A Crucial Discourse: Is Math Racist? A Perspective on Riverside Unified School District Board's Debate

The Riverside Unified School District board finds itself at the heart of a burgeoning nationwide conversation surrounding systemic racism in education, specifically focused on the field of mathematics. The controversy recently bubbled to the surface when board member Noemi Hernandez Alexander posed a provocative question: "How racist is math?" Quoting her own words, she stated, "my lived experience is that math is very racist."

To many, this may seem perplexing, given that math is often considered an absolute science – numbers and formulas seem to be void of any cultural or racial bias. However, in unpacking Alexander's assertion, we need to delve into her context, acknowledging the historical and sociopolitical dimensions of education.

Alexander's argument is not that mathematical operations or algorithms themselves hold any inherent racial prejudice. Instead, her assertion aligns with a growing body of educational scholars who point to the historical bias in how math is taught, who it has been designed to benefit, and the societal context in which students are expected to understand it.

The U.S education system, Alexander asserts, has perpetuated bias by presenting mathematical concepts within a Eurocentric framework. This has often led to the exclusion and marginalization of the mathematical contributions from non-Western cultures such as Africa, Asia, and South America. The pervasive Eurocentric viewpoint can contribute to feelings of alienation among students from diverse backgrounds, negatively impacting their mathematical comprehension and interest.

The emphasis on standardized testing has also been scrutinized as a mechanism perpetuating racial disparities. Critics argue that these tests don't account for the diverse learning styles and life experiences of students, especially those from historically marginalized communities. High-stakes tests often determine future opportunities, potentially entrenching socio-economic divisions and reinforcing systemic racism.

The Riverside board is wrestling with these complex issues, aiming to discern the degree to which racism pervades their math instruction and to identify actionable solutions. This dialogue has surfaced tensions, as balancing the need for educational equity and maintaining rigorous standards can be challenging.

On one side of the debate, supporters of the status quo argue that the objectivity of math offers a level playing field, where the answers are either right or wrong, independent of one's cultural or racial background. They fear that any alterations to the curriculum might dilute the academic rigor of the subject.

On the other hand, advocates for change, like Alexander, believe that introducing cultural relevance into math instruction can enhance understanding, engagement, and foster a sense of belonging among all students. They argue that inclusive math education can be achieved without compromising on academic rigor.

While the question, "How racist is math?" may seem contentious, it has ignited a crucial discourse about educational equity and the necessity for a culturally responsive curriculum in Riverside Unified School District and beyond.

The challenge for the Riverside board is to harness this discourse, facilitating a comprehensive evaluation of their current practices and deciding on actionable reforms. The board's decisions could shape the district's future, potentially transforming math education into a more equitable and inclusive discipline.

In her quest to confront systemic bias, Noemi Hernandez Alexander reminds us of the importance of examining the structures that educate our children, even in areas where bias might initially seem improbable. Her lived experience provides a personal, poignant dimension to this critical debate, which has broad implications for the future of education.