Ramirez 1

Adrian Ramirez

Professor Michalski

CTW I

13 November 2018

Shifting Perspectives

After carefully watching the film Precious Knowledge, directed by Ari Palos, it was

initially clear to me that the ethnic studies program in Tucson, Arizona was helping these

students. My emotions were all over the place when watching Precious Knowledge, but for the

most part, there was a sense of anger towards the men trying to ban the Mexican American

Studies class. When seeing these men in power go against people who are just trying to learn

more about their culture and break these socially constructed norms regarding minorities, it

really affected the way I viewed the film and made me more biased towards the movement’s

ideals. Despite my initial thoughts on the film, I needed to understand the film in a different way

that did not involve my emotional ties to the topic. After reading the reviews written by Jeff

Biggers and Connie Wun about Precious Knowledge, it was clear that the two main teachers

played a huge role in the student’s lives, especially Curtis Acosta; he set an example of

resilience. Additionally, these seperate reviews shed light on different aspects of the film,

however, they also seem to share similar opinions overall regarding the ethnic studies program.

It’s through these reviews that people can utilize to learn more about the ideas not presented by

the film, such as the possible impact of talking about gender and its effects. Incorporating ideas

about feminism and gender roles would create a more well rounded film.

Even though Biggers focuses more on the benefits of MAS and shows his clear bias

towards the ethnic studies course while Wun presents her review as unbiased, there are still
 Ramirez 2

things they both agree upon. When watching the film, it was evident that the male teachers

played a huge role in the lives of students and motivated them to fight. Both Biggers and Wun

depict one of the teachers, Acosta, as more than just a teacher. In Biggers review, he calls Acosta

the “Latino version of Robin Williams” (Biggers). This idea that the teacher can be related to a

comedic actor shows how he was not only seen as a teacher but as someone students can be

comfortable sharing things about their lives and things outside the classroom. Acosta’s resilience

is highlighted when Bigger brings up the fact that despite all the hate mail and media coverage,

he pushed through it. He kept teaching, he was there for those students in hard times like those.

It’s evident how important the course was for Acosta and the students. Through this figure,

students are able to see him as a role model, someone who fights for justice and for something

they believe in. Acosta’s leadership is what these students were showing throughout the film and

ultimately made them the advocates they became by the end. It’s very clear to me how serious

these people were when they were trying to save their ethnic studies course. It’s hard to see

people in power take away something that is benefiting a group of people based on their

background. On the other hand, Wun also talks about Acosta in his review but touches on

different ideas compared to Biggers. Wun focuses on Acosta’s teaching style. He talks about

how both teachers “emphasize the importance of cultura, politics, and commitment to the

community” (Wun). This more serious tone in writing contrasts with Biggers because Wun

describes Acosta as an advocate for change through his teaching style compared to a more

comical depiction. Wun shows how incorporating these types of teaching techniques can spark

other controversial discussion topics. Also, Wun brings up how the “teachers provided

supportive spaces for students, equipped them with tools to better understand the social forces

that shaped their lives, and encouraged them to engage in community activism” (Wun). Having
 Ramirez 3

this supportive system behind you really encourage engaging in community issues and getting

involved in politics. Wun states that by the end of the film, the students themselves were leading

protests to defend MAS. Acosta goes beyond what is expected from a regular teacher, he

participates in rallies, goes on strike with his students and even risks his entire life in order to

find a voice for these students and encourages everyone to never stop fighting for justice. These

are the results from Acosta’s actions, he helped his students find a voice. Despite the differences

in the reviewers, both seem to notice the positive influence Acosta has on his students.

While there may be similarities in each of the reviews, both authors seem to focus on

specific point the film hit and didn’t hit. Wun, on one hand, believes the film’s lack of “gendered

critique” clouds the relationship “between the state, its institutions, racism and sexism.” It’s clear

that Wun thinks these ideas play a role in social issues like the issue surrounding the ethnic

studies class. Since the film seemed to have been centralized around the idea of race, Wun

believes that took away potential in the film. Talking about gender would have helped

“deemphasized the paternal role that the male teachers played in students' lives, and examined

the effects and implications behind why most of the students' in the film lived in single mother

households” (Wun). The students did not use other forms evidence besides graduation statistics

to prove how important this course is when protesting. Bringing up the burdens of living in a

single parent household would have shed more light on the benefits this course brings to these

struggling children. After reading Wun’s review, it made me realize how much more potential

the film would’ve had if the students had been organized and not portrayed a bad image when

they were campaigning. Similarly, Biggers discusses the flows of both former Arizona

superintendent of education, Tom Horne, and at the time current state superintendent, John

Huppenthal. Even though Horne was previously caught lying multiple times, the bill was still
 Ramirez 4

passed with arguments coming from both these men. Like previously mentioned, Biggers review

was in favor of Precious Knowledge so most readers would only read what he himself thinks

about the politicians and the course. Clearly, one author approached their review in a non

opinionated manner, pointing out key flaws in the film while the other author supported what the

film stands for, ignoring it’s imperfections. Despite the unlike reviews, it is clear that the course

was successful, yet they still banned it for not being based on “American Ideals.”

By the end of Precious Knowledge, I thought I had understood everything that was

happening. I thought it was just a class that was very successful in helping latino students

graduate and feels a sense of belonging. However, my perspective shifted after reading Biggers

and Wun’s reviews. Through Biggers review I was able to build this character based on his

description of the teacher Curtis Acosta. Similarly, Wun’s review shed light on some topics that

should’ve been addressed in the film before being released. Having included the topic of gender,

feminism and sex would’ve have probably proven a lot by showing how their struggle is at ease

when enrolled in a course such as ethnic studies. Even though both reviews had differences in

points and tones, they both revealed the importance of ethnic studies and the impact it has on the

students.

Works Cited

Biggers, Jeff. “Arizona's Precious Knowledge : Blockbuster New Film Chronicles Ethnic Studies

Battle.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 7 Dec. 2017,

www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/precious-knowledge-arizona_b_875702.html.

Precious Knowledge. Dir. Ari Palos, Eren Isabel McGinnis. Dos Vatos, 2011. Kanopy.
 Ramirez 5

Web. 27 Nov. 2018.

Wun, Connie. "More than Precious Knowledge: A Critical Review of Precious Knowledge." JCT

(Online), vol. 29, no. 2, 2013, pp. 240-243. ProQuest,

https://login.libproxy.scu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.libproxy.scu.edu/doc

view/1501429919?accountid=13679.