Stanford prof calls police after whistleblower exposes $5000/hour gov. contacts(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Stanford prof calls police after whistleblower exposes $5000/hour gov. contacts
https://twitter.com/minilek/status/1511358525179453440
64 comments
Prof Nelson didn’t call himself “whistleblower “ but it does seem untoward that the main author of the California math framework is also making $5000/hour when the client is not a tech company but a public school district with mostly minority and economically disadvantaged students.
In any case, if there is nothing untoward, why threaten him with “police and lawyers”?
In any case, if there is nothing untoward, why threaten him with “police and lawyers”?
Let's have this again, Prof Nelson is siccing his Twitter mob on a person doing her job - no matter what we think about the honorarium, Prof Boaler's job is math didactics for disadvantaged populations.
That's not "nothing untoward".
That's not "nothing untoward".
Your "siccing a mob" rhetoric is bald-faced anti-democratic. Prof. Nelsons actions are what the public square is all about - expressing your opinions and criticizing things you think are wrong.
You are dressing up your argument with all these "anti-woke" signifiers but your claim boils dowj to Prof. Jelani was somehow wrong to express his opinion about actions of the government in a public forum.
You are dressing up your argument with all these "anti-woke" signifiers but your claim boils dowj to Prof. Jelani was somehow wrong to express his opinion about actions of the government in a public forum.
so is it public square or private company?
or whatever is convenient for you that day, as per the circumstances?
or whatever is convenient for you that day, as per the circumstances?
Regardless of which one, the cops should not be involved.
He has 7k followers as of now, and probably gained a large # of them because of this tweet (which is his most circulated tweet). It's not "his" Twitter mob.
Nobody’s job is to make Californian kids stupider. She is personally profiting by her destruction of math education for untold numbers of kids.
Could you provide some examples to back up that "destruction of math education" claim?
They are trying to “close the achievement gap” by limiting achievement. It’s a crime against humanity of a different kind.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curric...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curric...
Thank you for the link, but to be technical I think it doesn't fully support your point -- it provides some perspective from 2 different sides of the issue.
That being said, from reading this article as well as this [1] and skimming Boaler's Twitter [2], if I had to guess... this CA initiative sounds like an honest, curious effort to make at least some progress, for which Boaler allegedly received death threats and harassment, as opposed to a "crime against humanity."
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/California-math-...
[2] https://nitter.net/joboaler
That being said, from reading this article as well as this [1] and skimming Boaler's Twitter [2], if I had to guess... this CA initiative sounds like an honest, curious effort to make at least some progress, for which Boaler allegedly received death threats and harassment, as opposed to a "crime against humanity."
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/California-math-...
[2] https://nitter.net/joboaler
Yes, you can make an honest effort to close the achievement gap between Usain Bolt and me by telling him that he can’t run faster than 10 miles an hour.
I think that's a disingenuous take on probably the most controversial part of the program. The proposed guidelines said kids should stay in the same level classes until high school, which doesnt strike me as crazy. That's how it is for every other subject (or it was when I was in school).
You don't send a Twitter mob after people, full stop, even if they work at schools of education.
You don’t criticize people in a public forum for doing harmful things to society?
>but it does seem untoward that the main author of the California math framework is also making $5000/hour when the client is not a tech company but a public school district with mostly minority and economically disadvantaged students
It seems lazy to dismiss that person just because he charges a high rate. If his services are effective and there's no better alternatives, who cares how much it costs? People getting outraged at high public salaries is exactly the reason why we get mediocre civil servants.
It seems lazy to dismiss that person just because he charges a high rate. If his services are effective and there's no better alternatives, who cares how much it costs? People getting outraged at high public salaries is exactly the reason why we get mediocre civil servants.
Jelani Nelson himself is probably a better alternative and does much of his work for free.
Because there are people who volunteer for habitat4humanity doesn't give me a good reason to be indignant when my builder asks me to pay her for her work.
I have had Prof. Nelson as a teacher multiple times... labeling him as an "agitator" is ridiculous, he is just a person sharing his opinion on an issue. He is also a commited educator who has organized multiple programs teaching K-12 codijg and mathematics.
Even if the rate is reasonable, what's the justification for involving the police?
The specific communication about “police and lawyers“ refers to that as a response to online publication of private information. For criminal law enforcement, the most likely applicable law at issue would seem to be California's cyber harassment law.
I don't see how his original tweet [1] could possibly be considered harassment. Libel, perhaps, if untrue, but that's a civil matter, not something that police would handle.
1: https://twitter.com/minilek/status/1509678967472549889
1: https://twitter.com/minilek/status/1509678967472549889
California’s indirect cyber harassment law (Penal Code § 653.2) prohibits nonconsensual electronic publication of personally identifying information “for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment, by a third party“ when the information published would be likely to produce or incite the unlawful act that is it's purpose. It's basically an anti-malicious-doxxing law.
None of his tweets call for "unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment".
Whatever the likely effect of exposing this deal, the government cannot be allowed to suppress reporting it simply because it is outrageous enough to cause angry responses. That's perverse.
If public outrage over "alarmingly lucrative" government contracts is prosecuted as harassment, we're lost.
Whatever the likely effect of exposing this deal, the government cannot be allowed to suppress reporting it simply because it is outrageous enough to cause angry responses. That's perverse.
If public outrage over "alarmingly lucrative" government contracts is prosecuted as harassment, we're lost.
> Nothing in his message calls for "unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment".
The law does not require a call for those things, it requires a purpose and likelihood of inciting them. Both intent and likelihood of effect are things that are routinely found (in criminal law generally) without an explicit call.
The law does not require a call for those things, it requires a purpose and likelihood of inciting them. Both intent and likelihood of effect are things that are routinely found (in criminal law generally) without an explicit call.
That is a weak argument if i've ever seen one. Should we stop journalists from publishing anything about egregious abuses of power, because that might insight someone in the public to action?
Claiming that law is applicable in this case is an absurd stretch. The statute says:
> with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other person's immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device
No reasonable person would even get a hint of that from this tweet. It is a criticism of the government's delivery of a program and the alleged misuse of public funds, a classic example of speech that serves the public interest. The idea of a government contractor claiming cyber harassment because someone pointed out their lucrative remuneration is farcical.
> with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other person's immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device
No reasonable person would even get a hint of that from this tweet. It is a criticism of the government's delivery of a program and the alleged misuse of public funds, a classic example of speech that serves the public interest. The idea of a government contractor claiming cyber harassment because someone pointed out their lucrative remuneration is farcical.
The stated reason was doxxing.
He didn't doxx her before the threat was made. Doxxing means revealing private personal information, but the contract (paid with government funds) that he shared is public record and thus not private by definition.
He may have doxxed her by revealing her email address but that happened after the threat.
He may have doxxed her by revealing her email address but that happened after the threat.
That's not really correct. Generally someone's address is considered public information and yet sharing it on a site like Twitter is still considered doxxing. In fact, most doxxing happens using publicly available data.
It doesn’t matter why he did it. The key words are “he may have doxxed her.”
Sure, except for the fact that he didn't, and none of that information is non-public.
[deleted]
I think the headline is misleading. Based on the linked tweet, it seems that it should be "threatens to call the police" or something like that.
It's still quite ridiculous though. She kinda seems to be the Doctor Oz of math education.
It's still quite ridiculous though. She kinda seems to be the Doctor Oz of math education.
Just for the record: "at no point did @minilek
post @joboaler’s address. He only retweeted a post containing the information that she was paid $5000/hour by the Oxnard school district. This is neither “private details” nor “misinformation” "
via https://mobile.twitter.com/boazbaraktcs/status/1511523206779...
via https://mobile.twitter.com/boazbaraktcs/status/1511523206779...
I don't think it's as simple as that. I'm not a lawyer, but I think one could certainly be accused of inciting violence by telling the truth creatively, to the right audience, under the right circumstances (like Trump's tweets during Jan 6).
Yes, you are very clearly not a lawyer.
Do you have more information to share?
No? Did you read the email? they say they had already contacted the police
I think you are right. In the email she says the issue is "now being taken up by police and lawyers". Hopefully to no effect, but I guess she still wanted to talk to the manager.
The existing replies to this are disheartening.
Regardless of what you think of the merits of Jelani's critique, it does not justify calling the cops on him. "Siccing" a twitter mob (something I question whether he really has) is not nearly as bad as "siccing" the government gun guys.
Regardless of what you think of the merits of Jelani's critique, it does not justify calling the cops on him. "Siccing" a twitter mob (something I question whether he really has) is not nearly as bad as "siccing" the government gun guys.
Super misleading title, I definitely thought reading it that she called 911 and the "whistleblower" had an actual confrontation with the cops. Instead she mentioned in an email she was seeking legal counsel after being subjected to what she felt was harassment, and that involved talking to the police.
Not entirely sure about the details but this dude is extremely suspect. Every single tweet he tries to paint himself as a victim by using charged and misleading words. "You can't call the police on Black people!" is just such an outrageous thing to say in situation which has nothing to do with race and which you didn't interact with the police at all.
Not entirely sure about the details but this dude is extremely suspect. Every single tweet he tries to paint himself as a victim by using charged and misleading words. "You can't call the police on Black people!" is just such an outrageous thing to say in situation which has nothing to do with race and which you didn't interact with the police at all.
> this dude is extremely suspect
"This dude" is both a prominent educator and prominent researcher of algorithms. If you actually look at his twitter history, this sort of tweet [0] is much more common than any trying to "paint himself as a victim."
I'm sorry, but if someone siccs lawyers and/or the police on you for a tweet you make criticizing them, you are a victim and it beyond reasonable to be upset about it.
This thread has been a real master class in how HN reacts to any rhetoric around race as trying to "paint yourself as a victim." It's really obvious to me knowing Jelani outside of contexts like this how much you are trying to mis-represent him.
[0]: https://twitter.com/minilek/status/1498504249876963331
"This dude" is both a prominent educator and prominent researcher of algorithms. If you actually look at his twitter history, this sort of tweet [0] is much more common than any trying to "paint himself as a victim."
I'm sorry, but if someone siccs lawyers and/or the police on you for a tweet you make criticizing them, you are a victim and it beyond reasonable to be upset about it.
This thread has been a real master class in how HN reacts to any rhetoric around race as trying to "paint yourself as a victim." It's really obvious to me knowing Jelani outside of contexts like this how much you are trying to mis-represent him.
[0]: https://twitter.com/minilek/status/1498504249876963331
Nothing has happened to him. He has had literally no personal, professional, or legal consequences at this point. Unless the situation changed since yesterday, he has not had anyone "[sicc] lawyers and/or police on [him]". He is not a victim.
The fact that he works in data science has absolutely no bearing on the content of the tweets we are discussing.
I'm a bored guy on the Internet, I'm literally typing this comment while taking a shit. I don't care at all what the outcome of this is. I'm not "trying" to do anything or push a narrative. You, in the other hand, have left a wild amount of comments in this thread and keep reminding everyone that you personally know him. Maybe you are the one with personal biases and ulterior motives when it is you versus the world?
The fact that he works in data science has absolutely no bearing on the content of the tweets we are discussing.
I'm a bored guy on the Internet, I'm literally typing this comment while taking a shit. I don't care at all what the outcome of this is. I'm not "trying" to do anything or push a narrative. You, in the other hand, have left a wild amount of comments in this thread and keep reminding everyone that you personally know him. Maybe you are the one with personal biases and ulterior motives when it is you versus the world?
You are projecting far too much.
It seems an odd complaint that the author publish a paper without any black co-authors. Why is that noteworthy?
It's not that they published a paper without any Black co-authors.
There has been a controversial push in California to reform public school math education guidelines called the California Math Framework [1]. It [2] frames current math education in California as failing minority students and gives suggestions for how to remedy it. The issue has been controversial as some see it as injecting social justice topics into the math curriculum, while others see it as necessary to contextualize math within our broader society. (edit: corrected by the other reply to your comment that said some of the parts of the framework about adding social justice topics have been removed from the most recent draft of the framework)
The tweet author is pointing out that this 800-page framework about addressing inequalities in math education for minority (in particular Black and Latino) students was written by many authors, but none of them were Black. This seems like a valid criticism given the issues that it is explicitly trying to address.
There have also been similar criticisms levied at the new framework because it was written entirely by academic researchers studying pedagogy and had little to no input from actual teachers.
[1] https://calmatters.org/education/k-12-education/2021/11/cali...
[2] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/
There has been a controversial push in California to reform public school math education guidelines called the California Math Framework [1]. It [2] frames current math education in California as failing minority students and gives suggestions for how to remedy it. The issue has been controversial as some see it as injecting social justice topics into the math curriculum, while others see it as necessary to contextualize math within our broader society. (edit: corrected by the other reply to your comment that said some of the parts of the framework about adding social justice topics have been removed from the most recent draft of the framework)
The tweet author is pointing out that this 800-page framework about addressing inequalities in math education for minority (in particular Black and Latino) students was written by many authors, but none of them were Black. This seems like a valid criticism given the issues that it is explicitly trying to address.
There have also been similar criticisms levied at the new framework because it was written entirely by academic researchers studying pedagogy and had little to no input from actual teachers.
[1] https://calmatters.org/education/k-12-education/2021/11/cali...
[2] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/
> academic researchers studying pedagogy and had little to no input from actual teachers.
This makes sense but doesn’t square with the lack of black authors. Would black academic researchers studying pegagogy be better than actual teachers?
It seems the issue is lack of teachers participating in the design and testing of the framework than the race of the authors.
Is there a evidence or accusation of discrimination in the selection of the authors?
This makes sense but doesn’t square with the lack of black authors. Would black academic researchers studying pegagogy be better than actual teachers?
It seems the issue is lack of teachers participating in the design and testing of the framework than the race of the authors.
Is there a evidence or accusation of discrimination in the selection of the authors?
I honestly have no idea because I haven't done (nor do I plan to do as I don't live in California anymore) enough research to have an informed opinion on the topic.
However, I think it is generally valid to say that if you are explicitly trying to address how a system (CA math education) is failing a certain group of people (black students), it would be useful to consult with members of that group or people who work closely with members of that group.
Again, I'm not taking a strong stance here and I'm sure there could hypothetically be some world where this may not be true and the X truly most qualified people to tackle this issue are all not Black. But even from a completely cynical, practical standpoint you can see how the optics look bad when the state of California admits to failing its Black students yet tasks a committee of professors to solve the issue without any representation from the groups it has failed.
However, I think it is generally valid to say that if you are explicitly trying to address how a system (CA math education) is failing a certain group of people (black students), it would be useful to consult with members of that group or people who work closely with members of that group.
Again, I'm not taking a strong stance here and I'm sure there could hypothetically be some world where this may not be true and the X truly most qualified people to tackle this issue are all not Black. But even from a completely cynical, practical standpoint you can see how the optics look bad when the state of California admits to failing its Black students yet tasks a committee of professors to solve the issue without any representation from the groups it has failed.
> However, I think it is generally valid to say that if you are explicitly trying to address how a system (CA math education) is failing a certain group of people (black students), it would be useful to consult with members of that group or people who work closely with members of that group.
What is the group ?
Is it black teachers or black students ? Black students from CA ? Black students from CA that failed math ?
What is the group ?
Is it black teachers or black students ? Black students from CA ? Black students from CA that failed math ?
Any of those would be better than what their choice of none of those
> This makes sense but doesn’t square with the lack of black authors. Would black academic researchers studying pegagogy be better than actual teachers?
It helps to have people who understand education and who understand (often from personal experience) the very phenomena one claims to be addressing.
> Is there a evidence or accusation of discrimination in the selection of the authors?
There is no accusation, merely an observation which was enough to attract the ire of the Stanford prof.
It helps to have people who understand education and who understand (often from personal experience) the very phenomena one claims to be addressing.
> Is there a evidence or accusation of discrimination in the selection of the authors?
There is no accusation, merely an observation which was enough to attract the ire of the Stanford prof.
It appears to be more than a paper. It's 900+ pages, 14 chapters, and apparently intended to guide how California public schools teach math. With an emphasis on making it work better for minority students. Some sections have been deleted in the draft process, including some on "racism behind past math policies and practices".[1]
[1] https://edsource.org/2022/california-revises-new-math-framew...
[1] https://edsource.org/2022/california-revises-new-math-framew...
Is perhaps the goal of publishing 900+ pages on a DEI topic to make it so inaccessible that they can profit ($5000hr) off taxpayers by charging public schools?
[deleted]
The original poster explains: the effort to reform CA math education lists improving outcome and removing barriers for black kids in math class. He said it was surprising no black educators were involved.
For anyone interested, this appears to be the document in question: [1]
If I understand correctly, that version of the document specifies $5k/session, with each session being 2 hours. However, there seems to be an amendment that changes the compensation to $5k/hr ($10k/session).[2]
These are public files linked from Oxnard School District's website under "Board Meeting Agendas"--in particular, the August 4 2021 Regular Board Meeting,[3] page 375. I'm confused as to how this could be construed as private information when it's quite clearly a public document published by the school district.
Aside: Don't send emails like this. If you find yourself writing terms like "lawyer" and "police" in an email intended to express your dissatisfaction with someone else's decisions, pause. Revisit it tomorrow.
Furthermore, if you're a public figure or are otherwise in the spotlight, consider that the majority of the people reading your email will not be those to whom it is explicitly addressed. It will be read--and judged--by the public. Write your messages as though you will be reading them on a stage in front of an audience.
Everyone lets their emotions get the better of them from time to time, and everyone makes mistakes--but if you're being paid $5k/hr, those mistakes had better be exceedingly rare.
[1]: https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/atta...
[2]: https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/atta...
[3]: https://www.oxnardsd.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?mod...
If I understand correctly, that version of the document specifies $5k/session, with each session being 2 hours. However, there seems to be an amendment that changes the compensation to $5k/hr ($10k/session).[2]
These are public files linked from Oxnard School District's website under "Board Meeting Agendas"--in particular, the August 4 2021 Regular Board Meeting,[3] page 375. I'm confused as to how this could be construed as private information when it's quite clearly a public document published by the school district.
Aside: Don't send emails like this. If you find yourself writing terms like "lawyer" and "police" in an email intended to express your dissatisfaction with someone else's decisions, pause. Revisit it tomorrow.
Furthermore, if you're a public figure or are otherwise in the spotlight, consider that the majority of the people reading your email will not be those to whom it is explicitly addressed. It will be read--and judged--by the public. Write your messages as though you will be reading them on a stage in front of an audience.
Everyone lets their emotions get the better of them from time to time, and everyone makes mistakes--but if you're being paid $5k/hr, those mistakes had better be exceedingly rare.
[1]: https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/atta...
[2]: https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/atta...
[3]: https://www.oxnardsd.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?mod...
[deleted]
Streisand effect strikes again!
They really need mathematics consulting:
"Amendment #1 to Agreement #20-97 with
Joanne Boaler August 4, 2021 At the Board Meeting of November 4, 2020, the Board of Trustees approved Agreement #20-97 with Joanne Boaler, in the amount of $20,000.00, to provide TK-8 Mathematics Professional Development for Oxnard School District teachers during the 2020-2021 academic year.
Amendment #1 in the amount of $20,000.00, is required to correct a math/clerical error in the original agreement. The correct verbiage should read “Provide four (4) two-hour sessions at the rate of $5,000.00 per hour for a total of $40,000”. "
"Amendment #1 to Agreement #20-97 with
Joanne Boaler August 4, 2021 At the Board Meeting of November 4, 2020, the Board of Trustees approved Agreement #20-97 with Joanne Boaler, in the amount of $20,000.00, to provide TK-8 Mathematics Professional Development for Oxnard School District teachers during the 2020-2021 academic year.
Amendment #1 in the amount of $20,000.00, is required to correct a math/clerical error in the original agreement. The correct verbiage should read “Provide four (4) two-hour sessions at the rate of $5,000.00 per hour for a total of $40,000”. "
this reads awfully like "we, uh, fixed the glitch"
That aside, if this money is for facilitating sessions, as another comment implies, it is perfectly reasonable. The facilitator has to prepare, follow up, etc. and is presenting to a group. I've done these kind of sessions and that rate is not high. The per hour of facilitation time is a meaningless way to look at it. For all I know, maybe there is something untoward going on, but the usual racial outrage we see in the tweets, and the inflammatory, clickbait headline certainly dont make any kind of case