Part I: State files in TUSD desegregation case
The State of Arizona, through the Attorney General’s Office filed its objections to the proposed Unitary Status Plan for TUSD by Special Master Willis Hawley. Hawley made the highly unusual move of proposing curriculum in his draft Unitary Status Plan.
According to experts, there is no other desegregation plan in the country that prescribes curriculum. It has been long held by the courts that curriculum is a matter of local control. In the case of TUSD, the issue has been only which local entity has control and how much; the State of the School Board. In the matter of Hawley’s proposal the State and District join in their opposition to federal control.
In the filing Arizona joined TUSD in their objection because ordering the classes is “unprecedented, particularly where there has been no finding that the curriculum violated any person’s civil rights, and because the requirements will violate Arizona law, promote segregation, and prompt the return of the discredited Mexican-American Studies (“MAS”) Program.”
The State points out that “after an extensive evidentiary hearing in the State’s Office of Administrative Hearings, with a right of appeal to state courts, an independent Administrative Law Judge concluded that the MAS Program courses in Latino history and culture offered by TUSD presented material “in a biased, political, and emotionally charged manner” that promoted social and political activism against “white people,” promoted racial resentment, and advocated ethnic solidarity instead of treating pupils as individuals.”
This violated Arizona Revised Statute (“A.R.S.”) §15-112 and led to the suspension of the MAS Program at TUSD. The State argues that “the requirements in the draft USP will lead to a re-establishment of a segregated, racially divisive ethnic studies program at TUSD rather than promoting integration and unity.”
The State advises the Court that it cannot order the classes and disregard of Arizona law if there is no compulsory constitutional requirement for such classes.
Arizona also takes exception to the Court’ requirement that TUSD develop and implement a multicultural curriculum because the District is already required to do that under Arizona law but must do so according to the State’s Academic Content Standards. Arizona argues that the order is unnecessary and does not, this requirement is unnecessary.
The State issued a strong objection to the requirements in the draft USP that TUSD must develop and implement “socially and culturally relevant curriculum, including courses of instruction centered on the experiences and perspectives of African American and Latino communities” and shall be offered at all feasible grade levels in all high schools across the district. The State says this is unprecedented.
The States offers the work of Professor Christine Rossell, who says that no court has ever ordered a school district to implement particular courses of study as a solution to segregation without first making a factual finding that the school district’s curricula violated federal law.
Rossell, an expert who has been retained by the State in this matter, has over thirty-eight years of experience in teaching, designing desegregation plans, consulting, and researching desegregation policy. Rossell, a full professor in the Political Science Department at Boston University, says she has never come across a court decision that actually specified the content of courses or curricula the way that this draft USP does.
According to the Attorney General’s Office, the “federal courts are guided by equitable principles that are informed by three factors: First, the nature and scope of the constitutional violation determines the nature of the desegregation remedy. Second, the remedy must relate to the constitutional violation – it must be “designed as nearly as possible to restore the victims of discriminatory conduct to the position they would have occupied in the absence of such conduct.” Third, the remedy must take into account the interests of state and local authorities in managing their own affairs, consistent with the Constitution. “
In other words; no harm, no foul, no remedy needed. Also it is not a matter for federal court. Because the court has made no findings that the curricula and courses offered by TUSD violated any student’s constitutional rights. The proposed remedy of creating specific courses for African-American and Latino students is thus not a remedy that is required to vindicate any constitutional guarantees.
The State argues that “federal courts interfere in school curriculum only with great reluctance,” and they say that the inference Hawley proposes will actually “lead to segregation rather than desegregation of students.”
TUSD and the plaintiffs dropped their only claim regarding curriculum more than 30 years ago. During the process to develop the past Post Unitary Status Plan, some employees in the district and the plaintiffs fought adding the Mexican American Studies, but according to both plaintiff representatives and district insiders, former MAS employees intimidated the former Superintendent and the fight was dropped. The plaintiffs did make their objections known to the federal judge overseeing the case.
According to plaintiff representatives Judge Bury was anxious to find a resolution to the matter and allowed the classes to remain in the order.
The AG’s Office advises the Court that Arizona already recognizes the academic value of multicultural perspectives. Arizona has already implemented performance standards incorporating culturally sensitive curricula into the statewide standards for elementary and secondary education. The Arizona Department of Education created the Standards with the help of an ethnically-diverse committee which led to the adoption of vigorous and diverse multicultural curricula that must be implemented by every school district in Arizona, including TUSD.
`
“Federal law does not require academic standards and performance objectives to encourage multicultural perspectives. However, Arizona’s educational policy makers believed that multicultural perspectives were sufficiently important to warrant state-wide implementation,” the State notes.
Part II: Court told of mistreatment by TUSD MAS staff