"Ethnic studies" banned in AZ

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Trebla,

Next time you should tell the jerk that "Wetbacks" have been in the U.S. Southwest a hell of a lot longer than any of the Whites. What an asshole.

[SwordoftheMorning]

Fine. But that doesn't require high school level courses that focus only on one race or ethnicity.

Flow,

The issue with this law isn't about REQUIRED course in various and different ethnicities. It's about the fact that it bans ALL of them, elective, required, whatever. That leaves only the myopic "color-blind" version of history that by definition assumes all good and great things American were/are done by White males.

I was posting from my Palm earlier today, since this site is blocked at my job, so I couldn't reply to all the points made I disagreed with. Like your statement about parents et. al. in regards to this law "wouldn't even permit a challenge to a course unless that course focuses on a single ethnic group". I fail to see where that's specified anywhere. And the fact is, people can sue for just about anything they feel like in this society. To state that it wouldn't be allowed is at best disingenuous. This law can and mark my words WILL be used to remove almost any ethnic study courses in AZ.

The "Lets design a perfect course with a few weeks of study on each ethnic/minority group" logic is so fatally flawed as to be almost insulting. I had to take 4 years of history and social studies in HS. And took it every year in elementary school. So that's 12 ( ok, 9) years of American History with a complete focus on the White male dominated greatness. The tokenism of a "few weeks" in regards to the ethnic contribution to this country is what I'd term insulting. The vice-principal at my HS was a Tuskegee Airman. Not only did they NOT mention the contributions of Blacks in the history of WWII, I had no idea there was a squadron of Black Fighter pilots until I was grown, in the army and happened across a book on them. I didn't find out my Principal had been a member until my 20 year reunion.

Thats what I think you are failing to see. SO much of the history taught completely and totally leaves out any mention of the day to day contributions of minorities in this nation. I had NO idea Juan Saguin (sp) fought at the Alamo with Crockett, Bowie etc. even tho the Alamo was highlighted as a part of "American" history. We studied the Indian war's of course, but the 9th and 10 Calvary ? The fact that over 75% of the eligible Black males enlisted to fight in the Civil War ? Not a mention. The term, the "Real McCoy" ? the fact that he was a Black inventor that held so many patents that were ripped off so much people began to demand if the product they were buying was ... the "Real" thing, How many school kids know that ? I knew Chinese worked on the transcontinental railroad, but the truth about what that entailed was once again not something I was given any clue of as a schoolboy. The fact that by some estimates, 50 percent of the "cowboys" of the American west were Black or Hispanic, was a point once again not mentioned to us as school kids. There is so much more, I see a lot of people here commenting that they had a lot of classes in Black/Hispanic/Asian/Native history in America, but as long as I've been on this board, I've repeatedly come across members, some very educated, that are astounded at these facts, they simply got even less of this information in school then I did.

Things have improved, considerably. Partly due to the exponential increase in classroom instruction about different groups. This law is in my opinion, an attempt to roll back that progress.

ETA.

Eric Michael Dyson, the "hip hop professor" now at Georgetown has an interview on CNN where he makes the most salient point I've heard or read all day. Horne's claim this is not a racist law falls flat on its face by his very admission that it was specifically targeted at the Tucson Hispanic Studies course.

[TrackerNeil]

Let me ask: Were there any courses being taught in Arizona that fostered resentment towards members of another race? Or is this law banning something that never existed? If it's the former than maybe there's a point to this law; if not, seems to me someone's stoking the fires of xenophobia for political purposes.

[The_BlauerDragon]

The levels of outrage, the bias of the press coverage, and all of the various groups that are doing their various types of boycotts and protests over this law are making it very difficult not to support it. If it weren't for the fact that Sheriff Joe is in full support of it, I might have even been won over by now.

[BloodRider]

It's not what "I" find inoffensive. It's giving the taxpayers the right to choose what they wish to fund with their money. Now if it is a public college for which tuition is completely free, and students pay nothing, than I think it is perfectly appropriate for the taxpayers to set limits on what should or should not be taught. The alternative is just nutty, IMHO. But in general, I think colleges should have a lot more academic freedom than high schools.

Actually - I think that idea is truly nutty. Knowledge of subject matter should trump John Q. Taxpayer every day of the damn week. Unless you want to bring public education down to the level of a "Death Panels for Medicare" shouting match. Should taxpayers have input? Hell yes. Do they get a trump card? No fucking way. Paying taxes do not make you educated, well informed, or even a decent participant in society. It is a necessary, but far from sufficient condition to being a contributing member of society.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Actually - I think that idea is truly nutty. Knowledge of subject matter should trump John Q. Taxpayer every day of the damn week. Unless you want to bring public education down to the level of a "Death Panels for Medicare" shouting match. Should taxpayers have input? Hell yes. Do they get a trump card? No fucking way. Paying taxes do not make you educated, well informed, or even a decent participant in society. It is a necessary, but far from sufficient condition to being a contributing member of society.

Yeah, teachers are all infallible experts, always motivated and guided by universal truths rather than their own personal beliefs.

And when some radical social studies teacher starts teaching a version of history to which you object, or the science teacher stops discussing evolution and teaches only creationism, I'm sure you'll be just as eager to defend their "academic freedom".

[ztemhead]

*does a driveby in the thread*

so all this recent crap in Arizona- first the law stating you can carry your gun into bars and restaurants, then the one saying concealed carry is no longer needed, that anyone can walk around carrying a pistol in their pocket. (and yes I am happy to see you) Later on we have the law about "reasonable suspicion" of who is or is not in the country legally, and now ethnic studies are banned, except in certain circumstances.

So which bill does governor Palin-Lite choose to veto, despite being passed almost unanimously? The one allowing motorcycles to split lanes in traffic. If I'm in a line of stopped cars at a red light, and there's a wide open six feet next to said cars that's not an official "lane" I still have to wait just like everybody else. Thankfully I can now carry around my gun on my hip in said traffic.

[The Iceman of the North]

Thankfully I can now carry around my gun on my hip in said traffic.

Just remember to use plenty of sun block. Don't want any misunderstandings.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Flow,

Well, I don't agree with your reading of the law.

According to the link on the first page:

The new law forbids elementary or secondary schools to teach classes that are "designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group...."

A course that addresses multiple ethnicities would not be directed towards a "particular ethnic group". I think that's apparent on its face.

It wouldn't be someone suing the school. It would be the school suing the state to restore funding. Second, I don't think that any of those courses will actually be eliminated. All they'd have to do is modify whatever it was that was causing the problem, or battle publicly over whatever particular issue was causing the dispute.

But, if you are right about how the law will actually be applied, I'd agree with you in opposing it.

Who said it was perfect? I didn't take any courses in high school that were perfect.

You and I are about the same age. When I went to school, I was taught that Native Americans got screwed, slavery was a horrible thing and that discrimination continued long after slavery was ended, that many immigrants were treated like shit by people who'd been here longer. The Mein Kampf version of history you assume is the focus of every school that doesn't have courses dedicated to specific ethnicities doesn't reflect any reality I ever saw.

I was referring to a course whose sole focus is ethnicity. That by no means implies that the rest of the curriculum should be whitewashed. The ethnic contribution to this country should be reflected in every social studies course where it is relevant, including all American history courses. To the extent it is not, those texts need to be fixed.

My vice-principal could have been a one of the flag-planters on Iwo Jima for all I ever knew of his background, so I dont' think that has anything to do with race. As for the Tuskegee airman, they deserve to be covered in regular history classes. The solution to such omissions isn't to have black-specific courses. It's to include that stuff in the courses that every kid is required to take. That's my entire point. How the hell do things improve if only kids who sign up for the "black" course learn about those contributions?

Seriously, Sword, I could better understand an argument that opposes such courses precisely on the ground that it amounts to concealing from white kids the contributions of black Americans.

You gave the example of Juan Saguin. Well, guess what -- he's not going to be mentioned in your black studies course. And the Tuskegee Airmen aren't going to be mentioned in the Mexican-American course. And neither will be mentioned in the Asian-American course. How can you be advocating that? It's like a more insidious form of separate but equal.

Then that is a problem with the basic history courses themselves. It is not a justification for race-based educational fragmentation. That solution just makes the problem worse.

[alguien]

To paraphrase the great Jon Stewart, if the states are the "laboratories of democracy", then Arizona is the meth lab of democracy.

[The Progressive]

It's worrisome that various polls are showing broad popular support for the Arizona laws. I see several similar laws popping up soon in various other states.

[Annelise]

It's worrisome that various polls are showing broad popular support for the Arizona laws. I see several similar laws popping up soon in various other states.

My theory is this, along with the law itself, is feeding the anger against this latest move by Arizona. I'm guessing that Hispanics aren't feeling much love.

ETA: I would add that Horne is obviously not the man to sit in judgment of these programs. If he does, it can only make matters worse.

[sologdin]

so, any opinions on the constitutionality of the statute?

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.

does the state statute usurp federal functions? is it permissible to prohibit language in a state school, preusmably with federal funding, when that language would not be proscribable under brandenburg, and does it matter that this is not a criminal proscription?

beyond that, what is the appropriate evidentiary burden and standard vis-a-vis a finding of "designed primarily for a particular group"--and does the current arrangement under sec. B of the statute (granting the superintendent power to make these findings) deprive affected persons of procedural due process to the extent that there is no opportunity for hearing?

and who the hell has standing to challenge the state statute? the penalty clause regards a withholding of funding to the school in violation. can students challenge? teachers? or just the local district subject to budget reapportionment?

[phoenix_rising]

It's worrisome that various polls are showing broad popular support for the Arizona laws. I see several similar laws popping up soon in various other states.

Kinda tells me that something needed to be done. maybe AZ is wrong....maybe not.

Maybe this will poke the Feds to do their jobs....

[TrueMetis]

1. Promote the overthrow of the United States government.

Were the hell was that law 250 years ago? Alright guys time to bow back down before the monarch. :bowdown: Or is this going to become another fight? :fencing:

[Shryke]

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.

How the fuck does one teach history without doing this?

Is Arizona gonna redact everything from Columbus leaving Europe onward from their history classes?

[Mad Monkey]

How the fuck does one teach history without doing this?

Is Arizona gonna redact everything from Columbus leaving Europe onward from their history classes?

Boy, Howdy, when I was larnin' about that there Civil War I sure got me a mean hatred against them bastid Johnny Rebs!

It would be easy to teach history without promoting resentment toward a race or class of people, as long as it wasn't deliberate, I'm assuming. You can't, say, have a Black Power class because that would promote racist attitudes towards white people, but you can have a class that presents the facts dispassionately. Presumably, the state's historians would create a curriculum to make this task as easy as possible for local school boards. I mean, the Arizona legislature wouldn't be that lazy to not create some sort of guideline to assist the government in implementing its laws, right?

[Annelise]

According to the link on the first page:

To the extent it is not, those texts need to be fixed.

[..]

How the hell do things improve if only kids who sign up for the "black" course learn about those contributions?

As to that, I would ask what is being done to address these things, aside from attacking the solutions that arose from a lack of action in the first place. It's wonderful to say we can do better, so long as we actually do better. If there's no will or ability to do so, it should be left alone. Something important is being taken away and, so far as I have seen, there are no concrete ideas and no serious commitment to replacing it. That's wrong.

[Shryke]

Boy, Howdy, when I was larnin' about that there Civil War I sure got me a mean hatred against them bastid Johnny Rebs!

Yeah, cause the Civil War sure is analogous to, say, what happened to most of the Native Americans. Or black people. I'm sure they've gotten over all that history shit right?

It would be easy to teach history without promoting resentment toward a race or class of people, as long as it wasn't deliberate, I'm assuming. You can't, say, have a Black Power class because that would promote racist attitudes towards white people, but you can have a class that presents the facts dispassionately. Presumably, the state's historians would create a curriculum to make this task as easy as possible for local school boards. I mean, the Arizona legislature wouldn't be that lazy to not create some sort of guideline to assist the government in implementing its laws, right?

Hahahaha. Oh god, the jokes...

[Mad Monkey]

I know I phrased it in a silly way, but that's actually a question. I do not live in Arizona, so I don't know if the state has a specific history curriculum that schools can use to devise programs. On its face, the law's main problem is that it's too vague; it prohibits something that might be a bad way to solve a problem but doesn't suggest an alternative way. Supporters might argue that the alternative is obvious, but if you can't trust schools to make the decision in the first place then why not just dictate to them what should be offered instead to meet the educational standard. I think Arizona does, but I'd never be able to get our skilled reporters to even look into that when they've got a great racial narrative thing going on.