The post election campaign reflections of an independent

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” -- Abraham Lincoln

Given the enormous spending by a very few, very wealthy in the hope of buying the election through propaganda, made possible by the Supreme Corporate’s “Citizen’s United” ruling, the 2012 election outcome is like a reassuring ray of light filtering through a dark, ominous and troubled sky.


In many ways, I suspect the 2012 U.S. election results were less an endorsement of the Democrats and more a rejection of the current state of the Republican Party.

While the trends in outcomes from Tuesday’s presidential, senate, and congressional races and the associated ballot referenda speak to themselves, here’s a snippet of what I took from it:

• Most Americans are concerned with the federal deficit, but don’t agree that more military spending and decreased taxes are the ways to reduce it. Most Americans approve of higher taxes on the very wealthy, because they know the rich will always prosper and thrive.
  
  
• Most Americans disapprove of the worldview and fundamentalism inherent in the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party, and dislike of the intolerance, hatred and vitriol directed toward minority communities, particularly immigrants and gays.
  
  
• Most Americans believe in a woman’s right to equal pay for equal work, and that conservative old white men should have no say in decisions concerning her body and health.
  
  
• Most Americans are hard workers and resent efforts to quell worker rights. They know that the personal responsibility for working hard is no less important than being a ‘job creator.’
  
  
• Most Americans have values that are not defined by self-interest and greed, and they know their worth is much more than what they earn or have.
  
  
• Most American’s don’t believe in austerity.
  
  
• Most American’s believe that capitalism should be regulated versus free and unfettered from all government oversight.
  
  
• Most Americans want no part of a corporate-run plutocracy, and see the GOP’s real constituency as one of Hallibuton and GE, by Comcast and Koch and for WalMart.
  
  
• Finally, most Americans want the man whose finger is on the trigger to be thoughtful and reflective versus hasty, to be one to reconcile versus showing belligerence, to be compassionate versus heartless, and to care and exude warmth. Similar to the oft-asked, ‘Who would you rather have over for dinner and conversation?,’ it’s a question that, for most Americans, Romney lost decisively.

In moving beyond the election results, however, the campaign was illuminating as much for the issues that were not discussed as for those that were.

On the environment, the single sentence devoted to global warming in Obama’s victory speech highlighted the strange absence of the issue on the two-year long campaign trail. “We want our children to live in an America,” Obama stated, “…that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.” ¹⁾ Twitter and Facebook users took note. “He finally did it!” said one status message, while others stated, “It’s about time!” On the other hand, Romney strapped on his super-man ‘corporate protector’ cape whenever the issue was broached. “I’m not in this race to slow the rise of the oceans or to heal the planet,” said Romney. It became the phrase that resonated best in summing his position. ²⁾

Pragmatism versus idealism

Election day thoughts on voting for one whom I cannot endorse.


It’s almost untenable: finding myself in the position of voting for a man – Barack Obama- that I cannot endorse.

If I were listening solely to idealism, I would be casting my vote today for either Jill Stein (Green Party) or Carl ‘Rocky’ Anderson (Justice Party), because I have always felt my vote is really an extension of my values. Actually, that is true of all of us. How we vote reflects what we believe in.

As I’ve aged I have found there are basically two burning fires in my soul: an intense internal hatred of injustice and inequality, and an overwhelming desire to see development of the public trust and support for the common good. If there has been disappointment in what I’ve observed of the human condition over my lifetime, it is that far too few carry these torches.

Instead, far too many believe in the individual versus community, and are consumed with self-interest versus the greater good. Far too many worship at the alters of the market, consumerism, and capitalism versus any real religion, which, regardless of brand (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or other) invariably upholds shared humanist characteristics and values that may be referred to as the ‘common good.’

Good-bye democracy. We will miss you.

Government by a few is called oligarchy, while government by the wealthy is called plutocracy. When it’s government by a few wealthy, it’s plutarchy. These days, any cursory examination of the U.S. political landscape shows a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy. Democracy, in their view, is so ‘old school.’


The average American still views the U.S. system of governance as a democracy. He or she generally votes in every two year election cycle, while often complaining about the lack of choice, or the perception that there often doesn’t seem to be a lot of difference in the choice. He or she likely retains a perception of the Democrats as the voice for the worker, the union or the average man, and of the Republicans as the voice of business, the economy, war and sometimes- perplexingly- even values.

That government should be responsive to public will is the foundation of a democratic society. Public opinion and elections are two means by which, in a democracy, the preference of the governed directly drives government policy.

Hence, the trend over the past couple of decades, where the President, Congress or Supreme Court have ignored significant majorities of public opinion to instead enact, legislate or adjudicate outcomes in favor of moneyed or corporate special interests, has left a large segment of the American public feeling both jaded and skeptical that the system still works.

Well, it does-- but for the one percent only.

Americans are Angry

That the system no longer works for the 99 percent is why there is so much anger and discontent in America. It is why we had Occupy Wall Street, until the movement was squashed by powerful interests who desire the status quo.

What drives it? There are many issues, of which the following are examples: Americans are angry that financial institutions may create bogus derivative schemes, with no government oversight, and then receive billions in tax-payer bailouts when they fail, with much of that bailout then going to executive compensation and bonuses to the very ones who dreamt up or authorized the mess. Those same angry Americans scream, “Where is our bailout?”

Americans are angry that globalization tends to turn U.S. corporations into bad ‘citizens’ at home who demand infrastructure and resources from communities, yet send local jobs to overseas sweat-shops and then sneer at paying responsible taxes. Angry Americans know that corporate tax-shelters and loopholes in tax law which favor corporations are inherently unfair.

Americans are angry that public education has been intentionally under-funded by private-education ideologues such that it will fail, and that the costs of higher education are soaring. Americans are angry that they pay much more but receive far less for their health care expenditure, versus citizens in other countries [See Why do we have profit in health care financing? ], and that their wages remain stagnant while inflation and the cost-of-living continue to rise. Americans are angry that they’re losing home equity, and that they are losing homes. Angry Americans scream, “What about the American dream?”

Americans are angry at seeing the public trust and common good given to special interests in the private sector.

However, what leaves Americans especially angry is to see their government unresponsive to majority needs while instead enacting policy favoring the very ones who don’t need any help. Frankly, the executive, legislative and judicial branches have failed miserably in their obligation to protect American citizens in terms of the common good and public trust.

America’s Broken Political System

Our skepticism of the U.S. political system has been building for decades. Research by Martin Gilens, using thousands of survey questions pertaining to proposed changes to policy between 1981 and 2002, showed the link between preference and policy is biased and favors the preferences of the very rich:

When Americans with different income levels differ in their policy preferences, actual policy outcomes strongly reflect the preferences of the most affluent, but bear virtually no resemblance to the preferences of poor or middle-income Americans… The vast discrepancy in government responsiveness to citizens with different incomes stands in stark contrast to the ideal of political equity that Americans hold dear. ¹⁾

Gilens states,

While perfect political equality is an unrealistic goal, representational biases of the magnitude shown by the study call into question the very democratic character of (American) society. ²⁾

Gilens’ study showed when policy preferences between the top 10 percent in income significantly differed from the poorest 10 percent, that government policy invariably followed the preference of the rich. It also held true when preferences between the rich and median-income Americans significantly differed. ³⁾

Should American citizens be concerned with having a government responsive to majority will? Certainly, although the incredibly rich and their paid pundits and minions will spend billions in attempting to persuade us that their best interests are our best interests- which is often demonstrably untrue.

The Koch brothers, the heirs to the Sam Walton fortune, John Paulson, Harold Simmons and other obscenely wealthy Americans would be quite happy to run the government for us- and, arguably, are. Therein lays the great problem with America’s political system: money. There are three aspects to the problem of money in politics:

• These days, one must be wealthy to run for office, so the President, senators and representatives are themselves wealthy. Thus, whose interests would you then expect such people to look after- theirs, or ours?
• Campaign donations drive election cycles, and the overwhelming majority of candidate financing comes from the contributions of a very few, very wealthy individuals. With ‘Citizens United,’ where there are now no constraints on campaign spending, and the problem has been enlarged.
• Corporate lobbying constitutes the third element, where corporations-- who are invariably owned and controlled by the very wealthy-- wine, dine and, if necessary, hammer politicians into toeing the corporate line.

The result of having a very few, very wealthy Americans running the government is like having a very few, very fit foxes running the hen house. It’s damned good for the foxes, but nothing short of hell for the chickens.

This all seems intuitively true, for if the very wealthy are not calling the shots, then why would Supreme Court decisions, congressional legislation and executive policy statements so strongly favor corporate and wealthy self-interests?

If you’re not convinced, try scheduling a meeting with your Congressman. Yes, I realize you may always meet with congressional staff persons, but try to get a face-to-face meeting. If you are not a big campaign contributor you might get lucky, but to ensure a face-to-face meeting probably requires something on the order of a $1,000 - $5,000 campaign contribution. Now, when it comes to owning the Congressman in terms of his influence on issues dear to your bottom-line, that likely costs a little more: say, $50,000 or $100k.

Obviously, you and I, and the vast majority of the nation’s 300 million citizens, cannot afford that. However, the Koch Brothers, the heirs to the Sam Walton fortune, John Paulson, Harold Simmons and others can and do:

Koch Industries, owned by brothers David and Charles Koch, is an energy concern heavily involved with fracking, oil, pipelines and refinement, and has given more than $25 million to groups whose mission is denying climate change. It is therefore no surprise Koch supports Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who insists he is more knowledgeable concerning global warming than the world’s top scientists; Koch Industries is Inhofe’s all-time leading donor. ⁴⁾ In the 2011 election cycle, Koch Industries spent more than $523,000, including $27,500 to Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), $21,000 to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and $10,000 to Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH). ⁵⁾ Note the Koch brothers are also known for their politically-driven financial support of conservative groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and, of late, Tea Party Republicans.

The six Walton heirs, who in 2007 possessed as much wealth as the bottom 30% of all Americans, ⁶⁾ spend significant sums of money advancing their interests through campaign financing and lobbying. In the 2004 through 2010 election cycles, Wal-Mart PACs averaged more than $2.9 million in campaign spending. ⁷⁾

Paulson, a hedge-fund manager and owner of Paulson & Company, has contributed more than $71,000 to Rep. Boehner’s 2011-2012 campaign, making him Boehner’s #2 contributor (as of February 18, 2012). ⁸⁾ Interestingly, Boehner also received more than $368,000 from PACs and people associated with the 23 corporations on the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC’s) ‘private enterprise board,’ which includes both Koch Industries and Wal-Mart. ⁹⁾ For Paulson, the Boehner contribution is chump change relative his 2012 contributions totaling $1 million dollars to ‘outside spending groups.’ ¹⁰⁾

Then there is Simmons, Contran Corporation’s billionaire owner, who in 2011 gave $5.6 million from personal fortune and another $2 million from Contran’s treasury to various super PACs promoting GOP presidential candidates. ¹¹⁾ That makes Simmons the top individual donor so far in the 2012 election cycle: well ahead of Texan Bob Perry (Perry Homes), at number two with $3.6 million, and Dreamwork’s Jeffery Katzenberg, third at $2.0 million. ¹²⁾

The combination of corporate lobbying and campaign contributions constitute a powerful one-two punch whose incessant pounding, favoring the wealthy few at the expense of society as a whole, has resulted in a pummeled democracy that may be down for the count. Journalist Bill Moyers has written wondering why Americans rarely perceive this moneyed tandem for the bribery it represents:

What happens to out venerable experiment in self-rule if it is money that rules our politics, and what can we do about it? Let’s not talk for the moment in terms of soft money, hard money, independent expenditures, coordinated expenditures, compliance expenditures, issue ads, express advocacy, in-kind contributions, party committees, multi-candidate committees… political action committees, and so on. I am convinced that this language exists, in the main, to make us glaze over in boredom and incomprehension in the hopes that we will stop poking into the politician’s real business.

In entering such a looking-glass world we lose the ability to call the most basic transaction by its right name. If a baseball player stepping up to home plate were to lean over and hand the umpire a wad of bills before the pitch, we would know what that was: a bribe. But when a real-estate developer buys his way into the White House with big bucks and gets a favorable government ruling that wouldn’t be available to you or me, or when the tobacco industry stuffs $13 million in the pockets of the merry looters in Congress and gets protection in return, we call that a campaign contribution. It is bribery, nonetheless, and it is steadily robbing our political system of legitimacy. ¹³⁾

Bribery is a strong word-- which is why the powerful must reframe what Moyers terms the ‘transaction.’

Environmental activist Bill McKibben tells the story of how political bribery affected the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would have taken oil extracted from Canadian tar sands through the U.S. to the Gulf coast:

We waged our struggle against building it out in the open, presenting scientific argument, holding demonstrations, and attending hearings. We sent 1,253 people to jail in the largest civil disobedience action in a generation. Meanwhile, more than half a million Americans offered public comments against the pipeline, the most on any energy project in the nation’s history.

And what do you know? We won a small victory in November, when President Obama agreed that, before he could give the project a thumbs-up or -down, it needed another year of careful review. A few weeks later, however, Congress decided it wanted to take up the question. In the process, the issue went from ‘in the open’ to behind closed doors in money-filled rooms. Within days, and after only a couple of hours of hearings that barely mentioned the key scientific questions or the dangers involved, the House of Representatives voted 234-194 to force a quicker review of the pipeline. Later, the House attached its demand to the ‘must-pass’ payroll tax cut. As important as the vote total in the House, however, was another number: within minutes of the vote, Oil Change International had calculated that the 234 Congressional representatives who voted aye had received $42 million in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry; the 193 nays, $8 million. ¹⁴⁾

That, folks, is the essence of bribery.

McKibben wonders how Americans have become so complacent on issues that should make us “mad as hell” and leave us screaming, as Howard Beale in the movie ‘Network,’ that “We’re not going to take it anymore!”

Cynics-- call them realists, if you prefer-- are completely unsurprised by this. Which is precisely the problem. We’ve reached the point where we’re unfazed by things that should shake us to the core... Consider what really happened in that vote: the people’s representatives who took the bulk of that money from those energy companies promptly voted on behalf of those (corporate) interests.

They weren’t weighing science or the national interest; they weren’t balancing present benefits against future costs. Instead of doing the work of legislators, they were acting like employees. Forget the idea that they’re public servants; the truth is, in every way that matters, (legislators) work for Exxon and its kin. They should, by rights, wear logos on their lapels like NASCAR drivers.

If you find this too harsh, think about how obligated you feel when someone gives you something. Did you get a Christmas present last month from someone you hadn’t remembered to buy one for? Are you going to send them an extra-special one next year? And that’s for a pair of socks. Speaker of the House John Boehner, who insisted that the Keystone approval decision be speeded up, has received $1,111,080 from the fossil-fuel industry during his tenure. His Senate counterpart Mitch McConnell, who shepherded the bill through his chamber, has raked in $1,277,208 in the course of his time in Washington.

If someone had helped your career to the tune of a million dollars, wouldn’t you feel in their debt? I would. ¹⁵⁾

As would anyone else, which is exactly the problem. Congress no longer reports to the people but rather to the very few, very wealthy who run America’s corporations. If anything, McKibben isn’t being too harsh on our government leaders; he’s too soft.

If we can take the first step toward correctly reframing lobbying and campaign contributions as the bribery it is, then we may certainly take the next and frame our government representatives who accept those bribes for what they are: corporate whores. Think that’s too harsh? Consider Merriam-Webster’s third definition:

Whore. noun. (‘hor) definition: A venal or unscrupulous person, where venal means “capable of being bought or obtained for money or other valuable consideration.” ¹⁶⁾

Perhaps the most eloquent statement concerning the bribery in American politics came from a 90 year-old activist named Doris “Granny D” Haddock. On January 1, 1999, Haddock began a 3,200 mile walk to Washington D.C. to speak against money in politics, and in April, 2000 she participated in a demonstration at the Capitol at which she and 31 others were arrested. On May 24, 2000, Doris appeared before Judge Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to plead guilty for reading the Declaration of Independence in the Capitol Building. ^{17), 18)} In her statement, Haddock said,

"Your Honor... I did not raise my voice to do so (read the Declaration) and I blocked no hall... I was reading from the Declaration of Independence to make the point that we must declare our independence from the corrupting bonds of big money in our election campaigns. And so I was reading these very words when my hands were pulled behind me and bound: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.'

Your Honor, we would never seek to abolish our dear United States. But alter it? Yes. It is our constant intention that it should be a government of, by and for the people, not the special interests, so that people may use this government in service to each other's needs and to protect the condition of our earth.

Your Honor, it is now your turn to be a part of this arrest. If your concern is that we might have interfered with the visitor's right to a meaningful tour of their Capitol, I tell you that we helped them have a more meaningful one. If your concern is that we might have been blocking the halls of our government, let me assure you that we stood to one side of the Rotunda where we would not be in anyone's way. But I inform you that the halls are indeed blocked over there.

They are blocked by the shameless sale of public policy to campaign contributors, which bars the doors and the halls to the people's legitimate needs and the flow of proper representation. We Americans must put an end to it in any peaceful way that we can. Yes, we can speak when we vote, and we do. But we must also give our best effort to encourage the repair of a very broken system. We must do both. ^{19), 20)}

Doris Haddock understood perfectly that the bribery of campaign contributions and corporate lobbying are antithetical to a democracy.


While it is impossible to pinpoint exactly when U.S. democracy died, we do know the date when the coffin was nailed shut: January 21, 2010. On that day, the Supreme Court, in its “Citizens’ United versus Federal Election Commission” ruling, voted 5-4 vote to overturn restrictions in campaign financing opening the flood-gates to unlimited money in politics.

Citizens United

That the case is known as ‘Citizens United’ is Orwellian double-speak: rather than a group which advocates on behalf of a majority or the common good, Citizens United’s primary goals were, and are, unrestrained capitalism, emphasized through buzzwords like “limited government” and “free market economy,” the election of Republican candidates to all levels of government, and U.S. dominance on the world stage (American exceptionalism). To these ends their objective was and is influencing public opinion through creation of TV commercials, web advertisements and ‘documentaries’ that promote their ideals. This led to a lawsuit concerning restrictions in the airing one of their movies (“Hillary The Movie”) which ultimately wound up before the Supreme Court. ²¹⁾

Political advocacy on behalf of Citizens United often derives from the auspices of its “American Sovereignty Project,” whose goals include a complete withdrawal of the U.S. from the United Nations and the protection of U.S. corporate and political elements from the arms of the International Criminal Court (ICC). ²²⁾

Where does Citizens United get its money? They don’t disclose, but given they produce films with Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris, Michele Bachmann, Fred Thompson and other “rising stars of the conservative movement,” ²³⁾ one hardly needs to guess. The Koch Brothers? The heirs of Wal-Mart’s founders? John Paulson? Harold Simmons? Certainly wealthy people of like-minded ideology are behind it.

‘One Percent United’ would have been a more appropriate name but that would have been bad for marketing, so the powers that be wrapped Citizens United in the flag, freedom, stars, eagles flying and a good dash of patriotism… even though its cause is basically the antithesis of all of these; the essence of Citizens United is concentration of power and policy in the hands of a few, whereas the essence of America is power and policy which benefits all people, not just the privileged.

The ‘Citizens United’ ruling did the following:

• Upheld Citizens United’s appeal of a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decision which upheld provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act concerning campaign communications. In essence, the Supreme Court, by upholding the Citizens United appeal, overturned legislation prohibiting unions and corporations from broadcasting ‘electioneering communications,’ defined as “communications mentioning a candidate which are broadcast over the airwaves, through satellite or cable within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.”
• Overruled the 1990 “Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce” decision, which held that corporate treasuries could not be used in supporting or opposing candidates in elections, and
• Partially overruled the 2003 “McConnell v. Federal Election Commission” ruling, in particular the aspects of the case which concerned electioneering communications. ²⁴⁾

Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy-- men who have repeatedly sided with the special interests of corporations and the wealthy versus society’s larger needs-- formed the majority. ²⁵⁾

The result of the ‘Citizens United’ ruling has been predictable. According to John Nichols and Robert McChesney,

We have seen the future of electoral politics flashing across the screens of local TV stations from Iowa to New Hampshire to South Carolina. Despite all the excitement about Facebook and Twitter, the critical election battles of 2012 and for some time to come will be fought in the commercial breaks on local network affiliates. This year, according to a fresh report to investors from Needham and Company’s industry analysts, television stations will reap as much as $5 billion—up from $2.8 billion in 2008—from a money-and-media election complex that plays a definitional role in our political discourse.

Citizens United’s easing of restrictions on corporate and individual spending, especially by organizations not under the control of candidates, has led to the proliferation of “Super PACs.” These shadowy groups do not have to abide by the $2,500 limit on donations to actual campaigns, and they can easily avoid rules for reporting sources of contributions… The 2012 campaign has already confirmed that Super PACs are key players, more powerful in many ways than the campaigns waged by candidates and party committees. But don’t expect commercial media outlets to shed much light on these secretive powers. Newsroom staffs have been cut, political reporting is down and local stations are too busy cashing in on what 'TV Technology' magazine describes as “the political windfall.” The Citizens United ruling and its Super PAC spawn have created a new revenue stream for media companies, and they are not about to turn the spigot off. “Voters are going to be inundated with more campaign advertising than ever,” one investor service wrote in 2011. “While this may fray the already frazzled nerves of the American people, it is great news for media companies.” ²⁶⁾

So there you have it: a United States where most voters determine how to mark their ballots based on an incessant and seemingly never-ending march of well-funded and slickly produced 30 and 60-second television advertisements. It wouldn’t matter if the majority of Americans were thoughtful enough to ignore the propaganda flooding across their TV screens to instead rely on homework regarding the candidates, but they aren’t.

What we may take to the bank is that these Super PACs will spend millions to determine how to most effectively influence how Americans vote.

Given the vast majority of all Super PACs represent the interests of the wealthy and their corporations, and that the vast majority of the money from all Super PACs will flow from these interests, they will effectively buy elections. After all, historically, the wealthy and their corporations have consistently been able to convince nearly 50 percent of Americans to vote against their self interests.

There may be no democracy when elections are decided based on 30 second sound bites largely created for the benefit of special interests representing the very wealthy and their corporations. Then again, in a system where only two major political parties exist and where both parties are beholden to the money flowing from special interests, there is no real choice anyway. It’s like voting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum; after the fact, 99 percent of Americans remain unrepresented.

Summary

The result of ‘Citizens United’ has been a strengthening of corporate “personhood” and the unleashing of unlimited spending in political campaigns. Winners were big money and the communications industry. Media monopolies won because even greater amounts are being spent on influencing public opinion through advertising, while the wealthy and other corporations won because they were freed to spend as much as they need in order to buy the outcome of an election campaign. In essence, ‘Citizens United’ has further empowered a privileged group of a few wealthy citizens to drive U.S. election outcomes.

Losers? Anyone in the ninety-nine percent, which is certainly me and likely you, too.

It is the concept of “one person, one vote” which has long been the mainstay of democracy, not-- as one of Occupy Wall Street slogan bemoaned-- “one dollar, one vote.”

In essence, the Supreme Court ruled that money is free speech, hence those with the most money get to speak loudest, longest and most often.

Proponents of ‘Citizens United’ claim it ‘opened’ the doors to free speech, which it has— for the one percent, anyway. For the 99 percent it meant no free speech whatsoever given only the very wealthy and their corporations truly have a voice.

Thus, is it any wonder the President, members of Congress and the Supreme Court are no more than puppets whose actions are dictated by the financial goals of their respective masters; that is, their wealthy backers and the corporations which those rich backers run?

America’s extreme and ever-widening inequality exacerbates the problem, for the shift in wealth from the poor and middle-income sectors to the privileged few is, as shown in the Gilens study, accompanied by a shift in power. Frankly, the survival of democracy has little chance when confronted with

• Extreme inequality,
• Governance by only those who are themselves wealthy,
• Exorbitant money in politics, both political campaigns and via lobbying, and
• The Supreme Court’s blessing in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.”

Taken as a whole, these factors provide the richest of the rich with a vehicle for de-facto rule as an American plutarcy.

Somehow, a government “of John Paulson and Harold Simmons, by the Koch Brothers and for the heirs of the Walton fortune,” or similarly, “of Exxon, by Monsanto and for Lockheed-Martin,” must surely have Lincoln churning in his grave. Good-bye, democracy. Some of us sorely miss you.


Footnotes

¹ “Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness,” Martin Gilens, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 5, Special Issue, 2005.
² Gilens, ibid.
³ Gilens, ibid.
⁴ “Who Owns Congress? A Campaign Cash Seating Chart,” Dave Gilson, Mother Jones, September/October 2010.
⁵ “Koch Industries: All Recipients Among Federal Candidates, 2012 Cycle,” Politicians and Elections, Open Secrets, Center for Responsive Politics, 2012.
⁶ “Wal-Mart heirs net worth equals total of bottom 30 percent of Americans,” Elizabeth Flock, blogPOST, The Washington Post, December 9, 2011.
⁷ “Wal-Mart Stores,” Politicians and Elections, Open Secrets, Center for Responsive Politics, 2012.
⁸ “John Boehner, Top Contributors” Politicians and Elections, Open Secrets, Center for Responsive Politics, 2012.
⁹ “Corporations Represented on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Board Are Big Spenders in Washington,” Brad Hooker, News and Analysis, Open Secrets, Center for Responsive Politics, September 12, 2011.
¹⁰ “2012 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups,” Politicians and Elections, Open Secrets, Center for Responsive Politics, 2012.
¹¹ “Contran’s Donation to the U.S. Billionaires Super PAC,” Robert Maguire, News and Analysis, Open Secrets, Center for Responsive Politics, February 9, 2012.
¹² “2012 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups,” Politicians and Elections, Open Secrets, Center for Responsive Politics, 2012.
¹³ “Moyers On America, A Journalist and His Times” Bill Moyers, edited by June Leininger Pycior, The New Press, New York, N.Y., 2004.
¹⁴ “Time to Stop Being Cynical About Corporate Money in Politics and Start Being Angry,” Bill McKibben, TomDispatch, January 5, 2012.
¹⁵ McKibben, ibid.
¹⁶ Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2012.
¹⁷ “Granny D, Granny D’s Day in Court,” Dennis Burke, Law Notes, 1215.Org, May 25, 2000.
¹⁸ “Granny D, In Memory of a Political Activist and Senior Citizen,” GrannyD.com, 2012.
¹⁹ “Granny D, Granny D’s Day in Court,” Dennis Burke, Law Notes, 1215.Org, May 25, 2000.
²⁰ “Granny D, In Memory of a Political Activist and Senior Citizen,” GrannyD.com, 2012.
²¹ “Fulfilling Our Mission,” Citizens United, 2012.
²² “American Sovereignty Project, Mailing List,” Mailing List Finder, December 15, 2011.
²³ “What We Do,” Citizens United, 2012.
²⁴ “Citizens United v Federal Election Commission,” Wikipedia, 2012.
²⁵ Wikipedia, ibid.
²⁶ “After ‘Citizens United’: The Attack of the Super PACs,” John Nichols and Robert McChesney, The Nation, January 20, 2012.

Abandon critical thought, ye who enter here

Banning books and closing a successful Mexican American Studies program: How ironic is Arizona’s oppression of Latinos who simply wish to learn of oppression?


January 10, 2012. You have just settled into your chair in the Chicano studies classroom at a high school in the Tucson Unified School District. You are prepared for discussion concerning the historical struggles of your ancestors, when in walk several school officials with carts and empty boxes. An announcement is made by one of the officials that Mexican American Studies (MAS), the program in which you’re enrolled, has been terminated, and that your teacher will now box up your text books. You are initially stunned, then in disbelief, and finally in tears- like your teacher- as your text books are taken from your hands.

This story didn’t start on January 10, 2012. Nor did it begin when the state school superintendent, John Huppenthal, threatened the Tucson school district with the potential loss of millions of dollars in revenue if the MAS program were not closed, or even earlier when then state senator Huppenthal co-authored, with Tom Horne, the very law against ethnic studies he now used in crushing the program. This is a story with origins from long ago stemming from racial intolerance and fear (immigration-phobia) that has been building in intensity over time.

For Arizonans, it is yet another plunge deeper into a dark abyss. A New York Times editorial described this latest development:

The Tucson Unified School District has dismantled its Mexican-American studies program, packed away its offending books, and shuttled its students into other classes. It was blackmailed into doing so: keeping the program would have meant losing more than $14 million in state funding. It was a blunt-force victory for the Arizona school superintendent, John Huppenthal, who has spent years crusading against ethnic-studies programs he claims are “brainwashing” children into thinking that Latinos have been victims of white oppression. ¹⁾

The N.Y. Times editorial was critical of Huppenthal: If Huppenthal wanted to diminish resentment and treat Hispanic students as individuals, he picked a lousy way to do it. His action has Hispanic critics saying they feel their culture is under attack — and has students in a well-established, well-liked program feeling dejected. 2)	Native Americans Beware: Presumably, Huppenthal considers studies that discuss the oppression of your ancestors as “brainwashing,” too. And heaven forbid you consider the plight of some of your ancestors in terms of genocide…

Moreover, the editorial framed the action in light of the broader element of racism that permeates Arizona and its politics:

To say that Arizona’s Anglo and Hispanic populations have had multiple points of collision and misunderstanding is putting it mildly. Arizona, the state that also showed some of the most bitter resistance to a federal Martin Luther King holiday, enacted the first in a recent spate of extremist immigration laws and spawned the Minuteman border-vigilante movement. ³⁾

About Tucson and its Mexican American Studies Program

Nearly 53,000 students attend classes in the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) where 60 percent, or approximately 32,000, come from Mexican-American families. The White/Anglo population is second highest, at 24 percent, followed by African-American, Native American and Asian American at 6, 4 and 3 percent, respectively. 4)		Logo for Tucson's Mexican American Studies Department

Several different ethnic study programs have traditionally been offered within the district, including Native American, Asian and Mexican American. As of May, 2011, more than 1,300 Tucson middle and high school students were enrolled in MAS. Ninety percent of those students were of Mexican American background, followed by five, two, and two percent for White/Anglo, Native American and African American ethnicities, respectively. ⁵⁾

Over its 13 year history, MAS steadily gained recognition as one of the state’s most successful programs, largely due its educational outcomes: graduation rates and testing measures have invariably showed Mexican American Studies students outperforming peers. ⁶⁾ Later, we will quantify both when we examine the results of the independent Cambium Report.

Tucson’s MAS was co-founded in the late 1990’s by Sean Arce, who was Director of the program at the time of its suspension. Under Arce’s leadership, MAS was sheparded through a court-mandated desegregation order and challenging stipulations in the ‘No Child Left Behind’ act. Interestingly, Arce has been compared to Esteban Ochoa, Tucson’s first Mexican American mayor who, in the 1870’s defied the Arizona territorial legislature by founding and funding Tucson’s first public school. Over the years and in collaboration with other educators, Arce has helped design curricula used in many ethnic or Mexican American Studies programs. ⁷⁾

As an educator, Sean Arce is nationally renowned and the MAS program is recognized for its educational excellence. According to Dr. Pedro Noguera, Executive Director for the Metropolitan Center for Urban Education at New York University,

"Anyone who has visited classrooms run by the Mexican American Studies program in Tucson would know that the goal is not to teach hate or sow division. Under the leadership of Sean Arce, the program has paved the way in helping students and teachers make connections between the school curriculum and the student's history and culture. These efforts have produced heightened student engagement and deepened their motivation to learn. Those who are serious about finding ways to help schools reach all students should support such efforts." ⁸⁾

Dr. David Stovall, from the University of Chicago, states:

“Sean's work is emblematic of a collective struggle to ensure the rights of students throughout TUSD to ask critical questions of themselves and society while making informed decisions based on such inquiry. By providing a model for young people to interrogate the disparities familiar to their conditions, they are simultaneously creating pathways to guarantee quality education for current and future students in the district. For these reasons and countless others, their program should serve as a national model for Ethnic Studies initiatives in K-12 education.” ⁹⁾

Arce also received accolades from Dr. Devon G. Peña, former Chair of the National Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies, who credits Sean’s intellect and administrative skills and says,

“Under (Arce’s) leadership, MAS-TUSD has become the nation's most innovative and successful academic and instructional program in Ethnic Studies at the secondary school level." ¹⁰⁾

However, perhaps the greatest testimonies come from those who have been in the classroom. According to Jesus “Tito” Romero,

"It wasn't until I had Sean Arce as a history teacher that I discovered what it meant to be as a student, and I soon realized that Mr. Arce had not only saved my life, but had changed and touched so many others. Mr. Arce has been in the business of saving lives for many years, whether he realizes it or not." ¹¹⁾

Jacob Robles, a 2008 alumni of MAS, also credits Sean Arce for changing his life:

"Mr. Arce greeted me like a neighborhood friend, and on the first day he immediately made the class room space something familiar and comfortable. It was easy to get us engaged. He made things funny, interesting, but also very serious. I had never had a teacher quite like him; he had all of the goofballs in the class quiet and listening. I was interested right away and knew I was in the right place. I am forever grateful for having Sean Arce as a teacher." ¹²⁾

Tucson’s Mexican American Studies program is not a one man show, though. Like any good administrator, Sean Arce must surround himself with teachers who excel. Literature instructor Curtis Acosta is one example.

In 2009, Acosta won the Martin Luther King Jr. Classic Dream Award, and in 2010, the Tucson High Magnet School Teacher of the Year. In 2011, Curtis Acosta was named winner of the University of Arizona Goodman Award, and he’s been a finalist for the University of Arizona's Circle K Teacher of the Year. ¹³⁾

Following the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, CNN visited one of Acosta’s classes, where students were discussing Shakespeare’s “The Tempest.” CNN’s goal was to better understand the challenges in teaching in an environment where racial and immigration tensions have created a divisive atmosphere, and their report painted a very complimentary picture. ¹⁴⁾

Successful programs Like Tucson's Mexican American Studies exist because of the efforts of dedicated and talented educators like Acosta and Arce. That success, along with the sheer number of students who have graduated under the MAS banner, means the MAS program has many supporters.

Timeline of Events concerning Tucson's Mexican American Studies

That is not to say Tucson’s Mexican American Studies program has no detractors. Certainly there are none quite like Arizona state politicians Tom Horne and John Huppenthal.

It was Horne who first decided to take on the Tucson school district and its MAS program, largely after Dolores Huerta, who co-founded United Farm Workers with Cesar Chavez, gave a 2006 speech at Tucson’s Magnet High where she stated, “Republicans hate Latinos.” ^{15), 16)} Huerta came under immense fire for her comments, which became a rallying cry for Arizona Republicans.

While I found no supporting documentation, it is conceivable that a perception of liberal partisanship within MAS is one reason Horne decided to take it on. On June 11, 2007, as State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Horne wrote an open letter to the citizens of Tucson, declaring MAS should be terminated for three principle reasons:

• Curriculum (text books and course materials),
• Philosophy (people are individuals, not exemplars of racial groups), and
• Personal observations concerning what Horne saw as negative student reaction to a speech he perceived should have been non-partisan. (the Huerta speech?) ¹⁷⁾

In Huppenthal, then a state senator, Horne found a like-minded ideologue. Horne and Huppenthal are Tea Party Republicans, and for both the academic achievements of MAS apparently meant little versus what they perceived as a plethora of practices within the program which were more indoctrination than teaching, where American history was being transformed into stories of Latino oppression, and where curricula seemed more about inflating racism and agitation than informing or developing skills for critical thinking.

Together, Horne and Huppenthal pushed for passage of legislation (S.B. 1069) in 2009 that ultimately failed.

On February 26, 2010, Horne resigned from the Arizona region board of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), stating he would not remain in an organization opposed to his proposed legislation. ¹⁸⁾ The head of the ADL, Bill Straus, commented:

“Tom obviously had a philosophical difference with the people on the board and me over the proposed ban on Latino-American ethnic studies programs like the one in the TUSD. There's a strong feeling of opposition to his attempt to rescind a program that has so obviously resuscitated the desire to learn in so many students." ¹⁹⁾

Later in the spring of 2010, just weeks after the passage of S.B. 1070, which placed Arizona in a national spotlight given it allowed police to question anyone they thought might be in the country illegally, Horne introduced House Bill (H.B.) 2281. Co-authored by Huppenthal, this time the measure quickly passed and was signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. ²⁰⁾

Horne wrote a letter to TUSD interim Superintendent John Carroll on August 2, 2010 stating Horne was aware TUSD had declined to end any of its ethnic classes despite passage of H.B. 2281- which would take effect December 31. ²¹⁾

In November, 2010, Horne won election as Arizona’s Attorney General. Huppenthal replaced Horne, winning election as State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

On December 29, 2010, new TUSD Superintendent Dr. John Pedicone received a written request for public records concerning MAS pursuant Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 39-121.01(D)(1). Collection of materials began immediately, while the next day, TUSD Board President Judy Burns sent a letter to Horne and Superintendent elect Huppenthal informing them TUSD’s governing board had adopted three resolutions “to ensure compliance with H.B. 2281 and A.R.S. 15-111 and 15.112 with the intent to implement ethnic studies programs and courses compliant with all applicable laws.” ²²⁾

However, on January 1, 2011- yes, on the New Year’s Day holiday- Horne issued a summary finding declaring the Tucson school district’s MAS in violation of state law. ²³⁾

Huppenthal, upon succeeding Horne as the state’s education chief, decided to establish his own facts on the matter. One of Huppenthal’s first actions was to commission an audit of MAS through Cambium Learning, Inc., at a cost of $170,000 dollars. ²⁴⁾ The purpose of the Cambium audit was three-fold: to determine

• If and how MAS is designed to improve student achievement,
• If statistically valid measures indicating student achievement occurred, and
• Whether MAS curriculum complied with A.R.S. 15-112(A). ²⁵⁾

Work on the audit commenced on March 7, 2011 with Cambium returning its final report on May 2. The results of the audit relative the stated goals are noteworthy:

Improving Student Achievement

Concerning student achievement, the Cambium report stated,

“MAS programs are designed to improve student achievement based on the audit teams’ findings of valuable course descriptions aligned with state standards, commendable curricular unit and lesson plan design, engaging instructional practices, and collective inquire strategies through approved Arizona state standards. Therefore, such visual evidence presented within the classroom observation and instructional context demonstrated effective use of curriculum to support student achievement.” ²⁶⁾

Cambium did issue recommendations in terms of improving curriculum. Among other things, three of nine MAS curriculum units were found to contain an “overabundance of controversial commentary inclusive of political tones of personal bias in the ‘Introductory’ sections of units.” Words that dehumanize or belittle were also found which should have been eliminated. Moreover, the auditors did not find an overarching document which “provided the integrated, comprehensive guidance needed to direct, monitor and assess effective curriculum implementation” nor documentation detailing “long and short-term goals within each course.” ²⁷⁾

Determine if Statistically Valid Measures Indicating Student Achievement Occurred

Here, the Cambium audit confirmed claims that Mexican American Studies students are high achievers: in their words, “there is a positive measurable difference between MAS and non-MAS students.” ²⁸⁾

Analysis of Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) over a six year period from 2005 through 2010 shows MAS students scored an average of 12 percent higher in reading comprehension, 11 percent higher on writing, and six percent higher on math. Over the same time period, graduation rates averaged 7.5% higher for MAS versus non-MAS students. ²⁹⁾

The Cambium report added,

“Many research-based practices that promote enhanced critical thinking and higher-order comprehension of difficult topics are in place and are used on a daily basis. Regardless of program, teacher effectiveness achieves results… Students learn to be proud, regardless of ethnicity, and are motivated to exceed and excel.” ³⁰⁾

Determine whether MAS curriculum complies with A.R.S. 15-112(A)

Here, the Cambium report found no evidence indicating

“… any classroom within the Tucson Unified School District was in direct violation of the law. In most cases, quite the opposite is true. Consider, if classes promoted resentment or ethnic solidarity, then evidence of an ineffective learning community would exist within each school aligned with MAS. That was not the case. Every school and every classroom visited by the auditors affirmed that these learning communities support a climate conducive to student achievement… Teachers collectively are building nurturing relationships with students and work to improve student achievement, attendance, and graduation. A culture of respect exists and students receive additional assistance beyond the regular classroom instruction in support of their academic learning.” ³¹⁾

However, when state Superintendent Huppenthal later issued his statement of finding, TUSD was declared out of compliance and was given 60 days to correct the situation; otherwise, ten percent of state funds would be denied. ³²⁾

How ironic, given the Cambium audit recommended it’s expansion. ³³⁾ Interestingly, the Huppenthal statement of finding made no mention of the Cambium Report other than reference to “a curriculum audit conducted by a contractor.”

Thus, even though Cambium’s audit was commissioned by Huppenthal, the Cambium findings stating MAS was in compliance with Arizona laws were essentially ignored. Instead, justification for Huppenthal’s finding primarily came from evidence collected through Arizona Department of Education audits directed by Huppenthal, and through an examination of material on the Mexican American Studies website. ³⁴⁾

Now think about that: Arizona’s Superintendent of Public Instruction is an elected office which essentially runs Arizona’s Department of Education (ADE). The problem with Huppenthal calling for an ADE audit of Tucson’s Mexican American Studies program is that Huppenthal, who held a strongly partisan perspective, and who helped author the laws and then sought the very position that could enforce them, is also in position to exert undue influence on the results of any internal ADE audits. Employees within Arizona’s Department of Education, like everyone else, have families to support, mortgages to make, and jobs which, in this economy, they certainly can’t afford to lose. Therefore, do you really think they’re going to tell someone like Huppenthal something he doesn’t want to hear?

At best, Huppenthal’s internal ADE auditing could supplement the independent Cambium report; instead, they were the foundation. Given Huppenthal’s long-standing public opposition to MAS, one must ask: Since Cambium didn’t deliver the facts he wanted, did he simply resort to manufacturing his own?

Others were certainly wondering about it. Take the editors at The Arizona Star:

State Superintendent John Huppenthal has decided that TUSD's Mexican American Studies program violates state law - but to get to his flimsy conclusion he had to ignore the clear findings of the outside auditors he hired to investigate the program in the first place.

He would be asked, repeatedly, about the specific provisions of the law he determined TUSD is violating- the one commonly known as HB 2281- and he would turn the conversation back to the curriculum development process.

It didn't make sense.

When you read the full audit, the problem is obvious. Huppenthal was proclaiming TUSD to have violated a state law, A.R.S. 15-112, while simultaneously releasing an independent audit that explicitly states that TUSD has not violated A.R.S. 15-112. ³⁵⁾

The Arizona Star editorial did agree with Huppenthal on one point: that the TUSD governing board has not done its job in terms of overseeing MAS curriculum. From their perspective, the relationship between the TUSD administration, some board members, and MAS faculty and supporters has eroded to the degree MAS now operates with too much autonomy. The Arizona Star editors concluded by writing, “The audit provides a window into MAS, a program that has administrative concerns but works for kids. Huppenthal, who revels in reports and information, should follow the data and support a program that shows results.” ³⁶⁾

Shortly after the Huppenthal finding was released, a motion for a stop-order was brought to the U.S. District Court by Richard Martinez on behalf of several MAS students and faculty including Curtis Acosta. The Tucson school district also appealed the Huppenthal finding.

In December 2011, Lewis Koval, an administrative law judge, ruled against the TUSD appeal stating, “MAS violated state law by promoting racial resentment, advocating ethnic solidarity versus treating students as individuals, and through existence of one or more classes designed primarily for one ethnic group.” Koval also ruled H.B. 2281 was legal since it had not been ruled unconstitutional. ^37),38)

Then, the new 2012 year had hardly begun when Huppenthal ordered ten percent of the Tucson school district's monthly state aid withheld until what time the district was in compliance. Estimates placed the potential loss in TUSD revenues at more than $1,000,000 per month. ³⁹⁾

Soon thereafter, the Tucson school board voted 4-to-1 to suspend the program. Adelita Grijalva, the lone vote against closing MAS, instead called for the school district to defend the program through a court challenge of H.B. 2281’s constitutionality: ⁴⁰⁾

"This is an issue that is not going to go away by this vote. When bad laws are written, they are usually picked up by other states. This is an opportunity to fight a bad law." ⁴¹⁾

Federal Judge A. Wallace Tashima, on January 10th, then denied the request for a stop order that had been brought by the group of MAS students and faculty. ⁴²⁾ However, Judge Tashima left open constitutional issues. Rulings on the constitutionality of H.B. 2281 are expected in February or March, 2012.

Oppressing Those Who Wish to Learn of Oppression

It is beyond the scope of this article to explore the varied ideological motivations of Horne and Huppenthal in regard to their opposition to Mexican American Studies. However, recent comments by Huppenthal concerning the teaching of history relevant ethnic oppression were readily available and are important to note.

Confiscation of text books accompanied the suspension of the MAS program, a matter we explore in the next section. One of the confiscated books was Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” Here is John Huppenthal from a recent broadcast concerning Freire’s work:

“That word "oppressed" (referring to ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’) is taken right out of 'The Communist Manifesto,' where… Karl Marx talks about the struggle of the history of man, the entire history of mankind being the struggle between the oppressed and the oppressors... The designers of the Mexican American Studies classes explicitly say in their journal articles that they’re going to construct Mexican American Studies around this Marxian framework with a predominantly ethnic underclass, the oppressed… filling out that Marxian model, and a predominantly Caucasian class filling out the role of the oppressor.” ⁴³⁾

Huppenthal has stated, per numerous press accounts, that MAS portrays history in a fashion that has ‘indoctrinated’ students, fosters ethnic resentment, and even prepares them for acts of violence or evil. In a Democracy Now! interview, Huppenthal talked of his one visit to a Mexican American Studies classroom where he saw a poster of Che Guevara on the wall and heard Ben Franklin characterized as racist. ⁴⁴⁾

At one point, Huppenthal stated,

“What we want to do is create a society in which everybody is working for a better tomorrow, not working to get even. We all know the evil that came out of the Balkans in Western Europe. So we want to make sure these students are educated and able to be critical thinkers in a variety of viewpoints.” ⁴⁵⁾

Whoa! Is Huppenthal insinuating that history as taught through MAS could somehow lead to that kind of violence? By ‘working to get even,’ did he truly mean revenge?

If so, shame on you, Mr. Huppenthal: ethnic studies programs are not the Western equivalent of fundamentalist Islamic madrasses designed to churn out terrorists; they are, in fact, the very opposite. If intended, such an implication is more than irresponsible; it is nearly criminal, given such misstatement of fact only panders to fear and results in furthering racial and ethnic division.

Or, to give benefit to doubt, was Huppenthal simply referring to equality while, unfortunately, making his comment in such a way that revenge could be construed?

On that level, I would suspect many, if not most, students graduating from ethnic studies programs become:

• Life-long learners driven to improve not only themselves but their friends and communities;
• Citizens who will challenge the status-quo, weigh alternatives, question authority, and stand for what they believe, and
• Humanists called to seek equality, justice, and the peace that justice brings.

Would not these be exactly the kind of students capable of ‘working for a better tomorrow?’

Or, is that really the problem, Mr. Huppenthal- Latinos working for a better tomorrow?

Unfortunately, that is the perspective of scholar Carlos Munoz, who accredits the closing of Mexican American Studies and the confiscation of its books as “an effort to return to the days of the 1950s, previous to the Chicano movement and other civil rights movements in this country, to try to ‘Americanize’ and re-colonize the minds of young people in the state of Arizona.” ⁴⁶⁾

“I think that’s the bottom line here. They want to put a stop to this process of producing young leaders that are going to speak truth to power, and are going to make a difference in the future in terms of turning the tide against racism and other things that are negative in Arizona.” ⁴⁷⁾

In the Aftermath of the Suspension

Immediately after the suspension of the Mexican American Studies program, students from several Tucson area middle and high schools organized and staged walkouts.

Incredibly, those students were then ordered to perform janitorial duties on the following Saturday. It was “an amazing message-- something right out of Newt Gingrich’s playbook,” as Roberto Cintli Rodriquez subsequently wrote. ⁴⁸⁾

Wakefield Middle School students who participated in a district-wide walkout January 23, 2012 found they were subsequently suspended from school. TUSD Assistant Superintendent Abel Morado said the students were not suspended for walkingout in support of MAS, but for past infractions or other unexcused absences. ⁴⁹⁾ At post time, it was unknown whether these student suspensions had been lifted.

Most controversial was the subsequent confiscation of MAS teaching materials: books, artwork, posters, etc. ⁵⁰⁾ Initially, seven books were removed:

• 500 Years of Chicano History in Pictures, edited by Elizabeth Martinez,
• Chicano! The History of the Mexican Civil Rights Movement, F. Arturo Rosales,
• Critical Race Theory, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic,
• Message to Aztlan,” Rodolfo Corky Gonzales,
• Occupied America: A History of Chicanos, Rodolfo Acuña,
• Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire,
• Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years, Bill Bigelow. ⁵¹⁾

Bill Bigelow, author of “Rethinking Columbus,”said TUSD has shown “tremendous disrespect for teachers and students” by removing the book.

“(Rethinking Columbus) is a book that has sold over 300,000 copies and is used in school districts from Anchorage to Atlanta, and from Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine. It offers teaching strategies and readings teachers can use to help students think about the perspectives that are too often silenced in the traditional curriculum.” ⁵²⁾

Bigelow noted the only other time a book of his was banned was in 1968, when apartheid South Africa banned “Strangers in Their Own Country,” a curriculum he had written which included a speech by Nelson Mandela. ⁵³⁾ Said Bigelow,

“We know what the South African regime was afraid of. What is the Tucson school district afraid of?” ⁵⁴⁾

Loss of money, probably. Rather than TUSD, Bigelow should have directed the question to Horne, Huppenthal and any others who signed or supported the legislation that led to the TUSD administrative decisions.

Beyond the initial seven, all of the approximately 50 books in the MAS curriculum were subsequently removed. ⁵⁵⁾ As Roberto Cintli Rodriquez wrote,

Teachers are being told to turn in the books that have not been "confiscated". This might strike the average person as odd: it's as if the presence of these books inside classrooms constitutes a distraction or bad influence. Apparently, students should not be able to even see those books in the classrooms. ⁵⁶⁾

Among the additional books in the MAS curriculum packed off to storage were:

• A People’s Guide to History, Howard Zinn
• Civil Disobedience, Henry Thoreau,
• The Tempest, William Shakespeare ⁵⁷⁾

Shakespeare? Really? Confiscating Thoreau’s book on civil disobedience? Howard Zinn? Well, rather than ‘white-washing’ the American story, Howard did write about the oppression which occurred in the history of building the United States. And that's a problem, Mr. Huppenthal?

Following the confiscation of text books, numerous press articles categorized the action as a ‘banning’ of books, a claim vehemently denied by the Tucson school administration. Officials claimed the text books had simply been taken to a supply repository, and that copies of all books were still available in libraries and other areas, just not in MAS classrooms. ⁵⁸⁾ A spot check of the library catalog by reporter Jeff Biggars returned one copy of “Critical Race Theory,” two copies of “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” and 16 copies of “Rethinking Columbus” ⁵⁹⁾ -- which would now need to serve a student population of more than 50,000.

Lorenzo Lopez, a teacher at Tucson’s Cholla High School, charged the district with being less than forth-right in its characterization of the book removal:

“In regards to this double-speak about these books being banned, it is irrelevant if these books are banned from the entire district or just from our classes. If our kids can’t have access to that knowledge, and it was urgent that these books be removed immediately from our classes, they are, in effect, banned.” ⁶⁰⁾

Sadly, the forbidden books also had to be removed from teacher’s personal libraries, according to Pueblo High’s Sally Rusk:

“Our own personal copies were not to be on the book shelves either. It seems obvious to us that being made to take certain books out of the classroom — even when used as reference books and not class sets — is censorship. How can not allowing teachers to use these books, even as reference material in a traditional U.S. history course, not be interpreted as banning those books?” ⁶¹⁾

For scholar Carlos Munoz, the reason these books were banned is because they spoke truth to power:

Scholars of Mexican-American background and other… scholars of color, have collectively made a profound contribution to the body of knowledge of people of color in this country, and have documented and rectified a history that speaks the truth that this country has been historically an empire, a promoter of imperialism throughout the world… (Take) scholarship like Rodolfo Acuña’s incredible path-breaking book. He was the first one to put out a true history of America, in a sense that he documents, beyond shadow of a doubt, the nature of our society and how, in fact, Mexican-Americans in particular have struggled for social justice throughout the nation’s history… All this knowledge that ‘Occupied America’ represents, they (Arizona’s politicians) don’t want to acknowledge.” ⁶²⁾

MAS teachers are certainly scared, given an environment where anyone complaining about anything that may be construed as a violation to H.B. 2281 could result in loss of their job. ⁶³⁾

Yolanda Sotelo, who has taught at TUSD for thirty-years, was informed monitors would visit her classroom to ensure confiscated books were not being used and that any instructors who made assignments from prohibited titles would be reprimanded. She was told monitors would also evaluate classroom walls and posters. ⁶⁴⁾

School administrators have instructed teachers to simply avoid any lesson plans or books touching themes of race, ethnicity or oppression. ⁶⁵⁾

According to Curtis Acosta, the award-winning Mexican American Studies literature instructor,

“We’re filled with the vagueness the law is founded upon. No one knows what to tell us definitively when we ask specific questions.” ⁶⁶⁾

In yet another irony, the law’s vagueness has increased educational inequality in the Tucson school system, as it is only the teachers who worked in the MAS program who are now forbidden from teaching from the confiscated books. Other teachers in the district can- and are- using them. ⁶⁷⁾ An example is Tucson’s University High, where college-bound students have access to all curricular materials, including those forbidden to MAS. ⁶⁸⁾

Acosta often teaches Shakespeare’s “The Tempest.” Here he explains why he no longer may:

“What is very clear is that “The Tempest” is problematic for our administrators due to the content of the play and the pedagogical choices I have made. In other words, Shakespeare wrote a play that is clearly about colonization of “the new world” and there are strong themes of race, colonization, oppression, class and power that permeate the play, along with themes of love and redemption. We study this work by Shakespeare using the work of renowned historian Ronald Takaki and the chapter “The Tempest in the Wilderness” from his a book A Different Mirror where he uses the play to explore the early English settlements on this continent and English imperialism. From there, we immerse ourselves in the play and discuss the beauty of the language, Shakespeare’s multiple perspectives on colonization, and the brilliant and courageous attention he gives to such important issues.

However, TUSD is basing our compliance upon their appeal and (the court) ruling. Thus, I believe our administrators advised me properly when they said to avoid texts, units, or lessons with race and oppression as a central focus… (Staying) away from teaching “The Tempest” not only seems prudent, but intelligent. We also have not received confirmation that the ideas, dialogue, and class work of our students will be protected. In clearer words, if I avoid discussing such themes in class, yet the students see the themes and decide to write, discuss or ask questions in class, we may also be found to be in violation. The stakes are far too high since a violation of the law could cost the district millions, our employment, and personal penalties from the state for breaking the law.

Due to the madness of this situation and our fragile positions as instructors who will be frequently observed for compliance, and be asked to produce examples of student work as proof of our compliance, I cannot disagree with their advice. Now we are in the position of having to rule out “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” “The Great Gatsby,” etc. for the exact same reasons.” ⁶⁹⁾

So, Huckleberry Finn’s gone, too? I suspect many Mexican American Studies teachers and students have been asking, “What’s the world coming to?”

What is obvious is the vaguely worded passages of A.R.S. 15-112(A) have placed Tucson’s Mexican American Studies instructors in a untenable position: incapable of teaching on many issues crucial to the development of critical thinking. Per university professor Jorge Mariscal, there will now be:

No critical thinking, no critical history, and no critical pedagogy for the new Calibans who must take their designated places in the market economy and forget their past. ⁷⁰⁾

That is the crime that Horne and Huppenthal have wrought.

Reaction to the Issues

There have been many interesting perspectives written in response to Arizona H.B. 2281 and the closing of Tucson’s Mexican American Studies programs.

The opinions that follow have been expressed far more eloquently than any encapsulation I may attempt. Here are a few:

Concerning the Suspension of the MAS Program

Anthropologist and author Tom Sheridan sees racial and poor fiscal ideology driving the closing of MAS. Rather than demonized, Sheridan sees a program that state official should be emulating elsewhere:

The recent dismantling of Mexican American Studies in the Tucson Unified School District represents the convergence of two disturbing trends in Arizona: 1) the systematic assault on Mexican society and culture and 2) the starvation of public education at all levels across the state.

Students enrolled in the program were more likely to graduate and much more likely than their peers to go to college. Instead of trying to replicate it in other largely Hispanic school districts, however, the Arizona Legislature passed Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 15-112, which prohibited "a school district or charter school in this state" from offering courses that "promote the overthrow of the United States government" and "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals… If Arizona truly wants to nourish a "knowledge economy," TUSD's Mexican American Studies program should be applauded, not demonized. ⁷¹⁾

Dr. Roberto Cintli Rodriquez decries the censorship at the heart of the matter and what that censorship means for public education:

"This is an attack specific to Chicano studies, but at its core this act of censorship is a black eye to the U.S. educational system. It is a black eye to the very idea of education because the state and TUSD are attempting to determine what is valid knowledge- what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. This dangerous precedent gives the message that students are free to learn everything except what the state finds objectionable. This should be a concern to every human being anywhere." ⁷²⁾

Arizona Republic columnist Linda Valdez sees great value in ethnic studies and blames the racial nature of Arizona’s state politics for the closing of MAS:

Mexican American studies is an important element in teaching Tucson’s youth about human rights, and in fighting discrimination and ethnic resentment rather than fomenting it.

The underlying reason why Mexican American studies is being targeted in Southern Arizona is a political one. The fight to ban this particular ethnic studies program is one more in a long line of battles being waged against the state’s Latino population. ⁷³⁾

Luke Witman from the Tucson Examiner writes,

At a time when racial intolerance against Latinos in this country appears ever increasing, it seems that a program aimed at educating youth about the pitfalls of such intolerance is more valuable than ever. ⁷⁴⁾

English professor Joel Shatzky speaks to the irony of the oppression at hand:

That officials in Arizona believe that by closing down these programs and thus insulting those who have enrolled in them they will not increase a sense of oppression by Latinos and other ethnic groups, is as illusory as the words on a sign a colleague of mine hung in his office many years ago: "The flogging will stop when morale improves." ⁷⁵⁾

Then there is this from author Luis J. Rodriguez:

Let's be clear--adequate educational criteria needs to include several important aspects: 1) that information provided be factual and verified; 2) that this knowledge include varied perspectives and ideas; 3) that it be grounded in the historical record as well as vibrate with the experiences and stories of all peoples; 4) and that the content is real and relevant from a literary and educational standpoint to all students.

In such a classroom, even the Tea Party's views would be heard and debated. Why not the Ku Klux Klan's and Hitler's positions? But these should also be enriched with other views that challenge these and add to a student's treasury of learning--those of Frederick Douglass, Malcolm X, Cesar Chavez, Maxine Hong Kingston, Elie Wiesel, Leslie Marmon Silko... and many others.

A thriving educational environment allows reality into the curriculum and won't mediate or censor the truth. It is not about the idealized beliefs of a small minority, which the Tea Party is no matter how you look at it. The state has no right to determine what are the "right" ideas and which perspectives to cut out. Teachers who dare to expand the knowledge base of their students by continuing these classes and teaching from these texts can presumably be removed, perhaps even jailed.

That's worse than "group think," it's tyranny. ⁷⁶⁾

Concerning H.B. 2281

Richard Martinez, attorney for the Mexican American Studies program, is angry that a community-based program like MAS has been usurped by state mandate. Martinez sees racism as the primary motivation behind both the legislation and Superintendent of Public Instruction Huppenthal’s finding against TUSD:

"What has occurred here is that [Huppenthal] has taken away from our entire community a curriculum that was adopted by our school board, that was developed by our school district, and that had successfully operated for well over 10 years. It’s just part of the same kind of tactics that have been employed in Arizona reflected by [SB] 1070, the anti-immigrant perspective. It is the anti-Latino perspective that exists in this state." ⁷⁷⁾

Dr. Sonia W. Soltero, from DePaul University’s College of Education, frames the Arizona legislation as both anti-American and unproductive, unfortunately undermining an educational program that has been demonstrably successful:

The political move by the state of Arizona to make the teaching of a social studies curriculum illegal is both draconian and anti-democratic. A curriculum that offers the often ignored histories, experiences, and contributions of the largest ethnic group in the U.S., and presents different perspectives in literature, expands the knowledge and understanding of both Mexican-American and non-Latinos students. Without any empirical evidence, detractors claim that the Ethnic Studies Program promotes antagonistic relations between Mexican-American youth and mainstream society. By contrast, advocates of the program can point to empirically-based record of increased academic outcomes and graduation rates for students who participate in the program. ⁷⁸⁾

Tom Sheridan, speaking of the combined effects of S.B. 1070 and H.B. 2281 A.R.S. 15-112(A), writes:

There has not been such a concerted effort by Arizona state government to suppress Mexicans and Mexican-Americans since early statehood, when the Legislature attempted to disenfranchise Mexican voters and keep Mexican labor out of the copper mines. ⁷⁹⁾

Former educator Jame E. Garcia writes White/Anglo worries over the upcoming change in population demographics is why HB 2281 became law:

It happened because the state's Latino population has nearly doubled in the past 20 years and the right wing is angry and afraid that it is helpless to stop it. In one generation, Latinos will be 50 percent of the state's population and, short of declaring martial law and deporting everyone with brown skin, there's nothing anyone can do to prevent it. ⁸⁰⁾

Professor Jorge Mariscal, much like Garcia, wrote wondering whether Arizona’s attack on Mexican American Studies was less about ethnic studies and more about denying the right to education to the coming Latino majority? ⁸¹⁾

After all, as Garcia and Mariscal indicate, population trends show an ever-growing Latino presence in Arizona. The Hispanic population increased 5.5 percent over the past decade to 30.8% of the state’s total population, with a median Latino age of 25 years versus 43 for non-Hispanic whites. ⁸² In time, it is inevitable Arizona’s Latino population will become the majority.

Summary

Given the events that have transpired concerning Tucson’s Mexican American Studies program, it is difficult to summarize without focusing on the efforts of two men: Tom Horne and John Huppenthal.

If you want to know why MAS has been suspended, you simply need point to Horne and Huppenthal. It was this tandem which, unfortunately, had the will, drive, finesse and political power to make it happen.

It is unfortunate because a program delivering significantly positive educational outcomes was sacrificed in the name of an extremely partisan ideology. It is also unfortunate Delores Huerta made partisan comments in a public, non-partisan venue, for that sent Horne, and ultimately Huppenthal, on a political vendetta: the assassination of Tucson’s Mexican American Studies. Yes, both men talk of biased teaching, indoctrination, and a MAS program that racially divides students, but that is not only unfounded but a mask: one intended to divert attention from their ulterior motives. Frankly, if the pair made a mistake, it was Huppenthal’s hiring of Cambium Learning, Inc. for an audit where he could not control the outcome, or perhaps Huppenthal never really considered that Cambium’s evaluation might differ from his own. At any rate, Cambium’s final report countermanded Horne and Huppenthal’s predetermined course of action, so the report had to be ignored or, as Huppenthal later attempted, discredited.

The greatest tragedy in this story is the affect of the loss of Mexican American Studies on thousands of current and future Tucson students. That loss is at a minimum two-fold: loss of

• Knowledge concerning the history of Latino culture, its struggles for equality, and the oppression that has been suffered, and
• An environment conducive to group analysis, discussion and the development of critical thinking skills.

This is the irony of Horne and Huppenthal’s legislation: they have legally mandated the oppression of those who simply wanted to learn of oppression.

As someone commented in a reply to a blog: This law (H.B.2281) and everything that has been done to force it within Arizona proves that white people are still quite happily oppressing the rights of non whites. It's not history, it's called current events. 83) The “society in which everybody is working for a better tomorrow,” to borrow a phrase from Huppenthal, should apply to state legislators, too. However, in yet another irony, H.B. 2281 instead moves Arizona

closer to the realm of Dante’s inferno. Perhaps visitors to the Grand Canyon state arriving via highway deserve a more appropriate welcome: “Abandon critical thought, ye who enter here.”

Fortunately, all is not lost. Tucson attorney Richard Martinez filed a motion in late 2011 for a summary judgment on three constitutional claims relative H.B. 2281. Martinez has stated he hopes to hear the motion in February, 2012, and that there may be a decision by March. ⁸⁴⁾

Presuming the arc of the universe truly bends toward justice, Arizona H.B. 2281 will be ruled unconstitutional, Tucson’s Mexican American Studies will begin to pick up the pieces, and- someday soon- it will again thrive.


Updates

House Bill 2654, ‘An Act Repealing Sections 15-111 and 15-112, Arizona Revised Statues, Relating to School Curriculum,’ was introduced to the Arizona legislature by Representative Sally Gonzales. The resolution has support of the American Library Association ⁸⁵⁾ and Mujeres Activas en Letras y Cambio Social (MALCS), a national professional association of Chicanas, Latinas, Native American and Indigenous women. ⁸⁶⁾ However, no information was available on the Arizona House of Representatives website concerning the bill and its status as of February 5, 2012.

The American Library Association (ALA) issued a resolution denouncing the suppression of open inquiry caused by the closing of MAS, condemning the restriction to educational materials associated with MAS, and urging the Arizona legislature to pass Gonzales’ H.B. 2654. The ALA resolution came from the group’s mid-winter meeting in Dallas, Texas, where the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom worked with various ALA committees in creating the statement. The resolution was passed by the ALA’s governing council on January 24, 2012. ⁸⁷⁾

One week later, more than two dozen organizations joined the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression in a statement of opposition to TUSD’s book censorship. Organizations joining the ABA’s Foundation included the Author’s Guild, American Association of University Professors, Association of American Publishers, the National Education Association, and 25 others. Their opposition is primarily based on first amendment rights and states in part, ⁸⁸⁾

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… 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.

Book-banning and thought control are antithetical to American law, tradition and values… The First Amendment right to read, speak and think freely applies to all, regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or national origin. ⁸⁹⁾

Footnotes

¹ “Rejected in Tucson,” Editorial, The Opinion Pages, The New York Times, January 21, 2012.
² The New York Times, ibid.
³ The New York Times, ibid.
⁴ “Curriculum Audit of the Mexican American Studies Department, Tucson Unified School District,” Cambium Learning, Inc., May 2, 2011.
⁵ Cambium Learning, ibid.
⁶ Cambium Learning, ibid.
⁷ “Profile in Courage: On Frontlines of Arizona Crisis, Mexican American Studies Director Sean Arce Teached Nation an Enduring Lesson,” Jeff Biggars, Education, The Huffington Post, August 15, 2011.
⁸ Biggars, ibid.
⁹ Biggars, ibid.
¹⁰ Biggars, ibid.
¹¹ Biggars, ibid.
¹² Biggars, ibid.
¹³ “TUSD Banning Books? Well Yes, and No, and Yes,” Mari Herreras, The Range, Tucson Weekly, January 17, 2012.
¹⁴ “Tucson battles Wild West image after shooting,” John D. Sutter, CNN, January 13, 2011.
¹⁵ “Activists fire back at Tom Horne for comment over Dolores Huerta,” KVOA, February 23, 2010.
¹⁶ “Arizona Bans Ethnic Studies,” Jessica Calefati, Mother Jones, May 12, 2010.
¹⁷ “Curriculum Audit of the Mexican American Studies Department, Tucson Unified School District,” Cambium Learning, Inc., May 2, 2011.
¹⁸ “Horne resigns from board of ADL,” Deborah Sussman Susser, Jewish News of Greater Phoenix, Volume 62, Number 24, March 5, 2010.
¹⁹ Susser, ibid.
²⁰ “Banning ethnic studies won’t end idea,” James E. Garcia, The Arizona Republic, January 24, 2012.
²¹ “Curriculum Audit of the Mexican American Studies Department, Tucson Unified School District,” Cambium Learning, Inc., May 2, 2011.
²² Cambium Learning, ibid.
²³ “Statement of Finding Regarding Tucson Unified School District’s Violation of A.R.S. 15-112,” John Huppenthal, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education, State of Arizona, 2011.
²⁴ “Arizona’s Attack on Chicano History and Culture is Against Everyone,” Luis J. Rodriguez, Latino Voices, The Hugffington Post, January 18, 2012.
²⁵ “Curriculum Audit of the Mexican American Studies Department, Tucson Unified School District,” Cambium Learning, Inc., May 2, 2011.
²⁶ Cambium Learning, ibid.
²⁷ Cambium Learning, ibid.
²⁸ Cambium Learning, ibid.
²⁹ Cambium Learning, ibid.
³⁰ Cambium Learning, ibid.
³¹ Cambium Learning, ibid.
³² “Statement of Finding Regarding Tucson Unified School District’s Violation of A.R.S. 15-112,” John Huppenthal, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education, State of Arizona, 2011.
³³ “Arizona’s ‘banned’ Mexican American books,” Roberto Cintli Rodriguez, The Guardian, January 18, 2012.
³⁴ “Statement of Finding Regarding Tucson Unified School District’s Violation of A.R.S. 15-112,” John Huppenthal, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education, State of Arizona, 2011.
³⁵ “Huppenthal’s conclusion is way off base,” Editorial, The Arizona Star, June 17, 2011.
³⁶ The Arizona Star, ibid.
³⁷ “Tucson Schools Ethnic Studies Program Dismantled, Deemed Illegal,” Education, The Huffington Post, January 11, 2012.
³⁸ “Arizona’s Apartheid War Against Mexican American Studies,” Roberto Rodriquez, TruthOut, January 4, 2012.
³⁹ “Tucson Schools Ethnic Studies Program Dismantled, Deemed Illegal,” Education, The Huffington Post, January 11, 2012.
⁴⁰ The Huffington Post, ibid.
⁴¹ The Huffington Post, ibid.
⁴² The Huffington Post, ibid.
⁴³ “Debating Tucson School District’s Book Ban After Suspension of Mexican American Studies Program,” Democracy Now, January 18, 2012.
⁴⁴ Democracy Now!, ibid.
⁴⁵ Democracy Now!, ibid.
⁴⁶ “Banning Books in Tucson,” Dennis Bernstein, Consortium News, January 22, 2012.
⁴⁷ Bernstein, ibid.
⁴⁸ “Arizona’s ‘banned’ Mexican American books,” Roberto Cintli Rodriquez, The Guardian, January 18, 2012.
⁴⁹ “Students in walkout suspended,” Alexis Huicochea, The Arizona Daily Star, January 27, 2012.
⁵⁰ “Arizona’s ‘banned’ Mexican American books,” Roberto Cintli Rodriquez, The Guardian, January 18, 2012.
⁵¹ Rodriquez, ibid.
⁵² “Ethnic book ban even includes Shakespeare,” Rheana Murray, The New York Daily News,January 16, 2012.
⁵³ Murray, ibid.
⁵⁴ Murray, ibid.
⁵⁵ “Arizona’s ‘banned’ Mexican American books,” Roberto Cintli Rodriquez, The Guardian, January 18, 2012.
⁵⁶ Rodriquez, ibid.
⁵⁷ “Mexican American Studies Department Reading List,” Debbie Reese, American Indians in Children’s Literature, January 15, 2012.
⁵⁸ “TUSD Banning Books? Well Yes, and No, and Yes,” Mari Herreras, The Range, Tucson Weekly, January 17, 2012.
⁵⁹ “Tucson says banished books may return to classrooms,” Jeff Biggers, Salon, January 18, 2012.
⁶⁰ Biggers, ibid.
⁶¹ Biggers, ibid.
⁶² “Banning Books in Tucson,” Dennis Bernstein, Consortium News, January 22, 2012.
⁶³ “TUSD Banning Books? Well Yes, and No, and Yes,” Mari Herreras, The Range, Tucson Weekly, January 17, 2012.
⁶⁴ “Neo-Raccism in the Southwest,” Jorge Mariscal, Counterpunch, January 18, 2012.
⁶⁵ “TUSD Banning Books? Well Yes, and No, and Yes,” Mari Herreras, The Range, Tucson Weekly, January 17, 2012.
⁶⁶ Herreras, ibid.
⁶⁷ Herreras, ibid.
⁶⁸ “Neo-Raccism in the Southwest,” Jorge Mariscal, Counterpunch, January 18, 2012.
⁶⁹ “The ‘Madness’ of the Tucson Book Ban: Interview with Mexican American Studies Teacher Curtis Acosta on ‘The Tempest’,” Jeff Biggars, AlterNet, January 17, 2012.
⁷⁰ “Neo-Raccism in the Southwest,” Jorge Mariscal, Counterpunch, January 18, 2012.
⁷¹ “Attack on Mexican American Studies is shortsighted,” Tom Sheridan, Arizona Daily Star, January 18, 2012.
⁷² “Arizona’s Attack on Chicano History and Culture is Against Everyone,” Luis J. Rodriguez, Latino Voices, The Huffington Post, January 18, 2012.
⁷³ “Axed Mexican American studies program still polarizing Tucsonans,” Luke Witman, Tucson Examiner, January 15, 2012.
⁷⁴ Witman, ibid.
⁷⁵ “Educating for Democracy: Big Brother is Watching in Arizona,” Joel Shatzky, Education, The Huffington Post, January 16, 2012.
⁷⁶ “Arizona’s Attack on Chicano History and Culture is Against Everyone,” Luis J. Rodriguez, Latino Voices, The Huffington Post, January 18, 2012.
⁷⁷ “Debating Tucson School District’s Book Ban After Suspension of Mexiacn American Studies Program,” Democracy Now, January 18, 2012.
⁷⁸ “Profile in Courage: On Frontlines of Arizona Crisis, Mexican American Studies Director Sean Arce Teached Nation an Enduring Lesson,” Jeff Biggars, Education, The Huffington Post, August 15, 2011.
⁷⁹ “Attack on Mexican American Studies is shortsighted,” Tom Sheridan, Arizona Daily Star, January 18, 2012.
⁸⁰ “Banning ethnic studies won’t end idea,” James E. Garcia, The Arizona Republic, January 24, 2012.
⁸¹ “Neo-Raccism in the Southwest,” Jorge Mariscal, Counterpunch, January 18, 2012.
⁸² “Attack on Mexican American Studies is shortsighted,” Tom Sheridan, Arizona Daily Star, January 18, 2012.
⁸³ “TUSD Banning Books? Well Yes, and No, and Yes,” Mari Herreras, The Range, Tucson Weekly, January 17, 2012.
⁸⁴ “Mexican American Studies Legal Update Today,” Mari Herreras, The Range, Tucson Weekly, January 26, 2012.
⁸⁵ “Resolution Opposing Rewstriction of Access to Materials and Open Inquiry in Ethnic and Cultural Studies Programs in Arizona,” OIF Blog, Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, January 24, 2012.
⁸⁶ “MALCS Protests Arizona Ban on Ethnic Studies,” MALCS Executive Committee, Mujeres Talk, Mujeres Activas en Letras y Cambio Social, January 30, 2012.
⁸⁷ “Resolution Opposing Rewstriction of Access to Materials and Open Inquiry in Ethnic and Cultural Studies Programs in Arizona,” OIF Blog, Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, January 24, 2012.
⁸⁸ “Joint Statement in Opposition to Book Censorship in the Tucson Unified Schoold District,” American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, January 30, 2012.
⁸⁹ American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, ibid.