UW–Madison dean called Trump racist, claimed education system, math is ‘inherently violent’ to Black students – Fox News

Report on Academic Commentary Regarding Systemic Inequities in Education and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Analysis in the Context of SDG 4: Quality Education

An academic paper co-authored by Percival Matthews, Associate Dean at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, raises critical concerns that directly challenge the objectives of Sustainable Development Goal 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all. The research posits that the American education system contains systemic barriers that impede equitable access and outcomes, particularly for Black students.

• Exclusionary Practices: The paper asserts that Black students are systematically excluded from advanced mathematics courses, even when meeting requisite achievement standards. This practice undermines SDG Target 4.1, which seeks to ensure that all children complete free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education.
• Systemic Violence in Pedagogy: The authors describe the educational system as “inherently violent” toward Black children. This framing suggests that current educational structures and practices can inflict harm, creating an environment that is not conducive to the safe, non-violent, and inclusive learning environments promoted by SDG Target 4.a.
• Barriers to Scholarly Improvement: The research questions the feasibility of improving a system through empirical research when the system itself is perceived as fundamentally inequitable, posing a challenge to the continuous improvement of educational quality.

Analysis in the Context of SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The public statements and academic work of Dean Matthews highlight systemic issues that align with the focus of Sustainable Development Goal 10, which calls for the reduction of inequality within and among countries. The commentary points to racial discrimination as a significant barrier to social and educational equity.

1. Critique of Political Leadership: A 2018 social media post by Matthews identified perceived racism in high-level political leadership as a significant societal issue, reflecting concerns about discriminatory policies and rhetoric that can exacerbate inequality, contrary to the spirit of SDG 10.
2. Educational Disparities: The academic paper’s central claim—that Black students are denied access to advanced courses while less qualified White students are sometimes granted it—is a direct example of the inequality SDG 10 aims to eliminate. This highlights how institutional practices can perpetuate racial disparities.
3. Inclusive Community Initiatives: Matthews’s appointment as a “special advisor for access and community” at UW-Madison signifies an institutional effort to address such inequalities, aligning with SDG Target 10.2, which promotes the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of race or origin.

Analysis in the Context of SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The discourse surrounding Dean Matthews’s work and statements intersects with Sustainable Development Goal 16, which promotes peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice for all, and effective, accountable institutions. The commentary addresses concepts of systemic violence and institutional accountability.

• Systemic Violence and Justice: The characterization of the education system as “violent” and commentary made following the murder of George Floyd connect systemic failures to broader issues of social justice and peace. This perspective suggests that achieving a peaceful society (SDG 16.1) requires addressing deep-seated institutional injustices.
• Institutional Accountability and Academic Freedom: The official responses from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Kentucky, which cite academic freedom and free expression, underscore the role of strong institutions (SDG 16.6) in facilitating critical discourse. These institutions provide a platform for examining and challenging systemic issues, which is essential for promoting justice and accountability.
• Social Unrest as a Response to Injustice: A rhetorical social media post questioning the surprise over civil unrest in Minneapolis points to a perceived link between institutional failures in delivering justice and the breakdown of social peace, a core concern of SDG 16.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights issues related to racial discrimination, systemic inequities in education, and the perception of violence within institutional systems. Based on this, the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are addressed:

• SDG 4: Quality Education – The core of the article discusses inequities within the American education system, specifically concerning access to advanced mathematics for Black students.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The article’s central theme is racial inequality, focusing on how Black students face systemic barriers and discrimination that limit their educational opportunities compared to their White peers.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – The discussion of an education system being “inherently violent” toward a specific racial group and the mention of systemic issues point to the need for just, inclusive, and accountable institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the specific issues raised in the article, the following targets can be identified:

• Under SDG 4 (Quality Education):
  • Target 4.5: “By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable…” The article directly addresses this by highlighting racial disparities, where Black students are “routinely being shut out of advanced mathematics courses,” indicating a failure to ensure equal access for a vulnerable group.
• Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
  • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… race, ethnicity…” The article describes a situation of exclusion, where systemic inequities prevent the full inclusion of Black students in advanced educational tracks.
  • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory… practices…” The article alleges a discriminatory practice where “Black children routinely being shut out of advanced mathematics courses despite meeting achievement standards,” while “more privileged White children are sometimes tracked into advanced courses despite failing to meet those standards.” This points directly to an inequality of opportunity and outcome based on race.
• Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
  • Target 16.b: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.” The academic paper mentioned in the article argues that the education system’s practices are discriminatory, suggesting that existing policies are either discriminatory or are not being enforced in a non-discriminatory way.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not mention official SDG indicators, but it implies several metrics that could be used to measure progress:

• For SDG 4 and SDG 10:
  • An implied indicator is the proportion of students enrolled in advanced mathematics courses, disaggregated by race. The article’s claim that “Black children routinely being shut out” suggests that tracking this proportion would be a direct measure of the inequality discussed.
  • Another implied indicator is the rate of placement into advanced courses for students who meet achievement standards, disaggregated by race. This is derived from the statement that Black students are excluded “despite meeting achievement standards,” while some White students are included “despite failing to meet those standards.” Comparing these rates would directly measure the discriminatory practice alleged.
• For SDG 16:
  • The article’s reference to the system being “inherently violent toward Black children” implies an indicator related to the perception of discrimination and fairness within institutions. A potential indicator could be the proportion of students and faculty who report experiencing or witnessing racial discrimination within the education system.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: foxnews.com