Arizona’s Attorney General has filed a Notice of Appeal in the TUSD desegregation case. In February a federal judge ruled in the case after the Ninth Circuit Court hand found that he had ignored the District’s history of bad faith.
In his latest ruling Judge David Bury denied that the State had a right to intervene in the matter. He ruled that he would allow “the State “to monitor the development of the culturally relevant courses and their implementation.” Finding that the State is “free to enforce its laws as it did in 2011 when it took action against TUSD for the MAS courses, if it believes any culturally relevant courses developed and implemented in TUSD violate state law.”
Prior to the judge’s ruling, some plaintiff representatives had expressed concern about their role in the case and had hoped that Attorney General Horne would file an appeal due to the fact that the Court’s Special Master Willis Hawley ignored their desires for accountability from the District. The Special Master, they claim focused primarily on reinstituting the controversial Mexican American Studies classes and paid little attention to creating equal access to quality education.
Since that time, federal Judge Wallace Tashima, found that the Arizona law prohibiting the teaching of hate and resentment was constitutional. TUSD’s Mexican American Studies classes were found to promote resentment in children towards other ethnicities by administrative law judge Lewis Kowal.
Kowal heard testimony over a four day hearing covering over 7,000 pieces of evidence.
Despite the fact that for 30 years the focus had been primarily on eliminating vestiges of past discrimination in the areas of discipline, student assignment, student achievement, and school operations, Bury focused on the Mexican American Studies classes and hiring layers of mid-level administrators.
In his ruling, Judge Bury found the “State has not satisfied the criteria for intervention as a right.” Bury did however leave the door open for the State to “explain to the Court why is should have a right to intervene in the matter.”