Centering Survivors, Not Symbols: Dolores Huerta and the Meaning of This Moment, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Centering Survivors, Not Symbols: Dolores Huerta and the Meaning of This Moment

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

March 18, 2026

There are moments when the stories we inherit ask something difficult of us. This is one of them. Dolores Huerta, at nearly 96 years old, has broken a silence she carried for more than half a century. In her own words, she was “manipulated and pressured,” and later “forced, against [her] will,” into sexual encounters with Cesar Chavez at a time when he was her boss, someone she admired, and the central figure in a movement she had already given her life to. 

She tells us she stayed silent because the movement mattered—that the fight for farmworker justice could not be derailed. And now, she tells us that her silence has ended (Fernandez & Hurtes, 2026). In her words, per an NBC Los Angeles report (posted below) by Jonathan Lloyd,

"The knowledge that he hurt young girls sickens me. My heart aches for everyone who suffered alone and in silence for years. There are no words strong enough to condemn those deplorable actions that he did. Cesar’s actions do not reflect the values of our community and our movement."

I sit with this with a heavy heart. Like so many, I have long held deep respect for the farmworker movement and what it made possible for our communities. That does not go away. But neither can we look away from what Huerta has entrusted us with. When she names herself as a survivor—of sexual violence, of power, of men who saw women as objects to control—she is not only telling her story. She is opening a space for others, including those who, as she notes, were harmed as young girls and carried that pain alone.  

So I find myself asking: what would it mean to honor this moment with integrity? Perhaps it means that Cesar Chavez Day goes away—or alternatively, becomes something more honest, more expansive—a day where we hold the complexity of our histories and center those who have been pushed to the margins. A day to stand with survivors of sexual abuse, with children who have been violated, with those living under the weight of gendered and state violence.

If we take Huerta seriously—and I believe we must—then this is not about tearing down a movement, but about refusing to root it in silence. It is about bringing our commemorations into right relationship with the values we name: dignity, truth, and justice. And it is about honoring her courage by listening—to the voices of other survivors who have carried these truths quietly, often alone, for far too long.

And listening must move us to act. Support organizations that provide care and advocacy for survivors. Create spaces in our communities where people can speak without fear and be met with belief, not doubt. Teach our students and our children about consent, power, and accountability. Demand that our institutions—whether movements, universities, or the state itself—take seriously their responsibility to protect the vulnerable and to confront harm, even when it is inconvenient or painful.

Let this be one of commitment to survivors, to truth, and to a future where justice is not selective, and where no one is asked to carry such burdens alone.

References

Fernandez, M. & Hurtes, S. (2026, March 18). Cesar Chavez, a civil rights icon, is accused of abusing girls for years, New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/18/us/cesar-chavez-sexual-abuse-allegations-ufw.html

Lloyd, J. (2026, March 18). Civil rights leader Dolores Huerta issues statement accusing Cesar Chavez of sexual abuse, NBC Los Angeles, https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-news/dolores-huerta-cesar-chavez-abuse-accusations/3863019/

Civil rights leader Dolores Huerta issues statement accusing Cesar Chavez of sexual abuse

The United Farm Workers and Cesar Chavez Foundation both issued statements Tuesday about allegations against the labor leader.

By Jonathan Lloyd | March 18, 2026 | NBC Los Angeles

Civil rights leader Dolores Huerta said farmworker union co-founder Cesar Chavez sexually abused her during their time as high-profile labor leaders, according to a statement obtained from her spokesman.

In the statement from Huerta issued by spokesman Eric Olvera, Huerta, 96, said she was "manipulated and pressured into having sex with" Chavez in the 1960s when the two were at the forefront of the labor movement.

"As a young mother in the 1960s, I experienced two separate sexual encounters with Cesar," Huerta said in the statement. "The first time I was manipulated and pressured into having sex with him, and I didn’t feel I could say no because he was someone that I admired, my boss and the leader of the movement I had already devoted years of my life to. The second time I was forced, against my will, and in an environment where I felt trapped."

Both sexual encounters with Chavez led to pregnancies, Huerta said.

Huerta said she is coming forward now to share her experience following a New York Times multi-year investigation into Chavez's sexual misconduct. The children were placed in the care of other families, she said.

"Over the years, I have been fortunate to develop a deep relationship with these children, who are now close to my other children, their siblings," Huerta said. "But even then, no one knew the full truth about how they were conceived until just a few weeks ago.

"I carried this secret for as long as I did because building the movement and securing farmworker rights was my life’s work. The formation of a union was the only vehicle to accomplish and secure those rights and I wasn’t going to let Cesar or anyone else get in the way. I channeled everything I had into advocating on behalf of millions of farmworkers and others who were suffering and deserved equal rights."

Chavez died in 1993 at age 66.

In the early 1960s, Chavez co-founded what would become the influential UFW with Huerta. The statement from Huerta came a day after statements from the UFW and the Cesar Chavez Foundation regarding unspecified allegations against Chavez.

The United Farm Workers said it will not be part of any Cesar Chavez Day activities after "deeply troubling allegations" against the union co-founder. UFW said in its statement that allegations against the labor activist include "very young women or girls may have been victimized."

The union said it has not received direct reports and does not have any firsthand knowledge of the allegations.

The Cesar Chavez Foundation in a statement Tuesday said Chavez is accused of engaging in inappropriate behavior with women and minors during his time as president of the United Farm Workers of America.

The statements did not provide more details about the nature of the allegations. The allegations were not independently confirmed by NBCLA.

The organizations urged people to participate in immigration justice events or acts of service instead of the typical events on the holiday honoring Chavez's civil rights and labor activism legacy.

The Cesar Chavez Day state holiday is every March 31 in California, where nearly half the nation’s fruits, nuts and vegetables are grown. In 2014, President Barack Obama proclaimed March 31 as national Cesar Chavez Day.

There are several parks, schools and streets in Southern California that bear his name. The Cesar E. Chavez National Monument is in Keene, California, located in the Tehachapi Mountains.

The civil rights, Latino and farm labor leader was born in 1927 in Arizona. His family became migrant farm workers after losing their farm in the Great Depression, picking lettuce, grapes, cotton and other seasonal crops.

Chavez served in the Navy before becoming a prominent community organizer in California.
Read full Dolores Huerta statement

I am nearly 96 years old, and for the last 60 years have kept a secret because I believed that exposing the truth would hurt the farmworker movement I have spent my entire life fighting for.

I have encouraged people to always use their voice. Following the New York Times’ multi-year investigation into sexual misconduct by Cesar Chavez, I can no longer stay silent and must share my own experiences.

As a young mother in the 1960s, I experienced two separate sexual encounters with Cesar. The first time I was manipulated and pressured into having sex with him, and I didn’t feel I could say no because he was someone that I admired, my boss and the leader of the movement I had already devoted years of my life to. The second time I was forced, against my will, and in an environment where I felt trapped.

I had experienced abuse and sexual violence before, and I convinced myself these were incidents that I had to endure alone and in secret. Both sexual encounters with Cesar led to pregnancies. I chose to keep my pregnancies secret and, after the children were born, I arranged for them to be raised by other families that could give them stable lives.

Over the years, I have been fortunate to develop a deep relationship with these children, who are now close to my other children, their siblings. But even then, no one knew the full truth about how they were conceived until just a few weeks ago.

I carried this secret for as long as I did because building the movement and securing farmworker rights was my life’s work. The formation of a union was the only vehicle to accomplish and secure those rights and I wasn’t going to let Cesar or anyone else get in the way. I channeled everything I had into advocating on behalf of millions of farmworkers and others who were suffering and deserved equal rights.

I have never identified myself as a victim, but I now understand that I am a survivor — of violence, of sexual abuse, of domineering men who saw me, and other women, as property, or things to control.

I am telling my story because the New York Times has indicated that I was not the only one — there were others. Women are coming forward, sharing that they were sexually abused and assaulted by Cesar when they were girls and teenagers.

The knowledge that he hurt young girls sickens me. My heart aches for everyone who suffered alone and in silence for years. There are no words strong enough to condemn those deplorable actions that he did. Cesar’s actions do not reflect the values of our community and our movement.

The farmworker movement has always been bigger and far more important than any one individual. Cesar’s actions do not diminish the permanent improvements achieved for farmworkers with the help of thousands of people. We must continue to engage and support our community, which needs advocacy and activism now more than ever.

I will continue my commitments to workers, as well as my commitment to women’s rights, to make sure we have a voice and that our communities are treated with dignity and given the equity that they have so long been denied.

I have kept this secret long enough. My silence ends here.
Read the full UFW statement

The UFW has learned of deeply troubling allegations that one of the union’s co-founders, Cesar Chavez, behaved in ways that are incompatible with our organization’s values. Some of the reports are family issues, and not our story to tell or our place to comment on. Far more troubling are allegations involving abuse of young women or minors. Allegations that very young women or girls may have been victimized are crushing. We have not received any direct reports, and we do not have any firsthand knowledge of these allegations. However, the allegations are serious enough that we feel compelled to take urgent steps to learn more and provide space for people who may have been victimized to find support and to share their stories if that is what they choose.

The United Farm Workers will not be taking part in any Cesar Chavez Day activities.

Instead, we call on our allies and supporters to take part in immigration justice events and acts of service to support farmworkers or empower vulnerable people in their own communities.

Over the coming weeks, in partnership with experts in these kinds of processes, we are working to establish an external, confidential, independent channel for those who may have experienced harm caused by Cesar Chavez during the early days of the UFW’s history. This channel is for those who wish to share their experiences of harm, to identify their current impacts and needs, and, if desired, to participate in a collective process to develop mechanisms for repair and accountability.

We are grateful to the support of experts who can help us seek the truth that is the first step toward healing.

These allegations have been profoundly shocking. We need some time to get this right, including to ensure robust, trauma-informed services are available to those who may need it.

We understand this will be tremendously painful for many and we encourage our community to seek mental health support if they experience distress.

Today’s UFW is a modern and progressive labor union and we will seek to learn from our history.

Farm workers are winning new union contracts, and the United Farm Workers is fighting to protect immigrant communities from the wage cuts, violence and attacks farm workers face today. The work to support the farm workers who feed our nation is more important than ever, and this work will continue.
Read the full Cesar Chavez Foundation statement

The Cesar Chavez Foundation has become aware of disturbing allegations that Cesar Chavez engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with women and minors during his time as President of the United Farm Workers of America (UFW).

We are deeply shocked and saddened by what we are hearing.

“The Foundation is working with leaders in the Farmworker Movement to be responsive to these allegations, support the people who may have been harmed by his actions, and ensure we are united and guided by our commitment to justice and community empowerment.

In partnership with the UFW, we are establishing a safe and confidential process for those who wish to share their experiences of historic harm, and, if they choose to, participate in efforts toward repair and reconciliation.

In addition, we are investing time and resources to ensure the Foundation promotes and strengthens a workplace culture that is safe and welcoming for all.

We ask for our community’s patience as we learn more. Throughout this process, our organization and our partners in the movement will continue our work together to protect and uplift the families and communities that we serve.

Today, the Cesar Chavez Foundation impacts the lives of millions of Latinos and working families across the Southwest by inspiring and transforming communities through social enterprises that address essential human, cultural, and community needs.”

Policing Knowledge, Misrepresenting Scholarship: A Response to Brandon Creighton’s Latest Intervention in Texas Higher Education, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Policing Knowledge, Misrepresenting Scholarship: A Response to Brandon Creighton’s Latest Intervention in Texas Higher Education

by 

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

March 16, 2026

Something troubling is happening in Texas higher education—not simply at the level of legislation, but at the level of logic.

According to a recent report in The Chronicle of Higher Education, policies— formerly advanced by former legislator Brandon Creighton who is now the President of Texas Tech University are getting operationalized systemwide. 

Specifically, they seek to prohibit faculty from teaching that a person can be “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive,” that individuals should feel guilt for the actions of others because of their race or sex, or from acknowledging that gender identity might exist beyond a rigid binary.

Let us pause here.

Not because the issue is complicated—but because the framing is so profoundly misleading.

The premise underlying these policies is that universities are indoctrinating students into believing that individuals are inherently racist or oppressive and that professors are somehow in the business of assigning moral guilt based on race or sex.

This is a caricature. And it's offensive.

In logic, this is termed a "straw man" that  resides at the center of the policy.

It bears little, if any, resemblance to what scholars in sociology, history, Ethnic Studies, gender studies, education, political science, or law actually teach. Across these fields, faculty engage students in rigorous inquiry into systems, institutions, structures of power, and historical processes—not as ideological exercises, but as empirically grounded and theoretically informed modes of analysis. 

This begs the question: what, exactly, are policymakers reacting to—actual classroom practice, or a politically constructed narrative that bears little relation to the intellectual work taking place in universities?

These frameworks, developed over decades of interdisciplinary scholarship, equip students to examine how policies are made, how categories like race and gender are socially constructed and operationalized, how law and governance distribute resources and rights, how knowledge itself is produced and legitimized, and how inequality is reproduced, resisted, and transformed over time. 

Students learn to interpret evidence, evaluate competing claims, and situate contemporary issues within longer historical arcs. In other words, the aim is not to assign blame or fix identities, but to cultivate intellectual curiousity, develop analytical capacity, promote epistemic humility, and foster a deeper understanding of the complex social worlds they inhabit.

What we teach is that systems can generate inequality even when individuals do not consciously intend it. That insight—central to modern social science—is not a moral accusation. It is an analytical observation.

Indeed, suggesting that universities teach students that they are inherently racist or oppressive misunderstands both the scholarship and the pedagogy. 

Unlike scholars of earlier eras—who often took for granted the inheritability of IQ and other deeply flawed, biologically determinist assumptions—contemporary scholarship overwhelmingly rejects essentialist claims about race or moral character. The study of racism and sexism today proceeds from a robust interdisciplinary consensus that these are historically produced, socially organized, and institutionally mediated phenomena—not fixed traits lodged within individuals. 

Indeed, the purpose of this work is to denaturalize inequality: to show how ideas once presented as “common sense” or “scientific truth” were constructed, contested, and sustained over time. That such outdated ways of knowing continue to circulate in public discourse only underscores the importance of this scholarship, not its excess.

Ironically, the policy bans the teaching of an idea that universities themselves overwhelmingly reject.

The Texas Tech memo to faculty reportedly encourages them to consult a flow chart to determine whether course content is “relevant” and “necessary.”

This is surreal.

In a research university—whose mission is the open pursuit of knowledge—faculty are now being invited to filter intellectual inquiry through an administrative decision tree designed to anticipate political scrutiny.

This is not how universities function.

Universities exist precisely because knowledge is complex, contested, evolving, and often uncomfortable. The study of race, gender, colonialism, power, and inequality has always generated debate. But debate is not a reason to suppress inquiry. It is the reason universities exist.

Reducing scholarship to bureaucratic compliance mechanisms does not protect students. It narrows the range of questions they are allowed to ask.

The broader political narrative surrounding these policies suggests that universities are “turning people gay” or confusing students about gender.

This claim is not only inaccurate—it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the research on human development and identity.

Universities do not manufacture sexual orientation or gender identity. Scholars study them. Students learn about them. Social science, psychology, history, anthropology, and public health research have long examined the complexity of human identity, culture, and embodiment.

Teaching about something is not the same as producing it.

If that logic were sound, teaching about capitalism would make students capitalists, teaching about war would turn them into soldiers, and teaching about religion would convert them into believers. At most, education shapes how students understand the world—it does not deterministically produce who they are. 

Human development is far more complex, shaped by family, community, peer networks, media environments, and, in the case of sexuality, a growing body of research indicating that orientation is not something one is taught into being. To suggest otherwise is to confuse exposure with causation, and learning with indoctrination.

The argument collapses under the weight of its own absurdity and, in doing so, exposes the deeper agenda at work: not the protection of students, but the regulation of thought itself and with it—a coordinated legislative effort to restructure higher education governance, limit diversity and equity programs, and increased political oversight of curriculum and institutional decision-making. 

The pattern is clear.

Programs that study race, gender, colonialism, inequality, or social justice are framed as ideological threats. Meanwhile, the policies themselves are explicitly ideological interventions into what faculty are allowed to teach and research.

The irony would be amusing if the consequences were not so serious.

So here is the question that Senator Creighton and others advancing these policies should answer plainly:

What exactly do you believe universities are teaching?

Because the picture presented in these policy justifications—a professor standing at the front of a classroom declaring that students are inherently racist or oppressive—is a fabrication. There may be outliers, for sure, but these are far and few between.

What actually happens in classrooms is something far more ordinary and far more valuable: students encounter history, data, frameworks, arguments, and evidence. They wrestle with competing interpretations. They learn to analyze institutions and power. In short, they develop the intellectual tools necessary for democratic citizenship.

One more thing. Senator Creighton has suggested that universities should focus primarily on careers and salaries rather than “contested ideas.”

But higher education has never been only about job training.

Universities prepare engineers and nurses, yes. But they also educate historians, journalists, teachers, lawyers, communications specialists, and public servants. They cultivate critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and democratic literacy.

A society that insists universities avoid contested ideas is not strengthening higher education.

It is hollowing it out.

The stakes here are not abstract debates about curriculum.

They concern whether public universities in Texas will remain places where scholars can pursue knowledge without political interference—and where students can engage complex social questions without state officials deciding in advance which conclusions are permissible.

If we care about intellectual integrity, democratic inquiry, and the future of higher education in Texas, we should be able to say clearly:

Misrepresenting scholarship is not a foundation for sound policy.

And governing universities through ideological caricatures will not strengthen them.

It will only diminish them.

The Man Behind Texas Tech's Controversial

Brandon Creighton believes colleges should focus on careers and salaries—not contested ideas about race, gender and sexuality.

By Jasper Smith, December 16, 2025

In a sweeping memo sent earlier this month, the Texas Tech University system sharply limited how faculty members can teach about race and sex. The policy bans faculty from teaching that a person can be inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive; a person should “bear responsibility or guilt for actions of others of the same race or sex”; or that there are more than two sexes when discussing gender identity.

The university system encouraged faculty to consult a flow chart to help determine if their course content is both “relevant” and “necessary” to classroom instruction. Many faculty members have criticized the policy and its guidelines as vague and a violation of academic freedom.

Continue reading here.

When Community Feeds Itself: Supporting Homies Empowerment and The Bloom in Oakland, CA—an Important Message from Dr. César A. Cruz

When Community Feeds Itself: Supporting Homies Empowerment and The Bloom in Oakland, CA—an Important Message from Dr. César A. Cruz

Across the country, there are places where the future is already being quietly built—not in boardrooms or policy reports, but in gardens, kitchens, and community spaces where people take care of one another. In Deep East Oakland, one of those places is Homies Empowerment and its remarkable FREEdom Farm.

For the past six years, Dr. César Cruz and his team at Homies Empowerment has been doing the kind of work that rarely makes headlines but sustains communities in the most profound ways. Through its food distribution and mutual aid efforts, the organization has been feeding more than 2,000 people each month. In a time when food insecurity continues to rise and public safety nets remain fragile, this work has meant the difference between hunger and nourishment for thousands of families.

But like many grassroots organizations that step in where institutions fall short, Homies Empowerment is now facing a critical moment. Current funding will only carry the organization through June.

The good news is that this community has weathered storms before—and it will again. But right now, support is urgently needed.

To help sustain this work, Homies Empowerment is hosting a community fundraiser called The Bloom 🌸, taking place:

Saturday, March 21
11:00 AM – 3:00 PM
FREEdom Farm
10451 MacArthur Blvd
Deep East Oakland

The name could not be more fitting.

FREEdom Farm has transformed over the years into a powerful symbol of community resilience—an urban space where food, culture, youth leadership, and healing intersect. Those who have visited know that something special happens there. It is not just a farm; it is a living demonstration of what happens when communities reclaim land, food systems, and their collective future.

As the organizers beautifully put it:

“What blooms in The Deep is magic.”

The event will bring people together to celebrate that magic and ensure that it continues. Tickets start at just $10, and supporters can also make additional donations.

If you are in the Bay Area, consider attending and experiencing the farm firsthand. If you are not, you can still contribute and help sustain this vital work.

Support Homies Empowerment

You can purchase a ticket or make a donation here:
https://www.classy.org/event/the-bloom-a-fundraiser-for-homies-empowerment/e776964

Just as importantly, share the event with your networks. 

Community movements thrive when word spreads.

In a moment when so much public conversation is dominated by division, Homies Empowerment reminds us of something essential: communities already possess the wisdom and capacity to care for one another. What they often lack are the resources to sustain that care.

Supporting Homies Empowerment is not just charity. It is an investment in community self-determination, food justice, and collective flourishing.

Let’s help make sure that what is blooming in Deep East Oakland continues to grow.

https://www.classy.org/event/the-bloom-a-fundraiser-for-homies-empowerment/e776964

Follow them on Instagram @homiesempowerment

A Powerful Evening at UT Austin on the 'Censored University': The Legendary Nikole Hannah-Jones and Truth-Telling, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

A Powerful Evening at UT Austin on the 'Censored University': Nikole Hannah-Jones and Truth-Telling

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

March 11, 2026

In an event sponsored by the Department of Mexican American and Latino Studies and the Department of African American and African Diaspora Studies, the Bass Lecture Hall at the LBJ School for Public Affairs was jam packed yesterday evening as students, faculty, and community members gathered for an extraordinary conversation about history, democracy, and the responsibility of truth-telling in our time. You may scroll down to view the recording.

Jonathan Friedman, Cameron Samuels, and
Nikole Hannah-Jones

We were honored to welcome Nikole Hannah-Jones, Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist and author of The 1619 Project, whose work has profoundly reshaped public understanding of the United States by centering the legacy of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans to the nation’s democratic ideals. Hers is the only book mentioned in Texas law that is weirdly all but censored. It's an honest history and I encourage all to read it. The audiobook version is excellent!

At a moment when honest conversations about history are increasingly contested, Hannah-Jones reminded us that democracy depends not on comforting myths but on our collective willingness to confront the past with clarity, courage, and intellectual integrity.

The evening also highlighted the power of intergenerational dialogue. Cameron Samuels, youth leader and LBJ School master’s student—who just got admitted into the UT Law School—brought a compelling perspective on student activism and intellectual freedom. Their advocacy reminds us that struggles over what can be taught, read, and discussed in schools are inseparable from the future of democracy itself.

We were also fortunate to hear from Jonathan Friedman of PEN America, whose work defending free expression and confronting book bans has been indispensable in documenting the growing movement to restrict knowledge in schools and libraries across the United States. His insights helped situate the conversation within the broader national struggle over intellectual freedom.

Guiding the evening’s dialogue was Dr. Lauren Gutterman, whose thoughtful

César Cruz and me

moderation created space for a rich and probing exchange among the speakers and with the audience. The program opened with an exquisite prayer offered by Dr. César Cruz, whose words grounded the evening in reflection, humility, and a shared commitment to justice and community. It was a beautiful reminder that intellectual work and moral purpose are never far apart.

Events like this matter—especially now. Universities must remain places where difficult histories can be examined honestly, where students encounter ideas that challenge them, and where communities can gather to think together about the future we hope to build.

Last night’s full house at the LBJ School made something clear: people are hungry for these conversations. They want spaces where truth can be spoken, where history can be wrestled with, and where the next generation of scholars, journalists, and organizers can find inspiration.

My deepest thanks to Nikole Hannah-Jones, Cameron Samuels, Jonathan Friedman, Dr. Lauren Gutterman, and Dr. César Cruz for helping make this such a meaningful evening—and to everyone who filled Bass Lecture Hall in a shared commitment to democracy, dialogue, and the enduring power of truth.

From Walkouts to Takeovers: Texas Escalates Its War on Student Voice, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

 From Walkouts to Takeovers: Texas Escalates Its War on Student Voice

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

March 9, 2026

The recent op-ed by Jasmin Lee, Daniel Dawer, and Cory Brautigam exposes something deeply troubling about the Texas Education Agency’s latest threats against school districts where students have protested immigration enforcement. What is at stake is not merely student discipline or classroom order. What we are witnessing is the attempted expansion of state takeover power into the realm of political speech. I quote: "there are no recorded instances of state education agencies using takeover as a consequence for student activism anywhere in the nation."

Think about that. This is a singular policy agenda unique to Texas.

Historically, state takeovers were justified—however controversially—on grounds such as academic performance or financial mismanagement. But under the new logic advanced by Governor Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton, and the Texas Education Agency, student protest itself may now constitute a trigger for state intervention. If this standard holds, students walking out to protest immigration raids, detention of classmates, or broader questions of justice could effectively place their entire school district at risk of state control.

This is a stunning escalation. It transforms the accountability apparatus of the state into a mechanism for disciplining democratic participation.

The irony, of course, is profound. Texas political leaders frequently invoke “free speech” as justification for dismantling diversity initiatives, regulating curriculum, and policing universities. Yet when students exercise that very freedom—especially in defense of immigrant communities—the response is investigation, intimidation, and the threat of takeover.

None of this should surprise us. For decades, state takeover policies have disproportionately targeted Black and Latino communities. The takeover of Houston ISD already revealed how such interventions often produce cultures of fear, censorship, and top-down control rather than meaningful educational improvement. Extending this logic to student protest simply strips away the last remaining pretense that these policies are primarily about academic outcomes.

At its core, this moment reflects not simply an assertion of state power, but an alarming turn toward extremism in Texas education policy. Threatening to take over entire school districts because students engage in protest is wildly out of step with the democratic purposes of public education. Schools are supposed to cultivate civic participation, not punish it. 

Yet Texas leaders are now attempting to police student speech itself—deciding who gets to speak, who gets to organize, and who gets to define the boundaries of democratic participation in our schools. When student protest becomes grounds for state intervention, accountability policy has been transformed—even disfigured—into a tool of political control.

Young people have always been central to movements for justice—from the Chicano walkouts of 1968 to the student protests against gun violence in recent years. To threaten entire school districts because students speak out today is not only historically short-sighted; it is a warning sign about the direction of governance in Texas public education.

If student activism becomes grounds for state takeover, then what we are witnessing is not school accountability—it is the political capture of public education. Public education is recast not as a space for democratic learning, but as a site for enforcing political obedience.

TEA’s threats over student activism lay bare the takeover agenda

By Jasmin Lee, Daniel Dawer and Cory Brautigam,Guests ColumnistsFeb 10, 2026 | Austin-American Statesman

Crockett High School students walk out of school on Jan. 30 as part of a nationwide protest of the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton later ordered investigations into such student protests at Austin Independent School District.

Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman

In response to growing student protests against violence committed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, the Texas Education Agency last week announced sanctions for school districts where students participate in “inappropriate political activism.” At the direction of Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton — who have ordered investigations into student protests at Austin Independent School District — TEA has threatened to revoke teachers’ certifications or take over entire districts if they are deemed to have supported such activism.

This move from TEA represents a dangerous weaponization of state takeover policy.

Rather than using intimidation tactics to silence the speech of perceived political opponents, TEA and state lawmakers should support educators’ and students’ rights to teach and learn without interference.

Historically, when Texas students participated in walkouts to protest gun violence or racial segregation, lawmakers did not threaten to take over their school districts. Instead, takeover remained an extreme measure reserved for cases of persistent academic underperformance or financial mismanagement — criteria specified in the Texas Education Code. Defying state and national precedent, TEA’s recent guidance threatens to deploy takeover policy in new ways by identifying political speech as a justification for intervention.

We have spent the last three years documenting Texas’s 2023 takeover of Houston Independent School District. Through hundreds of interviews with educators, families and students, we’ve learned how the HISD takeover has disrupted teaching and learning, contributed to staff turnover and enrollment declines, and created a culture of pervasive fear and mistrust.

Research on takeovers shows they disproportionately target majority-Black and Latino districts, don’t lead to long-term academic gains, and subject stakeholders to emotional turmoil. Houstonians know this reality all too well.

Hundreds of Crockett High School students participated in the Jan. 30 walkout, which 

was among similar student demonstrations held at other Austin-area schools.

Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman

TEA originally justified the HISD takeover by citing chronic academic failure at just one of the district’s 274 schools — a low threshold for intervention, to be sure, but at least one codified in statute. Student protests, on the other hand, are not mentioned in the Texas Education Code’s chapter on school accountability. In fact, there are no recorded instances of state education agencies using takeover as a consequence for student activism anywhere in the nation.

Under TEA’s vague new criteria, standard teaching practices like making connections between current events and a novel like “Animal Farm” — a text included in TEA’s proposed Literary Works list — could put districts at risk of takeover. Did the teacher encourage “inappropriate political activism” or facilitate speech that “disrupts learning”? If students hold an event to raise awareness about a classmate’s detention by ICE, as they did for HISD senior Mauro Yosueth Henriquez, would this constitute grounds for takeover?

Now, imagine a scenario where TEA takes over a district for these reasons. What reforms would an appointed board of managers put in place? Even before TEA’s new guidelines were introduced, HISD’s state-appointed leadership closed school libraries, restricted student access to reading full books, and suspended 45 students for participating in a single protest. How much further would officials go in policing teacher and student speech?

Moreover, takeovers typically specify the metrics that districts must meet to regain local control. What exit criteria would determine whether sufficient “improvement” had been made under these conditions? This could mean silencing or removing individuals whose political beliefs diverge from those held by state leadership.

Takeovers have always been about controlling what communities — especially Black and Latino communities — can say, think and do. By threatening to take over school districts in response to students’ political activism, TEA’s guidance rips away the facade that takeover is about improving student learning. It is, and has always been, about race, power and domination.

TEA must stop caving to political demands from the governor and attorney general and instead focus on its own stated purpose: supporting educators and students in their pursuit of critical thinking and lifelong learning.

Jasmin Lee, Daniel Dawer and Cory Brautigam are doctoral students at Rice University, the University of Texas at Austin and Penn State University, respectively.

Latino Voters, White Grievance Politics, and the Limits of the Anti-Immigrant Strategy by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Latino Voters, White Grievance Politics, and the Limits of the Anti-Immigrant Strategy

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

March 9, 2026

Recent reporting on the Texas primaries suggests that Republicans are beginning to worry about something that once seemed improbable: that the Latino voters who helped power Donald Trump’s 2024 victory may be drifting away from the coalition they helped build.

In heavily Latino parts of Texas, Democratic primary turnout last week significantly outpaced Republican turnout. Local officials in the Rio Grande Valley—long considered a key testing ground for Republican gains among Latino voters—are now warning that enthusiasm for the GOP appears to be fading.

But in many ways, this should not come as a surprise.

The political coalition that helped Republicans expand their Latino vote in 2024 was always built on a fragile foundation. Latino voters, like other Americans, hold diverse views on issues such as the economy, education, religion, and public safety. Some were drawn to Republican messaging around economic opportunity or border management. Yet the broader ideological framework shaping the modern Republican Party remains deeply rooted in white grievance politics—a politics that often frames immigrants and communities of color as threats to national identity, culture, and security.

There is a limit to how long that contradiction can hold.

For years, anti-immigrant rhetoric has been a central organizing force within the party. But rhetoric has increasingly been translated into policy. The administration’s aggressive deportation campaign—promoted as the largest in U.S. history—has swept up not only recent arrivals but also long-time undocumented residents and families with deep roots in their communities. Federal raids, workplace enforcement, and high-profile immigration crackdowns have made the consequences of this politics visible in everyday life.

Even voters who supported tougher border enforcement did not necessarily anticipate policies that would reach so deeply into communities, workplaces, and families.

When a political movement is fueled by grievance—particularly grievance centered on race, demographic change, and national belonging—it inevitably produces policies that punish the very communities it seeks to court politically. Latino voters may swing between parties, as many analysts note, but they are also paying close attention to how policies affect their neighbors, their workplaces, and their families.

What the Texas primaries may be revealing is not a sudden shift, but the limits of a political strategy built on exclusion.

Coalitions built through fear and resentment are inherently unstable. And when policies begin to translate rhetoric into lived consequences, voters notice.

Texas primaries raise GOP alarm about Latino voters

Strong Democratic turnout last week in heavily Latino parts of Texas has some Republicans fearing they will struggle to maintain the coalition Trump built in 2024.

March 8, 2026 | Washington Post





By Hannah Knowles and Clara Ence Morse

The Republican mayor of McAllen, Texas, says he wasn’t surprised last week when Democrats saw robust primary turnout in his heavily Latino border region of the state.

“The excitement there was with the Hispanic community and the Republican Party is kind of waning,” Mayor Javier Villalobos lamented.

Some of Villalobos’s family members who voted for President Donald Trump in 2024 — fueling Republicans’ gains with Latino voters around the country — are telling him they think they made a mistake, the mayor said. Many people who initially cheered Trump for securing the border now think his immigration crackdown has gone too far.


Villalobos worries that Republicans’ hopes of picking up five House seats with a redrawn Texas map are fading — particularly because four of those districts are majority-Latino.

“There’s a good chance that we may lose one or two of those … maybe even more, based on the way that things are going right now,” he said.

Turnout last week in Texas was the latest fuel for GOP worries that the Latino voters who helped power Trump’s 2024 victory are slipping away ahead of this year’s midterm elections. Heavily Hispanic areas have swung back toward Democrats in key off-year races as polls show the public souring on Trump’s handling of the economy and immigration, among other issues.

People protest President Donald Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025, in McAllen, Texas.
(Eric Gay/AP)

Trump was elected on promises to carry out the largest deportation operation in U.S. history. But the scope of his administration’s crackdown has still surprised some supporters who expected him to focus more narrowly on violent criminals. His deportation push has ensnared undocumented immigrants living in the United States for years, including children, and his deployment of federal agents in Democratic-led cities drew intense backlash — especially after the killing of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis.

Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Florida), who has championed immigration reform legislation, said in an interview that Texas is part of a string of warning signs. She pointed to November’s elections in Virginia and New Jersey, where the most heavily Latino counties swung most sharply toward Democrats.

Republicans, she said, are “understanding that because of those excesses of what happened the first year with immigration … the Republican Party has lost this great coalition that we put together in ’24.”

“Republicans must course-correct now before it’s too late,” she urged last week on social media.

Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Florida) says Texas is part of a string of warning signs for Republicans. (Marta Lavandier/AP)


Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Florida), who has championed immigration reform legislation, said in an interview that Texas is part of a string of warning signs. She pointed to November’s elections in Virginia and New Jersey, where the most heavily Latino counties swung most sharply toward Democrats.

Republicans, she said, are “understanding that because of those excesses of what happened the first year with immigration … the Republican Party has lost this great coalition that we put together in ’24.”

“Republicans must course-correct now before it’s too late,” she urged last week on social media.

“Democrats can burn piles of cash into a primary and temporarily juice their turnout, but that doesn’t change the reality on the ground that Latino voters are moving toward the Republican Party,” said Christian Martinez, a spokesman for House Republicans’ campaign arm.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said Trump got historic support from Latino voters and “is working diligently to deliver on his agenda to enforce federal immigration law, fix Biden’s affordability crisis, bring investment back to the United States, and more.”

There are caveats to Democrats’ high turnout in Texas’s primaries last week. In heavily Hispanic Starr County, for instance, many voters in the Democratic primary did not pick a Senate candidate, suggesting a disconnect with the broader party.

Still, Democrats’ turnout edge was striking in a red state where both parties held expensive and competitive primaries on Tuesday. Among the 21 Texas counties that are at least 75 percent Hispanic, 20 cast more votes in the Democratic primary for Senate than in the Republican race.

Democratic turnout was also higher in key House races in heavily Latino districts that Trump won handily in 2024. Among 10 Texas districts where the voting-age population is majority-Hispanic, several broke for Trump in 2024 by 10 or more points and last week saw more Democrats than Republicans vote in their House primaries.

Trump set off an unprecedented mid-decade gerrymandering push in Texas last summer in an effort to maintain GOP control of the House. Trump has openly expressed concern that Democrats — who responded with a redrawn map in California and have an effort underway in Virginia — could investigate him and his administration if they win back control of the chamber.

Texas Republicans passed a redrawn map they hope will net five additional GOP seats. But Democrats could hold some of the seats if Republicans fall significantly short of Trump’s 2024 performance.

In the redrawn 34th District, where Trump won by 10 points, about 56,000 people cast primary votes for Democratic House candidates on Tuesday, while about 34,000 cast primary votes for Republican candidates.

“November’s still a long way away. … We have to be careful and thoughtful,” said Democratic Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, who is seeking reelection to the district. “But it looks to be a potential blue wave if the election was today.”

Gonzalez said voters are upset about the cost of living, the cost of health care and the aggressiveness of Trump’s immigration crackdown. Local builders who have been supportive of Trump have been sounding the alarm about their loss of labor. The executive director of the South Texas Builders Association, a Trump voter, traveled to Washington last month to warn lawmakers that “South Texas will never be red again.”

Dave Carney, a GOP strategist and adviser to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), said Republicans still “feel great” about South Texas. They plan to make major investments in races there and have recruited candidates to run for local offices that previously went uncontested, he said.

Like many Republicans, he also suggested the backlash to Trump’s immigration policies would ease after recent administration changes. Trump in January sidelined a controversial border official amid an uproar over federal agents’ killings of U.S. citizens in Minneapolis and last week replaced Kristi L. Noem as head of the Department of Homeland Security. It’s unclear whether the new leadership will result in significant changes to Trump’s immigration policy.

“I think we’re going to see many of the headlines, and the crisis being fanned by the left, dissipate to a great extent,” Carney said.

But Mike Madrid, a Republican strategist focused on Latino voters, said he’s been struck by the consistency of the trend lines among different Latino communities around the country — from Dominican Americans in New Jersey to Mexican Americans in the Rio Grande Valley.

His takeaway: Latino voters are “de-aligned and detached from both parties,” meaning they can swing back and forth between Democrats and Republicans. Right now, Madrid said, Republicans have “completely overplayed their hand.”

Scott Clement and Teo Armus contributed to this report.