Comment from Christine Nattrass

[200.300, 200.218] To Whom it May Concern: I am a nuclear physics professor at the University of Tennessee. I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.300 and 200.218 that would impede STEM recruitment and retention initiatives and restrict certain research fields vital to broadening participation in STEM. I have worked extensively on combating harassment in nuclear physics, particularly serial harassers. Why should a dirty old man be able to chase and taunt generations of women, asking them if they have fertility problems at a conference or asking them to dance on the table for them? I have worked on establishing minimum standards for professional conduct and creating a pathway to address conflicts before they become career-ending - for either party. I have worked on developing course-based undergraduate research experiences to soften the transition to professional science and help grow the workforce. I have worked on training scientists in effective mentoring so that we retain and develop a workforce effectively. I have been active in the National Society of Black Physicists, working to ensure that everyone has access to science in the US. I have highlighted my efforts in past grants focusing on high energy nuclear physics. If my grant were terminated just based on my participation in this group, the rest of my body of work would be ignored simply because I have worked to support young scientists who don't look like me. We spent decades trying to make sure there were professional consequences for serial harassment of young scientists, to have evidence-based mentoring, and to develop practices which allow us to capitalize on all of the talent in the US. These changes would set back those efforts by decades, vilifying anti-harassment as discrimination and best practices in mentoring as an attack on white men (who also benefit from a functional work environment!).