Scalia And Sotomayor Clash In Proof-Of-Citizenship Voting Case

"The case involves an Arizona law adopted in 2004 that requires proof of citizenship prior to registering to vote (Prop 200). Challengers argue that it should be struck down because it violates a 1993 federal law (the National Voter Registration Act) requiring states to accept a registration form that lets most voters register to vote when renewing their drivers licenses or applying for social services, simply by attesting under oath that they are citizens."

USC and Tenure Fiascos

Shared governance should mean something (legal standing) or simply stop paying lip service to its protocols. In solidarity with Mai'a K. Davis Cross, please read Tania Modleski's open letter.

The Death of Shared Governance at the U. of Southern California

January 11, 2013, 4:08 pm

By Tania Modleski

In November, Mai’a K. Davis Cross filed a federal discrimination complaint against the University of Southern California for denying her bid for tenure, arguing that the institution had a history of denying tenure to women and members of minority groups in the humanities and social sciences.

Earlier this month, a grievance panel at the university found procedural defects in how Cross, an assistant professor of international relations, had been evaluated. Its report has now been forwarded to the institution’s president, who is free to accept or reject the panel’s findings.

Regardless of the president’s decision, the handling of Cross’s case by the University of Southern California—both during the tenure process and in response to charges of discrimination—raises important questions about the direction of higher education in the United States. The policies on which the university has relied testify to the continued erosion of faculty governance and the increasing corporatization of institutions everywhere.

Cross and her lawyer have contended that her tenure case included procedural violations by a former dean of the College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences—for example, that he, under the authority of the provost, made “cold calls” to scholars outside Cross’s field. In fact, though, the manual for the University Committee on Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure provides loopholes to circumvent the exacting standards and procedures that have long been nationally recognized as helping to ensure equal opportunities to candidates seeking tenure and promotion. In other words, “procedural violations” are, as it were, written into the handbook.

The manual invests extraordinary powers in the dean. In a section of the manual that calls for letters of reference to be solicited by departments from experts in the candidate’s field, the manual says that the dean must review the list of referees in advance and instruct the candidate’s department to find additional references if the list is inadequate. Then comes this rather offhand sentence: “If the dean consults with additional referees …, the communications should be fully documented as part of the dean’s memo.”

According to the provost, writing in a letter to Cross made available to The Chronicle,those “communications” may consist of phone calls or “face to face” meetings; while there are “templates” for letters of reference, there are no “templates for phone calls” or other “communications.”

Such power is clearly open to abuse since deans are not often experts in the candidate’s field. When questions about the candidate’s qualifications arise, surely the senior faculty members in the candidate’s department, who know more about the candidate’s field than most administrators are apt to know, ought to be the ones instructed to seek supplemental supporting letters using the approved templates.

Without proper vetting, a dean could call upon people who are not considered by authorities in the field to be among the most knowledgeable. The power conferred on the dean to engage in all manner of “communications” with unvetted, or inadequately vetted, individuals could easily lead to the reinstatement of the “old boys’ network” and to the kind of informal canvassing that AAUP guidelines were put in place to supplant, so as to create a level playing field for all tenure candidates, regardless of such categories as race, gender, or ethnicity.

But that is not the worst of it. A careful perusal of the promotion-and-tenure manual reveals that the lengthy document is, after all, entirely moot. For in the very first section there appears this line: “The provost may authorize exceptions or waivers to this manual or other policies.” In other words, there are no policies because all can be overridden by provostial fiat.

The University of Southern California and other colleges and universities continue to pay lip service to the idea of faculty governance or “shared governance.” At USC, the notion has undergone serious erosion. Not only the provost but also the president of the Academic Senate and the faculty member who leads the promotion-and-tenure committee signed off on the 2011 version of the manual. It is a shame to see faculty members giving their “share” of governance over to the administration, which is now, in effect, an autocracy.

I am not suggesting that USC is alone in moving away from faculty governance. It is a commonplace that American universities are becoming increasingly corporatized, organized from the top down. I am writing about my institution because it is the one I know best.

The university’s Office of Equity and Diversity, which in its letter to Cross assured her that an investigation had revealed no bias and no violations of procedure, has in my experience been ineffective in dealing with charges of discrimination. (In her complaint, Cross cited data showing that white men in the humanities and the social sciences had been promoted at much higher rates than did women and members of minority groups.)

The letter advised her to consider getting counseling to help her through this difficult time and informed her that if she wished to pursue an appeal, the number of the appropriate federal agency could be found “in the telephone directory.”

Notwithstanding the university’s discouragement of those who engage in open dissent about the matters I have discussed, I write in the hope that my remarks will prompt professors and administrators at my institution and at others across the nation to engage in dialogue about how faculty members—who are, after all, the experts in their fields—may regain their share of authority in the American system of higher education and how we may continue to work together to create an environment free of discrimination and fear of reprisal.

Tania Modleski is a professor of English at the University of Southern California.

This entry was posted in academic jobs. Bookmark the permalink.

Rubén Navarrette is Sleepwalking through History, Again

Rubén Navarrette is sleepwalking through history again. DREAMers didn't chose to come to the U.S. But the U.S. did have a choice about invading their parents' countries of origin. Regardless of left or right political proclivities, or how one feels about U.S. interventions in the Americas, to suggest that DREAMers keep their "heads low" and stop demanding "rights" not only misses the point but disrupts the necessary accounting required to making "critical thinking" possible not just for DREAMers -- as Navarette insists -- but the likes of Navarette himself. Anything else is simply sleep-walking through history. Selective memory impoverishes us all, and Navarrette certainly knows better. Instead, he just wants to be right at the expense of DREAMers. CNN, really, is this the best political commentator you have on the subject?

If I offended demanding DREAMers, I'm not sorry

Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a CNN.com contributor and a nationally syndicated columnist. Follow him on Twitter.

San Diego (CNN) -- Even for someone who has written more than 2,000 columns over the last 20 years, sometimes the words come out wrong.

All I know is that my wife is angry.

"You need to fix this!" she says, as she holds up her smartphone.

On the screen is a copy of my latest column for CNN.com scolding a faction of the DREAMers, the undocumented youth angling for legal status, for what I -- and judging from the response, quite a few other Americans -- see as a sense of entitlement.

"I hated this column," she said. "I know what you were trying to say, because I know you. But other people won't understand it. They're confused and angry, and they should be. I get your point. You're saying that these kids have become entitled and self-important like other kids and they're going to blow it for everyone else -- including their undocumented parents. But that's not what you walk away from this column with. What you walk way with is meanness. And that's not you."

Ruben Navarrette Jr.

Bah humbug. Sometimes, it is me. As I often tell audiences that gather for my speeches, constantly cheerful and positive writers work for Hallmark.

And yet, I notice that many of my critics on the left who think the tone of the DREAMer piece was harsh didn't object when, in the past, I lashed out in a similar tone against those on the right.

When voters turned out Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce, the major sponsor of that state's dreadful immigration law, I wrote that"evil has left the building." When Mitt Romney was overheard telling donors that he'd have a better shot at winning the presidential election if he were Latino, I mocked the Republican candidate for"playing the victim" because he had the "misfortune to be born a white male." In another column, after Romney blamed his defeat on minorities who were hungry for giveaways, I called him a "loser."And, when writing about the intersection of immigration and politics, I have had no trouble saying that the GOP brand is toxic to Latinos because the party has chosen to "pander to racists and nativists."

Every time, conservatives were upset, but -- on Facebook and other social media -- liberals applauded. Could it be that what really troubles people isn't the tone of a particular column but who is being skewered?

Still, as a Mexican immigrant herself, my wife has a point. And so do many of my critics.

In the offending column, I was not trying to describe the individual lives of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented high school and college students in the United States. Everyone is different. I was talking about a movement, a political strategy that involves DREAMers demanding what they see as their "rights" and, in the process, succumbing to a radicalism that is counterproductive and threatens to torpedo immigration reform for millions of others.

Like the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than ... by donning a cap and gown and occupying the office of a member of Congress until you're arrested. Or something like that.

But people didn't hear that message. They drew upon their own frame of reference and, thinking back to DREAMers they know, declared that they were swell folks who were humble and idealistic and didn't feel entitled. So, they said, I must be wrong.

Ironically, some of those who reacted angrily to the column wound up making its point.

One reader, who identified himself as a DREAMer who has lived in the United States for 11 years, insisted that he and his cohort weren't making demands. Then he added: "Speaking for myself ... at this point I am done asking. I demand to be fully incorporated into this society."

Now there's a lack of self-awareness.

Yet, that's also a good trait for columnists, who can always say things better and clearer. So let's try this again. For those undocumented youth who think that America owes them a fulfillment of their dreams, or who -- like the reader -- demand to be fully "incorporated into this society," that first column was for you. And the scolding fits.

But for the rest of you who work hard and obey the law and keep your head down and just want to find a way to live legally in a country you consider your own and where you've lived most of your life, let me first apologize for lumping you together with the demanders. Then let me give you some friendly advice:

-- Think critically. It's not enough to have beliefs. You have to constantly challenge yourselves so you know why you believe it, and can defend it. Because someday, you'll have to do so;

-- Privileges are not rights, and so they are earned and not granted by our creator. If Congress gives you the privilege of legal status, you need to decide what you're prepared to give in return. You need a plan, and a demand is not a plan;

-- Focus on deeds not words, and admit that neither political party has been courageous or honest on immigration. So don't feel beholden to either. Power comes from exercising options. Shop around;

(Last week, the Obama administration released figures showing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement broke its own record for total number of deportations. The agency removed 409,849 illegal immigrants in the 2012 fiscal year, compared to 396,906 in the 2011 fiscal year and 392,000 in the 2010 fiscal year. As most DREAMers would agree, those numbers are nothing to be proud of, especially since they appear to be driven by politics.)

-- Challenge your friends with the same amount of enthusiasm that you challenge your foes. After all, in the world of politics and beyond, those you support owe you something for standing by them. Make sure you collect; and

-- Accept that, while it's true that you did nothing wrong when you were brought here as a child, someone along the line, someone in your family tree broke a law. They crossed a border without permission, or overstayed a visa. Deal with it. Before we can legalize your status, you have to accept the wrong that was done and someone has to make amends for it -- if not you, then the person who broke the rules.

Above all, always try to be better people who strive for fairness, listen to different points of view, and take responsibility for your words and deeds. And I'll do the same.

"Sorority Diet" Drains Intellectual Energy out of Penn State's Chi Omega

Freedom of speech indemnifies Penn State sorority Chi Omega from any appeal to what use to be called "political correctness". But who will protect them for sheer stupidity? Even beyond ironic intent, freedom of speech does not protect people from behaving in stupid or unimaginative ways. Chi Omega, really? Is this the best all those planning meetings with your sisters could come up with? You're at a prestigious land-grant institution, and this is how you show sorority "spirit"? You continue to sink the reputation of a once great institution. I support your freedom of speech. But your actions speak for themselves. In reproducing a stupid stereotype, you've reproduced a stupid stereotype about your sorority. Again, was this the best all those planning meetings and your combined mental energies could come up with? Claiming you're all on the "sorority diet" (look it up) would be specious, inaccurate, mean, and inappropriate. Oh, wait, but that's alright because your party was also just a "joke." Alright, bring in the clowns... 

Penn State ranks 193rd nationally for campus ethnic diversity according to U.S. News. It's not a good position in the rankings. Penn State, What are you going to do about it?

From Huffington Post 

"A Penn State sorority is facing an investigation after posting an offensive picture to social media, Onward State reports.

The photo of a “Mexican-themed” Chi Omega party that surfaced Monday shows a group of girls wearing sombreros, ponchos and fake moustaches and holding signs that say “will mow lawn for weed + beer” and “I don’t cut grass, I smoke it.”

The girl’s [sic] identities were discovered because they were tagged on Facebook, Onward State reports.

The offensive photo led the Penn State Penhellenic Council to investigate the Nu Gamma Chapter of Chi Omega, according to the online version of the school’s paper, The Daily Collegian.

The chapter’s head Jessica Riccardi issued an apology, reading in part:

Our chapter of Chi Omega sincerely apologizes for portraying inappropriate and untrue stereotypes. The picture in question does not support any of Chi Omega’s values or reflect what the organization aspires to be.

It’s ironic that these college-educated youths choose to stereotype Mexicans as overly indulgent marijuana users. Around 21.5 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds in the United States use the drug, according to a study released last year by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. By contrast, only 1 percent of Mexican adults smoked marijuana in 2008, according the most recent estimate from the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime."

GOP Hoping for Latino and Black No-shows

Boehner Says Out Loud He Hopes Blacks and Latinos 'Won't Show Up' This Election

Reuters

•  Share
•  Print article
•  Email article
•  Comments (181)

ELSPETH REEVEAUG 27, 2012

House Speaker John Boehner is the most prominent Republican to admit, out loud, that his party's strategy for winning in November doesn't suppose that the GOP can win over some black and Latino voters, but hopes they won't vote at all. Boehner wasn't talking about voter I.D. laws, which are being pushed by Republicans and criticized as disenfranchising minority and poor voters, he did tell a luncheon hosted by the Christian Science Monitor in Tampa Monday that the Republican Party was counting on apathy from the Latinos and blacks who are choosing Democrats over Republicans by record margins in recent polls. As Talking Point Memo's Benjy Sarlin reports, Boehner said:

“This election is about economics… These groups have been hit the hardest. They may not show up and vote for our candidate but I’d suggest to you they won’t show up and vote for the president either.”

Perhaps he meant those groups would vote third-party, but it doesn't seem all that likely. Less prominent Republicans have made essentially the same case in other terms. Doug Priesse, chair of the Franklin County, Ohio, Republican Party, indicated restrictions on early voting hours and voter ID laws were meant to keep blacks from voting. In an email sent earlier this month to The Columbus Dispatch's Darrel Rowland, Priesse said 

"I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine… Let’s be fair and reasonable."

Priesse is on the elections board and voted against keeping polls open in the weekends. In June, Pennsylvania House Republican leader Mike Turzai conceeded the point of voter ID is to help Republicans win when he said, "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

North Carolina and Same Sex Marriage

Shame on North Carolina. The last time the state amended its Constitution on marriage was in 1875, in order to ban interracial marrying.

Arizona educators clash over Mexican American studies

Ethnic Studies Myths

It's time to separate fact from fiction regarding TUSD's Mexican-American Studies classes

by Mari Herreras @tucsonazmari

SAMANTHA SAIS
John Pedicone

In Arizona, we have firsthand experience with the power of myth—for example, think of Gov. Jan Brewer's claim of an endless stream of headless corpses in the desert.

It's that kind of storytelling that has helped our state become a top exporter of anti-Mexican sentiment, first with SB 1070, and then with HB 2281, Arizona's anti-ethnic-studies law.

The myths surrounding the Tucson Unified School District's Mexican-American studies classes—which HB 2281 was written specifically to deal with—begin with state Attorney General Tom Horne, back when he was state superintendent of public instruction.

In 2006, labor-rights activist Dolores Huerta addressed Tucson High Magnet School students and uttered these words: "Republicans hate Latinos."

Horne reacted by dispatching his deputy superintendent, Margaret Dugan, to explain to students why Huerta was wrong. Horne wanted students to know that Republicans do not hate Latinos. However, many students—frustrated that they were not allowed to ask Dugan questions—stood up in unison with tape across their mouths. More than 200 walked out during her speech.

Horne investigated where these students learned about free speech and civil disobedience, and determined they gained their knowledge in a series of Mexican-American studies classes. The best solution to Horne, apparently, was to get rid of these classes, as he soon spearheaded HB 2281.

Since Huerta's statement and the beginning of Horne's crusade, stories of mythical proportions have surrounded the fight for Mexican-American studies—with some truths sprinkled in between the lines.

It's time to sort things out.

Myth No. 1: Republicans love Mexicans.


Around the time when Huerta spoke at Tucson High, a series of bills was being passed by Arizona's Republican-majority Legislature—including earlier versions of SB 1070, border-security bills, a bill requiring employers to use a work-eligibility-verification system, and bills to deny in-state tuition and financial aid to noncitizen students. Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed most of the bills.

There were also four state ballot proposals that targeted immigrants, including an English-only law, which voters passed. Nationally, a controversial federal immigration-reform proposal led to a series of immigration-related protests across the country, including in Tucson.

Huerta's statement was part of an appeal to students, as she was asking them to look at the legislation and challenging them to start a campaign to address why "Republicans hate Latinos."

This led to the aforementioned speech by Dugan, and the walkout by students, which infuriated Horne. In an open letter in 2007, he wrote that TUSD's program should be terminated. Next, in 2008, he worked with lawmakers on SB 1108, the first anti-ethnic-studies bill. He tried again in 2009 with SB 1069, but both bills failed to become law.

But then Barack Obama was elected president, and Napolitano went with him to Washington, D.C., to head up the Department of Homeland Security. Jan Brewer, Arizona's Republican secretary of state, became governor, and with a Republican majority in the Legislature passing SB 1070 and HB 2281, she signed them into law in 2010.

Truth: When it comes to most Arizona Republicans, Huerta has a gift for stating the obvious.

Myth No. 2: Horne's anti-ethnic studies law isn't anti-Mexican.


HB 2281 was written to focus on only one school district in the state, and on only one program.

TUSD has other ethnic-studies programs that focus on African Americans, Native Americans, Pacific islanders and Asian Americans. But only Mexican-American studies classes—and their teachers—are under attack. When former state Sen. John Huppenthal successfully ran for state superintendent (while Horne ran successfully for attorney general), part of his platform was to get rid of la raza, a term from the Chicano movement that means "the people."

He didn't say black studies, or Indian studies. He said la raza.

From Nolan Cabrera's perspective, fear and politics are the real reasons behind laws like SB 1070 and HB 2281. Cabrera, an assistant professor at the University of Arizona's College of Education, has been a vocal supporter of the TUSD program.

"Social-science research shows us that the Latino population is the largest-growing in this country right now, and that's what makes it very easy to play upon those fears," Cabrera says.

"They've been doing it for years. It plays on your fears and increases turnout on the conservative right. The other timing (factor) is the recession: When people are pinched, they react. Look at our past with Operation Wetback, and then the Chinese Exclusion Act—'throw out the foreigners.'"

Truth: Hatred of all things Mexican can help you get elected in much of Arizona.

Myth No. 3: These classes are teaching a form of Mayan religion.


Some, but not all, of the Mexican-American studies classes in TUSD open with a poem written by Luis Valdez, of Zoot Suit and La Bamba fame. The poem is called "In Lak Ech," a Mayan phrase that was used as a greeting; the poem in some ways mirrors the golden rule.

Here's Valdez's poem:

In Lak Ech

Tú Eres mi otro yo / You are my other me.

Si te hago daño a ti / If I do harm to you,

Me hago daño a mí mismo / I do harm to myself;

Si te amo y respeto / If I love and respect you,

Me amo y respeto yo / I love and respect myself.

After reciting the poem, students sometimes participate in what is called the unity clap. The unity clap originated with the United Farm Workers as a way to bridge the communication gap between Latino and Filipino workers who did not share the same language; the idea was to create unity. The clap starts off slowly, then gets faster and faster.

In the movie Stand and Deliver, East Los Angeles math teacher Jaime Escalante is depicted using a form of clapping to get students revved up, and he even throws in a bit of Mayan math history. However, no one accused Escalante of teaching students Mayan religious practices, or of being in a cult.

Pueblo High School teacher Sally Rusk, who teaches Chicano history, explains that when the classes recite "In Lak Ech" and other Mayan writings, "What we're doing is a paradigm of reflection—to engage the students to reflect on actions and their history. The whole reason we study history is to learn from the past. As we learn, we need to share with others, and this is where it is scary for critics, because it is about transforming society.

"We open the week and end the week saying we want a revolutionary state of mind, but that's not about the violent overthrow of our country. We're (telling) our students that we can no longer accept the high dropout rate for Chicanos."

Truth: Ethnic-studies classes keep some Latino high school students from dropping out—a fact that doesn't impress Mexican-American studies opponents.

Myth No. 4: John Pedicone is against ethnic studies because of the Southern Arizona Leadership Council.


As soon as John Pedicone became TUSD's superintendent, local activists said his appointment was an attempt by the Southern Arizona Leadership Council—of which Pedicone was once a member—to take over the direction of Tucson's largest school district.

SALC has had its share of criticism as an organization with a political agenda. Members include car-dealer Jim Click (a conservative Republican) and many area corporation representatives. The council has been accused of being overly Anglo and not doing a good job of representing a wide spectrum of Tucsonans.

"The fact that people try to generalize SALC and my affiliation is misguided," says Pedicone.

Pedicone describes SALC as a group of "effective community leaders" who want to improve Tucson and its economy. He says he looks at working with members of SALC as a way to bring education and business together.

"The fact that people talk about bigotry, but then generalize or make assumptions and create fear based on my affiliation with SALC, is wrong," Pedicone says, "because it just isn't true."

Truth: While it's probably a good idea to keep an eye on SALC, repeating over and over that Pedicone is a SALC operative doesn't make it true.

Myth No. 5: John Pedicone is working to dismantle Mexican-American Studies.


Pedicone says he's aware of the claim that he doesn't support ethnic studies, and that it's hearsay. He calls the attack on ethnic studies part of a specific political agenda that he is not involved in.

"Unfortunately, people are on edge on both sides," Pedicone says.

Janet Marcotte, executive director of the YWCA Tucson, describes herself as a Pedicone supporter, and says she also continues to support ethnic studies.

"I've also been characterized as a great friend of John, but when I first reached out to him, I'd never met him face to face. I've been following everything he said, and following it closely, because it is an issue I care a lot about," Marcotte says. "... We would not be appealing (Huppenthal's finding that TUSD violated HB 2281) if it wasn't for John. I don't know why that keeps getting overlooked."

However, teachers and others who support the program disagree. Rusk says changes made to the Mexican-American Studies Department that were championed by Pedicone have had a negative impact on the program. The director, Sean Arce, was essentially demoted when Assistant TUSD Superintendent Lupita Cavazos-Garcia was placed in charge of the program (as well as other district-wide programs).

Rusk says that this year, all of the Mexican-American studies teachers were forced to work full-time, which prevented some of them from doing effective outreach for their classes, like working on dropout-prevention programs and participating in community events.

The district also changed the way the classes were offered and how students registered for them. With little time for outreach by teachers, enrollment dropped, Rusk says.

Although district officials claim to support the program, the end result of the changes is "that our enrollment is down by more than half this year," Rusk says. Instead of supporting the program, they're dismantling it, she charges.

Truth: It's difficult to publicly criticize a program that has been proven to help students—and what happens behind the scenes is what matters to its survival.

Myth No. 6: Isn't it time to move on?


With State Sen. Russell Pearce—an author of SB 1070—having been recalled, ethnic-studies activists say now is the best time to take advantage of a newfound energy and interest in changing the state.

However, both Marcotte and Pedicone say the district faces more-important problems than ethnic studies.

UA's Cabrera says he'll be happy to move beyond ethnic studies "when we no longer live in a racist society."

Cabrera says Pedicone and school-board member Mark Stegeman brought criticism by ethnic-studies supporters upon themselves. For example, after the student-led group UNIDOS took over the TUSD governing-board meeting on April 26—when Stegeman planned on introducing a resolution to make Mexican-American studies classes only available as electives, and not requirement-fulfilling classes—Pedicone and others criticized the students rather than accepting some of the blame for the students' frustration, Cabrera says.

"When you start vilifying the students, you are almost parodying Huppenthal and Horne," he says. "Why demonize these kids if they are fundamentally interested in having this conversation? UNIDOS' actions stemmed from the students being ignored and not having their voice listened to. So right now, (with the late Judy Burns' seat on the school board open), why not have a youth voice present?"

Truth: No, it's not time to move on.

Myth No. 7: MECHA is anti-Semitic and un-American.


During the state Administrative Court hearings, the state presented an e-mail to Pedicone from assistant superintendent Lupita Cavazos-Garcia regarding her concerns that MEChA, a national cultural and academic organization for students, was described as anti-Semitic, and that it could potentially indoctrinate children.

Questioning MEChA in this manner was surprising to local activists, who pointed out that U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva was a member of MEChA, as was Tucson City Councilwoman Regina Romero.

The Community Advisory Board for TUSD's Mexican-American studies program called for Cavazos-Garcia to be removed from her administrative position, but she remains in place.

"Her comments clearly illustrate a profound misunderstanding of the organization and a general lack of support for groups dedicated to the educational advancement of Latino youth," reads the advisory board's press release.

"Despite Garcia's personally held beliefs, TUSD has placed her in charge of the district's Mexican-American studies program, which similarly prepares students for advancement in higher education and teaches American history and literature through the Mexican-American perspective. Despite the program's proven efficacy in increasing student achievement, under Garcia's direction, the department has seen a dramatic internal restructuring and a damaging decentralization of program staff."

Pedicone's response is that he can't determine who he employs based on complaints from the community, or based on complaints from people who don't like her as their supervisor.

"The fact that she is in charge is not the issue. Where in any organizational structure does someone who doesn't like their supervisor get to change that?" Pedicone asks.

Truth: When people complain about MEChA, they usually describe a Mexican plot to re-create Aztlan. No one seems to have the ability anymore to understand symbols and metaphors.

Myth No. 8: Anyone who offers criticism of ethnic studies is a racist.


As discussions heated up regarding what Pedicone and TUSD would do regarding the state's finding that the district was in violation of HB 2281, Marcotte says she reached out to the superintendent to devise a strategy for the school district. It was at this meeting that a local activist and ethnic-studies supporter who showed up was told to leave. Accusations flew, and Marcotte was called a racist.

On the contrary, she says. "I think that my corner is being in support of ethnic studies, and I think I've been unfairly characterized."

The passion of those who fight on behalf of ethnic studies, she says, is understandable, especially in the context of SB 1070. Given the anti-immigrant mood in the state, "I think it's been very difficult to focus on how we make things better," Marcotte says. "It happens in this (kind of) situation—'you're not totally with me, so you're against me.'"

Marcotte acknowledges she hasn't always agreed with the tactics of program supporters. "Because of that, it's been very difficult to localize a broad-based group to be supportive of ethnic studies. It would be nice if it was different, so that we could show a unified voice."

Marcotte also says that calls for Pedicone's resignation were absurd. "When that happened, it was hard for me to believe (people calling for Pedicone's resignation) have the best interest of the district in mind."

Truth: At some point, everyone who supports ethnic studies will need to sit down and work with each other. Check egos at the door, please.

Myth No. 9: There's no way to heal wounds and work together.


People who identify themselves as progressive yet have offered criticism of ethnic studies have been called racists, while elders in the Chicano community were escorted from the governing board room on May 3 by Tucson police in riot gear. Other ethnic-studies supporters who surrounded the TUSD administration building that night were stomped on, pushed and bruised by police while they peacefully protested.

Where does the community go from here, as it waits for news from the state Administrative Court judge on whether TUSD's Mexican-American studies program violates state law?

"We need to work together," Rusk says. "This is what we keep saying as teachers—that we need to look at what we teach" and "our wants and goals."

She says, "I'd like us all to have a huge meeting and figure out this division, the escalations and our framework."

Marcotte says opportunities remain for everyone to come together around this issue.

"I've done all kinds of programs, some that are over 20 years old, but that doesn't mean I don't believe there could be improvements," she says. "It's the same with ethnic studies. There probably can be improvements in the curriculum. And right now, it sometimes feels like a battle over the status quo. Frankly, the status quo is not good enough for our students."

The division among people who are on the same side "has been such a horrible thing for our community," she says. "We have just made Horne and Huppenthal very happy. We've been fighting with each other and not fighting for the best interests of students."

Truth: If making Horne and Huppenthal unhappy is a goal all ethnic-studies supporters can agree on, it should be easy to heal wounds and work together.

Myth No. 10: Huppenthal is right: Cambium Learning Group didn't do the audit correctly.


Huppenthal and his team at the state Department of Education testified during the Administrative Court hearings that Cambium Learning—the company and its subcontractor hired by the department to do an audit of the TUSD's Mexican-American studies program—didn't do a satisfactory job.

The audit, which offered some criticism of curriculum and other issues, stated the district and its classes were not in violation of state law, and auditors offered positive comments about the program and its teachers. The audit confirmed that the classes helped students do better in school and increased the likelihood of them graduating and going on to college.

However, TUSD had already heard this news in May when Cabrera presented his own analysis of TUSD statistics on the program.

"There are massive gaps in graduation (rates), but for the (Mexican-American studies) kids, that gap is eliminated," Cabrera says. "It should be profound headline news. ... I have yet to see a program in TUSD that has such a profound impact."

Cabrera says students in the program also began to perform better in classes outside of the program, such as math classes. "There is no Chicano-studies math, but those gaps began to close, too," he says. "That tells me it's not just about teaching the student, but changing their orientation to school in general."

Truth: Teaching kids their history in a way that's supportive helps them do better in school.