Most of the time I hear people talk about mathematics education in our modern society, it includes something about "culture". When you hear "culture" mentioned in mathematics education, there is really only one way to think about it: "culture" should refer to the generated culture in the classroom. Students should be comfortable tearing a subject apart, dissecting it, seeing what is real, holding on to what works, and questioning everything. This is generally NOT what is meant when people mention "culture" in mathematics education. People instead talk about: "be mindful of students' culture"; "relish the diverse culture of your students"; "understanding the background, culture, and community of your classroom is vital". No. All of these things are wrong. They are all bad. They are terrible. They're not wrong, bad, and terrible just because people are sick of the race-baiting and seem to have gotten over the victim culture established over the course of decades. They are especially wrong, bad, and terrible in a practical and logical context. When learning mathematics in the classroom, the whole point is to dissect a problem, understand it, develop solutions, and put things neatly in order. Some people claim that mathematics education is too rewarding of rigor, speed, and accuracy. But the real question is: Why shouldn't it be? Should you instead reward slowness? Should you reward inaccuracy? Should you allow sloppiness? Of course, the answer is "no". The criticism that "mathematics education is too rewarding of rigor, speed, and accuracy" PERFECTLY illustrates the problem with administrators and educators: they don't understand the fundamental nature of mathematics. They don't understand the nature of logic. They don't understand the difference between deduction and induction. Mathematics is a deductive subject. It is based on absolutes. It always has a correct answer. Everything is deducible from starting axioms. That means that by its very nature, mathematics demands accuracy. Accuracy is about absolutes. 1 is not the same as 1.001. While "close", they are absolutely not equal. Mathematics is built on logic. It has a very simple rule, colloquially, "If something doesn't work, throw it out." People that do not understand deductive logic typically have a very poor understanding of mathematics. So when educators or administrators come out and criticize the rigor, speed, and accuracy required in mathematics, they are really revealing their ignorance on the subject. It's like critiquing a scuba instructor that he should really consider the culture and background of his students rather than focusing them on fundamentally remaining calm. "Let them explore and really understand"—a recipe for disaster or death in scuba diving, unless the diver has already mastered fundamentals. It used to be that mathematics was something people wanted to "master"—to be 100% accurate with, to know how to do and perform beyond doubt, to basically be perfect. But for some reason, this fundamental nature of mathematics is now looked at as "harsh", "racist", "too hard", "discriminatory", "non-inclusive". Of course, that's pathetic. But maybe you think I've been a bit harsh to say that bringing in "culture" or "student backgrounds" into mathematics education is "terrible" or "bad". But it is. And here is why: In ANY classroom, the idea way to learn the material is: BECOME the identity that absorbs the subject. When you go into a history class, for the full hour (or however long the class is) you must BECOME the historian. If you're in science class, for that full period you must BECOME the scientist. When you're in mathematics, you must BECOME the mathematician. The goal of absorption of information is for you to LEAVE YOUR IDENTITY AT THE DOOR. If you bring culture into your education, you will always tinge what you learn. You will never learn the subject in a pure way, based solely on the information at hand. Instead, you will taint your view; your opinions will interact with the information, biasing you; and you will never absorb the material as well as someone who has immersed themselves into the information, becoming "one" with the information. In mathematics, this is more true that pretty much any other subject because of its deductive nature. Sure, some other subjects like logic or computer circuits can also be this exact because of its deductive nature. But in a standard high school education, mathematics is the standard for deductive logic. That is where it starts, as far back as elementary school. Now it is true that mathematics education can provide someone from a rough background—say, a gang-run neighborhood—the opportunity to better their heritage or break some kind of cycle of poverty-ridden generation after generation. But that identity—that "culture"—must be left at the door. A student can deal with that reality outside of class and use it as motivation outside of class. But if that is brought into the classroom, the only thing it will do is distract them from complete absorption of the topic of study. Since the basis of mathematics is deductive logic, that prioritizes accuracy above all else. Speed is an important factor too, because even some mindless water—given enough time—can erode a path to a breakthrough. Of course, the modern culture-obsessed society will try to tell you that speed and accuracy are somehow "bad" things—even though they clearly lead to SUCCESS. How does one business in an industry make more progress than another? Whoever gets to the end-goal first wins (that is speed). Whoever produces a product that is more accurate to the demands of the consumer wins (that is accuracy). What makes a musician top of his class? Speed and accuracy. Another word that conveys the idea of "applied accuracy" is efficiency. To be efficient, you need to accurately organize and prioritize the biggest factors. You need to set goals of high precision and develop a plan to reach them. You cannot be efficient without becoming more and more accurate. These traits are traits of the successful—across all subjects and industries. It's not specific to mathematics. Mathematics has simply abstracted everything so that you can learn those fundamental traits and THEN apply them to other areas. Some will also critique the idea of "speed and accuracy OVER understanding or exploration". But this must be a necessary priority. If you slowly work to understand, that is fine. But who is going to get paid—who is going to make the progress—one who speedily works to understand and explore, or one who has to take his lifetime to fully understand and explore? While there's nothing wrong with getting better at mathematics and enriching your mind over a lifetime, you probably aren't going to be paid for it. So if education is really "all about" trying to equip students with tools they can use in LIVING—in MAKING a living, in producing—then speed and accuracy are of necessity prioritized above understanding and exploration. Notice, though, that those who are faster and more accurate will have more TIME to devote to exploration. The reason students are typically labeled as "struggling" is because they ARE struggling—struggling to perform at a level that would be paid to produce. They are labeled as "behind" because they ARE behind—behind the level they need to be at if they want to be paid to produce. If a man aged 50 can only PERFORM at a pre-algebra level, he won't be paid the wages of a man aged 25 who can PERFORM at a calculus level. And he shouldn't, either. No matter what "background" he came from, it would be preposterous. He is paid on merit. This is one of the reasons that this AI generation is so scary. We have a new generation of students that think mathematics isn't important to learn, because "a computer could just do it for me". But what happens when those computers are programmed to simply spit out an answer based on weights—an answer that is PRESENTED as absolute, but deep down it is subjective, or just "maybe correct"? It's dangerous for their minds. For those that study mathematics with a sharp mind, they won't be deceived. But in general, the generation coming up believes that "learning mathematics doesn't matter anymore". And because they believe that, they are creating the very necessity of learning mathematics. In order to learn mathematics better—or to teach it better—you cannot conform to the background of a students. You cannot conform to the culture of students. You cannot conform to the communities of students. You cannot conform to the disabilities of students. It is a deductive subject, where merit is really the only factor. Mathematics has often been known as the ultimate "equalizer", because it doesn't matter how rich your daddy was, either you can do the work or you can't. Not every student IS a mathematician. Not every student should even BE a mathematician. Would it enrich their life? Sure! But is it necessary that they cram it down their throats by the time they're 18? Of course not. I met a 50+ year old man the other week who had a FIERY passion for learning mathematics. He wished he had put in the effort when he was a student. But after talking with him, I found out he had other passions as a young boy. Would it have been worth his time? It would have been a lot of work. It absolutely would have detracted from the other things he was doing in life. So should he have done that as a student? While it's true he probably could have put in more effort as a child—as most people could, which WOULD have had benefits—there is no telling how much it might have detracted from the other things he actually loved and wanted to spend time doing. Deep down, one's ability to do mathematics is tied directly to one's ability to focus and complete a task. It is about the accuracy. Second to that, you can complete more tasks the faster you are at one task. For anyone that would claim the rigor, accuracy, and speed taught in mathematics isn't as important as understanding and exploration—you don't know what you're talking about. Please stop revealing your ignorance while you make decisions that condemn the classroom as a pit of writhing victims playing identity politics.