The Weaponization of the Mathematics Objectivity Myth to Maintain White Supremacy During School Board Public Comments

• In Event: Framing Mathematics in Sociopolitical Public Discourse

Abstract

In the public political sphere, quantitative measures have long been used to provide a mirage of neutrality, logic, and objectivity (see e.g., Ewing, 2018). Espeland and Sauder (2016) emphasize the perception of objectivity because quantitative measures “can reduce vast amounts of information to a figure that is easy to understand” (p. 1). Additionally, the mathematics as objective myth is weaponized by those in power to divert conversations about race such that racial injustice goes unremedied and irremediable (see e.g., Bonilla-Silva, 2010). In our presentation, a critical race spatial perspective (Vélez & Solórzano, 2017) illuminates how public comments given during school board meetings on the redrawing of the attendance zone of Wilhelm Elementary position mathematics as objective and neutral to maintain white supremacy.
A critical race spatial perspective “accounts for the role of race, racism and white supremacy in examining geographic and social spaces” (Vélez & Solórzano, 2017, p. 20). Wilhelm’s attendance zone is a racialized space delineating the school’s student racial makeup. In the Fall of 2019, a proposal to rezone 311 mostly minoritized learners from Wilhelm Elementary to Nuno Pereira Elementary in Creator ISD was discussed at five school board meetings. Video and audio recordings of the public comments were transcribed for a total of 81 comments by 45 individuals. Only white presenting individuals in favor of rezoning Wilhelm evoked mathematics as neutral/objective (16 individuals making 34 public comments). Following a grounded theory approach (Malagon et al., 2009), an initial round of open-coding highlighted how mathematics was weaponized.
Those advocating Wilhelm’s rezoning used mathematics to erase the racial component of the rezoning conversation. For example, Jack positions considerations of race as outside the conversation. “Nobody here is saying that these students are bad students… that this is a class decision, or a race decision. This is simply a matter of numbers” (Jan. 27 Boundary Hearing). Moreover, mathematics being an emotionless subject was also evoked coinciding with the myth of neutrality/objectivity. Adrian’s public comment used this strategy: “We’re asking you to make a simple decision here that removes emotion and all the other class, culture considerations. We asked you to do the math. It's first grade math” (Feb. 13 Boundary Workshop). To stress the power of this strategy, speakers contrasted the complexity of racial considerations in the school board’s decision making by presenting a new, single-dimension numerical problem, providing clarity through quantifiable measures (Espeland & Sauder, 2015).
The public commenters used numbers of their own creation to present a solution for their own abstraction. Consequently, mathematics was used to describe a phenomenon while purporting no connection to humanity. Advocates for rezoning granted permission through mathematics to distance oneself from issues of race. Mathematics gave them no emotional connection to erasing humanity. The myths about mathematics were weaponized to construct a new racialized space that maintained white dominance. Overall, this presentation will help contribute to the political conocimiento (Gutiérrez, 2017) of mathematics teacher educators.

Authors

• Carlos Nicolas Gómez Marchant, University of Texas at Austin
  Presenting Author

• Alexandra Aguilar, University of Texas at Austin
  Presenting Author

• Emma Carene Gargroetzi, University of Texas at Austin
  Presenting Author

• Catherine C. Riegle-Crumb, University of Texas at Austin
  Presenting Author