Huppenthal: MAS out of compliance with HB 2281

by David Safier

In what may qualify as the anti-climax of the year, Huppenthal declared the Mexican American Studies program out of compliance with HB 2281. The only surprise is, he deemed it out of compliance on only three of the possible four counts: promoting resentment towards a race or class of people, being designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic race and advocating ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals. In a moment of sanity, Hupp admitted the program doesn't promote the overthrow of the U.S. government.

TUSD has some time — 60 days. If nothing changes after that, the district either loses 10% of its state funding — about $15 million — or gets rid of the MAS program as we know it.

Pedicone has made one of his usual non-statement statements, according to the Tucson Sentinel.

TUSD Superintendent John Pedicone said he wasn't sure if TUSD would appeal the decision, which the Governing Board said in January that it would do when Horne declared that the program violated the new law.

"We're in the process of looking at the decision," Pedicone said. "We didn't know what the determination would look like, because we've been operating on a belief that we were in compliance (with the law)."

I've accused Pedicone of trying to play both sides, but I've never accused him of playing the idiot card, until now. The district was "operating on a belief that we were in compliance"? No one in the western world thought Huppenthal would rule MAS in compliance, but Pedicone wants us to believe he didn't plan for Huppethal's 99.9% assured ruling? Come on, Supe, your statements should at least pass a 6th grade intelligence test.

And while I'm being critical of people other than Huppenthal — his decision was no surprise, so I have nothing new to say about it — the Star's Alexis Huicochea earns a black mark for the coverage in her article about Hupp's decision, for her analysis of the Huerta "Republicans hate Latinos" incident. I know Huicochea wasn't covering the education beat at the time, but she should have researched what happened when Deputy Superintendent Margaret Dugan spoke in response to Huerta's talk. First, Huicochea identified Dugan as simply "a Latina Republican on [Horne's] staff," which is disrespectful to Dugan by underplaying her status as Deputy Superintendent, and contextually inaccurate because it understates the importance Horne gave to her rebuttal — sending his second in command to deliver the message. I'm going to call that weak research on Huicochea's part. I found Dugan's title in a 30 second Google search.

But far more important, the article states,

While Dugan spoke, students stood up, turned their backs to her and put their fists in the air.

Huicochea left out an essential part of that story which slants the incident against the students. When Huerta spoke, she took questions from the students. Dugan made it clear before her speech there would be no questions. The action by the students was protesting the fact that Dugan refused to respect their right to question her. If the original, "offensive" talk by Huerta allowed student response from those who agreed or disagreed, shouldn't a rebuttal include a student response as well? The students used a visible response to point out their voices had been taken away from them during the assembly. Readers can still think the students were rude and disrespectful if they wish, but it's a reporter's job to present the facts in a way that allows readers to arrive at an informed opinion, not one predetermined by leaving out essential context.