The Return on Knowing: Why the Value of Mexican American and Latino Studies Exceeds ROI, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D., August 21, 2026

The Return on Knowing: Why the Value of Mexican American and Latino Studies Exceeds ROI

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

July 14, 2026*

Updated August 21, 2026

I encourage readers to learn about Jim Estrada’s compelling and accessible book, The ABCs and Ñ of America’s Cultural Evolution: A Primer on the Growing Influence of Hispanics, Latinos, and mestizos on the USA.

Estrada approaches Latino history and culture partly from the perspective of a corporate marketing professional who spent decades advising institutions about Latino communities. His central argument is that widespread ignorance about Latino history, identity, language, cultural diversity, and economic participation is not merely a social or educational deficiency. It is an economic liability—a consequential gap in knowledge and understanding.

Latinos are consumers, workers, students, taxpayers, entrepreneurs, professionals, and voters. Their growing presence shapes education, employment, health care, public finance, consumer markets, and virtually every major institution in the country. Estrada therefore argues that schools and universities should cultivate the historical knowledge and cultural competence necessary to function effectively in an increasingly diverse society (Estrada, 2013).

His argument is especially useful when placed in conversation with Texas leaders’ growing emphasis on the “return on investment,” or ROI, of higher education curricula and degree programs. On its face, asking whether public institutions use resources responsibly is reasonable. The problem arises when ROI is defined too narrowly—as though the value of education can be reduced to a graduate’s first salary, the immediate labor-market demand for a major, or the direct revenue generated by a particular academic program.

Such calculations tell us something, but not nearly enough.

A more appropriate framework would be what I call the Return on Knowing, or ROK.

ROK asks what students, institutions, communities, and the nation gain when people understand the histories, cultures, languages, experiences, and contributions of the populations with whom they live and work. It recognizes knowledge itself as a form of public infrastructure. Just as roads, schools, health systems, and communications networks make social and economic life possible, cultural and historical knowledge equips people to navigate an increasingly diverse democracy.

ROI asks, “How much money does this degree produce?”

ROK asks, “What becomes possible because people know more—and what does ignorance cost us?”

ROK includes economic benefits, but it extends well beyond them. It includes improved judgment, stronger public institutions, more effective professional practice, better communication, greater historical understanding, and the capacity to work across cultural and linguistic differences. It also includes the avoidance of costly mistakes that arise when institutions misunderstand the communities they serve.

This distinction also requires some care with the concept of efficiency itself. Fallace and Fantozzi (2013) caution against treating “social efficiency” as a historically coherent educational doctrine with a single ideological meaning. Efficiency has always depended upon the purposes against which educational outcomes are judged. The more important question, therefore, is not whether a university is efficient, but efficient at producing what—and according to whose conception of educational value?

To move in this direction, we must open a conceptual space between ROI as an instrumental metric and the normative framework that determines what counts as an efficient or valuable educational outcome in the first place. A university could conceivably be “efficient” at cultivating civic understanding, cultural knowledge, democratic capacity, intellectual discovery, critical inquiry, or human development—if these are recognized as legitimate forms of return. 

The difficulty arises when ROI is defined almost exclusively through earnings, enrollment demand, program costs, completion rates, or labor-market outcomes. At that point, ROI ceases to function as a neutral measure and begins to operate as a theory of educational value, privileging some forms of knowledge while rendering others expendable. 

The metric does not simply measure what universities produce; it increasingly helps determine what universities should produce, which fields deserve institutional support, and which forms of knowledge are permitted to survive. This is precisely the dynamic now unfolding across Texas public universities, where questions of enrollment, workforce alignment, program productivity, and economic return are increasingly being invoked to determine which fields warrant institutional support.

Employers, educators, health professionals, public officials, journalists, and nonprofit leaders who understand Latino histories and experiences are less likely to rely on stereotypes, design ineffective programs, misread demographic change, alienate workers or customers, or make decisions based on incomplete information. Cultural competence is therefore not a decorative addition to professional preparation. It is part of what makes institutions capable, responsive, and effective.

Seen through the lens of ROK, Estrada's The ABCs and Ñ also reveals the limitations of evaluating higher education solely through individual earnings. The return from investing in Latino students includes greater financial security for graduates and their families, but it also includes a more highly educated workforce, increased tax revenues, greater entrepreneurship, stronger public institutions, improved organizational decision-making, and professionals better prepared to serve the communities around them.

Conversely, what does the nation lose when it fails to educate students about Latino communities?

It loses talent when Latino students are underserved or pushed out of higher education. It loses institutional effectiveness when professionals are culturally unprepared. It loses economic opportunities when businesses misunderstand major consumer markets. It loses democratic capacity when the histories and contributions of large segments of the population are excluded from public knowledge. And it loses trust when students and families enter institutions that do not recognize their experiences or regard their histories as worthy of study.

This is why Mexican American Studies, Latino Studies, Ethnic Studies, bilingual education, and culturally sustaining curricula should not be dismissed as peripheral expenses. They are investments in professional preparation, institutional effectiveness, social understanding, democratic participation, and the nation’s economic future.

They also benefit students of every background. Latino Studies is not only for Latino students, just as African American history is not only for Black students and women’s history is not only for women. These fields provide all students with the knowledge necessary to understand the society they inhabit. They help prepare graduates to teach, govern, practice medicine, conduct research, build organizations, serve clients, manage workplaces, and participate intelligently in public life.

ROK is therefore not a rejection of economic accountability. It is a more complete form of accountability. It asks policymakers to count benefits that narrow ROI calculations often ignore: knowledge, cultural competence, institutional trust, democratic literacy, social cohesion, and the prevention of costly errors.

It also requires us to acknowledge that not everything of public value can be captured in an immediate financial metric. Education prepares people not only to earn a living, but also to interpret the world, understand one another, evaluate evidence, remember history, and participate in democratic life.

Estrada’s work helps us see that ignorance has a price. Institutions pay that price through failed outreach, ineffective policies, cultural misunderstanding, lost markets, weakened trust, and poor decision-making. Communities pay it through misrepresentation, exclusion, and educational neglect.

The relevant policy question, then, is not simply whether Mexican American Studies or Latino Studies produces an acceptable financial return. It is whether Texas—and the nation—can afford the consequences of not knowing.

References

ASU News. (2014, February 7). Latino author makes economic case for teaching ethnic studies in schools. https://news.asu.edu/content/latino-author-makes-economic-case-teaching-ethnic-studies-schools

Estrada, J. (2013). The ABCs and Ñ of America’s cultural evolution: A primer on the growing influence of Hispanics, Latinos, and mestizos on the USA. Tate Publishing & Enterprises.

Fallace, T., & Fantozzi, V. (2013). Was There Really a Social Efficiency Doctrine? The Uses and Abuses of an Idea in Educational History. Educational Researcher, 42(3), 142-150. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13484509

Latino author makes economic case for teaching ethnic studies in schools

February 07, 2014

Making an economic case for teaching ethnic studies in America’s schools and universities is the focus of a book talk presented from noon to 1 p.m., Feb. 11, by ASU’s School of Transborder Studies. Author Jim Estrada, a corporate marketing consultant and former San Diego television journalist, suggested there is a substantial information gap about the nation’s largest non-white European populations that could negatively impact the United States economy.

Estrada’s book, "The ABCs and Ñ of America’s Cultural Evolution: A Primer on the Growing Influence of Hispanics, Latinos, and mestizos on the USA," offers important insights into today’s 53 million U.S. Hispanics – including how their history and culture are influencing the nation.

The author said that he believes sharing accurate, non-subjective information about America’s Latinos, their histories and their contributions to our nation will lead to better understanding of their growing influence as consumers, students, taxpayers, voters and members of the workforce.

Registration for the lecture in Interdisciplinary Building B, B161-B, on ASU’s Tempe campus is required. RSVP to Lillian.Ruelas@asu.edu.

According to ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Latinos constitute Arizona’s most rapidly growing ethnicity and could represent more than 50 percent of the state’s population by mid-century. Its 2012 report, Arizona’s Emerging Latino Vote, noted in particular the state’s disproportionate growth in young Latino citizens. “The ramifications will be profound, with major impacts to be felt in the health care industries, at all levels of education, the workforce population and in state budgeting – just to cite a few,” the report stated.

“There are many thoughts on how to create cultural competence,” Estrada said. “The logical place to start is in educational institutions, which are charged with expanding the knowledge base that affects our personal and organizational missions, goals and objectives.

“So it’s really up to our schools to address this critical need for ethnic studies. For students entering the marketplace, it will enable them to adapt successfully to a changing world.”

Estrada is owner of Estrada Communications Group, based in Austin, Texas. He has worked with major corporations, such as AT&T, Anheuser-Busch and McDonald’s, advising them on outreach strategies to Latino consumers for the past three decades. He said every few years, as his client contacts would change, he would need to re-orient their staffs about the Latino market: “My job was to help them avoid making mistakes, cultural faux pas, in their marketing communications.”

After many years, Estrada realized that what he was teaching marketing clientele could benefit a broader audience if compiled in a book. The primer’s 10 short chapters are a collection of essays about different aspects of Latino culture and history, from the Spanish conquest of Mexico to Latino voting rights. A book review by National Hispanic News noted that topics range from language, cultural diversity and history to relationships with the dominant majority, law enforcement and each other.

“Each of these chapters touches on historical and cultural tidbits neither likely to be known by the average non-Hispanic nor by the segment of Latinos themselves who lack exposure to their own contributions to society, or who know little of their place in U.S. history,” the critic observed.

Estrada said the media and entertainment industries are also responsible for projecting a less than positive image of Latinos, as well as those of other non-white, racial, ethnic and immigrant groups. He explained that for decades, mass media have misrepresented Latinos to the nation’s mainstream Eurocentric society through acts of “commission,” use of stereotypic portrayals in media and acts of “omission,” failing to provide factual information about the many Latino contributions to America, and even by historical revisionism.

“Creating cultural awareness and competency takes time and cannot be too daunting a task,” Estrada said. “Providing readers with basic facts, or the ABCs, together with a rudimentary understanding of the influence Hispanics, Latinos and mestizos are having on them and their personal interests can create a sense of ease about learning.”


The School ofTransborder Studies is an academic unit in ASU's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

UT is merging four ethnic and gender studies departments. What changes this fall, by Lily Kepner, July 10, 2026

Friends, 

I invite you to read Lily Kepner’s important reporting on the uncertain future of the University of Texas at Austin’s newly created Department of Social and Cultural Analysis. Her article makes clear that the consolidation of Mexican American and Latina/o Studies, African and African Diaspora Studies, American Studies, and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies is not simply an administrative reorganization. It entails the loss of departmental names, leadership positions, staff jobs, institutional homes, and scholarly identities built over decades.

At the same time, the appointment of Dr. Danielle Clealand as interim chair offers some reassurance that the new department will be led by a respected scholar who understands these fields and has the trust of many colleagues. Faculty are clearly determined to protect their students, programs, intellectual traditions, and hard-won legacies. 

Still, the unanswered questions remain profound: Will the new department receive the resources, autonomy, and institutional respect it needs to thrive—or is this only the first stage of further erosion?

Kepner’s article captures both the grief of what is being lost and the resolve of faculty to carry this essential work forward. 

-Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

UT is merging four ethnic and gender studies departments. What changes this fall

Six weeks before the University of Texas begins its fall semester, its new Department of Social and Cultural Analysis still lacks a permanent home and a clear identity.

By Lily Kepner,Staff WriterJuly 10, 2026

Murals decorate the University of Texas Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies office in Burdine Hall, Feb. 18, 2026. UT President Jim Davis announced plans this year to consolidate ethnic and gender studies into a new department and review the courses and majors within it, but the future of the new department is still unclear.

Sara Diggins/Austin American-Statesman
Six weeks before the University of Texas begins its fall semester, its new Department of Social and Cultural Analysis still lacks both a permanent home and a clear identity.

As Texas universities face growing political pressure over identity-based academic programs, UT President Jim Davis announced in February that the university’s four ethnic and women gender and sexuality studies departments would be consolidated into a new Department of Social and Cultural Analysis.

Offering the clearest picture yet of the department's future, College of Liberal Arts Interim Dean David Sosa on July 1 appointed Danielle Clealand, an associate professor in the Mexican American and Latina/o Studies department, as interim chair of the new department .

At the end of the academic year, the four department chairs learned they will lose their appointments in August, a new department manager was hired and the departments’ names were removed from the doors, the former chairs said.

Between the two new departments, which also include European and Eurasian studies, five staff members lost their jobs, and others were reassigned, Clealand confirmed. She said they were committed to finding new positions for the staff.

The new department and its website launch Aug. 15, when the departments of Mexican American and Latina/o Studies, African and African Diaspora Studies, American Studies and Women and Gender Studies will close, Clealand said. But many questions remain.

After her first week as interim chair, Clealand, speaking to the American-Statesman as an individual, said she doesn't expect a Social and Cultural Analysis major to launch by the fall. She also said the new department has not yet been assigned a home, as the four former departments were spread across two buildings.

Although her focus going into the role is to unite the four departments in a collective vision, “I don't know if we have a unifying message yet,” Clealand said in an interview after her appointment. “Perhaps we'll get there. But I think for now we want students to know that yes, this is one large department, but within that department you can still take all of the same classes and majors that you could before.”

Clealand’s appointment eased faculty's fears that the consolidation would weaken the decades-old departments, which collectively offer six undergraduate majors, four graduate programs, six minors and three doctorate programs, said Karma Chavez, the chair of Mexican American and Latino/a studies.

“I think everyone in the four units realizes that we lost our battle, and that our objective now is to focus on building the best new department collectively and collaboratively that we possibly can,” Chavez said, adding that Clealand is “the right leader for this time.”

“The biggest question that all of us have is whether we're going to be treated like a normal department,” Chavez said, or if “another shoe will drop.”

Cherise Smith, the department chair of African and African Diaspora studies said she is "cautiously excited” about coming together with different intellectual groups and working with more students.

Smith said defining the department’s mission is complicated because social and cultural analysis is not a commonly established academic discipline.

“It’s destabilizing for all of us,” she said. “Many of us are wondering whether we can be a unified department.”

What will and won’t change this fall

Clealand said she accepted the interim chair position because she had earned the trust of colleagues in her home department and in African and African Diaspora studies, where she had often collaborated. She also held a leadership position in Mexican American and Latino studies.

Her hope for the new department, she said, is “longevity.”

Clealand said enrollment declined in ethnic and gender studies after UT eliminated the signature-course program that allowed students to satisfy core curriculum requirements through many of the departments’ classes.

Now, Clealand said she wants to encourage prospective students and faculty to see the new department’s potential despite frustration over the consolidation, which she said a majority of faculty opposed.

Having worked across two departments, Clealand said she’s seen the benefits of collaboration and hopes the consolidation will ultimately strengthen those connections.

“I think that right now people don't necessarily know what we're doing, and recruiting can be challenging because of that,” Clealand said. “But I'm hoping that we can establish ourselves as a really strong department, not only institutionally but nationally.”

Sosa, the College of Liberal Arts interim dean, said the college will begin reviewing the new department’s curriculum and degree programs during the next academic year. For now, Clealand said, all existing degree programs will continue enrolling students and offering the same curriculum.

Now, Clealand said she wants to encourage prospective students and faculty to see the new department’s potential despite frustration over the consolidation, which she said a majority of faculty opposed.

Having worked across two departments, Clealand said she’s seen the benefits of collaboration and hopes the consolidation will ultimately strengthen those connections.

“I think that right now people don't necessarily know what we're doing, and recruiting can be challenging because of that,” Clealand said. “But I'm hoping that we can establish ourselves as a really strong department, not only institutionally but nationally.”

Sosa, the College of Liberal Arts interim dean, said the college will begin reviewing the new department’s curriculum and degree programs during the next academic year. For now, Clealand said, all existing degree programs will continue enrolling students and offering the same curriculum.

‘This existential crisis’

In mid-August, professors will become “professors of social and cultural analysis,” a new department website will launch, and the four original departments will shutter.

For the former chairs, the changes amount to the loss of departments they spent their careers building.

Lisa Moore, who has taught at UT since 1991 and chairs Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies, worries the new department will render her life work “invisible.”

“It's heartbreaking, and I do find myself kind of grief about it catching me,” she said. “It feels like just a really brutal loss of my scholarly and professional identity, and an erasure of the decades of my career that I know I've spent building this field.”

When Smith became chair, university leaders envisioned African and African Diaspora studies as a program that could touch every student through the core curriculum, she said.

The department eventually grew to 26 faculty members — the largest of its kind in the nation — attracting students from around the world. Although the department itself is disappearing, Smith said its legacy doesn’t have to.

“These challenges, this existential crisis, has made us recommit to and refocused on what we do,” Smith said. “ We're going to exist in a different way from here on out, but there are things that we will continue to do and that we need to continue to do intellectually and training our students, for example, that we don't need to have a department named African and African Diaspora Studies to do.”

UT is becoming the face of Texas’ higher education failures. That must change. The Daily Texan Editorial Board October 11, 2024

Friends,

I want to call attention to this important Daily Texan editorial, “UT is becoming the face of Texas’ higher education failures. That must change.” Though published in 2024, it reads today less like a warning than a record of a crisis already unfolding at The University of Texas at Austin.

The student editorial board rightly centered faculty concerns over academic freedom, tenure, shared governance, DEI, and the chilling effects of state legislation like SB 17 and SB 18. Their point was simple and powerful: a university cannot claim excellence while ignoring the conditions under which faculty teach, research, mentor, and serve. Faculty well-being is not a private employment matter. It is fundamental to the academic mission of the university.

In this context, former President Jay Hartzell’s stated goal of attracting “more elite faculty and students” raises an uncomfortable question: if this is not an indictment of, or even an insult to, the faculty and students already here, what exactly does it mean? UT Austin is already home to extraordinary faculty, staff, and students.

The crisis is not that they are insufficiently elite; it is that university and state leaders are undermining the very conditions that brought them here and would keep them here: academic freedom—the freedom to teach and the freedom to learn; tenure rights and protections; shared governance; the intellectual diversity that Ethnic and Women and Gender Studies brings; and respect for the communities that make Texas what it is.

Since then, these concerns have only deepened. UT Austin has witnessed layoffs, program consolidations, diminished shared governance, and an increasingly constrained environment for teaching and research on race, gender, inequality, and democracy itself. These are not isolated administrative decisions. They are part of a broader political project to narrow what can be studied, taught, debated, and imagined in public higher education.

At times, it feels like a slow-moving train headed toward disaster, or toward some dystopian vision that refuses to see the very diversity before our eyes, while authoritarian forms of censorship become increasingly normalized.

The Daily Texan editorial board understood what many leaders still refuse to acknowledge: students lose when faculty are silenced, intimidated, or driven away. Texas loses when its flagship university becomes a place where scholars must look over their shoulders before doing the work that public universities exist to do.

UT Austin should be a beacon of intellectual courage, democratic inquiry, and public purpose. Instead, it is being made into a cautionary tale. That must change.

-Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

UT is becoming the face of Texas’ higher education failures. That must change.

by The Daily Texan Editorial Board

October 11, 2024




The recent publication of a survey of Texas faculty is as clear-cut as it is concerning.

According to a Sept. 5 American Association of University Professors (AAUP) survey, Texas faculty are dissatisfied with the conditions and direction of higher education in Texas. 61% of those surveyed would not recommend Texas for a faculty position to out-of-state colleagues, and 26.3% plan to interview elsewhere next year. Top concerns for faculty include the state’s political climate, academic freedom, salary, and diversity, equity and inclusion issues.

As one of Texas’ flagship institutions and a top 10 public university, UT represents the Texas education system internationally. UT can’t afford to neglect its faculty without risking long-term damage to its reputation and academic standing. At the time of publication, UT did not respond to a request for comment.

In his Sept. 18 State of the University Address, President Jay Hartzell said he, the provost and the deans will be working on “how, across the entire academic enterprise, we attract more elite faculty and students.”

Faculty is essential to the success of any university. But as it stands, we are failing ours. If UT wants to recruit and retain top-tier faculty, UT must prioritize their satisfaction and address key issues impacting their success. UT has a responsibility to protect academic freedom, and this begins with protecting faculty well-being.

According to the AAUP survey, the failure to address faculty concerns may result in a decreased retention of faculty, loss of academic talent and damage to the quality of higher education.

“These findings serve as a wake-up call for policymakers, administrators, employers, and other concerned citizens, emphasizing the urgent need to address the concerns raised by faculty members,” the survey said.

Intellectual debate and dialogue allow students and faculty to build upon each other’s independent analysis and critical thinking. State legislation constantly challenges the boundaries of academic freedom. Increasing limitations on academic freedom can have hefty implications not just on our education but on our political structure.

“(Faculty) are worried that people outside the University are going to be telling us what we can and can’t teach, what we have to say and what we can’t say in the classroom,” said Daniel Brinks, a professor in the School of Law and chair of the government department. “That will be a problem for students’ ability to learn, faculty’s ability to teach and do research, and the University’s ability to be an authentic academic institution.”

Senate Bill 17 has had lasting impacts on faculty perceptions of academic freedom. The University’s over-compliance with SB 17, including firing certain staff members without justification, raises concerns about UT’s commitment to faculty well-being amid the enactment of legislative changes.

“There’s a chilling effect … with Senate Bill 17, which banned DEI programs and practices, but it also put in there some pretty severe penalties,” said Brian Evans, president of the Texas Conference of AAUP. “If you are a faculty member perceived to be giving a training on diversity, equity and inclusion, you can face disciplinary action, including being terminated or dismissed.”

Additionally, SB 18 was intended to ban tenure at Texas public universities. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick proposed the bill because he felt professors at UT use the stability their tenure provides to “poison the minds of our next generation,” as he wrote in a Feb. 18, 2022 statement.

“These professors claim ‘academic freedom’ and hide behind their tenure to continue blatantly advancing their agenda of societal division,” Patrick wrote in a statement released April 20, 2023.

The bill was modified to keep tenured professors — with caveats. However, they can still be let go at the University’s discretion.

SB 18 may disproportionately impact untenured faculty who speak publicly on identity-related issues. The bill instills fear, making professors weary that a progressive curriculum would get them fired. If UT wants professors to continue to foster discourse in their classrooms, they must actively seek to protect tenure and ensure the stability of faculty.

“(AAUP) felt that SB 18 would potentially erode the protections of tenure … the whole reason there’s tenure is to protect academic freedom,” said Andrea Gore, a professor in the College of Pharmacy and Vice President of UT Austin’s chapter of AAUP. “If we didn’t have something that told us our jobs are going to be secure if we tackle difficult topics, we might not tackle those topics, and that would be a huge disservice to the students of the state of Texas.”

Forums exist for faculty to air their grievances, including the Faculty Council, but rarely does faculty input result in actual change. For example, the Council released a July 12 report criticizing UT’s handling of pro-Palestian demonstrations, and the council openly condemned President Hartzell’s mass layoffs following SB 17, which they said were made “without consultation of Faculty Council Leadership or other faculty leaders, in violation of shared governance practices, and without due process.”

In neither case did UT change or reverse its course of action despite callouts from faculty. If faculty cannot make change at UT, they may look for employment somewhere they can.

“Faculty Council, to me, is mostly a propaganda machine … it gives a veneer of a democratically-run institution,” said Stuart Reichler, an associate professor of practice in the College of Natural Sciences. “The reality is that the President and the other top administrators at the University decide what does and doesn’t happen.”

UT does have a requirement to adjust its practices according to the Texas legislature, but it also has a responsibility to recognize and act on the pleas of those it employs. If we can’t provide the basic protections our faculty deserves, how can we expect to attract and retain faculty members who contribute so to the prestige of UT Austin?

The University will soon become the face of Texas’ higher education failures unless it starts truly listening to its faculty.

The editorial board is composed of associate editors Tenley Jackson, Tanya Narwekar, Ava Saunders and Anjali Shenoy and editor-in-chief McKenzie Henningsen.

Freedom, Not Abandonment: The Democratic Case for a Social Market Economy, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D. June 2, 2026

Freedom, Not Abandonment: The Democratic Case for a Social Market Economy

by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

June 2, 2026

Link

I just finished listening to Clara E. Mattei’s Escape from Capitalism: An Intervention—a great Father’s Day gift, by the way, especially for anyone who enjoys a thoughtful challenge to economic common sense. 

Interestingly, the audiobook is currently available for free on the Barnes & Noble website, which feels delightfully “uncapitalistic.” I have only listened to the audiobook version, but as a non-economist, I found it remarkably accessible. One advantage of listening is that you can slow down the reading speed, giving yourself time to chew on concepts and findings that might otherwise pass by too quickly.

Mattei helps us see that capitalism is not only an economic system; it is a political order that defines freedom in a very narrow way. It tells us we are free when markets are free, even if people lack health care, housing, education, retirement security, or meaningful political voice. 

This is why the concept of a social market economy is useful. It offers a way to reject both market abandonment and caricatures of socialism by insisting on two democratic commitments at once: a social floor beneath everyone and limits on the corporate power that distorts public life. 

In this sense, the struggle for public goods and the struggle against corporate capture are not separate struggles. They are both struggles to make freedom real.

In the U.S., we are often taught to associate capitalism with liberty, opportunity, self-reliance, and prosperity. We are told that markets reward hard work, private enterprise creates abundance, and public goods are either unaffordable or inefficient. Yet for most people, our current economic order increasingly means debt, precarity, unaffordable health care, unaffordable housing, stagnant wages, weakened public schools, and the constant fear of falling behind.

Mattei’s intervention is powerful because she does not treat capitalism as neutral. Capitalism does not simply organize markets; it organizes people’s lives, fears, dependencies, and imaginations. It teaches us that unemployment is natural, poverty is personal failure, inflation must be solved by disciplining workers, and public institutions must always be cut, consolidated, or privatized in the name of fiscal responsibility.

Early in Escape from Capitalism, Mattei grounds this argument in the staggering scale of inequality that capitalism produces and then normalizes. She notes that in the United States, the wealth of the top 1 percent now rivals that of the bottom 90 percent, even as tens of millions of people continue to live in poverty (Mattei, 2026). This is not a small imbalance or temporary distortion. It is a social order in which wealth accumulates upward while insecurity spreads downward.

Mattei also turns our attention globally, showing how capitalism links poverty in one place to wealth accumulation elsewhere. In one vivid example, she discusses Mumbai’s Dharavi, one of the world’s largest informal settlements, where workers generate enormous economic value while much of that value flows away from them and into distant circuits of capital (Mattei, 2026; also see Behal, 2026). The point is not simply that inequality exists. The point is that inequality is organized through systems of ownership, labor, finance, and policy that make deprivation appear natural while making accumulation appear deserved.

This is one of Mattei’s most important insights: the economy is not a machine governed by natural laws. It is made and remade through policy, law, banking, taxation, budgeting, education, and ideology. When we are told, “there is no money,” “there is no alternative,” or “we have no choice,” we should pause. These are rarely neutral statements. More often, they are political decisions disguised as necessity.

Mattei helps us see that capitalism survives not only by extracting labor and wealth, but by making alternatives appear impossible. It narrows our sense of democracy. We may be allowed to vote, but we are not encouraged to ask whether democracy should extend into the economy, the workplace, the university, or the systems that determine whether people have health care, housing, education, food, clean water, and retirement security.

This narrowing of democracy is not only economic. It is political. The same system that concentrates wealth also allows concentrated wealth to shape elections, legislation, courts, universities, and public policy. 

This is where Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission matters so deeply (Supreme Court of the United States, 2010; Weiner, 2025).

If Mattei helps us see how concentrated wealth disciplines economic life,

Citizens United helps us see how concentrated wealth distorts democratic life. The 2010 Supreme Court decision did not simply expand “free speech” to include corporations. It expanded the political power of corporations, wealthy donors, and dark-money networks to influence public life while ordinary people are told that democracy still means one person, one vote.

The logic is painfully familiar. In the economy, corporations are treated as engines of freedom even when people are abandoned to debt, low wages, medical bankruptcy, and insecurity. In politics, corporations and wealthy interests are treated as “speakers” in the democratic process even when their money overwhelms the voices of ordinary citizens. In both cases, power disguises itself as freedom.

Photo Credit: AP Kelleher

That is why Hawaii’s recent effort to challenge the legacy of Citizens United is so important. In 2026, Hawaii enacted a first-of-its-kind law aimed at limiting corporate and dark-money influence in elections by redefining corporations as artificial entities created by the state, rather than natural persons entitled to the same political rights as human beings (Kelleher, 2026). 

I interject here to recommend two documentaries that make these dynamics vivid for students: Kimberly Reed’s Dark Money and CNN’s Deep in the Pockets of Texas. Dark Money examines the influence of untraceable corporate money on elections through the case of Montana and the real-life consequences of the Citizens United decision. 

Deep in the Pockets of Texas, reported by Ed Lavandera, brings the issue home by showing how a small number of wealthy donors have shaped politics in Texas, from school boards and city councils to the state legislature. Both films work especially well in the college classroom because they help students see that campaign finance is not an abstract legal issue; it is a struggle over who gets heard, whose interests count, and whether democracy can survive when money speaks louder than people.

The law is expected to face legal challenges, but its moral and democratic significance is already clear. Hawaii is asking a question the entire country should be asking: Why should entities created by law be allowed to dominate the very democracy that gives them legal existence?

Hawaii’s law matters because democracy cannot build or sustain a social market economy if corporations are permitted to dominate the political system that determines what counts as public policy, public investment, and the public good. Economic inequality becomes political inequality when corporations and billionaires can pour money into elections, shape public narratives, influence legislation, and punish dissent. 

We should not be surprised, then, when public schools are defunded, universities are disciplined, Ethnic Studies is attacked, labor is weakened, and privatization is presented as common sense. These are not isolated developments. They are part of a larger political economy in which concentrated wealth seeks to govern public life.

This is why Mattei’s work matters so deeply for those of us concerned with public education, higher education, Ethnic Studies, Mexican American Studies, gender studies, democracy, and the future of Texas. 

The attack on public goods is not separate from the attack on knowledge. The dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion offices; the consolidation or weakening of fields of study; the narrowing of curricula; and the privatization of education are all part of a broader political economy. They tell us that what belongs to the public must be reduced, managed, disciplined, or sold off.

Mattei gives us a language for naming this. Capitalism does not only exploit labor; it also narrows democracy. It tells us that education must serve the market rather than the public. It tells universities to behave like corporations, students to think of themselves as consumers, faculty to produce measurable outcomes rather than cultivate critical thought, and communities to treat their histories, languages, and ways of knowing as luxuries rather than foundations for democratic life.

This is precisely why Ethnic Studies is so threatening to authoritarian and market-driven forms of governance. Ethnic Studies teaches that people are not merely workers, consumers, taxpayers, or data points. It teaches that communities have histories, memories, struggles, epistemologies, and claims on the future. It teaches that democracy is not only about procedure; it is also about power, belonging, recognition, and repair.

Capitalism depends on organized forgetting. It asks us to forget colonization, slavery, segregation, land theft, labor exploitation, gendered violence, and the long histories of resistance that made democracy more real. It asks us to forget that public education itself emerged from struggle. It asks us to forget that the weekend, child labor laws, public schools, civil rights protections, bilingual education, voting rights, and workplace protections were not gifts from the wealthy. They were won by organized people.

At the same time, we need language that invites rather than alienates readers. In the United States, the word “socialism” often evokes fears of expropriation, state control, or the denial of individual differences and aspirations. Those associations are real, even when historically incomplete or politically exaggerated. For many readers, the word can shut down conversation before it begins.

So perhaps a more helpful way to speak is in terms of a social market economy: an economy that preserves individual freedom, entrepreneurship, private initiative, and personal ambition, but refuses to abandon people to economic ruin. A social market economy recognizes that freedom is hollow if losing a job, getting sick, aging, having a child, attending college, or needing housing can push a person or family into crisis.

A social market economy, understood through the lens of a caring economy, does not abolish markets or individuality; it insists that markets be regulated and oriented toward the human needs—health, education, housing, care, safety, and democratic voice—that make freedom real. 

This is not merely a semantic move; it is a conceptual shift that refuses both market fundamentalism and caricatures of socialism, opening political imagination beyond the false choice between market abandonment and state control, toward a democratic economic arrangement in which individual freedom is strengthened—not weakened—by a social floor beneath everyone.

This is where Amartya Sen, Nobel laureate in economics, helps complete the argument. If Mattei shows how capitalism narrows freedom and Citizens United shows how corporate power distorts democracy, Sen gives us a fuller language for what freedom actually requires. 

In Development as Freedom, Sen argues that genuine development should be measured not simply by income or market growth, but by the expansion of people’s real freedoms—their actual capabilities to live lives they have reason to value (Sen, 1999). His argument is important because he rejects the narrow idea that freedom is only “freedom from government.” Freedom also requires positive social conditions. A person who is formally “free” but lacks health care, schooling, food, housing, safety, or political voice is not meaningfully free.

That distinction matters. Public health care, public education, affordable housing, child care, and retirement security should not be dismissed as charity, dependency, or government overreach. They are collective investments in human capability. They expand the range of real choices available to people and make it possible for individuals and communities to participate more fully in economic, civic, cultural, and democratic life.

A society with a strong social floor does not eliminate individuality. It makes individuality more meaningful. People can take risks, start businesses, pursue education, care for family members, change jobs, create art, or speak politically when they are not living one emergency away from collapse. A welfare system that prevents people from hitting rock bottom economically is not the enemy of freedom. It is one of freedom’s preconditions.

But this requires more than social programs. It requires democracy protected from corporate capture. A social market economy cannot flourish if the political system itself is flooded with corporate and dark money. Public goods require public power. Public power requires democratic accountability. And democratic accountability requires that human beings—not corporations, artificial entities, or billionaire-funded networks—remain at the center of political life.

These questions are urgent in Texas. We are living through a moment in which public officials claim to defend freedom while constraining what can be taught, studied, named, or debated. They claim to protect taxpayers while redirecting public resources toward privatization. They claim to promote excellence while undermining the very programs that help historically excluded students see themselves as knowledge producers, leaders, and authors of the future.

When public institutions are weakened, communities lose democratic capacity. When curricula are narrowed, students lose historical memory. When universities are disciplined by political power, faculty lose academic freedom. When public goods are privatized, ordinary people lose access to the resources that make meaningful freedom possible. And when corporate money dominates elections, the people most harmed by these decisions have the least power to stop them.

For Texas, this is especially consequential. Our state’s future is diverse, multilingual, multiracial, and young. Yet our political leadership continues to legislate against that future by attacking DEI, Ethnic Studies, public education, voting rights, and democratic participation. These attacks are often justified in the language of efficiency, neutrality, excellence, or fiscal restraint. Mattei helps us understand that such language is not innocent. It is often the vocabulary through which power protects itself.

To escape capitalism, then, is not simply to imagine a distant alternative. It is to reclaim the present by insisting that health care, education, housing, retirement, clean water, public knowledge, and democratic participation are not mere commodities. They are conditions of collective life. Freedom is not being abandoned to the market. Freedom is not choosing among unaffordable options. Freedom is not debt. Freedom is not silence in the face of political intimidation. Freedom is the ability of people and communities to shape the conditions under which they live, learn, work, remember, and dream.

This is why the defense of Mexican American Studies, African American Studies, Women’s and Gender Studies, Indigenous Studies, and public education is not a narrow academic matter. It is part of a larger democratic struggle. These fields teach us to see the world historically, relationally, and structurally. They expose the myths that justify inequality. They remind students that the present was made—and therefore can be remade.

Mattei’s great contribution is to remind us that capitalism is not destiny. It is a political order, and political orders can be challenged. Hawaii’s challenge to Citizens United reminds us that corporate power is not destiny either. It, too, is a legal and political arrangement. It, too, can be contested.

The first step is intellectual: to stop mistaking domination for freedom, austerity for responsibility, privatization for innovation, market dependence for democracy, and corporate spending for speech. The next step is collective: to build institutions, movements, curricula, laws, and public policies that invest in people rather than discipline them.

That is the work before us. Not charity. Not nostalgia. Not reform around the edges of a system that produces abandonment by design.

The work is democratic reconstruction.

The work is reclaiming the public good.

The work is recovering freedom itself.

References

Behal, A. (2026, April 15). One of Asia’s richest men is grabbing sprawling slum and crushing its economy. Pulitzer Center. https://pulitzercenter.org/projects/one-asias-richest-men-grabbing-sprawling-slum-and-crushing-its-economy

Kelleher, J. S. (2026, May 14). New Hawaii law targets corporate influence in politics after Citizens United ruling. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/corporate-campaign-money-citizens-united-hawaii-71a28bc7e8f6e0279b31e999f222519a

Lavandera, E. (Reporter). (2022, June 24). Deep in the pockets of Texas [Television special]. CNN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B3PTuADIHQ

Mattei, C. E. (2026). Escape from capitalism: An intervention. Simon & Schuster.

Reed, K. (Director). (2018). Dark money [Film]. PBS Distribution; POV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Money_(film)

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Alfred A. Knopf.

Supreme Court of the United States (2010). Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/

Weiner, D. I. (2025, January 29). Citizens United, explained, Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained

The Quiet Dismantling of Academic Freedom in the UT System, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D., May 28, 2026

The Quiet Dismantling of Academic Freedom in the UT System

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

May 28, 2026

The rule revision also allows the president to eliminate individual faculty positions
for “bona fide academic reasons.” Jay Janner/The Austin American-Statesman/Getty Images

Recent actions by the University of Texas System Board of Regents should alarm every faculty member, student, parent, and taxpayer who believes that public universities exist to pursue truth rather than political conformity. Under newly revised policies, university presidents now possess expanded authority to eliminate academic programs, terminate faculty positions, and bypass meaningful faculty participation in decisions that fundamentally reshape the university itself.

According to a recent report in Inside Higher Ed, the Board approved revisions to Rule 31003 that allow presidents to close programs not only for traditional academic or financial reasons, but also under vaguely defined “extraordinary circumstances” requiring “accelerated program closure” (Whitford, 2026a; Unglesbee, 2026). The revised policy further enables administrators to eliminate individual faculty positions for what are termed “bona fide academic reasons,” while sharply limiting appeal processes previously available to tenured faculty (Whitford, 2026a).

For many faculty across the UT System, these developments do not appear isolated. Rather, they represent part of a broader pattern of political encroachment into higher education governance in Texas. Earlier this year, the UT System adopted another controversial policy instructing faculty to “eschew topics and controversies that are not germane” to their courses (Whitford, 2026b). Faculty immediately raised concerns that the language was intentionally vague and would inevitably produce self-censorship in classrooms.

The danger of these policies lies not simply in the rules themselves, but in the climate they create.

Tenure was never designed to protect comfort or complacency. Its purpose is to protect intellectual independence—the ability of scholars to pursue difficult, unpopular, or politically inconvenient lines of inquiry without fear of retaliation. When dismissal procedures become easier and program closures can occur without meaningful faculty review, the likely outcome is not institutional “efficiency,” but anticipatory silence. Faculty begin asking not whether a topic is intellectually necessary, but whether it is politically survivable.

The consequences extend far beyond individual professors. Entire disciplines become vulnerable when political controversy can trigger administrative restructuring. Fields such as Ethnic Studies, gender studies, critical race scholarship, migration studies, environmental justice, and public health may increasingly be viewed not through the lens of academic standards, but through ideological scrutiny—towing the "party line," as it were. 

Indeed, faculty quoted in Inside Higher Ed expressed concern that the newly added “extraordinary circumstances” clause appears designed to anticipate future legislative interventions into what faculty may teach and research (Whitford, 2026a; Unglesbee, 2026).

Equally troubling is the continued erosion of shared governance. Faculty senates and governance structures historically emerged because universities are not corporations. Academic institutions require the expertise of scholars to guide curriculum, research priorities, standards of evidence, and educational integrity. 

Yet recent state legislation has already weakened faculty senates across Texas, reducing them to advisory bodies with little institutional authority. The newest UT policies further consolidate power upward into administrative and political channels while diminishing faculty participation in decisions that directly affect academic life.

This transformation should concern not only faculty, but the broader public.
The university is a public trust. Texans fund higher education not to produce ideological compliance, but to cultivate scientific discovery, historical understanding, democratic debate, artistic expression, and critical thinking. When political actors increasingly determine what can be taught, researched, or discussed, universities risk becoming instruments of state ideology rather than spaces of intellectual exploration.

Moreover, these developments threaten the long-term reputation and competitiveness of Texas higher education. Faculty recruitment becomes more difficult when scholars perceive universities as politically unstable environments. Graduate students and early-career researchers may seek institutions elsewhere. National collaborations weaken when academic freedom protections appear uncertain. Over time, institutional prestige suffers not through dramatic collapse, but through the slow erosion of intellectual credibility.

The broader context makes these changes especially concerning. Proposed legislation in Texas has already sought to weaken or eliminate tenure protections altogether. Texas House Bill 1830, introduced during the 89th Legislature, proposed prohibiting institutions from granting tenure or permanent employment status to future faculty hires while expanding grounds for dismissal. Although not enacted in its introduced form, the proposal signals an unmistakable political trajectory.

Faculty within the UT System should therefore recognize the current moment for what it is: not a series of disconnected administrative adjustments, but a larger restructuring of higher education governance itself. The cumulative effect of weakened tenure protections, restricted classroom discourse, diminished shared governance, and politically vulnerable programs is the normalization of fear within academic life.

And fear is incompatible with the mission of a university.

References

Whitford, E. (2026a, May 27). U of Texas makes it easier to fire faculty, close programs. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty/shared-governance/2026/05/27/u-texas-makes-it-easier-fire-faculty-close-programs 

Whitford, E. (2026b, February 20). UT board policy asks faculty to avoid “controversial” topics in class. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty/curriculum/2026/02/20/ut-policy-asks-faculty-avoid-controversial-topics

Unglesbee, B. (2026, May 21). UT System makes it easier to shutter programs, fire faculty. Higher Ed Dive. https://www.highereddive.com/news/ut-system-makes-it-easier-to-shutter-programs-fire-faculty/820932/

Texas House Bill 1830, 89th Legislature (2025). Relating to tenure and employment status at public institutions of higher education in this state. https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB1830/id/3053324

As Ethnic Studies Comes Under Attack, UCSB’s ÉXITO Program Builds the Teachers We Need, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Tomorrow, I’ll have the privilege of speaking with an extraordinary group of students affiliated with the University of California Santa Barbara ÉXITO Program—many of whom, upon graduation, are heading directly into a Master of Arts in Teaching and credential programs to become the next generation of Ethnic Studies educators. At a time when Ethnic Studies faces escalating political attacks across the country, these students represent something profoundly important: a refusal to surrender the struggle over history, identity, democracy, and belonging in our schools.

The following piece from The Current at UCSB highlights the remarkable work of the ÉXITO Program, a groundbreaking initiative designed to build pathways into Ethnic Studies teaching. What stands out most is not only the students’ academic accomplishments, but their deep commitments to community, justice, cultural knowledge, and transformative education. These are future educators who understand that teaching is not simply the transmission of information, but a profoundly relational and ethical practice rooted in care, history, and collective possibility.

As attacks on Ethnic Studies intensify nationally, programs like ÉXITO remind us why this work matters so deeply. The future of public education will depend, in no small part, on courageous teachers willing to create classrooms where students can see themselves, their communities, and their histories reflected with dignity and truth. I look forward to learning alongside these students tomorrow and to witnessing the important work they will undoubtedly carry forward into California classrooms and beyond.

-Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

UCSB’s ÉXITO Program graduates third cohort of future ethnic studies teachers amidst rising attacks on ethnic studies

Debra Herrick June 11, 2024 | The Current at UC Santa Barbara

Michelle Ramos Ramirez ’24

In Spanish, “éxito” means success. At UC Santa Barbara, ÉXITO stands for Educational eXcellence and Inclusion Training Opportunities, a first of its kind program in the UC system that provides students with a clearly structured pathway to becoming K-12 Ethnic Studies teachers. Funded by a $3 million U.S. Department of Education Title V grant, the program’s third cohort is now graduating.

Their commencement comes at a crucial moment, said Ingrid Banks, an associate professor of Black studies and a member of the program’s core faculty.

“The ÉXITO program at UCSB is exponentially important today as the attacks on ethnic studies escalate,” said Banks. “In training future ethnic studies teachers and current teachers invested in centering ethnic studies in their curriculum, the ÉXITO program provides a necessary social justice intervention within primary schooling.”

Designed for highly motivated students, the undergraduate program serves as a pipeline to earning a bachelor’s degree in one of the UCSB’s ethnic studies departments or in feminist studies and to applying to a master’s degree in education and a teaching credential program.

The program’s core faculty hail from the departments of Asian American studies, Black studies, Chicana and Chicano studies, and the Gevirtz Graduate School of Education. They work with the ÉXITO team, led by co-directors Professor Rebeca Mireles-Rios and Professor Lisa Sun-Hee Park, associate director Adanari Zarate Ph.D. ‘20 and graduate student researchers.

“On behalf of the ÉXITO team, congratulations to our graduating scholars,” said Zarate. “Thank you for the contributions you have made to our program and campus. We look forward to the amazing things you will do for the field of education and student communities. Always remember your ‘why.’"

Clockwise from top left: Cailey Angeles Larmore ’24; Eduardo “Eddie” Vázquez ’24;
Michelle Ramos Ramirez ’24 and Juan Rivera Garnica ’24

A “proud product” of unincorporated East Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Unified School District, Ramos Ramirez is earning her B.A. in Chicanx studies with a minor in educational studies. She will continue her research and training in ethnic studies education in UCLA’s master’s and teacher education program. Despite the challenges of transitioning to UCSB as a first generation college student, she said, she “found solace and inspiration within her ÉXITO cohort — a community of resistance that fuels her transformative vision for the future.”

Cailey Angeles Larmore ’24

Larmore, who uses they/them pronouns, is graduating with a B.A. in Asian American studies with distinction in the major, and a B.S. in psychological and brain sciences. During their time at UCSB, they were active in FIERCE Outreach, Kapatirang Pilipino and the Asian American Studies Department. Larmore will pursue their dual teaching credential and master’s degree in education at UC Berkeley.

Among the highlights of Larmore’s experience at UCSB were: “being part of the executive board for FIERCE Outreach, meeting my now partner through a creative writing class in Asian American Studies, my partner and I independently deciding to become part of ÉXITO at the same time, getting to do research under my favorite professor in Asian American studies, attending the drag shows put on by TQComm, and playing mahjong with my friends.”

Eduardo “Eddie” Vázquez ’24

A double major in Chicanx studies and sociology from North East Los Angeles, Vázquez, who uses they/them pronouns, served on the outreach board of UCSB’s SexInfo OnCampus; served on the Students for Reproductive Justice board and as a grader for SOC 152A (Human Sexuality). Additionally, they have worked with Orientation Programs during summer and as the resident assistant for the undergraduate apartments queer community, Lavender Living. After graduation, Vazquez will return to Los Angeles for UCLA’s Teacher Education Program and to pursue a master’s degree in education with a specialization in ethnic studies.

Juan Rivera Garnica ’24

Rivera Garnica is graduating as a double major in Chicana/o studies and film and media studies. He is originally from Mexico but was raised in Los Angeles after moving to the U.S. He will pursue his master’s degree and credential in the Teacher Education Program at UCLA this fall, hoping to become a high school social studies teacher with a focus on ethnic studies.

ÉXITO participants Amelie Calderon, Stephanie Pantoja, Riechal “Riqui” Martínez and Evelyn Giraldo also completed the program and will be taking a gap year before continuing towards their teaching degrees.
Media Contact


Debra Herrick

Associate Editorial Director

(805) 893-2191

debraherrick@ucsb.edu


About UC Santa Barbara

The University of California, Santa Barbara is a leading research institution that also provides a comprehensive liberal arts learning experience. Our academic community of faculty, students, and staff is characterized by a culture of interdisciplinary collaboration that is responsive to the needs of our multicultural and global society. All of this takes place within a living and learning environment like no other, as we draw inspiration from the beauty and resources of our extraordinary location at the edge of the Pacific Ocean.