This blog on Texas education contains posts on higher education, as well as preK-12 policy accountability, testing, bilingual education, immigration, school finance, race, class, and gender issues at both the state and national level. It also represents my digital footprint, of life and career, as a community-engaged scholar in Texas.
I just came across this powerful video of Dr. José Angel Gutiérrez speaking at the 2014 LEAD Conference in San Bernardino—and I had to share it. If you’ve ever wanted a window into the heart of the Chicano Movement, this is a good place to start. Dr. Gutiérrez isn’t just a civil rights icon—he’s an iconoclast, a fearless truth-teller who has spent his life fighting for the dignity, voice, and power of our communities. If you read the statement attached to the film that you can view below—and you listen to his presenation—I'm sure you will see how he is a force of nature.
I find his discussion of second- and third-generation Mexican Americans—or better said, "Chicanos," and how holding this specific standpoint endowed entire cadres—whose parents and grandparents were also part of the one million people that migrated to Texas in 1910 when the Mexican Revolution began. This resulted in a critical mass, of his generation with a kind of perspective and wisdom that did not take "no" for an answer. The research literature refers to this as the dual frame of reference.
However, even "crossing over" itself, in historical perspective, was actually a coming home for those who were displaced and dispossessed by Anglo settler colonials who happened to be the first "illegal aliens" or "undocumented migrants" to these parts. This is the history that the powers that be do not want you to know.
In any case, I think it a good and appropriate conversation to consider how generational status coincides temporally with the revolution and the kind of consciousness among youth that later came of age in the 1950s and 1960s where the seeds of resistance took root among youth like Gutierrez who later became the vanguard of the Mexican American Civil Rights movement—which along with Blacks, Asians, and Native Americans—resulted in the civil rights policies and legislation that are presently under serious attack by the republican administration at the state and national level.
Dr. Gutierrez' parents were born in Mexico and Dr. Gutierrez was born in Texas. They were able to judge matters similarly as a generation because they became skilled border crossers, symbolic and real. Other, especially later, generations can also have a dual frame of reference, but more by learning about it and what it means for those that experience it—if they, too, want to embark on traversing symbolic borders of language, culture, class, and so on, as the case may be.
I also appreciate his enunciations that we, as Chicanas and Chicanos, are on our homeland and that we are "hosts," and that the dominant group in power are our guests. So, a little respect here, okay?
I do respectfully disagree with Dr. Gutierrez on one important detail. Paraphrasing, he said that
I also don't like how he derided Pres. Obama while agreeing that I am disturbed by he deported 3 million people during his administration (
From founding MAYO and La Raza Unida Party to organizing school walkouts in Crystal City, his life’s work has been about challenging systems that were never built for Mexicans, in the first place. Watching this talk, I was reminded not only of how far we've come, but all that we still carry forward from eras gone by—the same fire, the same questions, and the same call to act.
Dr. José Angel Gutiérrez is a pivotal figure and one of the iconic founding fathers of the Chicano rights movements. He is an attorney (Dallas TX) and Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas at Arlington; Founder of the Center for Mexican American Studies. Dr. Gutierrez, along with Cesar Chavez, Reies López Tijerina, and Corky Gonzales, stands out as among the most important and influential leaders of the Chicano movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
He was a founding member of the Mexican American Youth Organization (MAYO) in 1967, one of the first student activist groups of the Chicano movement; and founding member and past president of the political third-party La Raza Unida Party, which left its mark on the political scene, challenging Democratic and Republican parties alike to court the ignored Mexican American and Latino voter.
Dr. Gutiérrez was one of many activists working to change public education on a local level in the 1960s and 70s. Born in Crystal City, Texas, and educated in local schools, Gutiérrez mobilized the community to demand equal treatment for Chicano students. He was lead organizer of the Winter Garden Project, the project that which led to the now famous walkout of 1969.
Dr. Gutiérrez has been organizer, founder and co-founder of several other organizations such as the Mexican American Unity Council (MAUC), Ciudadanos Unidos, Obreros Unidos Independientes, Becas Para Aztlán, Oregon Council for Hispanic Advancement, Northwest Voter Registration and Education Project, and Grupo de Apoyo para Immigrantes Latin Americanos (GAILA). He has been the subject of many articles and film documentaries, including the PBS video series, CHICANO! The Mexican American Struggle for Civil Rights, and is mentioned in many Chicano history and political science books.
He was also featured as an "Innovator" in the PBS documentary series - School: the Story of American Public Education. Most recently Dr. Gutiérrez was featured in a segment of: “Prejudice and Pride: the Chicano Movement”, which was part of the PBS series - "Latino Americans." Introduction / Moderator: Mary Valdemar, Vice President, Latino Faculty, Staff & Administrators Association,
San Bernardino Community College District, and Co-Founder, Core Team & Volunteer Support Staff, Chicano Indigenous Community for Culturally Conscious Advocacy and Action (ChiCCCAA) Speaker: José Angel Gutiérrez, Attorney, Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas at Arlington, founding member of the Mexican American Youth Organization (MAYO), and founding member and past president of La Raza Unida Party.
Frustrated Hispanic-American voters might strike out on their own. Then what?
In the late 1800s, disgruntled farmers in the Midwest and South
decided they could no longer support the Democratic or Republican
Parties. Neither of the major parties was responsive to their concerns
amid crop failures and falling prices during a recession, so the farmers
decided to throw their weight behind an upstart, the Populist or People’s Party.
White and black farmers joined together, even in the South, to support
candidates who called for the federal government to provide credit and
financial support during a time of low crop yields and economic
downturn. They succeeded in electing governors,
congressmen and hundreds of minor officials and legislators, primarily
throughout the Midwest. The party was geographically concentrated, which
allowed them to focus their efforts to elect congressional candidates.
The Populists lasted only a few years as an independent
entity, but their success clearly got the attention of the mainstream
parties. Most important, it had a lasting impact on policy, even beyond
the issues pushed by the farmers. Many of the Populists’ demands
became law by the 1920s—including the direct election of U. S.
senators, the development of a progressive federal income tax and the
availability of short-term credit in rural areas.
Latinos in the United States are now confronting a dilemma similar to the one faced by the farmers. A recent Gallup poll
indicates that the number of Latinos ranking immigration as a top issue
doubled since the first half of this year. Yet Latinos have been forced
to endure bitter disappointment from a Democratic president who has
broken many immigration promises, in no small measure because the
Republican-led House of Representatives refuses to act on immigration
reform in Congress. The president’s decision to defer deportation of
newly arrived children—a decision announced just five months before the
2012 presidential election—increased enthusiasm for Obama among Latinos;
71 percent of the record 11.2 million Latinos who turned out to vote
cast their ballot for Obama.
Many of them are now deeply disappointed. The president—who had
campaigned in 2008 on a pledge to reform the immigration system—again
promised to make the issue an early and top priority during his second
term. Congress stymied those efforts, so Obama pledged to take executive
action—only to delay it until after the midterms. No wonder a new Pew Research Center poll
shows that a majority of Latino voters think the Democratic Party is
doing a poor job on immigration, and a different recent survey indicates
substantially dampened enthusiasm
for Obama and the Democrats among Latino voters because of inaction on
immigration reform. Even as the president tried to smooth over
differences this week at an appearance before the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus annual gala, some frustrated Latino activists are contemplating deliberately sitting out the midterm election to make Democrats pay a price at the polls.
Many of them are now deeply disappointed. The president—who had
campaigned in 2008 on a pledge to reform the immigration system—again
promised to make the issue an early and top priority during his second
term. Congress stymied those efforts, so Obama pledged to take executive
action—only to delay it until after the midterms. Now wonder a new Pew Research Center poll
shows that a majority of Latino voters think the Democratic Party is
doing a poor job on immigration, and a different recent survey indicates
substantially dampened enthusiasm
for Obama and the Democrats among Latino voters because of inaction on
immigration reform. Because of their profound disappointment with the
Democrats’ inaction, some frustrated Latino activists are even contemplating deliberately sitting out the midterm election to make Democrats pay a price at the polls.
But
are these the only alternatives—stay home and sulk, or accept the
better of two bad options? Could it be time for Latinos to follow the
path forged by the disgruntled farmers? Or follow the model in Europe,
where third parties are fairly common?
In Europe, minorities and
special interests often form their own parties when they feel their
issues are not being championed by larger parties. This is most easily
done in countries with proportional representation,
which allows more than one representative for each district and—unlike
winner-take-all systems like most of the United States—allocate seats
based on the percentage of votes garnered by each contender. In such a
system, minor parties are often able to gain enough support to win seats
in legislatures. Examples include Basque nationalists in Spain, as well
as Green and far-right parties across Europe. In places like Britain
that have majoritarian systems with single-member districts,
geographically concentrated parties like the Scottish National Party are
able to win seats in Parliament. Even here in the United States, the
occasional small party or independent can win a seat, including in the
U.S. Senate. (One example: Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Independent
who caucuses with Democrats.)
As relative newcomers, immigrants
often don’t have the money or other resources needed to start a new
party. Far-right party leaders, on the other hand, tend to come from
existing parties and have a built-in support network.
Indeed, in Europe’s multi-party system, it has been anti-immigrant far right parties that have taken hold. We have an analogue in the Tea Party in
the United States. Yet the Tea Party is not truly a separate party—at
least for now, it is a faction within the Republican Party that has
managed to set the agenda on issues like immigration.
By and large, majoritarian electoral rules like ours produce
two-party systems. There is no hope in the foreseeable future that those
rules will change and that means that small parties, like the Populist
Party, inevitably disappear or, like the Libertarian and Green Parties, remain on the fringes of a system dominated by the two major parties.
Still,
there are some reasons—42 million of them, to start with—to think that a
Latino party could be different. Various ethnic groups have
historically wielded a great deal of influence within political parties,
particularly at the local and state levels. The German-American
Alliance, the Ancient Order of Hibernians (“the oldest and largest Irish Catholic organization in the United States”) and the Immigrant’s Protection League all mobilized against the restriction of immigration in
the early 20th century. Latinos also have an important advantage which
supports the idea of starting a separate party: They still tend to be
geographically concentrated in such states as California, Florida and
Texas which allows them to focus their efforts, like the Populist party
did in the 1890s.
Another relevant historical example is the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP). Fifty
years ago Fannie Lou Hamer appealed to the conscience of the Democratic
Party, asking for the Democratic National Committee’s credential
committee to recognize their delegation in place of the all-white
Democratic delegation from the state. The leadership came to a
compromise and agreed to seat two members of the delegation, but the
white delegation walked off and wouldn’t accept the compromise.
Nevertheless, the example set by the MFDP would have a clear impact on
the Democratic Party in the South going forward. Despite the prospect of
losing white support in the South, the Democratic Party supported civil
rights legislation and gained the support of a majority of black
voters.
An ethnic party did arise in the United States in the
late 1960s as the Chicano Movement organized and called for a third
party to focus on self-determination for Mexican-Americans. The main
focus of organizers was in Texas, where La Raza Unida party
won seats on city councils, school boards, and even ran a candidate for
governor in 1972 and 1978. However, the party’s support declined as
party activism slowed in the late 1970s.
Hispanic Americans are
in a better political position today than either the MFDP was five
decades ago or even La Raza Unida was in the ‘70s. In terms of
representation, there is the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the
113th Congress has a record number of Latino elected officials,
with 35 representatives and three senators. Most of these
representatives are Democrats, and the immigration issue has been a high
priority, as evidenced by the scathing criticism recently lobbed at the
president by Representatives Raul Grijalva (Ariz.) and Luis Gutierrez (Ill.). Organizations like the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Education Fund and a variety of pro-immigration organizations have
lobbied for immigration reform and deportation relief. How long will it
be before such groups grow exasperated with the Democrats’ failure to
move these issues forward?
A Latino party might even help solve
the biggest obstacle to greater political clout—boosting turnout. At the
time of the last midterm election, data from the Pew Research Center shows,
Latinos chalked up a sharp increase in the number of eligible voters,
while the number of actual voters is increasing more slowly. Also, as
Pew notes, “even among eligible voters, Latino participation rates have
lagged behind that of other groups in recent elections.” For example,
31.2 percent of Latino eligible voters said they voted in 2010, compared
with nearly half of white eligible voters and 44 percent of black
eligible voters. An independent Latino Party or a cohesive Latino bloc
within an existing party that focused on the issues most important to
Latinos could spur increased participation—and thus more political
clout.
The smartest approach in the short run might be for
Latinos to work within the existing party system, even as they continue
to organize and swell their ranks within the electorate. In the
long-term—especially if Democrats and Republicans continue to
disappoint—they will need to assess their potential for working together
as a voting bloc and whether this could lead to support for a party. Is
this a long shot? Yes, but it’s better than sitting on the sidelines or
waiting for others to act. How long will it be before
Hispanic-Americans’ patience runs out?
/ leadprojects 
/ leadprojects 
/ leadprojects 
/ leadcsusb http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&... 
/ leadprojects 
