Reflection Latinx

REFLEXIONES PEDADÓGI CAS

Race war in Arizona: Reflections on the ethnic studies ban and white hegemony

Julio Cammarota1

Published online: 25 October 2017

� Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Abstract This essay discusses how a racist ideological undercurrent, supported by

the Arizona Department of Education, pushed the state to ban ethnic studies. This

undercurrent was fed by the desire to redefine racial categories to promote a

postracial color-blind dominance. The ethnic studies ban reveals how the blending

of racist ideology focused on white supremacy and common sense constructed

around individualism maintains white hegemony over people of color. Contrary to

popular belief, the ethnic studies ban was not necessarily implemented to prevent

the teaching of culturally and historically relevant content but rather to block any

discussion or analysis of race and racism in public education, revealing how

superiority and inferiority are social constructs.

Keywords Ethnic studies � Arizona � Racism � Latinx youth � Education � Hegemony

Maintaining white hegemony

After the Mexican American Studies Department meeting was over, the chair

indicated that he wanted me to stay for a few minutes so we could talk. I did not

think anything of his request because I was a newly minted assistant professor; I was

too new to be messing up, right? He pulled me aside and said that he had received a

letter about the high school program I helped to start called the Social Justice

Education Project (SJEP)—part of the ethnic studies program in Tucson Unified

School District (TUSD). The letter was written by the Arizona state superintendent

of public instruction, Tom Horne, and sent to the president of the University of

Arizona. My department chair said the letter stated that my program was teaching

& Julio Cammarota

[email protected]

1 Iowa State University, Ames, USA

Lat Stud (2017) 15:522–531

DOI 10.1057/s41276-017-0094-7

students anti-American values and causing resentment toward white people. I was

speechless for a moment and then the chair said something to me that I will never

forget. He turned to me and said, ‘‘Keep up the good work,’’ then patted me on the

back and left the meeting room. I stood there by myself and reflected on what just

happened. I knew that he knew that we were not teaching anti-American values or

resentment toward whites. So what did he mean? ‘‘Keep up the good work.’’ The

more I thought about it, the more I realized he meant ‘‘the good work’’ was striking

a nerve with a racist demagogue and his racial state. This was an ethnic studies

department, and I was supposed to be rattling the cages of the racial state.

Tom Horne was infamous for spearheading a campaign to rid the state of

bilingual education. I knew he was not a friend of educational reforms or changes

that would support the needs of children of color. Therefore, his vitriol against the

SJEP was not surprising. Similar comments were coming from a local Tucson

teacher, Hector Ayala, who had Horne’s ear. Ayala (2004) stated, in a column he

wrote for the Tucson Citizen, that

we have a ‘‘student project’’ sponsored by the University of Arizona’s

Mexican American Studies Department and our district’s very own Mexican

American/Raza Studies Department, along with liberal groups and a few

students. Contrary to everyone else’s perception of our school, these groups

cite gross racism at Cholla. This Social Justice Education Project is

presumably student-generated and -produced. The objective is to rectify what

students perceive— with the help of their instructors and project sponsors, of

course— as Cholla’s stereotypically racist education and how this approach

‘‘effects’’ (sic) students. Our school is being hyped as a racist institution with

little regard for how we address the sensibilities of our ethnically diverse

neighborhoods.

Ayala, who was a teacher at Cholla at the time we implemented the SJEP, failed to

see how the intense racial tracking at the school was a problem. Cholla, where the

student population is predominantly students of color, has an overrepresentation of

white students in its advanced level courses, while students of color represent the

overwhelming majority in the lower levels. This type of institutional disparity is

often explained as the result of a lack of motivation or values among students of

color and rarely acknowledged as a product of racism. Ayala informed Horne of the

SJEP, which led to Horne writing a letter to the University of Arizona president

about the project and our supposed ‘‘false’’ representation of racial injustice. Horne

did not try to contact us, visit a SJEP class or, at least, dialogue with students about

their concerns.

In fact, Horne has never stepped foot in a SJEP or ethnic studies classroom,

acquiring most of his information about the program from Ayala and a couple of

others in TUSD. These teachers had a completely different political orientation than

the SJEP and ethnic studies. They believed in the sacredness of the American

‘‘democratic’’ and capitalist tradition, which has provided, from their perspective,

opportunities for most people in this country. The teachers also assumed that those

missing out on opportunities block their own potential to succeed by not taking

advantage of what is being offered. In contrast, the SJEP and ethnic studies starts

Race war in Arizona: Reflections on the ethnic studies… 523

from the premise that communities of color have experienced an entire history of

violence and oppression that is still being played out on a daily basis. The

neoconservative, racist perspective of Tom Horne and a handful of teachers

connected with a larger base of support sharing a similar ideological position. This

racial hegemony led to the banning of the SJEP and ethnic studies in Arizona.

This essay discusses how a racist ideological undercurrent, supported by the

Arizona Department of Education, pushed the state to ban ethnic studies. This

undercurrent was fed by the desire to redefine racial categories to promote a

postracial color-blind dominance. The ethnic studies ban reveals how the blending

of racist ideology focused on white supremacy and common sense constructed

around individualism maintains white hegemony over people of color. If only white

individual contributions are recognized, then society will perceive people of color as

inferior. Contrary to popular belief, the ethnic studies ban was not necessarily

implemented to prevent the teaching of culturally and historically relevant content,

but rather to block any discussion or analysis of race and racism in public education,

revealing how superiority and inferiority are social constructs. Why did the SJEP’s

racial justice approach strike a nerve with the state? Because young people of color

becoming aware of how the racial order is maintained through education would lead

to their intellectual development, critical contributions, and thus resistance to white

supremacy.

Terminating ethnic studies with ‘‘mainstream ideology’’

Hegemony, in the case of ethnic studies, begins from the inflammatory comments

bandied about by Tom Horne and his group of teacher informants. They were very

public about their displeasure with the SJEP and ethnic studies. After Horne wrote a

letter to the University of Arizona president, he published an open letter to the

people of Tucson condemning ethnic studies and any antiracist curriculum. This

letter demonstrates how Horne and teacher informants used fear to drum up support

in their campaign to terminate ethnic studies. In this excerpt, Horne (2007, p. 3)

discusses how ethnic studies textbooks incite separatist attitudes among students.

Another textbook is The Mexican American Heritage (2nd ed.). One of the

chapters is ‘‘The Loss of Aztlan.’’ Aztlan refers to the states taken from

Mexico in 1848: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Colorado. This

chapter states: ‘‘Apparently the U.S. is having as little success in keeping the

Mexicans out of Aztlan as Mexico had when they tried to keep the North

Americans out of Texas in 1830’’ (p. 107). In other words, books paid for by

American taxpayers used in American public schools are gloating over the

difficulty we are having in controlling the border.

Although part of the early Chicanx1 movement focused on reclaiming stolen lands,

the reclamation project only reoccupied small pieces of land for short periods of

1 The use of ‘‘x’’ at the end of Chicanx or Latinx is meant to signify gender inclusivity, representing all

genders and those who may identify as non-gender binary or transgender.

524 J. Cammarota

time.2 This movement to return land to Mexicans/Mexican Americans reveals how

the US government has failed to reconcile the fact that vast amount of land had been

appropriated from people of color (Native Americans, African Americans, and

Latinxs). Horne is not reading the above passage as reconciliation but more as a

threat. There is fear that people of color might one day stand to claim what has been

taken from them.

The open letter, dated June 11, 2007, calls for the termination of ethnic studies

and restoring curriculum to match ‘‘mainstream ideology.’’ The following excerpt

represents what Horne means by mainstream ideology and its contrast with ethnic

studies.

First, let’s spend a minute on underlying philosophy. I believe people are

individuals, not exemplars of racial groups. What is important about people is

what they know, what they can do, their ability to appreciate beauty, their

character, and not what race into which they are born. They are entitled to be

treated that way. It is fundamentally wrong to divide students up according to

their racial group, and teach them separately.

In the summer of 1963, having recently graduated from high school, I

participated in the civil rights march on Washington, in which Martin Luther

King stated that he wanted his children to be judged by the content of their

character rather than the color of their skin. That has been a fundamental

principal for me my entire life, and Ethnic Studies teaches the opposite.

(Horne 2007, p. 2)

There are at least two concerns with Horne’s statement that need discussion. First,

he draws on a neoliberal perspective of individualism that elevates the individual

over and beyond group identification. The concern with this perspective is that, in

theory, placing greater importance on individual character than on racial catego-

rization may sound good or appear to connect with commonsense thinking.

However, the reality for many people of color is that they are often treated based on

their membership in particular racial groups. Scheurich (1993, p. 7) asserts that

‘‘people of color, through their socially positioned experience, know that they are a

racialized group rather than simply separate individuals.’’ Second, he co-opts King’s

civil rights language to support his argument that we elide race altogether to

promote an unadulterated individualism. King’s words are taken out context, as is so

often the case, to claim the reality of his idealized vision, which he asserts, if you

read the entire speech, is far from the true experience of oppression that people of

color encountered in his time or even in this present moment. Saying that we have

reached the ‘‘mountaintop’’ and attained King’s idealized vision ignores the true

reality of people struggling against the weight of oppression. This ignorance

amounts to an invalidation of the experiences of people of color, along with a willful

denial of the existence of racism. ‘‘Membership,’’ according to Scheurich (1993,

p. 7), ‘‘in a social group and the group related, inequitable distribution of resources

and power thus disappear under the guise of individualism.’’ Thus, ignoring or

denying the existence of racism actually contributes to its maintenance.

2 For more on land reclamation in the Chicanx movement, research the name Reies Lopez Tijerina.

Race war in Arizona: Reflections on the ethnic studies… 525

Tom Horne connects his ‘‘mainstream ideology’’ of postracial individualism with

commonsense language born from the civil rights movement. This connection is

pushing an agenda of hegemony in which the state presides over civil society to

maintain a racial hierarchy. Cohesion or consent in Arizona’s civil society occurs

from ‘‘the coordination of a dominant group with the general interests of other

groups and the life of the state as a whole’’ (Hall 1986, p. 14). In this instance, the

dominant group’s interest lies with maintaining a culture of individualism while

offering up an idealized, but currently unrealized, vision of race neutrality to

appease racialized groups’ desire for equal treatment. The problem with this

‘‘vision’’ is the current and real existence of systems and ideologies of oppression,

including individualism, which perpetuate the subordination of racialized groups.

Individualism connecting with postracial color-blindness appears to bridge

interests between dominant and subordinate but in reality bolsters white supremacy

by recognizing only the individual actions and achievements of whites while

denying the existence of racial oppression. By attempting to ban ethnic studies

while aggrandizing individualism, Horne is establishing a context in which whites

can preserve their privileges and advantages. Whites primarily benefit from

individualism, because they are more often judged as individuals than as members

of a racial group, whereas people of color are usually linked with their race. Kateb

(2003, p. 289) claims that the masking of larger inequities through a narrow scope

on the individual amounts to ‘‘antidemocratic individualism,’’ resting ‘‘on the notion

that only a select few deserve the opportunities of individualism, and society ideally

exists for the purpose of allowing them to develop themselves to the fullest and then

to assert themselves with impunity, typically but not exclusively at the expense of

others.’’ Therefore, individual actions and accomplishments are more often

recognized among whites than among people of color. Individualism assumes an

equal playing field in which all supposedly have the same chances. Looking through

the individualistic lens will provide the limited view of white individuals gaining

success from their own initiative while others, namely people of color, are blamed

for their own failures. Individualism masks the true reality of a racist system that

provides whites with privileges and advantages and denies people of color the same

opportunities to succeed.

Legislation banning ethnic studies

In 2008, Horne lobbied the Arizona legislature to introduce legislation that would

ban ethnic studies. The bill SB 1108 was attached to Homeland Security legislation,

which sent a message that teaching students about the oppression and resistance of

people of color represents a threat to national security. Although teaching students

of color about racial oppression and social justice hardly poses a threat, some may

consider their resistance to the normalization of hierarchical power structures as

threatening to the ‘‘American’’ way of life. SB 1108’s provisions clearly mandated

that history and humanities curricula should center primarily around Western

traditions, indicating a fear of losing control of Anglo cultural dominance. However,

with such exclusionary content, the bill failed to pass in the legislature. Horne

526 J. Cammarota

introduced legislation a year later with SB 1069, but this bill also failed from SJEP

youth organizing efforts. Students organized a protest at the state capitol building in

Phoenix, Arizona. The protest occurred while the legislature deliberated the bill,

which ultimately led to its demise. In 2010, Horne reintroduced legislation with HB

2281 and simplified language to connect with the ideological bent and common-

sense thinking of the Republican-dominated legislature. This new anti-ethnic studies

measure centered around the statement of ‘‘treating people as individuals and not as

members of a racial group.’’ This statement caught the attention of many of the

Republicans who were Tea Party members and therefore pushed a white

supremacist neoliberal agenda. During 2010, Tea Party members swept numerous

Arizona legislative seats in their bid to ‘‘take back America.’’ The Tea Party knew

that it could easily pass two pieces of legislation—the anti–ethnic studies HB 2281

and the notorious anti-immigrant SB 1070. Within a three-week period, Governor

Jan Brewer signed both bills into law and solidified the state’s attempt to criminalize

and contain the growing Latinx population.

The social justice education project

The Social Justice Education Project (SJEP) was part of ethnic studies and thus

became victim of the Tea Party’s racial politics. In 2012, the Tucson Unified School

District governing board succumbed to the state’s threat to withhold funds if the

district continued to offer ethnic studies. District officials banned me from entering

the schools, and our core textbooks, including Pedagogy of the Oppressed and the

Critical Race Theory reader, were put into boxes by SJEP teachers. Because SJEP

students were outperforming their non–ethnic studies peers in every academic

measure (Cabrera et al. 2014), the ban of the SJEP and ethnic studies was not about

education. Rather, the state, particularly Horne, admitted repressive actions were

based more on a difference of ‘‘values.’’ In this context, different values refer to

ideological distinctions between the SJEP’s racial justice approach and the state’s

color-blind racism.

In the 2002/2003 school year, I helped start the SJEP, which provided students

with US history and government requirements as well as opportunities to construct

counter-storytelling through self-documentation. Counter-storytelling (Solórzano

and Yosso 2002) allows students to uncover or reveal their true histories to

challenge dominant misrepresentations of their identities. Students documenting

their own experiences stems from a youth development and pedagogical approach

called youth participatory action research (YPAR) (Cammarota and Fine 2010).

The SJEP, through YPAR, intends to bring young people of color into the

conversation around youth-related policies and practices that could challenge

racism. The expectation is that youth-serving institutions and organizations would

avoid reproducing inequality while better meeting the needs of young people

through listening to recommendations that derive from the youth’s documentation

of their own social and cultural contexts. It renders youth the source of knowledge

for determining the best approach for developing their critical agency, civic

participation, and overall intelligence.

Race war in Arizona: Reflections on the ethnic studies… 527

The first SJEP course was offered at Cholla Public High School on the southwest

side of Tucson. Southwest Tucson is predominantly Latinx, and therefore Latinxs

were the majority enrolled in the course. Although the students in this first course

were old enough to be seniors, their credit-totals placed them only at the freshman

level. At this slow rate of progress, they would never graduate on time. Many,

therefore, contemplated dropping out. Our approach would be one of helping the

students become engaged. We surmised that the YPAR-based curriculum might

motivate the students. Moreover, the linchpin for facilitating their engagement was

to encourage students to adopt a critical race theory focus and document the

influences of race on their education.

There were two reasons we assumed the race focus would inspire the students to

learn. First, public school students rarely if ever talk about race or racism in their

classes (Pollock 2009); we thought this topic might be stimulating and relevant for

them. Second, having students analyze the relationship between race and education

might accord them answers to their own struggles at school. Through race-focused

dialogue, they would discover that failure was the result of structural problems and

not of a lack of their ability. This discovery would then make them acknowledge

their own potential to succeed. We believed that this approach would engage young

people, particularly young people of color, in learning.

The first SJEP course began with seventeen students; all except two students

graduated, which is a noticeable achievement given how far behind these students

were from graduation. Over the years, the SJEP expanded to three additional high

schools and offered an aggregate of eight courses. At its high point in 2008/2009,

the SJEP enrolled more than 250 students across TUSD. All the students in the SJEP

participated in group (usually five to seven students per group) documentation

projects that focused on some social justice issue or problem. Most of the

documentation focused on standard race-related topics in education.

Competing racial ideologies

It is my belief that the racial justice focus of the SJEP contradicted Horne and the

state’s color-blind racist perspective. This contradiction led to Horne seeking a ban

of the SJEP and ethnic studies. Horne has gone on record during a CNN news

program, stating that ‘‘[racism] is not the predominant atmosphere of America’’ and

that ‘‘America is the land of opportunity and we should be teaching kids that this is

the land of opportunity and not the downer that they are oppressed.’’3 He has taken

the far right extreme position of postracial color-blindness in which race and racism

no longer exists. In contrast, SJEP students centered race and racism in their

analysis of education, which allowed them to navigate and challenge the oppression

of state institutions— vital for their survival in American society. Horne and the

SJEP were on different and competing ideological pages that could not exist

simultaneously; Horne used the power of the state to shut down the program.

3 The talk show, hosted by Anderson Cooper, aired on CNN in May 2010. Follow the link if you want to

see the entire debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgvOdD5bVsg.

528 J. Cammarota

History of conflict in Arizona

The banning of ethnic studies fits into a larger historical context of Arizona and conflict

between Mexicans/Mexican Americans and Anglos. It is well known that southern

Arizona (where Tucson is located) was supposedly ‘‘purchased’’ from Mexico in 1853.

The history from then on for Mexicans/Mexican Americans in the Southwest is

marked by land expropriation, labor exploitation, and general subordination (Garcia

1991). The history of education for Mexicans/Mexican Americans follows a similar

pattern, because they were stripped of language, culture, and history to disempower

them and maintain their subordination (Gándara and Orfield 2012).

Horne contributes to this history by infamously dismantling bilingual education

in Arizona. In 2000, Arizona voters passed Proposition 203, ‘‘English for the

Children,’’ placing restrictions on the types of instruction available for English

language learners (ELL). The central purpose of the proposition is to ensure the

placement of ELL students in English-only programs for language development

instead of having them learn through a bilingual education approach. When

Proposition 203 was implemented in the 2001/02 school year, some 70% of school

districts had placed ELL students in English-only programs (Wright 2005, p. 675).

Certain school districts in Arizona, including Tucson and Sunnyside, maintained

bilingual education programs through a waiver process granted by the Arizona

Department of Education. In 2002, Tom Horne won the race for state superintendent

of public instruction on a promise to fully implement Proposition 203 and ban

bilingual education from all districts, including the renegade Tucson Unified School

District (TUSD) (Wright 2005, p. 680). Horne effectively removed bilingual

education from the remaining districts, including TUSD, by rewriting the waiver

process so that (only) students who were fluent in English could receive bilingual

education. This move in effect denied bilingual education to the ELL students who

are most in need of this type of approach to language development.

Horne also required, through his interpretation of Proposition 203, ELL students to be

placed in structured English immersion (SEI) programs that commit them to 4-hour

blocks of English course work every day. Many argue against the value of this type of

approach to learning English for nonnative speakers of the language (Combs et al. 2005).

In SEI programs, ELL students are separated from the mainstream and grouped together

to study English for most of the time they are at school. Since most ELL students in

Arizona are Latinxs, SEI is tantamount to racial segregation (Gándara and Orfield 2012).

The irony behind the SEI segregation is truly astonishing. Horne is OK with segregating

students of color if it keeps them docile and uneducated. However, he is against students

of color gathering to become empowered, such as with ethnic studies.

Race war in Arizona

If one takes the long historical view of Arizona, it is easier to see how the banning of

ethnic studies is part of the drive to maintain white supremacy in the state. Some

may argue that banning ethnic studies is a move in the ‘‘culture wars’’ of deciding

Race war in Arizona: Reflections on the ethnic studies… 529

which culture and history should be represented in the education system. I, however,

believe that banning ethnic studies is one battle in the long history of Arizona’s race

war. Horne and his small group of informant teachers were pushing their postracial

agenda of eliding all racial categories so that white privilege and advantage remain

opaque in the overall social schema. This agenda entails arguing that race and

racism no longer exists, which allows whites to claim that they receive benefits and

success from their own merits as opposed to a system of white supremacy that

favors and prioritizes their needs over those of people of color. This war is no longer

played out with traditional physical force, as with the US government ‘‘purchasing’’

southern Arizona in 1853 with troops coalescing every day in the region. Rather, the

contemporary race war in Arizona follows how Gramsci (Hoare and Smith 2010,

p. 145) conceptualizes hegemony.

The ‘‘spontaneous’’ consent given by the great masses of the population to the

general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group;

this consent is ‘‘historically’’ caused by the prestige (and consequent

confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and

function in the world of production.

Spontaneous consent occurs with the Arizona state’s postracial ideology or

philosophy linking with commonsense language. Racist ideology links with

common sense through the constant articulation of fear. The rise in Donald

Trump’s popularity also fits this pattern of merging racist ideology and common

sense by tapping into people’s fears of losing power and control over their lives.

Fear is how racism connects with common sense to produce the reticence necessary

to buy into and contribute to domination.

The unafraid opposed to the ban remained ensconced in Tucson, whereas the

larger, populous Phoenix/Maricopa County region wholehearted supported it. This

region is the space of hegemony, breeding anti-Latinx/immigrant policies and

practices including the removal of bilingual education, the banning of ethnic studies,

and the criminalization of immigrants.

The battle of ethnic studies may indicate that the white hegemonic order is

winning Arizona’s race war. However, current demographic shifts show that Latinxs

are younger and increasing faster than Anglos. The younger generation of Latinxs

are becoming more active, as SJEP students and pro–ethnic studies advocates

pressured the TUSD school board to revive the ethnic studies classes in the form and

under the new name of Culturally Responsive Curriculum (CRC). Ethnic studies in

Arizona is not dead; youth have revived it with a new direction. This emergence of a

new form of ethnic studies suggests that Latinx youth will continue to negotiate and

resist the white hegemonic order in Arizona’s race wars.

References

Ayala, H. 2004. Cholla High Not a Pit of Racial Discrimination. Tucson Citizen, 28 May. http://

tucsoncitizen.com/morgue2/2004/05/28/79004-ayala-column/.

530 J. Cammarota

Cabrera, N.L., J.F. Milem, O. Jaquette, and R.W. Marx. 2014. Missing the (Student Achievement) Forest

for All the (Political) Trees: Empiricism and the Mexican American Studies Controversy in Tucson.

American Educational Research Journal 51 (6): 1084–1118.

Cammarota, J., and M. Fine (eds.). 2010. Revolutionizing Education: Youth Participatory Action

Research in Motion. New York: Routledge.

Combs, M.C., C. Evans, T. Fletcher, E. Parra, and A. Jiménez. 2005. Bilingualism for the Children:

Implementing a Dual-Language Program in an English-Only State. Educational Policy 19 (5):

701–728.

Gándara, P., and G. Orfield. 2012. Segregating Arizona’s English Learners: A Return to the ‘‘Mexican

Room.’’ Teachers College Record 114 (9): 1–27, n9.

Garcia, M.T. 1991. Mexican Americans: Leadership, Ideology, and Identity, 1930–1960, vol. 36. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hall, S. 1986. The Importance of Gramsci. Journal of Communication Inquiry 10 (2): 5–27.

Hoare, Q., and G.N. Smith (eds.). 2010. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New

York: International Publishers.

Horne, T. 2007. An Open Letter to the Citizens of Tucson. State of Arizona Department of Education 11

(June): 1–5. http://nau.edu/uploadedfiles/academic/cal/philosophy/forms/an%20open%20letter%

20to%20citizens%20of%20tucson.pdf.

Kateb, G. 2003. Democratic Individualism and Its Critics. Annual Review of Political Science 6 (1):

275–305.

Pollock, M. 2009. Colormute: Race Talk Dilemmas in an American School. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Scheurich, J.J. 1993. Toward a White Discourse on White Racism. Educational Researcher 22 (8): 5–10.

Solórzano, D.G., and T.J. Yosso. 2002. Critical Race Methodology: Counter-Storytelling as an Analytical

Framework for Education Research. Qualitative Inquiry 8 (1): 23–44.

Wright, W.E. 2005. English Language Learners Left Behind in Arizona: The Nullification of

Accommodations in the Intersection of Federal and State Policies. Bilingual Research Journal 29

(1): 1–29.

Julio Cammarota is Associate Professor of multicultural education at Iowa State University. His

research focuses on participatory action research with Latinx youth, institutional factors in academic

achievement, and liberatory pedagogy. He has published articles on family, work, and education among

Latinxs and on the relationship between culture and academic achievement. Cammarota’s work has been

instrumental in advancing social justice in education and youth development.

Race war in Arizona: Reflections on the ethnic studies… 531

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.