Do you have another source that gaves a description of these classes other that Alipac? Have you sought out any other descriptions or reports? And if the above description is accurate, do you feel it might be better for parents/teachers/students in a school district to petition to change that rather than making a state law? Have they tried? Is #1 (as marked by me) taught in the class or is that yours or that writer’s understanding of the narrative? How is #3 mostly not true?
One other question: did these classes exist prior to November 2008 or even as late as February 2009 and why do you think they are a problem that only now has to be solved?
Do you take Palo Verde’s source at face value? He/she mentioned “a paper” but didn’t give a name. Can you give me to these other things that you’ve read so that I can learn more in a well-rounded way?
It is from a newspaper, the Tucson Citizen, which went bankrupt last year. If you google the first line, “The basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites” you’ll find lots of references to it. And the Tucson Citizen was just an ordinary daily paper, not a right-wing rag or anything.
The La Raza classes have been going on for many years, and have been a source of local controversy for that long. Folks have complained about it forever and picketed the school board, etc. but haven’t had any changes.
By the way, I’m pretty neutral about the whole thing. I don’t think it’s as evil as some do, but I’m also not convinced it’s a great thing either. I think I’d prefer for them to get rid of it just because it has caused so much divisiveness and bitterness in this community that I don’t think it’s worth it. Arizona is the state that gives the least amount of money to their public schools, and whenever there is a vote to increase that amount, people bring out La Raza as a reason to be against it. In fact next week there will be another vote to raise the sales tax to support education, but it probably won’t pass, and it is in part because so many people are violently against La Raza.
Thanks for the reasonable post, after I was all over the place and had nothing but questions. I had posted so many times in a row I didn’t want to to come back and say that I figured out which paper it was; the website was stuck in there about 3 paragraphs or so down, making it seem like just a copy & paste job of “facts” that simply agreed with ALIPAC, with no further checking into the story by them. I did find lots of references to the story, the school district and La Raza. I have to say, if things were as described, the program should not be allowed continue in that manner. Why not advocate for changes, rather than totally dismantling and getting rid of the program? Also, you’re saying people have the power (in a roundabout way) to go to the polls (in addition to picketing) and vote down tax support for schools because of one such a program, but not the voting power to remove the school officials that allow such a travesty to continue. I know I wouldn’t stand for something so blatantly slanted in my community.
Also, why did school officials put up with La Raza not telling them what was in the program, continue to allow them to present classes with such incendiary topics, and allow them to decide which teachers would be involved and how? It doesn’t add up. At this point, I’m more inclined to believe that Ward was let go for other reasons and simply has an axe to grind, such as when he called guest lecturer and known activist, Dolores Huerta, a teacher and he worked at the school.
Again, if you’re neutral and it could be a potentially a positive and community-building thing, why get rid of it and not try to fix it? You almost sound like someone who supports equal rights but just not if its actual workings make others too uncomfortable. I honestly ask you, is that true?
Self-serving, don’t you think, if no one has done anything to fix what they see as the problem but instead only tried to get rid of it, and then use this to sway voters re tax support for the school district.
What does this mean? Is that “Vote Yes” to increase funding for schools, despite one aspect of the system that needs a bit of tinkering, or does “Vote Yes” to get rid of the La Raza classes and program? I’ve seen that bass-ackwards ballot propositions and they can sometimes be not very straightforward.
And, again, why does it have to be state law, in a state that just happens to have passed another wonky law relating to minorities and immigrants?
The point was that you are giving guys like Arpaio another tool on top of the ones they already have, abuse is taking place and even with a warrant… Are you still insisting that what happen to that woman is all hunky dory?
Let me get this straight: you have a problem with giving law enforcement officers another tool to enforce the law? And a specific law, by the way, that aligns almost precisely with the federal law?
Don’t tell us that it is raining when you are pissing on us.
Not a law, but the Department of education is also getting into the act.
Alone, an item mentioned in this thread could be disregarded as silly, when so many appear it is really naive to still pretend that this situation is not a slippery slope when we are already sliding.
Andrei Codrescu in that NPR opinion says it better:
The overall context is that most are assuming that the new law will be declared unconstitutional, and you are trying to ignore that many do see those laws as unfair, unjust and I should say, Un-American.
Also you are just idiotically ignoring that I’m taking into consideration who is enforcing those laws. If it was not Arpaio and his goons I would be also giving the authorities the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t get my Republican friends who support this. While I understand their concern about illegal aliens, these are the same people who complain about Big Brother ruling our lives. As I understand the Arizona law, it is one step shy from being a fascist state. I mean, if you must keep proof of citizenship on you at all times, then Hitler has won out.
“…Papers? Where are your papers! You must carry papers, or be shot!”
Sliding where? I’m sure it’s not the same place that I and many in Arizona fear where sliding. What is it you fear? The rule of law? America, the country that welcomes so many cultures may want to preserve its own?
Comrade Codrescu and yourself need to trade your Slipper Slope fallacy in and get an Excluded Middle.
Oh, please. He gets investigated almost as regularly as he gets re-elected. Political lighting rods get investigated all the time. Talk to me when they actually get fired or can’t get re-elected due to malfeasance. Oh, and “goons”. Ooooooooooooooooo. Scary.
The thing you and other don’t like about Arpaio is that he is does his fucking job
Ahem. It is already a federal law that all non-citizens need to carry identification showing the status of their being here. The Arizona law goes no further than already existing federal law. In that regard, at least.
Yep, even as it costs the county millions in wasted money due to stupid stunts and lawsuits that he loses. It is the perfect example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The county and the state looks really like an idiot, but by golly he is tough and that is why they reelect him.
The point is, you are also an idiot when you are bringing a sucky argumentum ad populum
Every other culture integrated just fine, including all those Irish, but people sure did complain about them just like you do about Hispanics. Why do you feel, say Mexicans, are different then the Irish?
No, he does what he wishes was his job, but isn’t. I offer you the generous regard that you haven’t studied him closely, and would not say such foolish things if you had.
Once again, you contextually challenged excuse of a being, is that I fear unjust and unconstitutional laws.
“Comrade” Codrescu escaped a police state, of course you would have noticed that if you had bothered to read the piece. Of course you will always attempt to exclude very compelling witness that are against your sorry case.
The excluded middle is ok in other states, if you are still pulling the naive card, you will have to explain properly why is then a problem to protest and make an effort to declare the new law unconstitutional? If this law is not a big difference, then lets get rid of it as unnecessary.