"Ethnic studies" banned in AZ

[Galactus]

I think you're being painfully naive. In wonderful theory, you could write a curriculum than equally represents everyone in single course, but its incredibly difficult,

Yeah. Teaching everyone about everything is, quite literally, a lifetime's task if not more. History is a HUGE subject. Inevitable you're going to be making choices about what you're going to teach: This IS going to be affected by your biases.

A good bit of history education is trying to get people to recognize their bias so that they can state it in the preface to their essays, saves time for everyone :P

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Hey, the victors get to write whatever they want in history books and fuck anyone who doesn't like it. Why shouldn't those in charge of the schools in AZ get the same rights. I mean, I might have had some really bad feelings about my government if I hadn't been taught about the BATTLE of Wounded Knee and the MASACARE at Little Big Horn.

[Red Sun]

I don't understand why all of that stuff can't just be part of the regular history curriculum. American history is full of winners and losers, atrocities and victims. If it was all presented from a non-biased point of view, I'm not seeing the problem; especially if students are allowed (even encouraged) to participate in class discussions and complete projects and papers on aspects of history that they feel strongly about one way or the other.

Ideally I would agree with this, but I think it's very often a problem of scope not just of bias. I also don't think that the history of the different ethnic groups in the U.S. should be boiled down to a history of battles. History is more than just winners and losers, it's the whole human experience of the past that shaped the present societies. I can not speak for the curriculum of American History, since I don't have knowledge of the matter, but for example with regards to the immigration history in Germany, I consider it absolutely important to include Turkish history in the curriculum in a larger scope than just "the rise and principles of Islam". I could imagine that a deeper understanding of Mexican history or the history of other South American countries could set the "U.S. American experiences" in a larger context and contribute to a better understanding of Hispanic immigrants who came to the U.S. with their own heros in mind. Simon Bolivar and Benito Juarez are fascinating persons with an important legacy.

Having a more inclusive curriculum also doesn't stop at history, I think it is even more important to introduce the children to a larger scope of literature. American literature has more roots than english speaking immigrants, and I think it is very important to raise awareness of all contributions to the body of American literature, not just a selected few mostly white men and occasional women.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW, I think you're being painfully naive. In wonderful theory, you could write a curriculum than equally represents everyone in single course, but its incredibly difficult, and more to the point - do you see it happening?

Of course you can't make it exactly equal, but Social Studies courses routinely have to balance such issues already. And similar such "survey" courses already exist in colleges, so I don't see it as being impossible to generalize them to the high school level. As to whether it will happen, I'd expect that some schools are already doing it. And if they're directed to take the survey approach rather than the tunnel vision approach, I expect a lot more would.

Because making the Arizona curriculum more multiculturally integrative is not something anyone is attempting to do - but they are trying to ban 'ethnic studies'.

I don't agree with that. I think they are trying to ban single-ethnic group courses that are divisive. That's not the same as banning courses that address ethnicity.

I have no idea what that is, to be quite honest. No one here would imagine that its in any way natural not to teach jewish and arab kids different curricula, for example.

Let me get this straight -- you're saying that it is routine to teach Jewish and arab kids in your country different curricula? Is that because there is a religious component to the instruction, or just because someone thinks its not a good idea to give all kids the same basic education based on on their race?

You apparently want to deny even the option of learning something not tailored for everyone, and are really assuming that its not going to default into the majority again.

That's not true. I support a mandate to teach about different ethnic groups, as part of the regular social studies/history requirement at least. And not for any "pro-ethnic" reason, but just for the sake of historical accuracy. But I absolutely oppose high school level courses that deliberately focus on only one race.

They are here, and I assume there are publicly funded colleges in Arizona too. Should they stick to what you find inoffensive too.

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.

[Reek]

Ideally I would agree with this, but I think it's very often a problem of scope not just of bias. I also don't think that the history of the different ethnic groups in the U.S. should be boiled down to a history of battles. History is more than just winners and losers, it's the whole human experience of the past that shaped the present societies. I can not speak for the curriculum of American History, since I don't have knowledge of the matter, but for example with regards to the immigration history in Germany, I consider it absolutely important to include Turkish history in the curriculum in a larger scope than just "the rise and principles of Islam". I could imagine that a deeper understanding of Mexican history or the history of other South American countries could set the "U.S. American experiences" in a larger context and contribute to a better understanding of Hispanic immigrants who came to the U.S. with their own heros in mind. Simon Bolivar and Benito Juarez are fascinating persons with an important legacy.

Having a more inclusive curriculum also doesn't stop at history, I think it is even more important to introduce the children to a larger scope of literature. American literature has more roots than english speaking immigrants, and I think it is very important to raise awareness of all contributions to the body of American literature, not just a selected few mostly white men and occasional women.

I don't see how we disagree in any way. The bottom line though is that public schools have to teach a curriculum. Some stuff is going to get left out. The only thing we can do is present accurate historical information with as little prejudice as possible and hope that students take an interest to study some particular aspect in more depth.

[Lummel]

It's not beyond the wit of educational authorities to draw up more inclusive curricula. Many a long and weary year ago when I was still at school we spent half a year on the major world religions in our Religious Education classes, so a non-denominational look at the life and ministry of Jesus, the five pillars of Islam and the life of the Prophet Mohammed, an introduction to Hinduism and so on. One could design, sorry for the horrible name, a cultural studies course that aimed to open the eyes of the students to backgrounds and cultures of other groups.

Mormont referred to Section 28 earlier which I thought was spot on. Arizona is throwing the bady out with the bath water. Are there any atested classes of teachers preaching the overthrow of the US government under the cover of Ethnic Studies class? If so sack them. However by legislating to restrict this programme of studies the result will be that schools and teachers will not want to say anything that remotely suggests the vaguest hint of even fair criticism of past actions or events in American History for fear of loosing their jobs or funding.

Worse the political establishment in Arizona will end up erecting a mighty shibboleth whereby discussion of repealing the law, even if it is never used, will become a political hot potato. Anyhow isn't the whole idea for Republicans and Democrats to try and capture the votes of these citizens rather than trying to suggest that they are habouring an anti-government fifth column?

[Datepalm]

Let me get this straight -- you're saying that it is routine to teach Jewish and arab kids in your country different curricula? Is that because there is a religious component to the instruction, or just because someone thinks its not a good idea to give all kids the same basic education based on on their race?

The same education dosen't mean identical education. Of course Arabs and Jews (and Druze, and Secular and Religeous and Really Religeous) have different curricula. Language and religeon to start with, and then literature - why should an Arab kids have to read piles of Jewish literature that dosen't speak to them? And History - why would a Jew have to study in depth the history of the Shia Sunni split? Its not that Jews don't read any Arab writers or Arabs don't learn about the holocaust, but its a question of scope. Something has to go. You try being the minister for Education who tries to get Shay Agnon replaced with Najib Mahfouz in a jewish school - or vise versa. Or maybe get rid of Chekov so you can have both?

I don't agree with that. I think they are trying to ban single-ethnic group courses that are divisive. That's not the same as banning courses that address ethnicity.

I just don't understand what that mean. Of course they're devisive, they're about a single group. But in that case they should ban western history too. Having these courses seems to me like a way of dealing with devisivness and giving scope and prominence to minority history/lit/experience.

[alguien]

Yup, good thing the Department of Education doesn't have to power to put a stop to this. Education decided at a local and state level without supervision is a GREAT idea. :rolleyes:

[tzanth]

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. Teach the boston tea party in all it's glory. Teach the western expansion and the ass kicking of the mexicans. But don't caveat with 'we should still be pissed at the english for what they did to our fore fathers' or 'We should go out and kick the shit out of some white folks/hate the government for past crimes' That type of logic/instruction is destructive at best.

So basically you want a racist version of history taught in schools. Got it. :stillsick:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The same education dosen't mean identical education. Of course Arabs and Jews (and Druze, and Secular and Religeous and Really Religeous) have different curricula. Language and religeon to start with, and then literature - why should an Arab kids have to read piles of Jewish literature that dosen't speak to them? And History - why would a Jew have to study in depth the history of the Shia Sunni split?

Well, we don't teach religion in that sense over here, except in terms of whatever purely historical relevancy it may have. But good luck with all that ethnic/religious mess you guys have over there. Seems like whatever you're doing in those "we don't need to know the other guys' stuff" schools is working out pretty well for you.

[potsherds]

The huge amount of white privilege, and the complete ignorance of it, by some in this thread makes me ill. (Literally, I just ate and wish I hadn't.)

American history as it was when I was taught it not too long ago, was a nasty mix of propaganda and celebration of the default person: white, hetero man. I have no problem with ethnic studies being taught in high school, and people of color should be fucking pissed at the history of this country. They have a right to be angry and a right to speak their mind. That some white men feel threatened by the education of peoples of color about their particular histories and cultures, and the fear of these people simply being angry is nothing more than the whining complaints of those who enjoy their privileged status and will use all the power their privilege has given them to keep it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It's not beyond the wit of educational authorities to draw up more inclusive curricula. Many a long and weary year ago when I was still at school we spent half a year on the major world religions in our Religious Education classes, so a non-denominational look at the life and ministry of Jesus, the five pillars of Islam and the life of the Prophet Mohammed, an introduction to Hinduism and so on. One could design, sorry for the horrible name, a cultural studies course that aimed to open the eyes of the students to backgrounds and cultures of other groups.

So what's the problem?

Mormont referred to Section 28 earlier which I thought was spot on. Arizona is throwing the bady out with the bath water. Are there any atested classes of teachers preaching the overthrow of the US government under the cover of Ethnic Studies class? If so sack them. However by legislating to restrict this programme of studies the result will be that schools and teachers will not want to say anything that remotely suggests the vaguest hint of even fair criticism of past actions or events in American History for fear of loosing their jobs or funding.

As I said, my reading of that law would make it inapplicable unless the course focused on a single race or ethnicity, which I frankly think is insidious enough as it is. You could be as critical as you wanted as long as the course was multicultural instead of unicultural.

Worse the political establishment in Arizona will end up erecting a mighty shibboleth whereby discussion of repealing the law, even if it is never used, will become a political hot potato. Anyhow isn't the whole idea for Republicans and Democrats to try and capture the votes of these citizens rather than trying to suggest that they are habouring an anti-government fifth column?

I agree with you on that. The people who passed this law should have urged, at the same time, the integration of the various ethnic courses into a single multicultural course. Apparently, the Tucson district already has an African-American course, a Mexican-American course, and Asian-American course, and a Native American course, and you'd at least be ahead of where you are now if you blended those four.

I don't know. The idea that we're going to improve this nation by encouraging members of each ethnic group to acquire tunnel vision with respect to their own ethnicity somewhat floors me. I'm honestly surprised that most people seem to approve of that single-ethnicity approach.

[Datepalm]

Well, we don't teach religion in that sense over here, except in terms of whatever purely historical relevancy it may have. But good luck with all that ethnic/religious mess you guys have over there. Seems like whatever you're doing in those "we don't need to know the other guys' stuff" schools is working out pretty well for you.

No, you've got it backwards. When a minister of education recently tried to promote teaching the Naqba in arab schools she got shouted down by right wingers. Obviously theres a value to learning a wider scope of history, of the middle east and of everywhere else too (and I think we really, really stand to do better. Israeli curriculum is a bit more jewish, but other than that its still overwhelmigly filled with white men.) but giving communities the autonomy to teach humanities in a way that more tailored and reflective of their culture is about tolerance, not antagonism. We just don't pretend something like history can be neutral. (And religeon is complicated - in secular school we learned a more or less academic approach to the bible - four editors, historical context, archeology, as literature, etc, but religeos schools naturally have a different approach.)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

We just don't pretend something like history can be neutral.

So it's better to teach two different versions of history?

[pika]

The huge amount of white privilege, and the complete ignorance of it, by some in this thread makes me ill. (Literally, I just ate and wish I hadn't.)

American history as it was when I was taught it not too long ago, was a nasty mix of propaganda and celebration of the default person: white, hetero man. I have no problem with ethnic studies being taught in high school, and people of color should be fucking pissed at the history of this country. They have a right to be angry and a right to speak their mind. That some white men feel threatened by the education of peoples of color about their particular histories and cultures, and the fear of these people simply being angry is nothing more than the whining complaints of those who enjoy their privileged status and will use all the power their privilege has given them to keep it.

And yet, when I went to school it was basically a parade of telling us how evil we were and how we all should feel guilty for stuff done in the past. If it wasn't slaughtering the Indians it was owning Slaves or forcing Chinese to work on our railroads.. We read tons of books about stuff like that too, it crept into English class with our summer book reports as well.

But that could be a geographical difference.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The huge amount of white privilege, and the complete ignorance of it, by some in this thread makes me ill. (Literally, I just ate and wish I hadn't.)

I don't recall anyone in this thread disputing that being white in the U.S., historically, has been better than the alternative.

They have a right to be angry....

Angry at whom, exactly? I'm honestly curious about that.

and a right to speak their mind.

Who said they don't?

That some white men feel threatened by the education of peoples of color about their particular histories and cultures, and the fear of these people simply being angry is nothing more than the whining complaints of those who enjoy their privileged status and will use all the power their privilege has given them to keep it.

Who said any whiny bullshit about "feeling threatend" or having "fear"? It's nothing of the sort. I just believe that if people view themselves and others primarily as members of different racial/ethnic groups, and self-identify that way rather than looking at what people may have in common across those lines, everybody is worse off. Most especially the minorities who think that way. And focusing on that crap when kids are still in high school is just going to make it worse.

[Reny of Storms End]

I guess I just had better teachers than most people on this board because my history classes in HS were not "The White History of America", but instead the whole history of America whether good, bad, or ugly.

As for this law, I can definitely see how it could get out of hand. However, I do have a question for the people who are totally opposed to it. It seems that the people who support banning the teaching of an Ethnic Studies course, are only supporting this if the course teaches "The Blanks History of America". So my question is: Why are you all opposed to "The White History of America" but not "The Blanks History of America"? If it is wrong to teach a history that only glorifies and exemplifies whites, isn't it just as wrong to teach a history that only glorifies and exemplifies non-whites? That seems to be what anyone, at least on this board, in support of this bill are saying.

To potsherds,

I don't disagree that people can or should feel angry about our history. But in the end what good can it bring about to teach a course that is solely there to make people angry? I don't mean to say that something shouldn't be taught because it has the possibility to make the learner angry at their nation/government. But also I didn't own any slaves or oppress any minorities in America, so why should a class teach people to be angry at me just because I happen to be white?

[Frog Eater]

And yet, when I went to school it was basically a parade of telling us how evil we were and how we all should feel guilty for stuff done in the past. If it wasn't slaughtering the Indians it was owning Slaves or forcing Chinese to work on our railroads.. We read tons of books about stuff like that too, it crept into English class with our summer book reports as well.

But that could be a geographical difference.

This is what I was thinking in this thread as well. We got plenty of white guilt for the horror that was slavery. I was plenty appalled at the treatment of native Americans. It was never a secret in our history classes that this country was founded by rich aristocrats unhappy about having to pay taxes, and then they built the country on the backs of the oppressed. That was not WHITE history, that was Amercian History. I dont think we need to have an ethnic studies class in public school that only teaches the evils done to a specific race. We can do better than that.

[Datepalm]

If it wasn't slaughtering the Indians it was owning Slaves or forcing Chinese to work on our railroads.. We read tons of books about stuff like that too, it crept into English class with our summer book reports as well.

I rather think that was taught becuase it, you know, happened.

FLOW - different perspectives on history. Yes, its better.

[Alexia]

I guess I just had better teachers than most people on this board because my history classes in HS were not "The White History of America", but instead the whole history of America whether good, bad, or ugly.

My history classes were the same. We studied slavery, we studied colonialism, we studied the treatment of the indigenous peoples. And we studied the Revolutionary War and Pilgrims.

Question for the Arizona people: are these ethnic studies courses electives?