An Arizona State legislator is doing something no one has thus far had the courage to do at the federal level — he’s introduced legislation to ban the use of taxpayer money to fund overt social justice coursework in state schools.
Rep. Bob Thorpe, who represents a rural Arizona district and is a member of the state’s Government and Higher Education Committees, has introduced legislation that seeks to deny funding for class that “violates civil rights laws” or “promotes division or resentment” between individuals based on their “ethnicity, race gender, religion, political affiliation or social class.”
According to The Daily Caller, Thorpe is also seeking to ban coursework that “advocates solidarity or isolation based upon ethnic, racial, gender or social class instead of treating individuals as unique.” Also on the chopping block would be any class that “negatively targets specific nationalities or countries”:
“It seems like racially insensitive agendas are occurring in higher education,” Thorpe told The Daily Caller. “The trend is very troubling.”
“We are getting far away from the accomplishments that began with the Civil Rights Act of 1964…I am mindful that citizens are paying for these courses. They roll their eyes at these courses. We should respect that,” Thorpe also said.
Thorpe has acknowledged that state schools can choose to teach any courses they like, but that taxpayer funding for the classes with criteria matching those outlined in his bill would not be available to them. He has thus far not given a date when he will introduce the legislation to the Arizona statehouse.
Thorpe’s bill is timely. In August, it was reported that Oregon State was forcing all incoming freshman to pass a “social justice” training course consisting of modules that taught “diversity, inclusion, and social justice.” That same school spent “$11,500 on three racially segregated social justice retreats for students that examined topics such as white privilege, racism and oppression.”
Recently, college students have begun to apply what they’ve learned, as in the case of the University of Maryland issuing a list of 64 “demands” to the university administration. Among the demands were requests for more diversity training and requirements that the administration be more sensitive to some student groups, despite those groups actively dismissing the needs of other student groups on campus.