The only social construction going on here is the "bigotry of low expectations."

"I still have no idea what the man is talking about."

I dunno either, but I will point out that Rochelle Gutiérrez is a woman.

I don't think Asians are having too much difficulty understanding math, so "minorities" is hardly the correct appellation. Certain, specific minorities are the ones having trouble. And I think we all know who they are.

I think the author doesn't know what the hell she means. And that condition is endemic among those of a post-structuralist bent.

True, Lorraine. The post-structuralists have a terrible case of cerebrum-envy vis-a-vis philosophers (and some would say scientists), and in a pathetic attempt to seem more serious and intelligent, have confabulated a weird nomenclature and an incoherent theoretical system. And it is quite clear that at least 90% of these so-called scholars are not concerned with their subject, but instead are obsessed with convincing fellow pomos that they're part of the club.

Which is not to say that they're all idiots. A small percentage of the pomos are bright and have managed to solder together a reasonably respectable "poetics of knowledge" from all the theoretical tailings, but the vast majority of them are third-rate hacks. As such they are both cause and effect of the fallen state of the social sciences and humanities in academia.

A specialized vocabulary is not the issue; barbarous misuse of the English language is. But what can one expect from people who don't believe in any form of objective reality and truth, consider standardized English racist, and view the "privileging" of the written word as "logocentrism?"

I had a colleague who interviewed a few years ago for a position in the epidemiology department at UNC's School of Public Health. He could tell he wouldn't get the offer when asked about race as a health predictor. He argued that it was a social construct that was better represented by objective genetic measures (natives of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, constitute at least five clearly distinct genetic groups. Likewise, possession of a sickle-cell gene is a better predictor of sickle cell disease than being classified as "black.") or the use of ethnicity, which reflects behavioral patterns. The social epidemiologists at UNC were offended because the construct of race was more useful for their neo-Marxist conflict sociology than measures which better reflected the basic pathology of disease. The concept of a social construct is not necessariuly bad for science - if we remember that they are a natural process of induction, a way that individuals with bounded rationality organize observations ands interpret patterns. Where the problem arises is when the concept is used as if there were no underlying empirical reality. Constructs reflect that reality. The post-modernist movement, on the other hand, rejects that there IS an underlying reality, and argues that every classification is a construct not to reflect reality, but to shape perception in line with a neo-Marxist power motive. That is, every idea that they disagree with is an illegitimate social construct designed to empower the believer and oppress another. To them, the impugned MOTIVE is the reality, rather than the partially perceived reality organized into the construct.

Gotta love that accent mark in East San Jose. (In the linked article.)

BTW, is it common to refer to neighborhoods (which East San Jose is), rather than cities (which East San Jose is not) in an article like this?

She is just one more in the long parade of Ed School professors who have developed the next big theory that will explain it all, a next big theory that boils down to verbiage and conjecture.

If those Ed School clowns had to actually teach classes of primary or secondary students, they would soon find out their theories aren't worth the paper they are printed on.