State of Arizona, Senate Engrossed House Bill 2281

"I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it."
Niccolo Machiavelli

"In the human heart new passions are forever being born; the overthrow of one almost always means the rise of another."
Francois de La Rochefoucauld

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."
Abraham Lincoln

The title of this post doubles as a link to the official Arizona website for texts of that state's legislation. (I was playing with the blog features again.) For those who do not recognize the law by the Legislation identification, this is the controversial legislation recently signed into law, intended to control the teaching of K-12 electives described as ethnic studies.

I would encourage Penigma readers to take a few moments to look at the actual legislation; the pertinent section begins on the top of page 1, comprising only 49 lines, and continues for another 9 lines on page 2 of 4. The remainder of the bills 4 pages consists of an introductory cover on page 1, or unrelated amendments on the balance of pages 3 and 4, addressing school disciplinary modifications, such as expulsions. It is a quick read.

Beginning with the end of page 4, I was a little surprised to see that this Act does not go into effect until "from and after December 31, 2010", which struck me as a rather long lag time for legislation which presumably is intended to affect the 2010-11 school year.

The time frame caught my interest because one of the main advocates for this new law, Tom Horne, has had it in the works for some time. One might think that the lag time is the result of changes across the state in curricula, but in researching the background to the legislation, it turns out to be directed pretty much entirely at classes on the schedule of one single school district, the Tucson Unified School District; and within that one school district, specifically focusing on the Mexican American Studies Department. This law does not contemplate a very big amount of change on the statewide scale of curricula, so the lag time is curious.

But I find it interesting beyond the curiosity, because this statewide law that is directed at one department of one school district, was the work of the conservative Republicans in Arizona. Conservatives who profess to favor as a fundamental, core principle smaller and less intrusive, less far-reaching government. This law, which has a lot of problems in it from my humble reading, would seem to be a clear example of the extent to which conservatives are willing to throw out their core principles on the flimsiest, stupidest provocation. This hypocrisy is the basis for my distrust of conservative slogans, my distaste for conservative actions in direct violation of their stated principles we are asked to believe are dearer to them than their very lives. Core values we are asked to believe are fundamental to patriotism. I harbor the deepest skepticism that a state law was required to address the elective classes taught by one department of one school district. If this is not an over-reach of government, an abuse of power, an attempt to impose the beliefs of one political group on others thereby curtailing their liberties and freedoms, I don't know what is.

This is using a sledge hammer to swat a fly. The danger inherent in using a sledge hammer for fly control is the damage that the force of the sledge hammer does to the surrounding surface, as well as the unlikely chances it will actually do anything to the fly.

Sam Stein in his piece in the New York Times, "Arizona: The Gift That Keeps On Giving" wrote a very well researched column, despite it appearing in the Opinionator column of the Opinion section: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/arizona-the-gift-that-keeps-on-giving/?emc=eta1 Stein addresses the aspects of politicizing education in Arizona, on the part of the school district, and on the part of the Republicans who passed this law far better than I can.

Stein concludes his column with these words:

"This is one case, however, where the remedy is worse than the disease, or rather is a form of it. Rather than removing politics from the classroom, House Bill 2281 mandates the politics of its authors, who, in the bill’s declaration of policy, set themselves up as educational philosophers and public moralists, and even, given the magisterial tone, as gods: “The Legislature finds and declares that public school pupils should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or other classes of people.” The declaration tendentiously, and without support either of argument or evidence, affirms a relationship between critically questioning the ideology of individual rights — and make no mistake, it is an ideology — and the production of racism and hatred.

This would be a great surprise to those communitarian theorists like Robert Bellah, Michael Sandel and Robert Putnam, generally as American as apple pie, who contend that an excessive focus on the individual results in an unhealthy atomization and tends to loosen and even undo the ties that bind society together. The idea of treating people as individuals is certainly central to the project of Enlightenment liberalism, and functions powerfully in much of the nation’s jurisprudence.

But it is an idea, not a commandment handed down from on high, and as such it deserves to be studied, not worshipped. The authors of House Bill 2281 don’t want students to learn about the ethic of treating people equally; they want them to believe in it (as you might believe in the resurrection), and therefore to believe, as they do, that those who interrogate it and show how it has sometimes been invoked in the service of nefarious purposes must be banished from public education.

The moral is simple: you don’t cure (what I consider) the virus of a politicized classroom by politicizing it in a different direction, even if that direction corresponds to the notions of civic virtue that animate much of our national rhetoric. The political scientist James Bernard Murphy has been arguing for years that teaching civic virtue is not an appropriate academic activity, both because schools are not equipped to do it and because the effort undermines the true function of education — “enthusiasm for the pursuit of knowledge” — and even corrupts it. Teaching students either to love or criticize their nation, Murphy wrote in The Times in 2002, “has all too often prompted textbook authors and teachers to falsify, distort and sanitize history and social studies.”

Lots of evidence of that in Arizona on all sides of the dispute. Teach ethnic studies by all means, but lay off the recruiting and proselytizing; for if you don’t you merely put a weapon in the hands of ignorant and grandstanding state legislators who, as the example of Arizona shows, will always be eager to use it."

I always prefer to go to the actual text of controversial legislation, to see for myself, and I will address the specifics of the law here. From page 2, line 5, immediately under "15-111 Declarations of policy" THE LEGISLATURE FINDS AND DECLARES THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL PUPILS SHOULD BE TAUGHT TO TREAT AND VALUE EACH OTHER AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT BE TAUGHT TO RESENT OR HATE OTHER RACES OR CLASSES OF PEOPLE.

Really? Now I agree that it is not appropriate for a public school to teach hatred for others, including groups which might be unpopular -- say for example, Muslim Americans, or illegal immigrants. But in view of the mood on the right in Arizona towards their border issues and crime problems, this strikes me as a bit of pot calling kettle black.

Line 9, under 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 TOWARDS 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.

I looked at the educational philosophy being targeted, "Teaching for Social Justice", and the Marxist Brazilian educator who is central to it. I don't run away screaming at the word Marxist; but neither do I embrace Marxism. My own education included an objective and critical look at it. Marxism is not illegal in this country, nor is communism, or socialism, although it is unpopular in many quarters. But it is not fundamentally anti-American, or bent on the overthrow of the United States government, or any state or local government within the United States. I looked at the web site for the Tucson Unified School District, and frankly it just wasn't all that different from any other school district in this country. It stresses the same ideas of courtesy, individual achievement and excellence as you will find anywhere else. The Brazilian educator, associated with "Teaching for Social Justice" is addressed by Stein at greater length than I will go into here.

The essential point is that there is NO teaching taking place so far as I can find, or that anyone else can find apparently, advocating the overthrow of the United States government. This is an unnecessary law. We have laws addressing advocating the overthrow of government, federal laws. If we follow the logic of including this, giving it priority in the list no less, then we cannot in fairness teach the writings of the figures quoted above - Machiavelli, Rochefoucauld, Lincoln, or many others, if you take these authors from the past, and consider applying their thoughts to our modern world. But that does not appear to be the intent of this law; this law is intended far more specifically to enable a few individuals to go after other people with whom they disagree, allowing them to impose their views on others. This state law addresses elective classes, not graduation requirement material, and over-reaches what should be the local school districts determinations as reflected in the decisions of the elected school board and the school districts employees. This is NOT smaller government, less intrusive government.

As to number 2, promoting resentment towards a race or class of people........I did come across a number of references to a guest speaker saying "Republicans hate Latinos." It was a personal opinion, protected by First Amendment freedom of speech, it was not part of the formal curriculum, and it is not a justification for a state law. While it is a very partisan opinion, one to which I can appreciate Republicans might object, even if it represented a pattern of the exercise of free speech, it is not a matter for state intervention; it is a matter for the residents of the school district. There are better ways of dealing with this as an issue, including news coverage, assemblies, rallies, and other interaction between the community and the school district, and between the rest of the state and the community. We need to ask the supporters of this law if the still value our first amendment, or not.

Number 3, line 14, addresses classes "designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group", but if has the glaring fault of failing to define how this is to be determined. I would imagine this makes the law too vague to be enforced, given that I could not find any classes in this district which restricted enrollment on the basis of race or ethnicity; classes are open to all academically qualified students.

And number 4, the line which addresses ethnic solidarity. Again, the law consists in this regard of the single brief line. There is no definition of what constitutes teaching 'solidarity' or teaching against 'individuality'. There is no evidence of how ethnic solidarity is remotely damaging. I don't see how they can construe the one, 'individuality', as contrary to the other, 'ethnic solidarity'. Is it ethnic solidarity, for example, when an ethnic group has a Cinco de Mayo celebration, or observes Sytten de Mai, or Saint Patrick's Day, Guy Fawkes, or some other event? (I celebrate a very eclectic calendar of holidays.) Even the United Nations came out against this aspect of the law, something I don't recall seeing before in response to state legislation, noting that all people have a right to learn about their linguistic and cultural heritage. Without defining what constitutes ethnic solidarity, without defining how to identify and measure a failure to teach the importance of individuality, this law is again, profoundly flawed.

The Tucson Unified School District makes it very clear they promote individuality. If they are correct, then it doesn't matter if this law comes into effect on December 31, 2010, or next Tuesday. Given the severe flaws inherent in its very concepts, the moment there is an attempt to enforce it, particularly applying the financial penalties that are included in this section of the law, there will be challenges in court, challenges I would not expect this law to withstand. What the very nature of such a poorly conceived law entails is to increase the contentiousness of the situation while attempting to expand inappropriately the reach of government to allow the views of a few at the state level to over-ride the views of local citizens. That is not freedom; that is not patriotism; that is tyranny. We should be most wary of tyranny when it is cloaked in claims of liberty, and patriotism.