History repeats itself–especially when lessons are ignored or suppressed from being taught. It is not difficult to see. There have been some prior comparisons of the current civil rights struggle for the preservation of Mexican American Studies and Letter from Birmingham Jail. It is an appropriate comparison and needs to be taken a step further. Dr. Stegeman’s actions regarding this issue are the moral and intellectual equivalent of the arguments that were made by the eight Birmingham, Alabama clergymen in response to the civil rights actions taking place at the time.

The Historical Context

It needs to be emphasized that Dr. King’s letter was written as a direct reply to the “A Call for Unity” statement issued. The clergymen called for an end to the protest actions and that the courts were the appropriate venue to deal with the “racial issues in our area.” They said that Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference were outside agitators who had no place in even being there. According to them it was the protestors who were creating conditions that could incite violence and they even commended the police, who were severely abusive, for the “calm manner” they handled the situation with. Although they attempted to sympathize with the movement by recognizing “the natural impatience of people who feel that their hopes are slow in being realized.” The following sums up their argument:

We further strongly urge our own Negro community to withdraw support from these demonstrations, and to unite locally in working peacefully for a better Birmingham. When rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets. We appeal to both our white and Negro citizenry to observe the principles of law and order and common sense. http://www.stanford.edu/group/King//frequentdocs/clergy.pdf 

Basically the argument was: We know your god-given human rights are being violated, we know that fairness does not even exist in the courts, but we want you to keep quiet about it anyways.  Sounds familiar right? Just replace the words “Negro” and “Birmingham” with Mexican American and Tucson and you’re good to go. This line of thought is pervasive in Dr. Stegeman’s writing on his proposal to turn some of the courses into electives:

The remarkable aspect of the proposal (setting aside the debate on its merits) is that it triggered political convulsions wildly out of proportion to its content. Those convulsions originated partly in Tucson’s history of overt discrimination and the decades-long struggle to end it. TUSD’s desegregation court orders are a painful part of that history. The current ethnic tensions in Arizona have unfortunately helped to reopen these historical wounds.

It is important, however, to recognize the distinction between free speech and stifling others’ speech. In a democracy, those who spread misinformation, harass and vilify opponents, and aggressively disrupt public meetings should not determine the final outcome. Oversimplified rhetoric inflames emotions by pretending that any disagreement about Mexican-American Studies is a struggle about the general rights and status of Latinos. http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/both-sides-must-listen-share-views-in-ethnic-studies-debate/article_93998eff-0318-5d85-8f0a-09dfdf1f9aa6.html

I think Dr. King would have a response for this and the “oversimplified” rhetoric of the civil rights movement:

You may well ask, “Why direct action, why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth. http://www.stanford.edu/group/King//frequentdocs/clergy.pdf 

HB 2281 (ARS 15-112) is not a “bad law.” It is an unjust law.

Something about the discourse regarding this issue has bothered me recently. People keep calling ARS 15-112 a “bad law.” (Both Raul and Adelita Grjalva have done this, as has Dr. Stegeman). I think it needs to be stressed that it is not a bad law. ARS 15-112 is an unjust and immoral law “on its face and in its application.” This law is an abuse of power by the state that was created with the sole purpose of political retaliation through the elimination of the MAS program in TUSD. This is a fact that is not difficult to prove. It took place and we all saw it happen.

There are many other courses both inside TUSD and in other districts that “violate” this law and no other program has been, or will be targeted by the state. For example, there is a school (a great school in my opinion) called Paolo Freire Freedom School. The same evil Paolo Freire who taught the poor and illiterate in rural Brazil has an entire school named after him in Tucson and their stated focus is social justice? Why haven’t they been targeted by the state?

There are plenty of other examples but I think it illustrates the point. Here we have another similarity with Letter from Birmingham Jail:

…there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “An unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just.  http://www.stanford.edu/group/King//frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf

This is a fundamental problem with Dr. Stegeman’s approach to the issue. Even though he is willing to admit the law is “a bad law” (there’s that word choice again) he is unwilling to fight it and comes up with rationalization after rationalization for why we shouldn’t. For example, he argues that even if the district won on appeal we would probably lose later on because the state might just write another similar law. That’s right. Let’s not bother standing up for the rights of our students and community because it’s possible that they might try it again. He’s also arguing that even though the program is proven to be successful and is changing the lives of our students for the better, it just isn’t quite successful enough to be worth keeping. How many students should a program be required to have for it to be considered legitimate?

What Dr. Stegeman doesn’t understand is that we have a moral obligation to stand up against injustices that are being perpetrated against our community. This is a matter of principle, not a tactical or cost-benefit calculation. There is no choice but to stand up against injustice because it is the right thing to do. The center of the injustice in this lies in the hands of John Huppenthal, Tom Horne, and this law that was passed, and we all have an interest in that, as Dr. King correctly says, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” The prospect of the legislature potentially attacking the community again simply means being ready to stand up for what is right again. The fundamental misunderstanding of the root of this issue is a huge part of the problem and parallels Dr. King’s letter as well:

You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham. But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being. I am sure that each of you would want to go beyond the superficial social analyst who looks merely at effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. I would not hesitate to say that it is unfortunate that so-called demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham at this time, but I would say in more emphatic terms that it is even more unfortunate that the white power structure of this city left the Negro community with no other alternative.http://www.stanford.edu/group/King//frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf

On Critical Race Theory and Social Justice

Largely these claims are based out of fear of something unknown. Critical and social justice theories are analytical lenses used to look at issues in society in different ways. They are not tools to indoctrinate and radicalize students. In fact, Dr. King was both a social justice advocate and used critical race theory:

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this. Maybe I was too optimistic. Maybe I expected too much. I guess I should have realized that few members of a race that has oppressed another race can understand or appreciate the deep groans and passionate yearnings of those that have been oppressed, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rotted out by, strong, persistent, and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too small in quantity, but great in quality.http://www.stanford.edu/group/King//frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf

Does this statement promote racial resentment? Does it observe issues of injustice and oppression from a racial lens? Should it be banned from curriculum? What about his earlier statement when he discusses “the white power structure” in Birmingham?

On the Call for Moderation:

Dr. Stegeman is calling for moderation from both sides although he is really only speaking to one side of the issue–those fighting for the MAS program. This isn’t a terrible thing to call for and I think Dr. Stegeman’s heart is in the right place, but again this is an issue of principle. Dr. King also speaks of the moderate:

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. http://www.stanford.edu/group/King//frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf

Moving Forward

Ultimately I agree with Dr. Stegeman. Community support is necessary and people need to start working to gather, but that can never happen on an authentic level if it means supporting an unjust and immoral action that has been perpetrated against that community. You don’t build consensus around injustice. In a sense, what Tom Horne and John Huppenthal have done is brilliant. They have managed to turn the TUSD community against itself and deflect all real attention from the true injustice that has taken place–ARS 15-112. To me, the only way the community can truly come together as one is if its school board chooses to stand up against the abuse and injustice that is being continually directed at it from Phoenix. It is never too late to do the right thing.

This entry was posted on Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 1:07 am and is filed under Education, Leadership, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.