Reading Questions #1.
The questions on this quiz will be based upon the following assigned readings:
Are Chicanos the Same as Mexicans
New York Times – Arizona Bans Ethnic Studies
Practical Considerations of CRT and LatCrit for Latino College Students
The History Behind the Terms
Is it Hispanic, Chicana/o, Latina/o, or Latinx
Keep in mind, when it comes to grading:
Doing less than the minimum required will result in a poor grade: D to F range
Meeting the minimum required will result in an average grade: C range
Going above the minimum required will result in an above average grade: B range
Going over and above the minimum required will result in excellent grade: A range
USE THE READINGS AS THE FOUNDATION OF YOUR ANSWERS
Answer the questions with well-constructed paragraphs, consisting of a minimum of 400 to 650 words each that demonstrate that you not only read the material, but also understood the material. Be sure to include the question before the answer. Use a separate page for each question you are answering.
No more than 15% of your answers should include quotes. If you do include a quote, be sure to include analysis of the quote to demonstrate why it was important to include the quote. Make sure you note which page from the text the quote is located with an in-text citation. You do not need to include a works cited page for this assignment.
12-point Times New Roman Font
Either Word (.doc) or Adobe (.pdf) format
Double-spaced
Page numbers
1-inch margins all around
Include the letter and the questions you are answering at the top of each page
Answer 1 out of 1 and 2
Then pick any 3 from 3 to 7
You will answer a total of 4 questions
What is Critical Race Theory? What is Latino Critical Theory? In which ways does CRT and LatCrit differ? In which ways are they similar?
What are the benefits of CRT and LatCrit for Latina/o students and the overall institution of education?
What are the consequences of only being exposed to one version of history? How might presenting the history of only one truth explain White Supremacy?
When thinking of US history, we are often positioned as the “good guys.” Why might this be a problem? What might happen as a result of not always positioning the US as the “good guys?”
Utilizing your own words, how do you define Chicana/o, Mexican-American, Latina/o, and Hispanic. How does your understanding of these words differ from the handouts? Why is it important to understand the history and meaning behind these terms?
What are the reasons that Arizona has banned Ethnic Studies courses? Were all Ethnic Studies courses affected? If not, which ones were and why?
Conduct research (**using credible, academically suitable sources) on the current state of the Ethnic Studies ban in Arizona. Is the ban still in effect? How have circumstances changed since this article was published? What are some of the current efforts to ban Ethnic Studies in other states.
Question 1: What is Critical Race Theory? What is Latino Critical Theory? In which ways does CRT and LatCrit differ? In which ways are they similar?
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a theoretical framework that examines the intersection of race, law, and power. It was developed in the 1970s and 1980s by legal scholars, primarily African American, to challenge the notion of a colorblind society and critique the way race is used to perpetuate inequality. CRT argues that race is a social construct that has been used to maintain power imbalances between different racial groups. It contends that the law and other institutions are inherently biased in favor of white people and that this bias must be critiqued and addressed.
Latino Critical Theory (LatCrit) is a branch of CRT that focuses on the experiences of Latinx people in the United States. Developed in the 1990s by legal scholars like Richard Delgado and Kimberlé Crenshaw, LatCrit seeks to address the unique challenges faced by Latinx people, who often occupy a marginalized position within the broader conversation about race and identity. LatCrit builds upon the foundation of CRT, but it also emphasizes the importance of understanding the experiences of Latinx people who identify as Chicana/o, Mexican-American, and Hispanic.
There are several ways in which CRT and LatCrit differ:
1. Focus: CRT primarily focuses on the experiences of African Americans, while LatCrit expands the conversation to include the experiences of Latinx people.
2. Historical context: CRT often emphasizes the history of slavery and its ongoing impact on African American communities, while LatCrit highlights the experiences of Latinx people under colonialism, immigration, and the ongoing struggle for civil rights.
3. Intersectionality: CRT acknowledges the intersections of race, class, and gender, but LatCrit emphasizes the need to examine the unique experiences of Latinx people within these intersections.
4. Legal approach: CRT often takes a legal perspective, while LatCrit incorporates a broader range of disciplines, including history, sociology, and cultural studies.
There are also several ways in which CRT and LatCrit are similar:
1. Critical framework: Both CRT and LatCrit share a common critical framework, which involves examining the role of power, race, and inequality in various social institutions.
2. Social justice advocacy: CRT and LatCrit both aim to promote social justice and challenge the systems that perpetuate inequality.
3. Methodology: Both approaches utilize a combination of theoretical analysis, legal research, and personal narratives to understand and address issues of race and power.
Question 2: What are the benefits of CRT and LatCrit for Latina/o students and the overall institution of education?
There are several benefits of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Latino Critical Theory (LatCrit) for Latina/o students and the overall institution of education:
1. Improved understanding of power dynamics: CRT and LatCrit help students understand how race, power, and privilege interact in society. This understanding is crucial for fostering empathy and promoting social justice.
2. Enhanced critical thinking skills: Both CRT and LatCrit emphasize critical thinking and analysis, which helps students develop strong analytical and problem-solving skills.
3. Increased cultural competence: By exploring the experiences of marginalized groups, CRT and LatCrit foster a deeper understanding of diverse cultures and perspectives. This awareness can lead to more inclusive and welcoming learning environments.
4. Better educational outcomes: Research suggests that incorporating CRT and LatCrit into the curriculum can improve educational outcomes for Latina/o students, particularly in terms of academic achievement and retention.
5. Strengthened institutional policies: CRT and LatCrit can help educational institutions identify and address policies that perpetuate inequality, leading to more equitable practices and procedures.
6. Promotion of social justice: CRT and LatCrit empower students to become agents of change, encouraging them to challenge systems of oppression and work towards a more just society.
Question 3: What are the consequences of only being exposed to one version of history? How might presenting the history of only one truth explain White Supremacy?
The consequences of only being exposed to one version of history can be significant:
1. Limited understanding of the past: Focusing on a single narrative of history can lead to a narrow understanding of the past, which may ignore or marginalize the experiences of marginalized groups.
2. Biased interpretation of events: Presenting only one version of history can create a biased understanding of historical events, often favoring the perspective of the dominant group.
3. Misrepresentation of power dynamics: A single-narrative history can obscure the true nature of power dynamics, glossing over the ways in which systems of oppression have been perpetuated.
4. Reinforcement of existing prejudices: By promoting a singular version of history, individuals may be less likely to question or challenge their own biases, allowing prejudices to persist unchecked.
5. Difficulty understanding the present: An incomplete understanding of history can make it difficult to contextualize and understand current issues, which may lead to poor decision-making and policy formation.
Presenting the history of only one truth can contribute to the perpetuation of White Supremacy in several ways:
1. Erasure of marginalized voices: Focusing on a single version of history often excludes or minimizes the experiences of marginalized groups, such as people of color, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals.
2. Legitimization of white dominance: A single-narrative history can reinforce the idea that white people and their achievements are the central focus of history, thereby legitimizing white dominance and superiority.
3. Justification for inequality: By presenting a one-sided account of history, the contributions and struggles of marginalized groups may be downplayed or ignored, which can be used to justify contemporary inequalities and disparities.
4. Normalization of oppressive systems: A biased interpretation of history can normalize systems of oppression, such as colonialism, slavery, and segregation, by presenting them as natural or inevitable.
5. Resistance to change: By promoting a singular version of history, individuals may be less likely to question or challenge existing power structures, making it difficult to create meaningful change and progress.
Question 4: When thinking of US history, we are often positioned as the “good guys.” Why might this be a problem? What might happen as a result of not always positioning the US as the “good guys?”
Positioning the United States as the “good guys” in US history can be problematic for several reasons:
1. It obscures the country’s dark history: Presenting the US as the “good guys” can lead to an inaccurate and sanitized view of the past, glossing over the country’s role in perpetuating slavery, colonialism, and other forms of oppression.
2. It hinders meaningful reflection and growth: By avoiding an honest examination of the US’s role in historical wrongdoings, the country is less likely to engage in meaningful reflection and growth, which is essential for progress and reconciliation.
3. It undermines trust and credibility: Misrepresenting the past can undermine the trust and credibility of historical narratives, making it difficult for people to believe or engage with the broader story of US history.
4. It perpetuates a sense of exceptionalism: Positioning the US as the “good guys” can contribute to a sense of exceptionalism, which can lead to arrogance, isolationism, and a reluctance to learn from the mistakes of other nations.
5. It hinders international cooperation: By downplaying or ignoring the US’s role in historical wrongdoings, the country may struggle to build meaningful partnerships and alliances with other nations, as it fails to acknowledge and address its past misdeeds.
Not always positioning the US as the “good guys” in history can have several positive effects:
1. It promotes an accurate understanding of the past: Presenting a more balanced and realistic account of US history can help individuals understand the complexities of the past and the various forces that have shaped the nation.
2. It encourages genuine reflection and growth: By acknowledging the US’s role in historical wrongdoings, the country can engage in meaningful reflection and growth, which is essential for progress and reconciliation.
3. It fosters trust and credibility: An honest examination of the US’s role in history can help restore trust and credibility in historical narratives, making it easier for people to engage with and learn from the broader story of US history.
4. It challenges a sense of exceptionalism: Recognizing the US’s role in historical wrongdoings can help counteract a sense of exceptionalism, fostering a more humble and cooperative approach to international affairs.
5. It facilitates international cooperation: By acknowledging and addressing its past misdeeds, the US can build stronger relationships and partnerships with other nations based on trust, mutual respect
