Heartbreak - part 9

a report from the middle of the beginning of Antidotes to Math Supremacy

First two invitations:

1. Subscribe (free) if you’d like to receive new posts automatically by email:

2. Please share posts and invite others to join this space — mindfully:

• Please share only with specific individuals — no mailing lists, social media, public posts — unless with full consent of all present authors in the space.

• Share only with individuals who you trust to fully welcome the invitations for multicultural interactions and handling tension.

Let’s move at the speed of trust — for the key to exponential growth is sustainability!

---

Now for real: Heartbreak - part 9 - a report from the middle of the beginning of Antidotes to Math Supremacy

For parts 1-8, please see all the emails in my head that never made it out to you because by the time I opened the screen there was some new email — or maybe specifically none — that broke my resolve to stay in touch with you.

If you’re new to the story, here’s a summary (clickable links are on my UCB website):

I did for the most part manage to stay in touch with my feelings: I often had those emails sung to me in dramatic fashion, sometimes added interpretive dance, and always laughed out loud to prepare the ground for letting it sink in slowly that this in fact was not just an absurd joke — this was Math Supremacy poisoning human minds and lives. And all I could do was to watch and let my heart break — nice and slow, so the pain wouldn’t result in actions that might trigger yet more harm and retaliation.

Today, I made the tactical error of skimming some suspicious emails myself — not expecting any news as the committee handling my grievance was reliably playing for time, the semester was ending, the outgoing chairman surely was relieved to get into the summer without having to face the preliminary investigation announced in March, and I hadn’t picked a new fight by daring to ask some administrator to do their job. In retrospect, any sequence of emails from the two main actors in my forced removal from teaching earlier this semester should have had me call in the BS-busting email singer, and certainly one with snippets of this kind:

Manager: Evans - Non affiliate - Do not approach!

Chair, 26 responses: Congratulations to Manager …

Manager: UPDATE - Please Read: Evans - Non affiliate

Chair: lower division course policy

But these had been buried in my probably-just-some-crap-sent-to-large-list email filter, so I skimmed unsupervised, starting with the department manager’s messages about a so-called “non affiliate”. (In case you’re curious, see my thoughts on confidentiality regarding actions of authorities.)

Dear Math Community,

If you see the individual in the picture at or near Evans, please (1) contact UCPD … ; and, (2) notify Building Coordinator …

Most importantly, please do not approach this individual … It has been brought to our attention that this individual has an object in his shopping cart that can be used as a striking weapon. …

Dear All,

The item of concern has been removed from the individual's shopping cart and they are no longer deemed a potential threat.  If you see the individual, it is no longer necessary to call UCPD unless anyone observes a new safety/security issue. …

I sighed a sigh of relief that at least one unhoused person gets to live another day in Berkeley CA. I couldn’t help noticing that they were white-passing and still had to give up their selfdefense tool to avoid police persecution. I marveled at the new “non affiliate” language for “doesn’t belong” and was just starting to wonder whether “they” was part of the dehumanization or maybe just maybe the department staff had now been trained to be mindful of pronouns. Then the next email did something that hadn’t happened since I had set

\(Def.: expectations := -\infty \)

That was 6 years ago — after the natural conclusion from my report of verbal assaults in a committee meeting was to relieve me of all committee duties. I wasn’t surprised when the next chairman expected me back in service … or when my request for a harassment reporting protocol was referred to a disability specialist … or when the department manager sent an unsolicited film recommendation — featuring graphic descriptions of sexual assault and the scientific community’s silent acceptance — specifically to a group of women graduate students. It all seemed logical until the one email that I truly didn’t see coming:

Please join me in congratulating Department Manager … for winning a 2023 Chancellor’s Outstanding Staff Award! Official citation:
… is a leader who brings out the best in his team. He creates space for colleagues to be themselves and provides ample support not only for them to succeed but more importantly, for them to feel secure enough to struggle and possibly fail. This courageous approach has a deeply felt impact not only among his immediate colleagues, but within the entire department and all who interact with it. An environment where people feel safe to be themselves, to be vulnerable and take risks, and to try new things, is crucial for any community. … has been instrumental in administering a grant from the Equity and Inclusion Committee, and in creating a departmental staff DEIBA+ Committee to build community and connection. Through his thoughtful conduct, open and honest communication no matter how delicate the context, and care for his colleagues and their experiences, … has had a lasting impact.

Sanity-defense mechanisms kicked in, so I texted the citation to my preferred email singer with “ 🥳🤣🤢🤮🤧 … speechless … “. And since she was busy, I started fantasizing about the universe in which I could safely add to the 26 congratulation responses a brief note that the only openly queer / anti-racist / pro-student / … faculty in the department, in fact, felt anything but safe to be themselves and had just been banned from trying new things.

Well, to be precise it’s since 2020 that I’ve been doing some things that were new to the UCB Math department despite being well established practices in math pedagogy: The teenagers in my life have never experienced a math class that didn’t use inquiry-based learning and mastery grading. My “congratulations, you’ve got work to do” note would, of course, need to be professionally worded and carefully avoid disclosure of my hidden agenda to build classrooms in which underrepresented students might feel some semblance of belonging allowing them to concentrate on learning math …

… and that’s when I slipped back into the present universe with false confidence for facing the last of those four emails:

Dear colleagues,

Attached is a draft of a document clarifying the department's policy on teaching lower division courses. Please let me know if you have any comments on this. (And sorry for bothering you with one more thing during final exam week.)

Oh my, an apology for bothering the colleagues! For surely they don’t have the time to review something as bothersome as …

… a document that retroactively establishes as policy every single argument that this chairman had used to remove a scary case of pedagogy outbreak from the classroom.

As you can tell from the tone, this is where I lost touch with my feelings. They’re still somewhere between arms and soft fuzzy things on the couch, shedding big tears — while my brain decided that this, finally, was an update worth sharing with the wonderful humans who had responded to my earlier email calls for sanity checks and e-hugs. If that’s you, please read the following — not just with growing concern about damage spreading from here — but also as proof of our power: If we take our pedagogy seriously, we really are *that* scary!

---

Department of Mathematics policy on teaching large lower division courses (DRAFT)

Introduction. This policy concerns expectations for teaching, and processes for changing, the department’s large lower division courses. As of Spring 2023 these courses consist of Math 1A, 1B, 10A, 10B, 16A, 16B, 32, 53, 54, and 55. In Fall 2023 a new such course, Math 56, will be rolled out. The purpose of this policy is to balance the department’s need to offer consistent, high quality service courses that meet the needs of various majors and prerequisites, with the academic freedom of instructors and the need to update and innovate our teaching over time.

Decision making. The department’s curriculum committee is responsible for setting the syllabi and choosing the textbooks for the lower division courses. The department’s schedule committee is responsible for assigning teaching of these courses. These committees consult as needed with the department chair, who has ultimate responsibility for assigning teaching in the department. New courses or substantially revised course syllabi also need to be approved outside of the department by the campus Committee on Courses and Instruction (COCI).

Default expectations. Each large lower division course has a standard syllabus posted at https://math.berkeley.edu/courses/choosing/lowerdivcourses, including a schedule of topics and a textbook chosen by the department. Instructors are expected to use the same textbook and to cover the same topics, with possible minor modifications affecting no more than about 10% of the syllabus, for example to omit topics due to lack of time, or to add topics chosen by the instructor, if these are relevant to the subject of the course and at an appropriate level.

The course grade is ordinarily based on a final exam covering the whole course, two midterms (typically with some policy for dropping or reducing the weight of the lowest exam score), and a section grade based on some combination or subset of quizzes, homework, and participation. Note that campus currently requires these courses to have a three-hour written final exam as scheduled according to the final exam group, and there is a process for one-time exceptions at https://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/coci-handbook/2.1.3.2.2. Grades should reflect mastery of the course material, and median grades will typically be in the `B’ range.

Minor changes. Instructors assigned to teach lower division courses who are considering minor changes to the standard syllabus, or unsure about whether their plans would meet expectations, should consult with the department’s curriculum committee.

Major changes. Instructors considering making major changes to the standard lower division syllabi, or introducing new lower division courses, must submit a proposal to the department’s curriculum committee. The curriculum committee will assess the feasibility and suitability of the proposal, and consult with other departments about whether the new or revised course would meet requirements for other majors. If the curriculum committee and department chair approve of the proposal, then the next step is ordinarily to offer the course as a small pilot, as a section of Math 91, with a plan to evaluate the success of the pilot. If the pilot is successful, then the new syllabus can be submitted to COCI for approval as a regular lower division course.

---

How does Math Supremacy show up here ?

I’m still too heartbroken to formulate that more generally, but that policy is a prime example of what I’ve decided to call “Math Supremacy” — due to characteristics like:

• It’s formulated to sound objective — quantifiable — orderly.

• Its actual function is to give people in position of math authority the power to make — often harmful, exploitative, dehumanizing, … — decisions over the lives of people with less math authority.

• Its reasoning and specific functioning is neither accessible nor accountable to the people whose lives it affects.

---

Antidotes

• I’ve found that making space to feel my feelings — be it heartbreak, rage, … — is almost always a good start when facing systemic injustices. To me it’s just also important to know that I won’t stop there — this is just a step towards being able to take next action steps with more wisdom from a more settled nervous system.

• I’ve also found the observer / researcher perspective helpful: What can these responses by the power structures teach me about how a toxic system self-replicates ? Again, that’s not an academic question but an intentional gathering of wisdom to take more strategic next steps.

• Finally, a ray of hope hit my inbox later that day — along with the first proof that the UCB math department is entirely serious about using the new policies to suppress the teaching of critical thinking: The facilitators of the undergraduate student-run course “Global Education Inequality in Mathematics” (who were inspired during my Fall 2021 run of “Linear Algebra & Differential Equations with critical pedagogy”) contacted me for advice on how to deal with brand new math department policies — added on top of the comprehensive campus requirements and trainings — such as

  • Potential facilitators must explain how the course fits in with other offerings of the department.

  • Facilitator must have junior or senior standing and be a declared major in the department (or be an intended major).

  • Facilitator must provide a summary of qualifications to facilitate the course.

Where’s the ray of hope in such we-can-clobber-anything-that-doesn’t-belong policies? Well, see, this is an undergraduate student initiative — the population that’ll be harmed most directly by the new teaching policies. And some of them now received early warning including proof that, yes, they’ll be directly affected. And they have a campus-approved syllabus on “Global Education Inequality in Mathematics”. So I have no doubt that we can find it a more welcoming host department, where it may just create the space that’s needed to develop collective outrage, power, and action. And then I can show up in solidarity — rather than in a victimized role.