3 ms·

Sure but the document explains the rationale as follows: > The Divisional Court found that the Math Proficiency Test had an adverse impact on entry to the teac

Sure but the document explains the rationale as follows: > The Divisional Court found that the Math Proficiency Test had an adverse impact on entry to the teaching profession for racialized teacher candidates So the concern is that the tail is wagging the dog -- in the sense that trying to have a certain mix of teachers from various backgrounds drives the requirements instead of requirements being guided by what students need from their teachers

bluecalm 5y ago
Yup, misunderstanding of basic math strikes again. I thought it's a joke when I first seen an argument like "X race does worse at Y therefore Y is racist". Then I thought it's some kind of running joke. Then I've noticed some people are serious about it so I assumed they got fooled by the running joke. Apparently it's no longer a joke and it's used to dictate policies. Pretty scary situation. The dumb are winning with the dumbest of arguments and now you can't even test for it to prevent it :)
- bjt2n3904 5y ago
  This is precisely Kendi's antiracist rationale. 1. Every policy either is racist, or antiracist. There are no neutral policies. 2. "Racialized" teachers are unable to pass a math test in order to be eligible for the job. 3. Because the policy does not produce an equal outcome, the policy is therefore racist. Add on top of that, the Smithsonian's ridiculous publication, suggesting that things like objective truth and math/science are concepts of "Whiteness", and this is the outcome. Harrison Bergeron would like a word.
  - bluecalm 5y ago
    I remember when it started appearing and the narrative was "it's just a fringe, no one sane thinks like that" but apparently suddenly it's accepted argument in the court of law. I mean, this is Idiocracy materializing. You can't have any kind of discussion if the other side doesn't get basic reasoning right. It's one thing to disagree about values but if we can't even use very basic reasonings it's completely hopeless.

bluecalm 5y ago

Yup, misunderstanding of basic math strikes again. I thought it's a joke when I first seen an argument like "X race does worse at Y therefore Y is racist". Then I thought it's some kind of running joke. Then I've noticed some people are serious about it so I assumed they got fooled by the running joke. Apparently it's no longer a joke and it's used to dictate policies. Pretty scary situation. The dumb are winning with the dumbest of arguments and now you can't even test for it to prevent it :)

bjt2n3904 5y ago
This is precisely Kendi's antiracist rationale. 1. Every policy either is racist, or antiracist. There are no neutral policies. 2. "Racialized" teachers are unable to pass a math test in order to be eligible for the job. 3. Because the policy does not produce an equal outcome, the policy is therefore racist. Add on top of that, the Smithsonian's ridiculous publication, suggesting that things like objective truth and math/science are concepts of "Whiteness", and this is the outcome. Harrison Bergeron would like a word.
- bluecalm 5y ago
  I remember when it started appearing and the narrative was "it's just a fringe, no one sane thinks like that" but apparently suddenly it's accepted argument in the court of law. I mean, this is Idiocracy materializing. You can't have any kind of discussion if the other side doesn't get basic reasoning right. It's one thing to disagree about values but if we can't even use very basic reasonings it's completely hopeless.