Mexican-Arizona War on Education

 Arizona HB2281s

15-111. Declaration of policy

THE LEGISLATURE FINDS AND DECLARES THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL PUPILS SHOULD BE TAUGHT TO TREAT AND VALUE EACH OTHER AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT BE TAUGHT TO RESENT OR HATE OTHER RACES OR CLASSES OF PEOPLE.

15-112. Prohibited courses and classes; enforcement

A. A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IN THIS STATE SHALL NOT INCLUDE IN ITS PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTION ANY COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. 1.       PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
2. 2.      PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE.
3. 3.      ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP.
4. 4.      ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS.

The other amended portions relate more to actions the State can take to resolve the matter, which add up to roughly 95% of the changes.

Here are a few questions that I have about this bill and some of the proceeding drama about it:

1. If pupils are to be treated as individuals why are they classified by racial status?
2. Learning Mexican American history is now different than European History?
3. Would M.O.C.H.A. and similar ethnic clubs or associations also be targeted?
4. Why is this bill structured in a way that the disciplinary actions are stressed, explained and takes up a far greater portion than the actual subject matter?
5. Who pays for all of the different actions that have been outlined by the bill, knowing that most of the State education budget comes from Federal monies?

C. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHALL PAY FOR ALL EXPENSES OF A HEARING CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.

E. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT:

1. 1.      COURSES OR CLASSES FOR NATIVE AMERICAN PUPILS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW.
2. 2.      THE GROUPING OF PUPILS ACCORDING TO ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, INCLUDING CAPABILITY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, THAT MAY RESULT IN A DISPARATE IMPACT BY ETHNICITY
3. 3.      COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE THE HISTORY OF ANY ETHNIC GROUP AND THAT ARE OPEN TO ALL STUDENTS, UNLESS THE COURSE OR CLASS VIOLATES SUBSECTION A.
4. 4.      COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE THE DISCUSSION OF CONTROVERSIAL ASPECTS OF HISTORY.

 F. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT THE INSTRUCTION OF THE HOLOCAUST, ANY OTHER INSTANCE OF GENOCIDE, OR THE HISTORICAL OPPRESSION OF A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE BASED ON ETHNICITY, RACE, OR CLASS.

This is one of the cleverest pieces of legislation that I have read this far. One reason I say this is how complex, almost confusing, it is written. One line says that the courses or classes will prohibited then it says that it would not. Part A. is not explained with examples of what is acceptable in terms of accountability. Subjectivity will always create opportunity for interpretation and the leisure of the governing bodies. After finding out Tom Horne the Attorney General, who is supposed to not be partial, wrote the bill it made more sense. He is Harvard Law trained both under and post graduate, the former Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction and former Arizona State House of Representatives member, who has filed bankruptcy and found guilty of breaking trading laws by the SEC, who has consequently given him a life time ban on trading. One thing is certain from his past experiences is he knows the constitutional law and money.

Now let’s look at some things closely at section E. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT

THE GROUPING OF PUPILS ACCORDING TO ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, INCLUDING CAPABILITY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE THAT MAY RESULT IN A DISPARATE IMPACT BY ETHNICITY.

In United States employment law, the doctrine of “disparate impact” holds that employment practices may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate “adverse impact” on members of a minority group. Under the doctrine, a violation of Title VII of the1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class. According to the EEO, examples of practices that may be subject to a “disparate impact” challenge include written tests, height and weight requirements, educational requirements, and subjective procedures, such as interviews. Blatantly they have established discriminatory practices as being okay even if it will create harm to the students ETHNICLY.

COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE THE DISCUSSION OF CONTROVERSIAL ASPECTS OF HISTORY.

Controversial aspects of history can include the Vietnam War, Jim Crow, Willie Lynch, Bay of Pigs, Iran- Contra, Eugenics, ethnic profiling, conflicts in incarceration rates, Mexican migratory workers, Ethnic Internment Camps during World Wars 1 and 2 and other US atrocities. Arizona is basically proposing to rewrite history books to reflect what they deem as safe. By definition this is PROPAGANDA and CENSORSHIP in an attempt to strip Minorities of their native culture.

Section F is a pure contradiction of E seeing that genocide and historical oppression are clearly very controversial topics in this country. What it does do is include a very outspoken ethnic group in this country that holds power in both the Conservative and Liberal world, Jews.

What is appalling is that they don’t mind segregating students based on ethnicity as long as the reason is involuntary and harmful. This conclusion is based on the strategic choice of wording (disparate impact) used. Just like any other law or bill, the devil is in the details, it is not what they say it’s intended to do, as much as what can potentially be done. Without any stipulations or oversight this is and will always be fair game to interpretation by its drafters. Evident by the ruling against Tucson Unified School District, where no explanations were given other than John Huppenthal, current Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, found them in violation of this law. Now new old books have been boxed and new ones are being ordered to reflect what the district deems “more suitable.” I must note that it has been reported that the initial (120 page pdf) independent study by Cambium Learning Inc. ($170,000) showed no violations but was later overruled by Huppenthal and Horne with no explanation or evidence.

Are we moving backwards in time, everyday I’m seeing anti ethnicity laws and sentiment been passed on and brandished? This law in particular reminds me of the Jim Crow and Willie Lynch rhetoric that had been abolished during the Civil Rights Movement, at least we had hoped so.