Oh Arizona...

Oh Arizona!  How I wish I wasn't blogging about you so constantly.  Often when one is featured often, it is (hopefully) for good things, such as when Meryl Streep wins her third Oscar.  But in this case, Arizona is just being disgraced on a constant basis, similar to the many mentions of Rick Santorum each day running up to the 2012 US elections.  First it was the banning of various texts on an individual basis, then the dismantling of the Ethnic Studies programs in Tucson, and now teachers may be in trouble if they bring books into their classrooms that aren't on pre-approved lists.

Kellie Mejdrich reports in the Tucson Sentinel that "Teachers could have their licenses revoked if they bring any supplemental books into the classroom that aren’t pre-approved by the district and posted on a website for parental view."  Teachers, understandably, are not too pleased with this development.  They are even less impressed, however, that Bibles may become mandatory to have in classrooms, violating what many consider a necessary separation of education from biased religious teaching.

The article goes on: "Currently, Arizona law requires the school board to “exclude from school libraries all books, publications and papers of a sectarian, partisan or denominational character,” state statute says. But if the bill were to pass, an exception would be included for the Bible as well as any materials for this elective course. Disciplinary action over religious preaching in the classroom would also be softened—from the outright revocation of a teaching license, to providing teachers immunity from liability as long as they teach the class 'in good faith.'"

Many consider this a violation of constitutional rights, being that the Christian Bible will be used to the exclusion of other religious texts or even other versions of the Bible that include extra books, as in the case of the Catholic version which contains Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, and others.

Anjali Abraham of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona agreed that introduction of the Bible as a state-sanctioned religious text to the exclusion of others was a serious violation of constitutional rights.

“In designing a curriculum to familiarize students with recorded history of the bible, schools are going to have to decide what counts as recorded history and our concern is that invariably means embracing a particular religious viewpoint or a couple of religious viewpoints and then as a consequence rejecting others and that's a real First Amendment problem,” Abraham said.

Abraham added that the lenient language for chastising preachy teachers as well as the establishment of a specific Bible course to the exclusion of other texts was problematic.

While I have no problem with the Bible being taught in school, except when it is included in classrooms while other religious texts are excluded.  Some of those in favor of the legislation say that the Bible is the most important religious text in Western culture, so that is the main reason.  Professor John Ulreich had the following to say in regards to focusing on a text such as the Bible:

“The Bible teaches you whatever you want to learn. You want to learn that men should dominate women? You can find it in the Bible. You want to believe that god hates gay people? You can find it in the Bible. You can also find places in both testaments that tell us that the fundamental spiritual and moral obligations are to love God and love our neighbors,” Ulreich said. “The Bible can be inspiring but it offers rich examples of very bad behavior. People who believe that the bible is all good for you, just haven’t really read the Bible.”

And as I said before, the legislation is also attempting to keep other texts out of the classroom: "legislators are trying to keep other speech out of the classroom, and threaten revocation of licenses for teachers engaged in 'uni-partisan activities' in the classroom, using FCC-defined obscene language, and bringing in books not pre-approved by the school board."

Arizona representatives who are in favor of this legislation make me so angry!!  The last year or so has seen the emergence of ridiculous, explosive, and religiously destructive legislation and politicians.  While up here in Canada I watch it as some sort of spectacle, I understand how terrible it is that these sorts of decisions are taking America into a very scary, overly-conservative and incredibly biased age, mostly based on erroneous understandings of religious doctrine.  In light of this, I worry greatly over the teaching of the Bible in elementary, middle, or secondary school classrooms.  I can only hope the legislation does not go through, or that Arizona is finally encapsulated under an indestructible bubble that will discourage the spread of such horrendous ideology.

I apologize if this post doesn't make as much sense as some, or if I sound like I'm rambling too much, but it's late, and this sort of news makes me quite frustrated.

Thanks for reading!

School District Ordered to Stop Censoring LGBT Sites

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 15, 2012

CONTACT:
Robyn Shepherd, ACLU national, (212) 519-7829 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Debbie Read and Anthony Rothert, ACLU of Eastern Missouri, (314) 669-3420; tony@aclu-em.org

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – A federal district court ruled today that the Camdenton R-III School District must stop censoring web content geared toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities through discriminatory filtering software. The ruling orders the district to not block content based on the viewpoints expressed by the website.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Eastern Missouri filed a lawsuit against the district in August 2011 after repeated warnings that its custom-built filtering software discriminates against LGBT content. The filter has a category that blocks LGBT-supportive information, including hundreds of websites that are not sexually explicit in any way. The filter does, however, allow students to view anti-LGBT sites that condemn homosexuality or opposed legal protections for LGBT people.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a Camdenton High School student and LGBT organizations whose websites are blocked by the filter: PFLAG National (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), the Matthew Shepard Foundation, Campus Pride and DignityUSA, a Catholic LGBT organization. The plaintiffs were also represented by Thompson Coburn LLP.

“The court correctly recognized the constitutional rights of all students to viewpoint-neutral access to information,” said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project. “It is absolutely possible to protect children from sexually explicit content while also protecting their First Amendment rights. Like thousands of other school districts across the country, Camdenton R-III will now begin using a filtering system that blocks pornography without discriminating against LGBT-related content.”

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri said that the district’s filtering system “systematically allows access to websites expressing a negative viewpoint toward LGBT individuals by categorizing them as ‘religion,’ but filters out positive viewpoints toward LGBT issues by categorizing them as ‘sexuality.’” Although the district argued that it would unblock individual websites upon request the court held that “students may be deterred from accessing websites expressing a positive view toward LGBT individuals either by the inconvenience of having to wait twenty-four hours for access or by the stigma of knowing that viewpoint has been singled out as less worthy by the school district and the community.”

The court also concluded that other filtering systems are available that “are much more effective” at filtering out pornography “and do so without burdening websites that express a positive viewpoint toward LGBT individuals.”

“The filtering system that had been installed at Camdenton R-III was arbitrary, ineffective and discriminatory,” said Anthony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. “Today’s ruling affirms that students will be free to search for resources for their gay-straight alliance, seek support against bullying and research history as it pertains to LGBT people, just as they would for any other subject.”

Walk-outs and Teach-ins: How Students are Taking a Stand in AZ

This is really amazing to see.  Students walking out of schools and staging Teach-ins to show the Tuscon Independent School District that not only were they irresponsible for getting rid of the Ethnic Studies program, but also that the students actually want to learn.  Let me say that again, because sometimes it's hard to believe: These students want to learn!  Check out this news footage:

Here's a great quote from the video (cited from the official transcript of the newscast posted on The Real News), if you don't have time to actually watch the clip:

NOLAN CABRERA, PH. D., COMMUNITY ACTIVIST: When students do walk out its frequently framed in the media as these students just don’t want to be in school, they’re cutting class it’s like senior skip day, and so really what the students did was they went and they created their own school, the school of ethnic studies, the teaching of the forbidden curriculum, and so it was on Jan 24 it was their big act of both educational activism and civil disobedience they had well over 100 students from across the district show up at that event and having personally attended it it was absolutely beautiful seeing students who were so engaged and willing to fight for their own education because educational apathy is something endemic in this country, these students were fighting for it.

This is so important.  In this case it's not only academics, scholars, teachers, and politicians who are making a stand against the stupidity of this whole situation.  The students are fighting for something important: their right to learn, and not only to learn, but to learn about what is relevant and necessary in a multicultural nation!

Of course the most infuriating part of this whole scandal, to me at least, is the reaction of Superintendent John Pedicone of the TUSD stated that he thinks the outcry against the decision to remove the program is just a distraction, according to AlterNet.  He also refuses to comment on why the books have been removed from display and library shelves as well as from classrooms.  According to the AlterNet article, "the violation-ridden Tucson school district under [Pedicone's] leadership will apparently celebrate next week’s centennial without any textbooks or special recognition of Mexican American history and heritage or the Mexican American founder of Tucson public schools, Estevan Ochoa."

Pedicone even went so far as to write a letter to University Faculty members who helped the students with their Teach-in, basically scolding them and blaming them for the students skipping classes in protest.  He then proceeded to make sure that students were punished, by first attempting to assign them janitorial work.  After realizing what a terrible move that was, he changed the punishment to detentions, stating that suspension would be the next step for students who continue to skip classes in protest.  The fact that he actually scolded university faculty members for helping students to learn what should be in the school curriculum is laughable!  But if you want to read the whole letter, you can get to it here.

Many well-known authors, scholars, and activists have been out in force trying to get the program reinstated, or at least get the books out of the warehouse where they are sitting uselessly, gathering dust, instead of being used to teach.  As Norma Gonzalez stated, the program is needed so that "Tucson children can learn their state’s full history and rich heritage."  Noam Chomsky even chimed in.  While in Tucson this week, Chomsky "referred to Tucson’s removal of Mexican American Studies books and curriculum materials as an 'international disgrace.'"

Henry Giroux, noted education scholar, had a few things to say in an article posted this week on Truth Out.  He concluded the piece with a very stern warning:

The Arizona censorship of ethnic studies, the destruction of associated knowledges and the silencing of dissent is one of those events that flash before us in ways that might at first suggest nothing more than a silly, irrational or anomalous happening. But that is far from the actual case. Placed within a long view of history, it clearly signals the formation of those antidemocratic forces waiting in the shadows for an opportune moment to enshroud the entirety of the United States in what the philosopher Hannah Arendt once called, “dark times.”

It is truly unfortunate that these events are taking place to begin with, and every time I start reading the news about Tuscon specifically, and Arizona generally, I find my insides beginning to boil.  I want so badly for the school district, especially the superintendent, to see reason and figure out a way to bring the program back.  I want to see those protesting students see a resolution for their efforts!  At least there are people out there, like Henry Giroux, Christ Crutcher, Norma Gonzalez, Debbie Reese, and so many others, who are working their asses off to make change, and I can't thank them enough for doing what I can't do from outside of the country!

And now, before my blood starts to boil and I get overwhelmed with the craziness, I will sign off for the night.  Thanks, as ever, for reading and for caring.

For Immediate Release...

Press Release from the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression:

Joint Statement in Opposition to Book Censorship in the Tucson Unified School District 

January 30, 2012

The undersigned organizations are committed to protecting free speech and intellectual freedom. We write to express our deep concern about the removal of books used in the Mexican-American Studies Program in the Tucson Unified School District. This occurred in response to a determination by Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal that the program "contained content promoting resentment toward a race or class of people" and that "materials repeatedly reference white people as being 'oppressors...' in violation of state law." The books have been boxed up and put in storage; their fate and that of the program remain in limbo.

The First Amendment is grounded on the fundamental rule that government officials, including public school administrators, may not suppress "an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." School officials have a great deal of authority and discretion to determine the curriculum, the subject of courses, and even methods of instruction. They are restrained only by the constitutional obligation to base their decisions on sound educational grounds, and not on ideology or political or other personal beliefs. Thus, school officials are free to debate the merits of any educational program, but that debate does not justify the wholesale removal of books, especially when the avowed purpose is to suppress unwelcome information and viewpoints.

School officials have insisted that the books haven't been banned because they are still available in school libraries. It is irrelevant that the books are available in the library - or at the local bookstore. School officials have removed materials from the curriculum, effectively banning them from certain classes, solely because of their content and the messages they contain. The effort to "prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, [or] religion" is the essence of censorship, whether the impact results in removal of all the books in a classroom, seven books, or only one.

Students deserve an education that provides exposure to a wide range of topics and perspectives, including those that are controversial. Their education has already suffered from this political and ideological donnybrook, which has caused massive disruption in their classes and will wreak more havoc as teachers struggle to fill the educational vacuum that has been created.

Book-banning and thought control are antithetical to American law, tradition and values. In Justice Louis Brandeis's famous words, the First Amendment is founded on the belief:

that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile;...that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination...Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, [the Framers] eschewed silence coerced by law...Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed. 

The First Amendment right to read, speak and think freely applies to all, regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or national origin. We strongly urge Arizona school officials to take this commitment seriously and to return all books to classrooms and remove all restrictions on ideas that can be addressed in class.


American Association of University Professors Cary Nelson, President 1133 19th St., NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-737-5900 cnelson@illinois.edu

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression Chris Finan, President 19 Fulton Street, Suite 407 New York, NY 10038 212-587-4025 chris@abffe.org

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director P.O. Box 17148 Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148 602-773-6006 ameetze@acluaz.org

Antigone Books Trudy Mills and Kate Randall, Owners 411 N. 4th Ave. Tucson, AZ 85705 520-792-3715 info@antigonebooks.com

Association of American Publishers Judith Platt Director, Free Expression Advocacy 455 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 202-220-4551 jplatt@publishers.org

Association of American University Presses Peter Givler, Executive Director 28 West 36th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 212-989-1010 pgivler@aaupnet.org

Atalanta's Music & Books Joan Werner, Owner 38 Main Street Bisbee, AZ 85603 520-432-9976

Authors Guild Paul Aiken, Executive Director 31 East 32nd Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 212-563-5904 PAiken@authorsguild.org

Center for Expansion of Language and Thinking Dr. Kathryn F. Whitmore, President N275 Lindquist Center The University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242 319-335-5434 Kathryn-whitemore@uiowa.edu

Changing Hands Bookstore Gayle Shanks, Bob Sommer and Cindy Dach, Owners 6428 S McClintock Drive Tempe, AZ 85283 480-730-0205 inbox@changinghands.com

Comic Book Legal Defense Fund Charles Brownstein, Executive Director 255 West 36th Street, Suite 501 New York, NY 10018 212-679-7151 charles.brownstein@cbldf.org

Freedom to Read Foundation, an affiliate of the American Library Association Barbara M. Jones, Executive Director 50 East Huron Street Chicago, IL 60611 312-280-4226 bjones@ala.org

International Reading Association Richard M. Long, Ed.D., Director, Government Relations 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 524 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 624-8801 rlong@reading.org

Mountains and Plains Independent Booksellers Association Laura Ayrey, Executive Director 8020 Springshire Drive Park City, UT 84098 435-649-6079 laura@mountainsplains.org

National Coalition Against Censorship Joan Bertin, Executive Director 19 Fulton Street, Suite 407 New York, NY 10038 212-807-6242 bertin@ncac.org

National Council for the Social Studies Susan Griffin, Executive Director 8555 16th St, Ste 500 Silver Spring, MD 20910 301.588.1800 x 103 sgriffin@ncss.org

National Council of Teachers of English Millie Davis Senior Developer, Affiliated Groups and Public Outreach 1111 West Kenyan Road Urbana, IL 61801 800-369-6283 ext. 3634 mdavis@ncte.org

National Youth Rights Association Alex Koroknay-Palicz, Executive Director 1101 15th Street, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 202-835-1739 akpalicz@youthrights.org

PEN American Center Larry Siems, Director, Freedom to Write & International Programs 588 Broadway New York, NY 10012 212-334-1660 ext. 105 lsiems@pen.org

PEN Center USA Adam Somers, Executive Director P.O. Box 6037 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 323-424-4939 adam@penusa.org

People For the American Way Debbie Liu, General Counsel 1101 15th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-467-4999 dliu@pfaw.org

Reach Out and Read Anne-Marie Fitzgerald Senior Director of National and State Programs 56 Roland Street, Suite 100D Boston, MA 02129 618-455-0600

Reading is Fundamental, Inc. Carol Hampton Rasco, President/CEO 1255 23rd Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20037 202-536-3500

Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators Lin Oliver, Executive Director 8271 Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90048 323-782-1010 linoliver@scbwi.org

Spark Teacher Education Institute Educational Praxis, Inc. P.O. Box 409 Putney, Vermont 05346 802-258-9212

Student Press Law Center Frank LoMonte, Executive Director 1101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1100 Arlington, VA 22209-2275 USA 703-807-1904 flomonte@splc.org

TESOL International Association John Segota, CAE Associate Executive Director for Public Policy & Professional Relations 1925 Ballenger Ave., Suite 550 Alexandria, VA 22314 703-518-2513 jsegota@tesol.org

"Shredding" the Public School Curriculum

As of January 1, 2012, New Hampshire has passed a law declaring that "school districts must adopt a policy that creates 'an exception to specific course material based on a parent’s or legal guardian’s determination that the material is objectionable.'"  What does this mean?  It basically means they every time a parent objects to something that their child is learning--whether that be evolution, sex education, or the laws of gravity--the school district has the responsibility to come up with a custom-tailored curriculum for that student.  According to the Nashua Telegraph,

Once a complaint is made in writing, the school district is required to come up with an alternative lesson plan agreeable to both parties that meets state curriculum requirements for that particular subject. Any extra expense would be incurred by the objecting parents.

Sure, the parents cover extra costs, but the school district is now responsible for coming up with custom lesson plans for every singe student whose parent(s) object to anything at all in the curriculum.  The article goes on to state that

Apparently, the previous law wasn’t good enough for Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, who introduced the bill early last year. Hoell said parents should have the opportunity to object to any material, not just those used in sensitive classes such as sex education. 

The inherent problem with that approach is that it’s based on a faulty concept: that parents always act in the best interests of their children. You don’t need a degree in sociology to know that parents many times do just the opposite – much to the detriment of their child’s development.

There is a reason that teachers have degrees and teaching certificates, and well-trained educators and academics are put in charge of putting together curricula for school districts.  No curriculum is ever going to be perfect, but that's not the point of public education.  The point of public education is to teach a diverse range of concepts and themes that will reach as wide an audience as possible.  Parents have ideas of what they want their child to learn in school, but what they need to realize is that certain values are to be taught at home, not in a school where there are a multitude of different backgrounds--whether racial, religious, political, or otherwise.  The idea that now every student must get a special lesson plan when mom or dad doesn't like the lesson plan for the whole class is just ridiculous and puts much unnecessary strain on the school district, as well as teachers who will be stretched even thinner than they already are.

I am more disturbed every day as I hear about the measures being passed in US school districts by politicians who seem to have no clue about how education should or can work: the fiasco that came of implementing slavery into math word problems in Georgia; the dismantling of the Ethnic Studies program in Arizona; and now the disregard for the very basis of public education by Republicans.

For a more complete and very interesting objection to the Bill, written by professors of the Department of Education at the University of New Hampshire, click here.  To conclude, I will quote the closing words of the Nashua Telegraph article, which states:

Even supporters of the new law, in a bid to tamp down criticism, acknowledge few parents will take advantage of it. One lawmaker even speculated it might be used by a miniscule “one-10th of 1 percent.” 

If that’s the case, the Legislature would have been better off to reject this pointless bill and left well enough alone.

What do you think of this scenario?  Do you think this sort of law is really going to help matters or just make things worse?  Leave your questions, comments, or concerns in the comments section!

Thanks for reading!  Oh, and for other articles on the topic, please check these out:

The New York Times
Seacoast Online
Death and Taxes

ACLU Texas Issues Annual Report on Banned/Challenged Books

According the reports from the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom put out by the Office of Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association, reports from 750 school districts across Texas were compiled by the ACLU and put into their 15th Annual Report on Banned Books.  The report notes that 17 books were banned from schools between 2010 and 2011, and numerous other books became restricted, only accessible by certain age groups or by parents of students.  In total, 67 books were subjected to challenges with the largest number occurring in the Round Rock Independent School District, though in the end, all 6 books were kept in the library.

The most common reasons for book challenges according to the report were as follows:

• Politically/socially/racially offensive
• Offensive to religious beliefs
• Drugs and alcohol
• Violence and horror
• Profanity/poor language
• Sex or nudity

The books that were banned are as follows:

• Steve Alten - The Trench
• Carolyn Coman - Bee & Jacky
• Caroline Cooney - The Terrorist
• Lynne Ewing - Into the Cold Fire
• Chris Lynch - The Slot Machine
• Carolyn Mackler - Tangled
• Joe Meno - The Great Perhaps
• Lauren Myracle - Kissing Kate
• Francesca Lia Block - Echo, Weetzie Bat
• Eric Jerome Dickey - Drive Me Crazy, Dying for Revenge
• Phyllis Reynolds Naylor - Alice on the Outside
• Sean Cliver - Disposable: A History of Skateboard Art
• Sarah Parvis - Creepy Castles
• Mike Reiss - The Boy Who Looked Like Lincoln
• Andy Riley - Book of Bunny Suicides

For a full list of the books that have been restricted, including Merriam-Webster's Visual Dictionary, check out the full report.  Included are interviews with Francesca Lia Block and Phyllis Reynolds Naylor, as well as a full list of the books that were challenged in each school district and summaries of each of the challenged books.

Also included in the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom are explanations and explorations of some more prominent attempts to ban books from libraries, schools, and universities.  For example, in Tavares, Florida, Lake County Commissioner Jimmy Conner wants the Gossip Girls series removed from public libraries in the area due to what he says are excessive occurrences of sexual activity, drug use, violence, and crude language.  Conner said that portions of the book he read were "so vulgar you couldn't read it right there in the commission meeting without being extremely embarrassed."  He went on to say later, "What I read was pornography without pictures."  Though Conner is obviously extremely opposed to the books, County Library Services Director Thomas Merchant said that no one has filed a request for reconsideration to have the books removed or relocated to the Adult section of the library.

What do you think of the above list of banned books from the Texas ISD's?  What about the example of book challenges related to Gossip Girls?  Please leave your comments, questions, concerns in the comments section.  And as always, thanks for reading!

Arizona Disgraced

Two school districts in Arizona have recently come to the forefront of book banning news, one because it has begun to pack up and ship out boxes of texts, and the other because there are already those trying to keep books from being bought for classrooms and libraries for various (ridiculous) reasons. 

The first of these school districts is the Tucson Unified School District, which recently closed down its Ethnic Studies/Mexican American Studies program.  The program has been lauded for being innovative and much more instructional than previous programs attempted in various districts.  The governing board of the school district, much to the public's chagrin, voted 4-1 in favor of termination and the books will now be boxed up and shipped out to textbook warehouses.  The reason for terminating the program?  Debbie Reese, blogger and professor, writes: "Opponents of the program argued that the classes were promoting resentment toward a race or class of people. That race or class of people is white."  People are actually frightened that the classes will teach resentment toward other races and classes of people... as if that isn't happening already outside of classrooms on a national and international level!!!  Reese continues, in her blog post, saying:

I'm pretty sure that Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House on the Prairie is not on the list.  Towards the end of that story, Pa learns that the federal government wants squatters (he doesn't use that word) to get off of Indian land.  They load the wagon and as they drive away, they look back and see that that "their little log house and the little stable sat lonely in the stillness."  Pa says that it is a great country, "but there will be wild Indians and wolves here for many a long day."  Books like Little House teach readers to resent a race or class of people, too, but I doubt it is being removed from classrooms....

In his Huffington Post article, Jeff Biggers cites Miguel Ortego, a community leader who ran for a position on the school board last year:

"In the 90's we asked why our students were last to be considered for an ethnic studies program....  Now we ask why we are the first to lose it. After successfully creating the Mexican American Studies program at TUSD in 1998, we knew we would need smart, ethical and courageous leaders to protect it. That fact hasn't changed. We just need to do a better job of understanding that the need for proper leadership to protect what is ours is constant. After last night's vote we should all realize that this need never changes."

I am having to take breaks every few minutes while writing and researching this post as the whole ordeal frustrates me and causes quite a lot of anger and sadness to boil up inside me.  I am even more aghast that a Federal judge refused to halt the implementation of the law banning the Ethnic Studies program, instead saying that a lawsuit to challenge the law could proceed if desired.  While I am hopeful, as is Jeff Biggers, that the program will return in time, I am still outraged that Tea Party state officials were able to influence enough people to pull this off in the first place!!!

In case you, dear reader, are interested to know what texts are being removed, here is a list provided by Debbie Reese:

• Shakespeare's The Tempest (REALLY?!)
• Suzan Shown Harjo's "We Have No Reason to Celebrate"
• Buffy Sainte-Marie's "My Country, 'Tis of Thy People You're Dying"
• Joseph Bruchac's "A Friend of the Indians"
• Cornel Pewewardy's "A Barbie-Doll Pocahontas"
• N. Scott Momaday's "The Delight Song of Tsoai-Talee"
• Michael Dorris's "Why I'm Not Thankful for Thanksgiving"
• Leslie Marmon's "Ceremony"
• Wendy Rose's "Three Thousand Dollar Death Song"
• Winona LaDuke's "To the Women of the World: Our Future, Our Responsibility"
• Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States
• Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools
• bell hooks' Feminism is for Everybody
• Bill Bigelow and Bob Peterson's Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years

I will end this section of the post with a quotation directly from an audit of the program undertaken in May 2011.  After reading this, I seriously have to wonder what sort of society wants to take away programs that actually improve the critical thinking skills of students, programs that actually help students understand social issues and problems.  It makes my head hurt.  But as I said, here is a quotation from the audit:

[A] Tucson Unified School District audit found its Mexican American Studies program gives students a measurable advantage over their peers. The audit was conducted by David Scott, the district’s director of accountability and research. In it, he wrote, quote, "Juniors taking a Mexican American Studies course are more likely than their peers to pass the [state’s standardized] reading and writing ... test if they had previously failed those tests in their sophomore year," and that "Seniors taking a Mexican American Studies course are more likely to persist to graduation than their peers."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another note, in the Dysart Unified School District (also in Arizona), Representative Jack Harper has decided that he doesn't like some of the books on a list that has been prepared for purposes of acquiring new materials for classrooms and libraries.  I will say first that I understand there has been no move as of yet to remove the books, but it is still important to bring to your attention the sort of ridiculous reasons that are being used to remove books from school systems.  Mr. Harper has declared his list of 11 objectionable titles may be considered inappropriate because some are anti-Christian, gay, transsexual, or promote drug-abuse.  Some of the books of concern were: "Should Marijuana Be Legalized?," "The Genius of Islam," "You Don't Know About Me," "OyMG," "We All Fall Down," "Rich and Mad," "Pink," "Jumpstart the World," "In Trouble," "I Am J" and "Transparent: Transgender."

It turns out, of course, that Mr. Harper viewed the wrong list of books, many of which weren't actually on the list created by the District administration.  And I realize that since nothing was actually removed and because he made a stupid mistake and started shooting his mouth off, but the fact remains that a politician is barging in a deciding what books he thinks are appropriate based on his own personal ideology, rather that looking at the good of the entire School District and the incredibly diverse student body.  For a much more descriptive and official article, see Amy Wang's write-up in The Arizona Republic.

Your comments, concerns, and disagreements are always encouraged.  And, as always, thanks for listening (or reading, I suppose, would be the more appropriate verb here.)