Seriously, AZ?! May 12, 2010 frau sally benz No, like, for real? You didn’t think you were getting enough attention with your immigration policy so you decided it was time to outlaw ethnic studies?!?! I don’t have much else to say because I’m just confused…
Arizona is out of control. Immigration law, banning ethnic studies, allowing concealed weapons sans permit…. Jan Brewer needs to cool it.
Having learned not to trust press summaries, I suggest that everyone read the actual bill. I found it, here: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281p.pdf I haven’t read it yet myself, but I’m about to. I’ll post again when i have.
Here’s the full text: THE LEGISLATURE FINDS AND DECLARES THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL PUPILS SHOULD BE TAUGHT TO TREAT AND VALUE EACH OTHER AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT BE TAUGHT TO RESENT OR HATE OTHER RACES OR CLASSES OF PEOPLE. 15-112. Prohibited courses and classes; enforcement A. A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IN THIS STATE SHALL NOT INCLUDE IN ITS PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTION ANY COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. 2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE. 3. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP. 4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS. B. IF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DETERMINES THAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IS IN VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A, THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION SHALL NOTIFY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL THAT IT IS IN VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A. IF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DETERMINES THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SUBSECTION A WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER A NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION, THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION MAY DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO WITHHOLD UP TO TEN PER CENT OF THE MONTHLY APPORTIONMENT OF STATE AID THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE DUE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHALL ADJUST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL’S APPORTIONMENT ACCORDINGLY. WHEN THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DETERMINES THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION A, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHALL RESTORE THE FULL AMOUNT OF STATE AID PAYMENTS TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL. C. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHALL PAY FOR ALL EXPENSES OF A HEARING CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. D. ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION ARE SUBJECT TO APPEAL PURSUANT TO TITLE 41, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 10. E. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT: 1. COURSES OR CLASSES FOR NATIVE AMERICAN PUPILS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW. 2. THE GROUPING OF PUPILS ACCORDING TO ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, INCLUDING CAPABILITY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, THAT MAY RESULT IN A DISPARATE IMPACT BY ETHNICITY.
Well, the two (short) pieces I’ve read about this do say that the law is meant to outlaw classes that promote solidarity among a particular ethnic group. Now, by definition, most ethnic studies classes are merely meant to explore the history of that ethnic group, which wouldn’t go against this. However, the reasoning behind the law make me nervous: State schools chief Tom Horne, who has pushed the bill for years, said he believes the Tucson school district’s Mexican-American studies program teaches Latino students that they are oppressed by white people. Um, the fact is that a lot of ethnic studies courses talk about oppression. And, yes, a lot of that oppression is by white people. Why should that be left out of courses? Not to mention, a lot of people who take ethnic studies courses who are of that ethnicity do feel a solidarity, whether it’s the point of the course or not. Does that mean that schools have to prove that their courses don’t do that?
Thanks for the link. The bill as written only forbids classes that are 1) Designed for a particular ethnic group– that seems fine to me. Do we really want school officials sitting around deciding what sort of course would be just perfect for children of Race X, whether that race is Mexican or White? or 2) “Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” Again, surely we don’t want schools teaching students that they should view themselves as members of Race X instead of as individuals. If students feel ethnic solidarity, that’s their business; this just prevents the school from advocating it. Again, this would for example forbid courses that told white students to think of themselves as members of the white race first. Seems fine to me. And the bill only applies to public schools. You can teach anything you like at a private school.
And the commentary: THE LEGISLATURE FINDS AND DECLARES THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL PUPILS SHOULD BE TAUGHT TO TREAT AND VALUE EACH OTHER AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT BE TAUGHT TO RESENT OR HATE OTHER RACES OR CLASSES OF PEOPLE. Er, OK. If it’s applied broadly that’s reasonable in a public high school context. I have serious doubts about the application but the text of the law is OK. 1. PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. Perfectly fine, in a public school; same as above. 2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE. Now we’re getting into la la land. Start here: what does this even mean? I have no idea, and understanding statutes is my job. ‘Race” is easy, but does “class of people” mean social class? Are “NRA members” a class of people? Are “football players” an identifiable class of people? Are we talking only about the classes protected under statute, such as gender, race, age, country of origin, etc? And, of course: Promote? Resentment? What the hell do they mean by that? 3. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP. Note the exceptions to this, at the end. 4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS. Again with the horribly-undefined terms like “promote” and “advocate.” Which leads to the obvious question: why did they use different terms? What do they mean? Are those two terms even distinguishable in this context? If not, why are they different? And even without this problem, what the heck does “ethnic solidarity” mean as distinguished from the (equally vague) “treatment of students as individuals?” Is the goal no solidarity at all? Is the goal to have solidarity in every way except ethnicity? This reads like a constitutional law exam question “find all the ways the staute is void for vagueness.”
My understanding is that this bill is specifically designed to outlaw BILINGUAL EDUCATION. So, Spanish-speaking kids who do not understand English won’t be taught English by Spanish-speaking teachers. They will just have to sit there and be mystified, and (it is hoped) drop out entirely and be manual laborers.
Well, the issue as I see it is that basically any civics or history class in a public school that treats with things like the history of colonialism, slavery, ethnic oppression or minority civil rights could be targeted by this law on the basis that a curriculum that flat out states the historical fact that white people have done some terrible goddamn things is ‘promoting resentment’ of whites. The whole thing just skeeves me more than a little bit.
The bill itself can be written in neutral language; the discrimination comes from the choices made in enforcing the bill. Discussing the language of the bill indepedently of the social context in which the bill will be enforced seems, to me, to be disingenous at best. At worst? Well: “‘that all railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in this state, shall provide equal but separate accommodations for the white, and colored races, by providing two or more passenger coaches for each passenger train…” Separate but equal…the language of this law does not imply any discrimination.
yeah, the wording of the bill is a combination of too vague and harmless, but since nobody sane is going to be involved in its application and enforcement until the courts are involved, it’s a pretty gross bill.
It’s a terrible bill. And yes, it was put forth explicitly to outlaw ethnic studies classes. It’s also worth noting that it probably applies to women’s studies classes, too.
@Tracey Remember that time we strolled in and killed millions of American Indians and then made a holiday for the guy who started it all?
ROFL…does this mean that Civil War history will no longer be taught in Arizona High Schools? What about the Restoration, Shakespeare and the Renaissance? Or, in fact – literary interpretation of the Bible? Caucasian is an ethnicity, European history of the colonization of the US is Anglo history, and in order to provide an ethnically unbiased education, we’d have to teach linguistics and apply the principles to several languages (English, at least one Native American language family and Mexican Spanish). Nice try, Arizona…still epic fail.
What. the. fuck. Not enough high schools have ethnic and gender studies programs as it is, and now they want to ban it? Way to prove the point that republicans hate Latin@s. (Oh, they don’t mind individual people who happen to be browner than them, but when they get all uppity and start banding together in solidarity its just so annoying.) My university requires an “American Cultures” class that must touch upon race, gender, class, disability, and such. Even the engineers and the theoretical physicists have to take it. The kids from Arizona are going to be behind.
At least this only applies to high schools. Most people don’t take that sort of stuff until college anyway, so it’s not as much of a loss as it would be if it banned it entirely.
Arizona is setting a terrible example for the rest of the US. I can’t wait until Sheriff Joe goes and they get their act together.
Wow, Arizona is setting a terrible example for the rest of the US. I can’t wait until Sheriff Joe goes and they get their act together.
So, if we’re going by this, shouldn’t all “traditional” history classes be banned as well? This is racism at some of it’s most blatant and is completely ridiculous….
Totally don’t know how to properly use blockquote yet… I’m referencing these specifically: 3. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP. 4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS.
“AND NOT BE TAUGHT TO RESENT OR HATE OTHER RACES OR CLASSES OF PEOPLE.” That sounds just like what these legislators need. Let’s sign them up for Ethnic Studies. Lesson 1: People of all races are PEOPLE.
My favorite part, full of all sorts of irony: E. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT: 1. COURSES OR CLASSES FOR NATIVE AMERICAN PUPILS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW. 2. THE GROUPING OF PUPILS ACCORDING TO ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, INCLUDING CAPABILITY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, THAT MAY RESULT IN A DISPARATE IMPACT BY ETHNICITY. Cuz you know white people really gave Native Americans a reason to hate’em……and omg, ethinicity and language might have a common link! OMG! *sigh* What kind of crack is Arizona on?
Athenia, my interpretation of that last section is that segregation is wrong! (unless it hinders a white student’s test scores).
Please, Mexico, feel free to take Arizona back. While you’re at it, would you like Texas and Oklahoma too?
2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE. Now we’re getting into la la land. Not only la la land, but also validates those who compare the motivations and the act of passing such laws with Fascist/Communist totalitarians who did the same with their own societies……anything contrary to the accepted orthodoxy is VERBOTEN!!! Failure to comply will have dire consequences…../snark As if the Arizona “your papers, please” law isn’t already a blatant step in that direction….
This bill was very clearly aimed at the Tucson Unified School District, where they offer a few ethic studies courses to high school students that can replace the general US History course. It was particularly targeting their Mexican-American Studies courses. The legislature (led by Tom Horne) were concerned that students were taking classes where they learned about racial oppression and the language to describe it. The bill’s language was obviously carefully crafted to avoid causing too much controversy, but their intentions were clear throughout the multi-year process. What continues to perplex me is the fact that Gov. Brewer could have allowed the bill to become law without her signature, and could have avoided taking responsibility for yet another racist bill. I cannot stress enough that neither SB1070 nor this bill were her brainchildren; the sponsors had been running them for years. I’m not absolving her of responsibility, but these weren’t her ideas.
@Juniper: No, Joe is not running for governor. I’m convinced that his “consideration” was intended to bolster his contributions for the Sheriff’s election, and to poise him for an aggressive statement against the Board of Supervisors in Maricopa County. When his buddy Andrew Thomas stepped down to run for AG, the BoS appointed his replacement. Both he and Arpaio knew this would be the case, and Arpaio’s “change of heart” occurred soon after the announcement of Thomas’ replacement. It gave him an opportunity to blast the BoS while supposedly making the difficult decision to only terrorize Maricopa instead of the entire state. He is facing a contempt hearing for refusing to turn over financial documents to the Board. However, he and Thomas won an enormous legislative victory this year, when the body decided that certain investigations into elected officials’ activities were not subject to public information requests. I’ll find the language.
The line about banning classes “promoting resentment toward a race or class of people” has been used by those who defend institutional racism and accuse those from backgrounds other than the dominant group of stirring up resentment and trouble. The fact is ethnic studies is not about promoting resentment towards a class or race of people as the myth would have it be. It is not about hating Anglo-Americans any more than it’s about playing the race card. For years, these groups have been marginalized and why be afraid of getting their point of view? This is but an excuse to silence these voices who do bring up a difficult but necessary truth for those who have benefited and are privileged from institutional racism. Are the ethnic studies classes open to just the members of that particular ethnic group? Treating pupils as individuals sounds great in theory and so too judging someone by the color of his or her skin. However, that noble rhetoric has been co-opted by those who have a stake in keeping institutional racism (systematic practices and policies within institutions that disadvantage certain racial and ethnic groups) alive to squelch ANY challenge to the status quo. We are told that racism is a thing of the past and that we are told that to bring up racism is just to be an agitator or to play the race card. They have co-opted that rhetoric to silence any dissent when it comes to the dominant group’s preferred definitions of racism which are regulated to the past as a relic, never to be touched again, because it supposedly does not exist. Institutional racism has gotten sophisticated to the point where it embraces a feel-good let’s all get along line that does little to address or challenge the status quo. Insofar, it is akin to liberal multicultural which celebrates all cultures without challenging the status quo much like critical multiculturalism does. These ethnic classes are dangerous to the dominant group because they bring a perspective that differs from the curriculum that our state standards teach us, state standards designed not to “offend anyone” nor to bring up “tough questions.” Why is it that only when the pillars of institutional racism are challenged does it become controversial and contentious?
ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP. So, no more traditional American history classes that are designed primarily for white pupils? Teaching kids that American was discovered by Christopher Columbus, or that American history starts when the white people get to the continent, that’s going to be banned from now on? And no more teaching “English literature” by white writers only? Sounds good to me. Of course redesigning the entire bloody English and History curriculum is going to be pretty damn expensive, but, in the long run, probably worthwhile. Banning the ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS. So Arizona kids are going to be taught about the evils of the KKK and their modern-day heirs and the evil legislation that white solidarity leads to? Or do you suppose it’s actually going to be more about targeting Hispanic and Mexican kids and their sense of ethnic solidarity in a majority-white school, than educating white kids in the far greater dangers presented by white ethnic solidarity in a majority-white school ?
Politicalguineapig, do you seriously think that’s a helpful comment? Every time there’s a discussion of a problematic state law like this, someone on the liberal front always has to pop up and say “oh just secede already” or “let’s let Mexico take them, lol.” I’m here to say…not funny at all. Can’t we focus on actual solutions, instead of attempting to write off whole states full of people?
As a Texan, I am always shocked and appalled when somebody outdoes our backwards, reactionary educational hi-jinks. I hereby call on our august State Board of Education to up the ante and declare the Earth 6,000 years old and declare that the Battle of the Alamo was because General Antonio López de Santa Anna wanted to import salsa from NEW YORK CITY. P.S. But like your states are so great either.
Jesurgislac: The first option sounds pretty cool, doesn’t it? I personally would’ve loved it if we had a more diverse reading list in school. But I suspect it’s more about targeting the Hispanic kids, sadly enough. Ghigau: At this point, I am for anything that reduces the number of malevolent stupid people in the country. Education isn’t working anymore. And some states are just too toxic to be considered worthwhile.
@ norbizness, NEW YORK CITY!!!! (man I miss those commercials) @Politicalguineapig, Kindly STFU with your classist elitist bullshit.
A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IN THIS STATE SHALL NOT INCLUDE IN ITS PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTION ANY COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:…2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE. Is it my imagination or did AZ just outlaw the teaching of history? I can’t think of any way to teach history that is even remotely accurate that doesn’t promote resentment…maybe extreme cultural relativism, i.e. “Yes, white people in the south kidnapped people from Africa and kept them as slaves for many generations, but you have to understand the pressures they were under and not blame them for that little faux pas.” or “The US government invaded Mexico without provokation and took half their country, but the intentions were good. Who could blame them for it when they sincerely believed in their own superiority.” Come to think of it, sounds a lot like my jr high history class…
I’m surprised no one brought up the history leading up to all this. “In the 1990s, Arizona hired hundreds of teachers whose first language was Spanish as part of a broad bilingual-education program. Many were recruited from Latin America. Then in 2000, voters passed a ballot measure stipulating that instruction be offered only in English. Bilingual teachers who had been instructing in Spanish switched to English.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/arizona-ethnic-studies-cl_n_558731.html Now all this. And now there are no more ethnic studies classes that involve how white people treated pretty much any new culture they touched. Super. Because white kids shouldn’t have to hear what their ancestors did wrong. That way they won’t feel bad when they repeat it. I agree with Diane. If you want to portray history truthfully at all you need to admit that white people trashed everyone else’s culture, language, and religion then turned it on it’s head and tried to make money off it.
Oh, and like Rachel Maddow I want to point out that the group that helped write this delightful pile of racist manure does in fact have *gasp* ties to racist groups and ideas! Omifreakingod! Who would think!? http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/04/29/4222854-post-show-factcheck-dan-stein-of-fair
I agree that history classes would be affected by this law, assuming that the history class actually does teach this correctly. I remember a couple of history classes in junior high and high school that were so “everyone is lovely, let’s all sing kumbaya!” – it was beyond irritating. This law is such a mess…
@norbizness: One of AZ’s esteemed state senators, Sylvia Allen, beat you to the 6,000 year old punch in a public hearing on uranium mining. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtzJhTfQiMA Not the same as the BoE declaring it, but /headdesk worthy nonetheless.
I know this should probably wait for Sunday, but I’ll be out of town, so: I wrote a post about this issue–and its connection to AZ’s other recent minority policy moves–on my own blog. If you’re down for an angry left rant, please: http://ramshacklearray.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/arizona/
There’s actually a separate policy which is specifically targeting bilingual education. It’s not part of this law–rather, it’s an extreme interpretation of a clause in NCLB that says that teachers who work in federally funded programs for English learners must speak fluent English. Arizona is interpreting this to mean that they can reassign teachers “with an accent.”