**Do you like students and mathematics? **

Yes, definitely.

**Do you want students to know that their teacher cares for them? Is curious and interested about their passions? **

Yes!

**Do you want to help your students understand what is beautiful and vibrant about mathematics as a discipline?**

Yes. Of course I balance that with all sorts of other competing desires (they and their parents have goals too) but, in general, yes.

**Do you like the phrase “humanizing mathematics”? **

No, I do not.

**How about “math as a human endeavor,” with emphasis on “human”?**

No, I don’t like that either.

**That seems ridiculous. Do you disagree that math is something done by humans? **

Of course I don’t disagree — who else could be doing the math?

**No no, that’s not the point at all. The point is that the things that humans do, we also do in math. Humans play, mathematicians play. Humans love beautiful things — well, so do mathematicians. Truth, Justice, Love: human values, and mathematical values too. **

**Hey, did you read Francis Su’s Mathematics for Human Flourishing?**

Yeah, I totally did. But I still don’t like this way of talking about math or math teaching.

**Are you just being annoying? Are you trolling?**

I don’t think so?

**So what’s your deal?**

Is work human? Is understanding human? Is thinking human? I’m just confused as to what it means for students to think that math is non-human, or not done by *humans *(with emphasis).

Aren’t they doing mathematics in their classrooms? Aren’t they human?

**But the point is students don’t think of mathematics as something they can create. Do students see it as something they can love? Can they seem themselves doing it outside of school? Do they see it as something that was just done by the INVENTORS OF MATHEMATICIANS in some distant past, or could they see themselves and people who look like them doing it?**

Is that what it means to be human?

**Come on now, of course it is!**

No, really. Is the implication here that you’re only human if you are creating mathematics, not if you’re learning someone else’s mathematics?

**Is this philosophy? I hate philosophy.**

Don’t worry then, this is not philosophy.

**Good. Humans are creative and enjoy creating things. I agree that you’re not somehow being not-human if you aren’t being creative, but being creative is to be fully human.**

I disagree, and I think that’s a disturbing idea.

**What?!**

Really! Tell me this: is it a good thing to tell students that if they don’t end up in a creative line of work they somehow aren’t being fully human? That if someone is working as a home aide, an Uber driver, a warehouse worker, that they aren’t fully human?

**I don’t think it’s awful to say that those lines of work are less creative and therefore less meaningful. Therefore less of an expression of one’s humanity. We should hope to prepare every student for creative, meaningful and (therefore) more human work.**

I’m just not comfortable with it.

Another thing: are we sure that our mathematical values are really universal? I once wrote a piece about how in Ancient Greece there were two vibrant mathematical cultures: one that is all about play, love, the abstract, etc., and the other about algorithms, application, practical knowledge.

When we tell our students that true human flourishing in mathematics is all about the playful, beautiful, loving side of mathematics, do we alienate some students who (legitimately, it seems to me) are interested in using math for the sake of other things? I think we’re taking a narrow slice of the mathematical world and making a claim for universality when we slap it with the “human” label.

**Wait, are you sure this is not philosophy?**

I promise.

**So you don’t like the phrase. Don’t use it — why are you making such a big deal about this?**

First, I apologize if this sounds like a big deal. I don’t think it’s a big deal.

But I think this matters. Talk of “math as a human endeavor” is relatively new (to me) but the message behind it is not new. For decades, progressive math educators have been agitating for students to do a wider range of mathematical activities, and to thereby see themselves as creators (discoverers) of mathematics. When you step behind the new way of putting it, how different is this message from the message of: inquiry, discovery, creativity, doing math, math as a verb, and so on?

I don’t think it’s very different at all, this call feels familiar.

And so why not call it using the more familiar language? If it’s a call for doing certain things in class because they’re important, let’s talk about that. It’s clearer.

**You’re missing the point, which is this new language of “human endeavor” is a chance to unify a bunch of different activities under a single value: humanity. Yeah, these activities and ideas have frequently gone together in the past, but this is a new way to unify them under a single header.**

But what is that value, exactly? The valuing of humanity? What does that mean?

**Sigh, we’ve been through this. It’s the idea that we want students to know they can be fully human in math class…**

But that’s the thing! We’re taking this controversial package of views about teaching and saying, look, this isn’t radical. It’s just being human. You don’t disagree with being human, do you?

And of course I don’t! I love my students and I want them to be able to be served well by mathematics and school. I don’t know how to convince you of this through words — I really do care, a lot.

It may or may not be a good idea to teach for a growth mindset, to use certain routines, to give kids a chance to explain themselves, to give kids chances to act like mathematicians, to talk about different mathematicians, to share new research, and so on, and so on, and I really do many of these things. But my vision of humanity is big enough to realize that this is *not *what it takes for something to be a human endeavor.

**You’re getting pretty worked up about something you don’t think is a big deal.**

I’m sorry, it’s really a bad habit.

**Are you going to get in trouble for saying this?**

I really hope not.

**Well, good luck to you!**

Thanks!

**How does this end?**

I don’t know.

**I mean the Q&A.**

I know what you meant. I don’t know.

**Should it keep going? This is getting weird and cutesy.**

Alright, you hang up first.

**No, you.**

OK, we’ll do it together. One, two,..

**Are you still there?**

You didn’t hang up!

**This is getting silly.**

OK, I’ll just stop. Three!

*This post is part of the **Virtual Conference on Humanizing Mathematics**.*

No comments?

Is this the “trouble” you were talking about? Well, whatever. It’s a brilliant post. I’ve always wanted to do the faux-interview structure. This is just so good, it even puts my imaginations to shame!

Ha, thanks!

This is actually my third time doing the faux-interview. Each time it was to talk about something that I thought was hard to talk about.

https://problemproblems.wordpress.com/2018/05/28/questions-and-answers-about-tracking-and-ability-grouping/

https://problemproblems.wordpress.com/2018/12/13/heres-what-i-was-trying-to-say-about-diversity-jews-and-education/

I also just really like writing these.

I like this.

I also don’t like the phrase “humanizing mathematics” in that it suggests that mathematics was (is?) inhuman.