"Ethnic studies" banned in AZ

[Commodore]

Academics can be cultural or geographic, but they shouldn't be race-based. This is a step in the right direction, away from identification by race. Mexican studies is one thing, hispanic studies is another. African studies is one thing, black studies is another.

And if race and culture are one in the same, that's also something we need to diminish.

We need to discourage race as an important part of one's identity. We should strive for the day when it's as irrelevant as eye color. Abolishing programs that elevate racial identity is a good start.

[Red Sun]

When the classes are called "Hispanic studies", how could they be considered as covering only one ethnicity? Shouldn't "hispanic studies" be okay even with the new law, since they cover several ethnic groups in itself. Isn't it a weird concept to consider "Hispanics" as a "racial" group when the name references to common language roots and not to skin colour?

[Mad Monkey]

Hispanic isn't usually considered a "racial" group though, you're right. It might be a jargon problem; race is such an arbitrary construct that you have to always keep checking that you and the person you're talking to are using the same definition. Can you do a class on cultures of Libya, Iraq, and Norway and call it "Caucasian Studies" or "White studies?"

[Old Nan]

Well, that's one way to cut down on costs, though tossing out the entire history department would be a better start.

[Red Sun]

Hispanic isn't usually considered a "racial" group though, you're right. It might be a jargon problem; race is such an arbitrary construct that you have to always keep checking that you and the person you're talking to are using the same definition. Can you do a class on cultures of Libya, Iraq, and Norway and call it "Caucasian Studies" or "White studies?"

If you go by skin colour that does not make any sense and "Caucasian" always makes me think of Afghanistan, but if you go by culture, you can very easily separate "Mediterranean Studies" (which includes all countries around the Mediterranean See and their influence on the Red Sea, the Black Sea area and the Caucasus) and "European" studies (for a momentary lack of a better word) which includes the different ethnic groups of Western, Northern, central and Eastern Europe and while there is a certain overlap between each cultural area (for example in France which belongs a bit to both groups), the common roots and influences within each cultural group are pretty strong.

In that light, Hispanic studies in the U.S. could just be a class about the different spanish speaking countries in South America and, well, Brazil. The people in those countries have all kinds of skin colours, but they have the use of a Romance language a their main language. However, even then, you could find different cultural subgroups, like the Caribbean area (including some coast parts of Columbia, Venezuela and the U.S.) where the dominance of Spanish is limited through Creole languages. I'm not so familiar with the other parts of South America and their cultural influences.

The U.S. has immigrants from all those different cultural parts of South America and has even part on some of those cultural areas, so learning about the ethnic and cultural varieties in the "Hispanic world" can only contribute to a richer understanding of U.S. History.

Man, and now I feel virtual envy for not being able to have a non-existence class on "Caribbean Studies". ;)

[MinDonner]

Man, and now I feel virtual envy for not being able to have a non-existence class on "Caribbean Studies". ;)

The field trips would be awesome!

[BloodRider]

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".

Nice. So many fallacies in one statement. You MAYBE have a point if I were saying that teachers should set curriculum. But I wasn't. I was saying that people who are experts in their field are likely better candidates to set curriculum than your average taxpayer. But apparently that point was too difficult for you to tackle.

Oh wait - no you wouldn't have a point since its pretty much a bullshit argument to say "this other group would do it wrong, so my group is perfectly suited for this activity." I mean really, we were not talking about teacher at all - we were talking about giving the taxpayers the ability to decide what goes into a state curriculum. Straw man much?

So to recap - if I want to know more about what should be in a biology textbook, we start with biologist - preferably a PHd. Similarly, if I want someone to develop a course on US history, I'd like someone who has dedicated some time and effort to the subject, and has some accreditation and volume of work to prove their worth. For education, I might go to a teacher, yes - they have experience and education in that field. However, paying your taxes is not enough accreditation for deciding how an entire state gets educated.

Oh, and apparently, if I want to learn more about using logical fallacies to argue moot points, I would go to a tea-party advocate lawyer on the internet.

Well, that's one way to cut down on costs, though tossing out the entire history department would be a better start.

Yes - thats smart.

Honey! The toilets overflowing!

Well, burn the house down then.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Nice. So many fallacies in one statement. You MAYBE have a point if I were saying that teachers should set curriculum. But I wasn't. I was saying that people who are experts in their field are likely better candidates to set curriculum than your average taxpayer. But apparently that point was too difficult for you to tackle.

School boards or other state agencies that set curriculum are elected. That means the curriculum is subject to the political process, which is generally not what people mean when they talk about "academic freedom". Hence, it is ultimately voters, not unelected teachers, who have the final word on curriculum.

If you agree with that concept, and simply disagree with me characterizing that as taxpayers setting the curriculum, fine. I'll retract my original shorthand phrasing of the point, and simply state that educators who select the curriculum must ultimately be subject to the voters through the political process rather than being permitted to indulge their philosophical whims at taxpayer expense.

Oh wait - no you wouldn't have a point since its pretty much a bullshit argument to say "this other group would do it wrong, so my group is perfectly suited for this activity."

That wasn't the point. The point was that if you believe that teachers or other educators should have finally authority to set curriculum, without a check by the political process, you will be powerless to prevent abuses. I simply gave examples of some abuses that most people here would agree are wrong to demonstrate why you can't have unchecked "academic freedom" at the high school level.

[Annelise]

We need to discourage race as an important part of one's identity. We should strive for the day when it's as irrelevant as eye color. Abolishing programs that elevate racial identity is a good start.

I think the problem is that this will be the only step. And that, to me, says "you are unimportant and irrelevant", rather than "we are ALL striving toward a post-race society." You sacrifice, not us.

Which is one reason why, I would guess, we are seeing protests. No one seems to want to listen though, it's just minorities being troublesome yet again. Why can't they just get over themselves? And the ones that do listen seem to do so in a paternalistic manner which is to say, it's being treated like a tantrum by a parent that knows best. These are steps backward, not forward.

ETA: I read that the students in the program in question did enjoy greater academic success than their counterparts; if correct, educators should look at why.

[Annelise]

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?

Evidently this is the plan:

KEYES: Are you going to file a legal challenge against this?

Mr. ARCE: Yes. We are - the district is not, but private citizens are going to file a legal challenge to this because we know that folks such as Superintendent Horne and some folks in the Arizona state legislature have already made up their mind, have already demonized what we are doing and are using this as a political platform to get elected into office. So we are going to file a lawsuit to protect these classes.

[Annelise]

Here's more on the claim that the students in the program have greater academic success, and why they developed these programs in the first place, why they are still needed and hopes for the future.

As I said before, the courses are open to all children and what we do know is that children that participate in our courses is that they perform better on our high-stakes -- our high-stake graduation exam.

They graduate at a higher rate. And the children in our program matriculate to college at a percentage that is 193 times greater than the national average. Our question is, given the academic success of the program, why are we being targeted versus being replicated?

KING: Well that is our question as well if what you are saying is true, sir. So let's walk through some of this. Tom Horn (ph), the state superintendent of the schools, he says that in Tucson they divide the kids into different races, African studies for the African- Americans, Raza for the Latino kids, Raza means race in Spanish, Asian studies for the Asian kids, Indian studies for the Native American kids. Is that what you are doing or does the superintendent have it wrong?

ROMERO: Absolutely incorrect. As I said before, these classes are open to all children. All children -- what we are hoping for is all children experience all of these different courses so that they have a better understanding, they create a better understand of who their neighbors are so that we can all create a better future together.

KING: You say open to all students. What is the representation if I were to show up for the African-American studies class or the Latino studies class, what I would find in the classroom in terms of how many students decide to take them? Is there a mix in there or do students self-segregate, if you will?

ROMERO: No, there is a good mix, but because of the culture relevance, what you are going to find is that a stronger representation from each of those cultures in those courses, just because the idea that the courses are more culturally relevant to their experience and to their culture, and which is not a bad thing. What we know, given the research, is that curriculum and pedagogy that is culturally relevant helps advance student's learning, helps create greater engagement, which leads to greater academic achievement.

KING: And I'm going to come back to Tom Horn (ph) one more time because he is driving the debate in your state, the superintendent of schools. He's talking specifically about your program in Tucson. He says in the Raza studies, they taught a very radical agenda, a separatist agenda. We have testimony from teachers and ex-teachers that they were teaching kids that they were living in occupied Mexico, that the United States is oppressive. They were making them angry -- fact or fiction?

ROMERO: Fiction -- totally fiction. What happens is what we are being -- what we are being accused of, what is being said to be anti- American is the idea that we examine history critically. We look at some of the less-favorable aspects of our history and we fully study those, but we don't study those as a means of pointing the finger. We study those as a means of drawing the understanding of what were the social policies and what were the social condition of those times so that our students are more critical and more aware so that we move towards a better future, we don't make those mistakes over again. It's important we fully understand what were the social conditions, social policies at the time so our students are aware so that we can move to a better future.

KING: So help me -- I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Help me understand why you think these classes set by themselves are necessary as opposed to, say in literature class, talking to Latino students and African-American students about the contributions of Mexican authors or writers or African-American writers or authors and then in science class, about the scientific achievements of those various cultures and in political science class, about the political movements in the various countries around the world, why not do it -- integrate those kind of studies in a regular class, if you will? Why do you have to do it separately?

ROMERO: That is the hope. At some point in time these courses and these topics become more fully integrated, but in our current state we are not there. In the current condition that exists in education, we are not there and because we fully understand the benefits of doing education this way in terms of exposing children to a much broader understanding of what has happened, we see the benefits in that and we just -- and we hope to move to that in the future but where we are at right now isn't the case. Hopefully in the future, what you just described becomes the status quo. Right now, that is far, far even from being the exception.

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1005/13/jkusa.01.html

Again, how is this a good thing, a good step when (so far as I know) nothing is being done to make it the status quo instead of the exception? When you simply take away an imperfect solution, that does have its benefits, without offering anything in return? Without that, it's obviously just divisive. Well done, we're really steaming toward post racial harmony now.

[Annelise]

By the way, after that incident in 2006 where the guest speaker said republicans hate Latinos.. Horne returned with a Republican Latino who spoke at another assembly. A small group of students walked out despite being told to remain by faculty. Horne said he'd never seen those students act like that before and said he didn't think they were learning that at home. That a one-sided dialogue was being promoted in the program. This is evidently when he decided to try to shut down the program.

Thus, his protestations that this isn't political ring hollow to me.

[The Iceman of the North]

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.

So I guess this means that the current history curriculum of most Arizona schools should be tossed?

[Swordfish]

Here's more on the claim that the students in the program have greater academic success, and why they developed these programs in the first place, why they are still needed and hopes for the future.

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1005/13/jkusa.01.html

Again, how is this a good thing, a good step when (so far as I know) nothing is being done to make it the status quo instead of the exception? When you simply take away an imperfect solution, that does have its benefits, without offering anything in return? Without that, it's obviously just divisive. Well done, we're really steaming toward post racial harmony now.

I'm not clear on how, if everything romero says is true, this curriculum would violate the new law.

Have the classes he's talking about been banned already? because if not I would be interested to see what exactly the lawsuit will be challenging.

[Annelise]

I'm not clear on how, if everything romero says is true, this curriculum would violate the new law.

Have the classes he's talking about been banned already? because if not I would be interested to see what exactly the lawsuit will be challenging.

My take is that they don't think they will get a fair shake from Horne. As the state superintendent, he can judge whether or not they are in violation according to the new law. The state board of education was also mentioned in that capacity, but I'm not sure how it's decided which person or entity gets final say. It could be positioning for an outside audit for the state board of education to consider?

As I mentioned before, I don't think Horne should be involved in that capacity either.

ETA: But it is private citizens, so I guess it can't be about the audit. I don't know, maybe solo will pop in with a thought on that.

[TrueMetis]

School boards or other state agencies that set curriculum are elected. That means the curriculum is subject to the political process, which is generally not what people mean when they talk about "academic freedom". Hence, it is ultimately voters, not unelected teachers, who have the final word on curriculum.

Which is a horrible way to set up education. You know the truth is not a democracy and all that jazz.

[Liadin]

And the children in our program matriculate to college at a percentage that is 193 times greater than the national average.

Children matriculating to college? There aren't that many children doing so, so I imagine it's a pretty small sample size. :P

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm not clear on how, if everything romero says is true....

It's not. The "193 times the national average" claim confirms that he's just spewing self-serving bullshit.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

By the way, after that incident in 2006 where the guest speaker said republicans hate Latinos.. Horne returned with a Republican Latino who spoke at another assembly. A small group of students walked out despite being told to remain by faculty. Horne said he'd never seen those students act like that before and said he didn't think they were learning that at home. That a one-sided dialogue was being promoted in the program. This is evidently when he decided to try to shut down the program.

Thus, his protestations that this isn't political ring hollow to me.

A program that is indoctrinating kids with that kind of one-sided political rhetoric should be shut down. I can just imagine the reaction here if you had a history course in which it was stated expressly that Democrats are evil. I don't think we'd be hearing quite as much about academic freedom.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

....When you simply take away an imperfect solution, that does have its benefits, without offering anything in return?

That's circular self-justification by that school board. The Tucson school board that established this tribalist approach to education in the first place clearly had the authority to establish an integrated cross-ethnic program instead. It chose not to do so. You can't argue the lack of a better alternative as an excuse for this "imperfect" program because the Board has the power to establish that better alternative if it so chooses.