I’m a bit disappointed that, titled the way it is, this is only an interview with a proponent of the ban.  That being said, host Michael Martin doesn’t back down from pointing out so many illogical arguments, weaknesses, inconsistencies, and points of possible bias that come out of state superintendent John Huppenthal’s mouth.

What I find even more disappointing though, on a larger scale, is that there are some legitimate points to consider in regard to “ethnic studies” or “minority studies” (that framing of which, by the way, irritates me immensely) that could lead to appropriately positive views of these approaches to a broader social studies education, but the issue itself is so inherently political, and the ideal positive outcomes such a threat to those who do not want to let go of privilege, that the conversation is sometimes nearly impossible to have.

The question is not a matter of whether a class promotes resentment toward a certain group — to me, learning about certain parts of history is going to naturally lead to some feelings of frustration, resentment, or anger. It’s a matter of how those feelings are then handled, how the injustice that is present at every level of history toward so many people is digested and then faced.  As someone in the LGBTQ community, if I had learned about Stonewall when I was younger, I would have been furious, but I can’t honestly say whether I would have known what to do with those feelings or how to turn them into something coherent and constructive.  It didn’t matter then; that history was never considered relevant to the history of my country.  I was not a part of it.

Is it possible, in the larger scheme of things, to teach these kinds of focused classes in a framework that makes them not necessarily geared toward a certain group of people, but educating about certain groups to all people in a way that encourages critical thinking and a second look at the history of this country? 

At least, that’s what the question seems to be — Huppenthal makes it sound as if the Mexican American Studies courses were grounds for indoctrination specifically focused on teaching students of a certain racial background to hate Caucasians.  But supporters of the program include Caucasian students — who were also taking these classes — and their families.  So is it even really a question?

Approaching academics from a suppressed or overlooked viewpoint is entirely possible.  It’s done on the college level very frequently and, with the right leadership and allowances, can also be done on the high school level.  In fact, it could be done on the middle school level if framed correctly.  I’d take it a step farther and say that it can be done on the elementary level — some states require local history units to focus a large amount of study on Native Americans, and I have seen many teachers take advantage of that fact as an opportunity to teach their young students that history is seen from different vantage points.  It isn’t that radical an idea.

So to see this question — bad ban or bad class — supposedly approached this way, with one biased interviewee, rather than critically with multiple informed speakers from multiple viewpoints, should not only prompt aggravation, but further discussion.

Yes, any area of study taken from certain angles can be one-sided.  They can paint some figures as heroes when they may have committed atrocities.  They can look at these people and events void of the context of one side, or in a context that glorifies one side over the other.  But doesn’t that sound suspiciously like the way history has been taught for as long as we’ve been learning about history?  Is anyone else reading this remembering, I don’t know, being taught that Christopher Columbus was a glorious explorer who gave the Native Americans a curious once-over instead of smallpox blankets?

Every story has the potential to be told from numerous sides.  The question shouldn’t be “Do we tell this side?”  It should be, “How do we tell as many sides possible while maintaining critical thinking skills?”  Learning about injustice does not mean learning to hate, or learning to view one’s self as a victim.  As for whether the classes in question did that, I would trust Huppenthal — a man who seems to have so little understanding of the dynamics of privilege and power that he thinks Obama being president means that minority youth are no longer subject to a biased system — far as I could throw him.