Via Toni Airaksinen, more from the hothouse world of pretentious agonising: 

The curriculum writer in question, Michael Lolkus, is keen to let the world know that he champions “equity- and social justice-oriented instructional practices.” “Whiteness,” it turns out, is something to be chided and “decentred” in favour of “ethnomathematics investigations.” “The lens of whiteness” we’re told, will be turned upon itself and “critical interrogation” will ensue.

Because, among the agonised, buzzwords must abound. Lest their status be in doubt.

And so, the paper, published in the Journal of Urban Mathematics Education – which I’d assumed would be more concerned with issues of urban planning and traffic management – contains much fretting and many assumptions:

Quite how those unspecified “white” ideas alter the rules of multiplication, percentages and other simple mathematical operations remains a thing of mystery. Indeed, as so often, the precise nature of this alleged corruption, this all-pervasive and befouling “whiteness” – a term used 157 times – is left to the imagination. Though much is pitched upon that mystery:

You see, Mr Lolkus fears he may be crushing brown-skinned students with his rampant, manly pallor.

“I am working to distance myself from whiteness,” says our fretful hero. Because “white educators like me need to embrace the burden of unpacking and dismantling white supremacy.” And so, Mr Lolkus will “grapple with my complicity in working within an educational system that… maintains white supremacy culture.”

White supremacy culture. In maths class. One of so many terms left intriguingly nebulous, but from which All Good Hearted People are expected to recoil with handkerchiefs clutched to their faces.

The nearest we get to gritty particulars is a brief stream of bald assertion:

“Representation” is touched on fleetingly, though the question of why black middle-school pupils being as yet unfamiliar with, say, Katherine Johnson or Euphemia Haynes might impair their comprehension of fractions is oddly unexplored. Or likewise, why any 10-year-old of East Asian ancestry might struggle with long division on account of hearing insufficient praise for Wu Wenjun’s algebraic topology.

Mr Lolkus laments his “positionality” as a structurer of lessons and “knower of… mathematical concepts,” wishing instead to be merely a “community member.” A somewhat fanciful flattening of “hierarchy,” and of values, and an abandonment of the teacher’s customary responsibility. This is followed by a suggestion that pupils, especially underperforming minority pupils – the party least familiar with the subject matter – should be put in charge of structuring lessons and the broader curriculum. A sure-fire recipe for success.

And then there’s the conceit that heroically brown pupils are performing “additional labour” by doing less well in class, or by not doing the work at all.

Regarding low expectations, do hold that thought. We’ll get to that in a minute.

Meanwhile, our educator offers a boldly modish analysis. Says Mr Lolkus, “My experiences as an upper middle-class white male informed every decision I made,” and by “positioning myself, a white male… as an authority figure” – which is to say, a teacher – this has somehow rendered minority students unable to do simple mathematics.

Or put another way, if a teacher feels equipped to teach a subject that they have studied for many years – such that they feel they are likely to know its particulars in more detail than middle-school children – then this is a cause for concern, a basis for ostentatious atonement. Provided the teacher in question is white, obviously.

And worse – more damning still – Mr Lolkus adds – or rather, confesses – that he grew up as a “heterosexual and cisgender male.”

And so, should some black pupils be struggling with middle-school mathematics, then this can only be explained by the fact that their teacher is pale-skinned and heterosexual. This, then, is the bleeding edge of “equity” scholarship. And the makings of a “social justice” revolution in knowledge transfer.

At which point, readers may wonder whether the institutional influence of so many scrupulously woke, racially fixated neurotics – creatures much like Mr Lolkus – may be among the other, perhaps more obvious causes of impairment and disparity.

Regarding those low expectations, denounced earlier, readers may recall a previous mention of Mr Lolkus and his peers, with our educators devising elaborate excuses for pupils who are undisciplined, selfish, and disruptive – provided said pupils are of a suitable hue.

Excuses in which maths classes are framed as an arena of “violence and trauma.” Specifically, the “trauma” of not knowing the answers, on account of not paying attention, and the “violence” of being corrected for being loud and disruptive in class while others are trying to work. According to our radical reinventors of education, attempts to teach calculus and geometry should be enlivened with shouting, tardiness, and lots of adorable “cacophony.”

On grounds that “whiteness” – say, expectations of accuracy, promptness, and diligence – is something that gets in the way of black students “maintaining their Blackness.”

So no low expectations there, obviously.

At Vanderbilt University, an honours programme intended to accommodate academic giftedness has been denounced as “inherently exclusionary.” Having now been identified as an affront to “equity,” an unforgivable wickedness, the programme is of course being shut down:

Are you Canadian and feeling unwell? Fear not, I bring thrilling news. From Canada’s Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons:

This report here.

Apparently, it’s a “cultural shift which is necessary for the profession.” Because, we’re told, all medical workers – yes, all of them, across the entire country – “participate daily in the perpetuation of structural violence upon those most marginalised amongst us, particularly those who are racialised, and live at the intersections of marginalisation.”

How this “violence,” this all-pervasive downtroddenness, is perpetuated by the receptionist at the local medical centre is, alas, not explained. No examples are offered. Indeed, evidence and logical argument are entirely absent. Given the sweeping nature of the demands, the absence of any kind of realistic and meaningful argument, with actual points of fact that one might address, is a tad curious.

Instead, we get a list of seemingly arbitrary words, among which, “colonisation, slavery, and white supremacy.” Oh, and “settler colonialism, heteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia…” Needless to say, the list is quite extensive, though not particularly illuminating. Less an explanation as an incantation. Magical words. With which to conjure contrived, pretentious guilt. A kind of modish neuroticism.

We are, however, told that the priorities of physicians, nurses, and medical administrators should be less about “professionalised knowledge,” those drug dosages and such, and more about “lenses of social justice.” These allegedly corrective lenses will “allow physicians to more effectively engage in… social change.” Suitably re-educated, their mentalities rewired, medical workers will have “bidirectional relationships with… the land.”

Which is obviously what you want when that itchy rash won’t go away.

At which point, it’s perhaps worth noting that the Royal College oversees Canada’s medical school education programmes. The institution is tasked with “setting national standards for medical education.”

So, nothing to worry about, then.

Update, via the comments:

Regarding this,

Svh adds,

Well, “anti-racism,” for instance, seems to consist largely of peddling black racial narcissism and anti-white sentiment, along with policies that actually sabotage the life-chances of minority students. Say, by actively championing a failure to learn rudimentary spelling and grammar:

In light of which, any value seems overwhelmingly negative. Except, of course, for the race-grifting mediocrities who get paid to propagate such things.

The contradictions of “equity” and competence have been noted here before, at some length, with striking illustrations. And while proponents of “equity” are often oddly reluctant to define this rather loaded term, it seems to mean something like equality of outcome regardless of inputs. And as values go, that isn’t entirely endearing. Or a basis for a civilisation.

Emil Kirkegaard on schooling and intelligence, and their limited relationship:

And speaking of education:

The specifications for said installation are quite detailed, including soundproofing, wall handles, and knee pads. For safety and comfort, one assumes.

Heather Mac Donald on progressive evasions and the consequent cultivation of anti-white sentiment:

We’ve been here before, of course. More than once.

Helen Joyce on the perversity of wokeness:

And finally, a thread on what happens when, in the name fostering progress and sensitivity, the police start hiring the sexually dysmorphic.

Apparently, these be-wigged individuals are bringing tolerance and understanding by harassing people manically, and repeatedly lying, and stalking women and sending them headless birds, and strangling people, and attacking a woman with a hammer. Oh, and hoarding explosives, obviously.

If that isn’t sufficiently bizarre, I do have more.

Feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.

Variations in human ability continue to frustrate those who would perfect us:

You see, if a problem can’t be solved, the next-best thing is to hide it:

The genius of the “equity-focussed” policies, also being advanced in California and elsewhere, is that they are likely to have negative consequences for both ends of the ability spectrum. The cognitively untalented will be spared the normal incentives to master at least the basics, even the basics of behaviour, while the gifted will be denied access to advanced material more suited to their abilities, resulting in boredom and demoralisation.

Again, hiding that bothersome unevenness in effort and ability.

Readers will note that the retreat from clear metrics into euphemism and pernicious fuzzwords – chief among which, “equity” – not only makes it difficult to determine pupils’ academic progress and actual competence, but also has a secondary effect of making it more difficult to identify the shortcomings of progressive educators and administrators. A coincidence, I’m sure.

The pernicious woo named “equity” – which roughly translates as equality of outcome regardless of inputs – has of course been mentioned here before.

If the examples linked above aren’t sufficiently striking, I do have more.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.