I might just be in a pickle.
Technically speaking, I don’t teach ethnic studies. I teach women’s and gender studies, now with a smattering of history on the side.
And yet, if I were located in Arizona, I might just violate their newly-minted ban on teaching about “ethnic groups” (h/t to The Nation for the summary):
The bill bans classes that “promote resentment toward a race or class of people,” “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group,” or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of treating pupils as individuals.”
Also prohibited: all those classes that “promote the overthrow of the U.S. government.”
I haven’t promoted the overthrow of the U.S. government recently, but if anyone’s forming a cell of the Arizona Underground Liberation Movement for Disgusted College Teachers? Sign me right up!
I do teach about ethnicity, and ethnic resentments, and white privilege, and historical crimes against subordinated ethnic groups. That’s part of taking an intersectional approach to studying women and gender. Some of what I do could be construed as “advocating ethnic solidarity,” since even mentioning race is now a violation of the New Colorblind World Order. For instance, I teach Patricia Hill Collins and bell hooks, both of whom call for black solidarity while also reaching out to white allies.
But while teaching about race as an often-virulent social construction may promote ethnic solidarity – and even fully understandable resentment! – I don’t stop there. I try to challenge my white students to think about how one can be an ally. And none of this stops me from “treating pupils as individuals.”
Pitting solidarity against respect for individuals is just the sort of false dichotomy that one ought to expect, though, from people whose thinking is permanently impaired by black-and-white categories. Prejudice and hate are such a rotten match for critical thinking!
Consider the other class I’m teaching this quarter: Nazi Germany. Just today, I spent an hour lecturing on the myriad ways Jews were marginalized in the 1930s, from the ban on kosher butchering to the assault on Jewish artists and authors. You’d better believe I praised the solidarity Jews showed under fire! Otherwise it’s only a story of their victimization (which can become an instance of re-victimization). Would this advocacy of ethnic solidarity put me at odds with the Arizona law? The Nation reports that it wouldn’t – but why not?
Arizona seems to be creating good victims (European Jews) and bad victims (aspiring immigrants from Mexico). Most of the “good” victims are, of course, geographically distant and conveniently dead, while the “bad” ones are turning up in Arizona schools, curious about their own history.
But maybe the real question is: Does anything in this Arizona law (or its notorious predecessor) put it at odds with Nazi policies toward the Jews? Let’s see: A racially-specific requirement to carry identity papers? Check. Scapegoating of an ethnic group? Check. Limiting the role of that ethnic group in education? Check.
I don’t want to indulge in pat historical analogies. I do not think that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer intends to set up concentration camps – though the wall along the border is bad enough. I do not think she intends to issue shirts with a big fabric “I” patch – I for immigrant, I for illegal. I do not suspect her of planning to conscript anyone into forced labor, though she seems sanguine enough at the hypocritical status quo that allows Americans to eat cheap lettuce picked for dirt-cheap wages by precisely those people targeted by the new laws. Nor do I imagine she’s plotting to declare war against Mexico in order to radicalize Arizona’s policies under cover of war.
And yet, there’s plenty troubling about the Arizona laws. Scapegoating and marginalizing are cruel and unethical even if that’s where the damage ends. But they tend to take on their own dynamic. History doesn’t predict how, exactly, scapegoating will claim flesh-and-blood victims. History does teach that once scapegoating spreads, it’s unlikely to fade away without violence.
Also: I am just infuriated at a bunch of no-nothing legislators telling professors what they may teach!
Today, as I was in the midst of lecturing on the November Pogrom, massive thunderclaps shook my well-insulated lecture hall. It was occasion for a rare laugh, in a class where giggles are mighty scarce. It seemed as though an angry god was speaking straight to the topic. I don’t believe in divine intervention – not at all. But as a Republican, odds are that Governor Brewer does, and if so, I’m happy to say that an angry god left a message for her: The angels are on the side of ethnic studies. They sing praises of glory to solidarity. They abide righteously in academic freedom. And they see the hideous stain in your soul when you scapegoat fellow humans.
Patron cat of Kittywampus (1985-2001)
Thanks for this.
You’re very welcome!
I’m guessing they tried to word it to weed out the racist classes currently fashionable in the movement to promote Aztlan and a “reunification” of the Southwest with a specific heritage. Classes in other words that promote resentment and hinder assimilation, unity, cooperation. That isn’t your aim or what you do. There’s no reason why teaching history truthfully should *promote* resentment. It might *inspire* resentment but that’s the individual’s call (and a sign of weakness).
Well, I think emotions like resentment, anger, guilt, and the like are not so terrible if they don’t become a permanent state. Sometimes anger, in particular, can be a healthy spur to needed change. I actually would wonder what was lacking in a young person who learned about slavery for the first time (for instance) and didn’t feel anger and pain. But all of those emotions can be corrosive and counterproductive in the long run.
I’d be very interested in knowing whether there’s any real academic infrastructure behind Aztlan – I’m sure there are some individuals and marginal groups that would like it to be promoted in the K-12 curriculum, and there might be a college prof or two who does so – but I’d be quite surprised if these folks have had a noticeable impact on Arizona’s educational system. I don’t live there, so there’s always a chance I’m wrong. As an outsider, though, I see classic signs of scapegoating for political gain.
I have been taken aback lately with all of this crazy new legislation. I also fear for my future as any kind of educator if this is the path we are heading on (which I hope is not the case). I cannot believe that the enlightening classes I have taken in recent years, the ones that have changed my life, could be considered ban-worthy.
Also, solidarity and individuality are mutually exclusive? Fascinating.
Aztlan features in the rhetoric (and name) of MEChA – Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan. Some students who are enrolled in the Raza Studies program in the Tucson schools are members of MEChA. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the teachers in the Raza Studies program come out of MEChA backgrounds (politically speaking) or have been advisors to local MEChA chapters.
That doesn’t mean Raza Studies promotes the reunification of the American Southwest with Mexico.
And this entire bill is about killing Raza Studies, a program that is open to any interested student and that has improved test scores, graduation rates and college attendance rates among the Latino students who are in it.
Two friends of mine aren’t sure if the charter school they teach at will be able to operate under this law. The curriculum there is focused on Tohono O’odham culture (while still meeting all the regular state standards) and has a largely (though not entirely) native student body.
When my grandmother was born on the boat from Poland on her way here (legally) there weren’t Polish language classes for the children, there weren’t special classes advocating Polish solidarity—they assimilated themselves into American society as quickly as possible, striving to lose the accent, learn English, have their children speak English only—and we all did just fine.
I can understand the backlash against a group that wants to enjoy the privileges of this country and yet remain separate from it. There are a lot more people that support this law than not.
And as to academia—-well—-I’ve never found a group so divorced from actual reality. My son, listening to his history prof rant about the war in Iraq, suggested that said prof might try going over there and find out firsthand what the troops thought, was told that he had no idea what the “troops” were thinking. After two deployments, I’ll bet he did……..
My great-great-grandmother came here when she was 20 years old, lived into her 80s, and never learned to speak English. Her granddaughter – my grandmother – understood some Yiddish but barely spoke it. The only Yiddish I know are the words that have made it into American vernacular English.
In the part of Pennsylvania I grew up in, there are plenty of people whose ancestors came here in the 18th century but whose grandparents – a dozen generations later – didn’t speak English. I’m sure there are people in Louisiana who can say the same.
I have yet to meet a second-generation Mexican-American who didn’t speak English.
Immigration is at very high levels right now, levels that approach those of the turn of the last century, and for several decades, there has been a steady influx of new arrivals. But there is nothing to indicate that these immigrants are assimilating less than the previous waves or want to hold themselves apart more than those from previous waves.
I sort of ducked out of this discussion due to excess work, which would have felt much more irresponsible if others had not so ably represented my own thoughts.
My dad grew up in a place like Chingona describes: a small town in south-central North Dakota where everyone except him and the one Bulgarian kid in his class spoke German. My dad picked up enough to cuss at the other boys.
The other side of the equation, of course, is whether “mainstream,” “white” America will *let* newcomers assimilate. For many decades, Irish and Italian immigrants were not considered fully “white.” Today, so many white people rely on Latina/Latino labor, directly or otherwise. Just for another family example, my brother’s helper in his piano tuning business might well strike out on his own as a craftsman if he had a green card. He doesn’t (as far as I last heard), and so there’s a symbiotic relationship between the two. Once that balance is disturbed, my brother’s help would either start his own shop, or be deported (not much in the middle), while my brother would hire yet another of the hardworking, ambitious, presumably undocumented Latinos in his neighborhood. In other words, there’s an ongoing demand for unassimilated workers without proper documentation.