Gamble 1

Precious Knowledge: A Critical Analysis

The documentary Precious Knowledge, directed and produced by Ari Palos and Eren

McGinnis, explores the heated debate of Culture and Ethics courses (e.g., Mexican American

Studies) at Tucson High School within the Tucson Unified School District and the impression

that it leaves on its students. While the documentary makes it apparent that the community was

divided on the topic, outside critics have also made themselves and their opinions known through

online publications and public forums. Among the many online critics are individuals such as

Connie Wun, a professor from UC Berkeley, who wrote More than Precious Knowledge: A

Critical Review of Precious Knowledge and Jose Garcia, a graduate of the MALS (Mexican

American and Latina/o Studies) program, who published Precious Knowledge: Arizona’s Battle

Over Ethnic Studies. While both the authors of the texts generally agree and side with the

students and protestors, their opinions differ as to the effectiveness of their motives and efforts.

The first article of criticism comes from More than Precious Knowledge: A Critical

Review of Precious Knowledge written by Connie Wun, taking a race and feminist-oriented view

of the issue, arguing that there were multiple factors and details that went overlooked when

attempting to formulate a convincing argument to rebuttal against “conservative anxiety.” While

Wun does not explicitly state or conclude that their efforts were in vain, she believes, that with

the inclusion of female perspective along with an in-depth view of racial influences, those in

defense of these programs would have a much more compelling argument. Wun states, “... the

film’s omission of a gendered critique of the debates around ethnic studies obscures the
 Gamble 2

relationship between the state, its institution, racism, and sexism.” In other words, without

acknowledging these additional factors, we are unable to see the true consequences that befall

upon these marginalized communities, deterring and distracting us from identifying the

underlying motives of these politicians. This may suggest that these policies were intentionally

meant to cause harm Latino and Mexican students rather than to prevent anti-American rhetoric,

or that it was even meant to harm a specific gendered group (such as females) within the Latino

and Mexican community. However, because these components were not further investigated, it is

unclear as to whether or not this is the case. Wun also mentions, “... the film’s narrative provides

a limited critique of the discourses surrounding the campaign to end ethnic studies program.”

This can prove to be extremely problematic, especially when the entire purpose of the film is to

convince its audience to side with the students and support the Ethnic courses. Without providing

a substantial argument as to why the opposing party is wrong, students and teachers are unlikely

to see the kind of support that they had anticipated. Although the film did well on getting a

response as to why each party stood as they did on the matter, it was unsuccessful in having the

parties refute or counter the opposing ideology, turning the debate into a black and white issue

where the audience was required to fall onto one side or the other instead of winning over the

audience through perspective and reasoning. While Wun does not indicate that the film had

failed to achieve its purpose, she simply implies that there is room for growth, narrowing down

the main issue to “...neglect[ing] the constitutive relationship that gender and sexism have to

race, racism, the state, and its institutions.” By taking a closer look at the different identities that

make up these students and communities, we can better understand who is being affected by such

changes, and if so, also get an understanding of why these demographics were targeted.
 Gamble 3

Jose Garcia also expresses his support for the film in his critique titled Precious

Knowledge: Arizona’s Battle Over Ethnic Studies. In his review, rather than argue against the

tactics used to make the argument for ETHS and MAS, he highlights areas of the film where they

were able to appropriately deliver their message by providing his own personal analysis and

interpretation of the film. One area that he emphasizes, in particular, are the benefits of the

program in the form of statistics (logos), stating that “...MAS students had higher graduation

rates than their non-MAS peers” as well as reporting that there was a “...higher percentage of

MAS students as compared to their non-MAS peers [that] passed the reading and writing

portions of the standardized test.” With the use of such statistics, the audience is more likely to

support this kind of educational support group, as it has clearly shown to help enhance the

performance of those who partake in the courses. This would also have a toll on a person’s

emotions as most people care for the youth and want what is best for them and their education.

This play to emotion can also be seen later when he brings up an interaction that occurred

between a student and Huppenthal. The text states, “... rather than being reprimanded for his

political and ideological disagreements with the MAS program, she extended her hand and

thanked him for the visit and reminded him of the importance of MAS for students like her.”

This quote is extremely powerful and could cause a person with an opposing ideology to sway

their thoughts, possibly even creating a new supporter. If two people with differing opinions are

met with hostility, they are less likely to take your perspective into consideration; contrary to

that, if someone is met with kindness and tolerance, they are more likely to pay closer attention

to the opposing argument and consider the conflicting opinion into consideration. We can see the

results of such a positive reaction later in the article when Huppenthal praises the teacher for
 Gamble 4

“‘being well groomed, articulate, and passionate about his profession.’” While the students did

not see the results that they had hoped for, it showed that the students and the teacher were

successfully able to disprove the notion that “anti-American” values were being taught as part of

the curriculum. Overall, Jose Garcia found the efforts to be successful in sparking conversation

regarding the matter.

When comparing the two texts to each other, Wun makes the argument that one of the

key components missing from the debate is the focus or inclusion of gender and race. Garcia, on

the other hand, does not make any claim critiquing their method of debate, but instead praised

the work, periodically pointing out areas where they successfully able to represent their position.

While these two differ in their interpretation of argumentative effectiveness, they generally agree

with the message and efforts of the students and teachers of Tucson High School. Both the texts

provide a brief summary of the events that occurred during the film and highlighted key events,

conversations, and describing how their words and actions may sway the audience into believing

a certain way. Two of the main methods that were discussed in these two critiques were their use

of pathos and logos in order to further their influence. When taking the criticism of both articles

to derive one conclusion, one might say that they succeeded in starting a conversation, but may

have failed in the sense that they were unable to fully assess some of the other important factors

that could be used to disarm and disprove the oppositional side. By acquiring a deeper view of

the perspectives of the interviewees and how certain communities were affected by these

changes, the student's arguments could have been much more compelling and convincing.
 Gamble 5

Work Cited:

García, José. “Critical Media Review: Precious Knowledge: Arizona’s Battle Over Ethnic

Studies.” ​The Urban Review​, vol. 45, no. 1, Sept. 2013, pp. 94–97.,

doi:10.1007/s11256-012-0227-0.

Wun, Connie. “More than Precious Knowledge: A Critical Review of Precious Knowledge.”

Journal of Curriculum Theorizing​, 2013,

https://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/view/488/pdf.