Arizona Gov signs law prohibiting certain Ethnic Studies Courses

barkomatic

macrumors 601
Original poster
Aug 8, 2008
4,027
1,798
Manhattan
Apparently, the supporters of the bill state that certain ethnic studies classes are only available to students of a particular ethnicity and that the curriculum teaches those students to resent other races--or promote "ethnic solidarity". Though, how these courses encourage resentment is not exactly defined in the article here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100512/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_ethnic_studies

I find it hard to believe that students are specifically taught to resent caucasian people. Resentment may be the result of learning certain historical facts about the U.S. -- but history is history. The term "resentment" itself seems a very vague concept to legislate out of a class. I guess if students are specifically taught that today, all caucasian people will discriminate against them--that's different and should be banned--but I doubt that is the case.

As for certain classes being *only* open to students of certain ethnic groups-that seems to make a better case toward being discriminatory. Why shouldn't an African American or Finnish American student be prohibited from a class if they want to learn about another ethnic group.

What do you think?
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
I think Arizona is competing with Texas for most ridiculous state in the union. First, their idiotic immigration law, now this?

The ACLU is gonna have a lot of fun in Arizona for quite some time. Especially if they keep going down Stupid Road.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Apparently, the supporters of the bill state that certain ethnic studies classes are only available to students of a particular ethnicity and that the curriculum teaches those students to resent other races--or promote "ethnic solidarity". Though, how these courses encourage resentment is not exactly defined in the article here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100512/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_ethnic_studies

I find it hard to believe that students are specifically taught to resent caucasian people. Resentment may be the result of learning certain historical facts about the U.S. -- but history is history. The term "resentment" itself seems a very vague concept to legislate out of a class. I guess if students are specifically taught that today, all caucasian people will discriminate against them--that's different and should be banned--but I doubt that is the case.

As for certain classes being *only* open to students of certain ethnic groups-that seems to make a better case toward being discriminatory. Why shouldn't an African American or Finnish American student be prohibited from a class if they want to learn about another ethnic group.

What do you think?
Why would we close off courses to certain students if that is what they want to learn about? Why as a white person would I not be allowed to take a native-american ethnic course?

I see no problem with banning courses that promote resentment towards certain ethnic groups. The history books are largely skewed to only reveal the worst sides of the white man and dumb down all other ethnic group's histories as to not offend anyone. All three of the major textbook publishers have departments whose sole purpose is to make sure that no one is offended, even if the truth has to be skewed or not told at all.

The measure doesn't prohibit classes that teach about the history of a particular ethnic group, as long as the course is open to all students and doesn't promote ethnic solidarity or resentment.
What part of that do you disagree with?


Nice bait on the thread title also.
 

barkomatic

macrumors 601
Original poster
Aug 8, 2008
4,027
1,798
Manhattan
Why would we close off courses to certain students if that is what they want to learn about? Why as a white person would I not be allowed to take a native-american ethnic course?

I see no problem with banning courses that promote resentment towards certain ethnic groups. The history books are largely skewed to only reveal the worst sides of the white man and dumb down all other ethnic group's histories as to not offend anyone. All three of the major textbook publishers have departments whose sole purpose is to make sure that no one is offended, even if the truth has to be skewed or not told at all.



What part of that do you disagree with?


Nice bait on the thread title also.
The part I disagree with is exactly how the bill will legislate the concept of "resentment" or "ethnic solidarity". These are vague terms that can be interpreted in a variety of different ways. If a student realizes the racial group they belong to has been discriminated against in the past -- thats bound to create a little resentment right? Therefore, to prevent "resentment" would the class have to stop teaching about discrimination?

As to preventing students in a particular racial group from taking certain classes, I'm mostly in agreement. I don't see why a Caucasian student should be specifically prohibited from a particular class if they wish to learn about another ethnicity. I said that in my initial post.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Why would we close off courses to certain students if that is what they want to learn about? Why as a white person would I not be allowed to take a native-american ethnic course?

I see no problem with banning courses that promote resentment towards certain ethnic groups. The history books are largely skewed to only reveal the worst sides of the white man and dumb down all other ethnic group's histories as to not offend anyone. All three of the major textbook publishers have departments whose sole purpose is to make sure that no one is offended, even if the truth has to be skewed or not told at all.
Oh please. :rolleyes:

What part of that do you disagree with?
Who is going to be the judge of this? That's the part I have trouble with. It's so open-ended it could mean anything.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
I think it's safe to say that Arizona has collectively gone insane. From the Wall Street Journal...


Arizona Grades Teachers on Fluency
State Pushes School Districts to Reassign Instructors With Heavy Accents or Other Shortcomings in Their English

PHOENIX—As the academic year winds down, Creighton School Principal Rosemary Agneessens faces a wrenching decision: what to do with veteran teachers whom the state education department says don't speak English well enough.

The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English.

State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators.


Flawlessly? Who can say they qualify for that?

Does this include white people with southern accents?
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
I think it's safe to say that Arizona has collectively gone insane. From the Wall Street Journal...


Arizona Grades Teachers on Fluency
State Pushes School Districts to Reassign Instructors With Heavy Accents or Other Shortcomings in Their English

PHOENIX—As the academic year winds down, Creighton School Principal Rosemary Agneessens faces a wrenching decision: what to do with veteran teachers whom the state education department says don't speak English well enough.

The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English.

State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators.
Hey- let them secede. Wall them off, and let them secede. Otherwise, someone get in there and file some lawsuits regarding constitutional violations.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
The part I disagree with is exactly how the bill will legislate the concept of "resentment" or "ethnic solidarity". These are vague terms that can be interpreted in a variety of different ways. If a student realizes the racial group they belong to has been discriminated against in the past -- thats bound to create a little resentment right? Therefore, to prevent "resentment" would the class have to stop teaching about discrimination?

As to preventing all students from taking certain classes, I'm mostly in agreement. I don't see why a Caucasian student should be specifically prohibited from a particular class if they wish to learn about another ethnicity. I said that in my initial post.
Like I said the textbook manufacturers have departments that weed out anything that would offend any ethnic/gender except the white male, thats their job. If you tell one side of history to its full extent and then smooth over anything on the ethnic people you are studying as to not offend anyone you are creating resentment.

I have no problem with telling history as long as each side is portrayed correctly.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Oh please. :rolleyes:



Who is going to be the judge of this? That's the part I have trouble with. It's so open-ended it could mean anything.
What would be the purpose of restricting white kids from being in a mexican-american course other than to allow outlandish statements to be made with no one to report it?

You can oh please my first statement all you want, its the truth.
 

Rt&Dzine

macrumors 6502a
Oct 8, 2008
736
5
The measure signed Tuesday prohibits classes that advocate ethnic solidarity, that are designed primarily for students of a particular race or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group.
This is worded so that classes are prohibited that have any of the 3 criteria. Does that mean that an American history course can't teach how Native Americans were treated because that promotes resentment toward white people? Or the same with blacks and slavery? Those topics have to be omitted or "whitewashed"?
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
What would be the purpose of restricting white kids from being in a mexican-american course other than to allow outlandish statements to be made with no one to report it?
Point me to where this was exactly going on and what is taught in these courses.

You can oh please my first statement all you want, its the truth.
Prove it.

This is worded so that classes are prohibited that have any of the 3 criteria. Does that mean that an American history course can't teach how Native Americans were treated because that promotes resentment toward white people? Or the same with blacks and slavery? Those topics have to be omitted or "whitewashed"?
Exactly- how are these truths to be presented in a way that wouldn't create "resentment".
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
This is worded so that classes are prohibited that have any of the 3 criteria. Does that mean that an American history course can't teach how Native Americans were treated because that promotes resentment toward white people? Or the same with blacks and slavery? Those topics have to be omitted or "whitewashed"?
No, it means that both sides must be portrayed correctly. aka you can't have the indians portrayed as if it were a disney original picture and then tell the real history of the white man.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
James A. Banks wrote the guidelines for mcgraw-hill in the 90s. Pick up a book before that time period and look how they portray each group, now pick up one today and we get a new history.
Prove it. Prove that "the white man" is being s*** on in history books. Otherwise, you're blowing smoke.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Prove it. Prove that "the white man" is being s*** on in history books. Otherwise, you're blowing smoke.
I didn't say they were being **** on, I said their stories were being told in their entirety while all others are being smoothed over. I will find an example of this and post it, I can't remember which texts I have that are recent enough.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
OK then- point to examples.
In a new textbook you will never see any reference to indians scalping white men, the violence is almost always from the white man. In new textbooks the white men went over to Africa and stole all the people out of their homes, in reality the Africans sold their own kind to the white men (not that it makes it right either way). Thats just two examples off the top of my head.

Kids are being taught a heavily skewed view of history.
 

quantum003

macrumors 6502a
Apr 27, 2009
541
0
Superposition
We really are nicer folk than all this recent hullaballoo coming from our state would lead you to believe. :eek:

But that said, it really has been crazy lately... we've got protests and demonstrations everywhere you look and race wars breaking out on our streets... our sheriff has always been one to stir up trouble with the hispanic population and lately our new governor has decided she likes the taste of it too... (Napolitano was such a great governor... give her back Obama...)

But in Arizona's defense... you really should see how hot the girls are down here... it's ridiculous. Arizona! ;)
 

TuffLuffJimmy

macrumors G3
Apr 6, 2007
8,989
25
Portland, OR
In a new textbook you will never see any reference to indians scalping white men, the violence is almost always from the white man. In new textbooks the white men went over to Africa and stole all the people out of their homes, in reality the Africans sold their own kind to the white men (not that it makes it right either way). Thats just two examples off the top of my head.

Kids are being taught a heavily skewed view of history.
I was going to be on your side, but both of those points are absolute bull****. I learned both of those things in a regular high school history class. :rolleyes:

Hell, we discussed Africans selling other Africans in middle school.

Nice going, Zombie.
 

lionheartednyhc

macrumors 65816
Jul 13, 2009
1,024
3
Ah, the irony. By doing this, it will guarantee they WILL hate white people.


Im so ashamed of being from there. ugh.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,997
In a new textbook you will never see any reference to indians scalping white men, the violence is almost always from the white man. In new textbooks the white men went over to Africa and stole all the people out of their homes, in reality the Africans sold their own kind to the white men (not that it makes it right either way). Thats just two examples off the top of my head.

Kids are being taught a heavily skewed view of history.
Care to base your claims off something other than your skewed memory of history class? That sure as hell wasn't what I grew up learning the last 13 years.