The Pros And Cons Of Ethnic Studies

In Tucson, Arizona ethnic studies classes caused controversy over what kinds of classes should be allowed in Tucson’s public schools. The Latino population of students was greatly being effected by only a 50% graduation rate. The ethnic studies curriculum was created to engage students with a history from a different cultural viewpoint than what was usually taught in public high school. From the outside of the classroom the opposing forces against ethnic studies believed that the hidden curriculum within the classes was detrimental to students. This was because it was teaching anti-American beliefs along with creating students who would act with rebellious beliefs and racism. From inside the classroom the teachers and students look to their curriculum and insist that their curriculum was more about having courage to examine history, create understanding and respect for one another and one’s self. They believed in looking at problems that the world was facing and not just accepting them but also trying to make a change for the better. The problematic readings were grounded in the courses use of the "Pedagogy of the Oppressed” with ideals that are based in teachings like Marxism.

In his “Open Letter to the Citizens of Tucson,” Tom Horne explains why he believes ethnic studies should be banned. Horne explains what happened at the Tucson magnet school when a Republican Latina came to speak. Tom Horne writes, “Her speech was non-partisan and professional, urging students to think for themselves and avoid stereotypes. Yet a small group of La Raza students treated her

Through this opinion the district has the authority to manage and structure the schools they deem fit. Under Judge Smith’s deliberation he further explains that the Mexican students are not being segregated. Although, Judge Smith’s statement is valid it negates the fact that as a court they hold the responsibility to make sure school districts are abiding by the law. Smith validates the Del Rio Independent School district intention and

The district court’s decision to dismiss this case is based on the Plaintiffs failure to prove theory of purposeful discrimination, which is denied under Alexander v. Sandoval where the Supreme Court ruled that even if a federally funded entity knowingly adopts a policy that creates disparate impact, Title VI still affords no remedy and also because Proposition 16 is a facially neutral policy that happened to create a racially disparate impact, it holds no bearing to Title VI. The court ultimately found that Proposition 16 was created to improve ALL student athlete graduation rights. As for Pryor’s ADA claim, it too was dismissed because Pryor lacked the standing to remedy her loss of eligibility due to the fact the NCAA may still grant her the relief she seeks.

This paradox is not just affecting low-income and minority students, but also students in non-minority groups as well. When there is no time for focus on skills that students need to participate in social change, these students will not learn to question practices within society or to work with other students from all different groups and backgrounds in order to effect change. Classes in schools which may contribute to multicultural education, such as social studies and foreign language, are being cut completely in order to spend more time on reading and math (Au, 2009). According to Au (2009), since multi-cultural anti-racist perspectives and content are not deemed legitimate by the high-stakes tests and classroom standards, the end result is that multicultural, anti-racist content and perspectives and not being included in the instruction time or curriculum. This reinforces the notion for white students that they are the dominant group in society, and works against the goals of multicultural education.

In 1981, the parents of several school aged children of Mexican Origin filed a suit against Superintendent James Plyler, of Tyler, Texas, regarding immigration status. The Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982)) case decision could not have happened prior to 1982, if numerous cases had not paved the way. Some of the significance cases were Vlandis v. Kline (412 U.S. 441 (1973)), which denied an individual an opportunity to present evidence they were a resident entitled to in-state-rates. In Weinberger v. Salfe (422 U.S. 771 (1975)), denied social security benefits to be paid to a mother and child after her husband died. In Toll v. Moreno (441 U.S. 458 (1978)), a student was financially depend upon a person who held a G-4 visa, granted to officers or employees of international organizations. In Elkins v. Moreno (435 U.S. 647 (1978), the student was refused in-state-status, whose parents were lived in Maryland.

In the Federal court, the application was dismissed, however, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the basis that the educational requirement was discriminatory because of the disproportionate impact on the basis of age and residence (Koshan & Watson Hamilton, 2015). On May 28, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada’s Justice Abella overturned the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision by applying a two-part test of discrimination to determine whether the code evoked discriminatory distinctions, maintaining arbitrary disadvantages based on group membership (Koshan & Watson Hamilton,

The case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action was presented before the Supreme Court of the United States; the case questioned that whether a state violated the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment by maintaining a ban on the racial and sex preferences on the admissions in the public universities in the constitution of the state (Bernstein). The arguments on these cases started on 15th October, 2013 on an appeal for the Sixth Circuit from the United States Court of Appeal, which had established the rule in 2012 regarding Michigan ban, which was approved by the voters of the state in the year 2006. The Sixth Circuit emphasized that the Michigan ban was unconstitutional. But, the ban on the state was upheld, the Sixth

Recently, in the year 2013, there was a case brought to the Supreme Court’s attention that was first trialed in the district court. That case’s name was Fisher vs. University of Texas. It was in this case that the plaintiff, Abigail N. Fisher filed suit against the University of Texas with the claim that the University had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 13th Amendment. The main question that arose in the question was, “does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions”. The overall decision of the Supreme Court was that the University of Texas hadn’t violated the Equal Protection Clause, and in fact that they were permitted to consider race in the admissions process. I do agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. I agree with said decision because the argument made by the plaintiff Fisher was weak, and the rights of life and liberty weren’t in any way tampered with in the admissions process that the University of Texas was going through in the situation suited.

The school then appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that the state may consider race as a factor for admittance for diversity, but only if other circumstances are

Supreme Court decided in Plyler v. Doe that the equal protection provision of the Constitution's 14th Amendment requires public schools to admit illegal alien children, on the presumption that denial of public education to children whose parents brought them illegally to the United States is not a rational response to states' concerns about illegal immigration. 1 The opinion, however, was based on specific circumstances that could change and it did not apply to education beyond mandatory public schooling (qtd. in Stewart, par. 8).

Many circumstances oblige people to move from their native country to a foreign one. From this movement of migration have emerged many ethnic groups. An ethnic group is a restraint number of persons living in a larger society and sharing the same distinct cultural heritage. Some people tend to bury their habits and accommodate to the new way of life. However others hold on to their identity and try to identify their race and maintain it. This enriches societies and makes them multi-racial. Therefore, every ethnic group is essential to complete the mosaic. Although they are sometimes threatened, minorities must fight to preserve their principles. Why must they fight? Because racial identification has many positive impacts on the members.

I think that the decision in the case resulted in equal and quality education for students learning English because it provided a better quality instruction to satisfy the needs of ELL students. The State of Arizona fails to meet the decision in Lau for the reason that Bilingual instruction is not allowed in schools.

Teaching or forcing our children to have only one ethnicity would impact on how they see themselves and how others would treat them. The ethnic purity often restricts some people’s choices of friend and marriage partners. It may also makes obstacles in their future lives, like in their education, careers, and also the neighborhoods in which they want to live; therefore, strict one person within one ethnic culture is not a logical thing.

Does society truly stand to gain from what some might call a breaking of racial and ethnic barriers? When we as a society propose the overly-voiced concepts of 'embracing racial equality' and the 'dissolving of stereotypical values' in an effort to support societal efficiency, do we consider that perhaps these revolutionary ideals will hurt more than help us in the long run? The average individual, in an effort to function properly in the society to which he or she belongs, will follow that which society generally accepts as politically correct, as normal. The downside to this is the possibility of a society's ignorance to the greater picture or, rather, the future effects on economy and