In a recent post, I implored the public to read SB1070, the immigration bill that has caused a national uprising amongst Hispanics and concerned citizens who see the bill as leading to civil rights violations. I concluded that the bill, while not explicitly stating that law enforcement could search individuals based on their appearance, did contain very ambiguous language which did not protect against abuse and civil rights violations.
Once again, Arizona’s state legislature has proven itself to be a bunch of backwards ignoramuses. In this case, the legislature decided to amend a section of state law dealing with curriculum taught in state funded educational institutions (public schools K-12). I read the 5 page bill, and here are my conclusions:
The bill is summed up in the first page:
A. A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IN THIS STATE SHALL NOT INCLUDE IN ITS PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTION ANY COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE.
3. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP.
4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS.
For the first point about the overthrow of the government: There is a litmus test that has been used back to the days of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (Supreme Court justice extraordinaire) that says that a person’s first amendment rights should be balanced against the national security and general security implications of that person’s actions. This goes hand-in-hand with the idea that someone is not allowed to openly advocate and advertise violence or actions to do violence against the US government. But, it is within their rights to teach about and talk about the overthrow of the U.S. government. They can also talk about a preference to overthrow the government without directly talking about taking action or advertising action to overthrow it. So, the first point is vague on its constitutionality.
The second point is not as controversial as the last section. There are plenty of contemporary areas of study and research that examine writings that show and promote resentment towards a race or class of people. These things have historic, social and cultural significance, and should not be banned. Just because one book talked about Mexican resentment towards the U.S. takeover of Mexican territory, doesn’t mean you should ban all racially or ethnically charged or divisive literature. If you know anything about US History and intervention in the world, you know there will be a lot of writing that shows resentment towards the US and certain ethnic groups that are seen as benefitting from US presence.
Section 3 and 4 go together. Classes that these sections challenge do not exist. There are no classes that exclude individuals based on their race, class or ethnicity in public schools. Classes may be designed to teach about a specific ethnicity or race, but they do not overtly exclude anyone. With that said, the argument can be made that they are “designed” for a specific race or class and they present a covert message that individuals outside of that race or class should not take the class. This argument is weak, as it is based on individual perception instead of actual policy. They policy is that all classes are open for all individuals.
I doubt any of these teachers will punish a student if they do not go along with some sort of “ethnic solidarity” that is in line with the themes of the class. These classes are meant to teach about the different ethnicities and races that young students encounter every day in order to encourage tolerance. They do not accomplish this by teaching intolerance. If that were the case, the problem should be solved through disciplinary action against the teacher, not banning all classes outright. Even in that case, it is extremely difficult to discern the reason for punishment. This will be complicated by the law, which will most likely, and inadvertently, encourage ethnic solidarity effectively negating the purpose of the law (see Prohibition Amendment).
Lastly, I want to look at another section:
NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT THE INSTRUCTION OF THE HOLOCAUST, ANY OTHER INSTANCE OF GENOCIDE, OR THE HISTORICAL OPPRESSION OF A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE BASED ON ETHNICITY, RACE, OR CLASS.
This makes sure that the law does not stifle the teaching of historic examples of oppression. Those include: the Holocaust, Slavery, Armenian Genocide, Rwanda, Civil Rights, Somalia and many more. But, what this section ignores is that these examples of historic oppression have an effect on politics and cultural morays of today. In other words, they encourage the teaching of history but ignore the effect of history. They are making the gravest of mistakes. They are leaving history out of its contemporary context, which is detrimental to the education of young students, especially in primary school. And, it strips students of a contemporary perspective, leaving history to be just a subject of dates, facts and people.
Arizona needs to encourage the free flow of ideas and encourage the study of many cultures, races and ethnicities. If they wanted to stop the banning or exclusion of a race in public education, they are going about it in an a$$ backwards way. They should be encouraging the study of as many ethnicities and cultures as possible as to inundate the students with knowledge about the world around them. This will teach them tolerance for other people’s cultures and traditions, without harboring some sort of stereotypical vision or hatred towards a culture that isn’t theirs. This isn’t about the oppression of a minority, its about the correct way to teach and encourage tolerance.
No comments:
Post a Comment