How can we take this in the light of #BLM, which became such an active source of social activism? It seems like Twitter shouldn't be the only place to have the conversation, but rather a springboard to talk about the issues in a more major way. However, it is interesting to me that while I've heard plenty about BLM, I've heard next to nothing about the hashtag talked about here.

I'd just like to point out the other steps people are doing to change this besides just #BLM: there's #blackout, although that has its own problems due to it only seeming to get traction when white people in particular take notice of it. Just another form of #activism that approaches the same topic in a more lighthearted way.

This is racist in and of itself, I feel like. They're making their research inaccessible to the people who the research is important to (aka black people, in this instance) by making it difficult for people of lower economic status to see this research, which was about inequality in the first place. It's so paradoxical and odd.

This really sums up my thoughts on the BLM movement. It's being used in such a positive way to educate people on what's really happening (get woke, yo). And with education comes social movements, and then (hopefully) social change. This is why I think #activism has such a potential to be so powerful.

I think the reason this is so interesting a statement to me is because it rings true not only for the past but for the present and the future as well. We are not yet free of a racist society, so the moral liberation of everyone, including white people and non-black POC depends upon the rebellion of black people against the systemic racism within our society.

I'm having a hard time here distinguishing what is coded as a commitment and what is a principle. How did they decide what belonged in which category? I'd like to see more about the actual creation of the document.

How so? Wouldn't you still have to explain what the problem areas are, just like you would with a standard percentage-grading course? Instead of explaining why the student got a 70%, he now has to explain why the student got a 'below proficient.' I honestly can't see any difference, except for a level of vagueness that I would find rather annoying.

So in order to use this grading system, you still have to use the other grading system that this system is trying to avoid-- the teacher still has to determine if the work is at a high enough level to be considered satisfactory. This appears to be somewhat conflicting with the idea that this system will take the burden off of the teachers. All this system represents is a less straightforward way to assign the exact same grades, graded the exact same way.

This isn't just too formulaic- it's completely restrictive. If the specifications of an assignment detail what you should say paragraph by paragraph, can you really say that you're learning how to write, or just how to follow directions? Isn't this the same fallacy as many high schools fall into by restricting their students to the 5-paragraph model? Because of this system, the students never learn the other forms of writing that don't fit the exact specifications that are equally important and passable.