This is the global Feminist Blogs aggregator. It collects articles from many smaller community
hubs within the Feminist Blogs network. For stories from particular places, groups,
or other communities within our movement, check out some of these sites.
Caught this story in my inbox today — apparently, an Asian American family recently moved into a suburban area called Hapy Valley outside of Portland, Oregon. The family claims that they returned home one day to find racial slurs spray-painted onto the house. They also found a book of matches and a clear bottle containing a liquid that might have been gasoline, along with a note threatening arson.
HAPPY VALLEY (AP) – Clackamas County sheriff’s officers are investigating a racial harassment case involving an Asian-American family moving into a home in the southeast Portland suburb of Happy Valley.
Sheriff’s Detective Jim Strovink says the FBI is also investigating whether the harassment of Sang Huynh and his family constitutes a federal civil rights violation.
Racial slurs were spray-painted Monday afternoon on the outside of the home. The family also found a book of matches near a clear plastic bottle of what police think is gasoline. Warning notes included one that said, “We will burn your house down if we have to.”
Fourteen-year-old Lisa Huynh says her parents are upset by the threats and her little brother is now afraid to sleep in his own room.
Happy Valley Mayor Rob Wheeler called the harassment “totally unacceptable and disturbing.”
According to its Wikipedia article, Happy Valley is a small community that had about 4,500 residents in 2000. Nearly 90% of the residents are White, and Asian residents make up the next largest racial group at less than 9%.
To me, Happy Valley doesn’t sound like all that happy a place to be.
James Lee, a militant environmental activist, was killed by police after taking hostages at the Discovery Channel HQ this afternoon.
I completely missed the ongoing news drama today (work, work, work), so I’m a little late blogging on this.
Turns out that earlier this afternoon, a gunman stormed into Discovery Channel headquarters in Silver Springs, Maryland. The gunman had silver cannisters taped to his torso (believed initially to be explosives), and took three male hostages in the lobby of Discovery Channel HQ. Apparently the gunman’s grievances involved believing that humans are “filthy, destructive, polluting creatures” responsible for destroying the environment, and that the Discovery Channel encourages “the birth of more parasitic human infants” — (I guess he was talking about reality television shows like Birth Day aired by Discovery Health that follow pregnant mothers about to give birth).
Oh, yes, and the gunman was an Asian male named James Lee. Great.
When I first caught the headline half an hour ago on the CNN homepage, I experienced the familiar feeling of holding my breath and hoping that this Lee wasn’t Asian. Sadly, I was wrong. As we learn more about James Lee, the more we see the familiar story of an Asian guy with severe mental issues falling between the cracks, and losing his life because of it. In fact, it’s a little eerie how similar Lee’s story is to that of Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman who slaughtered over thirty college students in 2007.
Seung-Hui Cho, the gunman of the Virginia Tech Massacre.
The similarities extend far beyond the shared demographics of the gunmen (sorry Angry Asian Man, I am making the connection — but hopefully I’ll demonstrate that it’s not just an easy comparison based on the whole race thing…). Both Lee and Cho displayed a marked hatred of humanity. In Cho’s case, he railed against fellow college students, whom he described as “brats”, “charlatans” and “snobs”:
“You had everything you wanted. Your Mercedes wasn’t enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren’t enough, you snobs. Your trust fund wasn’t enough. Your vodka and cognac weren’t enough. All your debaucheries weren’t enough. Those weren’t enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything,” MSNBC.com quoted Cho as saying.
Lee’s manifesto and other writings are also available online, through blogs, forum posts, and his MySpace page. In them, Lee also demonstrates a strong antipathy for humanity, advocating forced sterilization to decrease the human population and railing against “anchor babies” (…way to go, Republicans and Fox News…). He writes:
Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what’s left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.
Both Lee and Cho used new media to release their twisted rants to the media. Cho sent a “multimedia manifesto” containing videos, text and photographs to MSNBC on the morning of his rampage; it was actually dropped into the mail while Cho walked to the building where he staged his rampage. Lee’s writings are collected from years of blogging and forum posting, but are nonetheless both public and multimedia in nature. In both cases, it’s clear that Lee and Cho felt unheard and used whatever means they had at their disposal to force a dialogue on their issues.
Both Lee and Cho demonstrated mental health issues in their final, violent stand-offs (although, arguably, what kind of gunman doesn’t have mental issues?). Importantly, both Lee and Cho had encounters with mental health professionals, and in neither case were Lee or Cho properly diagnosed and treated. Cho was assessed by psychiatrists in 2005 – two years before the Virginia Tech massacre — and identified as potentially posing ”an imminent danger to himself or others”, yet he was recommended only for outpatient treatment. Cho failed to comply with that order, and it was never followed up on, allowing Cho to slip through the cracks and spiral further out of control due to lack of therapy and mental care. Lee was arrested in 2008 after a protest on the sidewalk outside of Discovery Channel headquarters where he threw money in the air causing a public disturbance. While in jail, Lee was assessed by psychiatrists but claims he was not diagnosed with any mental disorder.
”I told them my idea of saving the planet,” Lee was quoted in the Gazette. ”They couldn’t find anything wrong with me.”
Manger said hostage negotiators negotiated for almost four hours by phone with Lee while police officers watched and listened to Lee on the building’s surveillance system.
“At times during the negotiations, he was calm, but I wouldn’t call him lucid. The conversation was indicative to me he was dealing with some mental issues,” he said.
Cover art for Daniel Quinn's book, "Ishmael".
Finally — and perhaps weirdest and most disturbing — both Cho and Lee appear to have some sort of connection with the name “Ishmael”. Ishmael is Abraham’s son in the Hebrew bible and the Qu’ran, who was hated and eventually exiled based on the circumstance of his birth. “Ishmael” is also the name of a 1992 novel by Daniel Quinn (and is referenced in two subsequent books) that recounts a dialogue between a gorilla (Ishmael) and a human. Through their interaction, the unnamed narrator of the book learns of Ishmael’s belief that humans have a responsibility to care for the planet and its inhabitants, rather than to pillage and consume it.
In 2007, it was revealed that Seung-Hui Cho wrote “Ax Ishmael” on his arm immediately prior to his rampage, and that his “multimedia manifesto” had a return address to “A. Ishmael”, suggesting that Seung-Hui Cho was trying to reinvent himself in reference to either the biblical figure or the 1992 Quinn novel’s primate protagonist. Jason Godesky of Anthropik Network (who has read Quinn’s novel and is familiar with its themes) argues that Cho’s actions indicate he never read “Ishmael”, and that he carried himself in direct conflict with the book’s message of peace and self-discovery, fueling further controversy over whether Cho’s “Ax Ishmael” alter-ego referenced the Hebrew bible or Daniel Quinn’s book.
Lee said he began his crusade to save the planet after being laid off from his job in San Diego and reading ”Ishmael,” a novel by Daniel Quinn about a gorilla that tells a man what it is like to live in captivity in a world where humans exploit natural resources.
Lee said he then felt an ”awakening,” watched former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary ”An Inconvenient Truth,” and decided he had been doing too little to protect the environment.
Now, I’m not saying that Daniel Quinn’s book causes Asian men to go on shooting sprees. What I am noting is how the name Ishmael, whether in reference to the Hebrew bible or Daniel Quinn’s gorilla, symbolizes alienation, oppression, powerlessness, and moral redemption, and how these themes resonated with both shooters. Could it be that Asian males suffering from destructive mental health issues specifically — and uniquely – identify with these same themes?
In any event, if there was any more evidence needed that there is a huge health disparity between Asian Americans and the rest of the population, this is it. Less than ten years ago, findings from one of the first and most comprehensive studies conducted on Asian American mental health were published by the National Institute of Mental Health. In it, Asian Americans are identified as having lower rates of mental health concerns – but that is coupled with substantially lower rates of seeking treatment. (This begs the question — do Asian Americans have lower rates of mental health, or lower rates of being diagnosed with mental health problems?)
Usage of mental health treatment is reduced in Asian American populations, from API Info Net. Click image for source.
Researchers have identified several potential factors that appear to discourage Asian Americans from seeking mental health treatment, including cultural stigma and language barriers. Other studies have shown that, despite the lower rates of mental illness among Asian Americans, the suicide rate in the APIA community (5.75 deaths out of 100,000) is higher than that of other ethnic groups. Furthermore, elderly Asian American men experience a suicide rate nearly four times the overall community average (27.95 deaths out of 100,000), and the suicide rate amongst Asian American women rankest highest amongst females of any other ethnic group.
In short, this is a problem, folks. A real problem. A we-can’t-afford-to-ignore-this problem.
Thankfully, unlike with the Virginia Tech Massacre, no one was killed in today’s hostage situation except the gunman, James Lee. But it would still be a tragedy to forget the lessons that could be learned from today’s drama: we should not learn to hate or fear Asian males (or to stereotype them as violent offenders prone to shooting sprees), or to subscribe to Lee’s misguided beliefs involving forced sterilization. But, rather than to fear the inevitable comparisons between Seung-Hui Cho and James Lee (and to lament yet another story that paints Asian folks as the bad guys), we can instead use this incident to start a national dialogue about mental health issues that are proven to exist within the Asian American community precisely because we don’t like to identify those patterns or associate ourselves with those problems.
Hopefully today’s events can teach us to be more cognizant of mental health issues and how they are socially and culturally stigmatized — particularly in the context of the Asian American community. We can and should do more to raise mental health awareness amongst Asian Americans, and to support and promote non-profit and federal efforts to improve diagnosis and treatment of mental illness in Asian American patients.
New York City cabbies are warned to be wary after a passenger stabbed his driver Monday night for being Muslim.
All that race-baiting over the mosque being built several blocks from Ground Zero isn’t just talk — it’s having a real-world effect on the ground.
Ahmed Sharif, a practicing Muslim who drives a cab in NYC, picked up a passenger Monday night. His passenger was Michael Enright, a 21 year old White male who was later described by police as highly intoxicated. Here’s an account of what happened next:
Bhairavi Desai, executive director of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, said the cabbie who was attacked is Ahmed H. Sharif, 43, a practicing Muslim.
When he first got into the taxi Tuesday night, Desai said, Enright engaged in cordial conversation with Sharif.
He “started out friendly, asking Mr. Sharif about where he was from, how long he had been in America, if he was Muslim and if he was observing fast during Ramadan,” said Desai, who has spoken with the cab driver.
Then, after a few minutes of silence, Desai said Enright started violently cursing at Sharif and shouted “Assalamu Alaikum, consider this a checkpoint,” before slashing him in the throat, arms, and hand.
Though gushing blood, Sharif was able to escape and quickly flagged a police officer, who apprehended Enright, Desai said. Police said the suspect was highly intoxicated.
Nell said Enright has been charged with attempted murder in the second degree as a hate crime, assault in the second degree as a hate crime, aggravated harassment in the second degree as a hate crime, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
Sharif, a father of four who immigrated to the United States from Bangladesh 25 years ago, has been driving a cab for more than 15 years, according to a statement from the New York Taxi Workers Alliance.
This episode is inexcusable, and it’s also downright un-American.
“This kind of bigotry only breeds more violence and makes taxi drivers all the more vulnerable on the streets where there are no bully pulpits or podiums to hide behind,” Desai told CNN.
Blaming Muslims for 9/11 is like blaming Koreans for Seung-Hui Cho and blaming Whites for Oklahoma City. No person — let alone an American citizen – should fear for his life in America just based on the colour of his skin.
Last month, I predicted for Jeff Yang’s summer blockbuster round-up that The Expendables (co-starring Jet Li) would be the best movie of the summer. Although I planned to see the movie on opening night, I only managed to make it to the theatres last Monday night — which was all the better since the movie’s first two weekends were jam-packed.
And yes, it was well worth the wait. The Expendables was fuckin’ awesome.
The incredible thing about The Expendables was how it knew exactly who its audience was — 25-34 year old males — and adapted itself accordingly. The Expendables is best described as a campy eighties action flick with post-millennial special effects.
Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) is an aging special forces-type guy who heads a gang of mercenaries, along with his lieutenants Lee Christmas (Jason Statham) and Ying Yang (Jet Li — yes, his name is a play on yin and yang). Sure, they’re mercenaries, but they’re “mercenaries with morals” — they apparently only get hired to save innocents from bad guys with big guns. The movie establishes this point clearly within the first few minutes of the movie: the mercs are hired to save some hostages from some pirates. Shortly after Stallone and Statham ruthlessly execute five pirates (using handguns and knives respectively — it’s a running gag), they are aghast when Gunner (Dolph Lundgren) wants to hang one of the pirates from a noose.
“We don’t do that,” says Stallone’s character, moments before Jet Li attempts to stop Lundgren with his fists. After the dust settles, Gunner is fired from the crew for being too cold-hearted. And, so we know that the Expendables are “good mercenaries”.
What follows is some completely meaningless events to get the team of Expendables to the final, climatic fight scene. We can’t really even call it a plot — it’s more of an excuse to move the characters to the fight scene. It had something to do with Angel from Dexter leading a massive army of faceless soldiers (aka cannon fodder for the Expendables) to take over a small South American island, and working with Eric Roberts to rule it with an iron fist and a ton of cocaine. Angel’s daughter is Stallone’s love interest, and she needs a-rescuing. But who cares, right? Within fifteen minutes, we know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, and all we care about is how the good guys will destroy the bad guys.
Much like the “A” Team, the Expendables each have a silly name, a field of expertise, and a personality quirk. Stallone is the strategist (yes, that is probably ironic) and the gunner, Statham is the knife expert with a superfluous white knight subplot, and Li is the stealthy martial artist who inexplicably wants more money. Hale Caeser (Terry Crews) is the heavy weapons expert (AA-12 baby!) who names his weapons after women, and Toll Road (Randy Couture) is the MMA specialist who preaches the virtues of psychiatric therapy. Mickey Rourke plays Tool, Stallone’s mentor and retired war buddy.
On the villain side, we have Angel and his army of red shirts. Eric Roberts is his business partner, an ex-CIA agent turned drug kingpin; Gary Daniels (kick-boxing champ) plays The Brit and Stone Cold Steve Austin plays Paine, Roberts’ bodyguards.
Just like ’80’s action flicks, The Expendables doesn’t concern itself with race consciousness or stereotypes. Yes, the black guy is a fast-talkin’ brutish dude with biceps bigger than my thighs. Yes, the Asian guy is money-grubbing. Yes, the plot involves White guys saving brown people from other White guys. Yes, the only Expendables who even remotely get a nod at character development are the White guys in the lead. Yes, none of the women have agency, and are little more than props to help the boys demonstrate the size of their cojones. And the movie can be justifiably criticized for these points — this was, after all, a problem with all 80’s action flicks.
In fact, I was disappointed in the treatment of both the female characters in this movie. Charisma Carpenter’s entire point in the movie was to suffer domestic violence and be rescued. Giselle Itie spends most of the movie captured and being tortured, or otherwise powerlessly angry. And there’s really no excuse for this — even 80’s action flicks had powerful heroines. Why couldn’t there have been a sexy but bad-ass female Expendable?
But, when it comes to the race stuff, there’s something a little charming and tongue-in-cheek about how it’s done. The stereotypes are there, without a doubt. But, Terry Crews’ Hale Caeser steals every scene he’s in, and I guarantee that he will be considered the most bad-ass of the characters by anyone who watches the movie. Racebending’s review suggests that Crews doesn’t get his own characterization, but I would argue that none of the Expendables excluding Statham and Stallone, get any real chance to develop a personality. Crews is forgettable for the first hour, but so is Couture — and, unlike Couture, Crews is unmissable in the last thirty minutes.
Racebending notes that Jet Li’s Yang never wins his own battles (even though the other Expendables get their own fight scenes) — however, I think this was a running joke of the movie. Yang complains several times that the other Expendables keep stepping in to ”rescue” him — when he was perfectly capable of taking care of the fight himself. The other Expendables think of Li as weaker, but Yang repeatedly disputes this point and even gets angry at Stallone for saving him in his first fight scene.
Further — and hopefully I don’t get flamed for this — the one scene where Li makes short jokes about himself was hilarious. Offensive, but hilarious. Jet Li is smaller than the other Expendables (and we see Crews make a quip about that in the trailer), but Li’s character actually runs with it. He argues to the effect that because he is shorter, he has to work harder than the other Expendables, and therefore should be paid more money. To me, this was using a stereotype, but also reappropriating it to the benefit of Li’s character — we end up appreciating Li’s good-natured humour about his stature. Further, I also liked how Li’s money-grubbing was contrasted with his character’s integrity — Yang is the one who goes toe-to-toe with Gunner at the beginning to save the pirate, and he’s the first mercenary to join Stallone on the suicide mission to the final fight scene.
And how about that final fight scene? I’m not going to give away its awesomeness, but let’s put it this way: if you grew up on vintage 80’s action movies (and you miss them now), and liked the recent Rambo sequel, than you will love this movie’s action scenes.
In summary, The Expendables was total schlock — and that’s what made it so damn awesome. Fuck, yeah!
Sorry for the minor blogging hiatus from last week. Arizona had its primary elections yesterday, so I have been busy blogging over at Blog for Arizona, leaving little room for posts over here. I should resume blogging here as of this week.
Are you a sexy, yet sensitive, Asian American man who just hasn’t received the kind of lovin’ deserve? Fear not — Hyphen Magazine has just the outlet for your good-lookin’, yet dashingly philanthropic, self. I’m re-posting this announcement, for those of you who missed it last week:
Hyphen Magazine is having its annual Mr. Hyphen contest November 6th, 2010! We are on our MEGA search for contestants: Asian/Pacific Islander American men who are involved in their communities. This is great opportunity for our fellow leaders be recognized for their empowering work and raise money for a charity that concerns them. We would love for you to pass this announcement along to any friends, family, or community members you know via email, Twitter, Facebook or word of mouth! This link includes all information, contest rules, and the application itself!
The deadline is Friday, September 17th, 2010.
What are you still doing reading this blog? Go apply!
I stumbled upon this article earlier this week detailing a paper recently published by two University at Buffalo researchers on health disparities that disproportionately disadvantage Asian Americans. Here’s an excerpt:
In their paper, “Barriers to Health Care Among Asian Americans,” UB School of Social Work professors Wooksoo Kim and Robert H. Keefe write that Asian Americans cannot be carelessly lumped together with such easy stereotypes as “well adjusted” or “successful.” In addition to the many Asian Americans who have assimilated well and become accomplished professionals, able to enjoy all the accompanying benefits, millions of Asian Americans still face daunting obstacles that stand in the way of quality health care, the UB researchers say.
Their conclusions are based on analysis of previous research into health care disparities among U.S. racial and ethnic groups, including Asian Americans, and upon U.S. Census data.
Four major barriers — language and culture, health literacy, health insurance and immigrant status — create vast differences between some Asian Americans with access to good health care and those who endure these barriers as best they can, the researchers conclude in their study, published this summer in Social Work in Public Health.
“Previous researchers (who studied selective nationalities or regional groups) may extrapolate from their findings to form a model they believe is representative of all Asian Americans,” explain Kim and Keefe. “This limitation not only fails to flush out differences among the Asian-American groups not being studied, but the one group under study is unlikely to be representative of its own ethnic Asian-American population.”
All these factors “perpetuate the myth of the well-adjusted Asian American,” the researchers find.
“Asian Americans are considered a ‘model minority,’ which prevents many Asian Americans from getting help when they need it, and this study addresses that issue,” Kim explains. “There is a dire need to expand our knowledge regarding better health care services for Asian Americans. I hope health care providers and policy makers become more cognizant of the needs of 12 million Asian Americans in this country.”
What I found fascinating about the study was how the researchers described a network of factors that create obstacles for Asian Americans. It’s not just one thing or another that makes Asian Americans (or other minority groups) more susceptible to health disparities, but several factors that work together to make it more difficult for Asian Americans to receive the healthcare they need.
The article speaks to the complexity of political issues that affect minority groups in America, and particularly how healthcare professionals and legislators who understand the unique challenges faced by our community can help alleviate these problems.
According to the researchers, attempts to address the issue of uneven health care among Asian Americans need to take these barriers into account.
“The presence of health care experts who are knowledgeable about Asian-American culture and social conditions can help remove, or mitigate, the effects of the barriers to health care for Asian Americans,” the researchers write.
Improving access for Asian Americans also improves the chances other under-served groups will benefit from quality health care.
In the long run, a country with healthy Asian Americans is a necessary condition for a stronger health-care system in the United States, the researchers say. “Health care for Asian Americans cannot be conceptualized without considering health care for all Americans,” Kim says.
As I wrote previously, I created a petition to urge Arizona school superintendent candidates to make a pledge to reinstitute ethnic studies in public schools if elected. Interestingly, both Democratic candidates in this race responded back to me on the topic of ethnic studies.
Jason Williams
Jason Williams
Jason Williams is the former Executive Director for Teach for America in Phoenix, who ran for School Superintendent in 2006. His Director of Research and Policy, Kelly McManus, wrote this email to me on the subject of the ethnic studies ban:
Jenn,
Thank you for your message! Jason firmly believes instead of censoring content, we should celebrate diversity, recognize the contributions of all groups, and encourage different points of view. We live in a pluralistic society. A robust discussion of ideas is a cornerstone of what it means to be American. Teaching our students to critically think and allowing them to utilize those skills to come to their own conclusions makes a great educational experience. He believes in local control, as long as schools are improving student outcomes. When he is Superintendent of Public Instruction, he will support innovative programs that demonstrate quite clearly higher rates of academic achievement and work with the legislature to stop this trend of censorship.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions!
My best,
Kelly
Okay, so when I received this email from Kelly, I had to scratch my head. Does Williams support ethnic studies? Does he support diversifying our existing school curricula? It was a little tough to deduce from the email message, which spent more of its time celebrating diversity than discussing ethnic studies.
Then, I stumbled upon this video clip on YouTube, of four of the candidates discussing their positions on ethnic studies. And Jason Williams’ response — he is last on the video, starting around 5:00 — is positively electrifying.
Wow. Jason Williams’ position on the ethnic studies ban in Arizona is so cogent, so spot-on, and so well-reasoned, that I’m actually finding myself taking a second look at his candidacy in general. His answer is so far removed from the rather obfuscating answer given by his Director of Research and Policy that it’s almost like they came from different campaigns.
Note also that Penny Kotterman, who starts the video off, is the other Democratic candidate in the race, and she also appears to oppose the ethnic studies ban. However, her answer was a little tough to understand — I had to listen to it twice before I figured out that she is also opposed to the ethnic studies ban.
Sadly, I also received an email response from Penny Kotterman in the wake of the petition, but my overly-aggressive spam filter deleted it sometime last week. In any event, I gather it was very similar to what she says in the video clip above.
Act Now! The primary is next week, August 24th. On the topic of the ethnic studies ban in public education, the Democratic candidates couldn’t be further from the Republican candidates. If you are a Democrat who votes in Arizona, please go to the polls next week and choose between our two Democratic candidates for Arizona School Superintendent. With Arizona’s abysmal standing when it comes to public education, this race in November couldn’t be more important in dictating the future of our state.
One example I cited in this post was Arizona’s recent ban on ethnic studies in public schools. In brief, HB 2281 — which was signed into Arizona state law earlier this year — prohibited the teaching of ethnic studies in the state’s public schools. As I’ve already discussed, this ban will limit the diversity of perpsectives that students will be exposed to in their learning of American history, and even discourages student-centered teaching by ignoring the multiculturalism of Arizona students.
Earlier this month, I urged readers to sign this petition, which asks current candidates for Arizona’s school superintendent position to make a pledge to, if elected, work towards reinstituting ethnic studies in Arizona’s public schools. To date, more than 50 readers from around the country have signed the petition, alerting these candidates of the importance of ethnic studies classes.
Interestingly, the impact of these supporters have already been felt. Within days of starting the petition, I received email responses from three of the five candidates currently running for Arizona Superintendent of Public Education, detailing their stances on public education.
For the sake of length, this post will only reproduce Margaret Dugan’s response on the ethnic studies ban. In a second post, I will reproduce the responses from the other candidates.
Margaret Dugan
Margaret Dugan
Margaret Dugan is a Republican and the current Deputy School Superintendent here in Arizona. She is running to succeed her predecessor, Superintendent Tom Horne, who helped push through Arizona’s ethnic studies ban in the first place. Not surprisingly, Dugan echoes much of Horne’s original criticism of ethnic studies. Here’s a video of Margaret Dugan openly lying about ethnic studies classes being taught in the Tucson Unified School District on CNN:
(Now, I don’t agree with Dr. Romero’s accusation that the ethnic studies ban has anything to do with Nazi Germany, but up until the last minute of the video, Margaret Dugan was getting absolutely schooled — pun intended — for misrepresenting what is being taught in ethnic studies classes in the Tucson Unified School District and around the country.)
Dugan’s main arguments against ethnic studies are that: 1) students shouldn’t be taught that they are oppressed, and 2) students are being forcibly segregated into ethnic studies classes based on their race. Yet, both of these arguments are flawed. First of all, while Dr. Romero points out that ethnic studies classes do not teach a culture of victimhood in TUSD, one must wonder why there is such a fervent effort on the part of Dugan and her GOP cohorts to prevent the teaching to racial minorities that they experience oppression. American history includes a history of oppression of racial minorities — we cannot avoid teaching minority students about oppression that their communities have and continue to face, unless we want to teach a flawed, ahistorical account of American history that does not address the fact of race-based oppression as part of this nation’s formation. And so, Dugan’s true colours are revealed.
Secondly, anybody with even a rudimentary exposure to ethnic studies programs knows that these classes are open to all students, and indeed students of diverse backgrounds are specifically encouraged to take ethnic studies classes in order to expand their learning.
Dugan hit the same notes as her CNN interview when she emailed me earlier last month. Here’s her email:
Dear Jenn,
Contributions of all ethnic backgrounds can be taught in our World History and US History classes. By separating students or calling a class by a certain ethnic name does not bring together students of all backgrounds. As a former teacher and high school principal, I believe is is far healthier for all students of all ethnic backgrounds to be enrolled together rather than in separate classes. In addition, I am of Hispanic descent and I was able to enroll in classes throughout my K-12 public schooling in Arizona with students of diverse backgrounds. We learned together and learned from each other.
Margaret Dugan, native of Arizona and product of the public school system. I have over 37 years experience as an educator- teacher, assistant principal, principal, district administrator and currently Deputy Supt at the Ariz Dept of Education.
Interestingly, Dugan highlights her “Hispanic descent” to me, as if somehow this should assuage my concerns. Yet, on the campaign trail, Dugan has been hiding from her Latino heritage by avoiding reference to her ”Spanish-sounding” middle name in virtually all campaign literature.
On her other points, I called Dugan to task, by responding with the following email:
Dear Ms. Dugan,
Thank you for your email.
With respect, I disagree with your response. Ethnic studies classes do not segregate or separate students by race (indeed, Brown v. Board of Education established that segregation in public schools by race is unconstitutional).
Ethnic studies programs provide a focused curriculum that teach specific topics not usually taught in general World History, US History, or Literature classes. For example, a Chicano American Studies class that was targeted by HB 2281 encouraged the reading of prominent Chicano authors because few Chicano authors were read in the general literature classes.
Ethnic studies history classes teach specific aspects of history not normally covered in-depth by general history classes. For example, I notice that in the Grades 9-12 American history content standards, there is no reference of any kind to any aspect of Chicano-American history, nor is there any discussion of the impact of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act on contemporary American demographics and immigration. These topics are arguably important to understanding American history (particularly in Southern Arizona), yet they are probably only perfunctorily addressed (if at all) in today’s general US History classes.
Ethnic studies classes do not divide students by their backgrounds. Instead they bring students together by having them focus on diverse topics that reflect the multicultural demographics of the classroom. They teach all students to respect the multiculturalism of today’s America by encouraging students to find relevance in another student’s culture and history. I repeat, ethnic studies programs do not enforce or promote racial segregation of classrooms — all students of all ethnic backgrounds can (and are in fact encouraged to) enroll in ethnic studies classes.
You write that in your time as a student, you were enrolled in diverse classes where you “learned together and learned from each other”. I agree with this sentiment. If you believe that there are things you can learn from the Chicano American community, why are you resistant to having a full-semester, optional history course (for example) that would help non-Chicano students learn from the Chicano-American community? Would having such a class offering — and encouraging all students, regardless of race, to enroll in them — run counter to your vision of a diverse classroom?
Further, if you feel these topics belong in a general course on US history, what do you plan on taking out of the curriculum to make room for detailed coverage of these topics? African Americans and Asian Americans make up nearly 10% of the state’s population — if detailed teaching of the histories of these communities also belong in the general US history class, what else would you take from the curriculum in order to make room for a representative coverage of these topics?
I appreciate your response.
Sincerely,
Jenn F.
Given that in both her email to me and in her CNN interview, Dugan suggests that the curricula of ethnic studies classes should be incorporated into general U.S. history classes, I really wanted an answer to what Dugan planned on eliminating from state standards to make room for these topics. Because, in reality, I support the notion that general history classes should be more inclusive of topics generally covered in ethnic studies classes. But, with the already jam-packed curricula of required general history classes, the only way to advocate integrating ethnic studies topics into general classes is to cut something else out. Or to hand out time-turners to students.
Sadly, but not suprisingly, Dugan side-stepped the question — because answering that question would require having actually thought about the issue. Instead, she changed the topic — by acting as if I had offended her:
Jenn,
I am from the generation that is offended by my Hispanic background referred to as Chicano. The word Chicano is a radical term and most Americans with Hispanic descent like me do not like that word. When I was in school, I learned about the hisory and geography of Arizona and the culture and contributions that the Mexican people provided for our state. In fact, I was educated in a small town 7 miles from the Arizona/Mexico border. Why do we continue to point out our differences instead of identifying our similarities as individuals. I have always taught my students to treat each other with respect. My belief is out of many- one. I will check on the Arizona Academic standards relative to inclusion of other cultures. I have been informed that the social studies standards do include objectives of other cultures for our teachers to teach our students.
Margaret
At least Dugan reveals her true intentions. It’s not that she fears students will be segregated into race-based classrooms. It’s not that she believes in integrated, diverse classrooms. It’s not even that she would rather integrate ethnic studies topics into state standards for general history classes.
No, Margaret Dugan wants to wipe out Chicano American studies — specifically– because she finds Chicano a “radical” term.
Which begs the question: is it actually that La Raza teaches the overthrow of the U.S. government (which it doesn’t), or is it merely that Margaret Dugan and her ilk are trying to legislate based on their own stereotypes of ethnic studies?
Act Now! If you haven’t yet, please sign this petition calling for Arizona School Superintedent candidates to make a pledge in support of ethnic studies.
Also, on August 24th, Arizona voters will be going to the polls to choose their party candidates for Arizona School Superintendent. If you are a Republican, Margaret Dugan should not be your choice. She has already demonstrated a basic lack of understanding of the scientific method (she lacks even the proficiency expected of your average high school student); now, she also shows that she’s more interested in legislating her own biases than addressing the educational needs of Arizona students. She appears to have a frightening lack of knowledge of state educational standards, and seems ill-equipped to understand how these standards are translated into class curricula.
I don’t normally endorse candidates, but in this case, I just have to say it: Margaret Dugan is not even remotely qualified enough to be this state’s next School Superintendent. Please, Republicans, do not vote for her.
