"Ethnic studies" banned in AZ

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

At least we seem to agree it is, in fact, about politics never-mind what Horne says to the contrary.

Well, in a technical sense, I suppose that's right. Removing inappropriate political indoctrination from schools is, by definition "about" politics. Although the removal of such indoctrination doesn't have to be politically motivated.

Unfortunately, for all that it's been 4 years in the works, the focus seems to be all about getting rid of the existing approach with no more than platitudes and lip-service to replacing it.

Again, this is completely circular. Platitudes and lip-service from whom? It is the primary responsibility of the school district itself to come up with such alternatives, and you're basically claiming that their failure to do so justifies keeping the current programs in place. These programs continue to exist in their current flawed form precisely because the administrators' goal is political indoctrination.

The statistics about success prove nothing, because correlation doesn't prove causation. It is entirely possible that the students who elect to take those pseudo-intellectual classes are the ones already predisposed to go to college anyway.

No matter how offensive you judge that particular program to be (without the benefit of an audit), that's an incomplete approach and I daresay, a bad one.

First, I would point out that according to what you guys are saying, Horne apparently has targeted only the Mexican-American studies program, and doesn't have a problem with the other three ethnic programs. That suggests to me that it is a problem with that particular program, not a more general bias against all ethnic studies, that is really at issue here. So why not look at that particular program?

But for some reason, nobody wants to discuss whether teaching that the Southwest U.S. is "occupied Mexico" is appropriate. Nobody wants to discuss the textbooks used and what they say. Or that the alarm was first raised about this program by a hispanic teacher hired to be the teacher of record for the program. The two books mentioned in the below link are....interesting.

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/DougMacE/16189

Or try this -- here's a link to the school district's own website discussing the program. I don't think an objective person can possibly view that without concluding that there is political indoctrination at the core of this program. I'm actually amazed they're so blunt about it, and it points out that Romero was completely lying when he denied that these ideas were being taught.

http://www.tusd1.org/contents/depart/mexicanam/index.asp

[alguien]

Now Texas is at it too

Nope, no reason at all that local and state level school boards shouldn't have to answer to some kind of national agency...

:rolleyes:

[Old Nan]

A national agency staffed by liberal technocrats or a national agency responsive to democracy, the way textbook publishers are when they kowtow to the Texas market?

[TerraPrime]

A national agency staffed by liberal technocrats or a national agency responsive to democracy, the way textbook publishers are when they kowtow to the Texas market?

I like how liberal technocrats are not part of democracy in this either/or situation.

Democracy - it's not for them liberals.

[Old Nan]

Well, of course they participate in democratic discourse as citizens, but technocracy, this notion that we need a panel of bureaucrats to enforce its truth upon us, is fundamentally antidemocratic.

[alguien]

A national agency staffed by liberal technocrats or a national agency responsive to democracy, the way textbook publishers are when they kowtow to the Texas market?

Liberal technocrats? What? How are textbook publishers a national democratic agency? I only ask because I work in educational publishing and it sounds like you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Well, of course they participate in democratic discourse as citizens, but technocracy, this notion that we need a panel of bureaucrats to enforce its truth upon us, is fundamentally antidemocratic.

As opposed to a purely profit-based corporation? Right... :rolleyes:

[Old Nan]

How are textbook publishers a national democratic agency?

Well, they aren't, and I never said they were. But they are responsive to the desires of the biggest markets, which is a quintessentially democratic impulse.

[TerraPrime]

Well, of course they participate in democratic discourse as citizens, but technocracy, this notion that we need a panel of bureaucrats to enforce its truth upon us, is fundamentally antidemocratic.

I don't know why it's "antidemocratic," let alone how it is antidemocratic in a "fundamental" way, to select a panel of experts to legislate and execute laws in areas where I, as an individual citizen, have no expertise in. Is it "fundamentally antidemocratic" to have a volunteer army and to hire mercenaries to enforce national security, too?

[Old Nan]

Well, "selection" is antidemocratic and "expertise" is undemocratic.

Is it "fundamentally antidemocratic" to have a volunteer army and to hire mercenaries to enforce national security, too?

Possibly, but I'm not smart enough to tell.

[alguien]

Well, they aren't, and I never said they were. But they are responsive to the desires of the biggest markets, which is a quintessentially democratic impulse.

Actually, they're bound by the practical costs of printing textbooks, which is the only reason Texas has any kind of pull at all.

Market-driven profiteering in an attempt to lower a book's unit cost is not a quintessentially democratic impulse.

[Sariel]

Well, "selection" is antidemocratic and "expertise" is undemocratic.

Possibly, but I'm not smart enough to tell.

expertise is undemocratic? You need to go a little more in depth on that one I think.

[Mad Monkey]

expertise is undemocratic? You need to go a little more in depth on that one I think.

I'll pretend to know what he meant, and say that if you allow people who know what they're doing to have more influence over a technical process than people who don't even bother to learn basic information about the topic, then that's the same thing as oligarchy ("divine right of experts"). It might be like the coroner system, where you would elect a random person with no medical training or knowledge to decide whether or not a dead body was the victim of murder, suicide, or witchcraft. Yeah, he might not be getting good data by poking at the spleen with his umbrella, but at least it's not fascism.

[Sariel]

Facism is bad. It all makes sense now.

[TrueMetis]

Now Texas is at it too

My only consolation is the Texas tank lives there, wonder what he got to say about it. Won;t have to wait long.

Well, of course they participate in democratic discourse as citizens, but technocracy, this notion that we need a panel of bureaucrats to enforce its truth upon us, is fundamentally antidemocratic.

Umm the truth is not a democracy? It is not a democratic process nor should anyone try to make it one. "bureaucrats" enforcing the truth is a good thing as long as it is actually the truth. People don't get to change the truth or history by a popular vote.

[Old Nan]

You know who else had an attachment to "the truth?"

[TrueMetis]

You know who else had an attachment to "the truth?"

Einstien? Darwin? Sir Issac Newton?

[Mad Monkey]

Einstien? Darwin? Sir Issac Newton?

Hitler. He accused the Jews, his hated enemies, of spreading "The Big Lie" which to me indicates that he prefers the "Big Truth" (so to speak).

[Datepalm]

Einstien? Darwin? Sir Issac Newton?

hitler.

duh.

ETA - beaten to Godwin. My life is meaningless.

[TrueMetis]

Hitler. He accused the Jews, his hated enemies, of spreading "The Big Lie" which to me indicates that he prefers the "Big Truth" (so to speak).

Are you saying Darwin, Einstien, and Sir Issac Newton are like Hitler?

[Annelise]

Although the removal of such indoctrination doesn't have to be politically motivated.

:lol: It doesn't have to be. If you want to give Horne the benefit of the doubt on that one, feel free. But I'd say your bullshit detector is failing if you do. Moreover, his self described thought process on how he decided this was a case of one sided political indoctrination should be scorned by anyone who supports critical thinking.

The statistics about success prove nothing, because correlation doesn't prove causation. It is entirely possible that the students who elect to take those pseudo-intellectual classes are the ones already predisposed to go to college anyway.

That's a convenient way of dismissing other people's superior experience and research, and without offering anything of substance yourself. Boo. :)

Or try this -- here's a link to the school district's own website discussing the program.

I posted a link to the district page for the program early in the thread, it's nothing new to me. I know you've claimed the academic results are bullshit, but I think that alone is enough to warrant a deeper investigation before passing judgment. And they will get a chance to appeal, so that's good.

That suggests to me that it is a problem with that particular program, not a more general bias against all ethnic studies, that is really at issue here.

That is not the law that was passed however, which he championed. Perhaps the only legal way to get at the Mexican studies program was to include the others, as well. Is that a good message? As to why not examine it - I don't have a problem with that except that I don't think it should be Horne doing the examining. I mean really, at this point, do you even think that's a good idea?

These programs continue to exist in their current flawed form precisely because the administrators' goal is political indoctrination.

So ethnic studies = political (liberal) indoctrination. Is that correct? If so, I can see why Horne's approach of lumping them all in together would be no skin off your nose.

Platitudes and lip-service from whom?

The state superintendent for one. He pushed a law affecting education statewide, but now addressing the same issue is below his pay-grade? His supporters for another - he obviously has them. Seriously, it's not their job to develop education programs, but even the governor and legislators could stump and push for the necessity of a plan B.

I'm hearing crickets.

But for some reason, nobody wants to discuss whether teaching that the Southwest U.S. is "occupied Mexico" is appropriate.

Well hey, you never seem to want to discuss whether pushing a religious agenda in public schools is appropriate and IIRC you have little to say on stuff like civil rights creating unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes, so it would seem we all have our hedge points. ;)

But since you asked, I'll pony up on occupied Mexico .. I'd want to hear more because they have emphatically denied it and because as others have mentioned, it is a matter of history that the U.S. conquered that land. Did the program go further and imply the US doesn't want them as citizens, plug overthrowing the US government & taking Mexican land back? Or is it part of a discussion re: different voices on that topic? I really don't know. ETA: I can say it wouldn't bother me if it was in the context of opposing viewpoints, that some consider it occupied Mexico and from there leading to a discussion about when, if ever, land ceases to be occupied. In fact, that level of discussion would be all kinds of awesome, IMHO.