Well, given Greg's skepticism of anything and everything I post, should I waste my time digging up quotations from Wayne's "Greatest Hits" on the racism and "separate but equal" philosophy informing Jack Price, NCTM, Bob Moses of The Algebra Project, Bob Megginson (a Native American professor of mathematics at U of Michigan)?
Wayne's "best" work on the racism and "pickaninny perspective" theme appears on the AMTE list-serve back when that was his preferred venue (since in mostly was read by mathematics educators). You were there, too, Greg, so surely you remember this exchange, for starters. There are lots more where this one comes from, entire threads of this kind of thing:
Re: Racism and the Math Wars Posted: Jun 9, 2000 3:48 PM
At 06:42 AM 6/9/00 +0000, Michael Paul Goldenberg wrote:
>Wayne Bishop is still at it: his repeated harping upon "separate but equal" >appears to throw down the gauntlet to us reform-minded folks to prove >ourselves innocent of a particularly loathesome crime: racist beliefs and >deeds. This is indeed a serious challenge, should one take it at face value.
First off, "beliefs" is too strong of a word except in the sense held by many well-meaning but insidiously condescending folk in support of the legal separate-but-equal or the right-brained Indian idea pushed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs a couple of decades ago. It is the same mentality that not only allowed but *mandated* years of primary instruction in Spanish that was carried all the way to Oakland's extension to Ebonics. Fortunately, many beyond Rush Limbaugh supporters just held their sides and laughed outright at that one and it died its timely (blink of an eyelash) death. Only left-end professional linguists are still debating the efficacy of the endeavor, instead of the idiocy of the endeavor. For at least a couple of decades, race-based decision-making has been not only illegal but unwise as well.
>at various times, you have accused a number of people who support NCTM >Standards-based programs and the NCTM Standards documents of being racist.
Again, it is the same issue. The NCTM Standards has (have? - you're the English major) been used to promote the effectively racist concept that different races learn mathematics differently and that some races are better served by pedagogy and curricula that are consistent with that document. A good example is the conclusion that two of the NSF funded NCTM Standards-based mathematics curricula, STEM, Sixth Through Eighth Grade Mathematics, and CMP, Connected Mathematics Program, are better for African Americans, "Mathematics problem solving scores for African American students in the two standards-based curricula were significantly higher than scores for African American students in the Control group." Only obliquely does the study making that conclusion indicate that it had an amazing total of 8 African Americans in "the Control group". The study was funded by the NSF education wing to prove its foregone conclusion. Jack Price gets mentioned because he played the (Hispanic) race card in his 1995 Presidential Address in regard to a school that had taken performance even further into the toilet - essentially killed the eighth grade algebra opportunity for these same Hispanic students. MathLand at Roscoe Elementary was another. Make a big deal out of the percentage of Hispanic and LEP students at the school but leave out the sharply declining performance of those same students, a full 80% of the school's data. That one was part of the support for the U.S. Department of Ed's "Exemplary and Promising" recommendations using this same "data" three years later.
>..., but in fact enormous amounts of counter-evidence which > MC members conveniently and cynically ignore.
Please, give us access to the *raw data* behind the glowing words of support, including the schools where they were obtained. That's where these effectively racist ideas fail, even under the most casual look at the *actual* data instead of the creative writing that surrounds them. It took me more than a year to get the school data behind Jack Price's Spurgeon Intermediate example in Santa Ana Unified, even though I knew the school within a week of reading his address (that did not mention the state, let alone the name of the school), but the fact that performance could not match the rhetoric was a given. Feel- good platitudes disguising declining performance should not be NCTM goals and do not constitute "enormous amounts of counter-evidence".
>So why would a bunch of 'reasonable' people employ such an extreme >tactic against people whom they fully know or have good reason to suspect >would have long track records as anti-racists, progressives, supporters of equity, etc.?
Identification of an illness is usually necessary as an initial stage of treatment.
>Do I belong to racist organizations or contribute money or lend >support, succor, or aid to such groups?
I would be very surprised to find that you do or that you ever did or that you ever looked kindly on those who do or did. But the KKK has been irrelevant for my entire lifetime (with deep apology to families of any and all lynched Blacks, burned out churches, and other such atrocities - I mean only as national policy). George Wallace had a national following but far from any decision-making level of national influence. The current Separate-But -Equal is a system of public education that encourages life-long Democrats, such as myself, to put their kids into "Republican" schools that teach "Republican" language arts skills in a "Republican" language and use "Republican" mathematics books. It is outrageous.
Rebecca's two-second dismissal of that most promising African American student (the only A grade in my Calculus II this quarter) is an exaggerated public demonstration of the problem. This kid has real potential and he's working on developing it. He needs guidance. He started the course writing in an out-sized almost unreadable, disorganized scrawl and, although his presentation is far from perfect, it is now vastly better. He is bright enough to have understood enough pre-calc to now do coherent work and he is doing so. A majority of the class has algebra skill and elementary function skill deficits that are too deep to overcome in one quarter, especially coming from a culture of optional, sporadic attendance and irresponsible homework effort. To deny this student the opportunity to excel, in the name of opportunity of ALL, would be an abomination. That is a mistaken interpretation of what it means to educate all students, a fundamental goal of nearly all of us, and it is where the reform movement in mathematics education went down the wrong road. Performance matters; race does not.
At 06:42 AM 6/9/00 +0000, Michael Paul Goldenberg wrote: >Wayne Bishop is still at it: his repeated harping upon "separate but equal" >appears to throw down the gauntlet to us reform-minded folks to prove >ourselves innocent of a particularly loathesome crime: racist beliefs and >deeds. This is indeed a serious challenge, should one take it at face value. > >Meanwhile, were we going to keep a list of challenges asked and evaded in >this venue, it would be very long. My impression is that Dr. Bishop would be >#1 for both issuing and ignoring challenges, but I could easily be wrong. >And since we've been issuing challenges, here's another one for Wayne, David >Klein, Jim Milgram, and especially Jerry Rosen: > >at various times, you have accused a number of people who support NCTM >Standards-based programs and the NCTM Standards documents of being racist. I >have been accused several times of being on a plane with David Duke, >Shockley, Herrnstein and Murray, Jensen and probably a few other notorious >racists (Hitler, perhaps?). The accusations, insinuations, and general >smearing have come from people who act as if they A) have the right to >define what racism is and to apply that definition to whomsoever they see >fit regardless of evidence; B) hold some kind of moral high ground on >racism; that is, they act and write as if they are above reproach regarding >possible accusations of racism that might be leveled against them and C) >have some kind of concrete evidence that I and others are in fact racists. >Included on this list are Jack Price, the primary 'evidence' against whom is >a controversial quotation that is sure to be schlepped out by someone to >'prove' that Jack is some brand of racist; in fact it appears to be at best >reasonable, probably ambiguous and at worst very much at odds with Jack's >personal and professional history, suggesting that the negative reading MC >folks insist is the only valid one (where have we seen THAT approach >before???) is ridiculous. Past that one quotation and one particular reading >of it which I don't find to be valid, there is not only no evidence to >support these heinous accusations and innuendoes, but in fact enormous >amounts of counter-evidence which MC members conveniently and cynically >ignore. > >One might wonder WHY Mathematically Correct members, supposedly mostly >comprising Liberal Democrats (though of what brand remains to be seen), but >most assuredly NOT Politically Correct raving radicals, would take up a >tactic that in my experience is most often employed by politically correct >extremists. Such people use charges of racism, well-founded or not, to >suppress open, free debate on college campuses where the slightest hint that >someone might be a racist or even know a racist (or perhaps read HUCKLEBERRY >FINN and thought it great!) leads to public pillorying. So why would a bunch >of 'reasonable' people employ such an extreme tactic against people whom >they fully know or have good reason to suspect would have long track records >as anti-racists, progressives, supporters of equity, etc.? > >Two reasons spring to mind, though many others are possible (and I'm certain >we'll hear some fascinating spins in response): A) MC is made up of people >who don't give a damn about the truth and who will promulgate any outrageous >lie if they think it will help them smash their foes and win their crusade. >People like this might even consciously spread a lie about people, or a >statistic that they know fully well is inaccurate or even made up out of >whole cloth in order to beat their perceived enemies. I could imagine them >doing this despite knowing the statistic to be inaccurate or invented; and >B) some members of MC may themselves fear deeply that they will be perceived >(accurately or not) as operating from positions that could be called >'racist' by concerned minority leaders and educators (by the way, pretty >much the same things could be said regarding sexism): what better way to >deflect such attacks then by launching your own against potential accusers >or against your opponents, thus gaining, in theory at least, that moral high >ground mentioned in point B) above. Pretty slick, if you think about it. > >So here's my challenge: provide concrete evidence of your charges of racism >against me. Anything, really, will do: do I tell racist jokes? do I >discriminate against minorities? have I refused someone a job, housing, >advancement, legitimate services, etc. because of his or her race or >ethnicity? Do I belong to racist organizations or contribute money or lend >support, succor, or aid to such groups? Really, fellows, this should be >shooting fish in a barrel. > >Seems to me that if you are unable or unwilling to meet this challenge with >REAL, CONCRETE proof, you should keep your irresponsible, slanderous >comments to yourselves. What say you? >
On Jul 22, 2007, at 4:00 PM, Richard Strausz wrote:
>> Michael Paul Goldenberg wrote: >>> I think where the problem comes in is when people >> who WANT to talk >>> about teaching are quickly attacked for not using >> Saxon or Singapore >>> Math and hence being "racists," >> I don't recall this ever happening. One or more >> quotes, please, with >> dates and authors. Folks just wanting to talk about >> teaching being >> smeared as racists for the crime of not using Saxon >> or Singapore. >> >> -Greg > > Greg, this has been part of Wayne's regular method of operation. > His message was that if one didn't use Saxon or Singapore, one was > depriving the needy students of their rights. > > Richard > >