Arizona’s law banning Mexican-American studies is constitutional, judge rules
February 25, 2014
A court upheld most provisions of an Arizona state law used to prohibit a controversial Mexican-American Studies curriculum in Tucson on Friday.
The ruling dealt a blow to supporters of the suspended classes, who had hoped the courts would overturn a 2010 law championed by Arizona conservatives determined to shut down the unconventional courses.
“I was really surprised at the decision,” Jose Gonzalez, a former teacher of Tucson’s suspended Mexican-American Studies classes, told The Huffington Post. “But as a student and teacher of history, I know in civil rights cases like this there’s always setbacks.”
The experimental Tucson curriculum was offered to students in different forms in some of the local elementary, middle and high schools. It emphasized critical thinking and focused on Mexican-American literature and perspectives. Supporters lauded the program, pointing to increased graduation rates, high student achievement and a state-commissioned independent audit that recommended expanding the classes.
But conservative opponents accused the teachers of encouraging students to adopt left-wing ideas and resent white people, a charge the teachers deny. Aiming squarely at Tucson’s Mexican-American Studies program, the Arizona legislature passed HB 2281 — a law banning courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, foster racial resentment, are designed for students of a particular ethnic group or that advocate ethnic solidarity.
Federal Judge Wallace Tashima said the plaintiffs failed to show the law was too vague, broad or discriminatory, or that it violated students’ first amendment rights.
The news wasn’t all bad for supporters of the suspended classes. Tashima ruled that the section of the law prohibiting courses tailored to serve students of a particular ethnicity was unconstitutional.
Originally filed in October of 2010 on behalf of the program’s former teachers, who lost standing because they are public employees, the case is currently brought by former Mexican-American Studies student Nicholas Dominguez and his mother Margarita Dominguez. They will likely appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals within the next 30 days, their lawyer Richard Martinez told The Huffington Post.
“This case is not over,” Martinez said. “It’s not only important to Arizona, but to the country as a whole that this statute be addressed.”
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne began a campaign to eliminate the Mexican-American Studies program from Tucson Unified School District in 2006, when he was serving as the state’s Superintendent of Public Education.
Angered that Mexican-American civil rights leader Dolores Huerta had said that “Republicans hate Latinos” in a speech to Tucson students, Horne sent Deputy Superintendent Margaret Dugan, a Latina Republican, to give an alternate view. But the intellectual exercise turned confrontational when students, who said they were not allowed to ask Dugan questions, sealed their mouths with tape and walked out of the assembly room.
“As superintendent of schools, I have visited over 1,000 schools and I’ve never seen students be disrespectful to a teacher in that way,” Horne said in an interview last year.
The final product of his efforts was House Bill 2281, which then-State Sen. John Huppenthal (R) helped pilot through the Arizona legislature. Huppenthal, who succeeded Horne as state superintendent of schools, then found Tucson out of compliance with the new law and ordered the district to shut Mexican-American Studies down or lose 10 percent of its annual funding — some $14 million over the fiscal year. In January of 2012, the school board complied, voting 4 to 1 to discontinue the classes.
The decision drew national attention as administrators plucked Latino literature that once belonged to the curriculum from classrooms, explicitly banning seven titles from instruction.
This is what I’m often referring to when I talk about backlash and suppression of education in the United States. There is literally legislation that bans teaching the history of colonization and civil rights movements in various states-states like Arizona, in which 43% of the population are “minorities”…30% of Arizona is Hispanic/Latin@.
That’s not actually a coincidence. :|
This is systematic, institutional disenfranchisement in action.
"They grow no food, raise no livestock, and live without rules or calendars. They are living a hunter-gatherer existence that is little changed from 10,000 years ago. What do they know that we’ve forgotten?" (Michael Finkel)
Photograph by Martin Schoeller
Aww that’s so-
Oh hey shes getting olde-
How dare you
WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS
THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE DON’T DO THIS TO ME
HOW DARE YOU WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU DO THIS TO ME????????????????????????
Go away, Satan. Stop messing with my feels.
I wonder if any of my friends had a crush on me but then got to know me and were like “haha no, dodged a bullet there.”
Anonymous asked: That's salad you're holding in your icon makes me want to let you toss my salad
It’s a sandwich
Well, you know…shit.
why would you pay someone for 26-51 weeks for doing nothing
you have a very, very odd definition of “doing nothing”.
Living as a woman in the USA in a nutshell:
- If you don’t have sex, you’re a prude and a bitch.
- If you have sex outside of marriage and use birth control to avoid getting pregnant, you’re a slut (whether you’ve had sex twice every day or twice in a year).
- If you have sex outside of marriage, but don’t use protection and get pregnant, you’re a slut AND you’re stupid
- If you’re single and get an abortion because you can’t afford to take time off work to push a baby the size of a melon out of your cooch, you’re a slut, stupid, AND a murderer.
- If you’re single but don’t get an abortion, but need extra governmental help to assist in raising your child you were pressured to keep because of someone else’s moral code, you’re a slut, stupid, a leech on the back of society, AND shit out of luck.
AND THE HOOOOME OF THEEEEE BRAAAAAVE
And if you’re married and have a baby, apparently raising that child is “doing nothing” and you don’t deserve to be paid maternity leave but if you don’t want to have children with your spouse or can’t have children, you “aren’t doing your duty as a wife”/”aren’t a real woman”
like nah fuck outta here.
You really can’t fucking win with some people
I was reading an article a while back about how females in the workforce (specifically female professors in this article) were less likely to be tenured if they were planning to start a family any time soon—since the maternity leave would take them away from work.
However, males with the same goals were rewarded with higher income/tenured positions because they were seen as ‘providers’ for their families.