Barry Weiss (right wing commentator) quotes Sergiu Klainerman (“There is no such thing as “White” Math” – https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/there-is-no-such-thing-as-white-math): “The idea that focusing on getting the “right answer” is now considered among some self-described progressives a form of bias or racism is offensive and extraordinarily dangerous.”. Klainerman’s position was shared to a group which, even if democratic-leaning, frequently exhibits the inherent (albeit natural) tensions between “progressives” and “centrists”. Some reactions (out of many) below. First of all, the document on which Klainerman builds his strawman can be found at “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction”, https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf . Now, excerpts from the (many) group comments, and staying away from the few occasional clusters of nonsensical sarcasms and aggressive ad-hominem (yes, there were those too), but other than that, it was overall an interesting discussion.
“(to OP) Strawman after strawman. No, 2+2=4 is not "white math". The critique of how science has been instrumentalized to oppress people doesn't require that you take issue with the 2+2=4 convention. To harp on that is to miss the whole point - intentionally or unintentionally.” (RS)
“(to OP) The problem with this position is that it responds, like RS says, to straw men. And we rarely take the time to actually read the whole original document and we only remember these arguments. So what is wrong, for instance, with not focusing on the right answer but focusing instead on the understanding of concepts and reasoning? A change of focus doesn’t discard the importance of the right answer. Also, to compare the totalitarian regime with strong societal trends based on the science of learning and other types of research (because these people didn’t wake up one morning and dreamed all these plans) is to really misunderstand both totalitarianism and democracy. Also, math instruction is not the same as math as a discipline. If we want to have real debates in this group about these topics I say we consider the primary sources instead of articles like this one. We can do better, seriously.” (MLP)
“Again. It's not about math but math education (when people say "math" instead of "math education" think of it as a metonymy. When you look at the actual arguments you'll discover that the conversation is about math pedagogy).” (MLP)
“(to RS) yeah, I guess my argument was it's engineers that are guilty, not engineering per se. Math in a book is harmless, it's how we use the math. I guess I'm against the sensationalist articles that are like "math is white and evil", when math on its own is just science in a book.” (AV)
“(to AV) I understand. But I've really very, very rarely encountered an article in which someone argues that "math is white and evil". This is usually the caricature of a much more insightful argument (made along the lines I tried to lay out above), and is usually to be found in right-wing publications. No one has a problem with knowledge about the physical world in and of itself. But that's just it - knowledge is never in and of itself. And so its uses are legitimately open to criticism.” (RS)
“(to OP) I don't think anyone would debate the value of education in exact sciences, but the emphasis and the way it is applied in a mercantile world dominated by whites, male whites.” (BC)
“(to BC) Precisely. Things *in themselves* are useless and meaningless. They derive their utility and their meaning from their USE by people. So when you evaluate a *thing* (a technology, an ideology, etc.), you must look at how it's used. Simply saying "This thing is not racist ! It's just a thing!" is a simple strawman. No one ever means to say the thing itself is racist; rather its design facilitates oppressive practices. THAT's the discussion we always need to have about every technology we invent (from writing to clothes to buildings to plastic toy cars to, yes, math education).” (RS)
“(to RS) Simply saying "this thing is racist" is a strawman as well. Not focusing on the "woke" overreach is an enormous mistake in my view. […] Also, since when is math "white"? The Arabs invented place value and we owe them the numerical system we use. Indians and Arabs invented the numeral zero. Al Ghibran gave us algebra. What "oppressive practices" does math facilitate? None since it is essentially neutral. Seri Klainerman, who I know, was drawn in this precisely because of overreach. In the name of fighting racism and sexism we are racializing and gendering everything, even when it is not warranted.” (MD)
“(to MD) As I explained above, I would never say "this thing is racist." As for the "woke" overreach, I've seen it happen - but it doesn't happen when people discuss, IN GOOD FAITH, whether a brilliant female physicist could have attained Einstein's fame (or why Einstein had to come to the US to have his genius recognized), or the way math is taught in school or the way technology is designed and used (see my points above). I can't answer your question "What "oppressive practices" does math facilitate? None since it is essentially neutral" again - I already tackled that above. […]Again, no one is seriously saying that the thing itself (math) is racist. I don't know what we need to do to get beyond this strawman.” (RS)
“(to OP) More precisely, and to be fair, it says (https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf page 66) "when the focus is ONLY (emphasis mine) on getting the right answer, the complexity of the mathematical concepts and reasoning may be underdeveloped, missing opportunities for deep learning". And later on the same page of the document "Of course, most math problems have correct answers, but sometimes there can be more than one way to interpret a problem, especially word problems, leading to more than one possible right answer. And teaching math isn't just about solving specific problems. It's about helping students understand the deeper mathematical concepts so that they can apply them throughout their lives. Students can arrive at the right answer without grasping the bigger concept; or they can have an “aha” moment when they see why they got an answer wrong. Sometimes a wrong answer sheds more light than a right answer." So the idea is actually that there often is MORE than the right answer (math modeling or multiple valid proofs, for example). Now about showing work. Again, whoever reads the document more carefully will get to page 55, where under "Ask yourself: How and why am I asking students to show their work?" it is said: "The point should be to have a dialogue about their process and their learning, not require every student to follow the exact same path to the right answer. The child of immigrants might have learned a different way to solve a problem because that’s how their parents were taught where they grew up. If we just tell that student their way is the wrong way, we risk turning them off to math for life. If we take the opportunity to explore why there are different ways to approach the same problem, it can be a learning moment for the entire class." There is nothing wrong with that. The problem with Klainerman's March 2, 2021 straw man (as rightfully called by RS, since nobody argues that math itself is "racist") is that it comes suspiciously soon after his infamous November 2, 2020 Newsweek article "Why I will vote for Trump". Clearly the author has a problem with the current inclusivity/equity ascending trend ("woke:" or whatever he calls it, who cares) in mathematics and mathematics education. Problems that received more formal and careful attention all around US (by the major Math organizations American Mathematics Society AMS and (especially) the Mathematical Association of America MAA - to say nothing by NCTM) than the rather marginal document https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf sent to Oregon's Department of Education (so, just sent, that's all). But marginal is OK, for Klainerman since it's an easier prey and also an easier way to make his GOP buddies happy.” (MC)
“(to MC) God, I love that document! It sounds like it was written by my mother (if she would be abke to conceptualize the way she did and does teaching). By the, Romanian and Russian pupils do have problems in American school because they solve math problems (different from Americans - more elegant and in a more abstract way). Myself, preferring algebra to arithmetic, and having an early tendency toward abstractization, I've ended more than once in a conflict with my teachers, as I've used a more algebraic solution to arithmetical problems.” (MB)
“(to MC) You mention Klainerman wrote about why he voted for Trump? How is that more relevant than who you or I voted for? We are back to imputing the motives of those who we don't agree with.” (MD)
“(to MD) Not that Klainerman voted for Trump matters here, but the manner he keeps announcing this as a sort of war waged against the "woke people" (to be more precise, he means those who are looking for inclusiveness and equity in mathematics - this definitely clouds his judgement when it comes, for example, to the document sent to ODE, so that does matter and is relevant). Again, about "right answers", read the document sent to Oregon where it appears (page 66) "Of course, most math problems have correct answers [! no argument here], but sometimes there can be more than one way to interpret a problem, especially word problems, leading to more than one possible right answer. And teaching math isn't just about solving specific problems. It's about helping students understand the deeper mathematical concepts so that they can apply them throughout their lives. Students can arrive at the right answer without grasping the bigger concept; or they can have an “aha” moment when they see why they got an answer wrong. Sometimes a wrong answer sheds more light than a right answer.". I see nothing wrong in principle with that. Many reasonably complex problems (most math modeling don't have "complete answers", and there are multiple ways to derive a mathematical truth). Again, about "showing work", at page 55 you can find "The point should be to have a dialogue about their process and their learning, not require every student to follow the exact same path to the right answer. The child of immigrants might have learned a different way to solve a problem because that’s how their parents were taught where they grew up. If we just tell that student their way is the wrong way, we risk turning them off to math for life. If we take the opportunity to explore why there are different ways to approach the same problem, it can be a learning moment for the entire class.", Again, there is nothing particularly outrageous or controversial here, About the NYC Board of Education statements, let me spare you the effort and tell you that working as a College Math educator for 25 plus years (we even have a Math Education major here), I have seen it all, in particular I have seen many things issued by boards across the country of education I don't agree with, but it is not my intent to expand the playing field with issues unrelated to the original post, I simply don't have time for that - still, I can only say that in my experience the damage done by conservatives in the educational process exceeds by far the the damage done by so-called "woke". The document referred to in the OP is not particularly bad, and not the best either, and it would have remained a rather obscure document if it weren't for conservatives transforming it into a "major talking point" (may be a talking point for Sosoaca & co, by now, I guess :) ) in their fight against those who care about diversity and inclusion in math education (aka, the "woke"). Actually all of this is much ado about nothing - I just looked at the K-12 mathematics standards as listed by the Oregon Department of Education - they are strong and effective. So... math goes on :)” (MC)
“(to MC) you are making my argument." sometimes there can be more than one way to interpret a problem, especially word problems, leading to more than one possible right answer." Precisely. The wording is the problem, not the math. As it regards "showing your work" far from being racist, it helps and protects the student who may have found a different way to the CORRECT answer. It also helps in pointing out where, if that is the case, a mistake happened. In the 50's in Romania, when I was learning elementary arithmetic, you had to write the reasoning (judecata) . Then you did the operations. The reasoning was 75% of the credit. This, plus the inclusion of needed rote learning (the multiplication tables) and the scaffolding of skills (such as approximation and rounding off), plus the repetitive pages of calculations I hated at the time, helped build "number sense" something completely lacking in most US students. See "Innumeracy" for more on this.” (MD)
“(to MD) Yet, at least for more subtle modeling (optimization, simulation) problems, wording = math, as different ways to frame a problem could generate very different mathematical approaches (and with very different implications). At least you agree with authors of the document, who are against the "only one way" clause. Now let's get to "showing the work" clause, the authors of the document elaborated in the sense of not requiring the students to follow the *same* path It is *that* requirement they associate with racism, but if you agree with letting students follow other paths, then we have no disagreement (that's what the authors of the document say). With the proviso that an "ultimate correct answer" may not exist or not known (sometimes it is the case in various types of problems). Students must be allow to exercise and learn in an open ended inquiry mode (as it is the case for many reasonably complex modeling problems - that may be helpful for students in minority/tribal communities.” (MC)
“(to MD) Oh, I have no doubt that Klainerman and T[G] know their math. But I would claim a modicum of expertise, too, in the field of critical pedagogy. At the very least, I can explain the fundamental principles of the critical turn of social science, where this critique of the scientific narrative comes from. (And no, this critique has nothing to do with the Republicans' denial of natural phenomena. It's a VERY different kind of critique.)” (RS)
“(to OP) The moment we start arguing that math is racist everything is lost. Mathematicians can be racist, but math is NEVER racist.” (CA)
“(to CA) Pentru ca insisti sa crezi ca discutia se poarta intre cei care zic ca "Math is racist" si cei care zic ca nu e. Stiu ca e intellectually satisfying sa te bati cu idioti care spun ca teorema lui Pitagora e rasista, dar pur si simplu nu asta e discutia - nici aici, nici in general in spatiul public (mai putin in mass-medoa conservatoare, vezi Bari Weiss mai sus, care loves making a caricature of progressive arguments).” (RS)
“(to RS) Check Francis Su (past President of the Mathematical Association of America), from Harvey Mudd College, he is a central force in the long overdue drive towards inclusivity (he would say Math for Human Flourishing as in the title of his recent award winning book)” (MC)
“(to OP) Si Sergiu Nu-Stiu-Cum comite o greseala esentiala - de identificare a domeniului de cunoastere. Problema pe care incearca el sa o abordeze nu tine de matematica, ci de sociologie. Si nu cunoaste nici macar atata sociologie cat sa inteleaga asta. [...] "Communism had a strong sense of objective reality anchored in the belief that humans are capable of discovering universal truths" - nu asa functioneaza stiinta.... Omul asta ar trebui sa invete niste epistemologie a fizicii (ca sa pornim de la stiinta cea mai simpla). "And it was a great equalizer: those from socioeconomically disadvantaged families had a chance to compete on equal footing with those from privileged ones" - asta nu e adevarat nici macar azi. Cel mai puternic predictor al rezultatelor la testele PISA la matematica, in Romania, e numarul de carti aflate in casa in care a crescut elevul.... Si ponderea elevilor din mediul rural care ajungeau sa faca liceul varia undeva intre 10% si 20% (fiind considerabil mai ridicat in mediul urban) - despre ce vorbim aici?!? Ii recomand sa studieze niste rapoarte ale Indicelui Dezvoltarii Umane - asa, cronologic si transversal. "Those born in poor, uneducated families have clear educational disadvantages relative to others. But mathematics can act as a powerful equalizer. Maica-mea a avut unele rezultate cu mine invatandu-ma matematica - si cu totul altele in scoala ei sateasca. Asta desi metoda ei a fost aceeasi (si desi rezultatele ei au fost peste medie in ambele cazuri). Dar egalizator? Mnu. Si nu cred ca sunt mai inteligentx decat toti acei elevi de la sat - dar ma fost mai bine hranitx, am avut timp exclusiv pt invatatura si am avut parinti de la care sa invat, incepand din primele luni de viata. Recomand articolele si cartea lui Sebastian Toc despre educatie in Romania: www.iccv.ro/en/staff/researchers/sebastian-toc-en/ [...] In concluzie, slab text. Omul are nevoie sa ia niste cursuri 101 de stiinte sociale. O fi bun el la matematici superioare, dar in intelegerea societatii e praf. E ok, nu e niciodata prea tarziu pt A Doua Sansa! [...] Si ca sa inchei: din experienta mea de om care a trait intre persoane care chiar stiau matematica, si realmente o intelegeau si practicau, la un nivel care mie mi-e inaccesibil (in ciuda gandirii mele logice si a coeficientului meu ridicat de inteligenta) - de fapt, matematica e mul[t] mai aproape de poezie decat de stiintele naturii (fizica avansata ii seamna, iarasi, intr-o anumita masura). Rezultatul corect conteaza in matematica - dar, din cate am vazut eu, eleganta conteaza si mai mult. Unii oameni "vad" matematica, asa cum unii oameni (inclusiv eu?) vad poezia, iar altii "vad" muzica. E o zona extrem de rarefiata, matematica avansata, care nu are mare lucru in comun cu ingineria si tehnologia (care de obicei se bazeaza pe matematica de un nivel mult mai inferior). Are mult mai multa treaba cu inspiratia decat cu rationalul. Asta de la mine, ca om care a crescut admirand oameni care aveau darul asta.” (MB)
“(to OP) Si acum, dupa toata batalia, ramane o curiozitate: cati au citit documentul la care se face referire in text (Pathway...) si de la care s-au inflamat spiritele (si ma refer la citit cu atentie, toate cele 83 de pagini) si cine a citit cel putin o evaluare critica a acestuia. Cred astfel se puteau evita multe neintelegeri. Documentul merita citit pentru ca are o multime de puncte valide care nu au fost luate in seama. Merita si criticat pentru ca are si exagerari si nu e o enciclica papala pe care trebuie sa o inghitim cu evlavie pe nerasuflate.” (ACU)
“(to ACU) Bineînțeles că documentul e nuanțat. They always are. Doar o parte a criticilor insistă pe o simplificare caricaturală a mesajului.” (RS)
“(to ACU) Chestia e ca postarea nu e despre documentul acela, ci despre abureala de articol din OP.” (MB)
“(to MB, RS) I definitely learned quite a bit, and even changed my mind a little *gasp*! I think this was pretty well moderated for a facebook "debate" and at least for me, rather productive. I enjoyed your resources and the time you put in!” (AV)
“(to AV) yes, it wasn't as bad as I expected. Only one person was inexplicably aggressive.” (MB)
_________
Note: after the fact, but largely on topic: The right wing itch of a Romanian math leader
https://mihaicaragiu.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-ring-wing-itch-of-romanian-math.html
(no, this is not SK)
