A school district in Tuscon, Arizona was forced to drop its controversial Ethnic Studies program, more specifically a Mexican American Studies program.

            John Huppenthal, the state superintendent of public instruction, had deemed the program in violation of a law that, among other things, bans classes primarily designed for a particular ethnic group or that “promote resentment toward a race or class of people.”

            The program’s opponents — led by Huppenthal, a veteran state senator elected superintendent of public instruction last year — say that by framing historical events in racial terms, the teachers promote groupthink and victimhood.

            Obviously, proponents of the program have resisted, even though a judge sided with Huppenthal, and now they want to find the law unconstitutional.

            It seems likely that people, if they care at all, will line up to take sides on this issue. So, we need to look at what the concept of ethnic studies means. On the surface it appears benign, even a good thing. After all, we want this minority group to feel good about themselves and the contributions made by people who share their culture.

            However, why must we single out a particular group and highlight their positive contributions?  If we are to study the history of our country or even of a particular state, shouldn’t we simply study men and women who have contributed in a significant way to that history, regardless of their surnames or where their parents were born?  Does it make sense to extract every ethnic group and study them in isolation from the rest of history, erasing any connection to the bigger picture?  If you think about the meaning of such a program, it’s obviously biased on the face of it.

            Proponents will imply that the group being studied, Mexican Americans in this case, need to have their segment of history told in order to offset the cultural biases against them. Now, that is starting to sound like victimhood, the very thing the law targets.

            Since words have emotional impact beyond their literal definition, let’s think about what images this conjures up. The notion of victimhood is obviously there, and it is logically followed with resentment. Even if not stated, the implied message is that the dominant Anglo community is picking on the oppressed Hispanic community. This further implies a class struggle, the arrogant upper class against the poor lower class. Now, I know many Mexican Americans who are quite financially successful, prominent members of the community and owners of businesses. I suspect that these people would resent being considered lower class. These gross generalizations set up arbitrary divides, rather than uniting people in one cooperative community.

            The emotional, not literal, meaning of “ethnic” is a negative one. Strictly speaking, every group who originated in one culture or another is an ethnic group, but you never hear the term used about English speaking people of north western European origin. When someone uses the term “ethnic,” it invokes a people who look different than the so-called dominant culture, speak a different language or with an accent and are less prosperous and less educated. Try thinking of the term and watch the images that arise.

            Also implied is a value judgment. One culture is corrupt, insensitive, oppressive and guilty, while the other is innocent, oppressed, kind and honest. When you think about it, that’s absurd. Every culture in the history of the world has had both its noble moments and its shameful ones. America has helped save Europe from an evil dictator and has also invaded countries for no good reason. What the Spanish and Mexicans did to the native people in California was as bad or worse than anything Anglos did to the Mexicans when they took over the state.

            Promoting resentment between groups who have to live side by side is a recipe for anger, resentment and violence. Ethnic studies really is the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Barely a month after passing SB1070, which forbids illegal immigration and renders that state’s Latino population as suspects and targets for racial profiling – despite what that new law’s supporters say – Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed a bill that aims to regulate the ethnic studies program in Tucson’s Unified School District.

According to Tom Horne, the chief of schools in that desert state, Tucson’s K-12 program, which includes the history and literature of Mexican Americans as well as Blacks and Native Americans, advocates “ethnic chauvinism” and borders on reverse racism towards Anglos, indoctrinating Latino children on the notion that they are oppressed and hated by whites.

To put it bluntly, Horne and Brewer don’t get it.

An academic program that focuses on ethnic groups such as African Americans, Asians, and Chicanos /Latinos does not seek to segregate students or portray whites as the devil like the Minister Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam once did. Ethnic studies programs teaches youngsters the importance and influence of their race or group to society, which for decades was ignored in the mainstream American curriculum.

As Malcolm X, the civil rights activist from the 1960s, stated in his autobiography:

“…history has been ‘whitened’ – when white men had written history, the black man (and other people of color) simply had been left out.”

For a very long time, when people of color were covered in classes it was only in a cursory and stereotypical fashion. For example, according to his autobiography when Malcolm X was in junior high school and his 7th grade history class got to the section on Black history in their textbooks, “It was exactly one paragraph long…(talking) about how the Negroes had been slaves and then were freed, and how they were usually lazy and dumb and shiftless.”

Latinos were given almost parallel treatment in school books and lessons for just as long a period as Blacks, which is why in the case of the state of Arizona and the Tucson school district, their Mexican American studies program is vital and essential not only in the education of students of Mexican descent, but all young people; the same goes for any program whose curriculum focuses on an underrepresented ethnic minority.

Horne and Brewer have said that children shouldn’t be taught to have animosity toward a particular race, which they feel Tucson’s program promotes, and according to Paul Senseman, a spokesman for Governor brewer, “…students should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races…”

I can’t help but think that if children were taught that during the bulk of the last century, there would not have been a need for a Chicano studies program. There also wouldn’t have been a need for an African American studies program, or any other kind of ethnic studies program.

Human rights advocates from the United Nations have already condemned this bill. Having worked with kids in various school districts for nearly twenty years, I fear that this new law will effectively water down this program that Tuscon’s 31,000 Latino students, 56 percent of the district’s population, badly need in order to learn, understand, and feel pride about their ethnicity and heritage.

It all seems quite unfair; first the anti-immigration law, now this ethnic studies bill. If the Mexican Americans and Latinos of that Grand Canyon state are not being targeted, then I don’t know what being targeted means.

Like SB1070, this new law needs to be struck down by the courts, or at least renegotiated so that Arizona’s Latino youngsters don’t get cheated out of an essential part of their education.

The bipolar model of racism in the United States creates a “black- white framework.” This discourages the understanding of widespread awareness among minority groups. The existence of the bipolar model of racism is due to several philosophies, which I have narrowed down to five.

When the need for labor increased, the nation started to focus on African labor. Before slavery became very popular, America was a “triracial society.” This society was based on skin color; white, black and yellowish-brown. Nevertheless, when the demand for labor increased, the yellowish- brown people were forgotten while blacks were overemphasized. Thus, the whites were considered superior while the blacks inferior.

            The black- white framework also exists due to population, location and history. Putting aside the current situation, African Americans have been the largest minority group in America. Not only were they the largest minority group, they were expansively spread across America, especially in cities. Historically, Americans are very familiar with issue concerning African American slavery. The United States was established as a result of the Civil War. This war was fought because of disagreements between the North and South about slavery. Thus the emphasis on African American slavery during the Civil War has made people study the topic more in depth. Moreover, African Americans have been very vocal about their issues. They have had very strong leaders throughout the centuries that have put their own dent in history.

            There is also a psychological reason for this framework. During the Anglo white supremacist movement, the classification of “white” had been very broad. If the masses were partly European or physically identifiable to Caucasians, they were accepted. Since Native Americans, Mexicans and Pacific Islanders were fairly acceptable as “white”, African Americans were seen more of a racial threat in terms of cleanliness of race. Nevertheless, because Mexicans and Asian American were not considered technically white or black, they were shoved to the side.

            Ignorance is another factor to the black- white model. While the average American learns the history of slavery and the movements following after that, many Americans are ignorant to the history of many other minority groups, like those of Asians’ and Latinos’.

            Evidently, United State’s political construction is stubborn and self- centered. Since the nation is so emphasized on being the dominant force, many refuse to accept cultures other than the white culture. For example, although the dominant language in the US is Spanish and Portuguese, English is still considered the main language.

            These five main arguments show that America has a bipolar black white perspective about race. If individuals put a stop to racism and instead have self- respect and hope, all peoples will be equal. Nevertheless, doing so requires people of color to unite and be vocal about their concerns.