Hacker News Reader

Comment by krastanov | Hacker News Reader

Your comment is great and pretty detailed, but there is one thing that really threw me off (otherwise, I can not agree enough with everything else you wrote). You mentioned that the CRT perspective is that math (objective truth) is racist -- while I can think of a couple of CRT claims that with some mental gymnastics can be forced to sound that way, I do not really see that claim being made. Could you point to scholars (CRT mainstream, not random crazies on the internet or opinion writers in magazines) that actually hold that opinion?

View on HN

https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11...

First the operating definition of white supremacy, so we're on the same page:

> White supremacy culture is the idea (ideology) that White people and the ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and actions of white people are superior to People of Color and their ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and actions.

And from Jones and Okun (2001) we have a cluster of traits which are identified with white supremacy:

- perfectionism

- sense of urgency

- defensiveness

- quantity over quality

- worship of the written word

- paternalism

- either or thinking

- power hoarding

- fear of open conflict

- individualism

- only one right way

- progress is bigger, more

- objectivity

- right to comfort

I am not quite certain what you mean with this link. It basically says that it is important that teachers are not racist and be aware of their implicit biases. That seems pretty reasonable and non-controversial.

Just look at chapter 2! This is how you are supposed to teach math properly (as opposed to a rote exercise), independently of whether you have social justice beliefs.

And if the problem is about some vague "different way of thinking", this is also addressed by good teachers: one student has an aptitude to solve something with an algebraic proof, another one has an aptitude with geometric proofs, etc. A good teacher will use this as a moment to explore the other ways of thinking, which are deeply important for good mathematicians.

EDIT: You added a definition of white supremacy and a bunch of correlating terms. Sure, that definition seems fine, but I do not see how it relates to the conversation.

EDIT 2: If you are hung up on words like "objectivity" being listed among the "naughty words", consider what the author actually means by that word. Is an all-white jury really an objective jury of your peers when you are black. Or if you want to torture the metaphor and talk about math: Cantor's obsessions at the end of his life and Goedel's incompleteness theorem would be a great starting point for an essay on the limits of objectivity in math.

The definition and the list of characteristics is from the training document. The document is about addressing the ways in which current practices are related to white supremacy.

Each point isn't just about the right ways to teach math, it's also about white supremacy. You can discuss how to teach math well, such as by avoiding rote learning (maybe?), but then you're not talking on the same substance of the training document. The document is about white supremacy in math instruction.

And how do asians and indian americans fit into this discussion?

You are editing your comments a lot, so it is pretty difficult to answer. My answer was written before you mentioned anything about white supremacy.

But I still do not see the point you are trying to make. This is a set of 5 documents, and much of their content is great advise independently of whether you are worried about the effects of racism in education.

The link you used in your last edit is to the first of the five documents (initially it was to all of them). The first document just says that teachers should be aware of the effect that the history of racism has on their students and how to actively counter these effects. I really do not see how any of this is controversial.

You might be hung up on the choice of a couple of words. I already addressed "objectivity" in my edit of the previous answer. On the topic of "perfectionism" -- requiring perfectionism from your students is idiotic in a pedagogical setting. Education is about building up and when the student makes a mistake is the best moment to teach them something new. If you are reasonably expecting perfection, then your students are in a class that is too easy, which is a waste of their time.

All of this is standard ideas in pedagogy as a whole, it just happens to be doubly important when discussing the harm done by the history of racism.

EDIT: You mentioned Asian Americans. Well, just compare the racist tropes they have faced in the last century (model minority) vs the racist tropes black people have faced when the country was founded (dangerous subhumans).

"The first document just says that teachers should be aware of the effect that the history of racism has on their students and how to actively counter these effects. I really do not see how any of this is controversial."

I don't see how anyone could read that document and come to that conclusion.

"requiring perfectionism from your students is idiotic in a pedagogical setting."

And what does that have to do with 'White Supremacy'?

Where is your evidence that this is the nature of math teaching?

Where is your evidence that something else would be materially more beneficial for students of colour?

I'd would be interesting to see, but I think on the face of it it's kind of ridiculous.

They need to provide some objective evidence of 'how math is racist' - and - how other, specific training methods are 'less racist' - or this document should be held up as ideological fantasy.

I partially answered in sibling comments, you asked about my qualification to make these claims and about proof of some the statements I made about methodologies: I have taught some of the introductory and some of the most advanced classes in Physics/Engineering/ML as an assistant at Yale and at MIT. The practices I discussed are standard operating procedure at these schools and have been for a while (without worries about racism even being much of a considerations, they are just good practices). These standard procedures are based on a few decades of pedagogical research. I have also prepared students for the International Physics Olympiad for multiple years. I am very involved in the education of young physicists with many great achievements. This is what I am basing my empirical observations on (including large amounts of anonymous feedback from students and results from standardized tests and competitions).

You keep talking about good math pedagogical practice without talking about its relation to white supremacy. When you do that, you're neglecting the primary substance of the training document.

Are you interested in talking about the ways in which the outlined pedagogical practices relate to white supremacy?

Also, when asked about how asians and indian americans fit into the discussion, your reply is that the bigotry they've faced is far more tolerable? That's the leading thought of how they fit into the discussion?

> You keep talking about good math pedagogical practice without talking about its relation to white supremacy.

On the contrary, the first thing I said is that one of the first of the five documents says that "teachers should be aware of their implicit biases". Do I need to specifically use the words "white supremacy". Yeah, "white supremacy" is one of the most common vehicle for racism in the US (this seemed pretty obvious).

Here, in a single sentence, just repeating what my previous comments say: "these documents list non-controversial pedagogical best practices that just happen to be more important when dealing with people who have suffered from institutionalized racism (frequently described with the words white supremacy)".

> Are you interested in talking about the ways in which the outlined pedagogical practices relate to white supremacy?

My whole point is that these practices are great independently of whether you live in a country where any form of racism or segragation exists or if you live in a small homogenic country that does not have these problem. It just happens that they are even more important in the former case.

> when asked about how asians and indian americans fit into the discussion, your reply is that the bigotry they've faced is far more tolerable?

I have made no such claim!? Different groups have faced different challenges and that leads to different societal problems. Seems silly to start a misery Olympics and discuss which of the terrible things are more terrible.

> I have made no such claim!? Different groups have faced different challenges and that leads to different societal problems. Seems silly to start a misery Olympics and discuss which of the terrible things are more terrible.

I'm not sure what you think it means when you reply by asking us to compare black tropes to asian tropes. Some of the asian tropes going around now are related to spreading the "chinese" virus, and being spies that steal IP, or students who cheat.

> Cantor's obsessions at the end of his life and Goedel's incompleteness theorem would be a great starting point for an essay on the limits of objectivity in math.

Separately, it sounds like from your teaching experience you've mostly been dealing with kids who would really enjoy the foundations of math and physics, and may enjoy discussing how things are true only within a model, and how even that model has trouble making judgments over some sentences. But for everyone else that's a lot of explanation without firepower.

I teach in a model classroom for a math franchise that deals with the age range in question for this document — not college aged kids in MIT. When you're teaching youths, not delivering a story and feeling of firepower is deadly. It is not like college where the failure to learn is their fault.

I also evaluate competitor products domestic and abroad, and I would critique them for the same issues mentioned in this training document, that their product is far more rote, authoritarian, linear, etc. But I would never imagine that, say, a largely imported korean or singaporean product would have notable relationships with white supremacy just because they emphasized rote learning, linear sequencing, an either-or concept of truth, etc.

I think it's completely fine to have a discussion about how some attitudes and styles in math pedagogy are destructive to student motivation, but these arguments of white supremacy ought be better substantiated. The leading arguments so far have been extremely unimpressive, and IMO there could be a more general backlash due to the loss of credibility.

Your last (edit: second-to-last) paragraph is the first time in this whole conversation that I get what you guys are talking about. I think you are misreading the document. It says that "there is only one right way" is a trope frequently used by white supremacist philosophies, not that the presence of that trope implies the presence of white supremacist philosophies. I feel like getting hung up on this is just silly and overly "snowflaky", when the document as a whole has so many great suggestions on how to be a better teacher.

One other important comment:

> But for everyone else that's a lot of explanation without firepower.

This is a deeply wrong idea that leads to poorly skilled engineers and scientists and I would die on this hill. You are giving your students too little credit if you think they would not be interested when this is taught properly (e.g. by following the instructions in this document). This is exactly the firepower you need to have exceptional skills.

"Are you interested in talking about the ways in which the outlined pedagogical practices relate to white supremacy?"

Well that's just it - please do tell us how 'Math is White Supremacy' - because there is no rational or scientific evidence provided, and without evidence, it seems like radical, ideological, racist, offensive and likely very counterproductive.

Teaching can always be improved, even in ways that are adaptive to different groups, but there's nothing offered here that's material in that way.

This kind of discussion is interesting, but it should be far away from government or social policy.

I am getting really confused, guys... These documents do not say anywhere "Math is White Supremacy", you are the only ones saying this. You are saying that these documents say things they simply do not say at all.

Maybe "white supremacy" is a trigger word for some people. Would this discussion work better if we just say "historic, institutionalized racism" instead of "white supremacy"?

> On the topic of "perfectionism" -- requiring perfectionism from your students is idiotic in a pedagogical setting.

For a subject which requires completely logically sound arguments to be correct (formal math), perfectionism isn't idiotic, it's the modus operandi.

That has little bearing to *teaching* math. In teaching, perfection is little more than rote memorization. In teaching, you have to explore your errors and understand why they are happening. And in research math, some of the greatest insights come from encountering the errors in your own proofs. Yes, the final result is "perfect". Expecting the process (and especially the learning of the process) to be perfect is idiotic.

"It basically says that it is important that teachers are not racist and be aware of their implicit biases. That seems pretty reasonable and non-controversial."

That is definitely not what they are saying in this document.

They are saying that math and the way that is taught effectively around the world is a form of 'White Supremacy'.

If you don't think that isn't controversial, and probably racist, then what is?

You're missing a little bit the underlying philosophy here, when they say 'stop racist teaching' they don't really mean racism in the common sense.

They are implying that math, in the manner that we view it is in and of itself systematically racist.

Detractors are not randomly throwing around the term 'White Supremacy' etc. - here is the very first paragraph of the note:

"to dismantling white supremacy in math classrooms by making visi- ble the toxic characteristics of white supremacy culture"

They are directly implying that a 'focus on the correct answer' etc. is 'White Supremacy Culture' - which is not only ridiculous, but arguably very racist in and of itself.

Consider that there is absolutely no evidence that math instruction is racist. None whatsoever - in fact - almost none of their wild assertions are founded in any objective analysis.

They are ideological: it's a fundamental redefinition of the terms 'racism' etc. towards their view that minorities are systematically oppressed de-facto by the expression of the majority culture.

"White supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms when... Grading practices center what students don't understand rather than what they do understand."

"White supremacy culture shows up in math classrooms when... Students are required to “show their work” in standardized, prescribed ways."

These are interesting thoughts on teaching but 1) there's no evidence presented that teachers are currently engaged in these practices 2) there's no basis for correlating these teaching methods with 'White Supremacy' and most importantly 3) no evidence that the proscribed methods are better in an way.

That people are trying create better learning conditions for everyone is positive - but don't conflate solutions, especially those based on arbitrary ideological objectives - are necessary valuable, in many cases, they can be destructive.

John McWhorter has an interesting take on it (excuse the inflammatory title):

https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/no-more-tests-we-should...

I will just address one thing you bring up that probably exemplifies why we read this in a colossally different way.

'focus on the correct answer' *is* a bad way to teach anything and this is one of the least controversial statements in pedagogy. You focus on the process. You focus on "why we care about the question" and "how do we approach the question". Discussing the wrong answer and how to correct it is many times more useful than discussing the correct answer. This is all and this is truly standard.

My standard reply to this line of argument is that both the English language and Roman alphabet and anyone using these hideous tools of oppression are drenched in Wide Soup Rim Assist thinking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com