[status_quo69]

> The rallying cry seems to be that "2+2=4 is racist".

Source? This is such a wild claim it has to be made up. A cursory google search brings this article: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/teaching-math-throu...

Which is distilled down to "teachers teach math in a way that is topical to the current environment, such as BLM protests which is really nothing new. You might disagree with it, sure, but to say that this is "the wokes" teaching 2+2=fish, that's frankly ridiculous.

In fact, the only thing I can find reporting on "2+2=racist" is this Washington Examiner article deriding a math teacher from NYC for her tweets (article here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/math-professor-claim...) which sounds _awful_ but it's a single person tweeting, and it seems to be in relation to using "math is pure and objective so it always must be neutral" as a defense for situations where data/statistics/algorithms presented show a clear bias. Which I think generally is an agreed upon phenomenon-- depending on the sampling and interpretation of the data, folks can come to _wildly_ different conclusions, especially if data was accidentally omitted.

Best example of this phenomenon is facial recognition software, which can perform very badly when deviating from the sample data. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2019/12/nist-study-eva...

> For one-to-one matching, the team saw higher rates of false positives for Asian and African American faces relative to images of Caucasians. The differentials often ranged from a factor of 10 to 100 times, depending on the individual algorithm. False positives might present a security concern to the system owner, as they may allow access to impostors.

...

> However, a notable exception was for some algorithms developed in Asian countries. There was no such dramatic difference in false positives in one-to-one matching between Asian and Caucasian faces for algorithms developed in Asia. While Grother reiterated that the NIST study does not explore the relationship between cause and effect, one possible connection, and area for research, is the relationship between an algorithm’s performance and the data used to train it. “These results are an encouraging sign that more diverse training data may produce more equitable outcomes, should it be possible for developers to use such data,” he said.

All the other sources I found on google were either think tanks, facebook posts, or spam sites.

ETA: even in the most pessimistic reading of those tweets, I'm personally hard pressed to find that one person tweeting means that all math teachers everywhere are trying to take math down to "2+2=racist"

[Tomte]

> Source?

For example the Wall Street Journal. And hundreds of similar articles.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-california-2-2-4-may-be-thou...

> This is such a wild claim it has to be made up.

This is against the site's rules.

> I'm personally hard pressed to find that one person tweeting means that all math teachers everywhere

Funny how you build up a straw man. I never claimed any of that.

[didibus]

I'd have to agree with OP, it does seem to be bad faith, because the entire time, instead of discussing the proposed changes at face value, they seem to try and ridicule it as if someone says that 2+2=4 is racist, yet they don't quote anyone actually saying that or anything.

I've read the whole article you linked, and I'm no smarter in understanding what the problem is, and the suggested changes are which they're making fun of.

[status_quo69]

> This is against the site's rules.

I apologize, that was a knee jerk reaction because I've never seen the assertion that 2+2=4 is racist before, only that math can be used inaccurately (purposefully or by accident) in racial contexts. I was a bit taken aback by the assertion and should have engaged differently.

> Funny how you build up a straw man. I never claimed any of that.

This isn't a straw man, I'm not building up some contrived argument here; the original comment was that "2+2=4 is racist" is a rallying cry for [some not insignificant number of math teachers].

> For example the Wall Street Journal. And hundreds of similar articles.

I did find this Opinion while googling, and read the parent Op-Ed (https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-canc...) and then followed through to the framework but I just don't see anything about the manual they were talking about in that Op-Ed in the works cited (seems like all references to the manual have since been removed). So I dug up the wayback machine on the page to see the context in which they were using the "A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction" manual.

> A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction (https://equitablemath.org/) is an integrated approach to mathematics that centers Black, Latinx, and linguistically diverse students in grades 6–8, addresses barriers to mathematics equity, and aligns instruction to grade-level priority standards. The Pathway offers guidance and resources for immediate use in planning their curriculum, while also offering opportunities for ongoing self-reflection as they seek to develop an anti-racist mathematics practice. The toolkit “strides” (above) serve as multiple on-ramps for educators as they navigate the individual and collective journey from equity to anti-racism. It is a collection of resources to help grades 6–8 Black, LatinX, and linguistically diverse students thrive in mathematics education.

Ok so generally seems like they're recommending the usage in primarily POC or mixed classrooms where the considerations for teaching might be a bit different due to a multitude of factors.

Now digging into the manual a bit, the titles are definitely inflammatory but the content is honestly fairly humdrum (quotes taken from the first chapter https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11...)

• Teach rich, thoughtful, complex mathematics. • Teach rigorous mathematics, understanding that rigor is characterized as thorough, exhaustive, and interdisciplinary. • Use mistakes as opportunities for learning. • Recognize mistakes as miscommunicated knowledge. • Allow for engagement in productive struggle • Teach students of color about the career and financial opportunities in math and STEM fields. • Encourage them to disrupt the disproportionate push-out of people of color in those fields. • Invite leaders and innovators of color working in STEAM fields to meet your students. • Rely on teamwork and collaboration as much as possible. • Teach mathematics through project-based learning and other engaging approaches. • Provide multiple opportunities for students to learn from and teach each other. • Intentionally include mathematicians of color. • Expose students to mathematicians of color, particularly women of color and queer mathematicians of color, both through historical examples and by inviting community guest speakers. • Teach students of color about their mathematical legacy and ancestral connection and mastery of math. • Honor and acknowledge the mathematical knowledge of students of color, even if it shows up unconventionally. • Give rightful credit to the discovery of math concepts by mathematicians of color. Reclaim concepts attributed to white mathematicians that should be attributed to mathematicians of color.

Which all seems fairly reasonable here to my eyes. I will 100% agree with any assertions that the titles are very standoffish and even straight up accusatory but the content of the manual really seems like something good teachers should strive for. So to conclude I don't think that 2+2=4 is racist is really a rallying cry, the literature cited everywhere seems to talk mainly towards the teaching methodologies employed.