Social justice aims to make the world a better place and bring about a fairer set of outcomes. However, we argue from principle that some of the ideas of social justice are destructive to these ends. Trying to make a better world and lifting people up is to be celebrated, but in this article we examine two concepts in social justice that are more likely to bring people down, distract, and increase social division – thought processes that are morbid in their negativity.
The first concept is the claim that mathematics and science are racist. The second is the broad assertion that western systems are incapable of being fair to historically disadvantaged groups. While these are only two concepts within the umbrella of the social justice conversation, they warrant critical attention. These are ideas that have the power to destroy us.
What is social justice in today’s world?
The term “social justice” has become something of a lightning rod for political reaction, partly because so many ideas attributed to it are part of the everyday debate of people living in the western – and larger – world. In my home country of Canada, part of this discussion are news and journal articles on:
-
- The Canadian Infrastructure Bank’s Indigenous Equity Initiative, which helps to finance indigenous investments[1]
- Toronto Metropolitan University’s proposed policy of designating 75% of new medical school student spots to “equity deserving” groups and with relaxed academic requirements[2]
- Reducing prejudice against older people[3]
- The argument that racism and white supremacy are inherent in mathematics[4]
While these ideas may be well intentioned, all have the potential to be quite controversial. Social justice covers many issues – for example, immigration and the refugee crisis, gender equality, the gender pay gap, race, and healthcare.[5] We will examine two particularly noteworthy elements of the conversation, and we start with some perspective on the general aims and direction of social justice as it is currently defined.
Social justice concerns the rights, treatment, and opportunities within society.[6] [7] The aim is to have these items applied fairly, but the idea of what is fair is not universally agreed upon.[8] [9] For some, fairness means equality under the law, and for others it refers to a more equitable set of outcomes.[10]
The second idea, equity, is far more controversial in western culture, even among proponents of social justice. The quest for equal treatment is argued by some as the objectives of past generations, whereas the achievement of equity of outcomes for disadvantaged groups is a goal of the current generation.[11]
This evolution alters the proposed landscape of society from equality under the law – or justice – to that of charity and the ongoing assumption of systematic harm to certain groups within society.[12]Critical race theory (CRT) includes this latter idea of social justice within its aegis.
Key principles within CRT include: the assertion that racism is systemic within society, that racism must be actively fought, that a neutral approach will inevitably be racist, and that scholarship should be more inclusive of coloured perspectives.[13]CRT relies on outcome-oriented arguments, as well as historical context to support its argument – for example, visible minorities being nearly twice as likely to live in inadequate housing in Canada in 2018.[14]The statistics are considerably worse in the United States, where African Americans comprise just 13% of the general population, but account for greater than 40% of the homeless population.[15]Lack of improvement on issues such as homelessness form the justification in CRT to suggest special (that is, non-neutral) treatment for Black Americans.[16]
The bumpy journey toward equality
The search for societal equality has likely been around for as long as humans have existed, even if its implementation has often been far from equal. The writings of Aristotle and Plato show that notions of equality and fairness existed in ancient Greece, though with a narrow and uneven application, particularly regarding gender and slavery.[17] [18]The Greek word for city is polis, the root of politics, a foundation for ethics and our search for how we want to live together. But if those discussing equality have slaves, the search for fairness is not likely to yield great results.
More recent history on the pursuit of an equal society is also rife with inconsistency. The United States passed the 14th Amendment to their constitution in 1868, granting equal rights under the law – which included former black slaves, but did not explicitly include women.[19] [20]Women would have to fight for the right to vote in the United States until 1920, when the 19th Amendment was passed, though arguments about whether the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants equal rights based on gender is still a matter for concern and debate.[21] [22]
The history of Canadian legal equality is also complex. Women were granted the right to vote federally in 1918 in legislation that loosened restrictions. Prior to 1918, no one could vote federally unless they owned land. Provincial voting rights for women were granted within this era but scattered over more than two decades.[23]
Asian and Inuit groups were not granted the right to vote until 1948 and 1950, respectively, and First Nations women could not vote until 1960.[24]The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not enacted until 1982, and while Section 15(1) states that, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability,” Section 15(2) allows for some affirmative action exceptions based on certain perceived disadvantages.[25]
Separately, the United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” and that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.”[26] These are noble principles, and seemingly simple ones to apply evenly and fairly.
The historical problem seems to have been not with the general ideals of equality in society – the notion of equality is superlative in itself – but in applying those seemingly simple ideas to all groups within society. Why were women, Asians, and First Nations peoples added late or separately in Canada? The lack of fairness in applying fair law has done injury within our history, and some of this is recent history. Within this context, the argument from CRT that we should be active in our search for fairness is easy to appreciate.
But we differ in our interpretation regarding hope and principle. Where some advocates of CRT have suggested that past failures guarantee future failures, the history of equality shows that equal and fair treatment has become far better over time. We have a clear history of improvement – even if it has been a rough one – and, in theory, should continue in an active and constructive reinforcement of the noble ideals of fairness and equality. We will discuss this further shortly in the context of specific issues.
The argument that mathematics is racist
In 2021, a professor of mathematics from the University of Michigan School of Education proclaimed that math was racist and aligned it with white supremacy.[27]The root of the claim revolves around the apparent white dominance of mathematics and its development, which according to the professor, makes it racist.[28]These assertions are not a one-off aberration. The claim has been made in other jurisdictions within the United States.[29] Similar assertions have also been made by Canadian mathematics teachers in Ontario and were the subject of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal case involving the testing of math teachers’ proficiency in mathematics.[30] [31]A relative lack of coloured history in the development of mathematics and poor test results among certain groups, it follows, make mathematics racist. The argument is absurd.
The absurdity of the “math is racist’ argument is so apparent that it may seem more like a joke than a real issue. Let us dig into it further and discuss why even farcical claims can cause harm.
The first reason why we cannot just dismiss this issue is that it has been raised repeatedly by math teachers and educational advisory groups.[32] [33] [34] [35] These arguments are made by people who have influence.
The concept is an example of the unpredictable and potentially destructive consequence of applying equity of outcomes over equality of opportunity. The equity argument suggests that if every identified group is not an equal part of history, that historical subject must be invalid regardless of historical truth; if every group does not score the same in a subject, that subject must be racist. The productive search for cause is subordinated to the claim that racism is the root cause of everything.[36]
However, mathematics and science are the most objective subjects in education. Numbers do not care about skin colour, gender, or sexual orientation. Mathematic proficiency may vary broadly by identifiable groups, but it is controlled time on task.[37] [38]That is, most students can become proficient at mathematics through their own application of effort. Calling a subject racist cannot be encouraging to groups that have tested poorly. It would be better to point out that this skill can be anyone’s equally, with effort, and then encourage that effort. It would be better to encourage success than to denigrate such an important subject.
Attacking mathematics in such a way is akin to cutting off your own foot before a race; it is too important in the modern world. And the attacks against mathematics are unprincipled. The principles being broken are those of historical truth in the name of imagined fragility and objective scientific truth in a nihilistic denial of reality. This is a two-fold degradation of knowledge. Any time we are tempted to deny or alter the truth or break fundamental principles, we should stop and consider whether we can truly reach positive and enduring goals through degrading methods.
To destroy western principles and ideals or reinforce them?
The assertion from CRT that society is inherently racist requires further examination. It is difficult to look at the homeless statistics and not feel concern or sadness. Crime statistics, though not addressed substantively in this article, are similarly grim in the United States regarding African Americans.[39]
It is easy to agree with advocates of CRT and social justice that these outcomes signal a problem in outcome, but that does not mean that racism is systemic, ingrained in our institutions, and unrecoverable without resort to the non-neutral, or unequal, application of justice. Equality under the law, equality of opportunity, and treatment are all principles that few today would contest. The brief history of the application of these principles we laid out shows that it has been an ongoing struggle to achieve. But it has been a struggle that has been directionally successful. It makes sense to continue the struggle for equality while trying to avoid applications of equity that erode those principles.
Some applications of equity can be helpful and not injurious to principle. For example, consider the Canadian Infrastructure Bank’s Indigenous Equity Initiative mentioned earlier. This project is meant to provide fairer access to investment funds for Indigenous groups. The program is an example of distributive justice with the goal of fair access to financial opportunities. It should not be confused with charity.[40]
Compare this with the proposal by the Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) to designate 75% of its new medical school student spots to “equity deserving” groups.[41]This is an ongoing story involving 94 medical school spots and some 5,000 applicants to medical school.[42]At issue is the low number of minorities in past student cohorts versus selecting candidates based on pure merit. The TMU’s proposal includes lower academic requirements, which further erodes public assurance of merit. Given that this program involves medical school, which requires objective skills, the lowering of standards is unequivocally unprincipled. In this case, equity is being applied unfairly and in a way that could be argued as lowering the quality of the medical system.
This issue and the previous one regarding mathematics are connected through the concern over equity eroding objective scientific truth. It also reinforces social justice’s surrender of integrity and standards. If the history does not look the way we want, we delete it. If our standards are too high to achieve the goals of equity, we lower them. This is a surrender of excellence, and it is driven by the belief that neither society nor the disadvantaged groups within it can do better. This attitude is injurious to society, and most especially to the disadvantaged groups.
No straw man here
We have chosen to discuss two particularly controversial notions from the social justice movement and have argued from principle against them. In effect, we have said that these are bad ideas and that they are harmful to society – even to those they purport to help.
The question could be asked – have we cherry-picked the worst ideas from a movement to invalidate the whole? Have we presented a straw-man argument – purposely misrepresenting a position, and logically destroying the misrepresentation to fallaciously destroy the true idea?
We have done neither of those things. We do not claim to have discussed all aspects of social justice; only a few ideas within it. We support the goal of fairness in society, but we disagree with some of the tenets of the current social justice discussion.
It is preposterous to suggest mathematics is racist, and it is injurious to even suggest so. Such foolish and unsupportable positions damage the credibility of social justice and erode the confidence and tolerance for the movement amongst much of the population. Even worse, such unproductive attitudes harm the group they are intended to help. Does a group that has had poor results in mathematics benefit by language and attitudes that provide further alienation from a subject that is so essential to modern society? Would it not be better to rally support for learning mathematics in a positive way?
Similar arguments could be made for the hopelessness that sits at the core of the CRT argument that western society is so irredeemably racist that unequal actions are justified. And we argue that allowing unequal treatment to achieve equal outcomes appears to be an irrational idea.
The failure of such a prejudicial notion seems inevitable because we cannot say that we hate inequality and yet fight it with inequality – two wrongs very rarely make a right. And how can we win support for the circularity of departing from sound principle because of the same principle; especially a principle of equality on which we have made so much progress in implementing.
Who would agree to this – favouring one group to hurt another? Unmooring a clear drive toward the principle of equal treatment enters the likelihood of unprincipled chaos, governmental over-reach, interference, enormous difficulties in applying law without objective foundational principles, and a new structural racism.
The CRT argument also fails to acknowledge concrete progress on fairness and depends on an assumption of hopelessness to achieve unfair ends. Just as with the mathematics example, such arguments cannot be to the benefit of society because they abandon the good principles we already have, setting fire to progress, and alienating those who do support fairness.
Positive but not complacent
This is a difficult subject, and we can hardly claim to have explored it with one article or that anything we can say herein will offer comprehensive solutions. But we can comment within the context of what we have analysed.
If one of the tenets of social justice is that doing nothing is not enough to create justice, perhaps we should pay attention. A healthy society is one consisting of successful people; a people who have hope that they can attain happiness. The western world has had wonderful principles of fair treatment and opportunity for some time, but, in practice, treatment and opportunity have not been fair for everyone. In fact, they have only recently become fair at all for some. The concern of social justice and critical race theory proponents is that the outcomes for some groups of society remain very poor compared to other groups. Poor societal outcomes certainly warrant scrutiny.
We should not be complacent about this. At the same time, adopting negative, irrational, or even morbidly unprincipled solutions are unlikely to help the disadvantaged, and will certainly not win the enduring support of the rest of society. If excellent principles have not always resulted in excellent action, we should improve our application of those principles, not abandon them.
It is the CRT drive to compromise good principles that is truly morbid and damaging. Rather than entrenching prejudice and racism to fight racism – a notion bound to fail by its hypocritical essence – we must boost our efforts toward the principles of equal treatment and opportunity. And perhaps we need to encourage the belief that we can all be successful. Even at mathematics.
References
[1] Canadian Infrastructure Bank, 2023, Canada Infrastructure Bank launches new Indigenous Equity Initiative
[2] Lambie, C., Nov 01, 2024, Ford demands TMU’s new med school educate qualified students ‘regardless of their race’, National Post
[3] Weir, K., March 1, 2023, Ageism is one of the last socially acceptable prejudices. Psychologists are working to change that, American Psychological Association, 54(2)
[4] Spivak, K., September 16, 2021, The Folly of ‘Woke’ Math, National Review
[5] Hamilton, R., June 30, 2024, What Social Justice Looks Like – What We Need And Why, Around Robin
[6] Hamilton, R., June 30, 2024, What Social Justice Looks Like – What We Need And Why, Around Robin
[7] Mollenkamp, D., 2024, Social Justice Meaning and Main Principles Explained, Investopedia
[8] Mollenkamp, D., 2024, Social Justice Meaning and Main Principles Explained, Investopedia
[9] Center for Economic and Social Justice, Defining Economic and Social Justice
[10] Prokup, A., 2023, What is Equity in DEI? The equity versus equality debate, Vox
[11] Prokup, A., 2023, What is Equity in DEI? The equity versus equality debate, Vox
[12] Center for Economic and Social Justice, Defining Economic and Social Justice
[13] George, Janel, 2021, A Lesson on Critical Race Theory, American Bar Association
[14] Statistics Canada, 2020, One in ten Canadians living in core housing need in 2018
[15] National Alliance to End Homelessness, June 1, 2020, Racial Inequalities in Homelessness, by the Numbers
[16] George, Janel, 2021, A Lesson on Critical Race Theory, American Bar Association
[17] Riesbeck, D., 2019, Review: Democracy, Justice, and Equality in Ancient Greece: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
[18] Seitkasimova, Z., 2019, Status of Women in Ancient Greece, Open Journal for Anthropological Studies, 2019, 3(2), 49-54
[19] Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, 14th Amendment, Cornell Law School
[20] Fisher, M., 2011, “Scalia Says Constitution Doesn’t Protect Women From Gender Discrimination,” The Atlantic
[21] Fisher, M., 2011, “Scalia Says Constitution Doesn’t Protect Women From Gender Discrimination,” The Atlantic
[22] American Bar Association, 2024, Women’s Suffrage Timeline
[23] Adorney, J., April 9, 2022, How to Be an Antiracist: A Review of Ibram X. Kendi’s Best-Selling Book, Foundation for Economic Education
[24] Adorney, J., April 9, 2022, How to Be an Antiracist: A Review of Ibram X. Kendi’s Best-Selling Book, Foundation for Economic Education
[25] Gladwell, M., 2008, Outliers: The Story of Success, Little, Brown and Company, ISBN-13: 978-0316017930
[26] United Nations, 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations
[27] Spivak, K., September 16, 2021, The Folly of ‘Woke’ Math, National Review
[28] Spivak, K., September 16, 2021, The Folly of ‘Woke’ Math, National Review
[29] Ohanian, L., October 29, 2019, Seattle Schools Propose To Teach That Math Education Is Racist—Will California Be Far Behind? Hoover Institution
[30] Lilley, B., April 03, 2021, Lilley: Radical teachers claim that saying 2+2=4 is white supremacy, Toronto Sun
[31] Cosh, C., December 02, 2023, Colby Cosh: Court of Appeal rejects idea that math is racist, National Post
[32] Spivak, K., September 16, 2021, The Folly of ‘Woke’ Math, National Review
[33] Ohanian, L., October 29, 2019, Seattle Schools Propose To Teach That Math Education Is Racist—Will California Be Far Behind? Hoover Institution
[34] Lilley, B., April 03, 2021, Lilley: Radical teachers claim that saying 2+2=4 is white supremacy, Toronto Sun
[35] Adorney, J., April 9, 2022, How to Be an Antiracist: A Review of Ibram X. Kendi’s Best-Selling Book, Foundation for Economic Education
[36] Adorney, J., April 9, 2022, How to Be an Antiracist: A Review of Ibram X. Kendi’s Best-Selling Book, Foundation for Economic Education
[37] Bennett, P., January 26, 2014, Immigrant Student Success: Why Do Canadian Asian Students Outperform Others?, Educhatter
[38] Gladwell, M., 2008, Outliers: The Story of Success, Little, Brown and Company, ISBN-13: 978-0316017930
[39] Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2019: Crime in the United States
[40] Center for Economic and Social Justice, Defining Economic and Social Justice
[41] Lambie, C., Nov 01, 2024, Ford demands TMU’s new med school educate qualified students ‘regardless of their race’, National Post
[42] Lambie, C., Nov 01, 2024, Ford demands TMU’s new med school educate qualified students ‘regardless of their race’, National Post
