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.
After reading this piece in the Mexico Daily News titled, "TX governor Greg Abbott declares ‘invasion’ of migrants at US-Mexico border" and then coming across this one, I felt even more convinced than I already was that the purpose actually IS to incite anger, anxiety and dread on people who look like me.
I'm in the count of campaign ads making me feel as though “people do not want me here in the United States.” I would even say that these external political pressures have formed me as a person and advocate.
I am in full agreement that anger, anxiety and dread are important responses for studies to track in light of voluminous social science research, including my own, that finds a deep sense of alienation and not belonging when discriminated against. Much of this gets manifest structurally in limited opportunities, poorly-funded schools, disparate achievement on standardized test scores, uninspiring curricula, not being represented in either the presence of teachers of color, culturally enriching materials, and the everyday politics of dismissiveness.
I hope and pray that someday soon, what's happening along the U.S.-Mexico border gets framed as the humanitarian crisis that it is and that relations with our neighbors to the south get normalized so that we can enjoy greater peace and positive inter- and well as intra-group relations.
Getting there requires our leadership to address the root causes of migration that reside back home whether it be Mexico, Haiti, Venezuela, Honduras, and so on. It involves ethical partnerships, equitable policies, an infusion of material resources to promote development in weaker Central and South American countries, expanding human rights, and binational institution building.
Instead, immigrants get casually objectified and regularly dehumanized, treated like political piñatas as part of the gamesmanship of politics today. What we need is good and effective leadership that will lead the way forward with a progressive vision the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" without which we must sustain this oppression that has literally weighed on us for decades.
As we approach the November election Americans are overwhelmed with the amount of campaign ads flooding their television and social media feeds. It is estimated that by election day over $9.7 billion will have been spent on campaign ads. Between January 6, 2021, and August 7, 2022, 2 million ads aired on national television alone.
The volume of campaign ads can unfortunately be harmful to some members of the public due to the heavy emphasis on immigration and immigrants.
While the United States has been home to an anti-immigrant political climate that has politicized Latino immigrants for several election cycles, it feels as though the volume of campaign ads that focus on border enforcement has increased this campaign season. America’s Voice has reported 700 unique paid ads that have been viewed 52.6 million times on voters’ social media feeds are anti-immigrant, divisive and/or racist. Many of these ads are generating fear and xenophobia by framing the immigration issue around an “invasion” of immigrants coming to the United States, which generates fear and anger.
The primaries push candidates to mobilize the more ideologically extreme segments of their respective parties. It is therefore not surprising there was a heavy use of border enforcement and anti-immigrant ads during the Republican primary. However, what is surprising is that the Southern border was used as the backdrop for campaign ads during the primary season in non-border states. This included ads suggesting weak borders were responsible for drugs and crime in states as far from the border as South Carolina and Alabama.
We are interested in how the exposure to a high number of anti-immigrant campaign ads may impact the attitudes of the Latino population.
LATINO EXPOSURE TO CAMPAIGN ADS AND THEIR IMPACT ON LATINO FAMILIES
We rely on the Abriendo Puertas/Unidos US National Latino Family Survey to get a sense of how pervasive exposure to anti-immigrant campaign advertising is among Latinos. The survey asked respondents if they have seen any campaign ads on television or online that they felt discriminated against or were intended to make the public think negatively of immigrants. Over a third (36 percent) of Latino parents or primary caregivers indicated they have seen these ads, with a higher percentage of registered voters reporting exposure.
The National Latino Family Survey asked respondents who have viewed these ads how this made them feel. As reflected in the figure below, the most commonly reported reaction among Latinos in the sample was “anger”. This was a particularly common response among foreign-born Latinos (+6 percent relative to their U.S.-born counterparts).
The next two most common reactions identified by respondents are “nervous/anxious” at 40 percent and “scared” at 27 percent. When combined these two outcomes that are often measures included in mental health studies, were mentioned by 67 percent of Latinos across the country. This is consistent with the literature documenting how the anti-immigrant politics across the country negatively impacts mental health of immigrants. The anti-immigrant sentiment was expanded by former President Trump and research has found that there is a link between Trump’s racist policies and symptoms of both depression and anxiety for Latinos.
I have found in my own work that living in states with punitive immigration policies does not only impact the health of immigrants, but Latinos overall. This helps explain why U.S.-born Latinos, who are not immigrants themselves, are more likely to report they are nervous or anxious upon seeing anti-immigrant campaign ads than immigrants in the sample (+7 percent for U.S.-born Latinos relative to the overall sample).
Another 29 percent of respondents indicated seeing these campaign ads made them feel as though “people do not want me here in the United States.” This is an important response to track, as the social science literature has found Latinos often report feelings of not belonging or feeling unvalued in society when exposed to discrimination.
Reflecting the variation in Latinos attitudes, 15 percent of the sample of Latino parents and primary caregivers said they felt the campaign ad they saw “was spot on with what needs to be done with immigration policy.”
IMPLICATIONS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
The rise in these anti-immigrant ads is indicative of wider acceptance for this extreme political rhetoric, which unfortunately suggests the Latino community will continue to be exposed to more stress-inducing political images than ever. This is an issue we should all be concerned with given the impact these ads have on Latinos’ perception that they are welcome in this country. Feeling as though you belong and are valued in society has huge implications for civic engagement. Seeing evidence that exposure to anti-immigrant campaign ads influences sense of belonging is worrisome for those interested in civic participation of Latinos, regardless of which party they choose to support.
To circumvent millions of people being exposed to this, networks should be pressured to prohibit this type of hate and fearmongering to be aired.
A way to combat these harmful ads would be to prevent them from being viewed in the first place. To circumvent millions of people being exposed to this, networks should be pressured to prohibit this type of hate and fearmongering to be aired. Whether by filing a complaint through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to implement regulations, or creating social pressure for change, networks are responsible for what they choose to broadcast and should be held accountable.
The implications of a sharp increase in anti-immigrant campaign ads on the mental health of Latino Americans are huge given the limited access to mental health services the Latino population has experienced both before and during the pandemic. Latinos have greater delays in receiving mental health care (twice as likely as white Americans) and they are less likely to receive guideline care for depression and anxiety compared to white Americans. Expanding access to quality mental health services to a wider segment of the Latino community will help address longer-term challenges this community faces in regard to mental health.
I like this piece by researchers at Pew because it separates out desire from the practical aspects of mobility for most Latinos. "Latinos say achieving the American dream isn’t easy. Only about half (51%) said they had achieved it so far, and about three-quarters (74%) said achieving the dream today is hard for people like them."
So when politicians and pundits say that Latinos aren't sufficiently aspirational, nothing can be further from the truth. The issue is less about the ideal of the American dream and more about the barriers they face in achieving it. Here is, of course, where equitable health, education, and housing policies can make a difference in helping families fulfill their own aspirations.
Hispanics are significantly more likely than the general U.S. public to believe in core parts of the American dream – that hard work will pay off and that each successive generation is better off than the one before it. Yet many Hispanics see the American dream as hard to reach, and belief in it declines as immigrant roots grow distant, according to newly released results from a Pew Research Center 2016 survey of Hispanic adults.
More than three-quarters of Hispanics (77%) said at the time that most people can get ahead with hard work, a higher share than among the U.S. public (62%) in 2016. For Hispanics, similar shares expected their standard of living to be better than that of their parents (75%) and expected their children to be better off than themselves (72%). Among the U.S. public, by contrast, just 56% expected to be better off than their parents, and 46% expected their children to have a better standard of living than they did.
Even so, Latinos say achieving the American dream isn’t easy. Only about half (51%) said they had achieved it so far, and about three-quarters (74%) said achieving the dream today is hard for people like them.
While there is no official definition of the American dream, public opinion surveys of U.S. adults in recent years show it involves hard work, financial security, career success and confidence that each new generation will be better off than the one before it. Americans also see life milestones as a part of attaining the dream: graduating from college, owning a home, raising a family and giving your kids a life that’s better than your own.
The life goals of Latinos overlap with some of these ingredients of the American dream. The two goals rated most highly by Latinos were being a good parent (51%) and having the resources to provide for their family (49%). Owning a home – often seen as a key part of the American dream – was cited by 33% of Hispanics as an extremely important life goal for them. Other top goals for Hispanics included having a successful marriage (30%) and being successful in a high-paying career or profession (22%).
Among those who say they have achieved the American dream, about equal shares of Hispanics attributed their achievement to home ownership or financial stability (26%), their work or career (25%) and hard work (24%). Another 22% cited coming to or living in the U.S. as the reason for their success. Immigrant Hispanics often mentioned this last reason: About one-third who believed they achieved the dream said they did so by coming to the U.S. (Responses were to an open-ended question.)
The survey also asked those who have not achieved the American dream how they might one day do so: 31% cited homeownership or financial stability, 25% said work or their career and 14% said education.
In many ways, what Latinos say they need to accomplish to reach the dream reflects their concerns and worries: Three-quarters (74%) said they worry a lot about providing for their family and 60% said they worry a lot about their finances.
Differences by immigrant generation
The U.S. born account for about two-thirds of Latinos and for most of the growth in the Latino population today. Among these adults, belief in some aspects of the American dream fades as their immigrant roots grow distant.
Eight-in-ten immigrant Latinos said in 2016 that their own standard of living is better than that of their parents, and just as many expected their children will be better off. Among second-generation Hispanics (the U.S.-born children of immigrant parents), these shares were 75% and 71%, respectively – slightly below the shares of immigrant Latinos. But for third or higher generation Latinos (U.S.-born Latinos with U.S.-born parents), just two-thirds (66%) said they will be better off than their parents and 60% said they expect their kids to be better off.
Great read. Dr. Ibram X. Kendi successfully argues on just how nonsensical the battle over Critical Race Theory is where he argues that republicans are essentially arguing against themselves, fighting a "monstrous evil" of their own creation. The irony is how many Republicans decry "cancel culture," yet the censorship for which they are advocating is the epitome of cancel culture.
The United States is not in the midst of a “culture war” over race and racism. The animating force of our current conflict is not our differing values, beliefs, moral codes, or practices. The American people aren’t divided. The American people are being divided.
Republican operatives have buried the actual definition of critical race theory: “a way of looking at law’s role platforming, facilitating, producing, and even insulating racial inequality in our country,” as the law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, who helped coin the term, recentlydefined it. Instead, the attacks on critical race theory are based on made-up definitions and descriptors. “Critical race theory says every white person is a racist,” Senator Ted Cruz has said. “It basically teaches that certain children are inherently bad people because of the color of their skin,” said the Alabama state legislator Chris Pringle.
There arediffering points of view about race and racism. But what we are seeing and hearing on news shows, in school-district meetings, in op-ed pages, in legislative halls, and in social-media feeds aren’t multiple sides with differing points of view. There’s only one side in our so-called culture war right now.
This is one of the better, in-depth pieces on Critical Race Theory I just came across written by Isabella Zou for the Texas Tribune back in June 22, 2021.
Question: What is our community's response to all this anti-CRT hating and backlash?
Answer: A positive legislative agenda for Ethnic Studies for the State of Texas!
I am pleased to say that this past week, Representative Christina Morales, joined by Sen. Carol Alvarado, Rep. Gene Wu and Ethnic Studies leader, Tony Diaz held a press conference last Monday that you can view here on the filing of House Bill 45, renewing the effort to pass Ethnic Studies in the upcoming 88th Session of the Texas State Legislature. Glad to see that LULAC in Houston sponsored this event.
Dr. Valerie Martinez and I got a chance to speak virtually at the press conference, too. You can check out what we say here, as well. Too much fun!
As expressed by Rep. Gene Wu, it's time for all of us who helped build this country to get recognized and featured in our state's public school curriculum. The potential of legislation, meaning "having a bill," is that should it become law, it becomes a priority of the Texas State Board of Education to formally approve, countering the current delay of aligning Native American and Asian American Studies for getting aligned to state standards. Note: African American Studies and Mexican American Studies are already aligned and getting taught in Texas schools as elective courses.
The difference between this bill and what's already in state SBOE code is that it establishes a pathway to a high school diploma that is inclusive of Ethnic Studies courses.
Some folks say that this is about fostering division. That's not a sustainable view when I see nothing but unity across so many groups and communities coming out of this ongoing effort. In fact, outside of this movement, I have not seen or experienced so much interracial or interethnic unity together with white allies in Texas. This is positive, hopeful, and super exciting!
I will be saying more about HB 45 in the coming weeks and months.
Building on the legislative achievements of this legislation (HB 1504) from last session, our Ethnic Studies Coalition is not at all deterred considering that House Bill 45 is in able hands with Rep. Morales and her enthusiastically supportive colleagues.
Those who study the discipline say attacks on it are targeting any teachings that challenge and complicate dominant narratives about the country’s history and identity.
Teacher Melissa Perry reads to her fifth grade class at Jacob’s Well Elementary School in Wimberley on
Jordan Vonderhaar for The Texas Tribune | September 4, 2020. Credit: Tribune
Gov. Greg Abbottsigned into law a bill last week that restricts how current events and America’s history of racism can be taught in Texas schools. It’s been commonly referred to as the “critical race theory” bill, though the term “critical race theory” never appears in it.
But in signing the bill, Abbott said “more must be done” to “abolish critical race theory in Texas,” and announced that he would ask the Legislature to address the issue during a special session this summer.
Meanwhile, the debate has taken hold across the nation. Last year, conservative activist Christopher Rufo began using the term “critical race theory” publicly to denounce anti-racist education efforts. Since then, conservative lawmakers, commentators and parents have raised alarm that critical race theory is being used to teach children that they are racist, and that the U.S. is a racist country with irredeemable roots. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and others have called the theory racist itself for centering the nation’s story on racial conflict. In addition, conservative commentator Gerard Baker has argued that critical race theory bans critical thought in favor of what resembles religious instruction.
Those who study the discipline say that the attacks have nothing to do with critical race theory, but instead are targeting any teachings that challenge and complicate dominant narratives about the country’s history and identity.
They say that critical race theory itself actually shifts emphasis away from accusing individuals — in history or in the classroom — of being racist, which tends to dominate liberal discussions of racism. Instead, it offers tools for shifting public policy to create equity and freedom for all.
So what is critical race theory, and why is it relevant to Texans? And why is there an effort against it in Texas — and around the nation?
What is critical race theory?
Critical race theory is a discipline, analytical tool and approach that emerged in the 1970s and ‘80s. Scholars took up the ways racial inequity persisted even after “a whole set of landmark civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws passed” during the civil right movement, Daniel HoSang, professor of ethnicity, race and migration and American studies at Yale University, said.
“These scholars and writers are asking, 'why is it that racial inequality endures and persists, even decades after these laws have passed?'” HoSang said. “Why is racism still enduring? And how do we contribute to abolishing it?”
HoSang described critical race theory not as “content,” or a “set of beliefs,” but rather an approach that “encourage[s] us to move past the superficial explanations that are given about equality and suffering, and to ask for new kinds of explanations.”
In the introduction of Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement, a seminal collection of the foundational essays of the movement edited by principal founders and scholars like Kimberlé Crenshaw and Neil Gotanda, the editors write that critical race theory is about transforming social structures to create freedom for all, and it’s grounded in an “ethical commitment to human liberation.”
Key concepts
Racial Formation: One key concept in critical race theory is racial formation. Developed by sociologists Michael Omi and Howard Winant, the theory rejects the idea that race — Black, white, Asian — is a fixed category that has always meant the same thing. Instead, it traces the way that race has been defined, understood and constructed in different ways throughout history. Omi and Winant define race as an “unstable and ‘decentered’ complex of social meanings constantly being transformed by political struggle.”
For example, they write that in the U.S., the racial category of "Black" was created as slavery was established and evolved. Africans whose specific identity was Ibo, Yoruba or Fulani in Africa were grouped into the category "Black” as they were enslaved in America. Part of the meaning of being “Black” in America was being less than human and therefore enslavable. James Baldwin wrote in “On Being White and Other Lies” that Europeans who moved to America became “white” through a process of “denying the Black presence, and justifying the Black subjugation.”
Omi and Winant describe racial formation as the “process by which social, economic and political forces determine the content and importance of racial categories, and by which they are in turn shaped by racial meanings” — a process that has continued throughout history.
Monica Martinez, a history professor at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in Latinx history, described how racial formation has played out in Texas in the racialization of Mexicans and the history of anti-Mexican violence.
“Before this region became Texas, there were debates about the character of Mexicans as a group of people,” she said. Figures like Stephen F. Austin and John Calhoun cast them as “treacherous people, thieves and murderers.”
From 1910 to 1920, she explained, hundreds of ethnic Mexicans were victims of lynchings, as well as violence at the hands of police and the Texas Rangers. Many of them were American citizens, and they included labor organizers and journalists who were writing about race and injustice. This amounted to an effort to “remove Mexicans from having economic or political or cultural influence,” she said.
“Oppression was enacted through violence, and it was sanctioned by governors, Texas legislators and local courts,” she said.
Oppression was furthered by “Juan Crow” segregation laws that racially segregated communities, relegated Mexican American children to poorly developed schools and intimidated Mexicans from voting. This system of laws and policies had lasting effects on Mexican Americans and how they’re conceived of today.
Rhetoric has played a role in racial formation as well, continually loading the term “Mexican” with racial meaning.
“100 years ago, people talked about Mexicans as bandits, as thieves, and as a threat,” she said. “Today, they talk about them as potential cartel members and gang members.”
This language contributes to racial profiling and violence today. “In communities in south Texas, anybody who looks 'Mexican,' or looks like an 'immigrant,' can be targeted—not just with policing, but also by [general] hostility,” she said.
Racism is structural: The mainstream understanding is that racism is an individual prejudice and choice. The default is to be free of bias and racism, so racism is an exception from the norm. It can be addressed by individual measures, such as humiliating and punishing the person who messes up, and enforcing moral codes on an individual level.
On the other hand, critical race theory says that racism is inherent in our institutions and structures of governance. It’s ordinary, and it’s baked into all our consciousnesses in complex ways through our education, government, the media, and our participation in systems. Racism must be addressed not just by punishing individuals, but by shifting structures and policies.
HoSang, the Yale professor, explained that critical race theory isn’t focused on “the stock characters of a racist,” such as Bull Connor, who directed police to use fire hoses on civil rights protesters in Birmingham, Alabama. HoSang said that a focus on denouncing individuals is “not a good use of our energy.” Instead, he said, the question is, “Even in places where civil rights and anti-discrimination laws passed, why do these forms of inequality persist?”
“So [critical race theory] actually says, no, we shouldn't be preoccupied with trying to discern ‘who is the racist here,’ because that moves the attention away from the structures,” he said.
One example of this is in housing segregation — how “many, many complex layers” of “policies around zoning, lending and redlining, around private realtors and developers” have reproduced unequal access to housing, which in turn furthers gaps in generational wealth and stability, HoSang said.
In his article for the Austin American-Statesman, Dan Zehr traces how this process has played out in Austin, which has one of the highest levels of income segregation in the nation. In 1928, city plans created a “negro district” east of Interstate 35 and denied public services and utilities to Black people outside of it, pushing Black residents to the eastern part of the city. When the government began offering loans to promote homeownership and help citizens rebuild wealth as part of the New Deal after the Great Depression, neighborhoods for people of color were excluded through a practice called “redlining.” Austin’s “negro district” was the largest redlined zone in the city, Zehr writes.
“As most Americans gained equity in new homes or upgraded the value of their existing houses, the black population saw a racial wedge driven deeper between Anglo affluence and African-American poverty,” he explains.
All these processes are systemic. “You can’t explain [this] through any one person's biases and prejudices.” HoSang said.
Is critical race theory being taught in K-12 classrooms?
Experts and teachers put it plainly.
“Nobody in K-12 is teaching critical race theory,” Andrew Robinson, an 8th grade U.S. history teacher at Uplift Luna Preparatory in Dallas, said. “If I tried to walk in and teach critical race theory, my kids would just have a blank stare on their face.”
“Critical race theory is not being taught in schools,” Martinez said.
Keffrelyn Brown, a professor of cultural studies in education at UT-Austin and a teacher-educator, agreed.
“A vast majority of teachers in K-12 schools don't know critical race theory,” she said. “They are not coming into the classroom and saying, ‘I'm going to teach critical race theory.’”
HoSang pointed out that to begin with, critical race theory is not “a body of content that can be taught.”
Given that, Abbott’s calls to “abolish critical race theory in Texas” make no sense, those who study it said.
“I don't think you can ‘abolish’ a theory,” Brown said.
How does Texas' new law and surrounding debate discuss critical race theory?
While it has gained the ire of national Republicans on Fox News and elsewhere for months, critical race theory was thrust in the political spotlight in Texas this spring because of the progress of HB 3979. Lawmakers claimed that it combats the theory.
The wording of the bill is vague — for example, it bans discussion of current events unless a teacher “strive[s] to explore those topics from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective,” and teachers can’t teach that “with respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to, the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality.”
In an early statement supporting the legislation, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said that critical race theory is a “woke philosoph[y]” that “maintain[s] that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex or that any individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive.”
The phrase “critical race theory” does not appear in the bill once, however.
Brown described the way the term “critical race theory” has been mobilized as a label that has nothing to do with critical race theory itself.
“It has become the catch-all phrase for any kind of perspective, or any kind of framework, or any kind of knowledge that shows the roots of racism and how deeply they are embedded in our society,” she said.
Experts pointed out several key mischaracterizations of critical race theory.
Political discourse has claimed that critical race theory unfairly assigns guilt and blame to individuals based on their race. In one section that lists concepts teachers can’t teach, the bill prohibits teaching that “an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's race or sex.”
“[Critical race theory] has nothing to do with sentiment, guilt or shame,” HoSang said. “In fact, one of its premises is that those are not actually helpful places to examine. It's taking us out of racism as a psychological and emotional question, and is focusing much more on the structures, the policies that people create that govern our lives.”
Martinez said the worry comes out of “false claims that when you teach histories of slavery, or race, or racism, that you make some white students feel guilty or shame for being white.”
To focus on directly instilling racial guilt would be taking a liberal, individualistic approach that critical race theory actually critiques.
The bill also prohibits teaching that “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex,” or that “an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.”
If anything, Martinez said, the current, longstanding way of teaching Texas history already teaches that one race is superior. “Look at how it teaches the history of the Texas revolution — that people like Stephen F. Austin are racially superior to the treacherous Mexican, like Santa Anna,” she said. “Texas history has been taught in a way that celebrates people who were fighting for the institution of slavery, that were espousing publicly that Mexicans were an inferior race.”
HoSang agreed. "There’s so much of the dominant curriculum that does just what the bills claim they're objecting to, in terms of constructing a moral ideology," he said. “One could argue the current curriculum promotes intolerance and animosity against Indigenous people, and that it does the same for immigrants.”
Future impact
Brown, the UT-Austin cultural studies professor, described the new Texas law as an effort to “try to stop the momentum over the last year and a half of families and communities saying we need to know more about racism.”
“We need to understand [our history of racism] so that we actually can get to a place where we are operating with justice, with equity, with fairness,” she said.
Instead, she said, the bill may “create enough confusion and possible concern that teachers or districts would just simply not talk about issues of race, or racism, for fear that it's going to create some conflict.”
Abbott’s press office did not comment on what he additionally wants the legislature to do about “critical race theory” during this summer’s special session. But many teachers worry about the “chilling effect” that the new law will already have on their attempts to teach history well — which includes nurturing students’ critical thinking skills by bringing in multiple perspectives on historical events, and showing how the past has impacted present day issues.
“What they're trying to say with this is that the actions of the past aren't affecting the present,” said Robinson, the 8th grade history teacher in Dallas. “They want us to act like slavery and Jim Crow have no bearing on the issues in our society right now. And if that's the case, then they should cancel my class.”
Disclosure: University of Texas at Austin has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
