As an Arizonan, I absolutely cringed when I heard that Arizona had passed a law banning “ethnic studies,” especially so close on the heels of the removal of the requirement for a permit to carry a concealed weapon and the infamous immigration law.
After reading the law (HB 2281), I was even more dismayed, though for different reasons. Read it yourself: who could object to banning courses which promote the overthrow of the US government, or which promote resentment toward a race or class of people, or which exclude all but members of a particular ethnic group, or which advocate treating students as ethnic drones rather than as individuals? But apparently this law was created to give the state the power to get rid of a particular course of studies at a particular school (see AZ Republic article).
This is wielding a legislative sledgehammer to (attempt to) kill a fly. Yes, it’s overkill. But more importantly, it’s probably not going to work, and can cause substantial collateral damage.
A lot of the classes I took when I was in grade school and high school might very well violate this law: they were designed by white people for white people, definitely promoted (white) ethnic solidarity (implicitly), and, one could even argue, promoted resentment against other groups (if they were so bold as to attempt to bring a different perspective to our white attention). In fact, I could see this law, with some minor wording changes, coming from a left-wing, liberal, ethnic/feminist/socialist/whatever lawmaker to combat the prevalence of whiteness (or maleness, if you like) in course content.
This is a law written by a member of the majority, from the perspective of the majority feeling threatened by something some minority is doing, but unable to look at the issue from any other point of view – indeed, not recognizing the validity of and therefore attempting to outlaw other points of view.
The law is too broad to be interpreted well, and could easily subject many school districts to lengthy, costly, ridiculous wrangling over course content. The State Board of Education and/or the Superintendent of Public Instruction are unlikely to be close enough to any particular school district to do a good job of micromanaging curriculum.
The part about promoting the overthrow of the US government is perhaps the trickiest part. In times where terrorism is so much talked about, the idea that a school district is teaching minority kids about revolution and uprisings is even more frightening to those of us in the majority. But is this really promoting the overthrow of the US government? Without actually going to the classes, I can’t know. But I do know that political protest is one of the tools for change protected by our constitution – the very first amendment to the constitution, part of our Bill of Rights. Our government is very good, but it’s not perfect; and occasionally it needs some change. Protest and solidarity have brought much positive change in this country. Like any other tool, they can be used for good or ill. But the fact that they are used does not necessarily mean the users are attempting to overthrow the government. This is part of the freedom that we so value in the United States.
Instead of attempting to shut down the alternate points of view, why not visit the classes, work with the instructors? Why not make sure that students from all ethnic groups learn about Mexican American history – which is quite significant for us in this part of the country? Why not, instead of attempting to eliminate other perspectives, take a look at the world from the other point of view, and then talk about it? Why not make sure these students know how to use the political process to make their voices heard? That’s what our government is all about – right?
Under the Sun(s) 