As often happens, the Times used different headlines for the print and online versions of this article. The online version reads, “Rift in Arizona as Latino Class Is Found Illegal.” The print version, on the other hand, reads, “Citing ‘Brainwashing,’ Arizona Declares a Latino Class Illegal”–and “brainwashing” is a quote from Tom Horne, the man responsible for the law. You should absolutely go read the article for yourself because I think there are things in it that should frighten you regardless of your political leanings, but here are some of the things that stuck out for me.
To start with, here’s how the Times describes the law the Mexican-American Studies program has been cited as violating:
The Arizona law warns school districts that they stand to lose 10 percent of their state education funds if their ethnic-studies programs are found not to comply with new state standards. Programs that promote the overthrow of the United States government are explicitly banned, and that includes the suggestion that portions of the Southwest that were once part of Mexico should be returned to that country.
Also prohibited is any promotion of resentment toward a race. Programs that are primarily for one race or that advocate ethnic solidarity instead of individuality are also outlawed.
I don’t think anyone would disagree that an educational program, especially one funded by taxpayers, which openly advocated for the overthrow of the United States would be problematic at best, and, mostly because I am ignorant of the history of the southwest United States and Mexico, I am open to hearing arguments about why suggesting that those portions of the US that once belonged to Mexico ought to be returned threatens the United States in its entirety–though I also wonder if the Arizona legislators responsible for passing this law have a similar stance towards talk about land reparations in other parts of the world, where territory has been acquired by one nation through military action and returning that land, or at least part of that land, is understood to be the just thing to do. More, I am specifically not using the example of how the US took land unjustly from the Native Americans because I know that even the suggestion that true justice would require returning that land, even while acknowledging that such a thing is not really possible, would be considered by some tantamount to admitting that the US was founded largely by expropriating, often by force, the land of others.
What really disturbs me about this description of the Arizona law, and what I think should frighten anyone, regardless of their political stance, is contained in the second paragraph. A course which has as one of its learning objectives the understanding that white people are evil would of course be objectionable and should of course be taken off the books immediately, but how does one teach about racism in the United States without teaching that the lion’s share of racial hatred and discrimination has been in one direction, from white people (and overwhelmingly white Christians at that) towards people of color? And how does one teach that without engendering some anger and, yes, resentment on the part of people of color towards white people and the institutions of white supremacy? But what really frightens me about this component of the law is that it makes the educator/educational institution responsible for the emotional effect a class will have on the students who take it. If teaching students about the injustices of history, especially injustices perpetrated against them and their people, is not supposed to make them angry, what other emotions might the government want to manage in the classroom? What other topics might come under a similar kind of scrutiny?
And what the hell does it mean that a program should not advocate for ethnic solidarity? Or, rather, that it ought to advocate for individuality as opposed to ethnic solidarity–as if those two things were mutually exclusive? When I taught a class in Asian American literature, there was no way, of course, that I could stand in front of the class and include myself in the Asian American experience that literature articulates, but was I teaching about an ethnic American historical experience that the Asian American students in my class had in common? Yes. Does the fact of that experience suggest that those students are part of a particular history and that there might indeed be an ethnic identity–which implies solidarities of all kinds–that emerges from this history to which these students can lay claim? Yes. Does that claim obviate any sense that these students are still individuals within that identity? No. Does that identity somehow deprive students, by definition, of the individualism that is such an important part of United States culture? No.
Interestingly, of course, similar programs for Black, Asian and Native American students have not been found to violate this law, and I would be willing to bet that at least one of the texts found to be problematic in the Mexican-American Studies Program, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire, is taught in some of those other programs as well. (The other book cited in the article as having been found problematic is Occupied America, by Rodolfo F. Acuna.) Indeed, reading the article, it’s hard not to conclude that this law is more about the hurt feelings of Tom Horne, Arizona’s newly elected attorney general and formerly that state’s superintendent of public instruction. As the Times puts it:
Mr. Horne’s battle with Tucson over ethnic studies dates to 2007, when Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers, told high school students there in a speech that Republicans hated Latinos. Mr. Horne, a Republican, sent a top aide, Margaret Garcia Dugan, to the school to present a different perspective. He was infuriated when some students turned their backs and raised their fists in the air.
At the same time, it’s also hard not to see Arizona’s law as part of a trend towards sanitizing the racial history of the United States and removing from the classroom–and therefore, potentially, from the public discourse that emerges as the people taught in that classroom become the leaders of our society–any sense of controversy or conflict over that history. Regardless of Alan Gribben’s intentions, for example, this will be one of the results of his Bowdlerized version of Huckleberry Finn, and it’s hard not to see a sanitizing motive in the Republicans’ decision to leave out of their reading of the US Constitution those passages that refer to slaves as “three fifths of all other persons” or to things like prohibition; just as its hard not to see this motive in at least some of the changes the Texas school board has de facto imposed on the educational institutions of our nation through the changes it adopted to its social studies curriculum.
So much that is good about this country has come about because people were willing to teach and to learn the difficult parts of our history and to struggle for rights and inclusion because they were angry and resentful over the injustices they and those like them suffered. We do ourselves a disservice by trying to pretend those struggles never happened or that they did not happen they way they did or by watering down how we teach them so that the stakes do not appear to be as high as they were.
Cross posted on The Poetry in The Politics and The Politics in The Poetry.
Disjointed because I’ve been traveling, so forgive please any incoherency.
I see what you’re saying – but I also wonder how well we serve students when we promote narratives of white supremacy as a permanent and functional reality of American society. Those students who raised their fists at the Congressman – OK, obviously students are in the stupid phase of life, but at the same time, where are they planning to live and work? How well-served are they to “learn” that white America hates them and wants them to fail? Kind of turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don’t hate Jeremiah Wright, but damned if I would ever give him a job, or want to work with him.
Maybe it’s just because I’m coming off a week at Disneyworld, but we have got to all get along, and if soft-pedaling some elements of racial history advances that goal, maybe that’s what we need to be doing. So much of the ethnic-studies curriculum seems designed to foster permanent grievance and membership in smash-the-corrupt-state politics. We aren’t going to have an ethno-Marxist revolution in this country, ever. Encouraging people to build their lives around that “ideal” seems destructive to them, a last-gasp desperate hope of ideological people (very often white) for whom a gradually improving America is absolutely intolerable.
Some of the best lessons in my adult life about racism in American society came from a Latino professor at my state university – who was also the highest-ranking NCO in the US Air Force, and spent his life in service to the country. Would we be better off if that guy had instead spent his life trying to convince people to give back Arizona? I really don’t see it. He’s not worrying about irredentism, he’s worrying about individual character formation in American youth and culture – and a lot of white and brown and black people benefit as a result.
My kid spent some time on Tom Sawyer Island organizing wars between the evil Indians and the good settlers. Then they switched sides and played good Indians versus evil settlers. There were whites and Indians and Hispanics (no blacks or Asians at the time that I saw) playing the game. I think maybe we can all live with that.
The flip side of that is that everything I’ve ever read about La Raza studies in Tucson is that Latino kids in the program have better GPAs, better graduation rates and better college admittance rates – by significant margins – than other Latino students in TUSD, a school district that was until very recently under a federal desegregation order.
The Aztlan stuff (that’s the give back Arizona/Texas/New Mexico/California) is dumb and a relic of 1960s/1970s Chicano politics. It remains in the charter of the Chicano student group to which many of the Raza students belong and to which many of their teachers belonged in college. Teachers from the program are formal advisers to the student group. I’m honestly not sure how that stuff gets handled in the classroom, but I’m pretty sure it’s not a formal part of the curriculum, and it’s not an active part of any, uh, activism by the student group. They’re about the DREAM Act and amnesty for illegal immigrants and probably open borders, but they’re not really about giving land back. Should they take it out of the charter? Maybe, but at this point, doing so would look like caving to outside pressure and most likely wouldn’t change anything.
Horne has had it out for Raza studies for a very long time. This new law also forced the closure of several charter schools that worked primarily with native students and had curricula that emphasized native culture and language, along with all the standard stuff.
It’s kind of hard to explain all this without a sense of the racial dynamics in Tucson and in Arizona in general. Tucson is held in contempt in Phoenix, and part of that contempt is that Tucson was one of the last parts of Mexico to come into the United States, that it remains a place with binational culture. And the old Mexican families in Tucson, whose families have been here far longer than mine, were treated like second-class citizens for generations by the new Anglo elites. And of course now they once again get told to go back where they came from. I’m not really doing it justice. I only lived there for a few years, and this stuff runs really deep.
But those people – all the people that got conscious and political in college in the 1970s – they serve their community. They’re teachers and social workers and businessmen and cops and active duty military and city council members and congressmen. They’re all about making a difference within the system. I don’t think I’m in a good position to tell them what the right amount of resentment to feel is. They seem to be figuring things out pretty well for themselves.
(And this is where I get snarky. Good thing Jeremiah Wright doesn’t need a job from you, Robert.)
I remember a conversation I had with some friends who teach in a reservation school. She’s white, he’s Apache, from there. He’s from a family that is really rooted in tradition and largely intact, despite the best efforts of the boarding schools, but a lot of families aren’t. A lot of the kids they teach don’t know very much about their own history, but they know that white people (as seen on TV) have nice stuff and they don’t. Many of them, at a young age, in subconscious ways, draw the conclusion that there must be something wrong with them – they must be less intelligent, less capable. Learning about their history helps counteract that, helps them realize that they are just as smart and just as capable, but that they’re going to have to work harder because they have a lot of things going against them. That’s not bad. It’s absolutely necessary.
Sorry this is so rambling and incoherent. This development has been both a long time coming and yet so distressing for so many people I know who still live and work there. I can’t really imagine what it would be like to teach in that kind of environment.
I don’t think anybody much objects to “you’re smart and capable but it might be harder for you in some ways, so work harder and smarter”.
Just so long as they don’t teach any history along with that lesson?
Also prohibited is any promotion of resentment toward a race. Programs that are primarily for one race or that advocate ethnic solidarity instead of individuality are also outlawed.
This is a completely subjective standard. It means what Tom Horne thinks it means, and he decided that La Raza studies crosses the line because some high school kids were rude to his associate.
Robert,please correct meif I am misunderstanding this, but are you actually saying that the only way to get to a time when people of different racial backgrounds coexist harmoniously is to lie to a lot of those people about the injustices their ancestors suffered and to refuse to give them any context fot the consequences of that history for their lives today? That sanitizing history in a way that makes white people look better is the only way to go? Really?
Because hey, here is a different idea: maybe what needs to happen is not for minority students to learn less about these things, but for white students to learn more. Maybe if they understand the system issued faced- in the past and today- by minority people, it will be harer to blame their difficulties on all of them being “bad, lazy people”. Maybe realizing how much they profit from privilige, and how much iot hurts others, willmake them willing to actually work for a change towards justice.
But no,that would mean white people have to do actual work, to stop doing things that make members of racial minorities angry. Much easier to demand that minority students accept a sanitized, white washed version of “history” for the sake of “harmony”.
This is the very kind of racism that has convinced me to keep boycotting Arizona.
No, not to lie. But history is not an iron narrative with no room for interpretation. When you teach about, say, slavery, you can focus entirely on the racial ideology of southern slaveholders, and that isn’t wrong. You can focus entirely on the abolitionist movement, and that isn’t wrong. You can focus entirely on the wrongs done by white slavers, and that isn’t wrong. You can focus entirely on the internal slavery in Africa and the role of Islamic slave traders, and that isn’t wrong. You can focus on how slavery got started, or on how slavery ended, and none of that is wrong.
In reality of course you end up balancing these things. You talk about racism and abolitionism and everything in some combination. Few history courses on slavery look entirely at William Wilberforce, and few courses completely leave him out – but what you say about him (as one tiny example) is going to have a lot to do with how, say, black students are going to relate to white people going forward.
BTW, people, including white people, worked for change towards justice long before the modern progressive victimization narrative had any traction in education. You do not have to believe in the left-wing/academic ethnic studies view of racial identity politics in order to believe in racial justice, or to work for same. There’s more than one way to get to Philadelphia from here.
I was going to post on this story myself, but then the Giffords shooting happened and I got sidetracked.
I think it is quite evident that Mr. Horne has made this determination out of spite, and (particularly given the high degree of tension between the White and Latino population in Arizona right now) I think any reviewing court should give that determination full legal cognizance.
Obviously, I think it’s bad to teach racial hostility. But the problem here seems to be that an accurate recounting of history is the sort of thing that would justifiably make folks upset. I don’t have any problem with teaching about those White folk who have done great things with respect to race, but it’s simply misleading to act as if they weren’t aberrational for the vast majority of our nation’s history. There’s “alternative narratives”, and then there’s bad history. Moreover, teaching the history as the story of White people progressively “getting it” doesn’t provide any agency to the Black or Latino or Native American communities — it reinforces their status as objects, passive recipients of the abuse and later grace of the White majority, and it doesn’t provide any narrative elements by which they can build themselves up, as opposed to waiting for White justice to strike again. If anything, it is a far more “victimizing” narrative than the ethnic solidarity alternative, which tends to be very si, se puede (or, as the Black nationalists put it, “do it for self, brother”).
That’s why these programs are typically associated with higher achievement levels, not lower ones. Sure, they say “you’ve gotten fucked over, hard”. But any remotely historical program will teach that, and moreover, these kids are living their lives, so they’re going to know that anyway. But instead of saying “but then the White folks saw the light and it all got better, and if you’re good boys and girls they’ll do right by you too” — a very passive, objectifying, stultifying way of looking at it — it says “but our people fought back, and won our rights, and earned our spot, and if they can do it, you can do it too.” It’s the educational equivalent of a halftime pep talk. And, lest we forget, we live in capitalist, competition-driven system. There’s not only no harm in teaching kids to come out of school with a burning desire to fight for what they want, it’s the whole point.
https://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2011/01/08/arizona-orders-tucson-to-end-mexican-american-studies-program-nytimes-com/
This is a fairly typical pattern, with some new details for Arizona. Generally, teachers do a fine job covering any “controversial” subject, and can handle whatever individual students bring to the classroom pretty well. Some of the public – almost always social conservatives – try to legislate teaching from the outside. The thing is, the social conservatives invariably have a rigid, less nuanced, less tolerant and often less factually accurate view of the subject, whether it’s religion, race, history or something else. Generally, social conservatives support indoctrination versus teaching a critical thinking approach; it’s just that they angrily feel that their views aren’t being indoctrinated.
This case is very troubling, but not surprising. It represents another ugly intrusion into the classroom. I doubt Horne has actually read Pedagogy of the Oppressed, or Pedagogy of Freedom, or any other Freire. Obviously, Freire covers power dynamics, but he’s remarkably pro-student and also addresses not seeing one’s self as a victim or moving beyond that – re-defining the dynamics. That’s still going to be seen as far too dangerous by someone like Tom Horne. (The Tempest is also an excellent pick for that class.) I’d like to see Mr. Acosta’s class myself, hear from those five critical teachers, and hear from the students.
Sounds good in theory, but it’s harder in real life, because you end up at the obvious question: Which context?
To use a deliberately simplistic example: if you support “restoring historic Harlem,” do you aim to return it to its occupation by lots of Dutch, non-black, people, or its occupation by lots of black, non-Dutch, people?
To use a more realistic example: When teaching about historical actions which don’t equate to current morality, how do you present people’s choices? Are people viewed as a “product of their time?” Are they compared to current morality? Where do you draw that line?
Or, to use general language: How do you decide which current conditions get attributed to past circumstances beyond our lifespan, which things get attributed to past choices we have made in our lives, and which things in the world get attributed to current choices within our control?
Where do you draw the lines of history?
It’s blindingly obvious that there are a lot of ways to do it. It would be an unusual convergence of idiocy and hubris to imagine that one’s own personal view is objectively “right,” given the multitude of choices.
My own preference: doctrine either way isn’t a great subject for public high school. It’s a less than ideal setting, being (a) government sponsored; (b) mandatory; (c) aimed primarily at minors; and (d) generally involving less choice and more oversight.
The OP claims So much that is good about this country has come about because people were willing to teach and to learn the difficult parts of our history and to struggle for rights and inclusion because they were angry and resentful over the injustices they and those like them suffered. but AFAIK that tended to take place in higher education or real life more than a public school classroom.
So, by teaching the actual history of white supremacy in America we are also teaching that white supremacy is a ‘permanent and functional reality’, which will teach Latino kids to stop doing their math homework; therefore we must, literally, whitewash history. Whahuh?
I don’t think it will make students stop doing their math homework. I do think it will focus their attention on historical realities that they aren’t really yet equipped to deal with adequately. In kindergarden we tell kids that the Earth goes in a circle around the sun. In high school we tell them that the Earth goes in an ellipse around the sun. In college we tell them that the Earth and the sun move in an elliptical orbit around one another in a complex system. In grad school physics we tell them that gravity is a quantum function of information densities and that concepts like “orbits” and “ellipses” are huge oversimplifications for children.
It wouldn’t serve us to tell kindergardeners that.
Now, we aren’t talking about kindergarden or physics – we’re talking about history, which is enormously more complicated, and where everyone has an agenda. You aren’t talking about teaching kids “the actual history of white supremacy”, you’re talking about *what simplification to teach*.
Some simplifications are going to be more likely to give kids positive feelings about themselves and their place in society than others, and I think that, perhaps, we should focus more on the kids’ needs than on the ideological preferences (of any stripe) their teachers would like create predispositions for.
G&W:
Except that public education is already chock full of doctrine and always has been. There too you need to ask Robert’s question–which is the question when it comes to teaching history–though I will amend it to, “Whose doctrine is getting taught and why?” And we have changed what gets taught in public schools in response to historical changes in how this society deals with race and gender, just to name two factors. Readings lists are more inclusive now than they were when I was in high school; my son, in 7th grade, learned about Columbus in the context of talking about Spanish imperialism, racism, slavery and Columbus’ massacre of the Taino (I think that’s the name of the tribe; I honestly don’t remember for sure), which never would have happened when I was that age.
The debate about what to include in the curriculum is an important one because the curriculum is always contested, political territory, and I think that there is nothing wrong with being open about the political nature of that debate. For example, I think it would have been great if some of the changes that will take place in textbooks because of the Texas school board decisions had been debated more fully; a curriculum that does not give just due to conservative movements, ideas and thinkers as players in history is a disservice to students and to us as a society, even though I might disagree with what those movements, ideas and thinkers stood for. What I find problematic about the Arizona law is how damned subjective it is. Terms like ethnic solidarity and individuality are open to interpretation in the application of such a law in a way that seems to me far more insidious than figuring out which facts need to be included in a history or literature or cultural studies curriculum and the interpretive context in which to place them.
I’m not saying I’m supporting the way this law has been applied in this fashion, but:
But what really frightens me about this component of the law is that it makes the educator/educational institution responsible for the emotional effect a class will have on the students who take it. If teaching students about the injustices of history, especially injustices perpetrated against them and their people, is not supposed to make them angry, what other emotions might the government want to manage in the classroom?
It seems to me that there is quite a bit of attempts by educators to manipulate or take into consideration the emotions of their students in one or another particular way – for one example, see where some schools refuse to use Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn in American Literature classes (and the recent edition that’s been publicized for school use that substitutes “slave” for a racial epithet). If educators do this, it’s no surprise that the people responsible for governing and funding them do.
It was the Taino.
I agree that the subjectivity of this specific law is extremely problematic.
I remember being in junior high and high school in extremely conservative places, and being quite irritated (even outraged) at the blatant bias in social studies classes. In college, I went to a very liberal place, and remember being quite irritated (even outraged) at the blatant liberal bias.
Objectivity is impossible in the social “sciences” but it does seem like people could try a little harder.
Dang it, I missed the last paragraph of this post before I wrote the above posting. There’s still truth in it, though.
As far as how the Constitution was read in the House, reading those sections you note would have been at odds with the purpose of why it was being read. The idea was to remind the members what the standard and foundation for American law is. Those sections you cite have been superseded by amendments and are thus no longer part of American law. Reviewing those sections is a good thing to do if you are teaching a course of the history of the Constitution, but they have nothing to do with what is currently in effect.
An argument in favor of reading the repealed parts of the Constitution is to remind everyone that that the Constitution can be changed, and sometimes should be.
They read the parts that cover that process. Strangely, judges inventing new rights wasn’t in there.
Another way to look at this is as part of the continuing advance of right-wing idiocracy. These culture wars are not meant to be won, but to be continuous; a hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. It’s the same reason why religious nuts put “warning” stickers about evolution on my child’s biology textbook.
Robert, so you’re advocating that we just let kindergartners believe the sun goes around the earth, because we don’t want to freak them out early.
Perhaps you need another analogy, because it’s simple to teach history along the same trajectory. These are, after all, the same public schools that are teaching about diversity and opportunity and how anybody can grow up to be President if he or she works very hard and tries. I don’t think that admitting that there are some people who still have sad ideas about skin color is going to make the kids have an untimely SAN roll.
I’m not even getting into the hilarious notion that Latino kids had no idea racism existed until their high-school teachers pointed it out. Fuck, man, you mean there are people who call my parents ‘wetbacks’ and hassle me because they assume I don’t speak English? WHO KNEW?!
Yes, it’s possible to teach history on the same trajectory, which is pretty much what I’m advocating here. The academic ethnic studies curriculum which is filtering down into the high schools, really belongs in the colleges.
Because those are bastions of lib’ruls anyway so what’s a little more? Because teenagers are too immature and stupid to comprehend anything to do with ethnic studies? Because if a kid doesn’t go on to a liberal arts studies program, fuck ’em, they didn’t need to know that shit anyway?
The bill doesn’t, you will note, require ethnic studies to be taught like any other subject – that is, in an age- and grade-appropriate manner. Nor does it fold the subject of ethnic studies into history or literature, where it will get some context. It’s simply “don’t talk about these things and don’t even suggest anything bad about white people, ever.”
Except it really doesn’t say that.
38 E. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT:
39 1. COURSES OR CLASSES FOR NATIVE AMERICAN PUPILS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO
40 COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW.
41 2. THE GROUPING OF PUPILS ACCORDING TO ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, INCLUDING
42 CAPABILITY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, THAT MAY RESULT IN A DISPARATE IMPACT BY
43 ETHNICITY. H.B. 2281
– 2 –
1 3. COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE THE HISTORY OF ANY ETHNIC GROUP AND
2 THAT ARE OPEN TO ALL STUDENTS, UNLESS THE COURSE OR CLASS VIOLATES
3 SUBSECTION A.
4 4. COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE THE DISCUSSION OF CONTROVERSIAL
5 ASPECTS OF HISTORY.
6 F. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT
7 THE INSTRUCTION OF THE HOLOCAUST, ANY OTHER INSTANCE OF GENOCIDE, OR THE
8 HISTORICAL OPPRESSION OF A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE BASED ON ETHNICITY,
9 RACE, OR CLASS.
Link: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281s.pdf
An argument in favor of reading the repealed parts of the Constitution is to remind everyone that that the Constitution can be changed, and sometimes should be.
That’s a good argument for studying and teaching the no-longer current portions of the Constitution. But that was not the objective of the House that day.
I quite agree that some changes in the Constitution would be useful. I doubt that you and I would agree on what changes should be put in place, though.
Robert:
The academic ethnic studies curriculum which is filtering down into the high schools, really belongs in the colleges.
mythago:
Because those are bastions of lib’ruls anyway so what’s a little more? Because teenagers are too immature and stupid to comprehend anything to do with ethnic studies? Because if a kid doesn’t go on to a liberal arts studies program, fuck ‘em, they didn’t need to know that shit anyway?
Right now we are getting poor results from our current instruction in basic subjects such as science and math and English. Not to mention basic history such as when the Civil War was fought, and basic civics. We need to put more resources and time into them and less into stuff like this. Certainly we should teach about some of these things in context. I’ve got no problem with bringing up things such as the Holocaust during the study of WW II and Wounded Knee in the study of that period of American history. But independent ethnic studies programs need to be pushed back into the colleges and leave the instructional time for essential subjects that we are well behind the rest of the world in.
Matt:
It’s the same reason why religious nuts put “warning” stickers about evolution on my child’s biology textbook.
What State do you live in? Or is this the local school board?
Robert,
You’re making an argument that we need to put kids’ needs above our ideological preferences.
What’s your basis for saying that these kids are ill-served by these programs? Do you have evidence that they do poorly in school or have more trouble getting jobs or anything like that? Or are you going off your personal feeling that these programs go too far?
Political indoctrination of high school students to the extent that they think one of the two major parties in the countries is automatically their enemy – to the point of declining to show even ordinary courtesy to government employees of that party who visit their school – seems self-evidently ill-serving.
Also, as Ron said, with schools failing to perform basic educational missions, political classes seem an unaffordable luxury. It is said that these kids are scoring higher than kids not in the programs – but nothing shows causality, and in fact I’d suspect that it’s the higher-performing kids who take the classes, rather than the classes causing higher performance.
Robert,
I agree the kids were rude. But you know … when I was in high school, I had an extremely black-and-white view of politics. And that was without any leftist political indoctrination from my teachers (in fact, quite the opposite).
I’d attribute the back-turning, fist-raising incident to the same correlation, not causation. If I were 16 and brown, the idea that I should be forced to listen to a mid-level bureaucrat defend the Republican Party because someone who is a civil rights legend made a controversial statement would be pretty insulting.
Also, the typical Republican voter or the typical Republican politician might not hate Latinos, but if you grew up in Arizona, you could be forgiven for making that mistake.
If your last sentence is true, how is that a part of the failure you highlight in your first sentence?
If kids who take those programs score higher and it’s due to those programs… win, right?
If the kids who take those programs are higher-performing students, wouldn’t it be a waste to keep them in classes teaching the basics?
I can’t see anything detrimental to your stated view of education there.
Yes, but to what degree?
Some doctrine is centrist; some is more to the left or right. Public education doctrine IMO should stick to the relatively centrist view, because it’s the view that results in fewer of these types of discussions. Often this can be done by ducking.
So, for example:
1) Slavery was bad but we’re all happy now. There’s not really any race in America any more. POC in bad situations have only themselves to blame, just like everyone else.
2) Slavery was bad. There is a lot of discussion and debate regarding the outcome and process of slavery and how we might or should, individually and as a country, address slavery-related issues. However, that’s not something we’ll be covering in this class. Here’s a list of books which you might find interesting, across a variety of viewpoints. You can study the subject more in college if you’re so inclined, or read about it on your own.
2) Slavery was bad. People are in agreement that whites bear responsibility for slavery, and that this responsibility is inherited and global–it doesn’t matter if you’re the poor white son of a poor immigrant from a country where whites did not owned slaves; you still benefit from white privilege. Privilege 101 says…
Taking position #2 isn’t denying or whitewashing anything. It’s merely a decision not to address certain topics in the public school classroom.
To put it differently: What some folks like to refer to as “privilege 101” is anything but 101, taking as it does a whole enormous set of conclusions and moralities as the a priori part of the philosophy. It’s no less complex or fraught than “libertarianism 101” and IMO it’s equally unnecessary as a part of a public high school curriculum.
To confess to one of my assumptions: History (unlike math, or science, or languages) is not really cumulative. It makes you a better person to know more, but there’s no particular reason why you have to learn certain things at a certain point, at least not in many cases. Since I don’t believe there’s a huge harm in learning this outside of public school, it’s simple to conclude that there’s no great reason to teach it there.
So I do think it’s a real side track to argue about whether this stuff is true, or valuable, or worthwhile, or helpful, per se. Because even if it WAS all of those things, it still wouldn’t answer the question “should it be taught in public school?” Not everything that is worthwhile is taught; not everything that is taught is worthwhile; not everything that is worthwhile is remembered. (Dates of various wars? Hello, Google!)
I’m happy to assume for the moment that it IS all relevant, and true, and valuable. But my opinion is the same.
RonF @26: Then the problem is not “ethnic studies”, the problem is offering any elective classes whatsoever, no? Get rid of Chorus and Band and Digital Art and whatever else schools allow kids to take; if they have ‘free time’ they can sit in study hall and do mandatory homework.
gin-and-whiskey @31: Setting aside that nos 1 and 3 are caricatures, #2 is not only ludicrous but bad history. How can you study American history without studying the existence of slavery, its economic impact, the reasons it existed, and its echoes? “We’re not going to talk about Jim Crow or anything because, uh, slavery bad. Here, go read a book.”
Mythago, I’m trying to summarize this in a short post; give me a bit of slack here. Obviously you’re not going to skip over civil rights wholesale, but it’s possible to cover quite a bit of stuff without getting to, say, privilege theory.
Also, when looking at this, I was specifically distinguishing between past and ongoing issues. You can teach about the Holocaust without addressing whether or not we should currently grant reparations to Jews. You can teach about past discrimination against women without discussing the current feminist movement. And you can teach about U.S. racial history without getting into some of the current issues related to racial disputes or imbalance.
Would it be better to include current issues? Sure, in theory. But it’s not realistic IMO. And it also opens the door to opponents who want to include their (perhaps much worse) own interpretations. It’s also a lot more controversial, which brings its own sets of problems.
If you think that american history should require a full treatment of the complete civil rights movement, the current status of POC, the direct or implied role of whites in all this, or anything else, that’s your right. Very few people appear to agree with you in the legislature, however. And since you presumably don’t want your equivalents in the conservative movement to have their side taught to high school students, I would ask how you imagine that you could move the country away from the center only in one direction.
gin-and-whiskey @33: Can you teach about the Holocaust without teaching about the existence of anti-Semitism today? (Heck, can you teach about American history without teaching about anti-Semitism?)
Privilege theory does not, as your caricature would have it, require teaching that all people of a certain paleness level bear collective guilt for racism.
And when you’re so afraid of “privilege theory” and “somebody might be mean to white people” that you’re willing to sanitize history and toss current events out the window – well, isn’t that what political correctness is? Mustn’t frighten the little darlings with a bit of disagreement, so we’re going to pretend that racism ended in 1864 and nobody except that Hitler fellow was anti-Semitic?
Programs that promote the overthrow of the United States government are explicitly banned, and that includes the suggestion that portions of the Southwest that were once part of Mexico should be returned to that country.
Parts of the Southwest were once part of Mexico. Holding your breath until you turn blue and refusing to acknowledge it won’t change that fact.
If teaching any bit of history that might provoke resentment against a certain group is banned, are they also no longer teaching the American revolution (might provoke anger against British), the Alamo and Goliad (resentment against Mexicans), Pearl Harbor (resentment against Japanese), etc? Or is it only resentment against patriotic, white Americans that’s a problem?
Did they cover the part where the Constitution defines Corporations as people with the same rights as people?
Oh, damn. That’s a right-wing invented right, isn’t it? Let me guess, that’s different.
—Myca
If you think that american history should require a full treatment of the complete civil rights movement, the current status of POC, the direct or implied role of whites in all this
Teaching American history without reference to the civil rights movement or the status, current and past, of POC, is a bit like teaching electromagnetism without reference to partial differential equations: It can be done, but is much harder and you end up with an incoherent mess that makes very little sense in the end. Leaving information out to make things “easier” doesn’t serve anyone in the end.
Is that a trick question? Sure, you can. In fact, plenty of people do.
You can’t easily pass over that stuff if you’re teaching “what it’s like to be a Jew” or “current issues regarding Judaism” or “kyriarchy in the U.S.” or “Seminar on Israel-US relations.” But if you’re teaching a general world history class or a U.S. History class? Sure.
I’m struck here by what seems to be your complete unwillingness to accept anything other than a black and white approach.
Can’t we acknowledge Hitler without addressing the Israel / Palestine question? Can’t we acknowledge and discuss the civil rights movement without getting into critical race theory?
you’re setting up these ridiculous straw men of “no Civil War!” but that is not at all what I’m talking about. Sure, it’s incomplete. But public school history will always be incomplete, by necessity.
Has anybody ever studied the civil rights movement or anything that happened post 1960 in history or social studies? I mean, sure, we did MLK good during Black History Month, but actual social studies never got past WWII. I thought that was the big joke.
It’s really weird, though, to read people saying we should teach history without teaching the actual conflicts that history is (are?) about. It sounds like a really good way to guarantee history class is really boring and nobody pays attention or learns anything because it’s all completely irrelevant to anything going on today.
Oops. That was me, not some “g” person who is new. Perhaps a mod can fix it…? [Done! –Amp]
That’s funny: I first took physics in high school, before I learned much about calculus and before I knew anything about PDAs. (Come to think of it, pretty much every college I know offers something like “physics for non-science majors,” a/k/a “physics without calculus,” a/k/a “high school physics.”) But I learned some physics anyway.
Similarly, while I am absolutely positive that my world and U.S. History classes failed to address many of the implied and specific issues relating to, say, the Vietnam War, I learned a lot more about the war than I knew before the course.
And while I am absolutely positive that I did not get taught all of the historical perspectives on the civil rights movement–much less any of the then-current perspectives on race relations–I learned a lot more than I would otherwise know.
Parts of the Southwest were once part of Mexico. Holding your breath until you turn blue and refusing to acknowledge it won’t change that fact.
That’s not the problem. The problem is teaching that those parts should be returned to Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztl%C3%A1n
Scroll down to “Use by Chicano Movement” and then “Controversy and Criticism.”
It’s really hard to have conversations like this without looking at an actual syllabus/curriculum. G&W is absolutely correct in the abstract–though I know he’s trying to be more concrete than not in the thumbnail sketch examples he’s giving–that it’s necessary in K-12 to make choices that tend towards “simpler” versions of history, both because of the age of the students and the requirements of standardized testing. Nonetheless, my son got a damned good (age and grade appropriate) lesson in the complexities and depredations of European imperialism when his class studied Columbus. (And he is in a public school and is not in any sort of advanced classes.) The devil is in the details, so I am wondering if someone here who does teach K-12 might be willing to give us some specific curricular questions we can sink our teeth into.
Come to think of it, pretty much every college I know offers something like “physics for non-science majors,” a/k/a “physics without calculus,” a/k/a “high school physics.”)
Mine too. A friend was taking this class while I took the regular physics class. His class was actually harder because it made no sense! The equations and rules appeared out of nowhere and were simply something to be memorized whereas in the physics class I took (with calculus) everything held together and one equation flowed naturally from the other.
I think there’s a similar problem going on when people try to get “politically correct” about history and pretend that the civil rights movement has no relationship to the civil war or that the current situation in Israel/Palestine is completely unrelated to the Holocaust. Of course, history as taught in school will be incomplete but making arbitrary cuts like the AZ legislature appears to be trying doesn’t serve students well. It makes the classes both less informative and harder.
OK, I am really sure this is not what I’m saying, but given all these types of responses perhaps I am somehow being unclear. So I’ll try one more time: I DO NOT think that those things are irrelevant or unrelated. In fact, I have specifically stated that for the point of this argument, I’ll imagine that everything you’re talking about is both relevant and related.
I simply do not think that “relevance” or “relation” is, sufficient justification to be in a particular high school history class, or in a public school curriculum at all.
To use your specific example: Yes, it would be very odd not to acknowledge the Holocaust w/r/t the formation of Israel, and it would be odd not to acknowledge the formation of Israel w/r/t the current disputes between Israel and Gaza. And it would be very strange not to acknowledge the disputes between Israel and Gaza if you were studying current US-Middle East relations.
But those things are not true in reverse. One can look at the holocaust and study what it was about without going down the road of the modern-day results of the holocaust. One can study the legislative choices made during Israel’s formation without needing to take a stand on the rightness or wrongness of either Israel or Palestinians in the current disputes. And so on.
And even those “prior requirements” are glossed over. Surely you can’t be expected to understand everything that really led to the holocaust, in order to explain Israel’s formation. Let’s say you’re a teacher and you’ve got an hour of lecture time and 15 pages of reading material to cover Israel (which would really be a lot.) Do you think you’d be able to convey much?
In fact, israel might be a good example for the “things can be too controversial to end up in the public school curriculum” argument. Who wants the “current Israeli affairs” section to be taught from a pro-Zionist, anti-Palestinian, perspective? Who wants the section to be taught by a pro-Palestinian, anti-israel, perspective? Or, who thinks that the best (not ideal) compromise might be “don’t get into that particular subject, in that forum?” I’m in the last group.
gin-and-whiskey @38: And it just so happens that we “simplify” out anything that might possibly suggest any uncomfortable topics? That’s an astonishing coincidence.
Certainly, it is possible to teach about American history in a sanitized fashion, just as it’s possible to teach about the Civil War without ever mentioning slavery, or without ever admitting that slavery was the reason for secession.
I’m genuinely puzzled about this ‘black and white approach’ (har har) that you think I advocate. I’m not the one glooming about how the choices are to eliminate any discussion of ethnic studies behind “but all that’s behind us now”, or some variation of Why White People Suck 101. Truly, you can’t possibly imagine any happy medium between those two?
By the way, you know that bill that was the original subject of the post? It isn’t about setting aside comparative ethnic studies. It explicitly prohibits “any promotion of resentment toward a race”. Whoops, there goes a discussion of slavery, unless we refrain from mentioning that in the US it meant white people enslaving black people. Whoops, can’t talk about the Holocaust, lest we invite a lawsuit where somebody claims Gentiles are a “race” and discussions of the Shoah invite “resentment” by Jews. And scratch that discussion of the Chinese Exclusion Laws.
Er, no. Actually, it’s part of the goal–I said that a few posts back. (at least it is, as I described it; you continue to overstate a straw version of what I’m saying.) But yes, a more centrist view would tend to avoid the more controversial topics.
You still haven’t addressed the other issue I mentioned: if you’re willing to take on controversy, how are you to be sure that the controversial teachings are going to be off-center in your direction, rather than off-center away from you?
Is there anything AT ALL that I could say to you which would convince you that I am not suggesting that we do not acknowledge important historic events as having never existed? I keep saying this, you keep stating my view wrong, and it’s gettin damn annoying. You know you’re doing it; please stop.
It stems from the stuff above.
Well, I can imagine a medium which will make a plurality of the public happy, though apparently not you.
Out of curiosity, would you consider the philosophy reflected in those two books, or the subject of state secession and return to mexico, or a wholesale rejection of the Republican party, to be inside a “happy medium” for all public school students? Would you consider the equivalent conservative stuff to also be in the same “happy medium?” I don’t, and I wouldn’t.
It’s hard to have a conversation with you when you neither seem to be reading my posts or the other ones. Yes, I know what the bill says. I’ve read it. You may want to read the excerpt in post #24:
6 F. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT
7 THE INSTRUCTION OF THE HOLOCAUST, ANY OTHER INSTANCE OF GENOCIDE, OR THE
8 HISTORICAL OPPRESSION OF A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE BASED ON ETHNICITY,
9 RACE, OR CLASS.
But yes, a more centrist view would tend to avoid the more controversial topics.
What is a “more centrist view”, and why does it require being politically correct? (That is, after all, what the current definition of “PC” means, isn’t it? Using euphemism and going into ridiculous contortions to avoid saying anything that might hurt someone’s feelings?)
Out of curiosity, would it be possible for you to present actual ‘centrist’ approaches to teaching about racial and cultural issues, rather than caricatures (“slavery wasn’t bad/white people are evil”) or dodges (“sorry, can’t talk about that, go read a book, on to the next thing”)? For example, it is entirely possible to teach about slavery without teaching that anyone lighter than a lunch bag bears ‘collective guilt’ for slavery; it is entirely possible to teach about how the US got Texas without instructing students that it’s immoral for us to keep it.
Is anyone seriously arguing that it’s OK for a public-school teacher to instruct their students to reject (wholesale or otherwise) a particular political party? I mean, really?
As for the bill, I don’t need to read ‘excerpts’ when Robert kindly provided a link. It quite clearly says, in 15-112 (A)(2), that classes shall not “promote resentment toward a race or class of people” (which is, actually, much broader and vaguer than the NYT summary suggests). Which puts it into direct conflict with subsection (F). So how is a school district, risking the loss of 10% of its educational funding, going to handle that gauntlet?
You seem to be mistaking my disagreeing with your points as not understanding them.
I don’t know for sure about the definition of PC, but I have a gut feeling you’re wrong. Skipping that, though:
Because it’s mandatory public school, which is an unusual situation for education. The goal of protecting students’ interests is greater in public school than it is most places: to some degree it is part of the schools’ job.
Also, students don’t like getting their feelings hurt. Generally speaking, their parents don’t like it either–and the parents vote. Oh sure, we might all agree to hurt their feelings IF we had some sort of consensus as to what was “right” enough to justify it… but as you can see from the OP, we’re far from that consensus on many issues. So the sides are often in an uneasy truce, where people would rather have a less-learned history then risk a wrong-as-each-of-them-defines it history.
But it’s not especially contortionist. There are a gazillion things we can choose to teach and there’s no way in hell that we can give students a real grounding of all the material in the time allotted. We’re ALREADY picking and choosing anyway. So if it comes down to it, there tends to be opportunity to avoid some of the most controversial (usually the most current) topics.
Can you lead a thread, and control side tracks? Do you believe that is contortionist? OK: can you lead a discussion of the U.S. in the 1950s–including racial issues–and gently steer the class away from discussing the 2000s? Not because you’re contorting, but because it’s not on the agenda.
See, you’ve done it for me. Nobody, including me, thinks that the factual underpinnings of Texas-in-US should be hidden from view. What’s the alternative: “and then God gave birth to texas?”
Then you get into the more-difficult questions revolving around morally judging the actions of people back then. there’s a lot more room for debate–and thus more room for error–but it’s OK, at least in my view.
Then you get into the still-more-difficult questions revolving about what we should do NOW, as the result/solution of what happened THEN. There’s much debate here, much less clarity, and more room for error.
The more we approach the “now,” the more that positions are controversial. So I will say that there’s a critical distinction between racial and cultural history and racial/cultural current issues. The latter is always more controversial. As a country, we’ve tried (and failed) numerous times to have a “conversation about race.” But that’s in the present tense. However, we don’t seem to have nearly as much problem talking about the history of it–the difficulty eases as we go farther back.
There’s a phrase, “the lens of history.” It grants perspective and allows for views to be filtered and considered over time. In the limited context of public school, IMO there’s quite a bit to be said for that approach.
I imagine they will read subsection F, which specifically allows for that stuff. When you have a general exclusion and a very specific authorization, it doesn’t make sense to ignore it. Those conflicts are common in laws. “No speeding allowed; irrespective of the prior section, police cars are specifically permitted to speed,” etc.
Also, students don’t like getting their feelings hurt. Generally speaking, their parents don’t like it either–and the parents vote.
Right. The people of Tucson voted for their school board members, who approved the Raza studies program. I wouldn’t say it’s a non-issue in Tucson, but it’s not even close to the biggest issue.
Out of curiosity, would you consider the philosophy reflected in those two books, or the subject of state secession and return to mexico, or a wholesale rejection of the Republican party, to be inside a “happy medium” for all public school students? Would you consider the equivalent conservative stuff to also be in the same “happy medium?” I don’t, and I wouldn’t.
Are you referring to Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Occupied America? I’m not familiar with the second title, but they used Pedagogy of the Oppressed in my Peace Corps training. As in, the U.S. government-sponsored program told us to take very seriously the things he had to say and use techniques he developed in our teaching. So … it’s not that radical.
The rejection of the Republican Party was not in the curriculum. Dolores Huerta, a civil rights legend, was invited to speak. I saw Huerta speak earlier this year, and she doesn’t come with prepared remarks. She tells stories from the old days related to whatever topic she’s been asked to talk about and interjects with whatever thoughts pop into her head. And she’s very partisan. She’s an activist. But that’s not the same as teaching hatred for the Republican Party in the curriculum.
On the subject of state secession and return to mexico, I’m not positive, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t actually in the curriculum, either. Like I said above, it’s in the charter of MEChA, which is a student group whose membership has substantial overlap with Raza studies kids.
None of this probably changes a thing about your position. I just want to be clear about what we’re talking about.
I very much agree with Richard @ 42. This discussion would be a lot more productive if we knew what was in the curriculum or had real examples to talk about.
@44: That argument works quite well for an individual teacher trying to decide what to include in his or her class this year. Certainly you can’t include everything and maybe the teacher wants to concentrate on another issue in more detail or simply doesn’t have time to follow events through to the current time. Not an issue as far as I’m concerned. It’s when the legislature forbids teachers from teaching certain aspects of history that I feel disturbed. Especially when, as in this legislation, the motive appears to be to avoid making those in power look bad.
It’s when the legislature forbids teachers from teaching certain aspects of history that I feel disturbed.
So do I… depending on what it is.
Can we agree that people have vast disagreement regarding many aspects of history, with some aspects developing more controversy than others? I ask that because it’s not clear that anyone here is addressing the “what about the other side?” position.
I’m not foolish enough to assume that my views are universal, objectively correct, or (even if they’re in the majority now) destined to remain in the majority. So when I balance a desire to have my views taught even over the objections of my opponents, I always consider the process as one in which my opponents could force their views to be taught over mine.
Taking “anti-semitism” as an example: the views on that are hugely divergent. In fact, the view that the U.S. is somewhat (or quite a bit) antisemitic is probably in the distinct minority. There are HUGE numbers of people in the U.S. who think that this is a Christian country, and that the Jews complain too much, and (without knowing numbers) there are probably a lot of people who may admit that the Holocaust happened, but wonder what the Jews did to “deserve” it.
So, do we really want to address antisemitism in the public schools? How do you think that is going to work, exactly? How do you think that an “open” discussion is going to avoid those unpleasant views? Frankly, I’d rather have a teacher duck the question or have the subject legislated as off-limits, than have them teach the majority-prevalent view that there’s no antisemitism in the U.S. at all.
Besides–and I keep bringing this up because I think it’s extraordinarily relevant–we’re only talking about in-class public schooling. The more culturally relevant something is, the more likely that it is accessible outside of class. Read a book, watch a show, listen on the radio, talk to peers or adults, join a group or church, form your own group… there are plenty of ways to pursue what you want out of class time.
Of course you do.
But you’re going back and forth on this. On the one hand, you scold me, it’s absolutely clear that the law doesn’t require us to sanitize history (even to the point of effectively lying through omission) because of subsection (F) – right there, plain as day, it says the law isn’t there to make us lie about history.
But then you whipsaw and explain that, you know, subsection (A) is right one: we don’t want to hurt students’ feelings in any way, and therefore if there’s the slightest chance we might do so, better to just leave it out and teach something sunnier. Which of course contradicts the whole point of (F), but hey, if a proposed law written by an elected official can’t keep its story straight, it’s probably unfair for me to hold you to a higher standard.
As for ‘conflicts are common in laws,’ when a law flat-out contradicts itself, it tends to be rather difficult to implement. Either it becomes useless, or (as often happens) it crosses some other law, like the Constitution and is discarded; or there end up being a lot of rather tiresome arguments, culminating in lawsuits, about how to implement it.
If we don’t flat-out ignore (A), then we gut (F). Because the only way to reconcile the two provisions is to say that of course teachers may instruct students about, say, slavery, but they must walk through the minefield of doing so in a way that cannot possibly hurt anyone’s feelings. (You know, like the kid who has a Confederate flag bumper sticker on his truck. (A) applies to him, too.)
But I guess that’s the point of your coy suggestion that we simply exercise the discretion we already exercise to pick and choose: simply skip over anything controversial entirely, like slavery or the Holocaust or the Chinese Exclusion Acts. Best stick to the First Thanksgiving and the Gilded Age, then. The kids can spend the rest of their time in Band or something.
Or perhaps math, reading and science.
Sure. No history, no Chorus, no Digital Arts, no actual literature*: math, grammar and hard science. The end. We could have shorter school days, too!
*It’s so tiresome to continually have to print copies of Shakespeare with the dick jokes taken out. And God forbid we have to get into issues about gender (Twelfth Night, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, The Taming of the Shrew) or race and religion (Othello, The Merchant of Venice) or whether violence is an acceptable response to hurt feelings (Henry IV).
G&W, there’s a big difference between a school deciding to avoid controversial subjects, and a legislature deciding to outlaw controversy only when it’s coming from the left (which is essentially what this law does). The law is written with a thin veneer of viewpoint neutrality, but it was not designed to have a viewpoint-neutral impact. Teaching a controversial conservative view of history — white people are always the heroic primary actors, America is always on the path to greatness, and where things go wrong (like with slavery) white people generously and nobly act to make changes — is not forbidden by this law at all.
I’m more of a “teach the controversy” than an “avoid the controversy” type. But neither one of those options is represented by this law. What this law represents is a conservative legislature using their power to shut up views they disagree with in schools. Even you think schools should avoid taking sides on controversies, you should oppose this law.
Robert, what I’d really like to see is a comparison that controls for the sample base used in the different countries. As I understand it, most other countries use some version of “tracking,” so that their worst students aren’t part of the sample by the these tests are administered. In contrast, we successfully graduate a much broader range of students, and our tracking is mostly informal. In essence, our average students are being compared to their AP students.
Maybe we really are way behind even when comparing similar samples. But I don’t think this legislation is a sincere effort to improve science teaching in US schools; it’s an attempt by conservatives to use the government to censor views they disagree with.
And by the way, what a lousy (and anti-free-speech) message this law sends to students. “If you politically protest a politician whose views you disagree with, in a civil fashion that does not prevent them from speaking, the legislature will stomp on you.” I realize that you conservatives are all delicate flowers who wilt if you ever have to witness a view you disagree with, but why can’t you people just get some goddamn thicker skins? Yes, if you’re a professional political operative, sometimes members of the public will disagree with you. Passing a law so that the Mean Mean Citizens will know better than to express their views again is an un-American, anti-freedom response.
As long as a view falls within the realm of current mainstream scholarship, I’m okay with it being taught in schools. Sometimes that means that far-left views will be excluded (as in economics). Sometimes it means that far-right views will be excluded (as in biology). Hopefully, within the range of current mainstream scholarship, schools will teach students that there are multiple views, and teach them to think critically about those views. But what we shouldn’t see is partisan legislatures passing laws outlawing views that fall well withing current mainstream scholarship, but aren’t a good fit with their partisan ideology.
Who should decide which views are represented in the schools, then?
If you say parents, via democratically-elected/governed school boards/school districts (my own instinctual response), then I inquire whether you support school districts that decide not to teach evolution.
If you say “me and people who think like me” then I commend your intellectual honesty, but it ain’t gonna happen.
Our 56 and 57 crossed. Evidently we are both attuned to what the underlying issue is.
“Current mainstream scholarship”? So if, say, the intrinsic-biological-differences-between-races crowd becomes mainstream (it’s been mainstream before, and could become mainstream again), it’s OK to teach that “Africa is poor because blacks are stupid” in history class?
Teach the controversy!
Clearly, no views should be represented in schools. If there is something that is in controversy – such as string theory – we simply don’t teach it. No electives, nothing other than math, English sans literature, and non-controversial science (I guess that means no biology either, but there’s always physics and chemistry to while away the hours). No electives, except perhaps languages, as long as they are not Spanish.
there’s always physics and chemistry to while away the hours
Or…not. Kansas outlawed teaching of the Big Bang theory. Not biblical, you know. Chemistry’s ok as long as you don’t get into any of the biological implications, I suppose.
Mythago: FYI, Section A and F don’t conflict — F is written as an exception to A (and anything else is the bill that might bar teaching about the Holocaust or the other events referenced in F). The way F is written (“nothing in this section shall be construed”) is pretty standard legislative-ese for demarcating an exception to a broader rule laid out elsewhere in a bill. Whether the rationale for providing the exception in Section F is coherent given the goal of Section A is another matter.
I think Amp is absolutely right in noting a difference between things which are controversial academically (where we want to teach the controversy), and things which are “controversial” because they happen to offend certain ideological commitments (in which case, my default stance is that they can suck it up).
I’m also dubious that a history which “makes everybody happy” is even possible, let alone desirable — I worry that “everyone” will be code for “David Broder”. Is there any evidence that the students enrolled in the Raza studies program would be “happy” with the “centrist” history proffered as a potential alternative? And isn’t it relevant that the students enrolled in these courses outperform those who aren’t (after all, the argument for not teaching middle schoolers about quantum mechanics is that doing so will interfere with them learning basic concepts and ultimately will cause them to underperform. If it caused them to overperform, it’s hard to grasp why we should nonetheless withhold it from them).
It’s relevant if there’s a causal connection; nobody has shown one.
David @61: I know that it’s standard legislative language. The problem is that, as written, it doesn’t work, primarily because A is so poorly written and vague. it’s not an exception; it’s an outright conflict. As an ‘exception’, F destroys A’s rule entirely.
Robert:
I’m sorry, but this is a silly example. If this becomes mainstream again, we will have much bigger problems than whether or not it should be taught in history class.
I wish I had the time to develop what I am about to say more fully, but this whole thing reminds me of the debates about the canon that took place in literary studies–and I guess in some places are still happening. There were an awful lot of people who resisted the inclusion in the canon of women and of-color authors for reasons that are similar/analogous to the reasons that Horne and those who support him give for this law; an awful lot of it had to do with the damage that would be done if, say, Latino students actually saw themselves represented in the canon and therefore neglected the great white, mostly male authors for whom the canon had previously been an exclusive club. In other words, they would put ethnic solidarity over individualism. I recognize that this assertion and the connection to this discussion needs to be unpacked more; I just don’t have time to do it.
I also want to say, G&W, that your argument is getting a little tiresome. No one disagrees that public schools need to make choices and no one disagrees–I don’t think–that sometimes those choices will be more homogenizing and simplifying than not, for all sorts of reasons, ranging from grade appropriateness to the demands of time and testing and more. Your example about antisemitism @51, for example, makes absolutely no sense. No, that’s not what I mean, but taking your example of antisemitism as a general type: it ignores the fact that there is a plethora of teaching material out there, for all kinds of grades and all kinds of schools and classes, for teaching controversial issues that do a damned good job of giving both sides of a story. More to the point, it ignores, your examples do, the specifics of the case in Arizona. We are talking about a case in which the legislature is trying to silence an entire discipline within public schools, not take up the question of whether this particular teacher or school or curriculum is so problematic that it needs to be addressed by the government.
Please understand if I don’t respond. I am heavily involved in other work.
If I look at myself in a mirror and I see a swastika tattooed on my forehead, the problem is not the reflection. I need to work on the source problem, not the reflection. By saying that, I’m not saying “it’s OK” that my reflection shows a swastika tattooed on my forehead.
In the example you give, we should work on changing mainstream scholarship (as we did in the past). Not concentrate on the reflection.
According to this bill, it would be perfectly OK to teach “Africa is poor because blacks are stupid” as long as that statement did not hurt the feelings of anyone in the class.
I don’t think it’s a silly example at all, Richard. Amp has made “mainstream scholarship” his preferred mode for determining what falls within the boundary of appropriate teaching. Mainstream scholarship has, at various times and places, held views that many people (me included) have found objectionable or worse. You and I were both alive and in school when “mainstream scholarship” thought homosexuality was a mental defect and that was the LIBERAL position – the less progressive simply labeled it a horrible moral failure.
“Well, change the mainstream scholarship” is a good dodge, Amp, but what if the mainstream scholarship is right? That’s the problem with a technocratic argument of having the scientists or the academics validate truth for the polity; sometimes the technocratic truth is not what the polity wants or needs to hear. EVEN IF blacks are stupider than whites (I don’t think they are), we don’t need to be teaching that to our kids.
What if it turns out that homosexuality is “caused” by a virus? What if it turns out that blacks (or whites) really are dumber than whites (or hispanics)? What if it turns out that women intrinsically like making babies more than making equity trades? I am deliberately picking examples that would tweak left-wing sensibilities so as to make it emotionally more accessible to you; I could just as easily come up with examples that tweak right-wingers but your reaction to that would probably be “well, good!” so it wouldn’t make the point I’m trying to make.
I don’t think that “let the scholars decide, and if the scholars decide on something that we don’t like we’ll change the scholarship” advances us in a direction that anybody really wants to go. I want the scholars to try and figure out what’s true without worrying about what that means for education.
Robert, I’m not saying the bounds of mainstream scholarship are always perfect; obviously they are not. In some cases, the views of mainstream scholarship include things I think are both politically wrong and factually wrong (see: evolutionary psychology, and “fat is death!!!!” ideology).
But I do think, like democracy, using the bounds of accepted mainstream scholarship may be the worst possible method except for all other possible methods.
Since what you’ve been defending in this thread is a state legislature transparently attempt to censor left-wing views they don’t like, even though those views are well within the mainstream of scholarship for that discipline, I don’t feel you’ve offered me a more attractive alternative. “Right-wing legislatures censor whatever views they don’t like” is a system that, if allowed to continue, would cripple school’s abilities to teach science, since Republicans are anti-science in at least two major areas (evolution and global climate change). And it’s not compatible with the principle of free speech.
(Neither, for the record, do I favor left-wing legislatures censoring conservative views that fall within the mainstream of scholarly views from schools.)
I think the local level is the most appropriate place for the decision, actually. If the actual parents want La Raza Studies 24/7, go with God.
You are absolutely correct; this law is not balanced (though if you substitute “usually” for “always,” your list may not be as controversial-conservative as you may think, IMO)
If I were in charge of trying to design an entire curriculum in a vacuum, I’d be going for balance. But is there a problem of balance right now? So far in this discussion it’s not been brought up as an issue.
Certainly I’ll be happy to join an anti-conservative march, if there’s a particular problem that needs to be dealt with. I think it’s perfectly OK for laws to block or attack specific conservative issues (religion and evolution being prime candidates) without also addressing not-yet-a-problem potential issues on the liberal side; I think the reverse is also true.
Me too! I LOVE teaching the controversy… so long as my own side is presented in a manner that seems “fair” to me, and so long as the other side is also presented in a manner that seems “fair” to me. Unfortunately, being human, that usually means I want the controversy to be taught by someone who shares my viewpoint. So I realize that TTC isn’t as good as it appears from the soundbite.
Do you feel differently? Imagine that the sponsor of this law will be in charge of “teaching the controversy.” Do you trust him to accurately present your side? Would you expect him to trust you to present his side? Would you like a MRA to “teach the controversy” on a feminist subject?
I’m thinking generally; you seem to be thinking specifically. Maybe I should be viewing this in a different context; can you explain why, if so?
Should I oppose it just because it’s conservative, or because its a legislature, or because its stiflilng a viewpoint in a limited and highly controlled forum? From my point of view its status as “conservative” doesn’t really hold water one way or the other for me: either the legislature should have this power or not, irrespective of its composition.
I’m happy to consider the possibility that this power shouldn’t be in the legislature. But then who decides? After all, it’s tricky to suggest that this bill isn’t “mainstream.” Arizona has a bicameral legislature and bills get signed by the governor. Those few bills which make it through the process tend to represent (at the least) a large enough plurality that they generally have “mainstream” status.
We could trust academia. But that’s tricky, too: even in academia, there is a hell of a lot of disagreement about fairly basic issues. Sometimes the disagreement goes down because schools filter for a specific viewpoint–if you require applicants to adhere to your views, then you can’t point to the resulting graduates as being evidence of a ‘consensus’ about your views. Sometimes it’s cliquey, and sometimes it’s random. But it’s almost always self-perpetuating.
I don’t know what the answer is.
I don’t know what the answer is.
Duh, enlightened monarch with humanity’s natural leader – me – at the helm.
Robert is engaging in silly nonsequiturs, the sort that wouldn’t be out of place in a dorm room full of stoned freshmen. “What if, like, everything you know is wrong, man?” What if it became “mainstream” to think 2 plus 2 equaled 5, huh? What then? Oh noes!
The reason why it’s not mainstream anymore to think that black people are dumber than white people is that it’s blatantly wrong and contrary to all evidence. Even when it was “mainstream,” there were prominent people arguing that it was blatantly wrong. It was controversial, but white people chose to overlook the reasoning and the evidence against it. Same goes for homosexuality–the whole reason why the “mainstream” consensus changed was that the establishment was pressured into acknowledging actual FACTS.
If such ideas became mainstream once again unjustifiably (i.e., they weren’t actually true), then yes, we’d have a bigger problem than what was taught in schools. If they became mainstream but were true, then we’d be living in a different world. The basic questions of social justice would be different. Everything would be different. That’s why it’s a “what if 2 plus 2 = 5?” question, and thoroughly useless.