The article discusses a legislation that would effectively terminate Mexican American Studies programs in k-12 was passed in Arizona in 2010. In this article, the author traces how this legislation drew from discourses of anti-Americanism and wickedness initiated by the state’s superintendent of public instruction against Mexican American Studies and from larger social antagonistic language regarding Mexican ethnics. The author uses critical discourse analysis (CDA) and van Dijk’s notion of the discourse-power circle, in particular, to demonstrate how the superintendent along with the author of the legislation, were successful in controlling the voting actions of enough legislators to pass the bill.
Bonilla-SilvaE. (2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
5.
Cambium Learning. (2011). Curriculum audit of the Mexican American studies department, Tucson Unified School District. Miami Lakes, FL: National Academic Educational Partnership.
6.
ChouliarakiL.FaircloughN. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
7.
De LeónA. (1983). They called them greasers: Anglo attitudes toward Mexicans in Texas, 1821-1900. Austin: University of Texas Press.
8.
Economic & Business Research Center. (2011). Forecast tables. In Arizona’s economy (Winter Issue). Tucson, AZ: Eller College of Management at the University of Arizona.
9.
BrewerEscobar v.., 4:10cv00249 (TUC DCB 2010).
10.
GeeJ. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
MollR.RuizR. (2002). The schooling of Latino children. In Suarez-OrozcoM.PaezM. (Eds.), Latinos: Remaking America (pp. 362-374). Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, . v. State of Arizona, et al., 10cv0943 (PHX SRB 2010).
ValenzuelaA. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. New York: State University of New York.
29.
van DijkT. (1989). Structures of discourse and structures of power. In AndersonJ. (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 12, pp. 18-59). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
30.
van DijkT. (1996). Discourse, power and access. In Caldas-CoulthardC. R.CoulthardM. (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 84-104). London: Routledge.
31.
van DijkT. (2003). Critical discourse analysis. In SchifrinD.TannenD.HamiltonH. (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 353-371). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
32.
van DijkT. (2005). Critical discourse analysis. In SchiffrinD.TannenD.HamiltonH. (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352-371). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
33.
VestM. (2011). Recovery hits a “soft patch.” In Arizona’s Economy (pp. 1-5). Tucson, AZ: Eller College of Management at the University of Arizona.
34.
WinantH. (1997). Behind blue eyes: Whiteness and contemporary US racial politics. New Left Review, 225, 73-88.
