I would have liked to find the original material the article and its sources refer to, but no luck on that. Still, there's lots to criticize and clarify in the

I would have liked to find the original material the article and its sources refer to, but no luck on that. Still, there's lots to criticize and clarify in the article text itself. > The Durham University guide insists that academics need to not only consider what theories to apply but the race of the theoreticians to “decolonize” math. It does not state how a failure to do so will impact on a professor’s retention or advancement at the university. This sentence is phrased like there are unknown consequences for disobedience, or an aura of dread and fear hanging over the campus should anyone object. However, it's also factually compatible with an alternative explanation, one I consider far more likely, which is that the proposals are entirely voluntary suggestions, and there are no actual or implied consequences for not following them. I'd love to see to original text to confirm this, since it's usually the case. This specific article is annoyingly short on details, so I'm looking at the Telegraph source (since the other source also links back to the Telegraph). You can get around the Telegraph paywall by disabling Javascript. Yes, this is an attempt to inject racial representation into math education. It's not really necessary, no, but it's not gonna hurt the students' education if a professor decides to do it (and since it's voluntary, they're free not to), and maybe it'll make a foreign or immigrant student's day. Overall, this is a really, really low stakes situation, to the point where the most plausible reason the Telegraph would publish the article is as culture war bait. Now for a couple of specific points. > Staff are urged to consider giving short biographies of the mathematicians whose work they present in their modules and are encouraged to question themselves if they choose predominantly “white and/or male” figures. In short: "Feel free to take a short tangent about the people who discovered the things your teaching, and also don't leave out the Arabic and Indian scholars." This seems like an acceptable way to try to get a room of freshmen's attention. > Examples given include the “American version won out” of 10^9, for power of ten represented by a billion, which was different to the British 10^12. That just seems like good information to have that not a lot of people know. It might save a history major a huge headache down the line when they're looking at old British sources. > Giving an example for statistics modules, the guide says that Simpson’s paradox is often illustrated using survivors of the Titanic and enrolments in an American university, but an alternative that “decentres Europe” involves “the under-representation of Maori in New Zealand jury pools”. The injection of a social issue here seems kind of awkward, but it'd work to illustrate the concept. Maybe it'd make that freshman from New Zealand pay attention today. Or maybe it won't, but it's not gonna stop them from learning about Simpson's paradox. This is a great illustration of my main point: it's pointless and might not help, but the stakes are so low that I can't imagine how someone could honestly get mad about it. (postscript: "...a West 'confident in its values' would not be 'obsessing over pronouns...'" is a hilarious quote about a piece of guidance that, as far as I can tell, mentions neither pronouns nor gender issues.)