> This is against the site's rules.

I apologize, that was a knee jerk reaction because I've never seen the assertion that 2+2=4 is racist before, only that math can be used inaccurately (purposefully or by accident) in racial contexts. I was a bit taken aback by the assertion and should have engaged differently.

> Funny how you build up a straw man. I never claimed any of that.

This isn't a straw man, I'm not building up some contrived argument here; the original comment was that "2+2=4 is racist" is a rallying cry for [some not insignificant number of math teachers].

> For example the Wall Street Journal. And hundreds of similar articles.

I did find this Opinion while googling, and read the parent Op-Ed (https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-canc...) and then followed through to the framework but I just don't see anything about the manual they were talking about in that Op-Ed in the works cited (seems like all references to the manual have since been removed). So I dug up the wayback machine on the page to see the context in which they were using the "A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction" manual.

> A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction (https://equitablemath.org/) is an integrated approach to mathematics that centers Black, Latinx, and linguistically diverse students in grades 6–8, addresses barriers to mathematics equity, and aligns instruction to grade-level priority standards. The Pathway offers guidance and resources for immediate use in planning their curriculum, while also offering opportunities for ongoing self-reflection as they seek to develop an anti-racist mathematics practice. The toolkit “strides” (above) serve as multiple on-ramps for educators as they navigate the individual and collective journey from equity to anti-racism. It is a collection of resources to help grades 6–8 Black, LatinX, and linguistically diverse students thrive in mathematics education.

Ok so generally seems like they're recommending the usage in primarily POC or mixed classrooms where the considerations for teaching might be a bit different due to a multitude of factors.

Now digging into the manual a bit, the titles are definitely inflammatory but the content is honestly fairly humdrum (quotes taken from the first chapter https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11...)

• Teach rich, thoughtful, complex mathematics.
• Teach rigorous mathematics, understanding that rigor is characterized as thorough, exhaustive, and
interdisciplinary.
• Use mistakes as opportunities for learning.
• Recognize mistakes as miscommunicated knowledge.
• Allow for engagement in productive struggle
• Teach students of color about the career and financial opportunities in math and STEM fields.
• Encourage them to disrupt the disproportionate push-out of people of color in those fields.
• Invite leaders and innovators of color working in STEAM fields to meet your students.
• Rely on teamwork and collaboration as much as possible.
• Teach mathematics through project-based learning and other engaging approaches.
• Provide multiple opportunities for students to learn from and teach each other.
• Intentionally include mathematicians of color.
• Expose students to mathematicians of color, particularly women of color and queer mathematicians of color, both
through historical examples and by inviting community guest speakers.
• Teach students of color about their mathematical legacy and ancestral connection and mastery of math.
• Honor and acknowledge the mathematical knowledge of students of color, even if it shows up unconventionally.
• Give rightful credit to the discovery of math concepts by mathematicians of color. Reclaim concepts attributed to
white mathematicians that should be attributed to mathematicians of color.

Which all seems fairly reasonable here to my eyes. I will 100% agree with any assertions that the titles are very standoffish and even straight up accusatory but the content of the manual really seems like something good teachers should strive for. So to conclude I don't think that 2+2=4 is racist is really a rallying cry, the literature cited everywhere seems to talk mainly towards the teaching methodologies employed.