#decolonize math

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

We are too scared to challenge 'decolonisation' of maths curriculum, top professors warn

Top academics to tell Government that new guidance 'risks politicising the subject of mathematics' in universities

By: Louisa Clarence-Smith

Published: Dec 29. 2022

Maths professors at top UK universities will warn ministers on Thursday that academics are too scared to challenge damaging attempts to “decolonise” the curriculum.

A dozen leading academics have written to Claire Coutinho, the Education Minister, calling for more protections for free speech at universities, where many professors fear it is too “personally risky” to challenge the decolonisation agenda.

For maths degrees, professors are being pressured to explain how they are presenting a “multicultural and decolonised view” of the subject. In a recent consultation, the Quality Assurance Agency, which advises universities on course standards, said maths professors need to “present the work of a diverse group” of mathematicians, and ensure students are aware if they had “connections to the slave trade, racism or Nazism.”

A group of professors will warn on Thursday that such guidance “risks politicising the subject of mathematics and presenting a skewed perspective on its history.”

'Personally risky'

They said in a joint letter, seen by The Telegraph, that it also “infringes on the academic freedom of mathematicians to teach their subject according to their best professional judgement”. However, they warned that academics “who challenge orthodoxies on topics such as gender identification and diversity face physical intimidation from student activists”.  

“Many mathematicians see it as personally risky to suggest that 'decolonising the curriculum' might not be the best way to encourage more Black and minority ethnic people to take up mathematics,” they added.

Signatories of the letter include Prof Alan Sokal of University College London, Prof Abhishek Saha of Queen Mary University of London, Prof Jane Hutton, a medical statistician who works at the University of Warwick, and Dr Yuri Bazlov from the University of Manchester.

They are urging the Government to fight to pass the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill in its original form, despite opposition in the House of Lords. Clause 4 of the bill would give academics and students the power to sue universities if their freedom of speech rights are breached. The Government tabled amendments to the bill which would mean academics could only use those powers as a “last resort”, after first pursuing complaints through the procedures of the relevant university and the higher education regulator.

Personal cost of raising complaints 'far too high'

However, responding to the amendments, the mathematicians said: “We do not think this would give us the protection that we need. Universities have vast resources and power compared to individual academics. If academics are required to exhaust all internal processes…and then spend up to 12 months taking their complaint through the Office for Students before they can begin the lengthy process of going to the courts, we believe that the personal cost of raising any complaints would be far too high, rendering the system ineffective.” Ms Coutinho has previously said that the Government remains “resolute in our commitment that academics and speakers will have the right to go to court where this fundamental right has been denied.”

A spokesperson for Universities UK said: “Universities work hard to create the right conditions to protect and promote free speech and academic freedom across their campuses, and there are already significant legal duties placed on universities to uphold freedom of speech. The Government’s proposed changes to the Freedom of Speech Bill are helpful in making the new legal tort more targeted in scope, reducing the risk of university resources being wasted defending frivolous or vexatious claims.”

==

Secular blasphemy laws.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Diversity and inclusion doesn’t belong in the maths curriculum

In March, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) – an independent body which oversees standards and quality in UK universit

By: John Armstrong

Published: May 28, 2023

In March, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) – an independent body which oversees standards and quality in UK universities – released new guidance on curriculum design in mathematics. This guidance states:

‘Values of EDI [Equality Diversity and Inclusion] should permeate the curriculum and every aspect of the learning experience.’“

At least on the face of it, this guidance seems odd. University lecturers are not teaching racist courses on calculus or sexist proofs of the prime number theorem. There is, therefore, no need for the QAA to tell them that they shouldn’t do this.

Can saying 2+2=4 be racist? Astonishingly, there is a hardcore of postmodernists who would say that it can. One such argument is: human knowledge can never be perfect; rational argument is only one way of knowing; rational argument was promoted in the enlightenment as a means of denigrating indigenous ways of knowing and oppressing colonised peoples; therefore saying that 2+2=4 smacks of white supremacy. This is a fringe view, but it is a real one. An historian speaking at the London Mathematical Society this week sincerely proposed that we should question the claim that 2+2=4, though she did not expand on her reasons.

Nevertheless, the majority of those calling for an EDI overhaul of mathematics are not seeking to change mathematics only the mindset of mathematics students. This though is in many ways even more alarming.

If we agree that we should instil the values of EDI in our students, we had better agree on the values of EDI. Yet there could scarcely be a more polarising topic. Is Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission ‘entirely sensible’ or is she, as some have told her, ‘transphobic scum‘? Is Sir Ed Davey correct that women can ‘clearly’ have a penis, is Keir Starmer closer to the truth when he says that 99.9 per cent of women do not have a penis, or is Rishi Sunak’s bold assertion that 100 per cent of women lack a male member correct? Whatever your views on EDI, the one thing you can rely on is that someone else believes the exact opposite.

The QAA’s mathematics guidance ignores the existence of these debates and so tacitly sides with the ‘no debate’ school of thought on diversity and inclusion popularised by groups such as Stonewall. The guidance encourages lecturers to discuss the fact that some statisticians were inspired by eugenics, that others were Nazis, and that some astronomical data was gathered on plantations. All of this appears to support the QAA’s theory that there are ‘historical and ongoing issues around power dynamics and gatekeeping in both access to and generation of [mathematical] knowledge.’ One might naively have thought an EDI focused mathematics curriculum would focus on figures such as Emmy Noether, a female Jewish mathematician who was persecuted by the Nazis, or Alan Turing, who played a crucial role in their defeat. The QAA do not mention such examples because they are more interested in bolstering the theory that maths has a racist history than in accurately reflecting the more complex reality.

This does not just affect mathematics. The QAA are adding new sections on EDI to all their curriculum guidance. While the mathematics guidance is particularly awful, it is not difficult to find some choice quotes from across the curriculum. The Earth Sciences guidance is notably postmodernist in recommending ‘valuing different… ways of knowing.’ Ensuring the use of politically correct language is a common theme, with the Business and Management guidance suggesting that students might be enlisted to enforce this: or as they put it there are ‘opportunities to involve students as co-creators of the curriculum to ensure the use of inclusive language.’ The economics benchmark perhaps wins the prize for the most authoritarian advice, recommending that economics programmes ‘adopt a zero-tolerance approach to… everyday microaggressions.’

I organised an open letter to the QAA this week which noted that ‘the only thing that should permeate the mathematics curriculum is mathematics.’ This letter was signed by over 50 mathematicians.

The QAA’s response to the mounting criticism of their approach has been rather surprising. Rather than arguing a detailed case for their guidance, they have chosen to emphasise the fact their guidance has no legal force. Their CEO, Vicki Stott, wrote a comment piece for an education think-tank stating that ‘Contrary to how the coverage frames it, the Statements are not mandatory.’ It is strange that she should focus on the media coverage rather than the actual concerns of academics. Academics are not concerned that universities will literally be dragged through the courts if they don’t decolonise their curricula. Our concern is that QAA guidance combined with activist pressures from students unions, EDI departments, research funders and even bodies such as Unesco will influence university policies in a way we cannot control. We are also concerned that the genuinely useful guidance that the QAA guidance provides (for example, that universities should provide mathematicians with blackboards) will lose any credibility if the QAA continues to insist on political partisanship.

If the QAA’s only defence of their own benchmarks is to point out that they can be ignored, they can’t complain if they are taken at their word. Susan Lapworth, chief executive of the Office for Students seems to have done just that, stating: ‘The OfS no longer works with the QAA on the regulation of quality in English universities. We do not expect universities to follow the QAA’s benchmark statements and we do not endorse or support the content of those documents.’

Universities have also picked up the QAA’s point. Lord Patten, the Vice Chancellor of Oxford University pointed out in the House of Lords that ‘All that any university has to do is what Oxford has done – withdraw its subscription to the QAA.’ Lord Patten also stated: ‘I regard the QAA’s advice to universities as in many respects the most dangerous assault in the last few years on freedom of expression and research at universities.’

Perhaps realising that their previous defence of their guidance had set the wrong tone, the QAA this week decided to go for more of a rhetorical flourish. They now say they are ‘proud to hold the pen’ which wrote this guidance, which they describe as ‘a highly valued sector-owned reference point.’ While the new language is certainly stirring, one cannot help but think that, on this last point, a citation is needed.

[ Via: https://archive.is/FL4QK ]

==

If we agree that we should instil the values of EDI in our students, we had better agree on the values of EDI.

DIE commissars are fanatical authoritarians who don't take kindly to their dogma being questioned or even examined (mostly because it doesn't stand up). Like Islam, you're not allowed to question, you're not allowed to discuss, you're just supposed to blindly obey.

Objective reality must supersede ideology.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

We are too scared to challenge 'decolonisation' of maths curriculum, top professors warn

Top academics to tell Government that new guidance 'risks politicising the subject of mathematics' in universities

By: Louisa Clarence-Smith

Published: Dec 29. 2022

Maths professors at top UK universities will warn ministers on Thursday that academics are too scared to challenge damaging attempts to “decolonise” the curriculum.

A dozen leading academics have written to Claire Coutinho, the Education Minister, calling for more protections for free speech at universities, where many professors fear it is too “personally risky” to challenge the decolonisation agenda.

For maths degrees, professors are being pressured to explain how they are presenting a “multicultural and decolonised view” of the subject. In a recent consultation, the Quality Assurance Agency, which advises universities on course standards, said maths professors need to “present the work of a diverse group” of mathematicians, and ensure students are aware if they had “connections to the slave trade, racism or Nazism.”

A group of professors will warn on Thursday that such guidance “risks politicising the subject of mathematics and presenting a skewed perspective on its history.”

'Personally risky'

They said in a joint letter, seen by The Telegraph, that it also “infringes on the academic freedom of mathematicians to teach their subject according to their best professional judgement”. However, they warned that academics “who challenge orthodoxies on topics such as gender identification and diversity face physical intimidation from student activists”.  

“Many mathematicians see it as personally risky to suggest that 'decolonising the curriculum' might not be the best way to encourage more Black and minority ethnic people to take up mathematics,” they added.

Signatories of the letter include Prof Alan Sokal of University College London, Prof Abhishek Saha of Queen Mary University of London, Prof Jane Hutton, a medical statistician who works at the University of Warwick, and Dr Yuri Bazlov from the University of Manchester.

They are urging the Government to fight to pass the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill in its original form, despite opposition in the House of Lords. Clause 4 of the bill would give academics and students the power to sue universities if their freedom of speech rights are breached. The Government tabled amendments to the bill which would mean academics could only use those powers as a “last resort”, after first pursuing complaints through the procedures of the relevant university and the higher education regulator.

Personal cost of raising complaints 'far too high'

However, responding to the amendments, the mathematicians said: “We do not think this would give us the protection that we need. Universities have vast resources and power compared to individual academics. If academics are required to exhaust all internal processes…and then spend up to 12 months taking their complaint through the Office for Students before they can begin the lengthy process of going to the courts, we believe that the personal cost of raising any complaints would be far too high, rendering the system ineffective.” Ms Coutinho has previously said that the Government remains “resolute in our commitment that academics and speakers will have the right to go to court where this fundamental right has been denied.”

A spokesperson for Universities UK said: “Universities work hard to create the right conditions to protect and promote free speech and academic freedom across their campuses, and there are already significant legal duties placed on universities to uphold freedom of speech. The Government’s proposed changes to the Freedom of Speech Bill are helpful in making the new legal tort more targeted in scope, reducing the risk of university resources being wasted defending frivolous or vexatious claims.”

[ Via: https://archive.ph/wl4oD ]

==

“You don’t evaluate mathematics by the standards of poetry, or poetry by the standards of mathematics.“

-- Professor Jane Hutton

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

‘Decolonise’ maths by subtracting white male viewpoint, urges Durham University

A new guide says professors must question themselves if they are citing work from ‘mostly white or male’ mathematicians

By: Ewan Somerville

Published: Apr 9, 2022

The mathematics curriculum at a leading university is being “decolonised”, with professors urged to write biographies of theorists, question if they are mostly white or male, and consider the cultural origins of numbers.

Durham University’s decolonisation campaign has swept up the department of mathematical sciences, where all staff are being urged to make the subject “more inclusive” and ensure “maths can be used to aid attempts to secure equality”.

Its new guide for academics says that “decolonising the mathematical curriculum means considering the cultural origins of the mathematical concepts, focusses, and notation we most commonly use”.

Scholars at the Russell Group university, ranked seventh in the UK for maths, have been urged to reconsider how “the power of 10, represented by the word ‘billion’, differs from country to country” and how Brahmagupta, the famed Indian mathematician, assigned a different meaning to the value of zero.

They are told that “the question of whether we have allowed Western mathematicians to dominate in our discipline is no less relevant than whether we have allowed western authors to dominate the field of literature”.

“It may even be more important, if only because mathematics is rather more central to the advancement of science than is literature,” the decolonising guide says. 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.

If the mathematicians are “almost entirely (or even completely) white and/or male, ask yourself why this is,” the guide states.

‘Ditch the Titanic, use Maori jurists instead’

And when using real-world examples to illustrate mathematical puzzles, staff are encouraged to “consider whether you can present the context outside of a Western frame of reference”.

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”.

On Friday, scholars questioned whether it was appropriate for the objective discipline of maths to be conflated with subjective approaches to the past.

Prof Doug Stokes, a social sciences expert at Exeter University, told The Telegraph: “The idea behind decolonising maths is that because everyone should be regarded as equal, the status of their beliefs must also be equal.

“This judgmental relativism is an inversion of science that is based on what is real rather than making everybody feel included. Science and reason are what has led humanity out of the darkness and we jettison their precious light at our peril.”

Durham’s new guide points scholars to “ethnomathematics”, a new discipline emerging on campuses of tying maths to culture, saying “mathematics and culture are not always disentangled”.

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.

Highlighting the contributions of Indian mathematicians, the manual concludes that “it might then be inaccurate to suggest mathematics is a universal language” and scholars should ensure the discipline “genuinely is global, frankly assessing the discipline’s failures - past and present - to work toward that aim”.

Top historians have branded decolonising as “anti-intellectual”.

Last month, the Conservative Party chairman said in a speech on cancel culture that a West “confident in its values” would not be “obsessing over pronouns or indeed seeking to decolonise mathematics”.

Like most British universities, many departments at Durham have established decolonising panels. Durham University Business School has said that by 2022/23, no student will be able to complete a degree there “without significant exposure” to decolonisation issues.

A Durham University spokesman said: “Mathematical sciences at Durham are a rigorous and comprehensive discipline.

“The maths curriculum our students learn remains the same, but we also encourage students to be more aware of the global and diverse origins of the subject, and the range of cultural settings that have shaped it. Two plus two will always equal four.”

In December 2021, Durham was embroiled in a row over free speech following a student walk-out during an address by Rod Liddle, an associate editor of The Spectator, who students accused of making “transphobic, sexist, racist and classist remarks”.

The incident led to Professor Tim Luckhurst, founding Principal of the university's South College, calling students “pathetic”.

Prof Luckhurst later apologised for the remark.

“My anger reflected my sincere commitment to freedom of speech,” he wrote in an email to students. “However, I was wrong to describe the students' action as pathetic and I apologise unreservedly for doing so."

==

Bridges, planes, satellites and medicines don't give a shit about the skin color of those doing the math on which they sit.

This intellectual homeopathy will unmake us. (Note: this is a feature, not a bug.)