Facts once assumed true by everyone are quickly becoming controversial. This is a trend we have all become aware of. There is, for example, increasing pressure to suggest that pregnancy can happen to women and men. People who wish to express that “all lives matter” may now choose to self-censor for fear of reprisal. You may have even heard that the American Cancer Society, well-meaning no doubt, recently called women “individuals with a cervix”.

In the latest development, it’s being suggested that we could be guilty of Western imperialism if we insist that 2+2=4.

In late 2019, Seattle Public Schools released a new draft curriculum aimed at “re-humanising” mathematics. It suggests that “Western” maths has been used to “disenfranchise people and communities of colour” by posing as “the only legitimate expression of mathematical identity and intelligence.” The document goes on to ask, “Who gets to say if an answer is right?”

This draft curriculum builds on the theory of ethnomathematics — the study of intersections between maths and culture — which began in the late 1970s.

While the historical oppression of minorities should by all means be covered in school curricula, using it to dismantle the universal facts of mathematics is highly questionable. But Seattle Public Schools seem quite serious.

So did many Twitter users in the online debate that followed. Nikole Hannah-Jones, founder of The New York Times’ controversial “1619 Project”, weighed into the debate, tweeting,

“I wonder if folks always talking about ‘standards’ ever stop to consider that it’s their so-called standards that are the actual problem.”

A Brooklyn College professor also voiced her view that 2 + 2 = 4 “reeks of White supremacist patriarchy”. Laurie Rubel objected to “the idea that math (or data) is culturally neutral or in any way objective,” claiming that this is a myth. “I’m ready to move on with that understanding. Who’s coming with me?” she added. Several other academics from American universities and colleges went on to retweet and support her views.

It turns out that this is no isolated discussion.

A New York-based group called Abolition Science was formed in 2018. The community produces a regular podcast and describes itself as “an anti-colonial project” with a mission to “undermine the racial capitalist logics of Western Science and Math”. Their vision statement explains that they are “an abolitionist project that envisions a science and math delinked from racial capitalism, imperialism, and oppression”.

In actual fact, key concepts behind mathematics came to the West from non-Western lands. The concept of the number zero — a revolutionary concept for mathematics — has roots in Mesopotamia and India, for example. Al-jabr, or “algebra” as we call it, came to us from the Middle East.

Moreover, mathematics is embraced far beyond the West today as the basis for just about every modern advancement — from smartphones to medical research to skyscrapers.

This is important context before dismissing mathematics, as we have always understood it, as being “oppressive”.

These are ominous signs of our times. For good reason do many describe ours a “post-truth” world. Social theorist Thomas Sowell, who is himself African-American, was sharp in his analysis that “we are living in an era when sanity is controversial and insanity is just another viewpoint”.

English philosopher G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) saw the early signs of the West’s abandonment of objective truth, and in a cheeky tone, he warned:

We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green.

But there is another eerie backdrop to these developments.

The phrase “two plus two equals five” was made famous by George Orwell’s dystopian classic Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). In that story, the totalitarian government that ruled Oceania brainwashed its citizens to say and believe absurd things. Under threat of torture, protagonist Winston Smith was forced to declare that two plus two equals five. This was part of the ruling Party’s push to replace “thoughtcrimes” with approved ideas known as “Newspeak”.

Could it be that in coming years, insisting that 2+2=4 will become as risky as saying that there are only two genders?

It is good to question our assumptions and challenge our biases. And yes, let’s continue to root out injustice and oppression if we encounter it. But sometimes fashion goes too far. In the all-consuming desire to critique Western civilization, we may well end up dispensing with truth itself. That won’t help us — and it’s doubtful that sowing this kind of distrust among the next generation will bode well either.

With so much cultural upheaval that has taken place in recent years, now might be a good time to ask yourself: is 2 + 2 = 4 a hill you’re willing to die on?

COLUMN BY

A marriage and relationship coach encourages young women to follow their hearts, prioritizing marriage and family.

In the last week alone, I’ve spoken with three millennial women (who reached out for coaching) who are all in the same boat: they’re up to their eyeballs in debt, having gotten degree upon degree due to the pressure they felt from their parents and the culture to do something big with their lives. To not let their intellect go to waste. To not worry about finding a man to marry or even having children because, well, they have bigger fish to fry.

These women aren’t just in debt—they’re crestfallen. All they want is to have a family of their own, but they’ve been so conditioned to believe marriage and motherhood constitutes a lesser life, they don’t dare admit this desire. I can’t tell you the number of single women who tell me they’d give up their career in a hot second for a husband and kids.

And it’s not just unmarried women. Many of the wives and mothers I hear from are working at professions they don’t care much about, and want more time at home to be with their kids and to live a slower-paced life. Problem is, they married men who lack ambition (either that, or they had it but took a step back to accommodate their wives’ ambition) and as a result the women became their family’s main breadwinner. And it’s a role most of them hate.

Their predicament was inevitable. For one thing, modern women weren’t taught to look for a man who can provide for a wife and kids. Women are supposed to take care of themselves! That’s the narrative with which these women were raised, so it never occurred to them to look at a man’s professional prospects.

Second, by delaying marriage indefinitely, these women wound up with fewer choices. Good men of strong character, who are conscientious and gainfully employed, tend to marry younger, family-oriented women. These women may or may not have a college degree and/or a career, but they nevertheless view work as a secondary value to their main priority: marriage and family.

Ergo, by the time the career-focused women are around 30 years of age, the pickings are slim. They can look for a man who’s as ambitious as they, and occasionally they will find him—but sheer math means many will not. So they settle on the best they can get: men who are nice and who are safe, but who lack the necessary drive to produce on behalf of their families.

And we can’t dismiss the reason why so many modern men lack drive: because they’ve failed to launch. What did we think would happen in a culture that hails women’s ambition and independence from men and tells men, both verbally and subliminally, that they’re superfluous?

It’s the culture, along with the previous generation of parents, who created this mess. They instilled all the wrong messages and all the wrong values in the modern generation. As a result, women and men are paying the price.

Still, I have hopes for the women of Generation Z. I think they’re witnessing all of this; and while this group has problems of their own—anxiety, mainly—I don’t believe they’ll end up in the same boat as their millennial sisters. I think they will marry earlier, and they will prioritize motherhood. A career will likely be part of their lives, but it will not be the focus of their lives. It will not be their raison d’être.

That’s the crux of the problem for the women who reach out to me: they were taught that their value lies in what they do, rather than in who they are—that if they don’t live lives the way men live theirs, they are failures. And it’s tearing them up inside. One woman broke down after admitting she has spent a decade getting two degrees she doesn’t even want.

This is madness. Going into debt to prove one’s worth and struggling to do what previous generations used to do with ease—find a man and settle down—is hardly progress. There’s nothing empowering about any of this. College women, take heed: Do not let this be your fate! Prioritize marriage and family. Make it the center of your life, and fit everything else in around that.

No offense, but I’d love to not hear from you ten years down the line.

Republished with the author’s permission. Read the original article at SuzanneVenker.com

Suzanne Venker

Suzanne Venker (@SuzanneVenker) is the author of five books and a relationship coach, as well as host of The… More by Suzanne Venker

RELATED ARTICLES:

On critics and bullies

When the New York Times covered up one of communism’s worst atrocities

Twitter hack revelation: people are still human

A bleak pandemic inspires glimmers of goodness

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

In March, school shutdowns around the globe caused 1.5 billion children to begin schooling from home, representing over 91% of children, UNESCO estimates.

Here in the U.S., conversations about the state of school reopenings have hit a fever pitch as August quickly approaches. Many parents—some 71% in Education Next’s 2020 poll—feel their children learned less this spring than they would have had schools remained open.

As Science magazine reports, over 20 countries reopened schools in June, and some, like Taiwan, Nicaragua, and Sweden, never closed them to begin with. Day cares remained open for essential workers in many countries, and although there are exceptions, outbreaks have generally been rare.

What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. It has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here>>>.

Two regimes are fighting an ideological war in America today. But what side are you on? And how can you sharpen up on how to defend your position? Learn more now >>

To be sure, there have been some cases of outbreaks at schools that have reopened. As Jennifer Couzin-Frankel, Gretchen Vogel, and Meagan Weiland report in Science, more than 150 students and 25 staff members contracted the virus at a joint middle/high school in Jerusalem, and 96 students and teachers caught the virus at a New Zealand high school before that country’s lockdown went into effect.

Additionally, two day care centers in Canada saw spikes among staff and reclosed.

Overall, however, the data suggest that it is rare for children to develop severe symptoms if they contract the virus, and it is rare for them to spread the virus if they do get it.

That is why many countries, particularly in Europe, have at least partially reopened schools. Here is a sample of what countries around the world are doing when it comes to reopening:

1. Australia. In the state of New South Wales, schools reopened for in-person classes one day per week in early May, combined with virtual learning the four remaining days. Individual schools were able to decide how to best schedule those classes. On May 25, schools reopened full time.
2. Austria. Schools have reopened, and masks are no longer required because “officials observed little spread within schools.”
3. Canada. In Quebec, schools reopened in May and children socialize in groups of six. Science reports that while 53 students and teachers contracted the virus, “officials believed many of those infections were contracted in the community.”
4. Denmark. Denmark was the first country in Europe to reopen schools, doing so on April 15. Schools in Denmark do as much class time outside as possible, and children are divided into small groups, nicknamed “pods,” of around 12 students.
5. Finland. Finland reopened schools in May and have retained their standard class size, but have kept classes separated from each other and staggered reopening by age. Finnish officials “found no evidence of school spread and no change in the rate of infection” for students under 16.
6. France. French schools reopened in mid-May on a voluntary basis. Research out of France suggests that when children do contract the disease, they are contracting it at home, rather than in school. French schools are planning to fully reopen in September.
7. Germany. In German schools, which reopened in May on a part-time basis, if a student or staff member contracts the virus, “classmates and teachers of an infected student are sent home for two weeks, but other classes continue.”
8. Israel. Schools fully reopened in May in Israel, and classes are full, but students wear masks. Individual schools close temporarily if a student or staff member contracts the virus.
9. Japan. Japan began reopening schools in June. Parents must take their children’s temperature every morning and provide a report to the schools. Children attend on alternating days, and teachers and students wear masks.
10. Netherlands. The Netherlands reopened in May but halved their class sizes. Schools did not require social distancing for students under 12.
11. Sweden. Schools in Sweden never closed for young children, nor did they make major adjustments to their day-to-day operations or reduce class size. Although Sweden’s death rate is high compared to its European neighbors, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist says “there’s little evidence schools exacerbated the outbreak.”

In countries with high infection rates, like India and Brazil, schools remain closed and local governments will likely determine when schools reopen on a case-by-case basis.

In the U.S., the Trump administration has called on schools to reopen this fall. President Donald Trump suggested last week that schools could lose access to federal funding (which only makes up just 8.5% of all K-12 school revenue) if they do not reopen.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos suggested that rather than withholding federal funds, those dollars should simply follow students to the schools of the family’s choice that are open—a smart policy response.

For their part, the teachers unions and other special-interest groups are demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending to reopen schools. The American Federation of Teachers has demanded Congress spend $116 billion on K-12 school reopening, “close to the amount the U.S. dedicated to the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II,” Corey DeAngelis of Reason Foundation points out.

By framing the conversation as a battle between federal officials and special-interest groups, the debate shifts away from those it impacts the most—local schools and families—as my colleague Jonathan Butcher observes.

Decisions about reopening schools need to be driven by school leaders and parents, and based on local factors.

If public school districts remain closed, do a poor job of transitioning online, or do not meet the needs of families in this COVID-19 era, parents should be able to take their money elsewhere.

States should provide emergency education savings accounts to families to enable them to enroll their children at schools of their choice that are open or are providing quality online instruction.

COMMENTARY BY

Lindsey Burke

Lindsey M. Burke researches and writes on federal and state education issues as the Will Skillman fellow in education policy at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. Twitter: @lindseymburke.

A Note for our Readers:

These are trying times in our nation’s history. Two regimes are fighting an ideological war in America today, with polar opposite viewpoints on public policy and the government’s role in our lives.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation asked world-class speaker, educator, and researcher David Azerrad to walk you through his research and outline the differences between the “two regimes” in our society today—conservatism and progressivism—and their primary differences.

When you get access to this course today, you’ll learn key takeaways like what it means to be a conservative, what “modern progressivism” is, how a conservative worldview differs from a progressive one, and much, much more.

You will come away from this online course with a better understanding of the differing points of view, how they align with your principles, and how to defend your beliefs.

Don’t wait—start taking “The Case for Conservatism” course online now.