You would think that mathematics did not discriminate on the
basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or ethnicity. You would be
wrong. A professor of math education has now written a book in which she
declares that geometry and algebra are functions of white privilege and that if
non-white students have difficulties doing them we should not hold it against
them.
If this sounds too stupid to be true, that's because it is. At the least, it explains why Asian students outperform all others in math.
Conclusion: the
dumbing down of American education proceeds apace.
Here is the story, from the Campus Reform (via Maggie’s Farm):
A math
education professor at the University of Illinois argued in a newly published
book that algebraic and geometry skills perpetuate “unearned privilege” among
whites.
Rochelle Gutierrez,
a professor at the University of Illinois, made the claim in a new
anthology for math teachers, arguing that teachers must be aware of
the “politics that mathematics brings” in society.
On many
levels, mathematics itself operates as Whiteness. Who gets credit for doing and
developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part
of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White,” Gutierrez argued.
Gutierrez
also worries that algebra and geometry perpetuate privilege, fretting that
“curricula emphasizing terms like Pythagorean theorem and pi perpetuate a
perception that mathematics was largely developed by Greeks and other
Europeans."
Math
also helps actively perpetuate white privilege too, since the way our economy
places a premium on math skills gives math a form of “unearned privilege” for
math professors, who are disproportionately white.
“Are we
really that smart just because we do mathematics?” she asks, further wondering
why math professors get more research grants than “social studies or English”
professors.
Further,
she also worries that evaluations of math skills can perpetuate discrimination
against minorities, especially if they do worse than their white counterparts.
“If one
is not viewed as mathematical, there will always be a sense of inferiority that
can be summoned,” she says, adding that there are so many minorities who “have
experienced microaggressions from participating in math classrooms… [where
people are] judged by whether they can reason abstractly.”
You might ask yourself how people like this get jobs as
professors teaching how to teach mathematics.
Keep in mind these are the people who gave us Common Core
math. When guilt-ridden billionaires decide to see how much extra added damage
they can do to their inferiors they o conjure a new way of teaching different
subjects, like math. Since they do not know anything about the way mathematics
should be taught they turn to experts, to the elites who study the art of
teaching. With enough political will these standards are imposed on many of
America’s children.
One is happy to recall the judgment of world class
mathematician, Marina Ratner, late professor at University of California at
Berkeley:
I also read that
the Common Core offers "fewer standards" but "deeper" and
"more rigorous" understanding of math. That there were "fewer
standards" became obvious when I saw that they were vastly inferior to the
old California standards in rigor, depth and the scope of topics. Many topics—for
instance, calculus and pre-calculus, about half of algebra II and parts of
geometry—were taken out and many were moved to higher grades.
As a result, the Common Core standards were
several years behind the old standards, especially in higher grades. It became
clear that the new standards represent lower expectations and that students
taught in the way that these standards require would have little chance of
being admitted to even an average college and would certainly struggle if they
did get in.
Dumbed down, anyone? Ratner continued:
It became clear to me that the Common Core's
"deeper" and "more rigorous" standards mean replacing math
with some kind of illustrative counting saturated with pictures, diagrams and
elaborate word problems. Simple concepts are made artificially intricate and
complex with the pretense of being deeper—while the actual content taught was
primitive.
And also:
Yet the most astounding statement I have read is
the claim that Common Core standards are "internationally
benchmarked." They are not. The Common Core fails any comparison with the
standards of high-achieving countries, just as they fail compared to the old
California standards. They are lower in the total scope of learned material, in
the depth and rigor of the treatment of mathematical subjects, and in the
delayed and often inconsistent and incoherent introductions of mathematical
concepts and skills.
Well, at least the children who fall behind will not feel
badly.
5 comments:
Thank you for not calling Guiterrez a "math professor", a description I have seen plastered all over the internet. She is typical of the ed faculty in university schools of education all over America; blithering, poorly educated idiots, the lot. She has no core knowledge of mathematics, as established by her bio. Her idiocy is exceeded only by the Australian "professor" who claims boys are better at physics because they can play pissing games, thereby acquiring better intuitive grasp of trajectories.
Feeling badly is a highly undesirable outcome, and improved math skills a highly unlikely outcome.
I'll happily note that my state of Minnesota never adopted the Common Core Mathematics standard, although that's not proof we don't have SJW's doing their own mischief here.
http://www.startribune.com/why-common-core-makes-the-grade/290852271
---
Minnesota did not adopt Common Core math standards, because state standards written before the development of the national standards are not up for revision until later this year. Essentially, Minnesota has been ahead of the game on standards development, and it has come up with its own rigorous guidelines and requirements in recent years. Those policies are in line with Common Core and are aligned with college and career expectations.
---
As to racist mathematics, it does sound completely irrational. Mathematics is one of the rare fields where subjectivity does not freely reign, and where a student has a chance to correct a teacher when the teacher makes mistakes.
It might be more fair to argue mathematics, especially higher math, is sexist, and Guiterrez would seem to demonstrate an excellent reason why it should remain sexist.
OTOH, we can be glad for movies like "Hidden Figures" shows women with initiative and a willingness to follow logic and reason, can show up many males, and don't have to back don't just because it hurts men's feelings.
Blithering idiot. Probably a “diversity” hire for the Illini, demonstrating their “commitment to inclusion.” That’s what you get with this kind of thing. GutiĆ©rrez should be grateful for mathematics every time she crosses a bridge or does... much of anything. We’re told we’re all equal in human capacity. It would be more interesting for Gutierrez to dedicate her work toward what keeps browns from high achievement in mathematics. Then she would stop blaming it on some “privileged” white people who actually learn the body of work necessary to command the economic benefit. I’m sure she’s treating this like any other “disparate impact” study, which highlights the hogwash of the entire theory.
Perhaps the Simpsons got it right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64PKoAiWhjE
Post a Comment