• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona gov. signs bill targeting ethnic studies

Yeah, if they have reasonable suspicion. It's like telling a cop that he has to run into a house if he hears gun shots there. Giving them a choice is somehow a good thing? I wish my boss would allow me to do that. I don't feel like doing this report, so I'm just not going to do it. I'll stick with simple data entry. I don't think that would go over too well.

Though I would prefer to debate this on a thread dedicated to it, like the one I started, I feel compelled to retort. I do like your example, though. It is backwards, however. In this case, the policemen are required to waste precious time with less important issues, while having less time (especially with budget cuts) to focus on the major issues - protecting the citizens of Arizona.
Whether this means the criminal is a citizen or not is trivial in my mind. The important thing is that the criminal is caught. Once they are imprisoned, legal status should be sought after.

The problem with this new law is that it will provide many opportunities for new lawsuits: lawsuits suing a police officer for not asking for legal status when they should have by an onlooker, and lawsuits from citizens that were unjustly targeted and didn't happen to have proof of legal status at the time. If you know the ACLU, you know they will be all over Arizona once this law starts, sucking them dry of everything they have.
 
There is no racial profiling. The law is explicit in that. And a person can only be questioned when they are caught committing another crime.
 
There is no racial profiling. The law is explicit in that. And a person can only be questioned when they are caught committing another crime.

You think just because you say so, that the ACLU won't win cases showing the opposite? What about if they take some demographics of those that have been apprehended because they couldn't immediately prove legal status. Do you think that there will be a lot of Anglo-Saxons represented?
 
Not establishing a national language has really worked out well for Canada hasn't it?

Canada has two official languages. You might want to look them up.

I suppose you wouldn't be opposed to some Canadian students being taught that they should overthrow the government?

What a loaded question.

My country doesn't teach such things in school; nor does yours, for that matter.

Do they have different history classes for French-Canadian history and English-Canadian history in high schools there?

No, they teach one history, but we are taught about the forced resettlement of the French by the English and the thousands of deaths involved; we are taught about the arrival of the colonists and how they used, abused, and then tossed the aboriginals of this land. We were taught that the "New World" was actually a very, very old world. We were also taught about all the other wonderful things that Canada has accomplished since its inception.

But none of that changes the fact that we are now Canada and trying to do our best. Teaching the honest facts of history is nothing to be ashamed of, and I don't see how covering it up helps anybody. If your country did something, it has been written down; if it has been written down, it can and should be learned.

The Republican party of Arizona is wrong in this case. First of all, if it happened in history, then you shouldn't be censoring it; secondly, if the truth of what happened is being taught, that is not teaching insurrection, that is teaching the facts; third, the Republican party has no business telling university students what they can and cannot learn in a curriculum that students paid tuition and elected to enroll in.

How dare they censor history and tell such big lies about what goes on in the classroom. How dare they mix momentary illegal immigration politics with academia, as if they know better.

But what can you expect from fake conservatives? They cry out anytime the Democrats sneeze. They carte blanche bipartisan efforts with mudslinging and filibusters; but the second that someone in their party has a draconian idea that will involve expansion of government, conservatives are right on board.

And for the record, if the Democrats did this I would be equally against it.

I agree with Arch Enemy (a conservative). The college system is one of the last bastions of protected knowledge. It has peer reviewed journals that try their best to maintain the facts and an accurate knowledge of the various topics of study. How dare the government, a bunch of pseudo-historians who think their revisionism has any ounce of credibility, shove their noses into the books.

If I want to take a course on native studies and the history of the Indians pre and post colonization, or if I want to learn American history from the perspective of its dealings in Latin America, that is my own god damn business and none of yours. It's called specialization. Just because someone is getting a history degree doesn't mean they are learning all the history of all time. Some people have keener interests. How dare you or anyone tell them what they can or can't learn, or how it can or cannot be taught at the post-secondary level. That is the school admin's job. If you don't like their curriculum, then don't go to their school.

This law is the most irrational piece of sh** I have heard in the news since the health bill.

Liberals and conservatives, suck it up. You deserve each other. I have no sympathy for either of you anymore.
 
No, they teach one history, but we are taught about the forced resettlement of the French by the English and the thousands of deaths involved; we are taught about the arrival of the colonists and how they used, abused, and then tossed the aboriginals of this land. We were taught that the "New World" was actually a very, very old world. We were also taught about all the other wonderful things that Canada has accomplished since its inception.

I believe that you and I agree more than you know. Let me tell you what the law says and you tell me what part you do not agree with.

The bill applies to all public and charter schools from kindergarten through high school. It would ban classes that:

1. Promote the overthrow of the U.S. government.

2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.

3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.

4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of treating pupils as individuals.

I totally agree with you that we absolutely need to teach one history. We need to talk about the fact that slavery was the most controversial issue for more than half of the existence of this nation and that our most costly war was fought over it. We need to talk about the role of Mexico and its people in the forming of the US and the essential cultural influences that it has had on this great nation. The same goes with Asians - be they from China, Japan, Korea, or India, they have also played a large and noticeable role in the history of this nation that should be taught about in US history.

Why should we separate high school students into different ethnic groups so that they can each learn about their own racial history in the US? Why can't they be taught a comprehensive ethnic history of the entire nations history together?

But none of that changes the fact that we are now Canada and trying to do our best. Teaching the honest facts of history is nothing to be ashamed of, and I don't see how covering it up helps anybody. If your country did something, it has been written down; if it has been written down, it can and should be learned.

The Republican party of Arizona is wrong in this case. First of all, if it happened in history, then you shouldn't be censoring it; secondly, if the truth of what happened is being taught, that is not teaching insurrection, that is teaching the facts; third, the Republican party has no business telling university students what they can and cannot learn in a curriculum that students paid tuition and elected to enroll in.

How dare they censor history and tell such big lies about what goes on in the classroom. How dare they mix momentary illegal immigration politics with academia, as if they know better.

But what can you expect from fake conservatives? They cry out anytime the Democrats sneeze. They carte blanche bipartisan efforts with mudslinging and filibusters; but the second that someone in their party has a draconian idea that will involve expansion of government, conservatives are right on board.

And for the record, if the Democrats did this I would be equally against it.

I agree with Arch Enemy (a conservative). The college system is one of the last bastions of protected knowledge. It has peer reviewed journals that try their best to maintain the facts and an accurate knowledge of the various topics of study. How dare the government, a bunch of pseudo-historians who think their revisionism has any ounce of credibility, shove their noses into the books.

If I want to take a course on native studies and the history of the Indians pre and post colonization, or if I want to learn American history from the perspective of its dealings in Latin America, that is my own god damn business and none of yours. It's called specialization. Just because someone is getting a history degree doesn't mean they are learning all the history of all time. Some people have keener interests. How dare you or anyone tell them what they can or can't learn, or how it can or cannot be taught at the post-secondary level. That is the school admin's job. If you don't like their curriculum, then don't go to their school.

I am totally for taking specific ethnic studies in College and University. I think those classes are great and informative and don't present the same problems that ethnic classes in high school or earlier do.
 
The bill applies to all public and charter schools from kindergarten through high school. It would ban classes that:

1. Promote the overthrow of the U.S. government.

2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.

3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.

4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of treating pupils as individuals.

This is all subjective crap. Who decides what any of that means?

Who decides what "promoting the overthrow of the U.S. government" means? It could just as easily be a witch hunt. If piece of curricula or one assignment gets handed out that has one critique about the U.S. government from a historical perspective, does that mean they can accuse them of plotting insurrection?

Promoting resentment... you can't talk about U.S. history without talking about race inequities that existed. It is bound to stir up some feelings. History class isn't an exercise in hand-holding. There are some shocking pieces of info. Why are the Republicans suddenly so concerned with this PC non-sense?

3 and 4... I don't even know where to begin. There is no criteria in the legislation that even addresses the guidelines for what that would manifest as.

Why should we separate high school students into different ethnic groups so that they can each learn about their own racial history in the US? Why can't they be taught a comprehensive ethnic history of the entire nations history together?

There are many reasons why you would separate it. U.S. history alone is a huge, huge topic. When I was in university here in Canada, a professor from Mississippi came up to give us a lecture on the development of the blues in the south, and how it tied into slavery and treatment by the whites. His specialization as a PhD was music during the slave era. Music. That's how specific it was. And he has done 10 years of study on it, and written books.

You could very easily divide history into focuses on the development of Afro-American culture, adaptation of aboriginals pre and post colonization and in the modern world.

No, not just people of those races would take those classes. And if the composition of the class happens to be that way, so what? It's not like the school is coercing it.

I am totally for taking specific ethnic studies in College and University. I think those classes are great and informative and don't present the same problems that ethnic classes in high school or earlier do.

Are we just talking about high school here, or post-secondary? Because based on the legislation, these rules can apply to all levels of schooling that receive government funding, irregardless of the fact that some curricula have been skillfully designed to present worthwhile information.

It's a carte blanche upon the whole academic system and I think it's a disgusting abuse of power.
 
You think just because you say so, that the ACLU won't win cases showing the opposite? What about if they take some demographics of those that have been apprehended because they couldn't immediately prove legal status. Do you think that there will be a lot of Anglo-Saxons represented?

You know, it's really easy and you don't even have to be detained. Just know your social security number or have your license (if you're a citizen). If you're an immigrant, then you're supposed to have your papers on you. If you don't have any of those, that's pretty suspicious. I don't see the basis of this really being race.
 
You know, it's really easy and you don't even have to be detained. Just know your social security number or have your license (if you're a citizen). If you're an immigrant, then you're supposed to have your papers on you. If you don't have any of those, that's pretty suspicious. I don't see the basis of this really being race.

I understand that the vast majority, if not all, of the police officers will do their absolute best to not use racial profiling. This does not change the fact that the ACLU will probably win a lot of the legal battles in this, despite whether or not they are right. My point is, all the new law does is create more opportunities for people to sue the state and local governments of Arizona.

However, I think that we do have a real problem on our hands in regards to kids being segregated and taught to distrust or even hate those of another race. This is a law that I hope will spread to other states.
 
No, they teach one history, but we are taught about the forced resettlement of the French by the English and the thousands of deaths involved; we are taught about the arrival of the colonists and how they used, abused, and then tossed the aboriginals of this land.

Are they taught how the aboriginals of North America had no concept of property rights, were constantly at war with one another, that they enslaved each other, that they had not even invented the wheel or learned to domesticate animals, that they had not a single permanent settlement because they had not figured out irrigation techniques invented thousands of years before in Mesopotamia and as a result were constantly on the brink of starvation often having to resort to cannibalism, that they practiced human sacrifice, that they had no written language or history and basically had not even advanced past the point of cavemen and that before the colonists arrived their life was brutal, miserable, cruel, short, and violent? No you're taught from the neo-Marxist multiculturalist perspective of the utopia of the new world before the arrival of the evil white imperialists.
 
Last edited:
This is all subjective crap. Who decides what any of that means?

Who decides what "promoting the overthrow of the U.S. government" means? It could just as easily be a witch hunt. If piece of curricula or one assignment gets handed out that has one critique about the U.S. government from a historical perspective, does that mean they can accuse them of plotting insurrection?

"promoting the overthrow of the U.S. government" means that the teacher makes the case that that the U.S. government needs to be replaced in a non-democratic fashion. It does not ban criticizing current or past politicians, administrations, congresses, or other governing bodies.

Promoting resentment... you can't talk about U.S. history without talking about race inequities that existed. It is bound to stir up some feelings. History class isn't an exercise in hand-holding. There are some shocking pieces of info. Why are the Republicans suddenly so concerned with this PC non-sense?

The law does not say that race inequities cannot be discussed. But if a teacher starts saying that one particular race (whites for example) or class (like the upper class) are responsible for their current predicaments, that is unacceptable and should be thrown out.

3 and 4... I don't even know where to begin. There is no criteria in the legislation that even addresses the guidelines for what that would manifest as.

Why was segregating blacks and whites in high schools so bad 50-60 years ago, but is somehow acceptable today? Why should Mexican-Americans be taught a different US History than African-Americans or White-Americans? Why should Mexicans or Caucasians be deprived of learning about the struggles of the slaves and their victories in advances toward equality? If you look at high schools in America where these classes are held, you will find that this is exactly what is happening, hence the law in Arizona.

There are many reasons why you would separate it. U.S. history alone is a huge, huge topic. When I was in university here in Canada, a professor from Mississippi came up to give us a lecture on the development of the blues in the south, and how it tied into slavery and treatment by the whites. His specialization as a PhD was music during the slave era. Music. That's how specific it was. And he has done 10 years of study on it, and written books.

You could very easily divide history into focuses on the development of Afro-American culture, adaptation of aboriginals pre and post colonization and in the modern world.

You are absolutely correct. That is why it is important to have these kind of classes in College and University. Show me where this law includes College and Universities in its language.

No, not just people of those races would take those classes. And if the composition of the class happens to be that way, so what? It's not like the school is coercing it.

We have a problem in the US with high school age gangs. Asian, Hispanic, African-American, and white gangs emerge from certain classes focusing on different ethnic groups. Whether or not these classes are intentionally segregating the high schools is irrelevant. It is happening, they are a prevalent cause of it, and it is not good for these high school students. It is not good for the country.

Are we just talking about high school here, or post-secondary? Because based on the legislation, these rules can apply to all levels of schooling that receive government funding, irregardless of the fact that some curricula have been skillfully designed to present worthwhile information.

Again, based on what legislation. Where in the language of the bill does it imply or even allow for this law to affect post-secondary education?

It's a carte blanche upon the whole academic system and I think it's a disgusting abuse of power.

I think that we agree that government should stay out of our lives as much as possible. However, the state has so much money and interest invested in public schools and the education of our next generation. This legislation is completely protected by and within the bounds of the constitution and the authority of the Arizona State government.
 
Back
Top Bottom