By Patricia Williams
Recently, I found out that my work is mentioned in a book that has been banned, in effect, from the schools in Tucson, Arizona. The anti-ethnic studies law passed by the state prohibits teachings that “promote the overthrow of the United States government,” “promote resentment toward a race or class of people,” “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group,” and/or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” I invite you to read the book in question, titled Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, so that you can decide for yourselves whether it qualifies.
In fact, I invite you to take on as your summer reading the astonishingly lengthy list of books that have been removed from the Tucson public school system as part of this wholesale elimination of the Mexican-American studies curriculum. The authors and editors include Isabel Allende, Junot Díaz, Jonathan Kozol, Rudolfo Anaya, bell hooks, Sandra Cisneros, James Baldwin, Howard Zinn, Rodolfo Acuña, Ronald Takaki, Jerome Skolnick and Gloria Anzaldúa. Even Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience and Shakespeare’s The Tempest received the hatchet.
Trying to explain what was offensive enough to warrant killing the entire curriculum and firing its director, Tucson school board member Michael Hicks stated rather proudly that he was not actually familiar with the curriculum. “I chose not to go to any of their classes,” he told Al Madrigal on The Daily Show. “Why even go?” In the same interview, he referred to Rosa Parks as “Rosa Clark.”
The situation in Arizona is not an isolated phenomenon. There has been an unfortunate uptick in academic book bannings and firings, made worse by a nationwide disparagement of teachers, teachers’ unions and scholarship itself. Brooke Harris, a teacher at Michigan’s Pontiac Academy for Excellence, was summarily fired after asking permission to let her students conduct a fundraiser for Trayvon Martin’s family. Working at a charter school, Harris was an at-will employee, and so the superintendent needed little justification for sacking her. According to Harris, “I was told… that I’m being paid to teach, not to be an activist.” (It is perhaps not accidental that Harris worked in the schools of Pontiac, a city in which nearly every public institution has been taken over by cost-cutting executives working under “emergency manager” contracts. There the value of education is measured in purely econometric terms, reduced to a “product,” calculated in “opportunity costs.”)
The law has taken some startling turns as well. In 2010 the sixth circuit upheld the firing of high school teacher Shelley Evans-Marshall when parents complained about an assignment in which she had asked her students in an upper-level language arts class to look at the American Library Association’s list of “100 most frequently challenged Books” and write an essay about censorship. The complaint against her centered on three specific texts: Hermann Hesse’s Siddhartha, Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird and Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. (She was also alleged, years earlier, to have shown students a PG-13 version of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.)
The court found that the content of Evans-Marshall’s teachings concerned matters “of political, social or other concern to the community” and that her interest in free expression outweighed certain other interests belonging to the school “as an employer.” But, fatally, the court concluded that “government employees… are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes.” While the sixth circuit allowed that Evans-Marshall may have been treated “shabbily”, it still maintained (quoting from another opinion) that “when a teacher teaches, ‘the school system does not “regulate” [that] speech as much as it hires that speech. Expression is a teacher’s stock in trade, the commodity she sells to her employer in exchange for a salary.'” Thus, the court concluded, it is the “educational institution that has a right to academic freedom, not the individual teacher.”
Read more at The Guardian
Categories: Education, Ethnic discrimination, Ethnic studies, Free speech
I can’t seem to get the link to display: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/18/anti-intellectualism-us-book-banning?CMP=share_btn_fb
LikeLiked by 3 people
No problem, jward. We have a guy for that. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’ve always been a slow and meticulous reader. When I read something really good I know it immediately, and so I spent several days reading and reading again this essay. And I spent even more time trying to coalesce in my own mind some kind of an appropriate response to the peculiar kind of insanity and stupidity described therein.
Arizona HR 2281 is one of many pathetic attempts to assuage white American angst. Frightened, scared little people trying to wish away people of color, to erase them from their sight and their histories, to build walls between themselves and those others who are so terrifyingly different, and to simply make them all go away.
But it is these frightened little people who themselves represent the greatest threat to America. It is they who reveal that they know and care nothing about traditional, historical American culture and values. And it is they who wish to entomb the minds of young Americans, to enshroud their own children’s worldviews in a pall of ignorance and fear.
The greatest threat to America does not come from without but from within the minds of those who understand nothing of our American history and our traditional values.
LikeLiked by 2 people