7 ms·

Stanford prof calls police after whistleblower exposes $5000/hour gov. contacts

73 points by pain_perdu 5y ago

trinovantes 5y ago
Streisand effect strikes again!
- trhway 5y ago
  They really need mathematics consulting: "Amendment #1 to Agreement #20-97 with Joanne Boaler August 4, 2021 At the Board Meeting of November 4, 2020, the Board of Trustees approved Agreement #20-97 with Joanne Boaler, in the amount of $20,000.00, to provide TK-8 Mathematics Professional Development for Oxnard School District teachers during the 2020-2021 academic year. Amendment #1 in the amount of $20,000.00, is required to correct a math/clerical error in the original agreement. The correct verbiage should read “Provide four (4) two-hour sessions at the rate of $5,000.00 per hour for a total of $40,000”. "
  - adtac 5y ago
    this reads awfully like "we, uh, fixed the glitch"
sgdjgkeirj 5y ago
See also https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/tx0zot/jelani_nelson_eecs_professor_at_cal_has_been/ https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/tx0zot/jelani_nel... and https://mobile.twitter.com/boazbaraktcs/status/1511366075035922439 https://mobile.twitter.com/boazbaraktcs/status/1511366075035... for context
version_five 5y ago
This seems like an agitator trying to raise a fuss, not a "whistleblower" (I guess maybe that's how the term is used now). I'd encourage people to read the surrounding tweets, he looks like someone who wants to be outraged about something more than a brave soul calling out some malfeasance. That aside, if this money is for facilitating sessions, as another comment implies, it is perfectly reasonable. The facilitator has to prepare, follow up, etc. and is presenting to a group. I've done these kind of sessions and that rate is not high. The per hour of facilitation time is a meaningless way to look at it. For all I know, maybe there is something untoward going on, but the usual racial outrage we see in the tweets, and the inflammatory, clickbait headline certainly dont make any kind of case
- leereeves 5y ago
  Even if the rate is reasonable, what's the justification for involving the police?
  - hansvm 5y ago
    The stated reason was doxxing.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - leereeves 5y ago
      He didn't doxx her before the threat was made. Doxxing means revealing private personal information, but the contract (paid with government funds) that he shared is public record and thus not private by definition. He may have doxxed her by revealing her email address but that happened after the threat.
      - ahahahahah 5y ago
        That's not really correct. Generally someone's address is considered public information and yet sharing it on a site like Twitter is still considered doxxing. In fact, most doxxing happens using publicly available data.
      - KerrAvon 5y ago
        It doesn’t matter why he did it. The key words are “he may have doxxed her.”
        whimsicalism 5y ago
        Sure, except for the fact that he didn't, and none of that information is non-public.
        jansen555 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cato_the_elder 5y ago
I think the headline is misleading. Based on the linked tweet, it seems that it should be "threatens to call the police" or something like that. It's still quite ridiculous though. She kinda seems to be the Doctor Oz of math education.
- z3t111 5y ago
  Just for the record: "at no point did @minilek post @joboaler’s address. He only retweeted a post containing the information that she was paid $5000/hour by the Oxnard school district. This is neither “private details” nor “misinformation” " via https://mobile.twitter.com/boazbaraktcs/status/1511523206779314179 https://mobile.twitter.com/boazbaraktcs/status/1511523206779...
  - phendrenad2 5y ago
    I don't think it's as simple as that. I'm not a lawyer, but I think one could certainly be accused of inciting violence by telling the truth creatively, to the right audience, under the right circumstances (like Trump's tweets during Jan 6).
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      Yes, you are very clearly not a lawyer.
      - phendrenad2 5y ago
        Do you have more information to share?
    - jansen555 5y ago
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  No? Did you read the email? they say they had already contacted the police
prepend 5y ago
It seems an odd complaint that the author publish a paper without any black co-authors. Why is that noteworthy?
- tyingq 5y ago
  It appears to be more than a paper. It's 900+ pages, 14 chapters, and apparently intended to guide how California public schools teach math. With an emphasis on making it work better for minority students. Some sections have been deleted in the draft process, including some on "racism behind past math policies and practices".[1] [1] https://edsource.org/2022/california-revises-new-math-framework-to-keep-backlash-at-bay/669010 https://edsource.org/2022/california-revises-new-math-framew...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwoutway 5y ago
    Is perhaps the goal of publishing 900+ pages on a DEI topic to make it so inaccessible that they can profit ($5000hr) off taxpayers by charging public schools?
- nyc640 5y ago
  It's not that they published a paper without any Black co-authors. There has been a controversial push in California to reform public school math education guidelines called the California Math Framework [1]. It [2] frames current math education in California as failing minority students and gives suggestions for how to remedy it. The issue has been controversial as some see it as injecting social justice topics into the math curriculum, while others see it as necessary to contextualize math within our broader society. (edit: corrected by the other reply to your comment that said some of the parts of the framework about adding social justice topics have been removed from the most recent draft of the framework) The tweet author is pointing out that this 800-page framework about addressing inequalities in math education for minority (in particular Black and Latino) students was written by many authors, but none of them were Black. This seems like a valid criticism given the issues that it is explicitly trying to address. There have also been similar criticisms levied at the new framework because it was written entirely by academic researchers studying pedagogy and had little to no input from actual teachers. [1] https://calmatters.org/education/k-12-education/2021/11/california-math/ https://calmatters.org/education/k-12-education/2021/11/cali... [2] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/
whimsicalism 5y ago
The existing replies to this are disheartening. Regardless of what you think of the merits of Jelani's critique, it does not justify calling the cops on him. "Siccing" a twitter mob (something I question whether he really has) is not nearly as bad as "siccing" the government gun guys.
subjectsigma 5y ago
Super misleading title, I definitely thought reading it that she called 911 and the "whistleblower" had an actual confrontation with the cops. Instead she mentioned in an email she was seeking legal counsel after being subjected to what she felt was harassment, and that involved talking to the police. Not entirely sure about the details but this dude is extremely suspect. Every single tweet he tries to paint himself as a victim by using charged and misleading words. "You can't call the police on Black people!" is just such an outrageous thing to say in situation which has nothing to do with race and which you didn't interact with the police at all.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  > this dude is extremely suspect "This dude" is both a prominent educator and prominent researcher of algorithms. If you actually look at his twitter history, this sort of tweet [0] is much more common than any trying to "paint himself as a victim." I'm sorry, but if someone siccs lawyers and/or the police on you for a tweet you make criticizing them, you are a victim and it beyond reasonable to be upset about it. This thread has been a real master class in how HN reacts to any rhetoric around race as trying to "paint yourself as a victim." It's really obvious to me knowing Jelani outside of contexts like this how much you are trying to mis-represent him. [0]: https://twitter.com/minilek/status/1498504249876963331 https://twitter.com/minilek/status/1498504249876963331
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    You are projecting far too much.
  - subjectsigma 5y ago
    Nothing has happened to him. He has had literally no personal, professional, or legal consequences at this point. Unless the situation changed since yesterday, he has not had anyone "[sicc] lawyers and/or police on [him]". He is not a victim. The fact that he works in data science has absolutely no bearing on the content of the tweets we are discussing. I'm a bored guy on the Internet, I'm literally typing this comment while taking a shit. I don't care at all what the outcome of this is. I'm not "trying" to do anything or push a narrative. You, in the other hand, have left a wild amount of comments in this thread and keep reminding everyone that you personally know him. Maybe you are the one with personal biases and ulterior motives when it is you versus the world?
zenexer 5y ago
For anyone interested, this appears to be the document in question: [1] If I understand correctly, that version of the document specifies $5k/session, with each session being 2 hours. However, there seems to be an amendment that changes the compensation to $5k/hr ($10k/session).[2] These are public files linked from Oxnard School District's website under "Board Meeting Agendas"--in particular, the August 4 2021 Regular Board Meeting,[3] page 375. I'm confused as to how this could be construed as private information when it's quite clearly a public document published by the school district. Aside: Don't send emails like this. If you find yourself writing terms like "lawyer" and "police" in an email intended to express your dissatisfaction with someone else's decisions, pause. Revisit it tomorrow. Furthermore, if you're a public figure or are otherwise in the spotlight, consider that the majority of the people reading your email will not be those to whom it is explicitly addressed. It will be read--and judged--by the public. Write your messages as though you will be reading them on a stage in front of an audience. Everyone lets their emotions get the better of them from time to time, and everyone makes mistakes--but if you're being paid $5k/hr, those mistakes had better be exceedingly rare. [1]: https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/990191/_20-97_Agreement__Signed__-_Jo_Boaler__Math_PD___DeGenna-Prater_.pdf https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/atta... [2]: https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/990190/_20-97_Amendment__1_-_Jo_Boaler__Math_PD___DeGenna-Prater_.pdf https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/atta... [3]: https://www.oxnardsd.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=24956&dataid=23535&FileName=Full%20Agenda%20-%20August%204%202021%20Regular%20Board%20Meeting.pdf https://www.oxnardsd.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?mod...

73 points by pain_perdu 5y ago

trinovantes 5y ago

Streisand effect strikes again!

trhway 5y ago
They really need mathematics consulting: "Amendment #1 to Agreement #20-97 with Joanne Boaler August 4, 2021 At the Board Meeting of November 4, 2020, the Board of Trustees approved Agreement #20-97 with Joanne Boaler, in the amount of $20,000.00, to provide TK-8 Mathematics Professional Development for Oxnard School District teachers during the 2020-2021 academic year. Amendment #1 in the amount of $20,000.00, is required to correct a math/clerical error in the original agreement. The correct verbiage should read “Provide four (4) two-hour sessions at the rate of $5,000.00 per hour for a total of $40,000”. "
- adtac 5y ago
  this reads awfully like "we, uh, fixed the glitch"

sgdjgkeirj 5y ago

See also https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/tx0zot/jelani_nelson_eecs_professor_at_cal_has_been/ https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/tx0zot/jelani_nel... and https://mobile.twitter.com/boazbaraktcs/status/1511366075035922439 https://mobile.twitter.com/boazbaraktcs/status/1511366075035... for context

version_five 5y ago

This seems like an agitator trying to raise a fuss, not a "whistleblower" (I guess maybe that's how the term is used now). I'd encourage people to read the surrounding tweets, he looks like someone who wants to be outraged about something more than a brave soul calling out some malfeasance. That aside, if this money is for facilitating sessions, as another comment implies, it is perfectly reasonable. The facilitator has to prepare, follow up, etc. and is presenting to a group. I've done these kind of sessions and that rate is not high. The per hour of facilitation time is a meaningless way to look at it. For all I know, maybe there is something untoward going on, but the usual racial outrage we see in the tweets, and the inflammatory, clickbait headline certainly dont make any kind of case

leereeves 5y ago
Even if the rate is reasonable, what's the justification for involving the police?
- hansvm 5y ago
  The stated reason was doxxing.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - leereeves 5y ago
    He didn't doxx her before the threat was made. Doxxing means revealing private personal information, but the contract (paid with government funds) that he shared is public record and thus not private by definition. He may have doxxed her by revealing her email address but that happened after the threat.
    - ahahahahah 5y ago
      That's not really correct. Generally someone's address is considered public information and yet sharing it on a site like Twitter is still considered doxxing. In fact, most doxxing happens using publicly available data.
    - KerrAvon 5y ago
      It doesn’t matter why he did it. The key words are “he may have doxxed her.”
      - whimsicalism 5y ago
        Sure, except for the fact that he didn't, and none of that information is non-public.
      - jansen555 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cato_the_elder 5y ago

I think the headline is misleading. Based on the linked tweet, it seems that it should be "threatens to call the police" or something like that. It's still quite ridiculous though. She kinda seems to be the Doctor Oz of math education.

z3t111 5y ago
Just for the record: "at no point did @minilek post @joboaler’s address. He only retweeted a post containing the information that she was paid $5000/hour by the Oxnard school district. This is neither “private details” nor “misinformation” " via https://mobile.twitter.com/boazbaraktcs/status/1511523206779314179 https://mobile.twitter.com/boazbaraktcs/status/1511523206779...
- phendrenad2 5y ago
  I don't think it's as simple as that. I'm not a lawyer, but I think one could certainly be accused of inciting violence by telling the truth creatively, to the right audience, under the right circumstances (like Trump's tweets during Jan 6).
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Yes, you are very clearly not a lawyer.
    - phendrenad2 5y ago
      Do you have more information to share?
  - jansen555 5y ago
whimsicalism 5y ago
No? Did you read the email? they say they had already contacted the police

prepend 5y ago

It seems an odd complaint that the author publish a paper without any black co-authors. Why is that noteworthy?

tyingq 5y ago
It appears to be more than a paper. It's 900+ pages, 14 chapters, and apparently intended to guide how California public schools teach math. With an emphasis on making it work better for minority students. Some sections have been deleted in the draft process, including some on "racism behind past math policies and practices".[1] [1] https://edsource.org/2022/california-revises-new-math-framework-to-keep-backlash-at-bay/669010 https://edsource.org/2022/california-revises-new-math-framew...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throwoutway 5y ago
  Is perhaps the goal of publishing 900+ pages on a DEI topic to make it so inaccessible that they can profit ($5000hr) off taxpayers by charging public schools?
nyc640 5y ago
It's not that they published a paper without any Black co-authors. There has been a controversial push in California to reform public school math education guidelines called the California Math Framework [1]. It [2] frames current math education in California as failing minority students and gives suggestions for how to remedy it. The issue has been controversial as some see it as injecting social justice topics into the math curriculum, while others see it as necessary to contextualize math within our broader society. (edit: corrected by the other reply to your comment that said some of the parts of the framework about adding social justice topics have been removed from the most recent draft of the framework) The tweet author is pointing out that this 800-page framework about addressing inequalities in math education for minority (in particular Black and Latino) students was written by many authors, but none of them were Black. This seems like a valid criticism given the issues that it is explicitly trying to address. There have also been similar criticisms levied at the new framework because it was written entirely by academic researchers studying pedagogy and had little to no input from actual teachers. [1] https://calmatters.org/education/k-12-education/2021/11/california-math/ https://calmatters.org/education/k-12-education/2021/11/cali... [2] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/

whimsicalism 5y ago

The existing replies to this are disheartening. Regardless of what you think of the merits of Jelani's critique, it does not justify calling the cops on him. "Siccing" a twitter mob (something I question whether he really has) is not nearly as bad as "siccing" the government gun guys.

subjectsigma 5y ago

Super misleading title, I definitely thought reading it that she called 911 and the "whistleblower" had an actual confrontation with the cops. Instead she mentioned in an email she was seeking legal counsel after being subjected to what she felt was harassment, and that involved talking to the police. Not entirely sure about the details but this dude is extremely suspect. Every single tweet he tries to paint himself as a victim by using charged and misleading words. "You can't call the police on Black people!" is just such an outrageous thing to say in situation which has nothing to do with race and which you didn't interact with the police at all.

whimsicalism 5y ago
> this dude is extremely suspect "This dude" is both a prominent educator and prominent researcher of algorithms. If you actually look at his twitter history, this sort of tweet [0] is much more common than any trying to "paint himself as a victim." I'm sorry, but if someone siccs lawyers and/or the police on you for a tweet you make criticizing them, you are a victim and it beyond reasonable to be upset about it. This thread has been a real master class in how HN reacts to any rhetoric around race as trying to "paint yourself as a victim." It's really obvious to me knowing Jelani outside of contexts like this how much you are trying to mis-represent him. [0]: https://twitter.com/minilek/status/1498504249876963331 https://twitter.com/minilek/status/1498504249876963331
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  You are projecting far too much.
- subjectsigma 5y ago
  Nothing has happened to him. He has had literally no personal, professional, or legal consequences at this point. Unless the situation changed since yesterday, he has not had anyone "[sicc] lawyers and/or police on [him]". He is not a victim. The fact that he works in data science has absolutely no bearing on the content of the tweets we are discussing. I'm a bored guy on the Internet, I'm literally typing this comment while taking a shit. I don't care at all what the outcome of this is. I'm not "trying" to do anything or push a narrative. You, in the other hand, have left a wild amount of comments in this thread and keep reminding everyone that you personally know him. Maybe you are the one with personal biases and ulterior motives when it is you versus the world?

zenexer 5y ago

For anyone interested, this appears to be the document in question: [1] If I understand correctly, that version of the document specifies $5k/session, with each session being 2 hours. However, there seems to be an amendment that changes the compensation to $5k/hr ($10k/session).[2] These are public files linked from Oxnard School District's website under "Board Meeting Agendas"--in particular, the August 4 2021 Regular Board Meeting,[3] page 375. I'm confused as to how this could be construed as private information when it's quite clearly a public document published by the school district. Aside: Don't send emails like this. If you find yourself writing terms like "lawyer" and "police" in an email intended to express your dissatisfaction with someone else's decisions, pause. Revisit it tomorrow. Furthermore, if you're a public figure or are otherwise in the spotlight, consider that the majority of the people reading your email will not be those to whom it is explicitly addressed. It will be read--and judged--by the public. Write your messages as though you will be reading them on a stage in front of an audience. Everyone lets their emotions get the better of them from time to time, and everyone makes mistakes--but if you're being paid $5k/hr, those mistakes had better be exceedingly rare. [1]: https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/990191/_20-97_Agreement__Signed__-_Jo_Boaler__Math_PD___DeGenna-Prater_.pdf https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/atta... [2]: https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/990190/_20-97_Amendment__1_-_Jo_Boaler__Math_PD___DeGenna-Prater_.pdf https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/atta... [3]: https://www.oxnardsd.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=24956&dataid=23535&FileName=Full%20Agenda%20-%20August%204%202021%20Regular%20Board%20Meeting.pdf https://www.oxnardsd.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?mod...