Arizona?s latest legislative effort, H.B. 2281, is one of those ?it?s about time? pieces of lawmaking that we so rarely see. How our sixth largest state has managed to limp along all these years with no law prohibiting classes that ?promote the overthrow of the United States Government? is evidently a testament to the general lack of interest among Arizonans in taking on such a task. I am reminded of the story about the immigrant applicant for citizenship who was asked if she supported overthrow of the United States government by violence or subversion. She paused to think the choices over before responding somewhat hesitantly, ?Subversion??

It is true that the Declaration of Independence says that whenever any government ceases to serve the ends for which governments are established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. I?m not altogether sure about the difference between overthrowing and abolishing, but maybe the founders were just talking through their hats. After all, at that point they hadn?t established a government. Once they had they probably felt the altering and abolishing language should just apply to other governments. So they like most everybody who has ever established a government immediately made treason a tough choice. Arizona is a little more progressive in that regard. It?ll take ten percent of your money, but it won?t kill you. So, Arizona says you can have a class entitled say ?Overthrowing the United States Government: Violence or Subversion??, but you will have to pay for it.

Some cynics say the ?overthrow the government? part of the bill was just camouflage. They say Tom Horne who has been pushing the issue for years and finally rounded up enough votes to get it passed is really targeting ethnic studies classes. In particular he?s been upset about a class in Tucson which includes on its reading list a book entitled "Occupied America: A History of Chicanos?. Tom isn?t in to titles that sell books or at least not titles that raise his hackles. It is true that of the four things prohibited ?overthrowing' is just one. Of course, it is number one. But the list also includes prohibitions on classes that promote resentment toward a race or class of people, are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group, or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

Of course, there are exceptions. The federal government prescribes classes for Native Americans and Arizona says that?s okay. And you can group ?pupils according to academic performance, including capability in the english language, that may result in a disparate impact by ethnicity.? Very clean. You don?t want to lose out on that federal money and you don?t want some liberal or some far right conservative saying you are promoting ethnic chauvinism by setting up a class that caters to English language learners. That could be construed as a class ?designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.? That?s a no-no. Tom really thought this one through.

I couldn?t find any stats on the ethnic composition of the Arizona legislature. But looking down a list of last names it would appear to be heavily white. In the house there are maybe 6 hispanic surnames out of 60 members. In the Senate I also found six this time out of 32 members. Of course, surnames can be misleading but I don?t think we?re talking any big difference between my count and whatever the reality may be. The vote on HB2281 was split along party lines: Democrats against and Republicans for. And among the Republicans I only found one arguably Hispanic surname. So, the vote against was as ethnically mixed as you can get in the Arizona legislature and the vote for was pretty much all white. Ethnic chauvinism? There must be some conclusion to draw from this. I?m not sure what it is. Maybe: Republicans have a greater fear of resentment towards whites and Democrats have no fear that classes will promote the overthrown of the United States Governement.

It does seem rather school yardish of the whites who have all along been enforcing ethnic chauvinism to now say, ?Okay, that?s enough. You can?t do that anymore.? What do they expect the object of their chauvinism to do? Say, ?Okay, let?s play something else.?

Room is left for the teaching of ?courses or classes that include the history of any ethnic group and that are open to all students, unless the course or class violates? the prohibition on ethnic chauvinism or promotes the resentment of whites. If the facts inspire ethnic chauvinism and promote resentment is that a violation? Sounds like the State Department of Education is in for making some close calls.

HB2281 wants to make clear that it is not requiring expurgated history: ?Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or prohibit the instruction of the holocaust, any other instance of genocide, or the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on ethnicity, race, or class.? They don?t want to control the content. They just want to control the reaction to it. Whatever you do, don?t start blaming the group that perpetrated the oppression. It is interesting that the head of Arizona?s educational system, this Tom Horne, thinks it possible to separate the two. Well, not interesting so much as frightening.

The strange irony is that Horne?s HB2281 is likely to foster far more ethnic chauvinism and resentment of whites than any of the ethnic studies classes it targeted could ever have promoted. Good job Tom. You should write a book. ?Uncle Tom: The Tio?.