What “access” assumes, and what it costs

There is a moment in Hidden Figures that everyone remembers. Kevin Costner’s character hands Katherine Johnson (played by Taraji P. Henson) a piece of chalk. She steps to the board. The room watches her work the equation no one else in the room could solve, and for a moment, the film lets us feel something like justice.

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

I want to love that scene. Part of me does. But watch it again and notice what it’s actually showing you: the chalk moves from his hand to hers. He holds it. He extends it. She receives it. Access, granted.

We tell this story as triumph. I want to tell you it’s also a diagram — a perfect, unintentional diagram of the question we keep asking about Black children and mathematics: how do we give them access?

It sounds like the right question. It sounds, even, like justice. But notice what the question assumes before you’ve answered it: that mathematics is a place. That the place has a gate. That someone stands at the gate with the authority to decide who passes through. The only thing left to debate is policy — who qualifies, what the criteria should be, how generous or strict the gatekeeper ought to be. The gate itself, and the hand that built it, disappear from view. We’ve been so busy negotiating the terms of entry that we stopped asking who designed the building.

This is the question lurking beneath a hundred years of American education reform, and it has never gone away — it has only changed its clothes. In the late nineteenth century, the question showed up as a debate about which students possessed the natural capacity for abstract reasoning, with mathematics positioned as proof of intellectual fitness for full citizenship. By the mid-twentieth century, it had reappeared as tracking — sorting students by “ability” into courses that would determine, with startling permanence, which futures stayed open and which quietly closed. By the turn of this century, it was the achievement gap, measured and graphed and presented as a discovered fact of nature rather than a designed outcome. Each era believed it was asking something new. Each era was asking the same question its predecessors had asked, in a different costume, and arriving at the same answer: someone decides who is capable, and someone else receives the verdict.

You don’t have to go looking for this pattern in archives. It’s operating right now, in plain sight, dressed for the present day. In my local school district, a universal earned honors policy proposed letting students qualify for honors-level course credit through demonstrated performance rather than separate enrollment. This was a small widening of the gate. But the backlash told you everything the gate usually hides. Parents organized against it, and the objections, stripped of their euphemism, amounted to a plain refusal to share a classroom with “regular” kids. The gate is usually invisible because it simply holds. Here, for a moment, someone tried to open it further, and its keepers said the quiet part out loud. Nationally, the language is NAEP scores—the numbers we cite every two years to announce that an “achievement gap” persists, as though the test itself were a neutral ruler rather than a particular and contestable definition of what counts as mathematical knowing. And now the language is “the science of math,” borrowed deliberately from the science of reading movement, arriving with the same promise: that if we just get rigorous enough, evidence-based enough, the gate will finally open the right way. Three different vocabularies. One gatekeeper, unexamined, still standing at the door.

So let me ask the question differently, because I don’t think access is actually the prize we’ve made it out to be, and I don’t think the people asking about access have asked what it costs.

What does access to mathematics actually do for Black children? Does it transform the conditions of their lives, or does it simply relocate a small number of them to the other side of a gate that remains, for everyone else, exactly where it was? Access without a change in what waits on the other side is not liberation. It’s relocation, and we have mistaken it for justice for a very long time.

And underneath that question sits a second one, larger and less comfortable: what has our hyperfocus on access to mathematics and STEM cost the goal we used to hold for children before we narrowed our ambition to this one gate? We have built an entire architecture of urgency around math and science access, and in doing so we have quietly let go of an older, fuller vision — the well-rounded person, educated toward wisdom and not merely toward employability, formed in more than one discipline of the mind. We traded a wide horizon for a narrow door, and called the trade progress.

I don’t think the answer is to stop caring whether Black children have access to mathematics. I think the answer is to stop pretending access was ever the whole question. The chalk was never the point. The hand that held it was.

Want to read more? Check out my Substack!