrants to the US (this is no longer an active opportunity at our Take Action center). Alarming news continues to surface on this issue, such as described in this recent Chronicle article.

What else is going on in Congress vis-à-vis relevant to mathematics?

  • The RISE Act is proposed authorization legislation; Congress is also working on appropriations for research relief. This includes the CARES Act, which was made law in late March, and the now-introduced HEALS and HEROES Congress is also working on “the normal appropriations process” – an article about this process appeared in the September Notices (the “Washington Update”). Updates are regularly provided by Matt Hourihan, the director of the R&D Budget and Policy Program for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). At this stage, it is very difficult to imagine that Congress will do anything on appropriations other than to put in place a Continuing Resolution, which would likely run through the beginning of December. Congress must act on appropriations by October 1 to avoid a government shutdown and a CR would avoid a shutdown.
  • The NSF is undergoing its periodic re-authorization. Authorizing laws do not fund the NSF but instead set broad policies for the operation of the agency. What sort of broad guidance is this? NSF authorizations in recent years have, for example, requested the NSF support graduate students. There have been other bills introduced in Congress that are related to this re-authorization, including the Endless Frontier Act (described in posts in this blog on June 9 and 18).

I hope you are all off to decent academic years and that your students are living up to the challenges.

And, every time I get the opportunity to remind you……remember to VOTE on NOVEMBER 3!

If you do not know how, where or when to vote, have a look at this handy Washington Post resource. Your state’s Secretary of State website will likely provide full information about your ballot and how to vote in your locality. Information can be found here.

You can read the Trump administration’s latest priorities for scientific research and development in their annual memo release on August 14.

You can read about Biden’s research and development agenda here.

Posted in Congress, Federal support for science, National Science Foundation | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Our First Branch of Government Needs Science Too

 

Editor’s Note: Lucia Simonelli just completed her year as the AMS Congressional Fellow. She served in the office of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, and focused her work there on his climate agenda. She received her Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Maryland-College Park and, prior to her year in Congress, had been a postdoctoral fellow in the mathematics section at the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste, Italy.  Lucia is now a Senior Policy Fellow at Carbon180.

When we think of science expertise in government we often think of the NSF, NIH, CDC, or even national laboratories. We are reasonably aware of the structure, function, funding, reputation, and even scrutiny of many of these executive branch entities. However, we hear much less about the status of the scientific, technical, and medical expertise available to Congress, and consequently, these resources have been especially vulnerable to cuts and dissolution.

I begin with some historical context. Twenty-five years ago, Congress was a rather different place. There were significantly more Congressional staff, especially in committees. There were also substantially more staff serving in the Congressional support agencies; these support agencies are essential to the health and function of the legislative branch as they provide neutral, confidential, and credible resources to Congressional members and staff. Congress even had its own “think tank” called the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) with a mission and capacity to anticipate the scientific, technological, and medical issues that would eventually necessitate policy action.

During this time, circa 1995, under the guise of an initiative called “Contract with America,” Congress was stripped of many of these vital resources. Staff was cut, and the OTA was entirely defunded. Targeting the OTA specifically was political. It was the smallest of the Congressional support agencies, so it was the easiest to eliminate (the budget of the OTA was less than 1% of the legislative branch budget).  It was a very powerful symbol to cite the elimination of an entire agency.  In addition, particular results of the OTA’s thorough and comprehensive assessments were perceived to be at odds with certain political agendas.

It is difficult enough for Congress to come together and effectively act in the wake of a crisis – take for example the turbulence of the past few months. But what has become painstakingly clear is that in the context of certain crises, reactionary politics are not adequate; we must be well-positioned to act before.  And currently, Congress is not equipped with adequate resources to craft the forward-thinking policies that many issues do and will require.

One of the primary functions of the OTA was to craft “horizon scanning” reports which included the most cutting-edge findings available, compiled in a form readily utilizable by Congress. In addition, while not ever making policy recommendations, these reports provided comprehensive analyses of the policy options and the implications of these options through a transparent process open even to stakeholders. These public and peer-reviewed reports laid the foundation for many key pieces of legislation and remain highly regarded among experts in various technical fields. Princeton University has preserved an archive of these reports.

Imagine if Congress had these thorough, bipartisan resources for pandemics on hand a few months ago – there would certainly have been a report, if not multiple reports, on pandemics and pandemic responses after the outbreaks of Ebola, SARS, Zika, etc. The reality is that we are facing an increasing number of issues that can only be dealt with successfully by anticipation, not reaction: climate change, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and quantum computing, to name a few.

In addition, OTA was Congress’s trusted intermediary, taking information, restricting it to fact-based arguments, and presenting it accordingly. The staff at OTA, and the network of experts created through the production of each report, served as invaluable, nonpartisan, consultative resources to Congress. OTA staff was often integrated directly with Congressional staff, and they were available to serve as in-house experts.

The vacuum of expertise left by defunding the OTA and cutting staff and capacities of other agencies, specifically in science, technology and medicine, has forced Congress to obtain its information externally. Increasingly, Congress has relied on outside stakeholders for expert advice and information. While stakeholders’ perspectives are invaluable, special interest and bias inevitably accompany these sources. Congress also now heavily relies on executive branch agencies – the very agencies for which Congress is tasked to provide oversight.  Consequently, cuts to the legislative branch have not made government smaller or less powerful, they have instead disproportionately allocated power.

“Failing to augment Congress’ technological expertise also ensures the preferences of executive branch agencies and private interests hold the greatest sway in technology policy decisions, to the detriment of the public interest. To address this, Congress needs to bring back its nerds.”[1]

There is a glimmer of hope as momentum grows to increase science and technology resources for Congress. Bipartisan bills have been introduced in both the House and Senate to revive a modernized version of the OTA, accompanied by appropriations requests from a growing cast of Members to refund the OTA and to increase science and technology capacity in currently operating agencies, e.g., the creation of the Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics (STAA) team within the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Andrew Yang even included reviving the OTA as part of his 2020 presidential campaign platform.

Various fellowship and rotator programs have been developed to place experts from academia, industry, or executive branch entities in Congress. Examples include the AMS Congressional Fellowship and the TechCongress Fellowship.

While it is vital to advocate for increased and continued support for science in the executive branch, it is essential that we also push for Congress, the first branch of government, to have the expertise necessary to properly and effectively carry out its constitutional functions.

 

[1] Zach Graves, Kevin Kosar: Bring Back the Nerds: Reviving the Office of Technology Assessment (R Street) http://2o9ub0417chl2lg6m43em6psi2i.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final-128.pdf

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment