I’ve been sitting on this for a while because I wanted to confirm it, for it just seemed too bizarre to be true. But enough media outlets have now reported the story, complete with reactions from the school involved, that I consider it true. The most reliable source seems to be WBTV.com in Charlotte, North Carolina, which is where this occurred. Their site has a video showing the unbelief when this question was shown to both black and white local citizens.
In short, a biology teacher at Ardrey Kell High School in south Charlotte (a public school) apparently used a template genetics “worksheet” to ask questions about genetics on an assignment. Unfortunately, she asked a question (#8 below, which is blurry but I’ll write it out), which involves some pretty offensive racial sterotyping:
The question:
LaShamanda has a heterozygous big bootie, the dominant trait. Her man Fontavius has a small bootie which is recessive. They get married and have a baby named LaPrincess. Show the cross between LaShamanda and Fontavius.
What is the probability that LaPrincess will inherit her mama’s big bootie?
If Lashamanda and Fontavius have another child, what is the probability that it will have a big bootie?
(Note to foreign readers: “bootie” is U.S. slang for what the Brits call a “bum” and Jews call a tuchus. I’ve never seen it used to refer to the rumps of males [always females in my experience] and the spelling I know is “booty,” not “bootie.”)
Now the answer of course is 0.5 for both questions, assuming that the trait in question is not affected by sex, but jeebus, what a way to ask the question! What mentality could think up such a way to ask students about a simple Mendelian cross? (A professional quibble: you don’t have a “heterozygous bootie” you are heterozygous at the gene locus affecting the trait.)
Now my second thought was, “Well, maybe they were simply trying to engage the black students by using cultural referents, and screwed up big time,” but that doesn’t wash because of all the unpleasant stereotyping involved. It goes beyond “big bootie”, and involves stereotyped black names (really, “LaPrincess”?). It’s as if they asked a question about the genetics of “Jewish big noses” (a subject lately dear to my heart), using the names “Moishe” and “Sadie.” And “her man” seems a bit weird, too, though at least they let the couple get married. But I doubt whether the notion of using “culturally relevant” questions is a better way of teaching.
As WBTV reports:
A Charlotte mother is expressing concern after a class assignment she considers offensive was given to high school students. Some say it has racial undertones.
“I was completely stunned,” the mother said. “This is not appropriate language at all for the children in the school.”
The question was from a test on genetics.
. . . The mother says the assignment was given last Monday and she reached out to the teacher for an explanation for the question.
“I am extremely concerned that this type of language is being used and considered expectable [sic] to be issued to students,” she said while asking for an explanation.
The mother showed WBTV an email apology she reportedly received from the teacher “if the question offended you.”
“I had asked the students to pick two of the remaining questions on the worksheet and did not necessarily assign that particular one,” the teacher said.
She continued, “I apologize if it offended you or your child.”
That’s a notapology. When you apologize, you don’t say, “I apologize if it offended you,” but rather “I apologize for asking such a stupid and insensitive question. I just didn’t think, and it won’t happen again.” If someone objected but wasn’t personally offended, would an apology be unnecessary? Nope.
Anyway, the school came to its senses and has stopped using the worksheet and the question.
h/t: Ginger K.
…I think that would be a sackable offence in most places.
I don’t think a recessive bootie would be much use for sitting on.
I think professor cc is being kind when he raises a “professional quibble” over the sentence: “LaShamanda has a heterozygous big bootie, the dominant trait.”
I think the sentence deserves more than a quibble because this commonplace failure to distinguish genotype and phenotype if a FREQUENT source of problems and needless confusion in biology classes. I may be biased because I am appalled at the average quality of biology education in American high schools (which in part derives from my own children’s classes). We all know that a non-trivial fraction of high school biology teachers are creationists; a higher fraction may not really understand the subject sufficiently well.
This is not to downplay the inherent racism and vulgarity of the question.
I know for a fact my high school biology teacher did not understand evolution and genetics: I aced that class, 100% on every single test, and later I was astonished to find in college how out-of-date, in complete and in a few instances wrong the material was.
Even worse a heterozygous one which implies one large cheek and one small cheek. Total stupidity mixed with unbelievable insensitivity.
That would be a case of co-dominance.
Could be a chimaera?
Yeah, maybe…
Just heard a great expression, apparently by Southern writer Flannery O’Conner: “Going to hell in a ham biscuit.”
The first question should be – what does this say about the quality of the teacher and it just goes down hill from there. I won’t bother to mention what state this is from or anything out of line like that.
In American education we are getting what we pay for and what we produce and call teachers.
Wow.
I can sorta imagine doing the Socratic thing in class, asking students for an example of a trait they thought would be genetic, and having some smartass pipe up with, “big booty.” But, even then, I’m sure I’d use that as an example that’s not a simple binary Mendelian trait and try to steer the class towards eye color or the like.
But on a written test!? With language practically dripping with Ebonics watermelon jokes?
Wow.
…and the “teacher” is still employed…because…why, exactly…?
b&
One strike and you’re out?
The teacher may still be employed perhaps because some people still believe in the possibility of redemption and the ability to learn from mistakes. That’s how most of us fallible people become wise.
The worksheet was actually one used in the past by other teachers and part of a summer school packet. Some idiot made it and a bunch of idiot teachers used it. The biology teachers should read The Mismeasure of Man and write a book report.
Is the teacher white or black?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2AitTPI5U0
Thanks, but I looked the story up, and got an actual answer.
Did it change anything?
I think Jesper’s answer is much more germane than anything you might have found in the story.
b&
The reason I asked is because I preferred to believe it was a black teacher. That would explain to some degree why the teacher wasn’t immediately fired.
The fact of the matter apparently, or so it is claimed, is that this was a worksheet to be used by the school system as a whole, but wasn’t one officially authorized by the system. So they simply told teachers to no longer use it.
Looking it up was almost more disheartening than the story itself. The majority of comments about the incident that I saw were complaints about the mothers lack of a sense of humor, and how ridiculously PC the world has become.
On the bright side: Stupid is what stupid does and it doesn’t really matter what phenotype you are.
Regardless of colour being able to laugh at yourself is fine, but probably not on a written test.
I wouldn’t do a redneck joke on a biology test, either.
The anti-PC crowd just wants to be able to make racist/sexist/homophobic/etc comments without getting called racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. In other words they want a free pass for being bigots. You have the freedom to make such comments, but others have the right to call you on it. And you must take responsibility for the consequences.
For the most part, definitely. But there does seem to be a (growing?) number of those who go overboard with PC-ness.
Not in this case, of course!
My Devil’s Dictionary definition of political correctness is: being forced to call a black person “black” when you really want to call him a n*****.
The problem with the PC argument is that good insult comics (or comics who say offensive things) are usually making a bigger point about the people who do such things in real life. There is no comic purpose to this test and not much of an academic purpose either.
This is at the core of shows like The Office, in which Michael Scott’s obliviousness about any kind of minority is used to great comic effect.
I got into a discussion regarding this topic last week with some people at a holiday party. The topic came up about Bill Burr (and really just comics in general being homophobic or racist). I contended that while many of Burr’s bits might have offensive language, his point is about some level of idiocy involved.
The conversation soon turned to whether someone should be held responsible for how other people interpret their words. Amazingly (or perhaps not), in a crowd of liberal people, I was being ganged up on by 6 or 7 other people saying that insensitive remarks are the speaker’s responsibility if other people interpret them in a way that is not intended. Of course, this also implied that people have the right not to be offended by speech, which of course is nonsense.
Anyhow, with regard to this test, intentions absolutely do matter (and so does context). A classroom is not a place for racy comedy; nonetheless, I still do think the teacher’s intentions matter. Based on the notapology, it would seem the intentions are perhaps less than innocent. Again, it is the teacher’s job to go on the record and clarify it (as well as issue a sincere apology that this was a completely inappropriate environment for such remarks even if it was a horrible attempt at humor).
I can laugh at just about anything, but found
the Office just made me cringe. I tried to like both the US and UK versions, but just couldn’t. I did chuckle at the one guy putting his office-mate’s stapler in some Jello. That was the kind of stuff that might have gone on in my school workroom, mature as we were;-)
+1
This is a cultural issue. Skin color is only incidental. Perhaps one can be inferred from the other, but understanding the culture will go a lot further toward a solution than knowing the skin color.
This is just part of their “identity as a principally Christian and quintessentially Southern state” don’t you know.
Seems as much scientifically offensive as racially. A simple Mendelian cross for the size of a human posterior? Really?
The teacher’s “apology” tells you everything you need to know about her intent.
The inability of people caught doing stupid things to properly apologize is amazing to me. A decent apology costs nothing, and it may even make things better.
This teacher clearly meant her test question to be offensive. At least we know that by not proffering an effusive apology she is not being insincere.
Difficulty apologising properly and lack of sensitivity is known to be controlled by an empathetic trait. If the teacher who administered the quiz is known to be a homozygous dominant for these traits, what is the probability that he/she will produce a media maelstrom given that he/she has crossed some lines?
Did the “template genetics “worksheet”” come with the textbook/workbook? If so, the worksheet and textbook/workbook need to be jettisoned. Who in the school district heirarchy in addition to the teacher was responsible for approving this travesty? That person or persons also need/s to apologize before being jettisoned.
If this was an attempt at “black” humor by using ebonics and racial stereotypes, it fails to be humorous. It insults on numerous levels (are black women the only ones who are steatopygous? No. Look around you.)
I’m sure that we all have heard enough derogatory racial “humor” that we could come up with “humorous” Mendelian genetics questions for all racial stereotypes. We could
insult everyone, only in jest, of course.
I had a spirited and respectful argument with an African American friend who feels the black community does itself a disservice by focusing on racism as the cause of its problems, rather than nurturing a culture of success, which he feels would be more effective. I told him that it was not my place as a relatively privileged white person to endorse the idea that any minority group needs to do this or that to be more successful – whatever the motivation, I think it sounds racist when a white person makes that claim, and I think it unfairly denigrates a population that is most likely doing its best against strong social and historical headwinds. Many, many people of color do the right thing and play by the rules and a are still held back. And hstorically black colleges are graduating tens of thousands of kids every year, which I think is a sign of very strong commitment to change and success. Also, black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton preach strongly and frequently about self-reliance, but conveniently it is only “news” when they speak out against the power structure.
My suggestion was that we can have both: a movement that encourages self-actualization AND a movement that puts pressure on society to level the playing field.
My relevant point is this: he made the concession that racism is still an issue “to a certain extent.” I did not argue, but I did take it as a certain failure by the privileged – he and his wife grew up with means and have done quite well in life – to see that the reduction in overt racism has not meant an equivalent reduction in the numerous says the deck is stacked against people of color. If I look to my left and my right and see folks who have prospered, I may easily come to think our opportunities are more common and more available to the less fortunate (whatever their race) than they actually are.
This conversation took place the day of the Ferguson decision and we did not get into the Tamir Rice, Akai Gurley or Eric Garner killings which are clearer examples of the inhuman treatment of black individuals. It doesn’t matter that the police were not “racist” if the net effect of their actions is the same. Racism is not the only cause of injustice.
Whatever the details of the separate cases, the dead men and young boy were not responsible for the context that led to their demise. If dehumanization of African Americans can’t be kept out of the science classroom, that’s a big indicator of at best blindness to the ways that non-whites are disrespected and worse day after day. The discrimination felt by people of color is not just in their heads, and it’s a scandal that obscene stereotypes continue to proliferate in “post-racial” America.
Well said. While the cop in Ferguson may have been justified (or not), there is an extenuating set of circumstances well outside of Michael Brown’s control that put him in that situation. We need to focus on changing that environment.
The only thing Question #9 has going for it is that it doesn’t play to a racist stereotype. It certainly doesn’t indicate any knowledge of Mendel, genetics or pea plants for that matter.
This teacher is still smarter than my elementary school teachers. I once demonstrated how water & oil don’t mix and they were amazed because they never knew that!
How did I survive?
Although, as you point out, “heterozygous” generally pertains to the gene locus, might not a “heterozygous bootie” be one with cheeks of two different sizes? That, at least, would provide the premise for a ribald limerick. (Were Isaac Asimov still with us, he would doubtless be able to provide one; after all, he wrote the book(s) on lecherous limericks.)
Still, I’m having difficulty suspending skepticism that this quiz question is authentic. It’s hard to fathom anyone being so un-hip (or so dumb) as to propose this language as “culturally relevant.” Maybe there’s a “Poe’s Law” analogue operating here, whereby it’s become impossible to distinguish between sincere squareness and a parody of squareness.
They gave the teacher a second chance. They allowed them to make an actual apology and yet they offered a fake one.
Since s/he blew that chance as well, perhaps a public-facing profession is not for them.
I think many people who offer notpologies don’t realize what they’re doing. It’s an inherent defense mechanism, as in “mistakes were made”.
Good point. The book “Mistakes were made (but not by me)” covers this quite well.
Just re-reading it right now, and thoroughly endorse your recommendation.
The question above it asks about the chances of having a child with stinky feet vs a child with sweet feet. The guy was just trying to be cute and funny and just happened to land on an epic fail.
My kids used to accuse each other of having stinky feet in the car. Turns out it was a turkey pot pie that somehow got left in the trunk and gradually thawed as Spring sprung…
Happened in my car too. I typically buy frozen pies 2 or 3 dozen at a time (on my monthly supermarket trips) and chuck them in the back of the car.
And the car developed this smell that I thought was the carpets going mouldy though I could never find where. Months later I found this ex-frozen pie in its paper bag that had slipped down by the spare wheel…
Did the smell linger forever when it got damp or were you able to get rid of the smell? Sometimes you just can’t get rid of stinky things like that! I forever fear a mouse crawling into my car & dying.
The smell in my car finally dissipated, thankfully. My friend’s d*g ate cow poop and then threw it up in her car. I think she ended up getting a new car…
Glad I’m not the only one…My mother once found a dozen many months old eggs in the back of her car. They never smelled, amazingly, just turned kind of hard-boiled. Must have been winter.
This summer I found out that a sausage some how had been stuck in the kitchen sink when maggots mysteriously started appearing.
It had a sweet smell to it, but didn’t stink as such. I haven’t had any sausages since then, though. 🙂
😝
Booty originally meant treasure as pirate booty. Now it means the buttocks of both males and females. Ask and homosexual or bisexual man and they will call another’s “booty”.
An unbelievable question.
Only in America.
In England we’d say ‘fat arse’.
But maybe not in public…
The most explantory model for a “trait” like our “behinds” size and shape is a polygenic-polymorphic (multi-allelism) one. Steatopygia has been selected for, semmingly, because of the putative cause and effect relationship between percent adipose tissue and ovulation during episodes of drought anf famine. The take home assignment belies the actualities. One gene with a dominant and recessive allele are suspect when illustrating broad, phenotypic continua.
Is that a severe case of a euphemism wrapped in a coat of passive-aggression? I’d (in the implausible event of being in the situation) have been hammering on the head master’s door demanding an explanation, and a head (or “bootie”) on a platter.
I’m pretty sure “bootie” is a type of sock