Arizona ALJ opinion on Tucson School District Mexican American Studies Curriculum

Let's see -- a story about how law treats the memory of race, especially how law regulates (and tries to prohibit) the teaching of a certain history of race.   This is my kind of thing, and Judge Lewis Kowal's opinion deserves some commentary when there's more time.  I'm sort of confused on what the statue (15-112) prohibits in parts A2, A3, and A4.  Or maybe I should say I don't know what those parts mean.  The first part (A1) is laughable; no one is teaching in a public school in the US that our government should be overthrown.  But this is politics, so I get that we have to have a symbolic statement against teaching the overthrow of our government.  The rest -- like A2, which prohibits teaching that promotes resentment against a class or people --  what's that mean?  And note that part F explicitly protects teaching of "the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on ethnicity, race, or class."

The statute is as follows:

15-112. Prohibited courses and classes; enforcement

 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.

B. If the state board of education or the superintendent of public instruction determines that a school district or charter school is in violation of subsection A, the state board of education or the superintendent of public instruction shall notify the school district or charter school that it is in violation of subsection A. If the state board of education or the superintendent of public instruction determines that the school district or charter school has failed to comply with subsection A within sixty days after a notice has been issued pursuant to this subsection, the state board of education or the superintendent of public instruction may direct the department of education to withhold up to ten per cent of the monthly apportionment of state aid that would otherwise be due the school district or charter school. The department of education shall adjust the school district or charter school's apportionment accordingly. When the state board of education or the superintendent of public instruction determines that the school district or charter school is in compliance with subsection A, the department of education shall restore the full amount of state aid payments to the school district or charter school.

C. The department of education shall pay for all expenses of a hearing conducted pursuant to this section.

D. Actions taken under this section are subject to appeal pursuant to title 41, chapter 6, article 10.

E. This section shall not be construed to restrict or prohibit:

1. Courses or classes for Native American pupils that are required to comply with federal law.

2. The grouping of pupils according to academic performance, including capability in the English language, that may result in a disparate impact by ethnicity.

3. Courses or classes that include the history of any ethnic group and that are open to all students, unless the course or class violates subsection A.

4. Courses or classes that include the discussion of controversial aspects of history.

F. 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.

 

Comments

[Art]

A little political background. This statute was written specifically targeting the Mex-Am studies program in the Tucson school district. The conclusory rhetoric supporting the statute's passage was that the Mex-Am studies program did everything listed in A1 - A4. We'll have to see how it all shakes out as this controversy is expected to bounce around the courts for some time.

[Alfred Brophy]

Thanks for this Art -- the statute certainly looks like the product of some political agenda.

Anyone else surprised that there were no historians who were expert witnesses in this case? Seems like they'd be central to evaluating the curriculum. Particularly at page 15 of the ALJ's opinion, seems like there are serious historical issues. And I think again that part F of the statute authorizes a lot of the curriculum.

[Eric Muller]

Patently unconstitutional: the law would allow a class called "The Historical Oppression of Blacks, Asians, and Latinos in th USA" but bar a class called "The Historical Privileging of European Americans in the USA." Even if the two classes had the same assigned reading.

[Paul R. Jones]

A word-search of Arizona Revised Statutes for "Indian" shows 274-de jure discrimination enactment 'naming' a select group of Arizona citizens to be 'distinguished' and to have their 'race' health, welfare and benefits 'enlarged' while all non-"Indian" Arizona citizens are not. As of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, there are no more "Indians" within the original meaning of our U.S. Constitution....only U.S. and Arizona citizens with "Indian" ancestry. Nevertheless, our judiciary, legislators and governors continue to promote 'race' distinguished de jure legislation. Such "Indian" legislation creates race privilege, race prejudice and race hatred. How is such legislation accomplished? In my opinion, the gullibility of the electorate and greed of our elected servants fosters such racial hypocracy. As for our Arizona judiciary not upholding our U.S./Arizona Constitution re. 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, on racial legislation, the word 'cover-up' comes to mind. Incidentally, 27% of Arizona's land is controlled by the 21-federally recognized "Indian tribes" that contribute nothing to Arizona's tax base...and Arizona is 'broke' according to the news media.