Translate

Sunday, August 31, 2025

'Chilling Attempt to Evade Accountability': Trump to Boycott UN Human Rights Review--Time for Action!

Friends, Students, Community Members, and Colleagues:

The Trump administration has once again turned its back on global human rights accountability—this time by refusing to participate in the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the process where every country is asked to account for its human rights record. The U.S. has taken part in every review since 2010, but this year it walked away—at the very moment when international scrutiny is most urgent.

The ACLU blasted the boycott as “a chilling attempt to evade accountability,” warning it emboldens authoritarian regimes and weakens protections for basic freedoms at home and abroad. It’s not hard to see why Trump is ducking the process: the U.S. government is already facing mounting criticism for human rights violations committed by ICE—ripping families apart, caging children, and forcing undocumented immigrants into what can only be described as modern-day concentration camps.

By abandoning the UPR, the administration is shielding itself from global accountability while doubling down on its attacks on vulnerable communities. This is not leadership—it is complicity in cruelty.

We cannot stay silent. Communities, students, and allies must make clear that we reject bigotry, authoritarianism, and the dismantling of democratic institutions.

Join Austin SDS Rally—UT Students in Opposition to the Trump Administration’s Bigoted and Reactionary Agenda! Thursday, September 4th at 5PM.

-Angela Valenzuela

Reference

Corbett, J. (2025, Aug. 28). 'Chilling Attempt to Evade Accountability': Trump to Boycott UN Human Rights Review, Common Dreams. https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-un-human-rights-council


Join Austin SDS Rally—UT Students in Opposition to the Trump Administration’s Bigoted and Reactionary Agenda! Thursday, September 4th at 5PM

@austin.sds



Join Austin SDS and other UT students in opposition to the Trump administration’s bigoted and reactionary agenda!

Deportations have only increased since Trump was inaugurated last January, tearing apart families and forcing many undocumented immigrants into modern-day concentration camps. Meanwhile, Israel’s genocide against Palestine continues, with our government supplying Israel with money and arms, while also repressing activists for speaking out against the very same atrocities that our government is funding. Coupled with the many attacks against LGBTQ rights at the federal level, it’s necessary that we, the students, continue our historic fight toward progress and stand up against these injustices!

📆 Date: Thursday, September 4th
🕛 Time: 5:00 PM
📍 Location: Main Mall (Outside the UT Tower)

Stop Trump’s Agenda!
No Deportations!
Protect Immigrant Students!

Saturday, August 30, 2025

Next stop: The 'Vlog.' Because some things just need to be said, period.

Friends:

I write to let you know that I'm stepping into "vlogging" (video blogging) as a way to carry forward ideas, struggles, and hopes—my next step in sharing and connecting. There is so much that I and others do and witness in our communities that deserves to be seen and heard, not only read about. 

Building on my blog, Educational Equity, Politics & Policy in Texas, I hope this new space will offer another window into the work, the vision, and the collective spirit that sustains us—as well as the fun, quirky aspects of being not just a professor and public intellectual, but a human being.

You can find my vlog and other videos on my Youtube channel. My first vlogs may be a little rough around the edges—thank you for showing me grace as I grow into this. 

That said, this one is scary and funny at the same time.

-Angela Valenzuela

 

Thursday, August 28, 2025

Honoring La Raza Unida: A Third Party That Changed Texas Politics and Our Sense of What Is Possible by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Honoring La Raza Unida: A Third Party That Changed Texas Politics and Our Sense of What Is Possible

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Sometimes you strike gold. It helps being married to a historian, who asked me to scan this document for a friend and send it along—reminding me how easily treasures like these can slip through the cracks of history, particularly for the casual reader.

In any case, here is a link to the Raza Unida Party platform (1974) that all can read. For the record, raza is an endearing insider term that means “the people.” Hence, the party platform of a “people united”—a bold declaration of dignity and self-determination at a time when Mexican Americans were still struggling to be seen and heard in the halls of power. While the fight for representation continues today, the barriers facing our community were even more formidable in those years.

This morning is the first time I have ever seen or read it. I was in middle school at a time when history itself seemed to march in the streets—the Chicana/o Movement in full stride, the women’s movement gaining strength, and the anti–Vietnam War movement shaking the nation’s conscience. It was then that I first exclaimed that I was “Brown and proud”—a declaration resonant with the spirit of the Black, Red, and Yellow Power movements. All of this action clearly shook the establishment and resulted in Civil Rights legislation that remains among the most significant victories for equity and democracy in U.S. history.

Because network television and newspapers were our major sources of information, it was almost impossible not to hear about what was happening in Texas and other places throughout the Southwest where it took root. In fact, the Raza Unida Party was very much present in my hometown of San Angelo, West Texas, during the early 1970s. These stories seeped into my consciousness, shaping the way I understood politics, justice, and my place in the world.

As this contributed to my political formation, I dedicate this blog to honoring the hard work of those who dared to form a third party—many of them still with us today—because both major parties were largely indifferent to Chicanas/os and Mexican Americans in Texas and throughout the Southwest. Sadly, this reality still resonates with sectors of our communities who continue to feel left behind. Yet most positively, it reminds us of our long history of resistance to exclusion and subordination, particularly in the realm of education—education that is culturally relevant, adequately resourced, and a genuine pathway to higher learning.

Our community has never received these things as gifts from above. They have always been won through struggle, sacrifice, and organizing. Despite the current Epoch of Institutional Unraveling, as I term it, the silver lining is that the vision of Raza Unida lives on today. It lives on in grassroots efforts—whether through Ethnic Studies programs, culturally sustaining schools, bilingual and dual language programs, community-based initiatives like Academia Cuauhtli, or movements for political representation—that continue to build on this legacy of courage.

The party’s story is a reminder that when communities come together to demand representation, justice, and dignity, they can build power against the odds. Its legacy calls on us not only to remember but also to continue imagining and creating the structures of democracy we deserve.

La lucha de La Raza Unida nos recuerda que la justicia nunca se concede, sino que se conquista. Su legado vive en cada esfuerzo comunitario por representación, educación y dignidad—y nos llama a seguir construyendo la democracia que merecemos.


Historical Note

La Raza Unida Party (RUP), founded in 1970 in Crystal City, Texas, emerged from the frustrations of Mexican American activists with the Democratic Party’s neglect of Chicano communities. Its roots lay in the Mexican American Youth Organization (MAYO), created in 1967 by José Ángel Gutiérrez, Mario Compean, Willie Velasquez, Ignacio Perez, and Juan Patlan. Inspired by the Civil Rights Movement, they sought to create a new political force that advanced Chicano nationalism and self-determination.

From its earliest years, women shaped the party’s trajectory—activists like Luz Gutiérrez, Martha P. Cotera, Rosie Castro, Evey Chapa, and others demanded and secured space for Chicana leadership. RUP’s first major successes came in South Texas towns such as Crystal City, Cotulla, and Carrizo Springs, where candidates swept local elections. Alma Canales made history in 1972 as the first Chicana to run for lieutenant governor of Texas.

Dr. Emilio Zamora, now a distinguished historian, served as Travis County chair of the party in the 1970s, helping organize Mexican American political participation during a pivotal moment in Texas history. Today, his scholarship and mentorship continue to amplify Chicana/o voices.

The RUP’s statewide visibility peaked with the gubernatorial campaigns of Ramsey Muñiz in 1972 and 1974, which drew more than 200,000 votes and challenged the dominance of the two major parties. While RUP never succeeded at the state or national level, its campaigns demonstrated the potential of a united Chicana/o electorate and left a lasting imprint on Texas politics.




From Chile to the Smithsonian: The Psychology of Threatened Domination and the Fear of the Supermajority that We Already Are

Good morning from Austin, Texas. I’m re-posting this reflection from 2017 because Duke University political scientist Nancy MacLean’s prophetic book, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, has never been more relevant than it is right now. If we lacked the words then, her research gives us a vocabulary for what’s happening to our country today.

MacLean identifies what she calls the “psychology of threatened domination”—the conviction that one’s liberty is somehow diminished when others gain full citizenship and exercise collective power to govern society. This mindset closely overlaps with zero-sum logics, where equality for others is perceived as a loss for oneself. She describes it as “a whole way of being in the world and seeing others. Assuming one’s right to dominate.”

This worldview, grounded in the writings of Nobel laureate James McGill Buchanan and carried forward by billionaire networks like Charles Koch’s, has always been more than about money. It is about a messianic cause, a stealth vision of government stripped to its bones, where the majority is permanently locked out of power.

We cannot forget that Buchanan’s project was not confined to the United States. In the mid-1970s, he single-handedly re-wrote Chile’s constitution under the Pinochet dictatorship, turning that nation into a testing ground for neoliberalism. The result was a “constitution of locks and bolts,” designed explicitly to keep the majority from exercising democratic will unless it achieved an almost impossible supermajority. This anti-democratic template remains at the heart of the radical right’s playbook today.

MacLean warned us:

“They’re doing a lot of things for strategic reasons and not being honest with the public about it… This is a messianic cause, with a vision of the good society and government that I think most of us would find terrifying, for the practical implications and impact that it will have on our lives.”

A powerful—if horrific—recounting of this violent chapter in Chilean history appears in the documentary The Pearl Button (El Botón de Nácar), which captures the brutality of that era and the lingering wounds Chileans are still struggling to crawl out from under.

Look around in 2025: Project 2025 laying out blueprints for dismantling federal agencies, state legislatures gutting DEI, book bans spreading like wildfire, and now former president Donald Trump reshaping the Smithsonian to erase histories that don’t fit the far right’s narrative. These are not isolated skirmishes. They are part of the same stealth plan MacLean revealed years ago.

The radical right fears the rise of a supermajority—a multiracial, multigenerational, justice-minded coalition that already exists. Their voter suppression, gerrymandering, and culture wars are desperate attempts to contain it.

The truth? We already are that supermajority. But we must act like it. We cannot afford to underestimate the elite, extremist right—or the messianic fervor that drives them.

And yet, there is a silver lining. What was once hidden in the fine print of policy or embedded in distant experiments like Chile’s constitution is now visible to all who care to see. This visibility is power: it awakens communities, spurs coalitions, and galvanizes a new generation to act. If authoritarian forces seek to dominate knowledge, history, and culture, then our charge is to preserve memory, build archives of resistance, and imagine anew the institutions we deserve. Out of crisis comes possibility—an opening to create educational and cultural spaces that reflect justice, dignity, and collective flourishing.

In short, the stealth plan is no longer stealth. It’s here. And what we choose to do in this moment will determine whether democracy survives for our children.

-Angela Valenzuela

JUNE 22, 2017 REBECCA ONION | SLATE
Photo illustration by Natalie Matthews-Ramo. Photos by MBisanz/WikimediaDechateau/WikimediaAtlas Network/Wikimedia, and Thinkstock

Nancy MacLean, author of an intellectual biography of James McGill Buchanan, explains how this little-known libertarian’s work is influencing modern-day politics. 
By Rebecca Onion 

When the Supreme Court decided, in the 1954 case of Brown vs. Board of Education, that segregated public schools were unconstitutional, Tennessee-born economist James McGill Buchanan was horrified. Over the course of the next few decades, the libertarian thinker found comfortable homes at a series of research universities and spent his time articulating a new grand vision of American society, a country in which government would be close to nonexistent, and would have no obligation to provide education—or health care, or old-age support, or food, or housing—to anyone. 

I spoke with MacLean about Buchanan’s intellectual evolution and its legacy today. We discussed whether it’s helpful or counterproductive to call the network of organizations funded by Charles Koch a “conspiracy,” the line of influence between Buchanan and what’s going on in MacLean’s home state of North Carolina, and that time Buchanan helped Chile’s dictator craft a profoundly undemocratic constitution. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

So why is James Buchanan so unknown? He had a Nobel Prize; how did he manage to fly under the radar? 

He had a very different personality from somebody like Milton Friedman. I think of them as kind of a yin and yang. Friedman was very sunny, and Buchanan was kind of a darker figure. Friedman was always very anxious to be in the limelight, and Buchanan was not like that at all. He was very interested in making an impact over the long term and training other people, and he seemed to be content to talk to powerful people more than to talk to public audiences. His books were really written for other scholars, not so much the general public. 

Can you put him in relationship with other people, besides Friedman, who might be more familiar to us today? 

People might be familiar with the Mont Pelerin Society, the international invitation-only group that began in 1947 launched by Friedrich Hayek. That society included Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Buchanan, ultimately Charles Koch (which I think not many people know!), and many others.

Friedman and Hayek put much more emphasis on making the case for free markets, whereas Buchanan’s distinctive mission was to make a case against government. … His basic idea is that people had been wrong to think of political actors as concerned with the common good or the public interest, when in fact, according to Buchanan’s way of looking at things, everyone should be understood as a self-interested actor seeking their own advantage. He said we should think of politicians, elected officials, as seeking their own self-interest in re-election. And that’s why they’ll make multiple costly promises to multiple constituencies, because they won’t have to pay for it. And he would say agency officials—say, an official at the EPA—would just keep trying to expand the agency, because that would expand their power and resources. 

Now there were other people who actually tested that empirically and found out that it didn’t hold, so it’s really a caricature of the political process, but it’s a caricature that’s become very, very widespread right now. 

You mentioned a few times in the book that Buchanan didn’t really do empirical research. So what was he writing from? 

He was also trained in game theory at the Rand Corporation, so he uses a lot of that. But basically he writes more like a social philosopher, someone studying the social contract. 

Did his ideas change over time? 

The core ideas kind of stayed the same. What did change over time was his own outlook. It became much darker over the years. His first big book in his field, which is called public choice economics, was titled The Calculus of Consent, and it came out in 1962 and was co-authored with Gordon Tullock. It was the work for which Buchanan was most recognized in his Nobel citation. In that work, he seemed to believe that somehow people of good will could come to something close to unanimity on the basic rules of how to govern our society, on things like taxation and government spending and so forth. 

And by the mid-1970s he concluded that that was impossible, and that there was no way that poor people would ever agree … there was no way that people who were not wealthy, who were not large property owners, would agree to the kind of rules he was proposing. So that was a very dark work. It was called The Limits of Liberty. He actually said in that work that the only hope might be despotism. 

And he went from writing that to advising the Pinochet junta in Chile on how to craft their constitution. This document was later called a “constitution of locks and bolts,” [and was designed] to make it so that the majority couldn’t make its will felt in the political system, unless it was a huge supermajority. 
So yeah, it’s pretty dark. 

Tell me more about the relationship between Koch and Buchanan. 

I think too many people on the left have really underestimated Koch’s intelligence and his drive, and also misunderstood his motives. There’s been brilliant work by journalists, really good digging on the money trail and the Koch operations, but much of that writing seems to assume that he is doing this just because it’s going to lower his tax bill or because he wants to evade regulations, personally. I think that really misgauges the man. He is deeply ideological and has been reading almost fanatically for a very long time. I see him as someone who’s quite messianic. He’s compared himself to Martin Luther and his effort being like the Protestant Reformation. When he invested in Buchanan’s center at George Mason University, he said he wanted to “unleash the kind of force that propelled Columbus.” 

This is not someone who’s just trying to lower his tax bill. He wants to bring in a totally new vision of society and government, that’s different from anything that exists anywhere in the world or has existed because he is so certain that he is right. I think it’s more chilling because it doesn’t correspond to the ideas we have about politics. 
Right, like he’s not trying to get a particular person elected. You mention several times Buchanan was very against that idea, that the point was to get a particular person elected. The point, for him, was to change the whole system. 

Right. You asked how the two men connected. I only have the documentary trail that I found. But from what I found, I believe that they first came in contact or first began to work together about 1969 or 1970, and that was in the context of the campus upheaval against the war in Vietnam, and for black studies, and so forth. Buchanan wrote a book about the campus unrest that applied his particular school of thought to it. Koch had an operation called the Center for Independent Education, and that center took Buchanan’s book and turned it into a kind of pamphlet that could be circulated more broadly. 

In 1970, Koch joined the Mont Pelerin Society. Once he got in, he began to advertise his many different organizations and efforts and try to recruit and get people to events and so forth, through Mont Pelerin. Buchanan helped with the founding of the Cato Institute and with various other intellectual enterprises that were close to Charles Koch’s heart, like this thing called the Institute for Humane Studies. 

And then Koch funded Buchanan’s center, as well as other projects, at George Mason University. One of Buchanan’s ideas that Koch liked was the concept of making a flurry of changes all at once so that people have a hard time opposing them. 
Yes, and in the same year that Koch invested all this money in George Mason, [economist] Tyler Cowen got a commission by the Institute for Humane Studies to produce this review of places where economic liberty has made big advances. Cowen advocates what he calls a “Big Bang.” 

Interestingly it’s that same phrase that gets used by Civitas, the Koch-affiliated organization in North Carolina, after they take over the state legislature here in 2011. I actually have to give the North Carolina Republican-led General Assembly some credit for this book because I was struggling through Buchanan’s ideas, trying to understand the implications, because he did write in a somewhat abstract manner. 

And then the General Assembly came in in North Carolina and just made it all so clear. I saw the practical measures being taken and was like, “Oh, this is what he’s talking about! That’s what this is!” I should have put them in the acknowledgements. 
I’d like to talk more about the way racism works in Buchanan’s intellectual project. You write in the conclusion to the book that this school of thought advocates “enlisting white supremacy to ensure capital supremacy.” Is it possible to disentangle those two? 

So this is a challenge for the left because some of our categories, I think, are not very supple, and are also driven by the political world in which we operate. So for example, as we try to think about what’s going on with these voter suppression measures, the only thing that’s actionable is racial discrimination. Right? And so people think of voter suppression efforts as being motivated by racism. These are these good old boys who hate black people and that’s why they’re doing this. 

I think too many people on the left have really underestimated Koch’s intelligence and his drive, and also misunderstood his motives. —Nancy MacLean 

I think actually what’s going on is that these people are extremely shrewd and calculating, and they understand that African Americans, because of their historical experience and their political savvy, understand politics and government better, in a lot of ways, than a lot of white Americans. And they are a threat to this project because they will not vote for it. So they want to keep them from the polls. 

Similarly, young people are leaning left now, and they don’t accept a lot of these core ideas that come from this project, so this project has been very determined to keep young people from the polls. Frankly, if they could keep women away, they would, too. Because they understand that women suffrage opened the way to greater government involvement in the economy, and greater social provision and regulation. 
We make a mistake when we think these are just reactionary prejudices, and we need to see them as shrewd calculations to keep people who would oppose this vision away from the polls. 

So it’s about power, money. 

Not just money. I think it’s also much more about this psychology of threatened domination. People who believe it will harm their liberty for other people to have full citizenship and be able to work together to govern society. And that somehow that goes much deeper than money to me. It’s hard to find the right words for it, but it’s a whole way of being in the world and seeing others. Assuming one’s right to dominate. 
Your book calls Buchanan’s ideas a “stealth plan.” How can we, on the left, avoid falling into the trap of conspiracy-theory thinking while trying to understand this movement? 

One of the challenges is that our language is not up to the threat that we’re facing. As a scholar, I understand the problem of conspiracy theories. I don’t want to be seen as promoting a conspiracy theory. Not least because this is not a conspiracy, by definition. A conspiracy involves illegality, and the people who are funding, and supporting and promoting this operation have extremely good lawyers and I think they actually do believe in the rule of law, and they are being, with the possible exemption of nonprofit tax law, scrupulously legal in what they are doing. 

They’re doing a lot of things for strategic reasons and not being honest with the public about it. —Nancy MacLean

So conspiracy is not a good word. But on the other hand, this is a vast and interconnected and not honest operation. They say these anodyne things about liberty—like the title of one book is Don’t Hurt People And Don’t Take Their Stuff! And that’s not what this is about. The reality is that they are gerrymandering with a vengeance, to a degree we’ve never seen before in our history; they’re practicing voter suppression in a way we’ve not seen since Reconstruction; they are smashing up labor unions under fake pretenses, not telling people that they actually do want to destroy workers’ ability to organize collectively ... I could go on and on. 

They’re doing a lot of things for strategic reasons and not being honest with the public about it. That suggests to me that we need a new vocabulary for grasping what we’re dealing with here. I guardedly used the term “fifth column” in the book, and you know, there’s problems with that term too, but at least it gets at the fact that these wealthy donors that Charles Koch has convened are deeply hostile to the model of government that has prevailed in the United States and in many other countries for a century. 

While I think we need all the great investigative work that’s being done to try to show us how these organizations that are being presented to the public as separate are actually coordinating together, I don’t think that just laying that out is enough. I think that what we need to convey to people is that this is a messianic cause, with a vision of the good society and government that I think most of us would find terrifying, for the practical implications and impact that it will have on our lives. 

We are at a crucial moment in our history, and we will not get another chance, by this cause’s own telling. They say again and again that this is going to be permanent, and they’re very close to victory. So I think we need to be really clear-eyed about understanding this and reaching out to one another without panic. 

The most important thing I want readers to take from this book is an understanding that the Koch network and all of these people are doing what they’re doing because they understand that their ideas make them a permanent minority. They cannot win if they are honest about what they’re doing. That’s why they’re doing things in the deceitful and frightening ways that they are. 

And that, I think, is a sign of great power for the majority of people, who I think are fundamentally decent, and agree on much more than we’re led to believe.

1.4k Comments Join In 
*Update, June 22, 2017: This article has been updated to add MacLean's academic credentials. (Return.)




 Rebecca Onion 
Rebecca Onion is a Slate staff writer and the author of Innocent Experiments.

This radical vision has become the playbook for a network of people looking to override democracy in order to shift more money to the wealthiest few, historian and professor at Duke University Nancy MacLean argues in her new book, an intellectual biography of James Buchanan called Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America.* Buchanan’s life story, she writes, is “the true origin story of today’s well-heeled radical right.”

Tuesday, August 26, 2025

The Fight for Higher Education: A Minority Perspective on both the Liberal University and President Michael Roth, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

The Fight for Higher Education: A Minority Perspective on both the Liberal University and President Michael Roth

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.
August 26, 2025

On June 1, 2025, Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University, appeared on Face the Nation with a sober warning: America’s universities are under siege. His words echo what many of us already feel—that the right-wing assault on higher education is not about protecting students, but about silencing dissent and reshaping universities into tools of authoritarian control.

Michael Roth, Wesleyan University President

Roth pointed to a troubling trend: increased visa restrictions and scrutiny of international students. For decades, these students have enriched our universities, bringing new perspectives and strengthening democracy. Now, instead of welcoming them, the government is using fear as a weapon—meant not for safety, but to intimidate campus communities into silence.

“This heightened scrutiny is meant to instill fear on college campuses… and I’m afraid it is working. I’m afraid, too. But we have to defend our freedoms.” – Michael Roth, Face the Nation (June 1, 2025)

That admission is telling. When university presidents themselves feel constrained from speaking out, this should be a bright, neon sign, signaling danger to our democracy. The silencing of higher education leadership threatens to normalize submission, paving the way for broader suppression across society. 

I spoke with a UT student activist this week who said that the students are afraid “because of what happened on campus in Spring 2023.” She referred to the violent arrests and the crushing of dissent when the students marched for DEI and pro-Palestine. I was saddened to learn of this scarring effect on our students. It's not supposed to be this way.

Where Roth Misses the Mark


In the July 26, 2025 episode of The Gray Area, Roth acknowledged that universities do need to change. He argued that campuses should broaden the range of political and cultural views they engage, but that this process must occur organically within the academy—not be imposed through authoritarian politics that seek to gut institutions altogether.

By his own admission, Roth has long argued that higher education reproduces intellectual homogeneity, with faculty often hiring in their own image reflecting matters of comfort and affinity rather than a commitment to genuine diversity of thought and background. He characterizes this as “prejudice”—or what pundits more commonly label as “bias.”

This is where I interject. Roth names "prejudice" but softens it, casting exclusion as faculty “comfort” rather than as systemic injustice rooted in Eurocentrism. In so doing, he risks sounding like an apologist for the very exclusions that marginalized scholars have struggled against for decades.

Higher education has only begrudgingly opened space, with many of us still struggling for a foothold. Were this not the case, we would never have had the in-depth analysis of such bias as laid out in the Independent Equity Committee (IEC) report (2019).

Yet Roth’s framing risks obscuring the structural inequities that the IEC report documents as entrenched features of the academy. For decades, higher education has reproduced sameness—faculty hiring in their own image, privileging comfort over difference, and narrowing the range of voices deemed legitimate.

Beyond “Both-sides-ism”


Both Roth’s critique and the demands of marginalized communities highlight this structural conservatism. The difference lies in what each sees as the remedy and the stakes.

Roth’s call for broader viewpoints risks collapsing into the narrow, colonial logics of ‘both-sides-ism,’ where structural inequities are obscured in the name of balance. By contrast, communities of color have long pressed for something deeper: not balance within the old frame, but transformation of the frame itself—a struggle for epistemic justice, meaning fairness, equity, and representation in the production of knowledge.

The overlap suggests a shared recognition of the dangers of insularity. Yet the divergence is revealing: Roth frames the challenge primarily as a matter of political balance, while scholars of color insist that the struggle is not merely about balance but about epistemic inclusion—expanding whose knowledge counts, whose voices are heard, and whose experiences are legitimized within the academy. 

That distinction matters, because one treats the problem as an internal “fix” for higher education’s legitimacy, while the other treats it as one of knowledge equity and who gets to shape the future of the academy and society.

Universities as Scapegoats


Roth correctly talks back to those who say that colleges and universities have brought today’s backlash on themselves through insularity, elitism, or intolerance of differing views. Roth sees this as unfair, arguing that the policies currently confronting higher education are not natural consequences of campus culture but deliberate political attacks.


Framing universities as somehow “deserving” this wave of legislation doesn’t just excuse it—it helps justify authoritarian overreach. Of course, critique is needed, but it should strengthen higher education, not be twisted into cover for dismantling academic freedom and democracy itself.

In one of his most forceful points on Face the Nation, Roth rejected the claim that current attacks on universities are really about fighting antisemitism:

“The idea that you are attacking antisemitism by attacking universities… I think is a complete charade. On the contrary, I think more Jews will be hurt by these attacks than helped.” – Michael Roth, Face the Nation(June 1, 2025)

In short, universities should be spaces for debate, not reduced to spectacles of scapegoating in the service of political or partisan battles.


The Texas Frontline


For those of us in Texas, Roth’s concerns are painfully familiar. With Senate Bill 17 dismantling DEI offices in higher education and chilling the climate for students, faculty, and staff of color, we’ve seen firsthand how authoritarian overreach cloaks itself in the language of “fairness” or “protecting students.”

In reality, these measures erode inclusion, silence marginalized voices, and weaken the democratic mission of public education. Roth’s warning reminds us that what happens in Texas is not isolated—it’s part of a national campaign to undermine academic freedom and reshape universities into compliant institutions.

This is a fight we cannot afford to sit out. Roth is correct in saying that this is an attack on civil society itself. Faculty, students, and community allies must organize, resist, and insist on universities that foster truth, inclusion, and democracy.

Even if the battle is far from over, I am happy to report that we at UT Austin continue to be on the frontlines of this struggle in Texas (Valenzuela, Unda, & Mena Bernal, 2025). The attacks we are seeing are not the endgame; they are part of a decades-long project to silence difference and control knowledge itself. Our response must be just as sustained, just as creative, and just as determined.

Why It Matters for Democracy


When universities lose their independent standing and edge closer to the ideology of those in power, we face a slippery slope. Higher education ceases to function as a space of critical inquiry and instead becomes an instrument of state control. This is precisely what authoritarian regimes do. What begins as subtle pressure to align with dominant political currents can quickly evolve into direct censorship of ideas, restriction of research agendas, and silencing of protest and dissenting voices.

This erosion not only undermines the integrity of academic institutions but also weakens civil society itself, since universities have historically provided one of the few protected arenas for cultivating democratic habits of questioning, debate, and discovery. In short, when higher education becomes an echo chamber for those in power, it fails in its public mission and accelerates the very authoritarian tendencies it ought to resist.


References

Bingamon, B. (2024, November 22). The right-wingification of UT: Texas targets liberal enemies within one of the top U.S. schools. Austin Chronicle.

Illing, S. (Host). (2025, July 26). What the right’s war on college is really about [Audio podcast episode]. In The Gray Area. Vox. https://www.vox.com/the-gray-area/421054/college-ai-attack-roth-wesleyan-trump (vox.com)

Independent Equity Committee. (2019, October 8). Independent Equity Committee. (2019, October 8). Analysis of representation and compensation for Hispanic faculty at UT Austin. University of Texas at Austin.

Roth, M. (2025, June 1). Michael Roth discusses threats to higher education [Interview]. Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan. CBS News. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlCnVgd-jkc

Valenzuela, A., Unda, M. & Mena Bernal, J. (2025). Disrupting Colonial Logics: Resistance to SB 17 in Texas Higher Education, Ethnic Studies Pedagogies, 3(1).

Valenzuela, A. (2024). Monopoly Tycoons in a Game of Jenga: The Censorship of Bodies, Protest, and Speech at UT-Austin, Texas Observer

Monday, August 25, 2025

The Impossible Choices of Love: A Mother’s Hope as We Search for Our Own by Cesar Cruz | Medium | August 24, 2025

Friends,

I invite you to take a few minutes to read Dr. César Cruz’s first sermon. It is powerful, tender, and deeply moving.

Here is what I shared on his Medium post:

César, your words bring me to tears. As a Chicana, I know too well how our mothers’ sacrifices have been erased or misnamed as failure, when in truth they are the most radical acts of love. From Tonantzin to La Llorona, from Jochebed to Dylcia Pagán, you remind us that mothers shape history, even through impossible choices.

Treat yourselves to this extraordinary testimony—a profound weaving of scripture, history, and lived experience that affirms the enduring power of a mother’s love.

-Angela Valenzuela

#MothersLove #ImpossibleChoices #MaternalSacrifice #SacredMotherhood

by Cesar Cruz | Medium | August 24, 2025

Throughout history, across cultures and continents, there exists a force more powerful than armies, more enduring than empires, more transformative than revolutions — the love of a mother who will sacrifice everything for her child’s future. This love transcends time, defies borders, and reshapes the very course of human destiny.

In the ancient story of Moses, we witness perhaps one of history’s most profound acts of maternal courage. Jochebed, a Hebrew enslaved woman, made an impossible choice when Pharaoh decreed that all Hebrew boys must die. Rather than watch her son perish, she wove a basket from bulrushes, waterproofed it with pitch, and placed her three-month-old baby in the reeds along the Nile River. As Exodus 2:3 tells us: “When she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then she placed the child in it and put it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile.”

She chose to trust the unknown waters rather than accept certain death. She placed her child in the hands of God and fate, knowing that love sometimes means letting go. That baby would grow up to liberate an entire people, but it all began with a mother’s impossible choice to save her son by releasing him to the river.

Yet here is what strikes me most profoundly about this story: we know Moses’s name, we know Pharaoh’s name, we know the names of many men in this narrative — but Jochebed’s name appears only briefly. For most of scripture, she is simply “the mother of Moses,” as if her own identity, her own sacrifice, her own impossible courage were secondary to the son she saved. History has a way of rendering invisible the very women whose choices make history possible.

This sacred understanding of maternal love transcends all faiths and traditions. In the Quran, we read of Moses’s mother in Surah Al-Qasas: “And We inspired the mother of Moses, saying: Suckle him and, when you fear for him, then cast him into the river and fear not nor grieve. Lo! We shall bring him back unto you and shall make him one of Our messengers” (28:7).

The Buddha himself spoke of the boundless nature of maternal love, teaching: “Even as a mother protects with her life her child, her only child, so with a boundless heart should one cherish all living beings.”

In Indigenous Mexica(n) tradition, we find Tonantzin, the sacred mother goddess whose name means “Our Revered Mother.” She represents the earth itself as mother, the one who gives life and sustains all existence. When the Spanish conquistadores tried to erase Indigenous spirituality, the people preserved Tonantzin’s essence in the figure of Our Lady of Guadalupe — a brilliant act of spiritual resistance that protected the sacred understanding of motherhood while appearing to submit to colonial religion. Tonantzin teaches us that motherhood is not just personal but cosmic, not just individual but universal. She reminds us that every mother participates in the sacred act of creation itself.

But Indigenous tradition also gives us the haunting story of La Llorona — the Weeping Woman who, in her grief and rage, drowned her own children and now wanders eternally, mourning her loss. While often told as a cautionary tale, La Llorona represents something deeper: she is the embodiment of every mother who has been driven to desperation by impossible circumstances, every woman whose pain has been so great that it transformed her into something unrecognizable even to herself. She reminds us that maternal love, when twisted by trauma and stripped of support, can become its own form of tragedy. Her eternal weeping is not just for her children, but for all mothers who have faced choices no woman should have to make.

This pattern of ignoring or erasing mothers’ stories, rather than seeking to understand them, continues today. In 1991, a young rapper named Tupac Shakur wrote a song that forced America to confront a story it preferred to ignore. “Brenda’s Got a Baby” told the heartbreaking tale of a twelve-year-old girl named Brenda, molested by her own cousin, who became pregnant and — in her terror and confusion — threw her newborn baby into a trash dumpster.

The world was quick to judge Brenda. The headlines screamed about moral decay, about what was wrong with young people, about the failure of communities. But Tupac saw something different. He saw a child who had been failed by every adult who should have protected her. He saw a girl so young she barely understood what was happening to her own body, let alone how to care for another life. He saw someone whose desperation had driven her to an act that horrified even herself.

“Brenda’s got a baby, but Brenda’s barely got a brain,” he rapped, not to mock her but to illuminate the tragedy of a child forced into impossible circumstances by adult cruelty. The song wasn’t an anthem of judgment — it was a call for understanding, a demand that we look deeper than surface actions to see the pain and terror underneath.

But how did our society respond to Brenda’s story? Did we ask how a twelve-year-old girl could be molested by her own family and have nowhere safe to turn? Did we examine the systems that failed to protect her or support her when she became pregnant? Did we wonder what kind of terror and confusion must have driven her to such a desperate act? No. We judged. We pointed fingers. We used her story as evidence of moral decay while ignoring our own moral failure to protect our children.

Like Jochebed, like La Llorona, Brenda became invisible in her own narrative — reduced to a cautionary tale rather than recognized as a child who deserved protection and compassion.

Today, along the borderlands, in detention centers, in hospital rooms, and in courtrooms, there are mothers whose stories echo these ancient and recent acts of courage. They make choices that tear at the very fabric of their being, choices between different forms of love, different forms of loss.

There are the immigrant mothers who send their children on freight trains called “La Bestia” — The Beast — knowing the dangers but also knowing that staying means watching their children’s futures slip away. Picture a mother at dawn, pressing money into her eight-year-old’s small palm, whispering instructions about which train car is safest, teaching survival skills no child should need to know. These mothers don’t sleep for months, wondering if their children are hungry, cold, safe, alive.

And there are mothers like Dylcia Pagan, the Puerto Rican nationalist and revolutionary who understood that the fight for her people’s freedom required the ultimate personal sacrifice. When her baby was just an infant, she faced a choice that would shatter most hearts: she could keep her child close and watch him grow up under occupation, or she could entrust him to a revolutionary Mexican family who would raise him safely while she dedicated her life to the struggle for Puerto Rican independence and faced lifetimes in a cage (incarcerated).

She chose love over proximity. She chose her son’s future over her own comfort. She chose the agony of separation over the slow death of watching her child’s possibilities diminish under colonial rule. For years, she carried the weight of this decision — wondering about his first words, his first steps, his dreams, his fears — all while fighting tirelessly for the freedom that would one day benefit not just her son, but all the children of Puerto Rico.

When they were reunited years later, when her son was a teenager, the revelation shook the foundations of his understanding. He discovered he had been living what felt like a double life — that he was not Mexican but Puerto Rican, that the mother who had raised him with love was not his birth mother, and that his real mother was not absent by choice but was a freedom fighter whose sacrifice had made his very survival possible.

This is the legacy Dylcia Pagan left us: the understanding that revolutionary love sometimes requires revolutionary sacrifice, that fighting for collective liberation can demand the most personal of losses, and that a mother’s love for her child can become inseparable from her love for justice itself. When I had the chance to meet her and learn from her, I witnessed firsthand the strength of a woman who had transformed her maternal love into a force for historical change. May she rest in peace, knowing that her story illuminates the connections between personal sacrifice and political resistance, between individual love and collective freedom.

There are the survivors of sexual assault who face pregnancies conceived in violence. Some choose to carry the child, transforming an act of violence into an act of radical love. Others choose differently, refusing to let their attackers’ violence dictate their entire lives. Still others, like teenage Brenda, make choices born of terror that shock us all — not because they are evil, but because they are broken and afraid and utterly alone.

There are the mothers who lose their children to systems designed to protect — women who love desperately yet find themselves deemed unfit by courts and social workers. Perhaps layered forms of violence has stolen their ability to parent safely. Perhaps intergenerational poverty has devastated homes. Perhaps the trauma of their own childhoods has left them without tools to protect their babies. These mothers sit in courtrooms, watching judges decide their children’s fate, jumping through hoops set by people who have never lived their struggles, never faced their demons, never made their mistakes.

Before we speak of judgment, before we point fingers at mothers whose choices we cannot understand, let us remember the one truth that unites every person who has ever drawn breath: we all had a mother. Each of us exists because a woman — somewhere, somehow — carried us in her body, gave us life, and made the choice for us to be here.

Some of us may be estranged from our mothers. Some of us were raised by others — grandmothers, adoptive parents, foster families, dads. Some of us carry wounds from childhood, anger at choices our mothers made, pain from love we felt we never received. Some of us never knew our mothers, or lost them too soon, or struggled to understand them across barriers of trauma, addiction, mental illness, or simply the vast differences between generations.

But here is what remains true regardless of our relationship with the women who gave us life: we are here because they chose, in that moment, to give us breath. Whether that choice was made with joy or fear, with planning or surprise, with support or in isolation, with resources or in poverty — it was still a choice. And that choice, that act of bringing us into existence, deserves more than a pause. It deserves recognition of the sacred.

When we judge Brenda, when we condemn the immigrant mother who places her child on a train, when we dismiss the woman who loses custody or makes an adoption plan or faces an unwanted pregnancy — we forget that we too are the products of a woman’s impossible choice. We forget that our own existence began with someone else’s act of maternal courage, someone else’s decision to say yes to life even when life was uncertain.

I know this love intimately, though I have lived it from the other side. At five years old, my mother left me in Mexico while she sought a better life for us both. For decades, the world around me whispered the language of abandonment, tried to teach me that being left behind meant being unwanted, unloved, forgotten.

But I have come to understand something profound: what I experienced was not abandonment — it was the deepest kind of love imaginable.

My mother Martha didn’t leave me. She fought for me in the only way she knew how.

She carried me with her in every step she took toward opportunity, in every job she worked, in every night she lay awake planning our reunion.

I don’t carry an abandonment narrative.

I carry a narrative of love.

There is an invisible thread that connects these mothers to their children across miles, across borders, across years of separation, across systems that don’t understand their love, across circumstances that would break lesser hearts.

It is woven from lullabies sung to empty rooms, from money sent with prayers, from dreams of reunification that sustain them through the darkest nights.

From Jochebed placing Moses in the bulrushes, to Dylcia Pagan entrusting her infant son to a revolutionary family while she fought for Puerto Rican liberation, to contemporary mothers making impossible choices about pregnancies conceived in violence, to immigrant mothers watching trains disappear into the horizon carrying their children toward hope, to mothers fighting to regain custody of children taken by the state — these women all share a common thread.

They understand that sometimes the greatest act of love is the act of letting go.They know that keeping someone safe isn’t always about keeping them close. They know that love sometimes requires choices that break your heart but might save your child’s life.

Like Tonantzin, who reminds us that motherhood participates in the sacred act of creation itself, we must recognize these mothers for what they truly are: warriors of love who chose the agony of impossible decisions over the slow death of hopelessness.

Like the weeping La Llorona, we must understand that when we fail to support mothers, when we judge instead of protect, we create tragedies that echo through generations.

When we tell the stories of mothers’ love, let us tell them truly. Let us remember the mothers whose names history forgot — Jochebed, whose courage saved a liberator; Dylcia Pagan, whose revolutionary sacrifice shaped both her son’s life and her people’s struggle for freedom; the countless unnamed women whose sacrifices shaped the world; and yes, even Brenda, whose story should have moved us to protect rather than condemn.

Let us commit to creating a world where mothers face fewer impossible choices. Where survivors of assault receive compassion and comprehensive care. Where children like Brenda are protected from abuse and supported when harm occurs. Where systems designed to protect children also work to preserve families whenever safely possible. Where mothers fighting for justice and liberation receive support for both their political work and their parental responsibilities.

But most importantly, let us commit to seeing these mothers — truly seeing them. Not as cautionary tales or statistics or moral failures, but as human beings whose choices were shaped by circumstances we may never fully understand. Let us ask not just “How could she do that?” but “What drove her to such desperation?”

When we judge without seeking to understand, we perpetuate the very cycles that create these tragedies.

When we erase these mothers from their own stories, we lose the opportunity to learn and prevent future suffering.

Yet of little hope is I, not learning the lessons that my mother has always taught me — that love is not limited by circumstance, that the heart’s capacity to love and sacrifice knows no bounds.

From the spiritual matriarchs to contemporary mothers facing impossible choices, from Tonantzin’s sacred motherhood to La Llorona’s eternal grief, from Dylcia Pagan’s revolutionary sacrifice to the countless unnamed women who have transformed personal love into historical force — let us remember that sometimes the greatest act of keeping someone close is learning how to let them go.

And for those of us fortunate enough to understand this legacy, we know that we were never truly separated at all. We were held in hearts that crossed every border, sustained by love that knew no distance, protected by women whose greatest act of motherhood was sometimes the act of physically letting go while never, ever giving up.

This is the power of a mother’s love. This is the force that has shaped history, liberated peoples, and continues to change the world — one impossible choice at a time.

And I close by saying thank you in the way I know how, Mexica Tiahui, Asé, and Amen.

Dr. César Cruz

August 2025- my first sermon dedicated to my mother and all mothers