Tucson attorney Richard Martinez first filed a lawsuit on behalf of 11 Tucson Unified School District teachers in October 2010 in an effort to reverse anti-Mexican-American studies law HB 2281 and on Friday, March 6 he learned U.S. District Court Judge A. Wallace Tashima didn’t think most of Martinez’s arguments met “the high threshold needed to establish a constitutional violation.”
Tashima ruling:
Nonetheless, Martinez will move forward as lead attorney as part of an appeals team with attorneys from Seattle University Law School and the Bingham McCutchen law firm, the Range confirmed with Martinez late Friday.
By email, Martinez said the appeal must be filed within 30 days of the decision, and the process could take 18-24 months at the 9th Circuit. When asked what arguments will be availed for the appeal process, Martinez wrote, “When our opening brief is filed, be sure to read it, I suggest several times as it will be very comprehensive and steeped in federal constitutional law.”
With a new team in place to handle the appeal, why is it important for Martinez to remain involved? Martinez said it’s his 30 years experience with civil rights cases. “I have been in this case from its inception, know the facts and all the players and work well with all of the legal team members. This legal was formed out of our effort here in Tucson that has at its core the MAS educators who became plaintiffs and the students and parent who joined them as plaintiffs. HB 2281 was always understood as an issue with national importance and treated as such.”
The Range first contacted the law firm of Bingham McCutchen when we first learned the firm would be part of the team handling the appeal of Tashima’s ruling, in which he did find one provision in the law unconstitutional — “classes designed primarily for pupils of a particular group ethnic group” — but Martinez contacted us to explain that he was the media point person regarding the appeal.
Martinez said since the beginning of the lawsuit, attorneys from throughout the country have been consulted, and attorneys from Seattle Univeristy and Bingham McCutchen have gotten involved “out of a profound interest in the issue and the legal questions presented.”
“We are a legal team that has come together in an important civil rights case with a common belief in the importance of challenging the constitutionality of HB 2281,” Martinez wrote. “The formation of this team is common in important civil rights cases, and reflects the members of the bar who are dedicated to providing their time and expertise on a pro bono basis. This case was commenced in that tradition and will remain such.”
What happens next with the desegregation effort, which includes a federal judge’s order to have Mexican-American and African-American studies courses, as well as curriculum, as part of course offerings in TUSD beginning in 2014.
In a recently constituents’ letter sent out by TUSD school board member Mark Stegeman, who was one of four votes last year to dismantle the MAS program, wrote that the ruling, while likely to be appealed, “is important for TUSD because the recent order in the separate desegregation case makes it clear that TUSD should respect the Ethnic Studies law, which has now survived the challenge to its constitutionality.”
“This makes it essentially impossible to restore anything closely resembling the former MAS program. At least, restoring the program would almost certainly trigger new state findings and financial penalties, based on the precedents established in the administrative law decision.”
Sylvia Campoy, the Mendoza plaintiff representative in the TUSD desegregation case, in a statement released to the Range said it’s clear to here that the district must move forward in creating the MAS and African-American studies courses and curriculum:
“The culturally relevant courses (CRCs) in the Desegregation/Unitary Status Plan are part of a court remedy to a constitutional violation. Judge Bury pointed out in his Feb. 6, 2013 order that ‘the Supreme Court has held that state laws cannot be allowed to impede a desegregation order’ (p. 16 of his order). TUSD is required to implement the Desegregation Plan, including the CRC components. The Desegregation Plan requires that all CRC courses ‘shall be developed using the District’s curricular review process and shall meet District and state standards for academic rigor.’ The Desegregation Plan was adopted by the Court and the District has been ordered to implement the Plan, which has transpired while AZ. State Statute 15-112 (HB 2281) has been in effect. All course work that is rolled out under the Desegregation Plan will be aligned with the Core Standards, as is required for all curricula.”
This article appears in Mar 14-20, 2013.
With a consistent string of losses, I wish the MAS crowd would finally realize they are wrong and direct their time and effort to causes that will actually help young Hispanic kids rather than teach them to be angry fighters with a superiority complex but claim oppression.
The case lost, and yet the case is justified. The students of TUSD and indeed students everywhere deserve to learn a history that includes them. We white anglo saxon protestants have certainly learned a history that includes US. Are some among us closed minded enough to think that ours is the only history there is? For the benefit of the students, this case must win. Ego, politics and anything else that gets in the way of that objective will only harm our education system. I really hope the relationship between Martinez and the new legal team is one that allows a truly collaborative approach. In fact, I wish the legal team that worked on the post-unitary status agreement (which they actually achieved putting together after 30 some odd years!) would be a part of the pursuit of this case. A chilling effect could really have a ripple effect on public education if this law isn’t turned around.
How about focusing on reading,writing, math, and science so the kids will be prepared for training beyond high school or the work force. Ethnic studies are fine as an ELECTIVE, which was offered and refused by the MAS bunch. Seems like it is past time for them to open their eyes to the world and get over themselves. There must be an endless money trail for Mr. Martinez to give so much of his time and effort to this.
Here we go again. Lost the first time, because lets face it, the class was anti-American. Get over it and move on to getting our young people a good education that will help them in the work force. Fact is, they can’t stop their anti-American mentality.
The only reason that Judge Bury ordered TUSD to develop culturally relevant courses is because the evidence that MAS increased student achievement and graduation rates was too strong to ignore. Had it not been for the Cabrera Report, Special Master Hawley would have recommended only the multicultural curriculum. Whether this is a victory for our kids is wholly dependent upon the efficacy of the CRC developed and implemented by TUSD. Results will be compared. Ms. Campoy’s comments highlight the schizophrenia of Judge Bury’s order: state laws cannot impede a desegregation order, yet the State is free to enforce HB 2281 against TUSD. What is TUSD to do? Since Dr. Pedicone and Supt. Huppenthal are aligned in their antagonism towards MAS, TUSD will bend to State pressure and develop an ineffective, whitewashed curriculum that will not appeal to students and will not produce increased achievement. Whether the Governing Board will demand a truly effective curriculum is anybody’s guess. That is where the Mendoza plaintiffs and, one would think, the “pro-MAS” Board will need to step up and ask Judge Bury to exercise the federal court’s authority to prohibit the State from impeding its desegregation order. (An unusual alliance, to be sure.) It is clear that this is where the battle lines will be drawn during the pendency of the appeal of Judge Tashima’s ruling. It will require much fortitude on the part of the plaintiffs.
Betts, it isn’t supposed to be us vs them.- “our history” As Americans we all get OUR history.
If you take an elective class on a specific type of history, you will focus on that specific history.
Either these kind of people can’t seem to learn, or they get more out of keeping themselves in the newspapers than they would doing something constructive.
Where did the Save Ethnic Studies donations go? There must have been some BIG donations to cause Martinez to step to the front of line and want to take credit (or $) for this second round of deliberations.
“Had it not been for the Cabrera Report, Special Master Hawley would have recommended only the multicultural curriculum. Whether this is a victory for our kids is wholly dependent upon the efficacy of the CRC developed and implemented by TUSD.”
The Cabrera report was biased. They cooked the books to get the result they wanted. The percentage of special education students in the non-MAS sample was just about double the percentage of special ed students in the MAS sample. You can’t tell me they couldn’t find an adequate number of non-MAS students who were never identified as in need of special education to match the same percentage of special ed students in the MAS sample.
Jejfrey Milem, one of the authors of the report, testified in support of the MAS classes at TUSD’s appeal hearing though he had never seen the curriculum nor visited a single MAS class. Professor Cabrera, the main author, has had a financial relationship with the MAS program. Hawley compromised himself by hiring these researchers because any reasonable person could have predicted their biases would impact the result of the study.
Jeffrey Milem never testified in support of MAS. Rather, he testified as to the benefits of ethnic studies programs in general. Milem specifically testified that he had not visited MAS classes nor reviewed the MAS curriculum and could give no opinion about the program. Why would TUSD’s attorneys put on an expert witness who had not reviewed the program? (And the answer is not that they could not find an expert who would support the program.) Something for our current board to ponder.
Jana,
I would encourage you to read Judge Bury’s decision in it’s entirety. As a legal document/decision it is not schizophrenic, contradictory or at all confusing; it is a very straight forward, clear cut decision to read even for those without experience interpreting legal decisions. However, because many people are not disciplined enough to read through the entire decision or they are just biased, there inevitably have been many “interpretations” of this decision, mostly for political posturing, so it would not be wise to form an opinion on the decision without reading it for yourself. If have already read it in it’s entirety I apologize for assuming you have not, but your response, by quoting Ms. Campoy’s interpretation, would seem to indicate otherwise. (Ms. Campoy is a plaintiff representative in the case and while her interpretation is relevant, it is also biased.)
To directly answer your concern regarding the states ability to enforce HB 2281 and the fact that the state cannot interfere with a federal desegregation order, Bury is quite clear; First, he states that the MAS courses are NOT at issue in this case, because they have already been terminated. Secondly, his decision demonstrates that culturally relevant courses have merit and can improve the performance of students and that the state has demonstrated agreement with this position. Thirdly, the state and the plaintiffs must set aside what happened in the past and assume that the USP will be implemented in good faith by the district. The State is free to monitor the development of the culturally relevant courses and their implementation, in fact he states this: “The culturally relevant courses called for in the USP shall be designed to reflect the history,
experiences, and culture of African American and Mexican American communities and will have to be approved through the District’s normal curriculum review process, including approval by the TUSD Governing Board, and evaluated to ensure they align with state curriculum standards before being offered in TUSD” Furthermore, “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.”
The state cannot interfere with the implementation of the USP, but it can enforce it’s laws (ie. the 10% penalty), assuming they are valid constitutionally, if it determines after the fact that the courses implemented by the USP violate state law. He does not address the constitutionality of HB 2281 as that issue was being addressed by Acosta V. Huppenthal. Basically the state cannot block the implementation of the USP but they can and do have a right to participate in the implementation to make sure that new curriculum aligns with state standards and laws, most importantly this is subject to the constitutionality of HB 2281. Which brings us to this blog post……
I think the issue is that you are interpreting HB 2281 as making any or all culturally relevant courses illegal. This blog is written in regards to the Tashima ruling which discusses HB 2281 and it’s interpretation. You might want to follow the link and read this decision as well because it directly addresses that issue and the constitutionality of HB 2281.
These two decisions combined are 71 pages of legalese. I know that this can be daunting and it is much easier to read a summary opinion or “news” piece on the subject, but by doing so we are just doing ourselves and our community a disservice. Read it all for yourself, maybe you will still feel the same way.
Cheers!
HumanBean, I accept your apology for assuming that I have not read the documents and write again only to speak to those who would think that your seemingly reasonable discourse applies to this most unreasonable circumstance. If you believe that Judge Tashima’s ruling does not set up a collision course with Judge Bury’s, then you have not been paying attention. Bury ordered culturally relevant classes. You can call them CRC, MAS or you can call them a pickle. The fact is that Huppenthal will nix anything that uses the Mexican American perspective to form a curriculum that will actually result in the reduction of achievement gaps for Mexican American students. This is not about throwing a bone to Mexican Americans and putting a little brown in their classes. This is about turning kids around. VERY few programs have shown those results and sprinkling in some Mexican faces will not accomplish anything.
HB 2281 was designed to be applied however Huppenthal wants to apply it and it is vague enough to allow him to do so. More importantly, it was designed to shut down whatever TUSD wants to do to reach their Mexican American students if that program speaks frankly about the role of race in our society. So if TUSD designs a program to comply with Judge Bury’s order and Huppenthal decides, with his unbounded authority, that the program violates 2281, does Judge Bury enjoin the State to prevent it from impeding upon the federal court’s authority? Do you really think that this is all so clear and free from conflicts? Your entire discussion assumes that 2281 is a normal curricular mandate, which is easily and fairly applied? Huh? No one has ever seen anything like it and no one, not even Huppenthal’s ADE hacks, has any idea how to apply it. TUSD administrators have failed to offer any guidance because it is a cruel trick. No one can give clarity to a vague statute. The best one can do is what many of the former MAS teachers have done and what Huppenthal wanted in the first place. Just eliminate anything Mexican. Other than that, they are always open to the accusation of “promoting resentment” or “advocating ethnic solidarity.” Get real man.
It seems that the state guidelines are important as Compoy says:
“The Desegregation Plan requires that all CRC courses ‘shall be developed using the District’s curricular review process and shall meet District and state standards for academic rigor.”
I would assume that District and state standards for academic rigor include making sure the classes are informational, as opposed to inciting one race to attack another. Supposedly, in the old MAS classes they discussed why Benjamin Franklin was a racist, and why Aztec gods gave them Arizona, even though the Aztecs are different from the indigenous peoples who live in this state, and have for thousands of years.
It is important that ALL students learn respect. Sean Acre doesn’t get the respect angle, he just understands how to fight and bully, in my opinion, he got into an altercation with his ex-wife at some restaurant, I believe he followed her home and the police were called and he got his butt in his his vehicle and fled, and now is in “diversion” in lieu of a domestic violence charge. Why is it that the very inflexible people who don’t know when to cool down and go home are in charge of MAS?
There is a place for studies of Mexican Americans, but building resentment between different races makes no sense for society as a whole, and seems to counter the idea of America as a melting pot and high ideals for integration.