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.
In an interview with Blog for Arizona writers, Parraz talks about how he thinks he is the candidate with the right values to replace Senator John McCain in November. “[Voters] need someone who understands the issues,” says Parraz, citing his history of working as a union leader and organizing against Sherriff Joe Arpaio. “We don’t need a traditional candidate,” Parraz continued.
In fact, Parraz spends a lot of time making the case for himself as the candidate with the right values to represent Arizona in the Senate. And, as a progressive and a grassroots activist, I appreciate Parraz’s background as a community organizer. After spending over an hour and a half on the phone with Parraz and his campaign staff, I am reminded of my days working with Obama for America. The same kind of grassroots excitement that fueled Obama’s presidential campaign, and the Dean campaign in 2000, is now evident in Parraz’s organization. I believe that Randy Parraz is a man who genuinely wants to fix Arizona.
Unfortunately, I just don’t think that Parraz’s good intentions are enough.
With all the buzz surrounding Parraz’s candidacy, I was excited to have an opportunity to chat with him about the substantive proposals he brings to the table. But, while researching Parraz’s platform and political stances, I soon came to a frightening realization: for the boatloads of evidence out there demonstrating that Parraz has the right values to be this state’s next senator, he’s got very few tangible ideas.
For example, in our interview, I asked Parraz to clarify his remarks on Arizona Illustrated two weeks ago, when he said that we “can’t secure the border” and that it would be insulting to try. Arguably, illegal immigration is the issue that will draw Arizona voters on both sides of the aisle to the ballot box this year; every aspiring politician running right now should have a polished answer on the subject available at a moment’s notice. Parraz is quick to say that he opposes sending additional National Guard troops to the border, saying, “I don’t buy into the argument that the border is insecure. How many agents do we need to feel the border is secure?” He further quipped, “Republicans only want bigger government on the border.”
However, when Parraz was asked about what his ideal comprehensive immigration reform package might look like, he was disappointingly thin on details. The usual Democratic platform was present – he supports family reunification, and the DREAM Act; opposes mass deportation of illegal immigrants. But on the question of whether illegal immigrants should pay a fine, Parraz is vague. At best, Parraz advocates raising our existing low-skilled job quotas, and allowing existing illegal immigrants to choose a pathway to citizenship, legalization or temporary worker status, but specific details on how to implement these pathways (without affecting America’s existing labour shortage) were absent. And as for whether or not his comprehensive immigration reform package involved re-examining our system for recruiting highly-skilled immigrants, Parraz offered only platitudes, saying, “America needs to maintain our competitive edge.”
Parraz at a press conference during his community organizing days, in 2008
Even on his “top priority” issue – jobs and the economy – Parraz offers few ideas. When I asked Parraz about the first bill he would love to sponsor in the Senate to address this issue, Parraz used the opportunity to attack John McCain by saying, “the top issue [in this state is] jobs and the economy. [On this], John McCain has been disengaged for 24 years.”
Parraz highlights the gap between the minimum wage and the living wage, saying that “people should be paid for the work they’re supposed to be doing.” Parraz criticizes the existing system, which he characterizes as a virtual “black market” of workers who are paid below the minimum wage. He further observes that Wal-Mart is Arizona’s largest employer, using this to support his argument that Arizona must attract high-tech jobs to provide sustainability for the state’s job market. But, again, Parraz avoids details when asked how we might accomplish this. Parraz says that, if elected, he would work to figure out if the state properly leverages its federal stimulus money in the fields of energy, healthcare and tourism. He further would like to examine how we might attract small businesses to the state by re-examining federal regulations on affected industries. Finally, Parraz would like to “engage the private sector.”
In fact, on many issues, Parraz seems intent on “engaging the private sector” – this was a phrase he repeated over and over again throughout the interview. On his website, Parraz emphasizes the failing quality of public education and suggests improving federal and private funding of Arizona’s public schools. When asked what role the private sector could have in public education, Parraz cited existing programs that allow private corporations to “create committees that provide computers and networking, and to adopt certain schools.” Parraz seemed surprised when I questioned whether inviting private corporations to sponsor schools could result in increased numbers of fast food outlets and vending machines in public school hallways, saying merely that part of the private sector would also be interested in reducing obesity and improving the health of our children.
The one substantial platform point I could find on Parraz’s website was on a proposed “financial transactions tax”. In brief, Parraz supports implementation of a tax on any purchase or sale of stocks or bonds, which Parraz feels would “provide a pot of money to deal with some of the damage done by financial institutions.”
“Banks have been getting a free ride,” comments Parraz, summarizing the nation’s general ill-will towards big banks. But, when asked about the effect such a tax might have on the nation’s economy, Parraz provided only limited discussion. The tax, which has generally been described in economist circles as a small fee to slow the market (and thereby discourage the kinds of strange distortions that can cause a market crash) can, by definition, slow economic growth by discouraging trading. Parraz seemed unaware of his proposal’s potential effects. Surprisingly, he also dismissed suggestions that the cost of the tax might be passed on by banks to consumers, saying only, “the tax will not bankrupt large banks.” When asked if a capital gains tax, rather than a financial transactions tax, might better accomplish his goal to target big banks and increase revenue, Parraz admitted he didn’t know much about capital gains taxes.
The press conference in 2008 was conducted the morning after Parraz was arrested by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's officers during a peaceful protest.
Finally, I asked Parraz about his stance on science research and technology. Again, Parraz was only able to fire questions back at me. Although he supports stem cell research, Parraz had no particular thoughts on how to improve federal funding of scientific research. He cited the fact that federal stimulus money has supported new research proposals (it has), but suggested that as senator, he would address additional lack of research funding by looking at what other research projects needed money. Never mind that the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation are the clearinghouses for research proposals – it almost sounded like, as senator, Parraz would be interested in adopting a side job as a grants reviewer.
I’ll admit that prior to this interview, I knew virtually nothing about Randy Parraz and his campaign to be Arizona’s U.S. Senator. In fact, I only knew of Parraz’s candidacy through the attacks of his online supporters against front-runner Rodney Glassman (incidentally, on this point, Parraz’s campaign only touts the freedom of bloggers to write whatever they choose – a position I’m generally in favour of). But, I figured that if Parraz was able to attract such fervent support in political bloggers – who tend to be a thoughtful and intelligent bunch – he must not be too bad.
And indeed, Parraz seems like a genuinely good guy, who won’t intentionally do wrong by Arizona in the U.S. Senate. Sadly, I think Arizona needs more than just a man with the right values to fix the problems in this state. We need a senator with the right ideas and the right values, who is capable of articulating both why we need a change and what we can do to tangibly affect that change. Parraz might have enough heart to be our senator, but with less than ten days left until the Democratic primary election, it may be too late to prove to voters that he’s also got the thoughtfulness to back it up.
Republican and Chinese-American Congressman Charles Djou, from Hawaii, has an opinion piece on the Wall Street Journal today defending the 14th Amendment. The article is protected by subscription access, but VDARE has graciously reposted an excerpt:
“The 14th Amendment is one of the crowning achievements of the Republican Party. Following the Civil War, the 14th Amendment guaranteed due process for every person under the law and helped to reunite a fractured nation. It pains me to think that we may start tinkering with this fundamental fabric of our union.
The problem of illegal immigration is a difficult one, touching deeply held beliefs and emotions. But the president and both parties in Congress have a responsibility to engage in a good-faith effort to reach a consensus on an approach that enforces the law, expands legal immigration, and closes the door on illegal immigration.
In the midst of this complex debate, I have faith that the same political process that created the 14th Amendment can produce sound immigration policy that respects our borders and the people who cross over them. I have faith that “We the people” will ultimately move us closer to a “more perfect union.”
As the son of legal immigrants, Djou recognizes that the issue of illegal immigration can only be resolved by encouraging legal immigration. This must involve reforming the current immigration system, making it simpler to navigate immigration law and shortening wait and processing times for applicants. To me, Djou’s position is a textbook example of why improving political representation for minority communities is important; here, Djou’s racial and ethnic background informs his position on the immigration debate in such a way as to provide diversity of thought even within the Republican party.
That being said, Djou also makes a couple comments that seem ahistorical, at best. First of all, while it’s important to recognize the 14th Amendment as a crowing achievement of the Republican Party, we must remember that the Republicans of the Civil War era are not the same Republicans as today. Furthermore, as VDare points out, the “political process that created the 14th Amendment” included a bloody Civil War that fractured the country. Although America is currently politically divided over immigration, advocating a second Civil War seems a wee bit impractical.
I’m hopeful that we can reach comprehensive immigration reform without pulling out our muskets.
Tom "Standing Next To Books Makes Me Look Smart" Horne
Arizona School Superintendent Tom Horne has lost his ever-loving mind.
In yet another example of state politicians abusing their power to harass the state’s minority population, Horne has filed a subpoena against researchers at the University of Arizona and Arizona State University. The subpoena seeks the release of confidential, personal information that can identify participants in a study looking at the effect of the state’s English Language Learning (ELL) policy.
Here’s the deal: Arizona’s ELL programs require that all ELL students be segregated from general classes for four hours every day, and taught English language skills, until the student is capable of passing a standardized English test. Critics of the program, however, assert that ELL classes provide sub-standard teaching of course material, causing ELL students to lag behind their English-speaking peers.
Researchers at The University of Arizona and Arizona State University addressed this question by looking at the quality of education in ELL classrooms. One investigator assessed ELL implementation in 18 classrooms in five school districts and found the instruction to be inferior than that received by other students. In January 2000, Arizona was cited by the U.S. District Court for Arizona for failing to provide equal funding for ELL classes compared to non-ELL classes, thereby violating the Equal Educational Opportunities Act.
Currently, the January 2000 decision is being reconsidered in a federal court case, Horne v. Flores, which contends that changes in Arizona’s ELL policy and funding once more make the program compliant with federal regulations. However, the studies cited above are being used as part of the case against Arizona’s ELL classes.
Which is why Horne’s lawyers have filed for a subpoena, demanding that the researchers involved turn over their raw data, which includes the names and addresses of study participants.
The problem is that it would be unethical for investigators to turn over their data. All researchers who work with human subjects — every single one — must have their studies reviewed and approved by their institution’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). This is a lengthy and detailed process that includes a requirement that the identities of subjects be protected under all circumstances. There are even instances in some studies where the identities of study participants (or other sensitive information) are even protected from certain investigators.
Horne’s lawyers argue that they require the raw data from the studies in order to determine if they were appropriately collected and analyzed. Magaret Dugan, Arizona’s Deputy School Superintendent, suggested that study authors may have deliberately picked school districts critical of ELL, and thereby biased their study.
However, Dugan and Horne fail to acknowledge that the study methodologies of these studies have been peer-reviewed by the IRB committees of their respective institutions. Any issues of bias or sample size have already been addressed by these scrupulous reviewers. Furthermore, if the study is to be published (I’m not sure if it has been), than the methodology will undergo a second round of peer-review. It’s naive for Arizona’s Superintendents to insinuate that the investigators in this study deliberately biased their sample, and that none of the study’s peer-reviewers caught on; they are, in essence, accusing an entire community of researchers of conducting bad science.
In fact, the accusation would be insulting, if it weren’t hilariously ironic. Explaining the state of Arizona’s reasoning for requesting release of the study participant’s information, Dugan characterized the classroom selection as“slanted”. She further said, “At least I would like for them to have surveyed districts and teachers who are positive about the model.”
In other words, Dugan takes issue not with the possibility that the studies were biased… but that they were biased in the wrong direction! And how should we correct it? Choose to sample classrooms in such a way as to fix the outcome.
I don’t think Horne and his colleagues can even spell “scientific method”, let alone recognize the flaws in Ms. Dugan’s proposed solution.
(And Ms. Dugan is running to replace Tom Horne as Arizona School Superintendent, folks. This state is so fucked.)
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.
The whole debate stems from the Arizona illegal immigration debate, which has focused on punitive legislation to make life in the United States so heinous to undocumented immigrants from Mexico as to discourage border-crossing. SB 1070, of course, was intended to use the state and local police force to track down, detain and deport illegal immigrants by institutionalizing racial profiling of Arizona residents; according to federal judge Susan Bolton, the law had the unintended consequence of also legalizing harassment of the state’s legal immigrants.
Arizona Republicans have bandied about other ideas that would use state laws to harass illegal immigrants in order to drive them out of the country. Former state legislator running for re-election to the Arizona Corporation Commission, Barry Wong, has proposed that the Commission (which oversees the state’s utility policies) require electricity providers to check the immigration status of customers, and to cut power to any customer who cannot demonstrate that he or she is legally in the country. HB 2281 has banned the teaching of ethnic studies in the state’s public schools; current school superintendent and Republican candidate for state attorney general Tom Horne was quoted as saying that the bill was intended to wipe out “ethnic chauvinism” he believed was being taught in a Southern Arizona Chicano studies program. The program offered optional classes to students that encouraged reading of Chicano authors and teaching of Mexican-American history. SB 1097, a bill that is currently being considered in the State House, would — in essence — deputize school administrator as immigrations officers empowered to request and verify the immigration documents of public school students, and to report the enrollment of illegal immigrant children in their schools. Failure to do so would result in loss of state money to the school.
Along with SB 1070 and SB 1097, Pearce has now turned his attention to an issue described by a pejorative term popularized by anti-illegal immigrant activists in Arizona: “anchor babies”. Pearce and his cadre of nativist politicians believe that America’s Fourteenth Amendment, which grants American citizenship to any child born within the United States or its territories, provides an incentive for pregnant mothers to illegally enter the country so that they can give birth to their child. The child is granted American citizenship, so the theory goes, and than sponsors re-entry of its parents into the country or stays deportation proceedings.
The problem with the ”anchor baby” argument is two-fold.
Yet, Pearce would have us imagine that pregnant mothers are crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in droves. Considering that thousands of able-bodied people (i.e. people who are not seven months pregnant) die in the deserts along the U.S.-Mexico border, it’s hard for me to imagine scores of pregnant women deciding to embark on a two-week long hike through the harsh Arizona deserts with nothing more than a bottle of water, all in the vain hope that their children could eventually sponsor their re-entry into the United States… in twenty-one years.
Between the morning sickness, the bladder pressure, and the swollen ankles, most pregnant women I know have a rough time walking 50 feet, let alone 50 miles.
Russell Pearce believes this woman is capable of embarking on a two-week long backpacking trip through the Arizona desert in 100+ degree heat. Having actually hiked that wilderness, I call "bullshit".
But, on a more serious note, Pearce’s attack on “birthright citizenship” is also alarming for the effect that it has on our basic understanding of citizenship in America. Citizenship by circumstance of birth was introduced as a means of granting citizenship rights to all children in America, regardless of race or ethnic background; it’s no coincidence that birthright citizenship is included in the same amendment that established political equality for people of colour.
In truth, Pearce’s proposal — that citizenship be conferred to children based on the citizenship status of its parents — is not new. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the status of parents influenced the rights granted to their child. Although America adopted the tradition of birthright citizenship from Britain, America did not historically grant citizenship to the children of black slaves regardless of birthplace. This practice was upheld in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which found that Scott was not a citizen of the United States by virtue of his race, despite having been born in Virginia. The race of a child’s parents determined the race of a child (re: one-drop rules), which in turn determined whether the child could be granted political rights and American citizenship.
Yet, even in the mid-nineteenth century, America recognized the injustice of such a practice. With the Fourteenth Amendment, White men could no longer deny the citizenship of the children of Black slaves by being empowered to decide whether or not they qualify for protection under American federal law; simply by circumstance of birth, these children were rendered politically equal regardless of their parentage. We reiterated the importance of this basic understanding of American citizenship back in 1898 with Wong Kim Ark vs. United States.
Pearce is operating under a basic — and inflammatory — belief that illegal immigrants are not deserving of constitutional rights. But Pearce’s interpretation of the Constitution attacks legal and illegal immigrants alike, regardless of race or national origin. By virtue of not having American citizenship, Pearce apparently believes that non-citizens (legal or illegal) should not be awarded due process or protected from unwarranted searches and seizures (which, actually, explains a lot of his reasoning for sponsoring SB 1070). Pearce’s suggestion that the federal government once more be allowed to decide who can, and who cannot, be awarded American citizenship hearkens back to a time when certain groups in this country were not protected by the law, and were considered three-fifths of a man.
In essence, Pearce doesn’t believe that the rights awarded by the U.S. Constitution are actually rights. Rather, he sees the Bill of Rights as a ”Bill of Privileges” — or, more accurately, a “Bill of White Privileges”.
Frankly, I believe that’s not an America that I — or anyone — should want to be a part of.
I posted, not four hours ago, about Andrew Thomas’ latest efforts to smear Tom Horne, a fellow Republican running in the primary for the attorney general race. Thomas’ campaign has apparently funded a slew of campaign posters and a website that pretty much charge Horne with being the worst person in the world.
Don't vote for Tom Horne -- he turns smiles upside down.
I was able to get Tom Horne on the phone and by email this afternoon for a comment on Thomas’ underhanded tactics to paint Horne as “too liberal” for conservative voters.
The sign pictured above accuses Horne of supporting taxpayer funding of abortion. Horne responds: “That is a lie. I have never been for taxpayer funded abortions. I am pledged to enforce all abortion laws. As a legislator I voted to restrict abortion, such as to ban partial birth abortion and to require parental consent.”
When I called to ask for a clarification on his vote on HB 2708, Horne responded that taxpayer funding of abortion was “already banned” when HB 2708 came up for a vote. Horne further explains that he voted “no” on HB 2708 because he “had technical problems with the bill, which itself made technical changes to a ban [against publicly-funded abortions] that was already in effect” but that he had no problems with the spirit of the bill itself. Horne reiterated his pledge to support all anti-abortion laws in the state of Arizona.
Which is, if you think about it, kind of ironic since he’s telling all this to a progressive, feminist, pro-choice blogger. But, y’know, whatever.
As far as Thomas’ attempts to smear Horne’s conservative street cred, Horne recognized that negative campaigning is part of politics, but he said, “even if a campaign goes negative, it should be truthful. [Thomas] made all this up.”
In response to the attack campaign launched by Thomas against Horne, Horne cited a letter from the Republican National Commitee that documents a history of Thomas using attack ads to smear his political opponents (read the .pdf here). Horne has put up a counterattack website at TheAndyThomasTruth.com. According to the website, Thomas is described as still being under federal investigation, and that a court remarked that Thomas’ actions as a prosecutor have the “appearance of evil.” Thomas also apparently hates women.
This looks like we’re gearing up for an all-out war on the Republican side for the position of attorney general. Clearly, there’s no love lost between Thomas and Horne. It remains to be determined whether or not the Arizona Illustrated debate scheduled between these two candidates next week will touch on these negative attacks.
Negative campaigning is part of politics, and it can be a useful tactic in distinguishing oneself from one’s opponent: but there’s also a danger that the hateful back-and-forth will drive independent voters away from either candidate (particularly in the general election), and towards the candidate of the other political party.
Oh, hey — on a completely unrelated note — did you know that there are three Democrats running in the primary for attorney general? They are, in no particular order: Vince Rabago, Felicia Rotellini, and David Lujan. And there’s been very little sniping between these candidates on the Democratic side; these folks are so friendly towards each other, their debates have been practically boring. Wow, how about that?
Last night, while chatting with some friends, I predicted that a federal injunction would block SB 1070 some time today. I should’ve gotten a pool going — maybe I could’ve won some big bucks?
This morning, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton granted a partial injunction against SB 1070, preventing most of the nastier parts of SB 1070 from going into effect tomorrow. Saying that the federal government is likely to be able to demonstrate that SB 1070 pre-empts existing federal immigration laws, Bolton blocked the following provisions in her ruling:
state and local police officers will be able to determine immigration status of detained suspects based on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is an illegal immigrant.
legal immigrants or resident aliens will be charged with a crime under state laws for violating federal laws that they have their immigration documents on their person at all times.
illegal immigrants can be charged with a state crime for applying for, or performing, work.
stateand local police officers may make a warrantless arrest of any person suspected of a crime that would result in deportation of that person.
As a resident alien, I am particularly delighted that I won’t be charged with a state crime if I am found without my passport tomorrow. In fact, I’m hard-pressed to figure out if I even really oppose the neutered version of SB 1070 that will go into effect, which are:
motor vehicles picking up day labourers — legally or illegally in this country — cannot block or impede the normal flow of traffic.
people knowingly transporting an illegal immigrant in their vehicle can be charged with smuggling, if it can be shown they are doing so for profit.
employers face charges if they knowingly employ an illegal immigrant.
Can I really say I’m against charging a vehicle with a traffic violation for blocking traffic? Not really, no — blocking traffic shouldn’t be allowable under any circumstance. How about charging employers with a crime for knowingly employing an illegal immigrant? Employers should not be allowed to hire illegal immigrants, and thereby skirt existing labour laws and avoid paying a fair wage. Furthemore, an existing Arizona state law requires that all employers use the federal government’s E-Verify system. SB1070, in essence, duplicates that state law, which has been on the books for two years.
As for the smuggling stuff — this part always sounded a little toothless to me. I mean, how would a court of law demonstrate that anyone, other than the members of a human trafficking ring who received payment from someone to illegally cross the border, knows a passenger’s immigration status? I always doubted that the average Joe, who drives his friend to the neighbourhood Boston Market, could be charged with smuggling if his friend turned out to be undocumented.
Now, I understand that the federal injunction is temporary, and that it’s possible (if unlikely) that the courts will allow SB 1070 to come into effect in its full form. And yes, I’m pissed that SB 1070 ever passed in Arizona in the first place.
But, I also think that there’s room here for tempering some of our outrage. SB 1070 is a terrible law, but there are some elements in the bill that need to be reasonably considered. To me, what sometimes gets lost in the anti-SB 1070 side of the argument is the fact that illegal immigrants are illegally in the country.
Illegal immigrants should not be harassed or mistreated (as Barry Wong suggested by cutting their utilities) or racially profiled or warrantlessly detained, but neither do they have a right to work in this country without paying income taxes. They do not have a right to federally-subsidized healthcare and education. They do not have the right to cross this country’s borders without abiding by this country’s immigration laws. Activists against SB 1070 sometimes seem to lose sight of this in their zeal to rail against the law.
So, I really can’t say that I’m terribly pissed off about the parts of SB 1070 that will become law tomorrow. I still have questions as to whether or not these portions still preempt federal law, but in spirit, I don’t find them particularly noxious. In fact, I’m remarkably optimistic that we’re well on our way to finding a good compromise on this whole matter. Perhaps we might even build some political momentum behind wholesale immigration reform.
As if elections in Arizona weren’t exciting enough, we can always count on the ambitious to cross the line and go negative. And for our part, all we can do is sit back and try to avoid being caught in the crossfire of muckflinging.
In the Republican primary for attorney general, Tom Horne is squaring off against Andrew Thomas next month in a contentious, and hard to predict, race.
The following signs were spotted around Tucson this week:
Don't vote for Tom Horne -- he turns smiles upside down.
Just on a purely graphical note, these signs certainly do the right job in attacking Horne. Red triggers emotions of fear and anger. The text is large enough to read from any distance or lighting. And, really, who would vote for a guy who could make the bouncing Wal-mart happy face mascot cry?
The signs link to StopTom.com, a website that is saturated with righteous indignation against Tom Horne. The banner of the site accuses Horne of being a “RINO” – a Republican in name only. “Tom Horne is no conservative,” screams the header in stark blacks and greys, ”he is a confessed con artist.”
The website than proceeds on a long litany of accusations against Tom Horne, that supposedly demonstrate that Horne isn’t a true conservative — including the fact that Horne has received several speeding tickets. Because we all know that conservatives always abide by speeding laws. Reports are still pending as to whether or not Tom Horne also kicks puppies and steals candy from babies.
But the most inflammatory charge made by StopTom.com is the one also referred to in the campaign sign pictured above: that Tom Horne supposedly supports tax-payer funded abortions. And, it is true that while in the State Legislature, Horne voted “No” on HB 2708, which explicitly banned use of public funds to pay for abortions, in all or in part. The bill also required underage women to receive parental consent, and failed in the House by a vote of 28-28.
Interestingly, StopTom.com includes footer information revealing that it is paid for the “Thomas for AG Committee”. Horne is running as a traditional candidate, but Andrew Thomas is participating in Arizona’s Clean Elections Commission, which begs the question as to whether or not a potentially slanderous (or at least a clearly distasteful) negative campaign can be conducted on Clean Elections money.
Turns out it can. I called up the Clean Elections office today and found out that the Commission allows candidates to conduct negative campaigning with its funds. “We don’t regulate speech [in campaign materials],” said a representative of the Clean Elections office. Furthermore, a financial disclosure (which the sign pictured above lacks) is not required on small campaign materials, including campaign signs (regardless of the dimensions of the sign). So, as long as the expense is documented in the candidate’s financial reports, Clean Elections candidates are free to pay for attack ads out of their campaign funds – while hiding the fact that they’re paying for the ad on the materials themselves. Talk about loopholes.
