Some eight years ago, I attended a series of presentations (not by choice) given by the ed school diversity police. At one, we got the party line on "learning styles/modalities," presented with no evidence to back it up because like contrastive rhetoric, there is no evidence to back it up.
A particularly grumpy faculty member — who also happened to be a Dean at the time — asked the presenter what I, and no doubt many others, were thinking. He said, "Other than the fact that you have no evidence to support this, so what? We have material to cover. We barely have enough time as it is. We certainly don't have time to present the material in each style just to make it easier for some of the students. So what do you want us to do with this information?"
Another one of these presentations was given by the feminonsense police, and covered how men are "goal-oriented," and women are "process-oriented." She and her co-feminuts, along with a few cooperative feminized males, presented a "role play," that began with a normal, goal-oriented meeting (of men) where the problem was addressed, a solution was agreed upon, and men were assigned to implement the solution. The next "role play" was feminuts having a meeting with no goal or purpose, other than to make each other feel good, and even though it was ostensibly to address the same problem as the first meeting "role play," the feminuts ended the meeting without ever addressing a solution. Finally, there was the final, two-part "role play," in which both sexes took part. In the first of the two-parter, the feminuts chose to shut up and sit there like lumps when the men insisted on having a meeting with a goal and purpose, and tackling the problem. In the second part of the two-parter, the men acquiesced to the "process oriented" meeting and nothing was accomplished (of course). The second of the two-parter was presented as how men could be more "sensitive" to women in meetings. When confronted with the fact that the "sensitive" meeting was unproductive, the feminuts accused the questioner of being patriarchal, and avoided the issue.
Ignore the man behind the curtain!
Both of these presentations illustrate why "being sensitive to our differences" (codename: diversity) is destructive to education.
Wow. Obviously the Prof and the Dean haven't taught K-12, or they'd have been to ed school and know that worshiping at the altar of "different modalities" is Commandment #2--Commandment #1, of course, pertains to the altar of "respecting" race differences.
You can, and should, go read the whole post. If you refuse to do so, then I have to spoil it all and give you this side-splitting snippet:
As knowledge systems go, math is the prototypical, linear system. Each skill builds upon others, so mastering a skill requires that one has already mastered previous skills. Math is essentially Aristotelian in nature, however patriarchal and serial raping and penis waving that may be.
Why would you not want to read a post by someone who can write like that?!