As I wrote previously, I created a petition to urge Arizona school superintendent candidates to make a pledge to reinstitute ethnic studies in public schools if elected. Interestingly, both Democratic candidates in this race responded back to me on the topic of ethnic studies.
Jason Williams
Jason Williams
Jason Williams is the former Executive Director for Teach for America in Phoenix, who ran for School Superintendent in 2006. His Director of Research and Policy, Kelly McManus, wrote this email to me on the subject of the ethnic studies ban:
Jenn,
Thank you for your message! Jason firmly believes instead of censoring content, we should celebrate diversity, recognize the contributions of all groups, and encourage different points of view. We live in a pluralistic society. A robust discussion of ideas is a cornerstone of what it means to be American. Teaching our students to critically think and allowing them to utilize those skills to come to their own conclusions makes a great educational experience. He believes in local control, as long as schools are improving student outcomes. When he is Superintendent of Public Instruction, he will support innovative programs that demonstrate quite clearly higher rates of academic achievement and work with the legislature to stop this trend of censorship.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions!
My best,
Kelly
Okay, so when I received this email from Kelly, I had to scratch my head. Does Williams support ethnic studies? Does he support diversifying our existing school curricula? It was a little tough to deduce from the email message, which spent more of its time celebrating diversity than discussing ethnic studies.
Then, I stumbled upon this video clip on YouTube, of four of the candidates discussing their positions on ethnic studies. And Jason Williams’ response — he is last on the video, starting around 5:00 — is positively electrifying.
Wow. Jason Williams’ position on the ethnic studies ban in Arizona is so cogent, so spot-on, and so well-reasoned, that I’m actually finding myself taking a second look at his candidacy in general. His answer is so far removed from the rather obfuscating answer given by his Director of Research and Policy that it’s almost like they came from different campaigns.
Note also that Penny Kotterman, who starts the video off, is the other Democratic candidate in the race, and she also appears to oppose the ethnic studies ban. However, her answer was a little tough to understand — I had to listen to it twice before I figured out that she is also opposed to the ethnic studies ban.
Sadly, I also received an email response from Penny Kotterman in the wake of the petition, but my overly-aggressive spam filter deleted it sometime last week. In any event, I gather it was very similar to what she says in the video clip above.
Act Now! The primary is next week, August 24th. On the topic of the ethnic studies ban in public education, the Democratic candidates couldn’t be further from the Republican candidates. If you are a Democrat who votes in Arizona, please go to the polls next week and choose between our two Democratic candidates for Arizona School Superintendent. With Arizona’s abysmal standing when it comes to public education, this race in November couldn’t be more important in dictating the future of our state.
One example I cited in this post was Arizona’s recent ban on ethnic studies in public schools. In brief, HB 2281 — which was signed into Arizona state law earlier this year — prohibited the teaching of ethnic studies in the state’s public schools. As I’ve already discussed, this ban will limit the diversity of perpsectives that students will be exposed to in their learning of American history, and even discourages student-centered teaching by ignoring the multiculturalism of Arizona students.
Earlier this month, I urged readers to sign this petition, which asks current candidates for Arizona’s school superintendent position to make a pledge to, if elected, work towards reinstituting ethnic studies in Arizona’s public schools. To date, more than 50 readers from around the country have signed the petition, alerting these candidates of the importance of ethnic studies classes.
Interestingly, the impact of these supporters have already been felt. Within days of starting the petition, I received email responses from three of the five candidates currently running for Arizona Superintendent of Public Education, detailing their stances on public education.
For the sake of length, this post will only reproduce Margaret Dugan’s response on the ethnic studies ban. In a second post, I will reproduce the responses from the other candidates.
Margaret Dugan
Margaret Dugan
Margaret Dugan is a Republican and the current Deputy School Superintendent here in Arizona. She is running to succeed her predecessor, Superintendent Tom Horne, who helped push through Arizona’s ethnic studies ban in the first place. Not surprisingly, Dugan echoes much of Horne’s original criticism of ethnic studies. Here’s a video of Margaret Dugan openly lying about ethnic studies classes being taught in the Tucson Unified School District on CNN:
(Now, I don’t agree with Dr. Romero’s accusation that the ethnic studies ban has anything to do with Nazi Germany, but up until the last minute of the video, Margaret Dugan was getting absolutely schooled — pun intended — for misrepresenting what is being taught in ethnic studies classes in the Tucson Unified School District and around the country.)
Dugan’s main arguments against ethnic studies are that: 1) students shouldn’t be taught that they are oppressed, and 2) students are being forcibly segregated into ethnic studies classes based on their race. Yet, both of these arguments are flawed. First of all, while Dr. Romero points out that ethnic studies classes do not teach a culture of victimhood in TUSD, one must wonder why there is such a fervent effort on the part of Dugan and her GOP cohorts to prevent the teaching to racial minorities that they experience oppression. American history includes a history of oppression of racial minorities — we cannot avoid teaching minority students about oppression that their communities have and continue to face, unless we want to teach a flawed, ahistorical account of American history that does not address the fact of race-based oppression as part of this nation’s formation. And so, Dugan’s true colours are revealed.
Secondly, anybody with even a rudimentary exposure to ethnic studies programs knows that these classes are open to all students, and indeed students of diverse backgrounds are specifically encouraged to take ethnic studies classes in order to expand their learning.
Dugan hit the same notes as her CNN interview when she emailed me earlier last month. Here’s her email:
Dear Jenn,
Contributions of all ethnic backgrounds can be taught in our World History and US History classes. By separating students or calling a class by a certain ethnic name does not bring together students of all backgrounds. As a former teacher and high school principal, I believe is is far healthier for all students of all ethnic backgrounds to be enrolled together rather than in separate classes. In addition, I am of Hispanic descent and I was able to enroll in classes throughout my K-12 public schooling in Arizona with students of diverse backgrounds. We learned together and learned from each other.
Margaret Dugan, native of Arizona and product of the public school system. I have over 37 years experience as an educator- teacher, assistant principal, principal, district administrator and currently Deputy Supt at the Ariz Dept of Education.
Interestingly, Dugan highlights her “Hispanic descent” to me, as if somehow this should assuage my concerns. Yet, on the campaign trail, Dugan has been hiding from her Latino heritage by avoiding reference to her ”Spanish-sounding” middle name in virtually all campaign literature.
On her other points, I called Dugan to task, by responding with the following email:
Dear Ms. Dugan,
Thank you for your email.
With respect, I disagree with your response. Ethnic studies classes do not segregate or separate students by race (indeed, Brown v. Board of Education established that segregation in public schools by race is unconstitutional).
Ethnic studies programs provide a focused curriculum that teach specific topics not usually taught in general World History, US History, or Literature classes. For example, a Chicano American Studies class that was targeted by HB 2281 encouraged the reading of prominent Chicano authors because few Chicano authors were read in the general literature classes.
Ethnic studies history classes teach specific aspects of history not normally covered in-depth by general history classes. For example, I notice that in the Grades 9-12 American history content standards, there is no reference of any kind to any aspect of Chicano-American history, nor is there any discussion of the impact of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act on contemporary American demographics and immigration. These topics are arguably important to understanding American history (particularly in Southern Arizona), yet they are probably only perfunctorily addressed (if at all) in today’s general US History classes.
Ethnic studies classes do not divide students by their backgrounds. Instead they bring students together by having them focus on diverse topics that reflect the multicultural demographics of the classroom. They teach all students to respect the multiculturalism of today’s America by encouraging students to find relevance in another student’s culture and history. I repeat, ethnic studies programs do not enforce or promote racial segregation of classrooms — all students of all ethnic backgrounds can (and are in fact encouraged to) enroll in ethnic studies classes.
You write that in your time as a student, you were enrolled in diverse classes where you “learned together and learned from each other”. I agree with this sentiment. If you believe that there are things you can learn from the Chicano American community, why are you resistant to having a full-semester, optional history course (for example) that would help non-Chicano students learn from the Chicano-American community? Would having such a class offering — and encouraging all students, regardless of race, to enroll in them — run counter to your vision of a diverse classroom?
Further, if you feel these topics belong in a general course on US history, what do you plan on taking out of the curriculum to make room for detailed coverage of these topics? African Americans and Asian Americans make up nearly 10% of the state’s population — if detailed teaching of the histories of these communities also belong in the general US history class, what else would you take from the curriculum in order to make room for a representative coverage of these topics?
I appreciate your response.
Sincerely,
Jenn F.
Given that in both her email to me and in her CNN interview, Dugan suggests that the curricula of ethnic studies classes should be incorporated into general U.S. history classes, I really wanted an answer to what Dugan planned on eliminating from state standards to make room for these topics. Because, in reality, I support the notion that general history classes should be more inclusive of topics generally covered in ethnic studies classes. But, with the already jam-packed curricula of required general history classes, the only way to advocate integrating ethnic studies topics into general classes is to cut something else out. Or to hand out time-turners to students.
Sadly, but not suprisingly, Dugan side-stepped the question — because answering that question would require having actually thought about the issue. Instead, she changed the topic — by acting as if I had offended her:
Jenn,
I am from the generation that is offended by my Hispanic background referred to as Chicano. The word Chicano is a radical term and most Americans with Hispanic descent like me do not like that word. When I was in school, I learned about the hisory and geography of Arizona and the culture and contributions that the Mexican people provided for our state. In fact, I was educated in a small town 7 miles from the Arizona/Mexico border. Why do we continue to point out our differences instead of identifying our similarities as individuals. I have always taught my students to treat each other with respect. My belief is out of many- one. I will check on the Arizona Academic standards relative to inclusion of other cultures. I have been informed that the social studies standards do include objectives of other cultures for our teachers to teach our students.
Margaret
At least Dugan reveals her true intentions. It’s not that she fears students will be segregated into race-based classrooms. It’s not that she believes in integrated, diverse classrooms. It’s not even that she would rather integrate ethnic studies topics into state standards for general history classes.
No, Margaret Dugan wants to wipe out Chicano American studies — specifically– because she finds Chicano a “radical” term.
Which begs the question: is it actually that La Raza teaches the overthrow of the U.S. government (which it doesn’t), or is it merely that Margaret Dugan and her ilk are trying to legislate based on their own stereotypes of ethnic studies?
Act Now! If you haven’t yet, please sign this petition calling for Arizona School Superintedent candidates to make a pledge in support of ethnic studies.
Also, on August 24th, Arizona voters will be going to the polls to choose their party candidates for Arizona School Superintendent. If you are a Republican, Margaret Dugan should not be your choice. She has already demonstrated a basic lack of understanding of the scientific method (she lacks even the proficiency expected of your average high school student); now, she also shows that she’s more interested in legislating her own biases than addressing the educational needs of Arizona students. She appears to have a frightening lack of knowledge of state educational standards, and seems ill-equipped to understand how these standards are translated into class curricula.
I don’t normally endorse candidates, but in this case, I just have to say it: Margaret Dugan is not even remotely qualified enough to be this state’s next School Superintendent. Please, Republicans, do not vote for her.
Who could possibly hate this baby? Oh, I know -- Republicans.
Last week, I wrote a piece for Change.org entitled 3 Ways You Can Help End the GOP’s War on Undocumented Immigrants. In it, I identified three strategies that Right-wing fundies are using to wage a war on illegal immigration — by attacking the rights of their citizen children. I think this subject is so important, I’m re-summarizing the post here. Learn more about how the GOP is targeting children in their war on illegal immigration, and participate in the linked petitions:
1) Birthright Citizenship: Top Republicans from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham are calling for Congressional hearings on the 14th Amendment. Their hope? Alter the Constitution to put a caveat on birthright citizenship such that citizenship is awarded based on the citizenship status of a child’s parents. However, as I write in my post, the 14th Amendment was penned to eliminate the possibility that one group might be able to determine the citizenship — and thus the political rights — of another group. Prior to the 14th Amendment, citizenship did depend on the status of parents: the children of slaves were not considered American citizens, regardless of birthplace.
As Jeff Yang writes in his Asian Pop column this week, without the 14th Amendment, countless Asian Americans whose families entered the States as “paper sons” would find their citizenship in question today. Birthright citizenship is one of the few, unequivocably brilliant political ideas unique to North America; since its passage, it has helped ensure political and civil equality for all citizens. It’s a travesty for Republicans to even suggest dismantling the 14th Amendment.
2) The SB 1070 of Public Schools: Here in Arizona, a virtually unknown piece of legislation has snuck its way through the State Senate, and is now being held in the State House. I charitably refer to this bill — SB 1097 / HB 2382 — as the “SB 1070 of public education”. Just like SB 1070 deputizes local and state law enforcement to check the immigration papers of anyone who engages with police, SB 1097 deputizes school administrators to check the immigration papers of any child enrolled in public schools.
Why? Well, the idea is that public funds being used to educate non-citizen children costs taxpayers money, so Arizona Republicans (many of whom authored SB 1070) introduced SB 1097 to require schools to determine the number of non-citizen children enrolled as students, and to report that information to the state. Forget that in Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court determined that the state could not deny a child a public education based on immigration status.
The true effect of SB 1097 goes beyond the mean-spiritedness and misguidedness of the bill. If put into effect, SB 1097 would cause illegal immigrants to pull their children from public schools for fear of being identified and deported. But, since federal money to public schools is dependent on the number of enrolled students, this would actually cause Arizona schools to lose money. And we all know that less money means less teachers, fewer books, less extracurricular activities, and a poorer education for all of Arizona’s children.
3) Attacking Teachers with Accents and Banning Ethnic Studies: In Arizona, the state department of education has fired hundreds of teachers with accents, after recruiting these teachers several years ago as part of English Language Learning classes. State legislators passed HB 2281, which bans the teaching of ethnic studies in public schools. While both actions have most directly affected Spanish-speaking teachers and Chicano Studies, the impact of these policies on teachers of all races and ethnicities is obvious.
The responsibility of teachers is to help students learn, by any means necessary. Sometimes that means connecting with students through a non-English language, sometimes that means engaging students with content that they find relevant to their own lives. A thriving classroom is one that is focused on the needs of students, and that can offer learning opportunities that speak to those needs. The banning of ethnic studies and the firing of teachers with accents renders the classroom less student-focused, thereby reducing learning.
More importantly, this applies to all students, and not just Latino students. Any student who wants to learn about American history from the perspective of Chicano Studies, African American Studies or Asian American Studies cannot do so if they are enrolled in an Arizona public school. They are forced to learn about their history through the lens of only one group — that of the mainstream. Arizona has one of the largest Latino populations in the nation — how does it make sense that this diversity is not reflected in the curriculum of public school classes?
Please share this post — and my original post over at Change.org – with your friends and families. Arizona is being used as a testing ground for divisive, misguided legislation. Already, some states are considering their own versions of SB 1070. If Arizona empowers school administrators to check immigration status or bans ethnic studies, it won’t be a question of ifsimilar legislation appears in other states, it’ll be a question of when. We need to draw our line in the sand here.
From Arizona’s SB1070 to anti-government rhetoric spouted by the Tea Party, this election season, threats to our basic civil liberties abound. Against this political backdrop, it seems more important than ever to remember the civil rights heroes and champions who paved the way ahead of us.
Fred Korematsu was one such champion — if an unrecognized one.
In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt passed Executive Order 9066, ordering the round-up and imprisonment of thousands of Japanese Americans along America’s West Coast. Families of Japanese Americans were herded into temporary internment camps, and later into permanent relocation camps that dotted the deserts of the Southwest.
An American citizen who was born in Oakland, California, Fred Korematsu refused to abide by E.O. 9066. As families across the West Coast were forced into barbed-wire camps, surrounded by armed guards, Korematsu refused to report for internment. In 1942, he was arrested and convicted in a federal court for violating a military executive order and forcibly detained at a series of internment camps. But that didn’t stop him from appealing his case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1944 on the grounds that E.O. 9066 was “racist.”
Fred Korematsu, who passed away on March 30, 2005, dedicated his entire life to fighting for civil rights. Now, it’s our turn to honor him.
Goodwin Liu, Associate Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, has been nominated by the Obama administration to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. The GOP is trying to obstruct his nomination.
My fellow blogger over at Change.org, Chris Santiago, has written an excellent piece about how the GOP is trying to stall the nominations of two highly qualified Asian American judges, Goodwin Liu and Eric Chen.
Liu, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, and Chen, a federal magistrate in San Francisco, have both cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee. By nominating both Liu and Chen, the White House had hoped to correct the historical underrepresentation of Asian-Americans on the federal bench. But apparently, the GOP doesn’t want that to happen.
As the L.A. Timesexplains, the Senate must agree to carry over pending nominations when it goes on a 30-day recess. But Republican leaders have objected to carrying over Liu’s and Chen’s nominations. Or, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (who recommended both Liu and Chen to President Obama) puts it, ”The Republicans are obstructing and, in effect, trying to kill these nominations….It is tragic because these are very worthy nominees who deserve to have their nominations debated and put to a vote.”
In truth, Asian Americans are extremely underrepresented in the nation’s judicial system. When I wrote about Judge Denny Chin’s nomination to Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, last year, there were no Asian American judges at the federal level. Chin’s confirmation to the Court of Appeals made him the first Asian American federal judge to serve in the U.S. Court of Appeals in American history. Prior to Chin’s confirmation, Judge Edward Chen made history last August by becoming the first Asian American judge to serve at the federal level when he was confirmed as a U.S. District Court judge in Northern California.
This consistent pattern of underrepresentation in the nation’s judicial system is incredibly deleterious to our community. Here’s what I wrote last year:
[M]any of the country’s landmark civil rights cases throughout history were brought by Asian Americans against the state of California or the federal government. Here are those listed by Lee and Kawaichi in their article:
In Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, one of the earliest civil rights cases in American history, the Supreme Court in 1886 struck down a discriminatory San Francisco ordinance targeting Chinese Americans.
In Wong Kim Ark vs. the United States, a landmark immigration case in 1898, the Supreme Court applied the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to an American of Chinese ancestry born in the United States.
In Korematsu vs. United States, one of the most infamous civil rights cases in American history, the Supreme Court upheld the forced exclusion and detention of 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry during World War II without the right to notice of charges, the right to attorneys or the right to a trial. Forty years later, in 1984, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the Northern District court overturned Korematsu’s conviction, ruling that there was no good justification for the internment.
In Lau vs. Nichols, a suit brought by Chinese American students living in San Francisco, the Supreme Court expanded the rights of all students throughout the country with limited English skills by requiring language accommodation.
Asian Americans are not merely impacted by decisions made in federal courts, we have been instrumental in changing the face of the United States for the better throughout this nation’s history. Yet, Asian Americans are yet to be adequately represented in the positions that actually make these critical rulings.
The GOP’s obstruction of the nominations of Goodwin Liu and Eric Chen represent a serious blow to Asian Americans and the justice system. Republicans are just playing politics; yet our community is caught in the crossfire.
With all the buzz surrounding K-Town on the blogosphere, Jen over at Disagrasian warns us to tone down the joking. And she’s right — this is serious, folks. Jen warns that K-Town could invoke a new, very harmful, stereotype against Asian Men…
I applaud Jen for being vigilant in this matter. As she describes in her post, the consequences of this stereotype to hard-working, honest Asian American men is profound. We could be talking about scores of Asian men turned away by employers who require shirts be worn every day of the week — even Casual Friday! Thousands of Asian men might find themselves applying for jobs in fields where they won’t be unfairly penalized due to the anti-shirt stereotype. Do we really want our Asian brothers forced to work as strippers, cabana boys, and life guards?
Think about the self-hate and shame that will be invoked amongst decent, well-meaning Asian men when they hear phrases like, “Hey, dude, chill out! Keep your shirt on!” or “What are you, a nudist who lacks commitment?” Think of the pain Asian men will have to endure when they become targeted by new racial slurs, like “shirt-hater”, “Chippendale”, or ”nipple-flasher”. And will Asian men who take their shirts off — even while performing reasonably no-shirt activities like swimming or taking a shower – be accused of being sellouts for perpetuating the shirt-hating stereotype?
But, I do disagree with Jen on one thing: let’s put the blame where it belongs. The “shirt allergy” stereotype against Asian men did not begin with Peter Le, Young Lee or Joe Cha. No, these boys are mere symptoms of an institutional stereotype that just hasn’t received sufficient media attention until now, when K-Town finally exposed the stereotype’s full impact on our Asian brothers. These poor souls are only acting as they think they’re supposed to, because the “Asian men hate shirts” stereotype has been so deeply internalized into their self-identity. In a way, these men are heroes, for bravely shedding light on a silent oppression.
Consider how many other innocent Asian men have fallen victim to this syndrome:
So, you ask – whom should we really be blaming?
Well, I think the answer is clear — the blame lies squarely on the man who first brought this dastardly stereotype to American audiences.
That’s right: Bruce. Effin’. Lee. That frickin’ nipple-flasher.
Act Now! I’m declaring August 1st to be National Asian Male Shirt Solidarity Day. Wear a shirt and show your support. Spread the word.
"WE CAN!"'s co-chairs, Javier Herrera and Delores Grayam discuss Proposition 107. That's my head in the foreground; I'm frantically writing notes.
Surrounded by colourful posters decrying the racism of Arizona’s latest slew of discriminatory and intolerant legislation (e.g. SB 1070), a group of seven community activists — whose backgrounds appear to transcend race, class and gender – animatedly discuss Proposition 107: a November ballot measure that proposes to amend Arizona’s state constitution to eliminate “discrimination” or “preferential treatment” based on race or gender in any of the state’s publicly-funded programs.
It’s the height of Arizona’s monsoon season, yet the volunteers for “WE CAN! The Equality and Opportunity Committe Opposing Prop. 107” have willingly eschewed air conditioning and swimming pools (standard fare for combating Arizona heat in the summer) this past Tuesday evening to gather in the cramped front room of their Southern Tucson office for their weekly meeting. Speaking above the constant whir of desk fans working over-time, these seven activists describe their motivations for opposing Proposition 107 to me.
“It’s important to show that Proposition 107 was brought to the state by the same people who brought SB 1070 and the ethnic studies ban,” says Delores Grayam, the group’s registered chairperson according to the Office of the Secretary of State. Grayam serves as the group’s co-chair and historian, having worked to oppose earlier efforts to ban affirmative action in Arizona. “We’re looking at a convergence of nativists and proponents of free enterprise, who see this as an opportunity to chase people of colour out of the state by a process of attrition and harassment.”
“Not a lot of people consider Proposition 200 [and other pieces of legislation, like SB 1070] as part of a strategized plan to capitalize on nativist hysteria for political gain. But, these things are intrinsically tied together, and intentionally so,” remarks Melanie Emerson, one of the group’s organizers.
Javier Herrera, the other co-chair of “WE CAN!”, suggests that Proposition 107 “will divide our communities instead of bringing them together.” Herrera argues that Governor Janet Napolitano’s appointment to the Department of Homeland Security left a political opening for right-wing activists to force-feed partisan legislation to Arizona voters. “[The sponsors of Proposition 107] went through the backdoor to turn Arizona into a testing ground for their mean-spirited bills. We’re trying to counteract this. [We want to] provide opportunities for everybody, so that everybody can have a piece of the American Dream.”
A poster displayed in "WE CAN!"'s office that voices opposition against Proposition 107
“[This bill will] disconnect people of colour from the mainstream and roll back their opportunities,” says Grayam. “[Hispanics] in Arizona may become limited and left out from being leaders.” Herrera wonders about what Arizona will look like if Proposition 107 passes. “Are we going to have individuals [in this state] who can’t achieve?”
Emerson chimes in, noting that what drew her to the fight against Proposition 107 was the bill’s potential effect on Arizona’s female voters, regardless of race. “Women have been the largest recipients of affirmative action. We have a responsibility to speak out against this.”
Proposition 107 is the brain-child of Ward Connerly’s deceptively-named American Civil Rights Initiative. For the past decade, ACRI has used their considerable wealth to ram anti-affirmative action policies down the throats of voters in several states. Here in Arizona, I reported how the ACRI — based in Sacramento, California – spent more than $600,000 to place proposition 107 on the ballot this November. Furthermore, though the election season has barely begun, ACRI has already spent another $30,000 of their out-of-state money to mobilize their misguided campaign here in Arizona.
Honestly, when faced with the overwhelming funds that ACRI is pouring into Arizona, I felt as if the prognosis on Proposition 107 was grim. Ward Connerly was going to buy himself a vote this year; what could possibly be done to stop it?
Encouragingly, “WE CAN!” has a broad-based plan that combines efforts to obtain endorsements from Democratic elected officials and candidates, outreach to large- and small-business owners, and door-to-door canvassing to raise awareness amongst the average voter. Although the group still appears somewhat divided about exactly what their campaign’s message will be, two websites are already in the works: one that will provide information about Proposition 107 , and another (more broadly-focused site) that will invite bloggers to write about anti-Latino legislative efforts in Arizona. As for fundraising, the group plans to rely on small (and hopefully not-so-small) donations from in-state and out-of-state voters — basically anyone affected by Proposition 107.
“This is really a grassroots effort,” remarks Grayam, as she notes that the group has already received several donations from Arizonans and concerned citizens around the country.
From left to right: Emmett Alvarez (in charge of the group's outreach and messaging), Estevan Leon, and Renee Pacheco (both of whom are responsible for the group's artwork and online activities)
But, the members of “WE CAN!” insist that this isn’t just about defeating Proposition 107 in November. Citing their plans to register new voters and improve voter turnout, Maritza Broce discusses how the group can turn ”WE CAN!” into a long-lived political outreach movement. “We’re going to focus on the electoral portion [of this fight],” she says. “But, we’re also going to try to build relationships that can carry forward past November.”
AC NOW! To donate (time, money or manpower) to “WE CAN!”, swing by their office at 2111 S 6th Aveor feel free to attend their weekly meeting, every Tuesday at 5:30pm. You can also register your opposition to Proposition 107 by joining “WE CAN!”’s Facebook group.
California, Washington, Michigan and Nebraska: what do all of these states have in common?
Each of these states have been the victim of the American Civil Rights Initiative (ACRI) – a deceptively named national campaign founded by Ward Connerly to work state-by-state to eliminate affirmative action programs. In each state, a seemingly benign ballot initiative is put up to popular vote that would eliminate “preferential treatment” or “discrimination” in public institutions based on race or sex. However, upon passage, the measure is used to outlaw affirmative action programs, particularly in state universities.
(As for why the numbers of White students are falling over the entire period, I can only hazard a guess. One possibility is that White applicants were less inclined to provide racial data in their applications throughout this time period, which leads to an underestimation of the number of White students enrolled in UC schools. In addition, California’s minority populations have been experiencing profound growth in the last fifteen years, further contributing to the rise in minority enrollment in UC schools).
In 2008, more than 30% of students in the UC school system were White (and another 40% were Asian), while less than 4% are Black or Latino. Yet, compare these numbers to California’s demographics by race: Asians — who make up about 12.5% of the state’s population – are overrepresented by a factor of three in UC schools. Blacks make up 6.5% of California’s population, yet they are only 3% of UC students. Clearly, race-based barriers are preventing Blacks and Latino students from making it into the state’s higher education system, even with affirmative action policies in place.
If we compare these numbers to 1993, prior to the passage of Proposition 209, we see that while Whites and Asians were still the most populous racial groups on college campuses, Proposition 209 has only served to diminish diversity on California college campuses by reducing the percentages of Whites, Blacks and Latinos admitted into UC schools while elevating the number of Asian students. In short, UC students are becoming more and more homogenized.
In fact, ACRI’s national efforts to introduce ballot measures that attack race- and gender-based affirmative action policies only serve to white-wash college campuses by reducing the numbers of already underrepresented minority students. Not only are Black and Latino students turned away in the admissions process, but underrepresented minorities who are admitted feel disinclined to attend California schools when faced with the diminishing number of other students who will share their race, ethnicity or culture — what UCLA chancellor Thomas Lifka terms a loss in “critical mass” of underrepresented minorities – which ordinarily help new students integrate into the college community and create social and support networks.
Despite these dismal statistics, ACRI counts the marginalization of Black and Latino students in higher education as a victory, and has pressed forward with ballot measures similar to Proposition 209 in a variety of states. Such ballot measures have passed in Washington, Michigan and Nebraska.
In 2008, ACRI attempted to introduce a similar ballot measure in Arizona (Proposition 104) that would have amended the Arizona Constitution to ban discrimination or “preferential treatment… on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin” in public institutions, but were unable to collect enough valid signatures to add the motion to the ballot. Instead, ACRI and its supporters decided to reintroduce the ballot measure this year after it was approved for inclusion on the November ballot by both the State House and the State Senate, and will appear as Proposition 107 (click here for the full text of Proposition 107).
California has already set the precedent for what might happen if 107 gets passed in the state of Arizona, not just to our state universities, but to our businesses and economy. In addition to what I discuss above, Susan Kaufmann, the Associate Director for the Center for the Education of Women at the University of Michigan, wrote this summary of the far-reaching effects of Proposition 209 in California:
Prop. 209 has resulted in the elimination of services such as college preparation programs for students of color, summer science programs for girls, outreach to minority- and women-owned businesses to notify them of government contracting opportunities, and funding for training of minority professionals in fields where they are underrepresented. It has ended the requirement that state boards reflect the population of the state and also ended numerous voluntary K-12 school integration efforts. It has led to significant decreases in government contracts awarded to minority- and women-owned businesses, hiring of minority and female university professors, and the percentages of women and minorities working in the construction trades. In addition, it has led to decreases in the percentages of African Americans and Native Americans enrolled in the University of California system and apparently to similar decreases in the California State University system.
Based on this history, we can expect the passage of Proposition 107 to have lasting negative effects in our state. The diversity of our state schools will evaporate. Our state universities, which are responsible for a significant fraction of our state economy, will experience a sharp reduction in applications from in-state and out-of-state students, particularly from students fearing a racially intolerant atmosphere in Arizona (as we have already seen happen to The University of Arizona in response to the passage of SB 1070). Federal dollars (in the form of scholarships and grants) awarded to the state specifically for the purposes of raising racial diversity in public schools and the private sector may evaporate. Gender and ethnic studies programs at our universities — such as African American Studies, Chicano Studies and Asian Pacific American Studies – may cease to exist. Businesses that rely on skilled labourers (and who are already discouraged from moving to Arizona by our abysmal educational system rankings) — and that have private hiring policies that include raising diversity amongst their employees – may be less likely to move to Arizona without a pool of promising minority college graduates to recruit and hire.
In short, Arizona stands to lose a lot of state money — not to mention, national respect — if Proposition 107 is passed. And these days, we haven’t got much of either to spare.
Sadly, the supporters of Arizona’s Proposition 107 will not reveal any of those truths to the voting public. The website established by the ACRI to support the 2008 effort to put this ballot measure to a vote openly lies to the Arizona constituency by arguing that the ballot measure would not affect affirmative action practices, when (as seen in California) the ballot measure is specifically designed to abolish affirmative action.
I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to state the following: Arizona’s students and schools are under attack by anti-affirmative action fanatics who are determined to undermine racial and gender diversity in our classrooms. Supporters of equal opportunity must mobilize in opposition of Proposition 107 in order to protect equality for all Arizonans.
Act Now! A press release issued yesterday from the Tucson Southern Arizona Black Chamber of Commerce (TSABCC) indicates that a coalition of groups (including the NAACP and the Tucson Urban League) are meeting today at 4:30pm at the TSABCC to discuss how to defeat this initiatve. I know this is short notice, but all interested parties hoping to participate in these efforts are invited to this meeting at the TSABCC . Here’s the info:
WHEN: Tuesday June 29, 2010
WHERE: Northwest Center, 2160 North 6th Avenue, Tucson, AZ. 85705
TIME: 4:30pm – 6:30pm (RSVP) your attendance (520) 623-0099
WHO SHOULD ATTEND: Every individual, group, or organization wanting to participate in this effort to defeat this initiative. Everyone who want to send a message “NOT IN OUR STATE’
I must have missed the memo that said we are still living in the 1980’s.
I am a proud blood donor. I donate a pint every 8 weeks — which is as often as a person is able to donate — because I firmly believe that this small act can help to save lives. Blood donation is quick, relatively painless, and critical to preserving the health of victims of accident and illness. If I or someone I love were in the hospital, I wouldn’t want the lack of available blood to stymy the medical treatment available to us; I want to be able to thank an anonymous blood donor for their selfless gift of blood that hopefully will save my, or my family’s, lives. The American Red Cross makes blood donation absurdly convenient, and they even reward you with cookies and sandwiches with every visit!
Yet, our national blood reserves are dwindling. The American Red Cross estimates that roughly 1 in 30 — that’s 3% — of Americans capable of donating blood actually do so. Even fewer donate more than once or regularly. Hence, I urge everyone I know to take the time to donate — even if you have an “undesirable” blood type. I’m A-positive, which is one of the least desirable types out there.
Yet, my one exception to the whole blood donation process is that nagging question asked of during the screening process: are you a male — or have you had sex with a male — who has had sexual contact with another male since 1997? Translation: are you or your partner gay?
Answering yes to this question immediately disqualifies you from donating blood — and it is based on an archaic fear that AIDS remains a “gay disease”. Because AIDS began (in America) in the gay community, there’s still a public perception out there that AIDS is only contracted by gay men through homosexual sex. This is despite the fact that thirty years of scientific research has quickly established that the HIV virus does not discriminate based on sexual orientation – gay and straight men and women can all contract AIDS through unprotected sex.
The Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety — a committee that makes recommendations on blood donation guidelines to the Food and Drug Administration (which in turn tells the American Red Cross who can and cannot donate blood) — has banned donation from gay men based on statistics: they believe that because gay men are more likely to be HIV-positive, it’s easier to protect the nation’s blood supply from the virus by simply banning this “high risk” group of donors. And, it’s true that AIDS is more prevalent in the gay community. But, HIV is also more prevalent in African-American communities. In fact, the AIDS epidemic has reached such heights amongst sexually active Black adults that, in the D.C. area, it is estimated that 7% of Black men are HIV-positive. Blacks, only 13% of the national population, represent nearly half of new AIDS diagnoses each year. In other words, based on the Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety’s rationale for their ban on gay blood donation, Black men and women should also be prohibited from donating blood. Yet, we know instinctively that such a ban would be racist and discriminatory.
The point is that banning African-Americans from donating blood because of higher-than-average rates of HIV/AIDS contraction within that community is as ludicrous as banning gay Americans from donating blood. HIV and AIDS does not transmit via race, or via sexual orientation. It is scientific fact that the HIV virus transmits by unprotected sexual contact, by transfusion of contaminated blood, and by sharing of needles.
If the Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety wants to protect the national supply from HIV/AIDS, they should ban behaviours scientifically proven to increase the risk of contracting the virus. Just as they ban potential donors who have visited countries that have suffered bloodborne epidemics (such as Mad Cow’s Disease in the United Kingdom), they should ban all donors (regardless of race or sexual orientation) who engage in unprotected, risky sex or who are intravenous drug users.
Not surprisingly, current screening tests prior to blood donation ask if a donor has had unprotected sex (or sex with an HIV-positive partner) or uses drugs, and theoretically already weeds out those who are actually at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS without having to ask after the donor’s sexual orientation. Yet, the American Red Cross is bizarrely obliged to filter out in their screening process gay men who are monogamous, practice safe sex, or who are even abstinent — based purely on the misguided belief that their sexual orientation still puts these potential donors at risk for AIDS.
Now, I have always believed that this ban on gay blood donation is an archaic holdover from the 1980’s, and that it would be immediately overturned when examined by modern politicians. Yet, this morning, the Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety voted to uphold the national ban on gay blood donation even while they called the ban “suboptimal”. The American Red Cross currently estimates that roughly 219,000 pints of blood are being turned away by this ban on gay donors. I simply cannot understand the thinking of the Federal Advisory Committee on this matter — it appears to based purely on unscientific and discriminatory misperceptions of what HIV is and how it is transmitted. Call me naive, but I simply cannot believe that such irrational and specious thinking remains at the highest level of our government in the 21st century.
I also wonder: if members of the Advisory Committee (or the Family Research Council, which released a statement in abject praise of the Committee’s decision) were in need of blood, would they still shy away from blood donated by a gay male based on hysterical, illogical fears of contracting AIDS? Somehow, I doubt it very much. So, why are these people working to prevent that much-needed blood from saving the lives of others?
Act Now!Contact the FDA today and urge them not to follow the advice of the Advisory Committee on Blood Safety’s, and to lift the national ban on gay blood donation. Also, go to the American Red Cross’s blood donation website to schedule a blood donor visit at your local bloodbank, or even to host a blood drive at your office!
S. Carolina State Senator, John “Jake” Knotts, Jr., called fellow Republican State Senator Nikki Haley (and President Obama) a “raghead” on an Internet talk show on Thursday night. Haley is the GOP frontrunner in the state’s Republican gubernatorial primary, and Knotts supports one of Haley’s opponents. Knotts said:
“We already got one raghead in the White House,” John M. “Jake” Knotts Jr. said on the Internet talk show “Pub Politics,” according to the State newspaper. “We don’t need another in the governor’s mansion.”
(Knotts has since apologized, claiming that the remark was made as part of an “SNL”-style joke. As if, somehow, that makes it less racist and offensive.)
Haley has faced some seriously crazy opposition in her race, both as a woman and as a South Asian-American. She’s currently embroiled in a salacious smear campaign involving unverfiable claims that she cheated on her husband with men who support her political opponents.
And now, Haley is being labelled “raghead” — a racial and religious slur frequently lobbed at Muslim- and South Asian-Americans – based solely on the colour of her skin.
Really, I don’t know how the GOP could ever try to claim that they are the party of inclusion.
