Social Justice in Physics Education Publishing

Physics education journals are known for their eclectic mixes of articles. Some papers are exactly what you’d expect in a good education journal: Statistical studies of student performance in response to different teaching techniques. Such studies can be done well or done poorly, like any other type of study, but it’s entirely reasonable that education journals put these studies out there for further consideration.

Other articles are less about teaching practices and more about understanding an already-known physics phenomenon from a unique perspective. Such articles run in education journals in the hope that they will be useful for teachers seeking new insights, and appropriate reading materials for students. For my own part, as a university professor who tries to keep some research going, I often read such articles for my own benefit, to supplement the research literature when I want to learn something that I haven’t explored much before. The Physics Teacher (TPT), published by the American Association of Physics Teachers, is overall a good journal, mostly emphasizing this second category of articles, many of which I find useful.

Of course, we physicists are as human as anyone else, and hence prone to the same fads as anyone else. In the wake of America’s 2020 racial reckoning, TPT launched a column called “Just Physics”, focused on social justice issues in physics. These articles, alas, have not delivered the same degree of insight as the other articles.

Consider the most recent “Just Physics” article titled “Identifying and addressing roadblocks to justice in physics education.” Much of the article is focused on the putative anti-Blackness of the physics community. The most perceptive point made is also one of the earliest:

Years of efforts (ostensibly well meaning) and mountains of peer-reviewed publications in physics education research have failed to produce material change in the conditions that Black students, staff, and faculty encounter in physics curricula, programs, departments, and workplaces, as known anecdotally and noted in various studies.

It is certainly true that years of discussion have not done much to change educational outcomes for the better. Whether that’s due to a failure to change curricula and the conditions in academic programs and scientific workplaces, or other factors, I will freely concede that years of equity discussion have changed little.

Alas, the remainder of the article does little to clarify what further changes can or should be implemented. The next paragraph laments the rigidity of physics curricula. I will be the first to argue that certain aspects of physics curricula should be reconsidered. For instance, I think that classic block-on-inclined-plane mechanics problems are less important than motion in viscous fluids at low Reynolds number, conditions relevant to much of biology and chemistry. I’m quite aware that most colleagues disagree with me on this, and I wish the physics community would consider changes along these lines. However, our profession’s unanimous focus on timeless foundational material (Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, waves, heat, relativity, and the basics of quantum mechanics) is NOT a bad thing. Even my suggestion above is ultimately merely a shift in emphasis within a canon of established principles that have wide applicability throughout many areas of science and engineering. Mastery of these fundamentals is a non-negotiable prerequisite for advanced work in the field.

What would the “Just Physics” author substitute for these fundamentals? It’s hard to say for sure. The most concrete point offered in the article is:

In order to become more relevant to a changing social sensibility concerning broader issues in the world (such as the climate crisis, rampant racism, White backlash/rage, and neocolonialism), physics curricula must shift their foci, methods, and content to become relevant and applicable to how physics is practiced today. But more than that, we have an opportunity to inform what guides research priorities and technological developments in the future by centering justice issues within the physics curriculum.

As far as I can tell, the author is suggesting that we spend more time in physics class discussing social issues. I submit that this approach would (1) hurt students with weak prior preparation, as they need even more focus on fundamentals and (2) shift the social dynamics of the classroom in ways that would only amplify the value of social capital, such as having attended an elite private school.

The author also raises objections against the close association between the physics profession and the military. Matters of war and peace are tremendously complex, and I know good, thoughtful physicists with virtually every conceivable stance on what the relationship between physics and the military ought to be. Whether your perspective is patriotism or pacificism, we should all agree that physics education should not be about left-right politics. And if we focus on racial equity for African Americans, I will note that African Americans have a range of opinions on matters of military and foreign policy. In my interactions with the various industries that employ physicists, military contractors seem to frankly outperform other sectors in racial diversity. The connection between military research and lack of racial diversity in physics is a giant “CITATION NEEDED” point.

I wish I could say that this article provided some sort of insight that might help us better prepare more students from more backgrounds. Instead, it just provided clickbait fodder for commentary, a dynamic in which I now participate with full self-awareness.

Alex Small is a Professor and Chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. The opinions here are his own. He has recently moved some of his writing activity to: