The dangerous math that Florida doesn't want its children to learn

Well, this is curious. The state of Florida has rejected a bunch of math textbooks because they contain forbidden subjects, including things like "Critical Race Theory" and "Social Emotional Learning." What on earth, one wonders, could be so offensive in a math textbook for children? The Florida Education Department didn't provide any specific examples. 

By the way, most of the rejected books are for elementary school kids.

Fortunately, I've dug deeper and discovered what the offending math concepts are, so that I could share them with you, dear reader. Here, then, are the six math topics that apparently drove the Florida Education Department to issue its ban:

1. The offending math texts call π an "irrational" number. As everyone knows, pi (π) describes the ratio between the circumference of a circle and its radius, a value that is approximately 3.1416. 

Florida's government knows that math cannot be irrational! This seems to be an attempt to insert Social Emotional Learning into math. 

Incidentally, Florida is in good company here: back in 1897, the Indiana State House passed a bill that declared that π equals 3.2. (It doesn't.) Luckily, when the bill reached the Indiana Senate, a Purdue University professor was in the audience, and he helped the senators realize they shouldn't pass it. They didn't.

2. Many of the textbooks refer to "binary" numbers. Of course, if there are binary numbers, there must be non-binary numbers. Are these mathematics textbooks trying to sneak in references to sex and gender? Florida's Education Department can't allow that.

3. Some of the texts describe "magic squares." Magic, of course, is the work of the devil. Florida wisely decided to keep such offensive terms out of its math curriculum. 

(Aside: a magic square is a square filled with numbers from 1 to N, where the numbers are arranged so that every row, column, and diagonal sums to the same value. These can be fun puzzles for children and adults.)

4. A number of texts introduce the idea of the "golden ratio" and "golden rectangles." Clearly this is a reference to worshipping the golden calf, from the Old Testament, which everyone knows is a false god. What are those math textbooks trying to do here?

Making matters worse, the golden ratio is another irrational number! See my discussion of π above. 

(Aside: two quantities a and b are in the golden ratio if their ratio is the same as the ratio of their sum to the larger of the two quantities; in other words, if (a+b)/a = a/b.)

5. Most of the offending math texts use the expression "higher power" to refer to exponents rather than to a deity. Obviously this cannot be permitted.

6. Let's not forget the Pythagorean theorem. All the math texts describe this creation of a pagan mathematician from ancient Greece, whose philosophy resembled modern socialism. Why are math books promoting pagan ideology?

The right-wing governor of Florida (and presidential wannabe) Ron DeSantis enthusiastically endorsed the rejection of these textbooks, saying in a press release, "I’m grateful that Commissioner Corcoran and his team at the Department have conducted such a thorough vetting of these textbooks."

Yes, the governor of Florida is deeply concerned about protecting the children of his state. (That's why he's been such an ardent opponent of vaccines.) 

Now if only those math textbook publishers can just make π a nice, rational number, and get rid of any references to binary numbers, I'm sure Florida will forgive them.

(Note: this is satire. Second note: the copy of this article that appeared at Forbes, where I cross-post all my blog articles, had over 40,000 views in just its first few hours, but the editors there took it down because they were afraid (as they informed me) that the satire would confuse readers. I requested that Forbes put it back up, but so far they haven't.)

South Carolina lawmaker wants to force Creationism down students' throats

Well, it’s happened again. The great state of South Carolina has demonstrated that when it comes to ignorance of science, its legislators take a back seat to no one. They must have been jealous of Kansas, Louisiana, and Texas.

Last week, SC legislator Mike Fair, a Republican, proposed a new standard for teaching high school biology that encourages teachers to teach alternatives to evolution, by which he means creationism. He's been working on this for months; last spring he tried to pass a law that would have required students and teachers to construct arguments against evolution. After failing to get that through his committee, he has proposed a new law that says: 

“evolution is continually open to and subject to experimental and observational testing.”

Except of course that's not what he really means.

Let’s be clear: Mike Fair doesn’t want evolution to be taught in public schools. Instead, he wants to force students, using the power of government, to adopt his conservative Christian views, which teaches that God created all living things just as they are today, about 6000 years ago (or 4000 years, depending on who you ask). 

Fair has a history of trying to dumb down the teaching of science.  Back in February, he blocked the state education oversight committee from using the phrase “natural selection” in the state science standards. Speaking to the (SC) Post and Courier, Fair said 

“To teach that natural selection is the answer to origins is wrong. I don't think it should be taught as fact.” [Mike Fair, S.C. legislator]

Ignorant barely begins to describe this statement. Mike Fair clearly doesn’t have the faintest grasp of biology or genetics. He’s the last person that anyone should want to weigh in on science standards. His behavior goes far beyond mere ignorance, though: not only is he wrong, but he wants to use the power of the state to impose his religious views, under the guise of science, on every student in South Carolina’s schools. No wonder South Carolina is perennially ranked near the bottom of the country in public education. 

I have a confession to make. I grew up in South Carolina and went through the public schools there, from kindergarten right through high school. I met lots of guys like Mike Fair: popular, plays on the football team, student body president. These guys are usually bullies (we've all seen the movie), and that’s just what Fair is demonstrating now: he wants to bully every teacher, and every child, into listening to his ignorant views of science. I’ve no doubt that if Fair could require prayer in every school — Christian prayer, that is — he’d do that too. I grew up surrounded by this kind of nonsense, but I didn't speak up then because I would have been ostracized. Well, I'm speaking up now. 

Fair and his colleagues in the Republican-dominated S.C. House of Representatives argue that no, they aren’t forcing teachers to teach creationism — they just want to teach the controversy. Equally appalling is the position of the S.C. Superintendent of Education, Mick Zais, who agreed with this sentiment, saying: 

"We ought to teach both sides and let students draw their own conclusions."

No, you shouldn't. There is no scientific controversy about evolution. Evolutionary theory is based on an enormous edifice of facts, with literally tens of thousands of scientific papers providing evidence to support it. There is no competing theory out there.

Ironically, three years ago Fair introduced a bill to prevent the imposition of Islamic-based Sharia law in South Carolina. He justified this by saying 

“A growing concern is the immigration of people who are accustomed to their religion and their civil laws being inextricably connected. For those newcomers to our state, this bill will be helpful to them as they are assimilated into our culture maintaining complete freedom to worship as they please."

Reading this sent my irony meter way into the red zone. Let me see if I understand: Mike Fair doesn’t want religion and civil laws to be “inextricably connected” — but he does want to require that public, state-funded schools teach his religious view of the creation myth. I guess what he meant to say is that it’s okay to mix religious fundamentalism and civil law, as long as it’s Mike Fair's brand of Christian fundamentalism.

South Carolina doesn't need its own set of science standards, nor does Texas, Louisiana, or Kansas. The laws of science don't change when you cross state lines or national borders. Allowing politicians to set science standards is a recipe for disaster, and is one reason why the U.S. continues to lag the rest of the world in science education—as South Carolina has once again demonstrated.

Should we have prayer at graduation ceremonies?

I usually stay away from the topic of religion on this blog, but events this week at my home institution, the University of Maryland (UMD), prompt me to comment.

It's rare for the University Senate at UMD to make bold moves, but to my surprise, they did exactly that last week. After studying the issue for years, they voted overwhelmingly (75% in favor) to eliminate the prayer at graduation. Critics of the prayer had pointed out that it was divisive - usually it has been a Christian prayer, and many students, faculty, and parents attending the ceremony are non-Christians. UMD is a public institution, and of course the Constitution of the U.S. prohibits states from endorsing any religion. A Jewish history professor, Marsha Rozenblit, said that "the real concern .. is the separation of church and state."

Nonetheless, I was surprised when I read, on the front page of the Washington Post, that UMD was eliminating the prayer ceremony at graduation. Another step forward towards rational behavior, and away from primitive superstitions - hurrah! (I'd like to report that UMD was being a leader here, but in reality we are just following other large state universities. The University Senate committee studying the issue looked at UC Berkeley, U. Illinois, U. Michigan, UNC, and UCLA, and found that none have prayer at their campus graduation ceremonies. But still, better late than never.)

The religious right immediately went on the attack, not surprisingly. The ultra-conservative Washington Times wrote that UMD is "on a mission to demonstrate its hostility to the core values of the community" and accused the university senate of "religious intolerance." They also claimed that "only a small group of anti-social cranks in the 'large and diverse' student community would feel alienated by a nondenominational prayer." Sorry, Wash Times, but calling us names doesn't advance your argument - and they have no evidence that only a "small group" want to eliminate prayer at graduation. In fact, every student representative in the University Senate voted to eliminate the prayer. One of them, David Zuckerman, said "Unfortunately, President Mote does not respect that we are the students who represent the student population in the shared government system."

Now for the bad news: in a surprising rebuff to the University Senate, UMD's president, Dan Mote, rejected their proposal and decided that prayer would continue exactly as before. (The Senate is only "advisory" to the President, so he has the power to reject their advice.) The student newspaper, the Diamondback, had reported that President Mote "rarely ignores the university's most powerful legislative body, which directly advises him on policy." Well, not this time. I can only guess at Mote's reasoning, but he issued a written statement that said:

"For many people, a prayer of gratitude and a moment of reflection are an important part of our commencement tradition. A great many people who participate in our ceremonies either embrace this tradition or are willing to allow others who value it to have it as part of the ceremony. After careful reflection, I have decided to continue our current tradition with respect to the invocation at commencement."

This is startlingly bad logic. It reflects the tyranny of the majority - exactly the sort of behavior that the Constitution prohibits in the First Amendment. Just because "many people" want a prayer doesn't mean they can impose their religious beliefs on others. I'm afraid that President Mote surrendered to political pressures (perhaps from the state legislature) rather than standing up for the students, the faculty, and the Constitution. This is really disappointing.

Missed in all the hubbub over this topic is this: graduation is a celebration of learning and academic achievement. Religion has no place in the graduation ceremony of a secular university: students don't come here to study religion. Why not have a lecture from a physicist, or a biologist, or a historian? At least that would be appropriate. Religion calls for strict, unquestioning adherence to dogma, while a university education teaches students (I hope) to question, to explore, and to reason about the world.

I hope the university senate at UMD makes the same recommendation again, and again, until President Mote follows their advice.