What comes next might be a version that’s even more radical.
It might be that nobody gets a degree in education without professing allegiance to SJ and those teachers then go to bring SJ into all the subject at school.
SJ is more then an online phenomena. It’s also a fight for the control of various institutions and I see little reason that the people you won power will suddenly let it go.
It might be that nobody gets a degree in education without professing allegiance to SJ and those teachers then go to bring SJ into all the subject at school.
This sounds unlikely, uncharitable, and frankly more than a little conspiratorial. I’m not even sure if this is something most social justice advocates would even want.
What comes next might be a version that’s even more radical.
I would not consider this an actual paradigm shift in the way the atheism->SJ shift occurred and I do not think it will actually happen.
My model of culture wars is that they are fought over large ideological fronts. Atheism was a front line, now it is not. Scott proposed a view in which that front line moved over the ideological space centered around identity and culture and became the social justice conflict. If this model is correct then that front line can move again but it can’t move to social justice because it’s already there. If this happens, people could still argue about SJ topics and think they’re important (just like people still argue about atheism now) but it also means people can discuss these things intelligently without the discussion devolving.
I’d encourage you to take an outside view here and consider how plausible it would sound for an atheist arguing in 2004 that atheism vs religion was going to be the most important cultural topic forever and that the reason for this was that theists were just so backwards and extreme they would keep upping the fight until faith pledges became mandatory in public schools and everyone would be forced to read the Bible instead of studying biology.
This sounds unlikely, uncharitable, and frankly more than a little conspiratorial. I’m not even sure if this is something most social justice advocates would even want.
The district has proposed a new social justice-infused curriculum that would focus on “power and oppression” and “history of resistance and liberation” within the field of mathematics. [...]
If adopted, its ideas will be included in existing math classes as part of the district’s broader effort to infuse ethnic studies into all subjects across the K-12 spectrum.
There is a huge difference in my mind between forcing teachers to adopt a specific curriculum with political implications and providing them the resources to include political topics as they see fit.
I’ll admit, looking over the framework itself feels pretty icky. There are a few things I like about it, though.
SWBAT identify ancient mathematicians and their contributions to mathematics
I’ve long felt that more history of mathematics should be included in math curriculum (for much the same reason as history of science should be included). Seeing how our understanding of math as changed as new concepts were invented makes it feel more like a living process (off the top of my head, you could probably get a lot of mileage out of just looking at how the conception of numbers changed from the Greece to Rome to India).
Who holds power in a mathematical classroom? Is there a place for power and authority in the math classroom? Who gets to say if an answer is right? What is the process for verifying the truth?
This is practically proto-rationalism. Getting kids to question why things are accepted as the correct answer (‘because that’s what the book says’ vs ‘because I can prove it given ZFC axioms’) and understand that there is a way they can see for themselves if something is true.
How is math manipulated to allow inequality and oppression to persist?
I didn’t say the framework was perfect. This is just one example of clear progressive-coded language and yeah, I have a hard time defending why this ought to be in a math curriculum.
Going back to my earlier point, though, Christian-advocacy groups do sometimes try to get evolution taken out of public schools (or have creationism taught alongside evolution as an equivalent ‘theory’). I’m not saying that it never happens or that there aren’t extremists or that no effort should be put into wacking back insanity. But trying to paint evolution vs creation as the most important debate ever feels silly now. And more than that, for people who think religion vs atheism is the most important fight ever, trying to get one side to recognize good arguments on the other is like pulling teeth.
Politics is the mind-killer. The fact that, as I write this, a reasonable-if-flawed attempted steelmanning of an ideology that the LessWrong community has decided is on the other side is sitting at ~minus 5 karma~ (ninja edit: +5 now, it seems to be fluctuating a lot, so reduce the intensity of this) should be considered shameful. I grow ever more afraid that LessWrong is just one more community that can tolerate anything except the outgroup.
Reasonable-if-flawed posts about political issues have no place on LessWrong. Given that politics is problematic it’s worthwhile to discourage people from posting low quality political posts on LessWrong and there’s nothing shameful about discouraging such posts.
The behavior of discouraging has little to do with outgroup toleration.
Given that politics is problematic it’s worthwhile to discourage people from posting low quality political posts on LessWrong
I did not say “low quality” and I do not think this post is low quality. I think it is of middling quality, around what I would expect an average LessWrong member to be capable of writing. It is less specific than I would like and I think overreaches in the amount the key insight is able to explain but there is a key insight. One I found useful and novel and well constructed.
Further, while it would be very bad to have LessWrong become solely about politics, looking at the front page there are very few posts with a political focus. Politics is a part of our world and if we cannot discuss it then that is a weakness in our epistemology. If we strongly discourage mid-quality posts that deal with political topics then it could have an intellectual chilling effect.
That said, the post has positive karma right now and while it’s not quite where I would place it, it’s within a range that I would expect to see for most posts like this so I am no longer as terrified as I was that LessWrong had suddenly caught groupthink.
I believe this is a mis-reporting, or talking about part of the curriculum. See pages 27 and 28 of this presentation:
We believe that all courses should incorporate Ethnic Studies curriculum, however at a minimum, students should participate in 4-5 ethnic studies classes in high school, i.e., a minimum of 1 ethnic studies course per year. [...]
A graduation requirement is a way to ensure that Ethnic Studies classes reach all students.
All math, world languages, and all visual and performing arts courses should have an ethnic studies equivalent.
Ah, I think you’re right. It seems like they want an “ethnic studies” version of everything and students have to take at least one ethnic studies course per year. I’m not a huge fan of that and it seems like it is taking some well-deserved criticism.
Looking at this presentation through the lens of the original post, it seems like what the Ethnic Studies Board is trying to do is create safe spaces and reduce perceived harms against minorities (hence, I think, why they want to make sure there’s an “ethnic studies” version of every core class: so that the people they feel will best benefit from this curriculum can use it for their entire high school education).
I’m not sure they have fully considered the consequences of doing this (especially opportunity cost: all the class time spent on “ethnic studies” math is time not spent on, well, math) but I see no objection with the goal of providing minority students with a curriculum which will fit them better, in and of itself.
This is an interesting discussion which touches on education philosophy (how do we know the curriculum the Ethnic Studies Board has produced actually accomplishes its goals?), optimal resource allocation, language, culture, and (yes) race. But it is not a discussion we can have if seeing the phrase, “countering dominant narratives” makes the participants blind to anything else there.
Ah, I think you’re right. It seems like they want an “ethnic studies” version of everything and students have to take at least one ethnic studies course per year. I’m not a huge fan of that and it seems like it is taking some well-deserved criticism.
FYI, there is virtually no criticism within the city / school district itself, because (1) it’s too progressive / left-leaning and (2) anyone who does offer criticism gets labeled as “racist” or “white supremacist”, even if the critic isn’t white. (Look up “internalized oppression” if you’re not already familiar.)
Looking at this presentation through the lens of the original post, it seems like what the Ethnic Studies Board is trying to do is create safe spaces and reduce perceived harms against minorities (hence, I think, why they want to make sure there’s an “ethnic studies” version of every core class: so that the people they feel will best benefit from this curriculum can use it for their entire high school education).
That’s part of it, but it’s also about turning students (and not just minorities) into social justice activists. See this quote from page 31 of the presentation:
Critical pedagogy aims to engage students in an exploration of their world in order to gain a political and critical consciousness. It is based on the belief that historical events are the result of a series of contradictions and their solutions.
Humanizing pedagogy is a component of critical pedagogy that encourages learners to recognize oppression doesn’t just happen and they are agents of change.
Educators who employ critical pedagogy accept that the practice of teaching can never be apolitical when systems of oppression exist. Educators see education as a tool of resistance and liberation.
Critical pedagogy transforms the learning environment from one of passivity to one of action and change. Students don’t learn for the sake of learning, but learn to understand the how and why of social systems that oppress certain groups and privilege others.
Combine this with other forms of political correctness (e.g., it’s taboo to even talk about “culture” as a factor in educational disparities; any differences in educational outcomes must be the result of racism/oppression) and it’s hard not to be concerned about the outcome of this educational philosophy and to see certain worrying historical parallels.
BTW, I don’t know if it’s a good idea to get into a big object-level discussion about this here. Initially I just wanted to offer some clear-cut evidence to correct your belief that “bring SJ into all the subject at school” is unlikely. Hopefully that’s settled at this point?
Agreed on both counts, yeah. I still don’t think this is actually evidence against the possibility of the political nexus shifting away from social justice (in fact, I would count it as evidence we’re near peak intensity) and I still think there is a lot of value to trying to understand and capture interesting insights from the social justice movement, but I don’t think a real concerted effort do do this is possible until things relax a bit.
If someone can think of reasonable ways to verify whether the cultural toxicity of the SJ fight has ‘moved on’ I would be willing to make a public prediction that it will have done so in five years. Maybe some kind of random sample of twitter fights? Or a survey of leftist tumblr?
Christian-advocacy groups always have very little influence on what happens within education departments in universities. Deconstructionist thought on the other hand has a lot of influence within those departments.
It would be a big problem for the career of a professor in an education department to argue that more creationism has to be taught in science classes. On the other hand today a professor in an education department who would argue that there are only two genders would get massive problems.
If you take the outside view there are plenty of cultural conflicts that end very bloody. From the outside view it’s possible that a social force gets weaker but it’s also possible that it gets stronger and goes on to project more power.
New Atheism vs. fundamentalist religion isn’t even a good comparison because neither of those camps had a lot of institutions behind them.
What comes next might be a version that’s even more radical.
It might be that nobody gets a degree in education without professing allegiance to SJ and those teachers then go to bring SJ into all the subject at school.
SJ is more then an online phenomena. It’s also a fight for the control of various institutions and I see little reason that the people you won power will suddenly let it go.
This sounds unlikely, uncharitable, and frankly more than a little conspiratorial. I’m not even sure if this is something most social justice advocates would even want.
I would not consider this an actual paradigm shift in the way the atheism->SJ shift occurred and I do not think it will actually happen.
My model of culture wars is that they are fought over large ideological fronts. Atheism was a front line, now it is not. Scott proposed a view in which that front line moved over the ideological space centered around identity and culture and became the social justice conflict. If this model is correct then that front line can move again but it can’t move to social justice because it’s already there. If this happens, people could still argue about SJ topics and think they’re important (just like people still argue about atheism now) but it also means people can discuss these things intelligently without the discussion devolving.
I’d encourage you to take an outside view here and consider how plausible it would sound for an atheist arguing in 2004 that atheism vs religion was going to be the most important cultural topic forever and that the reason for this was that theists were just so backwards and extreme they would keep upping the fight until faith pledges became mandatory in public schools and everyone would be forced to read the Bible instead of studying biology.
It’s already happening IRL. See this Reason article:
Right, so, a few things:
There is a huge difference in my mind between forcing teachers to adopt a specific curriculum with political implications and providing them the resources to include political topics as they see fit.
I’ll admit, looking over the framework itself feels pretty icky. There are a few things I like about it, though.
I’ve long felt that more history of mathematics should be included in math curriculum (for much the same reason as history of science should be included). Seeing how our understanding of math as changed as new concepts were invented makes it feel more like a living process (off the top of my head, you could probably get a lot of mileage out of just looking at how the conception of numbers changed from the Greece to Rome to India).
This is practically proto-rationalism. Getting kids to question why things are accepted as the correct answer (‘because that’s what the book says’ vs ‘because I can prove it given ZFC axioms’) and understand that there is a way they can see for themselves if something is true.
I didn’t say the framework was perfect. This is just one example of clear progressive-coded language and yeah, I have a hard time defending why this ought to be in a math curriculum.
Going back to my earlier point, though, Christian-advocacy groups do sometimes try to get evolution taken out of public schools (or have creationism taught alongside evolution as an equivalent ‘theory’). I’m not saying that it never happens or that there aren’t extremists or that no effort should be put into wacking back insanity. But trying to paint evolution vs creation as the most important debate ever feels silly now. And more than that, for people who think religion vs atheism is the most important fight ever, trying to get one side to recognize good arguments on the other is like pulling teeth.
Politics is the mind-killer. The fact that, as I write this, a reasonable-if-flawed attempted steelmanning of an ideology that the LessWrong community has decided is on the other side is sitting at ~minus 5 karma~ (ninja edit: +5 now, it seems to be fluctuating a lot, so reduce the intensity of this) should be considered shameful. I grow ever more afraid that LessWrong is just one more community that can tolerate anything except the outgroup.
Reasonable-if-flawed posts about political issues have no place on LessWrong. Given that politics is problematic it’s worthwhile to discourage people from posting low quality political posts on LessWrong and there’s nothing shameful about discouraging such posts.
The behavior of discouraging has little to do with outgroup toleration.
I did not say “low quality” and I do not think this post is low quality. I think it is of middling quality, around what I would expect an average LessWrong member to be capable of writing. It is less specific than I would like and I think overreaches in the amount the key insight is able to explain but there is a key insight. One I found useful and novel and well constructed.
Further, while it would be very bad to have LessWrong become solely about politics, looking at the front page there are very few posts with a political focus. Politics is a part of our world and if we cannot discuss it then that is a weakness in our epistemology. If we strongly discourage mid-quality posts that deal with political topics then it could have an intellectual chilling effect.
That said, the post has positive karma right now and while it’s not quite where I would place it, it’s within a range that I would expect to see for most posts like this so I am no longer as terrified as I was that LessWrong had suddenly caught groupthink.
I believe this is a mis-reporting, or talking about part of the curriculum. See pages 27 and 28 of this presentation:
Ah, I think you’re right. It seems like they want an “ethnic studies” version of everything and students have to take at least one ethnic studies course per year. I’m not a huge fan of that and it seems like it is taking some well-deserved criticism.
Looking at this presentation through the lens of the original post, it seems like what the Ethnic Studies Board is trying to do is create safe spaces and reduce perceived harms against minorities (hence, I think, why they want to make sure there’s an “ethnic studies” version of every core class: so that the people they feel will best benefit from this curriculum can use it for their entire high school education).
I’m not sure they have fully considered the consequences of doing this (especially opportunity cost: all the class time spent on “ethnic studies” math is time not spent on, well, math) but I see no objection with the goal of providing minority students with a curriculum which will fit them better, in and of itself.
This is an interesting discussion which touches on education philosophy (how do we know the curriculum the Ethnic Studies Board has produced actually accomplishes its goals?), optimal resource allocation, language, culture, and (yes) race. But it is not a discussion we can have if seeing the phrase, “countering dominant narratives” makes the participants blind to anything else there.
FYI, there is virtually no criticism within the city / school district itself, because (1) it’s too progressive / left-leaning and (2) anyone who does offer criticism gets labeled as “racist” or “white supremacist”, even if the critic isn’t white. (Look up “internalized oppression” if you’re not already familiar.)
That’s part of it, but it’s also about turning students (and not just minorities) into social justice activists. See this quote from page 31 of the presentation:
Combine this with other forms of political correctness (e.g., it’s taboo to even talk about “culture” as a factor in educational disparities; any differences in educational outcomes must be the result of racism/oppression) and it’s hard not to be concerned about the outcome of this educational philosophy and to see certain worrying historical parallels.
BTW, I don’t know if it’s a good idea to get into a big object-level discussion about this here. Initially I just wanted to offer some clear-cut evidence to correct your belief that “bring SJ into all the subject at school” is unlikely. Hopefully that’s settled at this point?
Agreed on both counts, yeah. I still don’t think this is actually evidence against the possibility of the political nexus shifting away from social justice (in fact, I would count it as evidence we’re near peak intensity) and I still think there is a lot of value to trying to understand and capture interesting insights from the social justice movement, but I don’t think a real concerted effort do do this is possible until things relax a bit.
If someone can think of reasonable ways to verify whether the cultural toxicity of the SJ fight has ‘moved on’ I would be willing to make a public prediction that it will have done so in five years. Maybe some kind of random sample of twitter fights? Or a survey of leftist tumblr?
Christian-advocacy groups always have very little influence on what happens within education departments in universities. Deconstructionist thought on the other hand has a lot of influence within those departments.
It would be a big problem for the career of a professor in an education department to argue that more creationism has to be taught in science classes. On the other hand today a professor in an education department who would argue that there are only two genders would get massive problems.
If you take the outside view there are plenty of cultural conflicts that end very bloody. From the outside view it’s possible that a social force gets weaker but it’s also possible that it gets stronger and goes on to project more power.
New Atheism vs. fundamentalist religion isn’t even a good comparison because neither of those camps had a lot of institutions behind them.