Beyond Ethnic Studies

U.S. Circuit Court Judge Wallace Tashima recently found Arizona’s ban on K-12 ethnic studies classes (read: ban on Latino studies classes) largely constitutional.  The ban purports to target courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment toward a race or class of people, advocate ethnic solidarity instead of individualism or are designed primarily for students from a particular ethnic group.  In reality, it was largely aimed at abolishing the Mexican American Studies (MAS) program at Tucson Unified School District (surprisingly AP Latin remained unscathed).

The law was pushed by a group of borderline (if not well over the borderline) racist white officials in Arizona who, in a completely unrelated way, also happened to support Arizona’s anti-Latino SB 1070 legislation.  While this type of right-wing, race-specific ban on progressive educational programs should be fought tooth and nail, the necessity of ethnic studies programs in the first place is in some senses a sign of left-wing weakness.

Latino students in MAS performed better than their peers.  Those who went through the MAS program had better standardized test scores, graduation rates and college prospects than non-participants, standing in contrast to the Tucson school district as a whole, where Latino students lag academically.  A quick look at the college-level curricula and passionate professional teaching for MAS supports this statistical evidence of MAS’ positive impact.

However, there are additional reasons MAS and other ethnic studies programs succeed in inspiring Latino kids where regular classes fail.  A lot of it is that students perform better when they can identify with the protagonists of the history and literature they’re learning in class.  Latino kids like learning about Latino civil rights activists, women enjoy hearing about the feminist movement and young Republicans relate to anything before 1865.  For former MAS teacher Lorenzo Lopez, the MAS program was “a process of consciousness-building” where “he tried to instill in his students a sense of pride in their Latino heritage.”  This identification represents a defensive reaction to mainstream curricula which reflect America’s “powerful white man” national narrative.

The Chicano movement and ethnic nationalist groups like MEChA formed during the 1960’s in response to an even more pro-white national narrative.  They focused on creating a Latino and Mexican-American cultural heritage to empower Latinos.  Ethnic studies programs were a part of this general movement to build a Latino identity to withstand the damaging teachings of a pro-white society.  However, the persistent salience and strength of this race-based identity reflects the failure of the left since the 1960’s to construct new identities that unify people of all races in challenging economic and political power.

The goal for progressives today should not be to create more enclaves of ethnic-based progressive thought, like MAS, to protect kids from mainstream teachings that glorify the powerful.  Getting a progressive education through ethnic studies programs is better than getting a conservative education, but it’s still reactionary.  The goal should instead be to transform mainstream teaching itself so that it highlights all of the fighters and thinkers that have helped America progress from an aristocratic slave state to its present much freer incarnation.