Letters to the Editor

Another tragedy in Arizona
Overshadowed, and very justifiably so, another tragedy has beset
the state of Arizona recently. Effective Jan. 1, the state outlawed
Latino, ethnic studies programs taught throughout its public
educational system.
School districts that violate the law stand to lose a percentage
of their state funding, a severe stick and carrot approach given
the current, financial predicament facing the nation’s public
schools.
The man who pioneered the legislation, Mr. Tom Horne, served as
the state’s superintendent of public instruction before being
recently elected as its new attorney general. During his tenure as
educational chief, he asserted that these programs promulgate
”
propagandizing and brainwashing,
”
as they plant the seeds of racism and thoughts of secession in
the fertile minds of its Latino pupils.
As a Mexican-American educator who teaches Chicano History (an
ethnic studies class as described by Arizona’s new law) at San
Benito High School, I find Arizona’s recent efforts at eliminating
its Latino, ethnic studies programs both disheartening and fearful.
Moreover, eliminating these programs only underscores Arizona’s
commitment in perpetuating the marginalization of its Latino
student population in the wake of ill-conceived immigration
reform.
Contrary to Mr. Horne’s assertions, these programs strive to
instill a sense of pride and appreciation for the role that Latinos
have played in shaping this country, something often neglected in
many, state-mandated social science courses, like United States
History. In a recent New York Times article (
”
Rift in Arizona as Latino Class Is Found Illegal,
”
Jan. 8, 2011), Mr. Horne claims to have participated in the
civil rights movement, joining thousands in the Walk on Washington.
He neglected to mention that among those who walked with him were
Latino activists, whose involvement in the civil rights movement
provided well-learned lessons about leadership, organization, and
mass demonstration.
Throughout the 1960s, Latino activists in universities and
colleges across the country put these lessons in motion,
establishing a variety of clubs and organizations that focused on
the experience of the Latino. College educated, Latino activists
then began assisting high school students throughout the American
Southwest in their efforts to decry the lack of pedagogical and
curriculum support they encountered in their school systems.
As a result, Latino specific courses, like Mexican-American
History and Mexican-American Literature, sprang up across
California, Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico. Now, Mr. Horne and
others within the political establishment wish to outlaw programs
that have sought to address several issues related to the Latino
educational experience in U.S. schools, such as inequity, low
self-esteem, and low achievement. This is disheartening, especially
to a Mexican-American educator.
As these programs disappear from high school campuses across the
Grand Canyon state, I fear that the ignorance and misunderstanding
that originated in Arizona will cross the great divide and surface
in other states, like California, where Latino courses have thrived
for decades, including the course that I teach.
What is most surprising in Arizona’s effort to eliminate these
programs is that they were spearheaded by a man who not only claims
to be a former, civil-rights activist but who also served as the
state’s superintendent of public instruction, a position which
provides the vision and leadership for all of the state’s
educators.
More importantly, this position strives to de-marginalize those
whose lives it committed to protect, regardless of their creed,
color, or ethnicity. As Arizona’s new attorney general, Mr. Horne
should be encouraged to add to his titles, Revisionist Historian.
Evidently, he hopes that by eliminating Latino, specific courses
the experience of the Latino students will be relegated to the days
when their voice, their history, and their lives were all but
ignored. Ironically, it was in such an atmosphere that Latino
activism thrived, sparking the unrest and thoughts of secession Mr.
Horne alludes to and which to his chagrin he may have to
prosecute.
Frank Perez, Hollister
Another tragedy in Arizona 

Overshadowed, and very justifiably so, another tragedy has beset the state of Arizona recently. Effective Jan. 1, the state outlawed Latino, ethnic studies programs taught throughout its public educational system.

School districts that violate the law stand to lose a percentage of their state funding, a severe stick and carrot approach given the current, financial predicament facing the nation’s public schools.

The man who pioneered the legislation, Mr. Tom Horne, served as the state’s superintendent of public instruction before being recently elected as its new attorney general. During his tenure as educational chief, he asserted that these programs promulgate “propagandizing and brainwashing,” as they plant the seeds of racism and thoughts of secession in the fertile minds of its Latino pupils.    

As a Mexican-American educator who teaches Chicano History (an ethnic studies class as described by Arizona’s new law) at San Benito High School, I find Arizona’s recent efforts at eliminating its Latino, ethnic studies programs both disheartening and fearful. Moreover, eliminating these programs only underscores Arizona’s commitment in perpetuating the marginalization of its Latino student population in the wake of ill-conceived immigration reform.

Contrary to Mr. Horne’s assertions, these programs strive to instill a sense of pride and appreciation for the role that Latinos have played in shaping this country, something often neglected in many, state-mandated social science courses, like United States History. In a recent New York Times article (“Rift in Arizona as Latino Class Is Found Illegal,” Jan. 8, 2011), Mr. Horne claims to have participated in the civil rights movement, joining thousands in the Walk on Washington. He neglected to mention that among those who walked with him were Latino activists, whose involvement in the civil rights movement provided well-learned lessons about leadership, organization, and mass demonstration.

Throughout the 1960s, Latino activists in universities and colleges across the country put these lessons in motion, establishing a variety of clubs and organizations that focused on the experience of the Latino. College educated, Latino activists then began assisting high school students throughout the American Southwest in their efforts to decry the lack of pedagogical and curriculum support they encountered in their school systems.

As a result, Latino specific courses, like Mexican-American History and Mexican-American Literature, sprang up across California, Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico. Now, Mr. Horne and others within the political establishment wish to outlaw programs that have sought to address several issues related to the Latino educational experience in U.S. schools, such as inequity, low self-esteem, and low achievement. This is disheartening, especially to a Mexican-American educator.

As these programs disappear from high school campuses across the Grand Canyon state, I fear that the ignorance and misunderstanding that originated in Arizona will cross the great divide and surface in other states, like California, where Latino courses have thrived for decades, including the course that I teach.

What is most surprising in Arizona’s effort to eliminate these programs is that they were spearheaded by a man who not only claims to be a former, civil-rights activist but who also served as the state’s superintendent of public instruction, a position which provides the vision and leadership for all of the state’s educators.

More importantly, this position strives to de-marginalize those whose lives it committed to protect, regardless of their creed, color, or ethnicity. As Arizona’s new attorney general, Mr. Horne should be encouraged to add to his titles, Revisionist Historian. Evidently, he hopes that by eliminating Latino, specific courses the experience of the Latino students will be relegated to the days when their voice, their history, and their lives were all but ignored. Ironically, it was in such an atmosphere that Latino activism thrived, sparking the unrest and thoughts of secession Mr. Horne alludes to and which to his chagrin he may have to prosecute.

Frank Perez, Hollister

Concern about John Smith Road re-zoning

Last week I received an e-mail forwarded to me by Brian Lucas, the owner of Off the Chain Bicycles. It was about the potential rezoning of John Smith Road from Rangeland Agricultural to Heavy Industrial. This letter had originated from Tammy Jackson, the closest home owner to the proposed project site (across from the dump) that the rezoning is geared to facilitate.  

  There are a few reasons this letter immediately concerned me. First, I worked for Tammy at her home office a few years ago and drove John Smith daily.  I trust her information and sympathize with her case. Second, my parents live off of Mansfield Road and would be affected by the increased traffic on Fairview and stench similar to Z-best generated by the probability of future composting/tire recycling at the new site.  Lastly, I am a cyclist. 

  On Tuesday and Thursday evenings (weather/sunset time permitting) a group of us meets at Off the Chain and usually do a route we lovingly call “John-Sabe;” John Smith to Quien Sabe. 

Many people ride it daily, going out on the weekends as well. We have a close relationship with the road, knowing her traffic patterns, bumps, and studying every curve and degree in elevation. I’ll go as far as saying riding is an act of meditation and the roads I ride are my church.

  In my experience, John Smith isn’t very safe and is obviously poorly maintained. There aren’t any markings most of the way. It isn’t wide enough for two cars in many areas, and the shoulders are soft the entire way. I was riding on J.S. behind a pack a few months ago and saw someone go down and break ribs after hitting a large pothole. I’ve witnessed people not wanting to pay the dump fee pull over and leave debris all down the road. 

Inexperienced drivers with heaping trailers swerve dangerously around sharp turns.  Semi trucks belch out hot black smoke as they idle, lined up along the road waiting to enter the dump at busy periods. Still, we continue to use this road because it has lighter traffic than in town, some fun climbs, and amazing scenery once we pass the dump. 

  Recently, I attended a county commission meeting to learn about the zoning change and the proposed project it concerned. An outside company had been hired to do an environmental impact report called an EIR. Their study (the draft of which can be found at www.san-benito.ca.us ) was outlined at the meeting by a representative who repeatedly stressed that the study was completely inconclusive because they don’t know what the actual usage will be. 

There are many uses that the project site could be used for such as (tire/glass/plastic/etc.) recycling, garbage sorting, composting, and there was even mention of biomass processing (animal and human waste)! Without knowing exactly what or how they are going to execute these processes and the construction involved, the study was essentially on none of the above! Even so, the representative stated many negative impacts. 

  No matter what the final use of this site is, there is a high probability of all of the following: destruction of wildlife and their habitats, sound pollution, further air pollution and smell during the hot months, light pollution, and one major concern is the increase in, and bad planning for traffic. 

A representative of the engineering department who had contributed to the study and the proposed traffic plan admitted that their traffic estimates were “conservative,” and that their proposed turn off is at a blind corner. There will be a deceleration lane, but no acceleration lane. The road will be paved over for the minimum required distance, a few thousand feet from the driveway entrance. Even the EIR representative said the study and plan were completed with an optimistic approach. This, to me, sounds like it was done to favor and provide opportunity to whoever wanted to develop the site later. 

  I am all for recycling and reusing and so are many of the citizens who were at the meeting to oppose this change, but why do they want to change the zoning before knowing what they will use the site for? Why complete an environmental study without being extremely concerned for the animals, land, and people in residence?  If they had cared about the land, they would have studied the water run off from the dump and who it is now affecting along with the water course at the proposed site. Perhaps they would study where all the dumping originates and how this is regulated. If they had cared more about the people, they would have questioned everyone who will possibly be affected.  Instead, they notified the minimum required by law, those within a mere 300 feet of the project site and waited to hear their concerns until it went before the county commission. 

  What about the other homeowners who use John Smith as their only way home? What about the asthma sufferers who moved to the country to enjoy air quality? What about the cyclists without a bike lane? How many people will have their well water contaminated because of this? What are all the animal species that we will impact? Somehow the study left these obvious factors out. They did mention a handful of key animals that are covered by special laws that could potentially hold up development.

  There is a right way to go about things. There can be progressive negotiations. There are solutions being offered. It is possible for us to put mandates on this zoning change. 

  Thankfully, people showed up to the meeting and expressed their concern. The council has extended the public comment period until Feb.14.  I’d like to ask Pinnacle Newspaper to publish this letter in hopes that more people can be aware of these plans, stand up for their wants, and contribute positive alternatives to the currently proposed plan. 

Anna Gatherer

Hollister