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.
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.
Since the NAACP passed a resolution denouncing racist elements within the Tea Party (the details of which NAACP chairman Ben Jealous explained on Change.org last week), Fox News has been spinning its wheels trying to expose what it sees as racism among the black community.For example, as Prerna Lal recently reported, Fox has lately been up in arms over the New Black Panther Party, a group that allegedly engaged in voter intimidation in 2008. In her post, Prerna cited video footage of Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, in which he pointedly declares: “The evidence clearly shows the [members of the New Black Panther Party] breaking the law. Why were they given a pass [from the White House]?”
Forget about the fact that Obama isn’t the one that chose not to file a criminal case against the New Black Panther Party (that decision rested with Bush). O’Reilly’s choice of the phrase “get a pass” is a deliberate effort to suggest that certain minorities (specifically African-Americans) are getting preferential treatment in the Obama administration. He’s suggesting that whites are the real victim of racism here — a theme we also saw in the Shirley Sherrod case.
Across Fox’s coverage, we see the same message. It’s no coincidence that within days of the NAACP’s announcement, Fox devoted several segments to the New Black Panther Party — highlighting their supposed efforts to disenfranchise white voters. FoxNews.com also ran an opinion piece by Congressman Lamar Smith that explicitly accused the Department of Justice of racism in its failure to file a lawsuit against the group. In it, Smith writes, “Had the defendants been members of the Ku Klux Klan, I doubt the Justice Department would have dropped the charges. This appears to be a case of reverse discrimination.”
Back in March, the speech Shirley Sherrod gave before the NAACP seemed innocuous enough. In it, the Obama appointee urged her audience to heed the words of Toni Morrison, declaring, “we have to get to the point where race exists, but it doesn’t matter.” Sherrod — the current state director of rural development — also movingly recounted how her attitudes toward race have shifted since growing up in the South, at a time when lynchings were still commonplace.
Yesterday, though, Fox News managed to twist Sherrod’s words. The network aired a video that was edited to suggest Sherrod currently discriminates against white farmers. (View the edited video here.). As edited, the video suggests Sherrod has previously tried to avoid having to actually help a white farmer keep his land — and that she made this decision based on the color of his skin.
Actually, what Sherrod discussed was how her views on race changed after witnessing how a white farmer whose land was being foreclosed suffered the same apathy and mistreatment at the hands of wealthy whites that she’d seen black farmers experience. Ultimately, she encouraged her audience to view the world not just in terms of black and white, but in terms of “haves” and “have nots.” (Full speech here — the relevant anecdote is around minute 17.)
But so much for “fair and balanced.” Instead, Fox News chose to insinuate that Sherrod actively discriminates against whites in her current job with the administration. Fox News also went a step further to argue that the NAACP was backing Sherrod’s supposed discrimination against whites.
Sherrod holds a fairly obscure position within the Obama administration, and it’s plain that the edited video that surfaced was just that — edited, and heavily so. So why the sudden controversy?
The wonderful thing about democracy is that even the most radical political extremists can participate in our political process. But of course, this is also democracy’s curse — particularly if these radical extremists are noxious white supremacists that try to spout racist, intolerant hatred from the largest soapbox they can manage.New Hampshire’s Ryan Murdough is one such case. A fringe Congressional candidate running as a Republican — a man unknown to the state’s political powers-that-be — Murdough flew under the radar until earlier this month, when he wrote a letter to the Concord Monitor. In it, Mudough outed himself as the state chairperson of the New Hampshire branch of the American Third Position Party.
Sound innocuous? Actually, the Southern Poverty Law Center (which tracks hate groups in America) labels this group ”a fledgling political party…with the aim of uniting disaffected racists.”
Murdough is a textbook white supremacist who sees multiculturalism as a threat — not just to his cultural identity, but to his very safety. In his letter to the editor, Murdough wrote, “Statistics show that areas with high non-white populations have higher rates of violent crime.” In a one-on-one interview with the Concord Monitor, Murdough expands on this viewpoint by suggesting that non-whites are genetically predispositioned to committing crime. “I’d rather live in a place that would be safer for my kids, and most of those places happen to be white. New Hampshire is an example.”
Following on the heels of its notorious anti-immigrant law, Arizona is again taking aim at its resident people of color — this time through a seemingly innocuous ballot initiative.
The proposal sounds like this: This state shall not grant preferential treatment to or discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
How many of us might support such a statement if we were asked to vote for it? Most of us probably would — it’s a disarmingly simple statement that appeals to our common hopes for a race- and gender-equal society. It suggests a dream of a better America, where racism and sexism no longer exist.
Yet a single statement like this one is what has successfully institutionalized racism and discrimination in California. In 1996, voters in California passed a ballot proposition based on these ideas. Since then, black and Latino enrollment in state universities has dwindled. Minority- and female-owned small businesses are less successful. Training programs and scholarships focused at underrepresented minorities have been decimated. (For a full discussion of the impact of this ballot proposition in California, read this report.) Similar efforts have succeeded in drastically reducing opportunities for minorities and women in Michigan and Nebraska, as well.
Are you asking yourself: who the heck is Barry Wong? My friend asked himself the same thing the other day while we were driving, and I — for no apparent reason — gripped the steering wheel with both hands and screamed the name “Barry WO-O-O-NG” at the top of my lungs. My friend nearly jumped out of the car in surprise.
Across the country, elections are just around the corner, and that means one thing: it’s campaign sign season. Here in Tucson, these signs touting the names of candidates like Barry Wong grace almost every street corner, sprouting like multi-colored weeds from the fertile sand of abandoned lots, construction sites and traffic medians.
In a state where Asian-Americans represent less than 3% of the population, it often feels like I’m the only Asian American in a two-mile radius. For that reason, I feel an electric thrill whenever I see a Barry Wong sign. Barry Wong was, and is, the only Asian-American in Arizona state politics, and he is running for re-election this year for Arizona Corporation Commission. (Don’t know what the the Committee does? Don’t worry — neither do most Arizona voters.) Nowadays, it’s a ritual for me to scream out my “support” for Barry Wong every time I pass one of his campaign signs — in part because they are hilariously over-sized, and in part because I feel a sense of pride and kinship seeing a fellow Asian-American run for office out here in crazy, crazy Arizona.
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’
Republican Governor Rick Perry of Texas is running in a tight race for re-election this year, with recent polls finding that Perry is just 4 points ahead of his Democratic opponent, Houston mayor Bill White. And as with any heated election, attack ads are flying back and forth across the Texas airwaves. But one ad paid for by the Perry campaign is sowing anger and confusion among the Asian-American community.
In the ad (titled “Man on the Run,” a response to White’s biographical ad called “Man on the Move“), White is criticized for (supposedly) hiding a history of liberal politics. For example, the ad accuses White of “running from his support for Obamacare,” while showing an image of White juxtaposed against a similarly-posed one of President Obama. The ad goes on to accuse White of “running from his shady foreign business deals,” and shows images of him lunching with a group of Middle Eastern businessmen. Such imagery is clearly trying to portray White as untrustworthy and out-of-touch.
And then perhaps the ad’s weirdest moment happens. White is shown standing next to popular Houston Rockets basketball player and Chinese national, Yao Ming. Floating over this screen is the charge that White is “running from his support of cap-and-trade.”
What? How is a photograph taken with Yao Ming supposed to make White appear particularly sinister? And what does such a photo have to do with cap-and-trade?
