Professors Declare STATISTICS Are Racist; Serve ‘White Racial Interests’

Three professors are now arguing that statistics – actual numbers used to represent verifiable facts – are inherently racist because they “serve white racial interests.”

The British scholars argue that math (math, folks) serves white interest because it can “frequently encode racist perspectives beneath the facade of supposed quantitative objectivity.”

“Contrary to popular belief, and the assertions of many quantitative researchers, numbers are neither objective nor color-blind,” Gillborn and his team assert in their article for the journal Race, Ethnicity, and Education, first reported by Campus Reform.

Never fear, the professors argue. They have a solution, called “QuantCrit.” It’s a blending of “quantitative analysis” and “critical race theory.” QuantCrit has five key points, including – seriously – that “numbers are not neutral.

Numbers are not neutral because “quantitative data is often gathered and analyzed in ways that reflect the interests, assumptions, and perceptions of White elites,” they contend, adding that even so-called objective analysis fails to take the pervasiveness of racism into account.

Other key tenets of QuantCrit theory include realizing that math tends to legitimate existing racial inequalities, acknowledging that numerical analyses disadvantage minorities, and understanding how numbers play to the benefit of white interests.

As bizarre as it sounds, this is nothing new. More and more academics in the US and the UK have showed an interest in QuantCrit.

In the tradition of postmodernism in academia, Professor David Gillborn and his two co-authors argue that racism can be reinforced through numbers because they are “social constructs.”

“Numbers are social constructs and likely to embody the dominant (racist) assumptions that shape contemporary society,” they write. As a consequence, they assert that “in many cases, numbers speak for White racial interests.”

The professors also acknowledge the tension between social justice and quantitative analysis, saying that while statistics can be used to point out the failures of social justice programming, “data is often used to shut down, silence, and belittle equity work.”

Despite the purported danger of statistics being used to reinforce white privilege, they predict that if used properly, statistics can “expose and delegitimize the racist (and sexist, classist, hetero-normative, and ableist) assumptions, policies, and practices that are currently supported by the uncritical use of quantitative data.”

The article was co-authored by Paul Warmington, who teaches at the University of Warwick, and Sean Demack, a Senior Lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University. The article was published in the latest issue of Race, Ethnicity, and Education, which Gillborn edits.

As Campus Reform has reported, Gillborn is also the managing editor for the journal Whiteness in Education, which has been embroiled in speculation over whether or not it actually employs a proper peer-review.

While people with racist (or sexist or anything-ist) inclinations can use statistics in ways to support their hateful agenda, people can – and have – used the same numbers to make equally destructive arguments on the other side.

Numbers by themselves are not inherently racist or sexist. They are merely tools that can be used for good – or for evil.

What do you think? Does this go too far? Sound off below!