3 ms·

Come on, this is such a willfully ignorant reading of this text. Check the FAQs, interviews with the authors, or simply the rest of this very document. Sure, it

Come on, this is such a willfully ignorant reading of this text. Check the FAQs, interviews with the authors, or simply the rest of this very document. Sure, it could have been written better in order to not trigger and scare people, but the meaning is pretty trivial if you read it without being primed, especially in the context of all the other words around it. First, they are listing words cited in an academic study, to set up the language used for the rest of the document. Claiming they are saying "objectivity in math is white surpremacy" is like saying "critical race theory is taught in high school". Second, the overall message is that "roteness" is a bad way to teach. Sure, they link it to how "my way or the high way" authoritarianism is linked to how the downtrodden have been treated in America and make a parallel between that and rote memorization style of teaching. How is that unreasonable in a document talking about the experience of black people in highschool?

cscurmudgeon 5y ago
> Come on, this is such a willfully ignorant reading of this text. Maybe you are the willfully ignorant one here? I understand roteness is bad. But please explain: 1. How roteness is linked to white supremacy. 2. How objectivity is linked to roteness. They are not related at all. You can be objective and creative. E.g., Ramanujan. 3. Asians are well known for rote learning. I am Indian. I know how rote it can get and I agree it is bad. But stop conflating that with objectivity. 4. > Claiming they are saying "objectivity in math is white surpremacy" is like saying "critical race theory is taught in high school". Did you read the document? That is exactly what they say and imply in multiple places. Roteness is different from objectivity. You are defending a straw man. Words have meanings. If they mean't roteness, use that.
- krastanov 5y ago
  Do not pick one word out of context, especially when the (obtuse and academic) definition of that word is important for the understanding of the text (as explained by the sibling comment). Again, this document does not at any place say anything that can reasonably be interpreted as "objectivity in math is white supremacy". Here is an example of what this document is talking about (in unnecessarily obtuse language, but the authors probably did not expect readers primed to read it with a negative interpretation): A *very* common wasted opportunity is the following. A student is given a problem to solve. They solve it by method A. The teacher wanted method B and grades the student poorly because method A is objectively different from method B. An opportunity to learn was wasted because the teacher used something they would consider "objective" or call "expecting perfectionism". "Objective" is a weasel word in this context that just absolves the instructor from considering the particular situation of the student and teaching to them. It seems you would be incredulous that this is my reading of the document. On the other hand, until six months ago, I was absolutely incredulous that anyone would read anything different in this document. It sounded crazy to me that people would read it the way you do. But I guess I have to concede that the document was written poorly and it triggers a lot of people. For context, if you care, to me the reading I presented seems obvious because I have read other pedagogical research literature that gives the same advice without discussing race. So the (tangential) mention along the lines of "ideologies of supremacy use the same language as inflexible teachers incapable of adjusting to the needs of their students" seemed like a curiosity, not like something over which to grab pitchforks.

cscurmudgeon 5y ago

> Come on, this is such a willfully ignorant reading of this text. Maybe you are the willfully ignorant one here? I understand roteness is bad. But please explain: 1. How roteness is linked to white supremacy. 2. How objectivity is linked to roteness. They are not related at all. You can be objective and creative. E.g., Ramanujan. 3. Asians are well known for rote learning. I am Indian. I know how rote it can get and I agree it is bad. But stop conflating that with objectivity. 4. > Claiming they are saying "objectivity in math is white surpremacy" is like saying "critical race theory is taught in high school". Did you read the document? That is exactly what they say and imply in multiple places. Roteness is different from objectivity. You are defending a straw man. Words have meanings. If they mean't roteness, use that.

krastanov 5y ago
Do not pick one word out of context, especially when the (obtuse and academic) definition of that word is important for the understanding of the text (as explained by the sibling comment). Again, this document does not at any place say anything that can reasonably be interpreted as "objectivity in math is white supremacy". Here is an example of what this document is talking about (in unnecessarily obtuse language, but the authors probably did not expect readers primed to read it with a negative interpretation): A *very* common wasted opportunity is the following. A student is given a problem to solve. They solve it by method A. The teacher wanted method B and grades the student poorly because method A is objectively different from method B. An opportunity to learn was wasted because the teacher used something they would consider "objective" or call "expecting perfectionism". "Objective" is a weasel word in this context that just absolves the instructor from considering the particular situation of the student and teaching to them. It seems you would be incredulous that this is my reading of the document. On the other hand, until six months ago, I was absolutely incredulous that anyone would read anything different in this document. It sounded crazy to me that people would read it the way you do. But I guess I have to concede that the document was written poorly and it triggers a lot of people. For context, if you care, to me the reading I presented seems obvious because I have read other pedagogical research literature that gives the same advice without discussing race. So the (tangential) mention along the lines of "ideologies of supremacy use the same language as inflexible teachers incapable of adjusting to the needs of their students" seemed like a curiosity, not like something over which to grab pitchforks.