Once again, Zorro, you're making up a definition of "ban" that no one, liberal or conservative, has ever used before. So does tbis make everyone except you a liar? That's a solipsistic world view.

quote:

Originally posted by *CJ:
 
In 2010, Hispanics made up almost 30% of the population in Arizona; American Indian and Alaska Native persons were almost 5% of the state's population.

Forbidding any form of Mexican American Studies and banning Chicano and Native American books is the START of policies most Americans won't want to support, for what's next?

Women's Studies? 50.3% of Arizona's 2010 population.

Black Studies? 4.1% of Arizona's 2010 population.

Why stop there? They should rename Arizona (Tohono O'odham Indian name meaning "having a little spring") to StupidWhiteMale Territory, eh?

We'll have to get AZ Lib and partner out first, though.

*CJ

That's nothing more than a slippery slope argument, the last resort of those that can show no real harm. Never the less, the books were not "banned" in AZ, in any counties, any towns and no schools. The books are readily available at any of hundreds of outlets. Students are free to purchase them, study, them, talk about them, even bring them to school.

But, AZ taxpayers will no longer be FORCED to purchase them, and
AZ students will no longer be FORCED to study them.

Only in Lib La La land would this be interpreted as a loss of "freedom". Now everyone is free to do as they want regarding these books, and no longer can the purchase and study of these books be coerced.

Once again, a statement that you know to be untrue. You can argue that the accepted definition of "banned" is wrong, and that a new one should be instituted in its place, but you can't argue that only libs use that definition. You can't even argue that you yourself have never used that definition.

So -- explain to me why this is not -- by your definition -- lying. I can explain to you why by my definition it might not be considered lying, but under your rules, how is it not?

quote:

Originally posted by Zorro:
The Book was not expelled from school, it was not banned from the school.
...
Anyone that wants to bring the book to school may,
Anyone that wants to read the book at school may.

I don't suppose you can provide factual proof of this.

You are the ones claiming it was banned, yet I can find no evidence that it is not readily available?

I see no evidence schools aren't allowing students to bring the book to school?

And certainly nothing to suggest sudents are free to discuss the book, even it read to together on their own time.

The only thing that has changed is that the book will no longer be provided for free and students will no longer be compelled to study it. To Otis, this is a loss of academic freedom. Apparently to him "freedom" is when he can force another to purchase a book and force yet another to study it. Weird world you Libs live in, kinda like those funny mirror things you see in the carnival.

quote:

Originally posted by purplepentode:

quote:

Originally posted by Zorro:
... LaRaza indoctrination ...

Much better to teach that Hispanics, Blacks and Asians are inferior Americans.

What is someone who professes to be not bigoted but supports those who are?

Pretty wild claim here PP, and obviously false. I demand a retraction.

Then your position is that anyone who describes a book being pulled from a school's curriculum or its library as "banned" is lying?

And your position is that only libs use the word in this way?

quote:

Originally posted by Zorro:

quote:

Originally posted by purplepentode:

quote:

Originally posted by Zorro:
... LaRaza indoctrination ...

Much better to teach that Hispanics, Blacks and Asians are inferior Americans.

What is someone who professes to be not bigoted but supports those who are?

Pretty wild claim here PP, and obviously false. I demand a retraction.

Purp owes you nothing, Zorro.

quote:

Book Banning in Arizona

Your title is BS there Otis.

The book is NOT banned in Arizona,
it is not even banned from the schools.

Students are not banned from reading the books nor from discussing them on their own time. These books are easily available from any of a hundred book outlets.

Perhaps you meant: Taxpayers will not longer be forced to purchase the books, and students will no longer be forced to study the books?

CNN

quote:

Tucson, Arizona, public schools suspended their Mexican-American studies program after an administrative law judge ruled it violated a new state law and the state said the local district was going to lose $15 million in annual aid, officials said.
The Governing Board of the Tucson Unified School District voted late Tuesday to suspend immediately the Mexican-American studies department, marking a turning point in a yearlong controversy over a new state law banning certain ethnic studies.
...
Tucson educators who have challenged the constitutionality of the new law in court have defended the Mexican-American studies program as no different than African-American or Native American studies classes.
Tucson school board member Adelita Grijalva has charged that the new law provided no due process and was unconstitutional. She has said the new law is part of an anti-immigrant political climate in the Arizona statehouse.
...
The new schools law is the latest controversy in a state already roiled by an immigration crackdown law, known as SB 1070, that is being challenged on constitutional grounds in federal court. ...
...
The law authorizes the state superintendent to stop any ethnic studies classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, 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.

source

quote:

An Arizona school district largely made up of Mexican-Americans has been forced to slash its ethnic studies program, and now the books are going, too.

The Tucson Unified School District released the titles of its banned books on Friday, a lengthy list that removes every textbook dealing with Mexican-American history — and even Shakespeare.
...
Even local titles were cut, including “Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years,” which includes an essay by Tucson author Leslie Silko, and served as a textbook for 20 years.

“By ordering teachers to remove ‘Rethinking Columbus,’ the Tucson school district has shown tremendous disrespect for teachers and students,” said Bill Bigelow, the book’s editor.

“This is a book that has sold over 300,000 copies and is used in school districts from Anchorage to Atlanta, and from Portland, Ore. to Portland, Maine. It offers teaching strategies and readings teachers can use to help students think about the perspectives that are too often silenced in the traditional curriculum.”

“Pedagogy of the Oppressed” and “Occupied America: A History of Chicanos” also will be banned. The two books were often targeted by state superintendent John Huppenthal, who pushed for the program’s cut.
...
Arizona State University professor Simon Ortiz expressed disappointment ...

“The banning explicitly and pointedly shows it is not only Mexican-American Studies and people and so-called illegal immigrants that are targeted, but indigenous studies and people as a whole,” he wrote.
...

quote:

Originally posted by Zorro:
The book is NOT banned in Arizona,
it is not even banned from the schools.

Still waiting for factual information supporting your claim.

Fox News

quote:

... The issue came to a head this week when the Tucson Unified School Board voted 4-1 to halt the ethnic studies classes for the time being. TUSD's Superintendent, John Pedicone, says ethnic studies teachers are already reverting to core curriculum. The courses are gone but the department still remains as the district works on creating new classes that will combine core curriculum and some ethnic studies lessons, all in compliance with Arizona law.
Hundreds of students, parents and teachers are outraged over the school board's decision and there were some tense moments at the meeting.
"You're an autonomous board. You can appeal this decision… this racist decision… this ignorant decision that was made by the state. Do the right thing! ... one teacher yelled.
More than 100 students also staged a march this week, walking from their charter school to TUSD headquarters in protest.
A legal fight is already underway because of a federal lawsuit that was filed prior to this vote. Richard Martinez is a Tucson attorney representing the plaintiffs who says the state law could very well be a violation of the teachers' First Amendment rights.
The American Civil Liberties Union has also expressed interest in helping appeal the school board’s decision. Supporters of Tucson's ethnic studies program say they're not going down without a fight and the issue certainly isn’t going away anytime soon.

I believe the courses in question are elective not required, no student was forced to study. The main polnt isjust how autonomous are local school boards?

quote:

the Tucson Unified School Board voted 4-1 to halt the ethnic studies classes

Gee...wonder why?

Before we can get to this question which has so confused Zorro, as to which state this took place in, I'd still like an answer to the question of why, according to his standards, it's not a lie to label the characterization of certain books as "banned" to be a liberal practice. As I've said, I don't onject to a discussion of whether or not the definition of "banned" should be changed. Liberals and conservatives alike have always agreed on it, although they haven't always agreed on whether or not, in specific instances, it's a bad thing.

Perhaps Zorro, with his lovable born-yesterday conservative innocence, has never heard the term before, and doesn't realize that conservative civil liberties sites like FIRE consistently lead protests against certain books being banned from certain schools. But lovable innocence is not, in Zorro's terms, a defense against the charge of lying.

So, after we get this first issue cleared up, of why Zorro chooses to lie (by his definition, not mine) about the accepted definition of book banning, I'll be glad to discuss his other inexplicable confusion over which state this all took place in -- understanding, of course, that by Zorro's defi option -- not mine -- confusion is no defense against a charge of lying.