Why No Black Students Took the AP Computer Science Test in 11 States in 2013 and What I Intend to Do About It

Philip Emeagwali, computer scientist who black students can be inspired by.

There has been a lot of speculation concerning the lack of black students in technology fields.  Consistently, critics of policies promoting greater inclusiveness and differentiation of teaching strategies have argued that the reason for the disparities are rooted in mental capability and interest–not in structural problems.

Statistics released by the AP College Board in January of 2014 reveal some troubling disparities:

  • 11 states had no Black students take the exam: Alaska (21 exam takers -4.3% Black by population), Idaho (47 – 0.9% Black), Kansas (47 – 6.2% Black), Maine (161 – 1.0%), Mississippi (1 – 37.3%), Montana (11 – 0.67%), Nebraska (46 – 4.5%), New Mexico (57 – 3%), North Dakota (9 – 1%), Utah (103 – 1.2%), and Wyoming (0 – 1.2%).

Some people believe that this is a matter of inherent intelligence, arguing that black students are not good at computer science.  I disagree. I believe that this is a problem largely about pedagogy and less about aptitude.  Recent reports have emphasized how particular problem-based approaches to computer science and other fields have benefited minority students.  There is a lack of accessibility to these approaches and tech courses in many struggling schools where minorities are disproportionately represented.

Surely, in states where more than 25% of the population is African American yet less than ten black students attempt the test, common sense and probability would point to serious questions of accessibility not ability.

I think the solution to addressing this problem will probably not be championed by STEM field professionals alone. Integrated, interdisciplinary, cross-cultural approaches poses significant promise in educating the general public and aspiring STEM students about the barriers preventing access and achievement in the STEM fields by black students. It is necessary to tackle this problem from outside of the self-contained silo that often precludes effective minority recruitment to STEM fields.   This is what I intend to do about it.

1. Have students in my history classes identify the historical reasons for the disparity and write open letters to school districts and educators that should be doing better.

2. Request that the AP College Board donate promotional materials and preparatory resources to districts who have low numbers of black students who are participating in the exam.

3. Raise awareness about the popular misconceptions surrounding this issue.

Relationship Between Race and Technology: How Society Uses You (Part 1)

At the risk of oversimplification: race is how society defines and reacts to you; ethnicity is how you define and react to others most like yourself. During the last six years there has been a lot of reaction and little time to reflect on what this means for our emerging ideas of race and culture.

Today it is very popular to argue that race is irrelevant and it has become equally fashionable to embrace one’s ethnicity while denying one’s whiteness. I think both of these practices are quite dangerous and counterproductive for variety of reasons. Largely, they underscore a widespread denial of the ongoing impact of race in American society and its relevance to every major question of social and economic justice today. I argue that there are major differences between race and ethnicity that we really ought to think more carefully about because they affect us in a variety of important ways.

One of the reasons this must be is there is no biological or genetic rationale for racial identity. Race is a result of how populations have historically and socially constructed delimiters based on perceived physical and cultural assumptions. Whether these differences are accurate or not, as dominant perceptions they reflect how a society is structured.

People of different races often share the same cultural traditions, homeland, and language but have very different normative assumptions, experiences, and expectations. So for example, if you take two groups of people who occupy the same Caribbean island, formally known as Hispaniola– today we refer to it as Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The racial concepts at play in this island are often imported to the United States by Latino immigrants who find that their understanding of who they perceive themselves to be is superseded by how people assign meaning to them. We see this played out between Latinos but more pointedly in the discussions following President Obama’s executive order on immigration

Another reason this question is important is because ethnicity is largely how people culturally orient themselves in a society. Whereas race is determined mostly from the outside to the inside, ethnicity reflects how communities identify themselves from the inside to the outside.

Lastly, we should consider this carefully because ethnic and racial designations often do overlap so these designations can become quite complex. In someways it can be analogous to they way society views the relationship between gender and sexuality. Gender (race) is how society assigns meaning to you while sexuality (ethnicity) is more about how you express your own identity.

This is important because technology to some great extent is an amalgamation of both race and ethnicity. It is how society uses you and how you use yourself.  Although human beings create technology (like race) we lack control over how it is used and develops.  Although we all use technology on some scale, we interpret our experiences differently via the tools we employ. One some scale, technology is an extrinsic categorical tool like race but also intrinsically significant like ethnicity.

Instead of accepting technologies as extensions of human control of the environment or tools, I prefer to think of technology equally as a product and byproduct of human experiences. The future of the United States (and the world) depends to a degree on what extent the history of race is understood and integrated into our consciousness but it is also how we perceive our role and complicity in that process.

After all, race is a form of technology. It is using us as we use it.

The $19 Spark Photon Can Turn Anything Into A Web-Connected Whatsit

Here we go again…

TechCrunch

The original Spark Core was a Kickstarter hit but it had a fatal flaw: you had to be a total electronics nerd to figure it out. Now, however, you can be less of a nerd with the Spark Photon.

The Photon is very similar to the original Core but it’s slightly faster and more compact. To use it you connect a sensor or motor to the core and then interact with it using a simple programming interface. The goal is to make things far easier for hobbyists, artists, and tinkerers and at $19 you probably can’t beat the price.

The team is triggering a manufacturing run when they sell 10,000 units, a clever marketing effort. If this new unit is anything like the old Core it should be a fun little thing to mess around with while waiting for the coming wireless robot apocalypse.

View original post

What Technology Wants (From the Oppressed)

What Technology Wants (From the Oppressed)

What_Technology_Wants,_Book_Cover_Art cabral

Norman Kelly’s What Technology Wants (2010) argues that technology is falsely understood as physical outgrowth of human ingenuity.  Instead, says Kelly, technology is a living force that predates human innovation and is somewhat of a cosmic sibling also spawned from life.  For Kelly, the technium (the term he uses to describe technology’s autonomous attributes) is capable of not only fulfilling human desires but also to desiderate on its own terms.

I took liberty here to push Kelly’s line of reasoning into a realm of thought regarding exploitation that some would find absurd.  Nonetheless, if the technium sent an email to oppressed people, what would it say?

Dear Species So Enthralled with Selfies That You Are Willing to Destroy Thousands of Lives to Procure Precious Metals and Millions More Through Narcissism and Snark:

  1. The technium wants oppressed people to understand that I prey on resources; I will aid in ‘progress’ as you call it but by my nature I must exploit the weaker. This is not personal though you may believe so.  The technium needs resources to expand and simply follows “the path of least resistance” as you would put it.  The rationale is a bit more complex but this simple heuristic will do.  It’s not about you.  It’s about me and my cronies.
  2. The technium wants oppressed people to understand that although it is used by the powerful, it also uses the powerful. The powerful claim that their particular genius and their scientific superiority is why they command wealth.  This falsity is accepted as truth by both the strong and the weak.  You should understand that the sole basis of power is consent.  Is this not evidenced in how your cultures so willingly accept prevailing doctrines of wealth?  In how you so willingly adopt every new innovation I deliver while accepting the loss of your own autonomy, resources, and sense of humanity in the process?  The technium does not think of money as wealth but rather the ability to survive, to evolve, and to expand.  While most humans, particularly the powerful, have signified money alone as a measure of these traits, technology wants more of the following: efficiency, opportunity, emergence, complexity, diversity, specialization, ubiquity, freedom, mutualism, beauty, sentience, structure, and evolvability. (270)  Both the oppressed and the powerful base their faith in monetary instruments to achieve freedom.  However, all living things that use me–including human beings–are my currency because they consent to allow my influence to reign.  In this way, you can think of your powerful as larger denominations ($100) that I use to purchase my will as they help me to constitute the masses of lesser units ($1s, $5s, $10s) and the billions of pennies.  Neither powerful nor weak have any inherent value to me beyond the ability for coordinate my will–to be my tools even as they use me.
  3. The technium wants oppressed people to listen to the insight of Max More’s  philosophy but without abandoning the psycho-social inquiries of W.E.B. Du Bois.  As Amilcar Cabral wrote: “…however fine and attractive the reality of others may be — can only be transformed by detailed knowledge of it, by our own efforts, by our own sacrifices.”

P.S. Stop wasting so much time on twitter.

 

Orange Harp Brings Socially Conscious Shopping To iPhone

I like your style!

TechCrunch

A new e-commerce startup called Orange Harp – a phrase referencing the co-founders’ own nickname for the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco – is looking to make it easier for consumers to buy socially conscious products, including fashion, accessories and other beauty care items. Available as of this morning as an iOS app for iPhone and iPad, Orange Harp lets you shop for for a variety of high-quality goods which are made with either natural or recycled materials, which are environmentally friendly, which come from brands who support fair working conditions, and more.

The idea, explains Orange Harp co-founder and engineer Anbu Anbalagapandian, is to take this dense concept of sustainable shopping which can mean so many things, and boil it down to a simpler experience through the use of storytelling to help consumers connect with the products they buy, the problems they solve, and the companies behind them.

“For instance,” she explains, “cotton is…

View original post 504 more words

Polarity and Power in Colonial Discourse

German_dynamo_flashlight_from_World_War_1

In Networks of Power (1993),  using the example of electric power systems introduced during World War I, the late Thomas P. Hughes (1923-3014) argues that war drove technological development in the United States, Britain, and Germany by removing political and cultural obstacles prerequisite for technological change.  If this statement is true, what does this tell us about the pace of development in colonies of these metropoles?

War is a powerful prerequisite for technological momentum. Assuming all other things being equal, non-aggressive or non-agressed entities would experience a lack of technological development because they had not sufficiently removed cultural barriers to technological innovation that the emergency of war so often provide for Western societies.

The roles of international activists like Paul Robeson and W.E.B. Du Bois included an important but often understated indictment of the technological imperative. Black anti-colonial challenges to imperial ventures (driven by technological competition) were perceived as contrary to progress because they exposed inconsistencies in the convoluted development of ideas of racial superiority, economic exploitation, and technological hegemony.  To stand in defense of the underdeveloped nations of the world, even on the premise of cultural ideals of racial equality and self-determinism, was to hold back the progress of the developed nations in the march of history throughout the world. Du Bois and Robeson both provide critical examples of why this rationale was problematic but also anti-democratic. New works by scholars like Mhoze Chikowero (2007) revisit and reinterpret theoretical frameworks echoed in Du Bois, Padmore, Nzikiwie and Rodney in specific regional contexts.  Additionally, Ronen Shamir’s Current Flow: The Electrification of Palestine (2013) examines how electrification (re)produced economic, social, and political inequalities among Jews and Arabs along such lines in Palestine.  Electrification is not only about the physical infrastructure of power supply but is also about power relations in the ability of technological change to transform culture, landscapes, and interactions between people. More pointedly, Shamir argues electrification can and does “make politics” when one dominant group uses “power” (pun intended) to further consolidate their control (p.5).

Paradoxically, it was following World War II that the employment of new technology and communications developed a international coalition of international black anti-colonial discourse.  Penny M. Von Eschen discusses such developments in her work, Race Against Empire. Traditionally we think of this work as exclusive to political developments but read through technological lenses we can see how anti-colonial projects were framing the discourse of modernization and the hegemony of the assumed objectivity of technological superiority (p.152,157-8).