Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jonathan Bartlett: Antiracism in Math Promotes Racism and Bad Math

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

If you are scratching your head over how math might be racist, you are not alone:

… one thing that is helpful for parents, students, and teachers is for students to show their work. I know it can be hard to get students to do this. My own children hate to do it. However, being explicit about the steps in their reasoning is important for a number of reasons. First, showing their work helps students with harder problems. Oftentimes students will get into a habit of completing easy problems in their heads. Then, when more complicated problems come, they fail simply because they got into the habit of not writing down what they were doing. Second, it helps the teachers and parents help the students. The teachers and parents can explicitly see what the student was thinking and where that thinking went awry. This helps everyone involved pinpoint and correct the mistake.

So, what does Equitable Math say about this practice?

According to their published guide, “White supremacy culture shows up in math class when students are required to show their work” (Dismantling Racism in Math Instruction, page 51). Why? For the reasons mentioned above! It promotes “paternalism” — the idea that math teachers and parents might know more about mathematics than the students (see also page 72 where it claims that teachers teaching is another facet of white supremacy culture). It promotes “worship of the written word” — the idea that writing things down makes things more explicit, understandable, and knowable. These are things that most of us perceive as benefits, but according to Equitable Math, is a product of “white supremacy culture.

Jonathan Bartlett, “Antiracism in Math Promotes Racism and Bad Math” at Mind Matters News

Funny how discouraging some people (but not all of us, mind you) from numeracy is supposed to help make the world more just.


See also: Yes, there really is a war on math in our schools. Pundits differ as to the causes but here are some facts parents should know. It feels odd to hear math, a multi-ethnic enterprise for as long as we have had written records, described as “white supremacy.”

Comments
JVL “ Why are you so afraid of same-sex marriage?” I think it is obvious to anyone who has read ET’s comments. Irrational fear based on unresolved sexual issues. He might be less angry if he just came out of the closet. :)Steve Alten2
March 2, 2021
March
03
Mar
2
02
2021
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
ET: Then why did YOU bring it up in a discussion on marriage? Are you an ass? I stated clearly why I brought them up; if you can't remember the conversation maybe you shouldn't participate. Your ignorance isn’t an argument. If you're not going to explain why you brought up anuses then I'll just ignore that comment. Look, asshole, I have already told you. YOU have serious issues and should seek help. You haven't really explained anything. You've made a vague assertion, can't find any legal reasons to back up your opinion, and I suspect you have some unstated reason for your stance. What harm does it cause to let same-sex couples marry? Does it affect you in any way? What do you care what consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own home? Would you be happy letting the world see what you do in your bedroom? The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages. Nope, making sure the participants are consenting adults stops your slippery-slope fear. Furthermore, we can just change the definition of the words “adult” and “consent”. We can even get rid of the species concept making OK to marry a dog. Who thinks that would happen? I don't. I wouldn't support that. Why are you so afraid of same-sex marriage? It is entertaining watching you dance around that, too. Your continual projection of your fears on other people is pretty blatant and tiring.JVL
March 2, 2021
March
03
Mar
2
02
2021
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages. The same reasons to disallow same-sex marriages also applies to all types of marriages. It isn’t my fault that JVL cannot grasp that. And it isn’t my fault that JVL has personal prejudices that make him act like a hypocrite. I don't care if you two want to ignore the facts and you are proud to be hypocrites. Furthermore, we can just change the definition of the words “adult” and “consent”. We can even get rid of the species concept making OK to marry a dog. It is entertaining watching you dance around that, too.ET
March 2, 2021
March
03
Mar
2
02
2021
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Acartia loser:
Might I point out that the legalization of same sex marriage has been linked to a significant reduction in teen suicides and suicide attempts.
Correlation is not causation, moron. And if same-sex marriage helped them then they are losers anyway. Thankfully they won't reproduce and give us more whining losers. You guys are hypocrites for being OK with same-sex marriages but not OK with all other types of marriage.ET
March 2, 2021
March
03
Mar
2
02
2021
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
JVL:
No one suggested they wanted to marry their glasses.
Then why did YOU bring it up in a discussion on marriage? Are you an ass?
What does the anus have to do with anything?
Your ignorance isn't an argument.
You seem hell-bent on pursuing a particular form of prejudice and I’m trying to figure out why.
Spoken like a prejudiced ignoramus.
No, you do not.
Yes, you do or else you are a cowardly hypocrite.
Why don’t you ask them?
So you are a liar.
Scaremongering is not an argument.
Your ignorance, cowardice and hypocrisy aren't arguments and yet that is all you have.
How about you actually stand up and be clear about your own opinion: what is your actual problem with same sex marriage?
Look, asshole, I have already told you. YOU have serious issues and should seek help.ET
March 2, 2021
March
03
Mar
2
02
2021
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
JVL “ No one suggested they wanted to marry their glasses.” True. But it has the same level of pertinence as the argument that SSM will lead to inter-species marriage. “ What does the anus have to do with anything?” Well, it is essential, and multi-functional. It defines both a part of the human anatomy and certain people who base their views on homophobic prejudices. “ Why don’t you ask them? If you really care.” Why ask people what they desire when you can just tell them what they are limited to? The latter is so much easier. “ Clearly you have a real problem with same-sex couples marrying but you can’t clearly say what is wrong with it.” Perhaps some people are just worried that same sex couples may be more successful at marriage than they are. Might I point out that the legalization of same sex marriage has been linked to a significant reduction in teen suicides and suicide attempts.Steve Alten2
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
ET: No one wants to marry their glasses. No one wants to marry an airplane or a rocket. So why are you such a dishonest punk? No one suggested they wanted to marry their glasses. Maybe you should try and focus a bit. Next, JVL, take an anatomy class and learn what science says about the anus. What does the anus have to do with anything? It is not my opinion that same sex couples cannot procreate with their chosen partner. JVL is totally ignorant of science. You seem hell-bent on pursuing a particular form of prejudice and I'm trying to figure out why. So if you allow same sex marriages you have to allow all types of marriages or else you are a prejudiced hypocrite suffering from some phobia. No, you do not. Why are you perpetrating this myth? What civil liberties were they denied before same-sex marriage was approved? Or are you just a liar? Why don't you ask them? If you really care. Furthermore, we can just change the definition of the words “adult” and “consent”. We can even get rid of the species concept making OK to marry a dog. Scaremongering is not an argument. It's just scaremongering. Clearly you have a real problem with same-sex couples marrying but you can't clearly say what is wrong with it. You guys are hypocrites for being OK with same-sex marriages but not OK with all other types of marriage. You projecting what you think our opinion should be is just prejudice. How about you actually stand up and be clear about your own opinion: what is your actual problem with same sex marriage?JVL
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
Furthermore, we can just change the definition of the words "adult" and "consent". We can even get rid of the species concept making OK to marry a dog. You guys are hypocrites for being OK with same-sex marriages but not OK with all other types of marriage.ET
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
JVL:
Why does it bother you so much if two women or two men want to have the same civil liberties and you and your wife have?
What civil liberties were they denied before same-sex marriage was approved? Or are you just a liar?ET
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Acartia loser:
To understand this I think you have to understand the psychology and pathology behind homophobia.
I am OK with two men or two women being together. So clearly you are just an infant loser. The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages. The same reasons to disallow same-sex marriages also applies to all types of marriages. It isn’t my fault that JVL cannot grasp that. And it isn’t my fault that JVL has personal prejudices that make him act like a hypocrite. So if you allow same sex marriages you have to allow all types of marriages or else you are a prejudiced hypocrite suffering from some phobia.ET
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Again: The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages. The same reasons to disallow same-sex marriages also applies to all types of marriages. It isn’t my fault that JVL cannot grasp that. And it isn’t my fault that JVL has personal prejudices that make him act like a hypocrite. Next, JVL, take an anatomy class and learn what science says about the anus. It is not my opinion that same sex couples cannot procreate with their chosen partner. JVL is totally ignorant of science.ET
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
JVL “ Why is same-sex marriage something to be afraid of?“ To understand this I think you have to understand the psychology and pathology behind homophobia. For many, their reason is religious. Their intentions are good although, in my opinion, misguided. For some, it is just ignorance and insecurity. They have little first-hand experience with same sex couples. These people just follow the lead of their peers for fear of their reaction should they disagree. These are the type of people who disown their own children if they happen to be gay. The last group are those who are insecure about their own sexuality, fearful of their own same sex desires. I think this group constitutes a significant portion of the most vocal opponents to SSM and the acceptance of homosexuality.Steve Alten2
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
ET: Again, you miss the point. It’s as you you relish being willfully ignorant. Do other animals get married? No. You you just scored an own-goal, dippy.k That wasn't my point at all. Are you going to respond to what I actually said with some sensible argument? The same-sex couples cannot procreate with their chosen mate. There is no reason for marriage beyond having and raising a family. Your opinion is based on what exactly? Who says marriage is all about having and raising a family? Besides, I can give you examples of same-sex couples having and raising children so . . . JVL just avoids that and prattles on like an infant. Good luck with that. You can't seem to come up with a clear and cogent and data-supported reason why same-sex marriage should be prohibited. This is why you view is losing such arguments: you can't support your view.JVL
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
JVL:
Eye glasses are unnatural. Flying in airplanes at 35,000 feet is unnatural. Traveling to the moon is unnatural.
So those are supernatural? Really? Or are you just grasping at straws because you cannot form a coherent argument? Or are you trying to distract from the fact that you are a blatant hypocrite? No one wants to marry their glasses. No one wants to marry an airplane or a rocket. So why are you such a dishonest punk?ET
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
JVL, strawman maker:
If you introduce a law which says: all human adults can marry that implies a species limitation and an age of consent limitation.
Again, you miss the point. It's as you you relish being willfully ignorant. Do other animals get married? No. You you just scored an own-goal, dippy. The same-sex couples cannot procreate with their chosen mate. There is no reason for marriage beyond having and raising a family. The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages. The same reasons to disallow same-sex marriages also applies to all types of marriages. It isn’t my fault that JVL cannot grasp that. And it isn’t my fault that JVL has personal prejudices that make him act like a hypocrite JVL just avoids that and prattles on like an infant. Good luck with that.ET
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Eye glasses are unnatural. Flying in airplanes at 35,000 feet is unnatural. Traveling to the moon is unnatural. But no one is suggesting we outlaw those. Why is same-sex marriage something to be afraid of? I'd really like to know.JVL
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
ET: That is all personal prejudices. If you introduce a law which says: all human adults can marry that implies a species limitation and an age of consent limitation. What are you arguing against really? They aren’t any weirder than people marrying the same sex partners. Your personal prejudices are showing. So it is blatant hypocrisy. Why does it bother you so much if two women or two men want to have the same civil liberties and you and your wife have? What is it? Science says it- same sex unions- are unnatural. So stuff it. And I am not religious. So make that a double stuff. References please. Seriously, where does science say same-sex couples are unnatural? You are aware that many animal species have examples of same-sex pairings so what is it that bothers you so much? The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages. The same reasons to disallow same-sex marriages also applies to all types of marriages. It isn’t my fault that JVL cannot grasp that. And it isn’t my fault that JVL has personal prejudices that make him act like a hypocrite I'm just trying to figure out what your real concerns are. Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't damage your marriage one bit. It doesn't threaten you in any way. Based on the experience of many countries it doesn't damage or threaten society at all. So, what is it that bothers you about same-sex marriages? Just spell it out so your view is clear.JVL
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
JVL:
No, you do NOT have to allow anything beyond adult human marriage; apply the principle of informed consent and the age of consent and you avoid anything past that.
That is all personal prejudices.
It’s not hypocrisy because there is no principle being claimed or supported that it needs to go beyond adult humans. And if there are a few weirdos who want to be able to marry their dog it doesn’t mean the rest of us have to concede to their wishes.
They aren't any weirder than people marrying the same sex partners. Your personal prejudices are showing. So it is blatant hypocrisy. And you do not understand science. So don't even try to bring that up. Science says it- same sex unions- are unnatural. So stuff it. And I am not religious. So make that a double stuff. The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages. The same reasons to disallow same-sex marriages also applies to all types of marriages. It isn't my fault that JVL cannot grasp that. And it isn't my fault that JVL has personal prejudices that make him act like a hypocriteET
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
ET:Again, for the learning impaired: Once you allow same sex marriages you HAVE to allow ALL TYPES of marriages for the SAME reasons. It is hypocrisy to not do so. Blatant, dishonest hypocrisy. But I understand that the people who are OK with same-sex marriages are dishonest hypocrites. No, you do NOT have to allow anything beyond adult human marriage; apply the principle of informed consent and the age of consent and you avoid anything past that. It's not hypocrisy because there is no principle being claimed or supported that it needs to go beyond adult humans. And if there are a few weirdos who want to be able to marry their dog it doesn't mean the rest of us have to concede to their wishes. And I do not care what JVL doesn’t believe me when I say that marriage should only be between people who can procreate. I believe that you believe that, I'm trying to figure out why. You are holding back on something because your reasons are thin and easily argued against. So what is it really? Why are you afraid to say what you really think? If it's a matter of faith then I can't really argue against that. If you think marriage should only be between a man and a woman because it says so in the Koran well . . . I've got no argument against that except to say I don't think theological beliefs should be binding on societal ethics. But I can't argue an issue of faith with science.JVL
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Acartia Stevie is still just a pathological liar and coward. Make your case or admit that my assessment of you is correct. But then again, acartia stevie is a proven dishonest hypocrite.ET
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
JVL "What is your real reason for wanting to deny same-sex couples the right to marry? I don’t believe it’s really the ability to procreate, there’s some other issue you’re not saying." I suggest that you look at the comments he has posted on other websites. From these I think it is easy to determine why he is opposed to same sex marriage.Steve Alten2
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Again, for the learning impaired: Once you allow same sex marriages you HAVE to allow ALL TYPES of marriages for the SAME reasons. It is hypocrisy to not do so. Blatant, dishonest hypocrisy. But I understand that the people who are OK with same-sex marriages are dishonest hypocrites. And I do not care what JVL doesn't believe me when I say that marriage should only be between people who can procreate.ET
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
<ET: I never said anything about premarital sex, so grow up. And there are ways to determine fertility. I didn't say you did mention it; I mentioned it. Let's say a young women finds out, because of cancer, that her ovaries are kaput and not producing eggs. She cannot conceive children. Should she be allowed to marry? They can still be together. So, your actual criteria has nothing to do with whether or not a couple can actually produce children? I don’t even know what that means. The genetic material from one woman is implanted in the egg of the other. They bring a child into the world, by choice, that is theirs. Can they marry? Why do I need a legal basis? I have a scientific basis. Because most modern countries accept that the laws of the nation are the guidelines which much be obeyed by all citizens regardless of race, creed, theology, etc. Also, because you are saying certain civil liberties should be withheld from some citizens without providing a basis in constitutional law. The benefits are for those who sacrifice to have and raise their own children. The very people who keep the population alive. So the same sex couples want something that they don’t deserve for the mere reason that they cannot procreate. They can at least adopt, give a child a good, loving, supportive home. Doesn't that count? And as I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, why do we stop at same sex? Multiple partners, no age limits, marry your dog so the vet bills are lower- where do you stop and what is YOUR legal basis? Radical changes in the laws (allowing people to marry children or animals) would entail a lot of public debate and very, likely would no pass. So your slippery-slope argument is just fear mongering. Underlying all such issues is: informed consent. A child or an animal cannot give informed consent. What is your real reason for wanting to deny same-sex couples the right to marry? I don't believe it's really the ability to procreate, there's some other issue you're not saying.JVL
March 1, 2021
March
03
Mar
1
01
2021
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT
acartia stevie:
As such, there is no reason man can’t modify that definition, as we have many times over the centuries.
That is what desperate people do, though.
And it is unlikely that it can be defended on any grounds other than personal prejudices.
The SAME can be said for polygamy, child marriages, marrying your dog or cat or whatever you want.ET
February 28, 2021
February
02
Feb
28
28
2021
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
How does a couple show they can procreate before they get married if premarital sex is not allowed?
I never said anything about premarital sex, so grow up. And there are ways to determine fertility.
What about couples who are no longer able to procreate (if the women is past menopause? Or because of an illness?)?
They can still be together.
If science allows two women to procreate then can they get married?
I don't even know what that means.
Also, on what legal basis do you propose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples who can procreate?
Why do I need a legal basis? I have a scientific basis.
Why is polygamy outlawed in most of the US? What are the bases of those laws? Should they be protested and changed?
Don't know, don't care, be my guest. Look, the ONLY reason that same sex people want to get married is that marriage comes with some benefits. But that is because of what marriage entails. The benefits are for those who sacrifice to have and raise their own children. The very people who keep the population alive. So the same sex couples want something that they don't deserve for the mere reason that they cannot procreate. And as I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, why do we stop at same sex? Multiple partners, no age limits, marry your dog so the vet bills are lower- where do you stop and what is YOUR legal basis?ET
February 28, 2021
February
02
Feb
28
28
2021
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
JVL “ By whom? When? By man. As such, there is no reason man can’t modify that definition, as we have many times over the centuries. “ Also, on what legal basis do you propose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples who can procreate?“ I don’t believe that it is based on any legal arguments. And it is unlikely that it can be defended on any grounds other than personal prejudices.Steve Alten2
February 28, 2021
February
02
Feb
28
28
2021
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
ET: Marriage was defined as the union between a man an a woman. By whom? When? I am OK with polygamy. As long as procreation occurs. No procreation, no marriage, as far as I am concerned. If you can’t procreate with your chosen mate then you shouldn’t be able to marry. Too bad for the sterile people. How does a couple show they can procreate before they get married if premarital sex is not allowed? What about couples who are no longer able to procreate (if the women is past menopause? Or because of an illness?)? If science allows two women to procreate then can they get married? Also, on what legal basis do you propose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples who can procreate? Why is polygamy outlawed in most of the US? What are the bases of those laws? Should they be protested and changed?JVL
February 28, 2021
February
02
Feb
28
28
2021
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Marriage was defined as the union between a man an a woman. Someone had to change the definition. I am OK with polygamy. As long as procreation occurs. No procreation, no marriage, as far as I am concerned. If you can't procreate with your chosen mate then you shouldn't be able to marry. Too bad for the sterile people.ET
February 28, 2021
February
02
Feb
28
28
2021
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
ET: Arbitrary laws and rules based on nonsensical ideas should be ignored and fought by all rational and reasonable people. Laws banning same-sex marriage are arbitrary based on what exactly? Laws banning polygamy (practiced by many people in the Bible and the Koran) are arbitrary based on what exactly?JVL
February 28, 2021
February
02
Feb
28
28
2021
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT
There is a big difference between teaching children morals, some of which may be later seen as in need of changing, and not teaching them anything at all. Morals should indeed advance, but only when it can be shown, logically and in line with the rest of the moral fabric holding society together, that particular morals need tweaking. This is very different from a wholesale dismissal of all previous norms in favour of moral anarchy. When you ask a woke person, "where are you taking us?", and they cannot give a cogent response, or their response is unrealistically utopian, then you know we are in trouble if we allow them to proceed.Fasteddious
February 27, 2021
February
02
Feb
27
27
2021
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply