Previous month:
April 11, 2024
Next month:
April 13, 2024



Sitting on the throne, the proper venue for considering such weighty matters as the math equity movement, which demands that society must include diversity, equity, and inclusion into our mathematics teaching framework.

So, let's consider the case of the lowly zero and one used to represent the binary system underlying today's computers.

In practical terms, zero and one are just convenient, human-friendly recognition schemes that indicate the presence or absence of an electrical current or charge in a circuit. By definition, binary implies that a circuit is either on or off and a charge is present or not. There are no other states unless you enter the mysterious land of quantum mathematics, where something can be indeterminant until it is observed.

Against this background, what are these math equity proponents asking?

  • Does the one share some of its charge with the zero so they become equal?
  • Does the one owe its charge to zero as a form of reparation for something that occurred long ago and has nothing to do with the present state of the circuit?
  • Should the zero be elevated to a one in the name of equity?

Suppose all this sounds like bullshit being spread over the field of mathematics by bigots who are operating in their own self-interests. In that case, that's because it has the characteristics, stench, and consistency of bullshit.

Yet, there are those sucking up lecture fees, book sales, and consultant gigs for pursuing this nonsense. 

Bottom line...

In reality, including diversity, equity, and inclusion into our mathematics framework is little more than the identity aspect of disparate impact, which falsely suggests that each member of an identity class must be present and perform in proportion to that identity's representation in the general population. If such a relationship is not present, it is assumed to be an indicator of bigotry or oppression--even without conscious intent.


Disparate impact is statistical nonsense nullified by the normal, or Gaussian, distribution curve, which illustrates a probability distribution that appears as a "bell curve" when graphed. There will always be outliers, high and low values, achievers and non-achievers, rich and poor, strong and weak—such is human nature.

Boosting high achievers in mathematics benefits society, whereas boosting low achievers by the same amount produces additional mediocrity worldwide while curtailing the potential of high achievers. In a world of finite resources, it is more beneficial to support high achievers. 

Those who suggest we concentrate on reducing our mathematics curriculum to the lowest common denominator or relaxing achievement testing standards are either self-serving, self-absorbed bigots or are trying to disguise the failure of mathematics teaching techniques or teachers themselves.

Stripped of jargon and fancy phrases, most individuals, institutions, and so-called scholarly journals promoting social justice in mathematics are full of unadulterated bullshit.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS