The Vanishing Video on STEM Diversity — What’s Going On?

 

The Vanishing Video on STEM Diversity — What’s Going On?

I have noted that over the past few years that the regularly curated STEM-diversity videos (on YouTube) to I shared on the LinkedIn BioLabShare page, typically filtering by “this month” or recent uploads have significantly decreased. That is a striking observation, and worth unpacking.

Is this real—i.e., fewer organizations producing such content? Or is it a shift in how platforms prioritize, label, or surface such content (or a combination)? To hypothesize:

1. Reduced production or prioritization
   It may be that organizations (universities, nonprofits, corporations) are cutting back on producing STEM-diversity content publicly, especially video. Given budget pressures, increased scrutiny of diversity efforts, or shifting priorities, many may deem these efforts less “visible” or less politically safe.

2. Platform algorithm/visibility changes
   Even if content is still being made, it may no longer be surfaced or promoted as much on YouTube (or LinkedIn). YouTube’s recommendation algorithm, content tagging, and trending filters may be deprioritizing “diversity” or “equity” topics, either because fewer people click or because the platform is shifting preferences to other genres (e.g. entertainment, trending tech, AI). In effect, content is still there, but harder to discover via “recent videos on diversity in STEM.”

3. Rebranding or linguistic shift
   Organizations might be changing how they label or brand their content. Instead of “STEM diversity,” they might embed diversity into broader themes (e.g., “innovation,” “future of work,” “inclusion,” “culture change,” “equity in AI”). As a result, your filters or search terms might miss them. The overt “diversity” keyword may be fading, even if the substance remains.

4. Backlash, political pressure, or “cooling off”
   As you suggest, there could be a growing hesitancy among institutions to publicly emphasize diversity-focused agendas—given political controversies or backlash against DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) programs. This might discourage bold, public-facing content on race and STEM diversity.

5. Audience fatigue or shifting interest
   Over time, some audiences may feel “saturated” with diversity messaging, or may prefer content more directly tied to technology, entrepreneurship, AI, etc. Organizations may respond by allocating video budgets to those “hotter” topics, putting “diversity” into lower priority.

Whatever the mix of causes, the visible decline is concerning. For a movement that depends on visibility, role modeling, and narrative, fewer videos means fewer touchpoints to reach young people and broader audiences.

---

What Does This Imply About the State of STEM Diversity?

A. The struggle shifts from recruitment to retention, culture, and narratives

When visibility shrinks, it may signal that the battle is no longer just about recruiting underrepresented individuals. Instead, the challenge lies deeper: transforming institutional culture, supporting retention, dismantling microaggressions and bias, and ensuring inclusive, equitable systems. Visible content is easier in recruitment phases, less so for complex internal change processes.

Academic and institutional studies back this up: many diversity initiatives in STEM are still evaluated on simple metrics (e.g., “percentage of women or Black students in STEM majors”), rather than on the quality of experience, retention, advancement, or belonging. SpringerOpen+2ScienceDirect+2 In recent years, the limitations of “diversity as numbers” have become more glaring.

Moreover, a 2024 analysis found that while the gender gap among STEM faculty is narrowing, racial-ethnic gaps are actually widening in many STEM disciplines, especially for Black and Hispanic faculty. Nature That suggests that the progress in one dimension (gender) is not necessarily accompanied by progress in racial equity. The “diversity gains” narrative may have been oversold in some quarters, masking deeper fractures.

B. Backlash, resistance, and political headwinds

Diversity initiatives have always encountered resistance—both subtle and overt. Backlash may come via:

• Political & legal pressure to limit or eliminate DEI offices or programs (as we’ve seen in some states or institutions).

• Institutional inertia, where diversity efforts are deprioritized or rebranded away from the “D-word.”

• “Diversity fatigue” among leadership who view it as a cost or liability rather than strategic imperative.

• Critique that diversity efforts are superficial (“performative DEI”) rather than substantive. Indeed, some employees and scholars question the efficacy of certain initiatives, especially when they are top-down mandates without cultural alignment. Frontiers+2PMC+2

A recent trend is the retreat of the term “diversity” in corporate announcements or annual reports—some companies have removed or softened references to DEI to avoid political risk. Financial Times+1 If institutions are wary of visibility, they may quietly scale back public content in areas seen as contentious or polarizing.

C. The symbolic delegitimization of diversity work

Less visible content means less storytelling, fewer role models, reduced affirmation of underrepresented identities in STEM. Over time, the absence of reaffirmation may suggest that diversity is no longer a priority or that it’s being quietly deprioritized. That can erode morale and diminish the sense that this work is valued or “on the agenda.” For younger people especially, seeing fewer videos of Black scientists, engineers, or medics speaking publicly on diversity is a kind of erasure.

D. What happens if this continues?

If visibility continues to decline, several risks loom:

1. Widening gaps in opportunity
   Without ongoing narrative support, mentorship and role modeling, underrepresented students may feel less seen or less supported, contributing to attrition from STEM. The “leaky pipeline” problem may worsen. Wikipedia+2National Science Foundation+2

2. Homogenization of STEM culture
   The default culture in STEM fields may drift toward a narrower demographic-entrenched norm. Without visible diversity work, institutional culture may fail to challenge entrenched biases, microaggressions, and exclusionary norms.

3. Talent loss and innovation deficit
   Diverse teams bring diverse perspectives, which fuel creativity and innovation. Underutilizing talent pools (by marginalizing diversity) jeopardizes competitiveness and progress. SpringerOpen+3National Science Foundation+3EdTrust+3

4. Narrative capture by counter-narratives
   In the absence of pro-diversity storytelling, anti-DEI or “merit-only” narratives may gain more influence. Without counterweight, they could dominate cultural discourse and discourage institutions from championing equity publicly.

5. Psychological toll on underrepresented professionals
   Reduced visibility can deepen isolation. When fewer voices speak, it’s easier to feel marginalized, undervalued, or “invisible in their own fields.”

In sum: the decline of visible STEM diversity content is not merely stylistic or superficial—it signals deeper structural, cultural, and political challenges to the equity movement in STEM.

---

Why Must Women and Diverse Groups Continue to Carve Their Own Platforms?

Given the headwinds, your conviction that women and diverse groups must find unique, self-determined ways to highlight achievement is spot-on. Some guiding principles and strategies:

1. Decentralized storytelling
   Don’t rely solely on large institutions to produce content. Grassroots, individual, and community-based creators can produce short video stories, micro-documentaries, TikToks or Instagram reels about underrepresented STEM voices. These can bypass institutional gatekeeping.

2. Platform leverage & cross-posting
   Even if YouTube deprioritizes “diversity,” creators can cross-post to LinkedIn, X, Instagram, or newer platforms. Use SEO and tags like “equity,” “inclusion,” “hidden voices,” or “STEM journeys” to broaden reach.

3. Peer networks & amplification
   Build coalitions of STEM professionals who commit to amplifying each other’s content—reshare, re-post, comment, boost reach. Many voices, even if small individually, amplify each other.

4. Short-form, high-frequency content
   In an age of content saturation, short, compelling content (2–5 minutes) may be more likely to gain traction than long-form lectures. A “STEM Friday Spotlight” or “Diverse Voice of the Week” series, consistently released, can gradually rebuild visibility.

5. Narrative framing beyond “diversity”
   Frame stories not just as diversity initiatives, but as innovation, leadership, legacy, science breakthroughs, community impact—so they resonate with broader audiences beyond virtue signaling.

6. Partnerships with media & influencers
   Work with science communicators, podcasts, newsletters, and publications (popular science, medical, engineering) to host interviews or features. Content that appears in cross-domain contexts gets more exposure.

7. Archive and preserve
   Make an effort to archive videos, public talks, podcasts, and maintain a showcase of underrepresented STEM voices. Even if platforms suppress them, having an archive preserves the memory and provides material for curation later.

---

Final Thoughts & Call to Arms

The decline in visible STEM diversity video content is more than an aesthetic shift—it’s a warning sign. It may reflect:

• retreat or recalibration of institutional diversity commitments,

• algorithmic deprioritization by major platforms,

• strategic silencing (intentionally or passively) under political pressure,

• or mere fatigue with a particular rhetorical framing.

But the stakes are too high for visibility to vanish. When diversity voices recede, the default baseline becomes the dominant culture — and for too long, that has excluded many. The absence of public representation is a form of erasure.

What this says about STEM diversity is that progress is fragile; it is contested and subject to retreat if not actively defended and renewed. The outcome of failing to promote visible diversity is harmful: stagnation in inclusive innovation, demoralization of underrepresented scientists, and a narrowing of who believes STEM is “for them.”

Your instinct is right: women and marginalized groups must cultivate their own platforms, stories, and networks. The narrative must not be outsourced to institutions alone. The voices must be owned and amplified from the grassroots.