“Marcellus is cooking hot meals to hand out to a small group of twelve Black Lives Matters protestors demonstrating against separating families held at the U.S./Mexico border. He is making a meal of rice, cornbread, and red beans. He wants to make enough red beans for each person to have more than ¾ cup. Determine whether each inequality or number lines correctly models c, the number of red bean Marcellus needs to make."She quips, "Of course, if Marcellus was doling out Irish stew or if Helga was cooking sauerkraut for neo-Nazis, the answer be the same." But that wouldn't be social justice mathematics, would it?
Later in the journal article, she complains that test questions are written in standard English, rather than African-American Vernacular English. Solving that would require "separate but equal" assessments written in students' preferred modes of communication. Perhaps text-speak and emojis?That's right, there's peer-reviewed research, and apparently "separate but equal" is again a thing. Predictably, the abstract has that stupid use of "interrogate."
Jennifer Randall argues that it is not possible to build race-neutral and cultural-neutral tests, and what the field thinks of as race-neutral actually represents whiteness masquerading as neutrality. She provides a heuristic for interrogating the initial stages of our assessment development process from an antiracist framing to disrupt white supremacist approaches to construct definition and representation.All the predictable Theory-speak, and when it's done, the students will not be any better at doing mathematics, although the "heuristics" in the paper (unsupported by any field evidence) will create ideological clones of the people play-acting as teachers. If that sort of language can't make it into a Kelly Turnbull story, it is at least providing entertainment for Real Clear Education's Max Eden.
The mathematical goal is for students to multiply twelve by three-quarters to get nine, and then represent “greater than nine” symbolically. But professor Randall rather butchered the task of making this math question “anti-racist.”It has long been the practice of a class of education theorists to invoke Rawls without understanding him, let alone to go behind the veil of ignorance and ask themselves if they would prefer to be born innumerate and raised innumerate. I never thought that what once circulated as a parody of the Howard Law School bar exam would become a recommended practice in middle school number theory.
A 6th-grade level literate student might note that the “red beans” is carelessly misspelled in the final sentence. A culinarily literate student might note that the question doesn’t actually ask for the number of cups of red beans that Marcellus needs to make. A generally literate sixth grader might note that Professor Randall misspelled “Black Lives Matter.” A politically literate sixth grader might wonder why, exactly, an organization that recently endorsed Hamas’s rape of women and murder of babies needs to be referenced at all on a standardized test.
But the fundamental idea behind Randall’s work is even more stupid than her exemplar question. In recent years, conservative critics have accused the woke of believing that “2+2=4” is racist. Randall all but agrees that, in fact, it is. “Students are rarely taught ‘2+2=4’ absent of context,” she writes. “And, I argue, that when context is not clear (or seemingly not present), the implied context, historically, has been whiteness.” She is not quite arguing that “foundational math items such as “2+2” are always racist.” But, “[b]ecause we are unaware of this context and the cultural norms/values that students must draw on to respond, “2+2” is not necessarily a neutral item-type and should no longer be referred to as one.”
She means us to believe that it’s better, in other words, to write something like: “Two BLM protestors join two other BLM protestors at a rally against police brutality. How many BLM protestors are rallying for racial justice?”
Even if asking “2+2=4” is the best and most efficient way to know whether students understand the addition of single-digit integers, Randall argues that still shouldn’t ask that question, citing John Rawls. Randall writes, “We understand from the work of Rawls (1999) that policies/practices must be abolished—regardless of their perceived or actual efficiency and standing—if those policies/practices are inherently unjust.”
Professor Randall’s royal “we” here likely refers to critical race theorists (CRT). Her work is shot through with CRT phrases and references to CRT authors.







