SB 1070 was written and publicized in a combative tone that caught the
media’s attention. HR 2083, also signed by the governor in April 2010,
was launched more quietly. This newer bill was strikingly different in one
important way. While SB 1070’s focus was undocumented workers, HR
2083 focus shifts to the rest of the population, those who were born in the
U.S. or came to the country through official routes, but who still self-
identify as Mexican.
HR 2083 prohibits schools from offering courses at any grade level that
advocate ethnic solidarity, promote overthrow of the U.S. government, or
cater to specific ethnic groups. Observers posed many questions raised by
the odd wording:
Are Arizona schools in the habit of promoting the overthrow of the
government? Is there an implicit accusation here?
Does the school board mean ethnicity distinct from race? Would this
include any ethnicity? So for example, a course offered to advanced
students in high school on the French Revolution, the Irish–English
conflicts, the economics of the Middle East, these would all be
prohibited?
Advocating ethnic solidarity – could that include discussion of our
own Revolution?
In fact, the purpose of this law is very narrow: it was written to
dismantle a popular and successful Mexican-American studies
program in the Tucson school district.
(Calefati 2010; Kurowski 2010; Strauss 2010a, 2010b)The law was written and promoted by Tom Horne, the state superintendent
of public instruction, a man in a heated race for attorney general against an
opponent known for his extreme stance on immigration. Khimm (2010)
quotes Horne as he justifies the bill as a way to target specific courses in
Tucson where Latino/a students are inculcated with “‘ethnic chauvinism’
... he skips straight to the inflammatory charge that [ethnic studies
classes] could encourage students to revolt against U.S. government,
effectively legitimizing fears of a Mexican ‘reconquista’” (ibid.). In this
view of ethnic studies, students and teachers are all seen as seditionists.