Maria Polletta

The Republic | azcentral.com

Rep. Bob Thorpe, R-Flagstaff, has proposed a bill that would broaden Arizona's controversial ethnic-studies ban and extend it to community colleges and universities

Backers of HB 2120 believe classes that ask students to examine certain issues through racial or other lenses are divisive, not instructive

Opponents say the classes and activities are essential minority communities whose stories and identities historically have been marginalized

Legislation to expand Arizona's controversial ethnic-studies ban to cover university and community-college courses has sparked an outcry among students and professors who believe curriculum decisions shouldn't be left to politicians.

House Bill 2120, introduced by Rep. Bob Thorpe, R-Flagstaff, comes despite a pending court challenge to the original ban.

That law, implemented in 2011, forbids public and charter schools to teach anything promoting "resentment toward a race or class of people" from kindergarten through 12th grade. It exempts federally mandated classes and activities for Native Americans, as well as lessons on genocide and oppression.

ROBERTS: Arizona legislator: no more teaching about 'social justice'

Thorpe's expansion would prohibit classes, events and activities that "promote division, resentment or social justice toward a race, gender, religion, political affiliation, social class or other class" at both the K-12 and college level, in addition to those "designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group."

The legislation would give the state attorney general authority to withhold up to 10 percent of a school's state funding if the school violates the ban.

"The bill is very simple: Taxpayers should not have to be paying for classes that discriminate," Thorpe said. "This is drawing a line in the sand that says, 'Higher education: If you want to have classes that teach resentment between individuals, you should have to fund them.' "

'Division and exclusion' or 'empowerment'?

The dynamics and arguments surrounding Thorpe's bill will be familiar to those who remember the road to the existing ethnic-studies ban.

PREVIOUSLY: Douglas gives Tucson ethnic-studies program reprieve

Like Tom Horne, the former state superintendent of public instruction who championed the current law, backers of HB 2120 believe classes that ask students to examine certain issues through racial or other lenses are divisive, not instructive.

"Pure and simple, this is an anti-discrimination bill," said Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, who has signed on to the bill in support. "Slice up and dice up all of these people into groups and cater a particular message to each one of them, and all that does is advocate hate.

"It's a very perverse agenda that the folks that advocate these kinds of classes and student groups have," Finchem said. "They claim that they want justice and equality, while at the exact same time, they're preaching inequality."

Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, said he had not read the full text of the bill but would be inclined to support any effort to promote "parity in what's being taught and not favoring one particular group of people over another."

Randy Perez, an Arizona State University student triple-majoring in political science, public policy and justice studies, said lawmakers are misrepresenting the purpose of ethnic-studies courses and activities.

"Where they say 'division and exclusion,' we say 'empowerment,' " he said. "So many different minority communities who feel marginalized take the classes that are being targeted here — African-American studies, justice studies — to learn more about the sides of history we usually don't see, to learn about their identities and to build equity in society."

Felina Rodriguez, an ASU student writing a thesis on the state's existing ethnic-studies rules, agreed, pointing to the history behind the Tucson program that spurred the current law.

The Mexican-American-studies program Horne and others viewed as segregationist was created to help resolve a race-discrimination lawsuit against Tucson public schools, after families alleged segregation and racial inequity across the school system.

"When you say that talking about controversial issues is a form of discrimination, you're censoring a student's ability to learn about the U.S. and the legacy it’s had, which at times has involved discrimination, violence and imperialistic policies," Rodriguez said.

"If it's controversial to you, don't take the class, but don't penalize others for trying to educate ourselves."

Implementation concerns over 'vague' bill

Asked whether universities could easily create an accounting structure that designated state money for certain courses and separate funding sources for others, ASU University Senate President Kathleen Puckett said, "Absolutely not."

Finchem, the bill co-sponsor, said it is not legislators' responsibility to provide a detailed roadmap for implementation.

ASU officials just began researching the bill and its potential impact, Puckett said, but it's already clear the draft language is "quite vague."

That ambiguity makes it difficult to determine which courses would be affected, she said. For instance, the bill says the expanded rules wouldn't apply to classes or activities that include the "accurate history of any ethnic group," but "accurate" is not defined.

Bruce Fox, Northern Arizona University's Faculty Senate president, also cited the "vagueness in the (bill's) descriptions and definitions" as a concern.

Lee Bebout, an ASU associate professor who specializes in English, history and ethnic studies, said the bill indicates a distinct lack of understanding of "how things are taught and even what things are taught" at the post-secondary level.

Bebout came under fire in 2015 for a course called "U.S. Race Theory and the Problem of Whiteness" — the sole example Thorpe cited when asked about the type of classes and activities the bill targets.

Bebout's class generally focuses on how white people experience race, how the concept of whiteness developed and how it has changed over time. Students discuss how developments in religious and scientific thought shaped understanding of race over hundreds of years, and how whiteness is manifested in language and social policy today.

PREVIOUSLY: ASU’s controversial ‘Whiteness’ class returns

The course has inspired protests and been lambasted by conservative commentators, despite Bebout's contention that it doesn't vilify any ethnic or racial group.

"My belief is that curriculum should be designed by experts in a field, not by lawmakers," Bebout said. "That's the whole reason why we have academic freedom in the U.S."

The Maricopa County Community College District has not taken a formal position on the bill but said its schools "strive to create inclusive environments where responsible academic freedom openly explores all points of view."

University of Arizona representatives could not be reached for comment.