Translate

Tuesday, November 19, 2024

Anti-DEI Movement Exposed as an Agenda for "White Reparations"

Friends:

With an important exception, this post is similar to the following related ones from last week:
What’s important here is that the story below on what is happening right now at the University of North Texas Denton is that it appears in the Chronicle of Higher Education, widely recognized as one of the most authoritative resources for those of us in higher education. Thankfully, it exposes Texas to a national audience for being authoritarian. This must shock folks in higher education nationally.

I want to call out something that is even more sinister, namely, that the anti-DEI movement—as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis names—is an agenda for "white reparations." 

Check it out for yourselves in this August 11, 2023 piece authored by Josh Santos titled, "Florida Announces Reparations for Descendants of Slave Owners." DeSantis delivered this message in an obscure speech he delivered in Wyoming, expressing that Florida plans to compensate descendants of slave owners with large lump-sum payments for labor lost after the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. 

Yes, you read this correctly—for descendants of slave owners to restore their lost pride in white heritage since Abraham Lincoln did them wrong. Lincoln must be rolling over in his grave. 

I'm reading an excellent book right now that I urge others to read as it is an excellent history of President Lincoln and the events leading up to the Civil War and beyond. It's titled "How the South Won the Civil War" by renowned scholar Dr. Heather Cox Richardson. I'm in the middle of reading it on Audible. It's illuminating, to say the least.

The good thing is that the underlying sentiment is fully exposed, however historically inaccurate, viscerally nauseous, and insufferably patronizing.


In addition to developments at UNT Denton, folks in Texas really need to pay attention to Florida because what they do in higher education shows up here. Glad that this issue is getting the attention it deserves.

-Angela Valenzuela

 

A Texas University Tells Professors Their Teaching and Research Will Be Under ‘Intense Scrutiny’ 

By Megan Zahneis November 13, 2024 | Chronicle of Higher Education

Faculty 




Faculty members at the University of North Texas at Denton fear their teaching and research on topics related to diversity, equity, and inclusion will be curtailed by their own university’s interpretation of a state law targeting DEI efforts — and, in one college, they say it already has.

Texas attracted national attention last year by passing Senate Bill 17, which went into effect in January and bans diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, training, and statements at the state’s public universities. While the bill’s text carves out exemptions for teaching and research, faculty members on the Denton campus were surprised to find out last month that the university’s Integrity & Compliance offices would, in fact, be monitoring those areas to ensure they didn’t run afoul of the law. It’s a striking development in a state where legislative attacks on DEI have already resulted in widespread uncertainty about what teaching and scholarship is and is not permissible, and created a chilling effect for some faculty members who fear professional repercussions.

The news at North Texas came in an October presentation to the Faculty Senate by Clay Simmons, the university’s chief integrity officer, who said his office was in turn relying on the University of North Texas system’s general counsel’s interpretation of Senate Bill 17. With state funding at risk if the university is seen as breaking the law, Simmons explained, extra scrutiny was necessary. But several faculty members told The Chronicle that they saw the university’s interpretation of the law’s language as overly broad, and as guided by the “spirit” of the law as opposed to its actual language.

In his presentation, Simmons said that the university’s “tolerance for violations” of Senate Bill 17 “is pretty low, mainly because of that intense scrutiny that we’re receiving by the legislature.” He added: “There are also interest groups that are out there going around with hidden cameras trying to catch people doing things that they’re not supposed to do anymore underneath that law.” (This year, administrators at multiple Texas institutions landed in hot water after being captured on undercover video by a right-wing news group.) Then, Simmons added, there was the question of state funding. Losing that money, he said, “would be an existential issue for the university.” (In the 2024 fiscal year, 21 percent of the Denton campus’s revenue came from state appropriations.)

‘A Very Stringent Read’

Given those threats, Simmons said at the meeting, “we’re very cautious about how we approach these topics, and we’re trying to take a very stringent read of the law.” Teaching and research, he acknowledged, were not restricted under Senate Bill 17. “However, in true legal fashion, there are exceptions to the exception,” he said, explaining that classroom lessons on DEI-related topics “must be limited to the elements of the course” and that activities listed on a syllabus must be linked to a course objective.

Research, meanwhile, “must meet the definition of true research,” as described in the university’s research-misconduct policy, Simmons said. “The identity-based aspects must be essential to the research,” he said. “So if you’re doing research on homelessness, you have to be very careful if you’re going to focus on a certain identity within homelessness. So if you’re looking at LGBTQ homeless individuals, then you’ll have to make sure that that is narrowly tailored within the scope of work.” (Kelley Reese, a university spokesperson, said that Simmons and other university administrators were unavailable to speak to The Chronicle. “Faculty members are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication or presentation of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties and the requirements of UNT policy,” Reese said in a statement to The Chronicle. They are also, she said, “entitled to freedom in teaching and discussing their subject and in the selection of textbooks and other materials for their courses, and as noted in the UNT academic freedom and responsibility policy, they should not introduce controversial matter that has no relation to their subject into the curriculum.”)

Adam Briggle, a professor and director of graduate studies in the philosophy department, asked in the October meeting whether a paper on the rights of transgender people, published in a peer-reviewed journal, would be permissible. His work is often flagged by the university’s Institutional Review Board, Briggle explained, for not contributing to “generalizable knowledge,” as dictated by federal guidelines on human-subjects research. For the same reason, Simmons responded, such work would not be exempt from Senate Bill 17.

“If this gets to a point where an entire discipline isn’t free to publish stuff,” Briggle said, “then we need the university to have our back.”

“That is above my pay grade,” Simmons replied. “I’m the chief compliance officer, and so my job is to ensure compliance with the law. If the university would like to push back on legislation that’s been enacted, that would be a decision for, probably, the board to make.”

Later that month, Simmons sent an email to the Faculty Senate clarifying that policy. Senate Bill 17, he wrote, does not apply to research that meets the university’s definition:

“a systematic investigation, including development, testing, evaluation, or publication to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge,” including scholarly activities and creative works. But Briggle told The Chronicle that he and other faculty members found Simmons’s memo only compounded their confusion, in part because it was not clear how “generalizable knowledge” would be defined, or by whom. In Reese’s statement to The Chronicle, she said the bill “does not apply to research, scholarly activity, creative works, and course instruction.

“There is no review of generalizable knowledge.”

Briggle and his colleagues condemn what they see as a too-cautious interpretation of the law. “This is precisely what the Texas Legislature wanted,” he told The Chronicle, “to scare people so much that they will be hesitant to do the sorts of things, or talk about the sorts of ideas, that the legislature doesn’t like.” The result, Briggle added, has been “intentional silencing” on campus. “You look around at faculty meetings now and people are wondering, What can we put in the syllabus? Where can I publish my stuff?”

Briggle said he’d like his institution to “draw a very clear line and just make it abundantly clear that academic freedom means that we’re allowed to teach and research whatever we want.” Instead, “we just keep retreating.”

Changes Underway

In the College of Education, changes to courses are already underway, according to documents shared with The Chronicle. Administrators in that college have, this semester, made 130 changes to undergraduate courses and 78 to graduate courses — including to course titles, descriptions, and syllabi — to bring them into compliance. For example, an associate dean suggested changing one graduate course’s title from “Race, Class and Gender Issues in Education” to “Critical Inquiry in Education,” and removing references to race, class, and gender in the course’s description.

The changes were initiated when College of Education administrators learned in early October of a set of legislative charges from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, among them a mandate for the state Subcommittee on Higher Education to “examine programs and certificates at higher education institutions that maintain discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies,” according to the North Texas Daily, the student newspaper. The college’s interim dean and associate dean then conferred with Simmons’s office and decided to modify course names and descriptions because they are “public-facing,” as a professor described it in an email to colleagues that the North Texas Daily obtained.

Brian McFarlin, the associate dean for undergraduate studies and research, who made the course changes, indicated that he was sympathetic to faculty concerns about them, according to an email sent by Lok-Sze Wong, an assistant professor of teacher education, to her colleagues. “He would feel similarly [upset] if he were in [faculty members’] shoes,” she wrote. (McFarlin was not made available for an interview with The Chronicle.)

To date, none of the university’s other colleges and schools have been subject to such changes. Reese, the university spokesperson, denied any connection between Senate Bill 17 and the changes in the College of Education, which she said were the result of a state- mandated review to align with state teacher-education standards.

Check out The Chronicle’s latest diversity, equity, and inclusion coverage

The course changes, faculty members told The Chronicle, were based on reviews of content posted to the Canvas learning-management system for each course, though it was not clear to them who was conducting those reviews. And because of the shifting standards for compliance, “the dean asked people to change things in their courses well into the semester,” said one faculty member, who requested anonymity for fear of professional repercussions. One colleague, the faculty member said, had to remove optional readings from their Canvas site.

Thus far, the faculty member said, all of their colleagues have agreed to the changes, if not happily. “In a couple of meetings,” they said, “it has been made clear that if we do not comply, we will face disciplinary action, including termination.” (Reese said that the law “does not establish consequences for individual noncompliance,” and that the university plans to respond to violations of Senate Bill 17 as it does any other law, “with additional education and training and the appropriate policies.”)

Meanwhile, the impacts on research are already being felt. According to the faculty member in the College of Education, one prestigious grant from the Spencer Foundation has been delayed until it’s determined to be in compliance with Senate Bill 17. As a result, they said, “we’re already putting in jeopardy relationships with major funders across the nation.” Those in the College of Education were also told that they will not receive travel funds to present research at conferences that deal with race, color, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation. If scholars choose to pay out-of-pocket to attend such conferences, the faculty member added, they must say that they are not representing the university. (Reese, meanwhile, said that faculty members can get travel funding to engage in activities “whereby scholarly and professional stature are demonstrated and may be appraised.” She denied any delay concerning the Spencer Foundation grant.)

“The stars aligned” for the university to make the College of Education a guinea pig of sorts, the faculty member said. The teacher-education program was recently placed on probation for the second straight year, after too many students failed to pass their examinations. Faculty members have speculated that this made the college especially leery of crossing the line. Syllabi from the college have also been posted online by Parents Defending Education, which describes itself as “a national grassroots organization working to reclaim our schools from activists promoting harmful agendas.”

Also criticizing the administration’s actions was Brian L. Evans, president of the Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors. That body, Evans said in an emailed statement, “expresses utmost concern” over North Texas’ “censoring course

content,” given what he called a “clear exception for academic course instruction” in Senate Bill 17. The course changes, he said, violate the university’s academic-freedom and shared-governance policies.

Determining Compliance

Simmons, the chief integrity officer, said at the Faculty Senate meeting last month that faculty members with questions about whether their course material or research complies with the law should consult with their departmental and school leaders. “The reason for that is that not only are we looking at legal risks that are presented with some of these activities, but we’re also looking at the political risk that comes along with a lot of these,” he said. “Sometimes things will be legal, but a dean just isn’t comfortable going quite that far into that territory, and will be more prone to want to change it or modify it, or rethink the whole idea. It just depends on your particular chain of command as to what they’re comfortable with.” Those concerns, Simmons said, would then be forwarded to his office by the dean. (Reese, though, said that if individual faculty members had questions about how the system’s guidance on Senate Bill 17 applied to their work, they should turn to Simmons’s office.)

Simmons’s presentation also pointed to a “Trust Line” run through the risk-and-compliance software company OneTrust, through which people could report potential violations. Reese did not respond to a question about whether any such complaints have yet been lodged.

In the meantime, several faculty members told The Chronicle, they’re left to question whether the university’s interpretation of the law will continue to shift, and whether their work will be implicated. Tracy Everbach, a professor of journalism, said she’s particularly concerned about a course she teaches called “Race, Gender, and the Media,” which draws on her 20 years of scholarship in those areas.“Am I going to be told, ‘None of your work counts anymore. You can’t teach that class. Your research is obliterated’?” Everbach said. “My mind leaps there. I haven’t been told anything like that, but I know that these kinds of fears and discussions are going on among faculty, and no one really can tell us.”

Read other items in this The Assault on DEI package.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.

Sunday, November 17, 2024

DEI Attacks Are Widening the Racial Wealth Gap | Bloomberg

Friends:

An expanding middle class is so obviously important to our economy and society. And this is what DEI helps accomplish. This is an excellent opinion piece by Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman that relies on research. I have actually read the research on California that she cites and Opoku-Agyeman is spot on. Please read.

I came across it on BlueSky, a new app that folks are using as an alternative to Twitter. I just joined. My handle is @vlnzl in case you're joining. For lots of progressives, X (or Twitter) has gotten too toxic. I hope this becomes a platform and space for productive conversations.

-Angela Valenzuela

DEI Attacks Are Widening the Racial Wealth Gap

Taking away policies that help qualified Black and Latino people secure economic gains through selective colleges and high-paying jobs is counter-productive.




DEI and affirmative action initiatives shouldn’t be controversial.Photographer: Chip
Somodevilla/Getty Images North America

November 14, 2024 at 7:00 AM CST
Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman is a doctoral candidate in public policy and economics at Harvard Kennedy School. She is the editor of “The Black Agenda” and the author of the forthcoming book “The Double Tax.”


Voters have given Donald Trump a second chance and put diversity, equity and inclusion programs in further danger.

The DEI backlash was strong even before Trump won the 2024 presidential election, and he is clearly hostile to most programs that seek to create an even playing field. That’s a shame, and not simply on moral or social grounds. DEI offers a path to real, lasting wealth generation, helps create a bigger consumer class, and it’s good for the economy.

Wealth creation in the US is typically rooted in three factors: education, well-paying jobs and profitable investments. Historically, White people have had disproportionate access to all three of those things, yet opponents of DEI and affirmative action insist, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, that it was all achieved through merit.

Again, studies and history books tell us that’s a farce. But the myth persists. That’s not to discount the gains people make through hard work and talent or the financial and social rewards they deserve for their skills. DEI isn’t meant to come at the expense of either of those virtues. In fact, when DEI is thoughtfully implemented, it complements — and doesn’t overshadow — industrious, creative work.

Still, we hear it endlessly: Merit should be the only deciding factor when it comes to college admissions and hiring practices. It’s a compelling sales pitch on the surface. But look a little closer. At its core, attacks on race-conscious policies are a Trojan Horse.

In practice, those biases can push Black and Latino people into career pathways that are divorced from wealth-building. As a result, underrepresented minorities remain a substantial part of America’s permanent economic underclass, even as they comprise an increasingly larger part of the US population.

Opponents of diversity initiatives are surely aware that selective colleges and universities have often served as vital pathways for closing socioeconomic gaps and building wealth through high-paying jobs. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be fighting so hard against the strategic expansion of who gets access to those institutions — and using “merit” as a cover.

It may take several years to see the full trickle-down effects of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to dismantle affirmative action, but data following bans at the state level years prior have already painted a devastating picture.

California, for example, voted to end the measure in its public universities in 1996 with Proposition 209. Princeton economics professor Zachary Bleemer found that it led to a 7.6-percentage-point decline in the likelihood that qualified minority applicants enrolled in selective University of California campuses. Perhaps feeling deterred, these high school students were much more likely to apply and enroll in less selective state schools. Over time, minority applicants, mostly Hispanic, experienced a 5% average annual decline in wages. The pay decrease worsened overall inequality by reducing the number of early-career minority Californians earning over $100,000 by at least 3%. This, in a state where 40% of the population is Latino.

What Bleemer found is further corroborated by the work of economists Raj Chetty, David Deming and John Friedman. They discovered that attending highly selective or Ivy Plus institutions triples a student’s chances of securing jobs at prestigious firms and increases their chances of joining the top 1% of earners. The work of Ellora Derenoncourt, a Princeton economics professor and director of the Program for Research on Inequality, further underscores why this access matters.

Her research shows that, between 1980 and 2020, capital gains on investments — one of the primary drivers of wealth accumulation — have disproportionately benefited White households. Those in high-paying professions usually have access to corporate stock awards, which add to those gains.

This is why legal challenges against programs that create pathways for families from historically disadvantaged backgrounds could have lasting economic repercussions for future generations of Black and Latino individuals. Those populations already have, on average, less wealth than White families. In 2022, the Urban Institute reported that White families had an average wealth of $1.4 million as compared to Hispanic ($227,544) and Black families($211,596).

While much of the racial wealth gap can be attributed to White Americans benefiting from what Michelle Obama has called “affirmative action of generational wealth,” the pervasive attacks on DEI only exacerbate the problem.

Currently, the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at the New York University School of Law is tracking lawsuits against companies and schools related to DEI efforts. In every region that the program analyzes, at least one lawsuit has been filed involving anti-DEI initiatives — resulting in more than 100 lawsuits.

Despite widespread calls to shutter DEI efforts across corporate America and higher education, evidence clearly shows that they are needed. They offer counterweights to biases that have led to hiring discrimination and increased turnover and lower promotion rates of qualified non-White individuals. One Harvard University study that analyzed new hires from a professional services firm found that Black employees were 32% more likely to leave positions within two years. The largest gap in that cohort — 51% — existed between Black and White women.


If this was all about “merit,” such findings would likely be less racially stark. The data also raise a question: Who benefits when qualified minorities are systemically shut out from entering academic and career pathways that facilitate wealth-building?

It’s wildly counter-productive. Consumers generate two-thirds of the gross domestic product in the US. An expanding consumer class — the foundation of America’s middle class — has always supercharged the economy and the lives of all Americans, regardless of their gender or the color of their skin. Sabotaging programs that help create wealth sabotages the economy as well.

The ban on affirmative action and the decline of DEI efforts represent a cold and calculated attack on what economic prosperity, well-being and opportunity could look like for all Americans, undermining the very fabric of equity and justice in our society.


More From Bloomberg Opinion:White Men Are Still Kings of the Job Market. Here’s Proof: Sarah Green Carmichael
An Exodus of Black Women in Academia Hurts the Workforce: Anna Branch
‘DEI Hires’ Don’t Lower the Bar. We Raise It: Laura Morgan Roberts

Want more Bloomberg Opinion? OPIN <GO>. Or subscribe to our daily newsletter.


This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman is a doctoral candidate in public policy and economics at Harvard Kennedy School. She is the editor of “The Black Agenda” and the author of the forthcoming book “The Double Tax.”

Please Sign and Share American Indian/Native Studies Petition for Texas Public, K-12 Schools

Art by Deante’ Moore.
Friends:

Do read and learn about the context within which we seek support for this American Indian/Native Studies petition for Texas Public,
K-12 Schools.

This is part of the ongoing Ethnic Studies Movement in Texas. Please Sign and Share.

Angela Valenzuela


What happens in Texas public education impacts the rest of the United States because of the role the state plays in developing K-12 textbooks and instructional materials that get adopted in other parts of the US. Texas has also helped lead the nation in book-banning and censorship, all while severely under-funding public education. The state's hard turn toward academic censorship has now also impacted Ethnic Studies. Prior to 2024, Texas educators were well on their way to developing a complete roster of high school level Ethnic Studies courses, with record enrollment for the already adopted Mexican American and African American Studies courses. Since Governor Abbot appointed a new SBOE Chair in December of 2023, the process of Ethnic Studies course adoption has ground to a halt, with a ground-breaking course in American/Indian Studies being the first course to get side-lined in the process.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: SBOE Chair Kinsey did not add the AI/NS course to the June agenda. However, we still want him to add the course at the next available SBOE board meeting. Please sign this petition.

If you live in District 15, we encourage you to write and call Chair Kinsey. Check here to see if you live in Chair Kinsey's District, which includes cities such as Lubbock, Abilene, Odessa, Midland, and others.

How did we get here?

In 2018, the Texas State Board of Education called for the creation of four specific Ethnic Studies courses. "Native American Studies" was among them. In the summer of 2019, course developers began discussing the creation of Native Studies course at an Ethnic Studies regional gathering held at TCU. In the Spring of 2020, a committee of native community members and allies hosted a conversation hosted by Grand Prairie ISD to gather community feedback for a 10-12th grade course in American Indian/Native Studies. Grand Prairie ISD began piloting the course in 2021 and the Texas Education Agency approved the Innovative Course in the summer of 2023. The AI/NS course has now been piloted for three years and has been adopted in Robstown ISD, Crowley ISD, and is being considered by some other districts. SBOE board members and the public has had since June of 2023 to review the TEA-approved course and its recommended course materials. These materials are not part of the official TEKS adoption process.

The AI/NS course was slated to be heard for “First Reading” in January of 2024, but the item was mysteriously absent when the agenda was released on January 19. We learned later that new SBOE Board Chair, Aaron Kinsey, who was appointed by Governor Abbott in December of 2023, decided to pull the item to have more time to review the course. On February 2, Chair Kinsey stated that he would discuss the course with fellow SBOE members in February. During this time, more than 200 community members throughout Texas sent a total of more than 3 thousand emails to SBOE members, including Chair Kinsey, asking him to put the course back on the SBOE agenda for April of this year.

As the April SBOE meeting approached, there was very little indication that Chair Kinsey had used the extra time to discuss the course details with fellow board members, instead using that time to focus on the course's recommended course materials, which are not part of the official TEKS adoption process. By the end of March, he stated that the course had never been put on the April agenda and that the course was already available to students as an innovative course. Unfortunately, the current AI/NS Innovative course, expires after 2025 (confirmed on the TEA website), and there is no guarantee that the course will be renewed. If the SBOE does not review the course this year, Kinsey and the board will oversee the renewal process next year, but, if approved, this would only extend its innovative pilot status temporarily. This will create confusion and uncertainty for many districts in Texas. The course is running out of time. The course should be reviewed and adopted as soon as possible so that districts can have time to incorporate the course into their Fall 2025 calendars.

We continue to call on all Texas parents, educators, students, and community members to help get the American Indian/Native Studies course back on track for review and approval this year.


While we advocate for the TEKS-based course review process to be completed this year, districts can and should continue to offer the course in current and future academic years.


Districts do not have to wait for the Texas SBOE to approve the course in order to offer it.


Why should you support this course?

The Texas SBOE was one of the first state boards to adopt high-school level courses in Mexican American Studies in 2018 and an African American Studies course in 2020. Since the 2020-2021 school year, course enrollment has grown from 6,500 students for both classes combined to nearly 21,000 students in 2023 and 2024. MAS and AAS make up 25% of all Social Studies course electives. Both courses have been among the top 3 most popular Social Studies electives for the past 3 years with MAS being the most popular in recent years. Simply put, Texas students want Ethnic Studies in their schools.

A total of 74 tribal councils, organizations, churches, and elected officials have called on bringing the AI/NS Innovative course into the Social Studies TEKS by the end of 2024.

The following 20 tribal councils, departments, cultural organizations, and officials have reviewed the AI/NS Innovative course standards and endorsed the course as written. See the letters here.The Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas
The Citizen Potawatomi Nation
The Comanche Nation
The Society for Native Nations
American Indians at the Spanish Colonial Missions
The Indigenous Cultures Institute
The Institute of Texan Cultures
Indigenous Peoples Caucus of the Texas Democratic Party
TCU's Native and Indigenous Student Association
UNT’s Native American Student Association
UTA’s Native American Student Association
Texas Unitarian Universalist Justice Ministry (TXUUJM)
Lubbock Compact Foundation
NAACP Lubbock Branch
Mexican American Studies at Texas Tech University
Southwestern University’s Education Department
TCU’s Department of Comparative Race and Ethnic Studies
Vikki Goodwin, Texas State Representative, District 47
Salman Bhojani, Texas State Representative , District 92
Perla Bojorquez, Democratic Nominee, Texas House of Representatives, District 93
James Talarico, Texas State Representative, District 50


An additional 60 organizations have called on the Texas SBOE to review and adopt the AI/NS course in 2024. The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board has also called for the course to move forward.

For more than 40 years, Texas educators, parents, community members, and students have been calling on the Texas SBOE to create Ethnic Studies courses. In fact, the Texas SBOE has approved courses in Ethnic Studies since the late 1960s, only to fail to give them the needed support. Today, Texas students have voted with their feet and shown that they want Ethnic Studies in their high schools.

By approving the first American Indian/Native Studies course in Texas history, the Texas SBOE has the chance to not only make Texas proud. It has the chance to make history by acting differently than their predecessors have acted in the past.

If you would like to support the AI/NS course, please sign the petition below and share this petition with your family, friends, co-workers, and most active listservs.Who should sign this petition?

Texas communities need your help! Anyone in the US can sign this petition. Anyone who care about making native knowledge accessible to students in schools should sign the petition, including native people and allies from outside the US. If you are a member of a tribal community in the US or anywhere in the world, please note that when you sign the petition.What if I live in Texas or if Chair Kinsey is my SBOE Rep?

If you live in District 15 (Midland, Lubbock, etc.), WE NEED YOUR HELP to call and email Chair Kinsey! Visit this website to check if Chair Kinsey is your SBOE member.

If you live in Texas, you can also write and call Chair Kinsey. As a Texas tax-payer, the matter of what is included in the SBOE agenda impacts all Texans, including you.

Use this call and email tool to call and email Chair Kinsey.

Can organizations, associations, or academic units do anything to help?

If you are a member of or a leader in a community organization, educational or scholarly association, or academic program, please consider signing onto this organizational sign on letter.

Can tribal councils, community groups, or other elected officials do anything to help?


Absolutely! If you are a member of a tribal council, a community group, or are an elected official, you can review the course and draft an individual endorsement letter. Please email ethnicstudiesnetworkoftexas@gmail.com so that we can provide you with some support.

Additional links and information:Public Testimony at the Texas SBOE and Press Conferences:Course Development Committee Testimony at the Committee of Instruction (August 31, 2023)
Course Testimony at “First Discussion” before the Texas SBOE (November 15, 2023)
Public Testimony at the SBOE General Meeting (February 2, 2024)
Public Testimony at the SBOE General Meeting (April 12, 2024)
Public Testimony at the SBOE General Meeting (June 28, 2024)
Community Press Conference at the Texas SBOE (June 28, 2024)



Media Coverage and Community Posts:“A Brief History of the AINS Course” by the Indigenous Institute of the Americas (January 2024)
Vote on Native studies class for Texas Schools postponed” (January 23, 2024)
Abbot Appointee Slams Brakes on American Indian/Native Studies Course” (January 30, 2024)
Advocates call on Texas education officials to approve AI/NS course” (February 1, 2024)
Texas State Board of Education delays Native American course approval” (February 6, 2024)
Texas’ Native American studies program should move forward” (March 6, 2024)
"‘We’re still here’: Native Americans push for native studies elective in Texas" (March 27, 2024)
"Texas Native American studies course further delayed, triggering frustration" (April 1, 2024)
"State Board of Education again delays discussion on whether to approve new Native studies course" (April 1, 2024)
"Decision on Native Studies course in Texas delayed" (April 3, 2024)
"KUT Morning News Cast" (April 12, 2024)
"State Board of Education delays vote on Native American studies course" (April 15, 2024)
#WeAreStillHere: A Multi-city Hybrid Press Conference - Live from Lubbock” (June 10, 2024)
Advocates for Native American studies push for new elective in Texas schools” (June 10, 2024)
Lubbock community leaders, tribal members urge inclusion of American Indian/Native Studies course on SBOE agenda” (June 10, 2024)
"Coalition petitions Texas’ education board to adopt American Indian/Native studies course" (June 28, 2024)



Local Implementation:

Local school districts and community members should know that the AI/NS Innovative course can be implemented at the district level in 2024-2025. This will help course creators renew the innovative course in 2025, should that be necessary, but in no way is innovative course status enough. The AI/NS course deserves a more stable place in the Social Studies TEKS-approved elective course roster. Either way, we encourage you to begin the process of local adoption now.

Contact information:

For questions about this petition or if you would like to write a letter of endorsement or support in other ways, please email the Ethnic Studies Network of Texas at ethnicstudiesnetworkoftexas@gmail.com.

Sponsored by Ethnic Studies Network of Texas

To: The Texas State Board of Education
From: [Your Name]


I stand in strong support of the American Indian/Native Studies innovative course as approved by the Texas Education Agency in the summer of 2023. I call on the Texas State Board of Education to place the AI/NS innovative course on the next available agenda so that it can be reviewed by SBOE members and adopted into the Social Studies TEKS by the end of 2024.

The AI/NS course is fair, rigorous, and balanced. The course standards are “high-quality” and are more than ready for the TEKS review process. The course is also “age-appropriate” as it would be available to students from 10th to 12th grade.

Native and Ethnic Studies communities in Texas strongly support the AI/NS innovative course as approved by the TEA in the summer of 2023. The course has gone through rigorous review and revision, including, two years under development at GPISD, a summer with the TEA’s own Social Studies TEKS Review Work Group E, two and a half years of a pilot at GPISD, and six months working with the TEA to arrive at the innovative course that is available for public view. In addition, Robstown ISD and Crowley ISD have adopted the innovative course, and Fort Worth ISD and several other districts are in the process of adopting the course as well. In August of 2023, the Curriculum of Instruction reviewed the course and voted to bring it to the full board for review. In November of 2023, then SBOE Board Chair Ellis expressed his intent to bring the course for review the following year without any objection.

The new SBOE Chair, Aaron Kinsey, appointed by Governor Abbott in December of 2023, did not bring the AI/NS course for review in January as expected. Instead, he asked for more time to review the course himself, a step that replicates the work already done by the Curriculum of Instruction in August of 2023. Additionally, SBOE reps have had since June of 2023 to review the course if they had any concerns.

The AI/NS course was not added to the April or June 2024 SBOE agenda. For this reason, we call for the following:

1) We call on SBOE Chair Kinsey to bring the AI/NS innovative course for “First Reading” at the next available SBOE board meeting. The course is fair, balanced, and of "high quality." It is ready to review.

2) We call on SBOE board members to engage in a good faith review of the course that honors the field and tradition of American Indian/Native Studies and engages with Native scholars and knowledge-keepers. AI/NS scholars, educators, and community members stand at the ready to help address any concerns that may arise during the review process. For this to be possible, however, the course has to be brought to “First Reading.”

3) We call on the Texas SBOE to work together to complete the review and adoption process in time for the course to be added to the Social Studies TEKS-based catalogue by the end of 2024.

The Texas State Board of Education has a history of leadership when it comes to Ethnic Studies. The Texas SBOE made Texas the first state in the nation to adopt a secondary level Mexican American Studies (MAS) course in 2018 and, in 2020, unanimously approved an African American Studies (AAS) course. Since then, course enrollment for MAS and AAS grew to nearly 6,500 students during the 2020-2021 school year. Just two years later, and despite going through a major pandemic, Ethnic Studies course enrollment is up nearly 300%, with close to 18,000 students enrolled in a TEKS-based MAS or AAS course during the 2022-2023 school year (Source: TEA).

Simply put, Texas students want Ethnic Studies in their schools.

Students take and complete these courses for good reason. Academic and empirical studies have shown that Ethnic Studies courses can improve school attendance, raise academic interest, and elevate academic achievement across multiple subject areas (Cabrera et tal 2012; Penner and Dee 2017).

Thousands of hours of volunteer and TEA staff time have gone into developing the AI/NS innovative course. More than 1000 Texans want this course to be available to their students.

Let’s make Texas proud. Let’s honor our history. Let’s honor the history of American Indian and Native people in Texas. Let’s make American Indian/Native Studies available to all Texas high school students who would like the opportunity to take the course.

Sincerely,By signing this petition, you are agreeing to be added to the ESNTX email supporter list so that you can receive further information about this campaign and future matters related to Ethnic Studies in Texas. Once subscribed, you can edit your preferences.

Wednesday, November 13, 2024

College of Education alters 78 courses to comply with Senate Bill 17 and protect faculty from public backlash following Lieutenant Governor’s memo

 Friends,

Higher Education in Texas is in trouble. 

Read this piece, along with the earlier North Texas Daily publication titled, "Guidance on research and teaching aimed at SB 17 compliance announced, North Texas Daily.17 isn't supposed to be impacting research of teaching, yet this is what is happening right now right before our very eyes!

I'm glad that the faculty at UNT Denton are standing up, but this could easily become a slippery slope with faculty losing ground at other universities. We must organize, my friends, to push back against an agenda that will incur irreparable damage to Texas' crowned jewel of higher education which boasts some of the best institutions in the country!

-Angela Valenzuela


The College of Education is making 78 alterations to course titles and descriptions. Photo by Aiden Gonzalez

The College of Education is making 78 changes to course titles and descriptions to comply with Senate Bill 17 and to protect faculty from public backlash.

The altered courses are within the College of Education’s Department of Teacher Education and Administration. Course names and descriptions are reviewed, selected for adjustments and then rewritten by Brian McFarlin, an associate dean for undergraduate studies and research in the College of Education.

Faculty were initially informed of the changes through their colleague Bill Camp, a professor in the College of Education. Camp emailed ten other faculty within the College of Education, informing them that “if a change is being made to your course, there were problems related to SB 17 and the new charge in the new legislative session.”


SB 17, passed June 17, 2023, is a state law that prohibits public colleges and universities that receive state funding from participating in diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. The bill explicitly states the DEI prohibition does not apply to “academic course instruction.”

The course changes also follow the release of a Sept. 10 memo by Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick entitled, “Stopping DEI to Strengthen the Texas Workforce.”

In the memo, Patrick directs the Subcommittee on Higher Education to “examine programs and certificates at higher education institutions that maintain discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.”

The memo then directs the committee to “expose how these programs and their curriculum are damaging and not aligned with state workforce demands,” and to “make recommendations for any needed reforms to ensure universities are appropriately educating students to meet workforce needs.”

According to an email sent by Assistant Professor Lok-Sze Wong to fellow faculty and obtained by the North Texas Daily from an anonymous source, Patrick’s directive was in mind when McFarlin, Interim Dean of the College of Education Rudi Thompson and the Integrity and Compliance office decided to make the changes.

McFarlin was tasked with the College of Education’s course review and adjustment process.

After course titles and descriptions are altered by McFarlin, he has to “send the changes through another process or two,” according to Wong’s email. Some of the tentative course adjustments are as listed:


Altered College of Education course descriptions


Wong’s email said McFarlin was made aware of Patrick’s charge in early October. Afterward, McFarlin and Thompson spoke with the university’s Integrity and Compliance Office about “how to best protect our faculty and courses from being further targeted.”

Their discussion also included how to protect faculty from student complaints, according to the email.

The Integrity and Compliance Office, Thompson and McFarlin decided to address course names and descriptions because they are “public facing,” the email said. Wong’s email referenced a grassroots organization named Parents Defending Education who use syllabi available to the public to target and expose schools and higher education institutions all over the United States for “imposing harmful agendas,” according to Parents Defending Education’s website.

Parents Defending Education has listed three of the university’s courses as “incidents” and posted the courses’ syllabi online. According to the website, the courses’ infractions involve critical race theory, decolonization, oppression, white privilege and tenets of queer theory.

One of the classes listed on the website is “EDLE 5600: Race, Class, and Gender Issues in Education.” This is also one of the courses altered by McFarlin.


The changes to EDLE 5600 include a new title and course description. The tentative new course title, “Critical Inquiry into Education,” and description makes no mention of race, gender or class.

The old course description, which operates on the basis that inequities exist between people of different races, gender and social class, was replaced with language saying students in the course would “critically examine current topics related to providing leadership for various student groups.”

The new description also includes new language emphasizing that “all learners” are “capable, motivated, and resilient.”

Katherine Mansfield, a tenured professor in the College of Education who teaches the current Race, Class, and Gender Issues course at the university, said she did not yet know whether the same course could be taught with the listed changes because of the lack of information about the changes.

“All we know is that the title has been changed and the written focus of the class has been changed,” Mansfield said in an interview with the Daily.

According to the email from Wong, faculty whose courses have been adjusted have until the 2025-2026 academic year to revise their curricula to match the new course descriptions.

Wong also emphasized in the email that McFarlin feels empathetic to the faculty and said “he would feel similarly [upset] if he were in [the faculty’s] shoes.”

This follows the latest university Faculty Senate meeting, during which Chief Integrity Officer Clay Simmons presented new guidance on research and academic course instruction aimed at complying with SB 17.

In Simmons’ presentation, he said the new guidance, which was recommended by the university’s Office of General Counsel, requires course instruction on DEI topics to be “limited to the elements of the course.”

For example, Simmons said a mathematics class could not include an activity on DEI topics, whether graded or not.

Devynn Case, university director of media relations, said in a statement to the Daily that the university “[continues] to support all our students as we comply with Senate Bill 17.”

Case also said the law forbids the university from engaging in DEI efforts and “does not apply to student organizations or academic course instruction/research.”

This is a developing story that will be updated as new information becomes available.

Editor's note: this story has been updated to add context.

Guidance on research and teaching aimed at SB 17 compliance announced, North Texas Daily

 Friends,

UNT Denton is now extending SB 17 law compliance into curriculum and research. Yes, this unnecessary and ridiculous DEI phobia is impacting what gets taught in some Texas' university classrooms, as well as what gets researched by university professors who are under scrutiny at UNT Denton. So far, so good at UT Austin, but this could be a portent of things to come at your local university if officials continue contributing to a climate of fear and misinterpreting and misrepresenting the law.

What's crazy is that UNT Denton is asserting itself into what have been decades-long, thorny debates on what constitutes "research," by offering something as truly ambiguous as "generalizable research." Moreover, to cite my colleague, Dr. Lilia Garces, this is "repressive legalism" playing out. 

Please, we don't need or want every university in Texas to be run by lawyers, councils, or chief integrity officers!!! This should not even exist or get normalized. These kinds of decisions about what constitutes research need to be made by the research community itself. Anything short of this undermines faculty governance, contributes to low morale among the faculty and administrators who know better (and most do), and turns higher ed in Texas into glorified high schools.

Faculty, please consider joining AAUP as this will provide you with job protection and a community that is responding to this nonsense and hurtful agenda that by their own admission, exceeds the bounds of SB17 that's not supposed to impact either teaching or research.

Angela Valenzuela



Guidance on research and teaching aimed at SB 17 compliance announced, North Texas Daily

by McKinnon Rice, John Forbes
Oct 31, 2024 | North Texas Daily





Chief Compliance Officer Clay Simmons introduced new guidance on research and academic course instruction at the most recent Faculty Senate meeting that included restrictions on faculty research and academic course instruction to comply with Senate Bill 17.

SB 17, passed in 2022, prohibits Texas public institutions of higher education from undertaking diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and from requiring employees to participate in DEI training or make DEI statements. It also does not allow the university to “give preference on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to an applicant for employment, an employee, or a participant in any function of the institution.”

The law also says the DEI prohibition does not apply to “academic course instruction,” and “scholarly research or a creative work by an institution of higher education's students, faculty, or other research personnel or the dissemination of that research or work.”


The new guidance introduced at the meeting, provided to Clay Simmons by the university’s Office of General Counsel, has caused confusion and concern among faculty.

Simmons said at the Oct. 9 meeting that the university is using the definition of research used in the university’s research misconduct policy, which defines research as “a systematic investigation, including development, testing, evaluation, or publication to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge,” under the advice of the General Counsel’s Office.

Simmons’ presentation at the meeting acknowledged the bill mentions areas where the DEI restrictions do not apply, and outlined the university’s limitations on those exceptions.

The new guidance in the presentation said that “classroom lessons on DEI topics must be limited to elements of the course,” and that “course activities must relate to the course goal or objective.”

Regarding research, limitations to the exception are that “research must meet the definition of true research and be essential to the research,” and that the “scope of work is very important,” according to the new guidance.

“The identity-based aspects must be essential to the research,” Simmons said at the Oct. 9 meeting. “So if you're doing research on homelessness, you have to be very careful if you're going to focus on a certain identity within homelessness. So if you're looking at LGBTQ homeless individuals, then you'll have to make sure that that is narrowly-tailored within the scope of work.”

Adam Briggle, professor and director of graduate studies in the philosophy department, expressed concern about the new guidance at the meeting.

Briggle said he is often told his scholarly work is not research as defined by the Institutional Review Board, a body at the university that reviews faculty’s research proposals to ensure they are complying with regulations pertaining to the use of living subjects, because his work does not fit the part of the definition that says research must “contribute to generalizable knowledge.”

The IRB defines research as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge,” almost identical to the Office of General Counsel’s chosen definition.

At the meeting, Briggle asked if a peer-reviewed article about the rights of transgender people that appeared in a journal or periodical would be permitted.

Simmons said such work would not be protected by the exemption.

“So if you’re not conducting research to the definition that’s included in the policy there, then you’re not covered by the exception,” Simmons said.

Senior Lecturer Lisa Welch, a senator from the College of Science, asked a similar question of Simmons later in the meeting about how faculty work like fiction and nonfiction writing and journal articles are handled by the new guidance.

“I think, as long as you're not doing one of those prohibited activities, then you're on safe ground,” Simmons said. “I don’t think there’s anything that prohibits anyone from writing a paper, especially if it's going to a research publication or a journal or something like that.”


In an interview with the North Texas Daily, Briggle said he believes the research restrictions discussed at the meeting are not the result of what the law said, but of the university’s interpretation of it.

“I actually don’t think this is a problem with SB 17, I think it’s a problem with our compliance office,” Briggle said. “I think they are hitting everything with a blowtorch here, because they're really afraid, understandably, of the legislature cutting their funding. So that's my concern, is even if the authors of SB 17 didn't intend this, it’s having a chilling effect campus wide that is creeping into the classrooms and research when it shouldn't be. I think we need to recalibrate where we're drawing the line as an institution.”

Mariela Nunez-Janes, a professor in the anthropology department, attended the Faculty Senate meeting and raised concerns about the teaching guidance issued. She asked Simmons how academic freedom was being considered by the university.

Simmons said he believes the new guidelines do not inhibit academic freedom because SB 17 is now state law, and is the “very top of the hierarchy” for the university when determining what is allowed in an institution.

Simmons also said there is “intense scrutiny” from the Texas Legislature and interest groups in regard to SB 17 compliance — the penalty for not abiding by the law is losing funding from the state.

On Oct. 25, Simmons sent an email to Faculty Senate members intended to clarify the guidance. The email reiterated the previously-used definition of research, including the section that says research must “develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge,” but also added that “this definition includes scholarly activities and creative works.”

Briggle said of the clarification that confusion remains because the phrase “generalizable knowledge” is still in the definition.

“I'm not sure it fixes it to just say this includes scholarly activities and creative works,” Briggle said. “Does that mean they still have to contribute to generalizable knowledge? And who's deciding what that means? Actually, I don't know, maybe this leaves more questions than answers.”

In an interview with the Daily, Simmons said, “I don’t see us really getting down into the very minute detail of what is generalizable knowledge […].”

According to the presentation, penalties for noncompliance with SB 17 include “disciplinary action by the university against individuals and loss of state funding for UNT.”

Briggle also said penalties could be a year without pay for a professor’s first offense, and immediate termination from employment for their second. In addition to being fired, Briggle said the professor would also be “blacklisted” from being hired at another higher education institution in Texas.

Simmons said anyone can request a review from the Integrity and Compliance Office to check if they or someone else are following SB 17.

At the Faculty Senate meeting, Simmons encouraged faculty members to consult their own chain of command before requesting a review from his office.

“The reason for that is that not only are we looking at legal risks that are presented with some of these activities, but we're also looking at the political risk that comes along with a lot of these,” Simmons said at the meeting. “And so sometimes things will be legal, but a dean just isn't comfortable going quite that far into that territory, and will be more prone to want to either change it or modify it, or rethink the whole idea.”

Simmons said in an interview with the Daily that the “political risk” is the possibility of it appearing to the state that the university is not taking SB 17 compliance seriously.

Simmons also said at the meeting that around university 90 activities had been cut and around 17 modified to comply with the law.

The next Faculty Senate meeting will take place on Nov. 20, and senators will be able to further discuss concerns about SB 17 guidelines.

Saturday, November 02, 2024

"Last Night's DEI Dream: Art and a Change of Heart Will Save the World," by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Last Night's DEI Dream: Art and a Change of Heart Will Save the World

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

November 2, 2024

Perhaps inspired by the Day of the Dead and my deep thoughts and prayers these days on ancestors, especially my late mother, Helen Valenzuela, I had a dream last night that I was on a search committee at a major public university in Texas. Our committee of 5 members of the faculty were to replace a departing provost. The provost is the head of the academic mission of the university. They are also referred to as the Chief Academic Officers of the university. 

In my dream, she was an affable white woman with short red hair and freckles. Race and gender are important to this story on DEI, though I will not analyze it fully as I'm still processing the dream. I welcome your comments.

The space for the search committee meeting was a vast, open quadrangle that blended elements of ancient Greek design with modern, dilapidated structures that were chipped and crumbling. Ha! A "Hellenic" context. Love you, Mom! My dream felt at once current, futuristic, and dystopian.

The roads leading up to the quadrangle were dusty and riddled with potholes, a stark contrast to the imposing Greek-motif main building that loomed ahead. Its impressive facade evoked a bygone era, hinting at faded grandeur. The marble columns and platforms appeared worn and weathered, their once-smooth surfaces now etched with the marks—not of time, one sensed—but of underinvestment and neglect. Still, we as a faculty were pursuing our charge to select the next provost of the university with me as one of their representatives.

I searched for an equivalent architectural structure online and this was the closest that I could find. This is a digital creation of what the Temple of Elysian Harmony looked like in ancient Greece. It is fitting, as for the ancient Greeks, the Elysium symbolized a realm of creativity, wisdom, and intellectual pursuits—the highest and noblest of qualities we envision for our universities today. This is why so many university campuses—and public buildings, too—are adorned with architectural artwork and aesthetically constructed according to Greek and Roman architecture in order to convey power, authority, and status.

However, in the context of my dream, I want you to imagine a large, u-shaped quadrangle structure that similarly consists of marble columns and platforms, with the entire structure opening up at its mouth to a large dirt parking lot and roads leading up to it. Cars are inchoately parked, revealing a lack of order that betrayed the decorum of "the Elysian" of my dream. I walked through the uncomfortable dust to get to my meeting with the search committee and provost. 

On a specially constructed platform astride the Elysian marble stairs, the outgoing provost was on a large, oblong table facing the audience and with the five search committee members facing her, myself included. What was interesting was that the entire university of students, staff, and faculty were invited such that the quadrangle area was fully packed. I sensed that many members of the public at large were present, as well, given the high-stakes nature of the meeting. I appreciated but was somewhat inhibited in knowing that members of the public were in attendance, including, possibly, members of the Texas legislature.

I don't remember any microphones. Rather, our voices were magically heard by all, presumably because of the Elysian's architectural design. What I liked was the "demos" vibe of the event, which is, of course, the root of the word "democracy," meaning "the people." What all appreciated and took for granted was that this was a transparent conversation surrounding this important hire where the expertise of the search committee was recognized as a matter of fact.

On the topic of the qualities of the provost, I remember saying that they should ideally be likable to the faculty, considering their relationship to the faculty. I by no means meant that the provost herself wasn't likable, but rather, the next provost should be similarly appealing. She took my suggestion well and agreed, nodding her head. Another on the search committee asked the provost what is the question she gets asked the most.

The provost said, "The question I get asked most is about diversity." My mind went immediately to the struggles we have been having in Texas with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). I thought to myself, "I'm not surprised considering all the chaos that the Texas legislature's ending of DEI programs and initiatives had wrought. In fact, it was the answer I was expecting.

What happened next, though, surprised me. The provost stopped speaking and stood up and walked over to her left side of the quadrangle, where large canvases dropped down from between its marble columns, four total. She painted with a large paintbrush, one canvas after another at breakneck speed, with beautiful, bright-colored imagery. The audience, myself included, was stunned and spellbound.

Then a white female professor, presumably a faculty member from the Fine Arts Department, similarly stood up and belted out a most beautiful rendition of the classic, Mexican song, "Los Laureles," sung by numerous artists, reminiscent of the memorable one by Linda Ronstadt in her best-selling, Grammy Award-winning album, Canciones de Mi Padre (My father's songs). You can listen to it in its entirety here and read the lyrics in Spanish here.

The provost never stopped painting, reminding me of the movie, "Fantasia," which is imaginatively vivid and expressive through animation, transporting the viewer to other worlds. Moreover, she inspired this professor to extemporaneously stand up to sing this well-known traditional Mexican song, which was clearly one of her well-rehearsed favorites, that extended the political statement the provost was making through art. What surprised us Mexicans and Mexican Americans in the audience was that both were white powerful women doing this and in the context of a search committee meeting! This was unheard of!

The person next to me said, "Can you believe this? There is such a deep hunger for diversity that even white people are craving it!" "And it's Mexican!" I said.

The final touch was a most piercing, loud Mexican grito, by a Latino male that punctuated a most extraordinary event, waking me up and literally thrusting me into consciousness (see Learn How to Grito like a Mariachi on Youtube).

There are many layers here that I am still figuring out. An immediate takeaway is that there truly exists such a deep hunger for diversity that we're seeing white people actively seeking out multicultural experiences, engaging with diverse communities, and advocating for inclusivity in various spaces. It really is hard to argue against the idea that our diversity is our strength, forming us into a richer, more vibrant society and nation that benefits everyone.

Conversely, without it, we are impoverished. Even our institutions lose their gleam, at best. At worst, they crumble and fall into disrepair.
 
A final thought is that we, as Mexicans or Mexican Americans—or members of any nationality, race, or ethnicity—also cannot and should not underestimate white people. Many of them are already Mexican (or other race, ethnicity, or nationality) in their hearts. And the number is growing. Or perhaps they have a Mexican mother, father, grandmother, or grandfather, including departed ones, who are not just telling them to love those parts of themselves that defy the myth of racial purity but also that art really can save the world. 

If it worked for Linda Ronstadt, it could work for them, too. 🩷