ARIZONA BILL TO BAN TEACHING OF "SOLIDARITY" OR "SOCIAL JUSTICE"

If you're rich, it's inconvenient if poor people start to wonder why they're poor, and even worse if they recognize they're not alone, come together, organize, and gain political power. If you're white in America, it's inconvenient if people of color start to wonder why they face so many more obstacles than you, and even worse if they come together, organize and gain power. If you're a member of a privileged group, it's not surprising that you would see recognition of that fact by non-members as divisive and dangerous.

Sarah Palin's tweeted advice to President Obama on this year's Martin Luther King day is a great example of this: "Mr. President, in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. and all who commit to ending any racial divide, no more playing the race card." 

And if you're Arizona State Representative Bob Thorpe, a " . . .life-long Fiscal-Conservative Republican who promotes Constitutional Liberties (freedoms), limited government, low taxes, protecting the lives of our unborn children and 2nd Amendment rights . . .," and you sit on the legislature's Education Committee and chair the Government and Higher Education Committee, you're the right person in the right position at the right time to propose HB2120--the "education; prohibited courses and activities" bill.

The University of Arizona, Tucson--soon an idea-free zone?/Credit Jr P/Flickr

Coming from an avowed promoter of "Constitutional Liberties (freedoms)", the bill is remarkable in that it sets out to limit the freedom of school teachers and college professors to teach, and students to learn about pretty much anything involving how groups of people have been defined and treated in the past or are being seen and treated today.

Here are some of the bill's "prohibited courses, classes, events and activities" for school districts and charter schools throughout Arizona, community colleges, and universities under the State Board of Regents, including the state's educational flagship, the University of Arizona. To be banned, classes, events or activities that . . .

Promote DIVISION, resentment OR SOCIAL JUSTICE toward a race, GENDER, RELIGION, POLITICAL AFFILIATION, SOCIAL CLASS or OTHER class of people.

 Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.

Advocate ethnic solidarity OR ISOLATION BASED ON ETHNICITY, RACE, RELIGION, GENDER OR SOCIAL CLASS instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

God forbid that teachers should expose students to a crazy, divisive idea like social justice.

Thorpe's bill significantly expands and extends to colleges and universities a 2010 law that banned K-12 courses or classes that "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of students as individuals."

The new bill has some very sharp teeth--a school district, community college or university could lose ten percent of its state funding if it's caught teaching a forbidden subject or allowing prohibited activities.

Tacked onto the bottom of the bill is a statement with a remarkable twist on the words of Martin Luther King, whom I imagine would be appalled by this gross misuse of of his dream for justice.

Martin Luther King: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Bob Thorpe: "It is the intent of the legislature that Arizona shall not educate nor judge an individual based upon their religion, political affiliation, social class, gender, ethnicity, race or by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." (Emphasis mine).

King's dream was of a nation providing equal rights, respect and justice for all. Thorpe's dream is of a state prohibiting teaching or learning about unequal rights, prejudice and injustice impacting the very groups he names.

To say that enacting this bill into law would have an enormous effect on education, especially higher education, would be a huge understatement. A quick glance at the University of Arizona's course catalog shows multiple classes dealing with all of those issues--as would the catalog of any self-respecting institution of higher education.

I can picture someone in the Attorney General's office--that's the agency that would be empowered to vet what gets taught or not at the college level--going through the university's course offerings line by line:

"OK, here we go. Anthropology 150A1--Race, Ethnicity and the American Dream. That one's got to go."

"Anthropology 222--African American Studies: A History of Ideas. Cross that one off."

"303--Gender and Language? Hmm. Questionable. Let's cancel it."

"314--Race and Language in the US. No way."

"317--Latin American Immigration and the Remaking of the US. Are they kidding?"

"319--Mexican American Culture. When in doubt, close it out."

"344--African American Religion--Could go either way. I'll kick that up to the A.G."

And that's just part of the offerings of one department. What about African Studies; Care, Health and Society; Communication; Public Health; Education; Environmental Health; Family and Community Medicine; History; Gender and Women's Studies (clearly that whole department needs to go); Latin American Studies (likewise); Mexican American Studies (ditto); Psychology; Public Health; Sociology; Teaching, Learning and Sociocultural Studies; etc., all of which offer courses analyzing those forbidden group differences?

I'm guessing that a few departments, such as Veterinary Science, might escape unscathed.

It's also impossible to exaggerate the chilling effect such a law would have on all teachers, professors and administrators, knowing that a class exercise or even a comment that someone in the Attorney General's office might decide was in the forbidden zone could threaten financial support for their institution.

In George Orwell's disturbingly prescient novel, Nineteen Eighty-four, he elaborates Newspeak, a debased version of English in which concepts like "freedom," "peace," or even "science" do not exist, and so cannot be thought. Anyone who somehow managed to think a forbidden thought was committing a thoughtcrime and would soon be found out by the Thought Police.

In light of the progress this proposed law makes towards Newspeak, I suggest that Representative Thorpe change the name and number of the bill to HB1984--the "Education; Ignorance is Strength bill."

Credit: Stephen Bettany

Click here to read about a brilliant response to Arizona's embrace of ignorance, the Librotraficante Caravan, which is carrying banned books about Mexican-American history to Arizona.

And go here to read a deeply insightful essay by Roberto Rodriguez, an associate professor of Mexican American Studies at the University of  Arizona, who links HB2120 with the book burnings and torture carried out by the Spanish Inquisition in Mexico as part of the demonization and destruction of indigenous knowledge and culture.

And here and here to read about successful legal challenges to this legislation.

2021 update: Under the new banner of fighting "critical race theory," the Republican controlled Wisconsin State Legislature just passed legislation prohibiting the use of certain terms in K-12 classes. These include "white privilege," "diversity," "woke," "structural bias," "systemic racism," "multiculturalism," "social justice" or "patriarchy." In addition, teachers and administrators would not be allowed to attend training in which such concepts might be discussed. 

God forbid that anyone in the great state of Wisconsin should be able to think about such issues. Clearly, enforced ignorance is much better.

YOU'RE LESS LIKELY TO DIE IN HOSPITAL IF YOU'RE TREATED BY A FEMALE PHYSICIAN

Women doctors treat differently, save lives

Male and female physicians practice medicine differently. For example, women doctors spend more time with their patients, communicate more, offer more encouragement, and are more likely to adhere to the latest clinical guidelines.

A major new national study shows that those or other differences save lives. The study found that hospitalized elderly patients treated by female rather than male internists were 4 percent less likely to die and 5 percent less likely to be re-hospitalized within 30 days of admission. This was true across a wide range of conditions. And the sicker the patient, the bigger the difference between patient outcomes for female vs. male physicians.

Female physicians practice medicine differently--and more effectively

Credit: Ilmicrofono Oggiono

"The difference in mortality rates surprised us," said Yusuke Tsugawa, a researcher at Harvard University's T. H. Chan School of Public Health and the study's lead author. "The gender of the physician appears to be particularly significant for the sickest patients."

A four or five percent difference in survival rates may not seem like a lot, but since 10,000,000 patients like those in this study are hospitalized in the US every year, the authors estimate that if male physicians performed as well as their female colleagues, 32,000 lives would be saved--more than the number of Americans who die in traffic accidents every year.

The study, published today in the prestigious JAMA Internal Medicine, tracked the outcomes of more than 1.5 million Medicare hospitalizations from 2011 through 2014. All of the patients were 65 years old or older, 40 percent were men, 60 percent women. These were seriously ill patients--within 30 days of being admitted to the hospital, more than 15 percent were re-hospitalized and more than 11 percent died. About one third of patients were treated by female internists or hospitalists, two thirds by male physicians. Although earlier research has identified a number of differences between how female and male physicians practice, this is the first national study to see if those differences impact patient outcomes.

Although this study shows conclusively that the physician's gender does affect the risk that hospitalized elderly patients will die or be re-hospitalized, it does not pin down just what produces those differences.

"There was ample evidence that male and female physicians practice medicine differently," says Ashish Jha, Director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. "Our findings suggest that those differences matter and are important to patient health. We need to understand why female physicians have lower mortality so that all patients can have the best possible outcomes."

In the meantime, an accompanying editorial in the same journal points out that the medical profession needs to take a hard look at the gap in both pay and career advancement between female physicians and their male colleagues.

You can listen to an interview with the authors at this URL.