Some racial awareness in the classroom could actually be a good thing – but arguing ‘maths is racist’ isn’t going to get us there

By: David Matthews

The woke Left say we must teach kids that everything from maths to history is steeped in ‘white privilege’. The reactionary Right say this is indoctrination with no place in the classroom. But the reality is somewhere in between.

Back in the dark days of 1970s British state education, the bedrock of my primary school instruction was known, alliteratively, as “the three R’s”, aka “reading, writing and arithmetic”. The concept taught oiks like me the basics, namely barely enough language and mathematical skills to stumble into a world of skilled, semi-skilled and occasionally white-collar drudgery.

Education, for my generation, was far from “woke”. The daily grind of school was about equipping pupils with an understanding of core and vocational subjects, which included the now outmoded woodwork and metalwork (how to be a man and bring home the bacon) and home economics (how to be a good little housewife and put the tea on). The implicit aim of state education was to prepare us proles for the long march toward the building site, factory floor or clerks’ office, with a byproduct being maybe you’d be smart enough in later years to hold a conversation with a prospective spouse and thus get married and “settle down”.

And that was about it.

Jump to secondary school in the eighties and there was enough 1984Animal Farm and The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists type “cultural Marxism” on the curriculum to give the left-wing socks-and-sandals brigade a sense they were creating a “proto-woke” working class – which was something of a British socialist fantasy back then. Today, however, with the unions lacking charismatic leadership, the Labour Party lacking any sort of leadership, and increasing numbers of Britain’s proletariat busily doffing their caps to clown prince of Downing St Boris Johnson, the left has all but given up on class struggle as a vote-winner, preferring instead to focus its blurry attention on climate change, gender politics and other issues far too abstract for the man on the Clapham omnibus.

So it comes as no surprise that the latest diktat on “white privilege” coming from woke educators isn’t designed to improve declining school standards or improve the lot of the great unwashed, but to promote a new form of three R’s: “righteousness, reparations and racism”.

Or at least this is what right-wing grifters will have you believe.

According to the Telegraph, the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education (NATRE) claims it wants to introduce lessons for 8-11-year-olds that teach the “key concept” of white privilege while also getting primary school teachers to face up to their own unconscious bias in the classroom, as unrequited prejudices “can make it hard for some to identify systemic racism”. 

The NATRE learning materials obtained by the Telegraph are also said to contain “key ideas” that include “put-downs and jokes as microaggressions that can ‘reinforce white power’”, adding: “It’s important to engage with the idea that racism is a problem for white people, rather than for black people.”

The document also nails Christianity for “sugar coating” the “shameful stain” of its involvement in the transatlantic slave trade, helpfully informing teachers that “the complicity of Christians in the enslavement of millions is an untold story”.

Predictably, religious detractors and right-wing mouthpieces, from the former Bishop of Rochester Dr Michael Nazir-Ali to Spectator columnist and free-speech warrior Toby Young, have been far from turning the other cheek for what they see as a blasphemous blend of anti-white, anti-British propagandising of the school curriculum.

Nazir-Ali dismissed NATRE’s notion of white privilege, pointing out the factoid that “white working class boys are at the bottom of the pile” while Young rubbished it with the canard, “Britain is one of the least racist countries in the world”.

But if you actually think about what NATRE is proposing as classroom aids for professional teachers as a way of helping them to create stimulating lesson plans that help youngsters to navigate complex social issues, what’s the problem? What are 8-11-year-olds to make of watching EURO 2020 and seeing players take the knee, and get booed for their troubles? Or catch yet another BLM demonstration on the news? Or listen to their parents chuntering on behind their copies of the Sun and, er, the Telegraph about immigration – for the nth time that day?

As a father of three, I run the gamut of daily interrogation about what’s going on in the world. Children are curious, inquisitive and a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Teaching them about former glories or an imperialist past is all well and good; no one is suggesting that they shouldn’t learn about the Romans, the Vikings, the Normans and everyone else who’s conquered the British Isles. Or Shakespeare. Or Isambard Kingdom Brunel. But there’s lots of other stuff that’s been conveniently airbrushed from the curriculum, an act that has been far more detrimental to the education of millions of ordinary kids than introducing a little “racial awareness” here and there. Wrapping kids up in cotton wool and shutting them off from the real world does them no favours. Children soon pick up on contested ideas, such as white working class boys are rubbish or Britain is a racial Disneyland – from in the home, the media and the street – so why not give them some well-thought out context in the classroom?

What reactionaries often claim is classroom propaganda is in fact pedagogy. And they know it. Teaching styles, practice, content, knowledge transfer and delivery must change with the times. However, the right loves nothing more than victim-signalling contested ideas such as “white privilege” as though they’re part of a Marxist brainwashing programme designed to corrupt our youth when more often than not they’re classroom talking points designed to bring more children into the educational mix, not shut down discussion.

Personally, I can’t stand the notion of white supremacy or white privilege. Both convey notions of superiority that flatter rather than undermine their intended targets. Which is why introducing ideas such as “white privilege”, “white supremacy” and the politics of Black Lives Matter into the classroom, left-wing educators run the risk of letting propaganda, psychobabble and anti-Eurocentrism (usually of the dead-white-male variety) get in the way of genuine progressive thinking.

Take the recent brouhaha over “maths is racist” for instance. Educators in California (where else) had debated whether to apply the politics of social justice to teaching mathematics across the state to K-12, or kindergarten to 12th grade students, as a means of eradicating “white supremacy” from the subject. In turn, this would eliminate special classes for gifted students and thus create an idealistic equal academic playing field – presumably by dragging everyone down rather than raising everyone up.

Critics rounded on the proposal, citing the history of maths as a melting pot of cultural ideas and, given its theoretical objectivity, argued that this bedrock of scientific thought is inherently anti-racist by its very definition.

“It is absurd to accuse mathematics of being ‘racist,’” said William Happer, a professor of physics emeritus at Princeton University. “We use Indian numerals that come to us through the Arabs. There are still lots of distinguished mathematicians in India who speak the same worldwide mathematical language as mathematicians in North America, Europe, the Arab world, India, China, Japan, Africa, South America, etc. Greek geometry, much of it borrowed from Egypt and Mesopotamia, is still one of the most sublime human achievements.”

Officials eventually blocked the inclusion of a document on “dismantling racism in mathematics instruction,” which argued, bizarrely, against “upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers”. However, ahead of the next round of consultations this summer, classes for gifted students remain doubtful. Educators are still against streaming maths classes by ability or achievement calling for an end to “gifted and talented” programmes because they are “inequitable”.

As whacky as it sounds, the idea that maths, and by extension science as a whole, “is racist” isn’t new, at least in America.

In 2017, Professor Rochelle Gutierrez from the University of Illinois claimed that teaching maths perpetuates “unearned” white privilege, and urged her colleagues to appreciate the “politics that mathematics brings”. Writing in Building Support for Scholarly Practices in Mathematics Methods, Gutierrez argues that the Pythagorean theorem and pi reinforce white supremacy by showing that maths was developed by the Greeks and Europeans.

“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 writes.

In 2019, Seattle Public Schools released a draft of new learning objectives that integrated “ethnic studies” into mathematics, as well as other subjects, raising questions such as, “Where does Power and Oppression show up in our math experiences?” and “How is math manipulated to allow inequality and oppression to persist?

Other states, including Vermont, Oregon and of course California, have also produced K-12 learning materials that promote the classroom experiences of people of colour. Seattle and California, however, have calculated further that rethinking existing courses so that they’re now taught through an anti-racist lens is progress, rather than part of a woketard, BLM, cultural-Marxism conspiracy, which is how reactionaries predictably read it.

The progressive view is that introducing an ethnic lens to traditionally tough subjects such as maths makes them more “inclusive” and thus appealing to students who often see such disciplines as “white”, not least because better-off white parents can hothouse their kids through tough subjects such as maths and the sciences. While maths is “objective” in a “one plus one equals two” sense, many argue that the way it’s taught, the resources given to it and the cultural expectations or unconscious biases that pervade education systems are subjective. The same, of course, can be argued about education and gender. If this wasn’t the case boys would still be learning woodwork and metalwork and girls would still be learning home economics. Change doesn’t happen on its own.

2016 Stanford University report, which examined ethnic-studies classes in San Francisco high schools, found that attendance increased by 21% and GPA (grade point average) increased by 1.4 grade points with significant effects on GPA specific to math and science; boys and Hispanic students improved the most.

“When students can see themselves in curriculum and see diversity in curriculum, they respond better,” Wayne Au, a professor at the University of Washington Bothell, told the Seattle Times. Au has helped lead Seattle’s ethnic-studies initiative. “And, it can help white students understand themselves better. Structural racism in the country has mistaught white people about themselves – that they don’t have culture, that they don’t have roots.”

In his book, Is Science Racist? Jonathan Marks, Professor of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, argues that the eugenic science of the early twentieth century and the commodified genomic science of today are unified by the mistaken belief that human races are naturalistic categories. Yet their boundaries are founded neither in biology nor in genetics and, not being a formal scientific concept, race is largely not accessible to the scientist.”

In other words, race can only be grasped through the humanities – historically, experientially, politically – so conflating race with hard science is as problematic for woke educators as it is for the eugenic morons who think the colour of someone’s skin influences their intellect or educational ability.

One has to wonder what Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson, NASA’s African-American ‘Hidden Figures’ women, would make of this latest educational ‘race war’. After all, they grew up in an era of segregated education. No doubt they’d think something doesn’t quite add up when it comes to equating maths and other subjects as “racist”. But I bet they’d still want to sit down and work out the problem.

Source and Image: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/526859-maths-racist-racial-awareness-classroom/

Comparte este contenido:

Branding the humanities in Asia

Asia/Singapour/ http://qswownews.com/Pieter Stek/Mandy Mok

Resumen:

Las humanidades son «lujos que los estudiantes con mentalidad de empleo no pueden permitirse» (The New York Times, 19 de junio de 2016). Este es un sentimiento que no solo tienen muchos en Occidente, sino también muchos estudiantes y sus padres en Asia. A menudo se prefieren los campos de la ciencia y profesionales como la ingeniería, la medicina y el derecho, dado que las humanidades son ampliamente percibidas como las que tienen entradas menos competitivas y sus graduados como «segunda clase».  Se ha recogido en Asia. En Singapur, Hong Kong y Corea del Sur, por nombrar algunos ejemplos, un fuerte llamados a aumentar las humanidades y las ciencias sociales en el currículum universitario, para recaudar fondos de investigación para las humanidades y, de hecho, se están creando nuevas universidades centradas en las artes liberales. , con el NUS-Yale College en Singapur, que se inauguró en 2013, siendo el ejemplo más destacado.


The humanities in Asia

The humanities are “luxuries that employment-minded students can ill afford” (The New York Times, 19 June 2016). This is a sentiment not just held by many in the West, but also by many students and their parents in Asia. Science and professional fields such as engineering, medicine and law, are often preferred. The humanities are widely perceived as having less competitive admissions and their graduates as “second rate”. Furthermore, in many countries around the world the humanities attract significantly more female than male students.

Yet the humanities are an important field, especially because science and technology have such a powerful impact on society. The humanities, if taught well, teach uncertainty, doubt, scepticism and can challenge authority, whether it is religious, social, cultural, political or scientific. The humanities remind us that science cannot explain all there is to know about life and that humans, especially when acting collectively, have a great capacity for deluding themselves.

Look no further than the Brexit referendum or the 2016 United States Presidential Elections if more evidence is needed: they are votes for a “rational solution” to problems that are vastly less simple than they are being portrayed and perceived.

As the Humanities Commission put it in 2015 in their final report to the United States Congress:

“As we strive to create a more civil public discourse, a more adaptable and creative workforce, and a more secure nation, the humanities and social sciences are the heart of the matter, the keeper of the republic—a source of national memory and civic vigor, cultural understanding and communication, individual fulfilment and the ideals we hold in common. They are critical to a democratic society and they require our support.”
(The Heart of the Matter, Report to U.S. Congress, 2015)

In particular the part about a “creative workforce” has been picked up in Asia. In Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea, just to name a few examples, there are strong calls to increase humanities and social sciences in the university curriculum, to raise research funding for the humanities and in fact new liberal arts-focused universities are being created, with the NUS-Yale College in Singapore, which opened in 2013, being the most prominent example.

In the case of Singapore, investment in the humanities is seen as part of a push to enhance human capital formation which nurtures personal confidence, self-directed learning, social engagement, critical thinking, creative practice, reasoned argument and teamwork, which in turn leads to a workforce capable of innovation.

These developments are all positive for the humanities in Asia, but they also risk re-positioning the humanities as the perpetual “elective” subject, which help to create “well-rounded individuals” (whatever that means), but which fail to provoke the deep, intense and passionate questioning that a true humanities education is all about.

What is truth? What is the meaning of life? What is happiness?

How do we raise the humanities from being the “elective” subject, to become the core subject for more students in Asia?

To answer that question, we may need some expert advice.

The Asian consumer

A German, Berndt Schmitt, professor at the Columbia Business School and Nanyang Technological University, is often regarded as “Mr Asian Consumer” because of his tireless research in trying to understand what Asian consumers want.

While every generalisation in the social sciences is flawed, especially in a continent as large, diverse and dynamic as Asia, Schmitt highlights a number of paradoxes that define the contemporary Asian consumer.

The collectivist individualist – Asians are often thought to be collectivist and their actions are part of their family and other social networks. Yet many young Asians are growing up in small families, or in the case of China, one-child families, and these “little emperors” are likely to be highly individualistic, although perhaps like Japan and South Korea, highly sensitive to popular culture.

The functional hedonist – Asians are increasingly seeking an experience, although they are also looking for value. An example where these values unite may be studying abroad: go on a “holiday” and earn a degree!

Value shopaholics – Asians love brands, but they also love lucky draws, rebates, discounts, memberships etc, and are very price conscious. They will try to get the best deal on their Louis Vuitton, Gucci or Chanel at all cost.

Traditional futurists – Asians often emphasise traditional values, food, festivals etc but if one visits any major Asian metropolis, its filled with the newest buildings and latest technology. English is widely spoken and “international style” is the dress code. Do not expect a kimono in Tokyo, cheongsam in Shanghai, or sarongs in a Jakarta business meetings.

The Millennial and Generation Z

Millennials and Generation Z are slightly fuzzy concepts, but in general millennials are the generation born between 1980 to 2000. Research suggests that there are more than a few things that set millennials apart from previous generations. Having grown up during a growing economy filled with new technologies they are a different type of student.

Immune to advertising – Millennials have a high tendency to “tune out” when advertising is displayed and immediately distrust the messages they receive. This means that the conventional approach of flashy brochures with smiling students may be highly ineffective in persuading their study decisions.

Compare prices – Just like the “value shopaholics”, millennials tend to compare prices and may therefore be more willing so study further away if the numbers add up, and be more keenly focused on employability. They may also be keen to “hack” their education to maximise credit transfers, time spent abroad and accelerated learning pathways.

Use social media – While they are immune to advertising, millennials are very strong on social media. Besides wanting to interact with a prospective university through those channels, they will also learn about the institution through social media that may not be controlled by the institution.

Will co-create – Millennials are more willing to co-create a product or service rather than consumer it passively. This explains the popularity of the “flipped classroom”, internships, projects and other more interactive learning formats.

Value authenticity – A dislike for advertising translates into valuing authenticity. An institution that is willing to give transparency about its good and bad sides, which is genuinely trying to contribute to local and global society, is likely to find itself in good stead among millennials. Institutions that are hypocritical, which lie or whose communication is superficial can be expected to be ignored, or called on it.

The millennials’ wave is soon ending and the post-2000 generation (generation Z) will soon be knocking at the university gates. This generation is expected to be even more in tune with technology and has spent their defining years in a world defined by economic crises and terrorism. Yet this generation appears to be highly idealistic, with Malala (Nobel peace prize winner) as their poster-child, and they are focused on their passions and pragmatic in how they want to achieve them.

With this knowledge in hand, how can we brand the humanities in Asia to win favour with Asian students and their parents?

Branding the humanities in Asia

How do we tell the humanities story to collectivist individualists who are also functional hedonists, value shopaholics and traditional futurists? How do we communicate with a price-comparing, social media-using and apparently quite judgemental young audience?

What follows is a very humble attempt at answering this question.

To convince the collectivist individualist, the humanities must get out more into popular culture. Young people often struggle with “big humanities questions” such as the meaning of life, truth, happiness, finding their identity etc and will seek answers in religion, social media, books, popular music, television dramas, and sometimes drugs, sex and other less socially desirable avenues. The humanities as an academic community need to be there to guide these intellectual journeys, and not just stay inside the halls of academia. Bring Shakespeare and Socrates to social media. That’s where they’re most needed right now.

To gain favour with the functional hedonist, the humanities must emphasise the personal experience and the enriching intellectual journey their students go through, as well as the skillset they give their graduates. Critical and creative thinking are highly valuable skills that are also critical in a field like marketing, communications or policy making, but which many degrees in marketing, communications or law, lack. The intellectual journey must appeal to the hedonistic side of students: it is okay to be intellectually self-indulgent. If your parents can buy you a luxury car or an apartment, why can’t they buy you intellectual self-fulfilment through a top-notch humanities degree?

To persuade the value shopaholic, remember that brands matter because they communicate a particular set of values. Humanities scholars should intuitively understand brands, because they are symbols, and symbols are a big part of the humanities! So collaborate with brand-name universities, brand-name public figures and invest to build your brand. Advance the argument that an Asian humanities education is as good if not better than any in the West, and that it can be had at a very competitive price. Be sure to recruit some Western students to your Asian campus to prove the point.

To attract the traditional futurist, perhaps first do some localisation. Too often the humanities in Asia are a Western import, lock stock and barrel. In many an Asian university the Western philosophy department would never think of talking to the Asian philosophy department. As a fun social experiment, why not merge them? Maybe Locke and Mencius or Shakespeare and Valmiki do have a lot to talk about after all. And from a branding point of view, it cannot hurt to emphasise “traditional Asian values” as a cornerstone of your programme. It works for premium massage parlours and airlines, so why not for the humanities? At the same time the humanities should be leading the pack in learning reforms and embrace self-directed learning, the flipped classroom, flexibility, online access etc. The humanities in Asia should also be cutting edge in terms of its product and service delivery.

Above all these messages should be delivered in a genuine way, as millennials are very quick to spot fakes and hypocrisy.

All of the above is perhaps a lot of corporate-style marketing-speak that a true humanities scholar may quickly wish to discard. The above answers may not be the right way to brand your department in your country, and you may not like Schmitt’s oversimplification of complex Asian societies, or the gross generalisations that underlie the millennials concept. But Asian societies are changing and with the beginning of a swing of societal interest towards the humanities in Asia and globally, this may be the right time to make bold changes and set the field on a new trajectory towards a promising future.

Fuente: http://qswownews.com/branding-the-humanities-in-asia-2/

Comparte este contenido: