Schools as Prisons

One of my academic responsibilities is supervising student teachers.  Student teachers are just what the name implies – university students learning to become teachers.  Typically, student teachers work with a veteran teacher at an area school over the course of a semester, ultimately assuming all facets of a full-time professional teacher.  Part of my job involves observing student teachers teaching a lesson in the classroom.  Lately, however, fulfilling this obligation has become increasingly onerous.  It has nothing to do with the students I supervise or the lessons they teach, but rather how schools are run.

As I arrived for a school visit recently I explained to the security personnel that greeted me who I was and the reason for my visit.  He asked to see a photo identification so I presented my university faculty id.  He asked instead for my driver’s licenses, explaining that he needed to enter my home address, telephone number, and birth date into a computer and then snap a digital photograph of me, all of which would be kept in a central database.  I explained that I was hesitant to disclose so much personal information and offered my work address and telephone.  The security person at first insisted on having my personal information but eventually accepted and entered my work information, but not before he and a nearby custodian who observed the exchange stated that all of these procedures were “for the safety of the kids.”  The implication that I was at the school to do some harm and the assumption that I do not care about student safety rankled to say the least.  I explained to both men that as a tenure-track professor at a public university, a former public high school teacher, and someone with over 20 years of experience in education, I would not be at their school if I was in anyway a threat to children.  I stated further that I am all for ensuring school safety but do not think I need to waive my privacy rights or other civil liberties to do so.  This ultimately ended the exchange and I was allowed to proceed to complete my visit and observation.

I thought about this experience again last week when I read about San Antonio’s Northside Independent School District (NISD) initiating a program requiring all students to wear identification badges embedded with radio frequency identification (RFID), enabling school personal to track students' movements.  Some students and parents complained of the new program as an invasion of privacy.  Students not complying with the program allegedly were subjected to harassment from teachers while administrators reportedly threatened to ban these students from extracurricular and other social activities.  School personnel meanwhile explained that the program was aimed at reducing truancy and promoting school safety.

I am skeptical of the district’s claim.  This program may indeed be about reducing truancy and promoting safety, but I wonder who’s safety the district has in mind that truant or absent students threaten.  The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) reports that the NISD student population is nearly 64 percent Hispanic, nearly 25 percent white, and approximately eight percent black or African American, with just over 47 percent of students eligible for federal reduced or free lunch programs.  This LoJack-type system and other technological deployments seem more about corralling poor and minority students than about anything with any pedagogical value.  It seems to be part of a troubling trend.  In her book, Lockdown High, journalist Annette Fuentes argues that legislative and policy responses to the 1999 Columbine High School shootings and similar tragic events have created police-state like conditions in many American schools.  Often school personnel implement these responses with little regard to their consequences - not the least of which is how being presumed guilty before being innocent affects the social and psychological development of children.

Using Big Brother tactics provides an easy solution to the complex problems of student truancy, absenteeism, and dropping out.  Schools would be better served by creating warm, welcoming environments staffed by caring teachers who develop interesting curricula taught with engaging learning activities and authentic assessments.  Perhaps that is too much to ask.

A Personal Post-Mortem on the CPS Teachers Strike & Latinos and Urban Schools

This is a long and personal one…

I am not your typical Chicago Public School student parent. I have a doctorate, an education from an Ivy League school and am fairly well informed about the nuances of urban schools; I have studied them and worked with their students, teachers, and parents for nearly a decade in several of the largest urban school districts in the country.

One might think that my graduate educated wife and I are crazy to even be sending our precious kindergarten-age daughter to what many view as a dysfunctional system. For many reasons we decided to send her to our neighborhood school; not that we did not make the attempt to navigate the CPS bureaucracy to get her into a selective enrollment school or a gifted program, but we were aware that the odds were slim, even for our upper-middle class family; we knew that the neighborhood school might be our only public school choice. Indeed, our local school ended up being the only CPS school option for us. We knew that we still had the choice of sending her to a private school or relocating to the suburbs, but ideologically and politically we believe in integration across class and race and ethnicity and we also believe in public education that is universally provided and supported. Also, our neighborhood school is among the top 20% of elementary schools (in terms of test scores) as our neighborhood reflects our income, education, while still holding to our values of diversity along race and class. Also, as a researcher, I know that much of what affects kids’ success in school has nothing to do with schools at all; success in school has to do with poverty, physical health, parents’ income and education level, the exposure to oral and printed language in the home, immigration status, violence in the neighborhood, and having two adults in the home to care for children. Enrollment in pre-school, where our daughter spent three years, also provides a significant and lasting effect on academic success all the way through college. So, our child holds advantages in just about all of the above categories.

Our resolve was tested though on the day of our orientation when we entered a 90-degree auditorium with no air conditioning and a hundred or so parents and their children. There the principal informed us that our children would be in two classes of 37 students each, and that likely even more would be enrolling before the school year began in less than a week. An astute parent asked if the teachers would have aides and the principal replied, “no.” Determined, she followed-up asking, “can parents volunteer.” The principal grinned and then rattled back, “yes, but you’d have to go through all the requisite background checks, which would take a few weeks.” A collective pause, laden with hope was present. Then the principal’s ironic grin grew large and with almost comedic timing he said, “but CPS in its wisdom does not allow parents to volunteer in their own child’s classroom.” And the parents, regardless of probably not being well versed in game theory, knew that the classrooms would have no volunteers. Then he introduced our daughter’s teacher, a young woman no more than 25 years old with only one year of teaching experience under her belt.

For four days we experienced the chaos of our “good” neighborhood school. I weighed in my head whether we could really conceive of selling the home we just bought last year as I dropped off my precious daughter to a room of students who ranged from having graduate educated parents to those who probably arrived as immigrants within the past few years and spoke little English, to those who were spending their very first days away from their parents, never having had any sort of formal pre-school instructional experience before.  

One day I saw the forty or so students line up in the morning to enter the portable unit which housed their classroom, and two children screamed and clawed to remain with their parents as the other students marched into the building. The young teacher peeled the more strident child off of her father and carried her into the class. Meanwhile my daughter and her classmates were already in the room, unaccompanied. I only imagined that my daughter, who is very well behaved in school and is already on the verge of reading, would be tacitly neglected by the teacher to deal with the most needy students for the first few months of school. As already wrote, she is advantaged, right? She would be fine anyway. There is only so much a teacher can do.

And then the strike came.

I followed the strike as closely as a parent, and as fairly well informed researcher of urban schooling. But all theory, research and principles fly out the window when things hit you directly. Despite knowing that the teachers deserve the protection and stability of tenure, that they need to be assessed on true measures of learning and success, that student learning is influenced in many ways by factors that occur outside of school, I still wanted to blame the teachers for neglecting my daughter that first week and for abandoning her to strike. But again, there is only so much a teacher can do-forty students, parents who I attempted to converse with but couldn’t because they didn’t speak English, a principal who proudly said he keeps test scores up by giving no less than 60 minutes of homework a day to kindergartners (to serve the mandates of the state and federal governments)-the odds against having a good experience were overwhelming. The teachers needed more; an assistant, a smaller class, a system that provides healthcare and integration services for immigrant parents, among so many other things. While these may not be “strikable,” especially when you make an average of $76,000 a year, the teachers seemed justified in taking a stand.

So, allowing rationality to prevail, my family supported the striking teachers. I took our daughter to “strike camp” each day, provided by a local non-profit that typically runs supplemental afterschool programs in the public schools. The camp was a relief. The seventy or so students who were enrolled in the camp were met by no less than ten young adults, a staff to child ratio 7 to 1, about one-sixth of what the public schools had to offer. Our daughter knew all of the staff members’ names by the second day and displayed an excitement about the program that she had not shown in the first week of actual school. She was learning Chinese, was doing theater, and completed worksheets that had writing exercises. By the third day I noted that all the staff greeted our daughter by name, with large smiles, and a genuine interest in having fun.

While driving her to the camp on the fourth day, our daughter seemed especially pensive. She noted that I had been honking and waving to the red-clad striking teachers at the five or so schools we passed on the way to the camp. She asked why and I explained that I wanted to show that I supported them, because they wanted to help get more things to help kids do better in school. She paused and then said, “I hope they get more toys for us.” I laughed and told her that they would probably get more books or even more teachers. She heaved a sigh and said, “Daddy, you know I really hate school. There is too much learning.” I was shocked. This was a statement coming from a little girl who had been anticipating going to elementary school for months; a girl who would come home from pre-school singing and happy on most days. After having the opportunity to visit the elementary school of some friends’ children in suburban Atlanta, she became enthralled with the idea of the cafeteria and how “big kids” got to pick their lunch (of course the CPS school we enrolled her in had no cafeteria). Now she was saying she hated school. “Why?” I asked. “I have to sit in one place all day, and we don’t get to play, and all we do is learn,” she lamented. My heart was breaking. “We are just kids,” she said.

There was another pregnant pause. She then said, “Daddy, you’re a teacher, right?” “Yes, I am.” “I think then that I don’t have to go to school again. I can just stay home with you and you can be my teacher.” I couldn’t believe her desperation to find a way not to return to school. “I would love to stay home with you, but I have to work to make money. I can’t stop teaching my own students.” Silence. “I know,” she said. “You can teach me at night after you work in the day. During the day I can just spend time with Mommy.” And then we arrived at camp. “I can see you have given a lot of thought to this idea.” “Let me think about it,” I said. And so I did.

After some hard conversations and frantic searching on the Internet for private schools, my wife and I found ourselves at a local Catholic school on the sixth day of the strike. We were visiting with the principal, who for the next two hours explained the curriculum, showed us the kindergarten classrooms that each had less than twenty students with teachers with over thirty years of experience between them. We saw the already beautiful, but soon-to-be renovated gymnasium, the library filled with books, the friendly and calm staff. And for our last stop we saw the spacious cafeteria, where the kids would be treated to hot meals each day. Then next day the strike was resolved, and while the teachers and students returned to public schools after that, our daughter began Catholic school.

So, what does this have to do with Mexicans or Latinos? Well, as we walked away from the Catholic school I told my wife that I wondered how in our pleasant middle-class neighborhood that the public school still felt very urban, crowded, and disproportionately minority. After visiting the parochial school it made sense because we had found the white middle-class people; they pay for school quality because they can. Poverty among Latino children is at 27%, and schools are so much more than just places of learning for them; they are medical centers, social service agencies,recreation spaces, babysitters, and spaces for acculturating new immigrants. The strike hit Latinos hard because they lost this resource. But how much of a resource can they be with such poor funding that is dependent upon test scores rather than the full array of socioemotional outcomes that schools are responsible for. How could schools overcome all of the challenges facing Latinos when there are as many as 50 students per teacher in some pre-school classrooms? Meanwhile, the middle-class and above remove themselves from this system by fleeing to the suburbs or private schools. Without ethnic, racial and class integration, how can schools get better? I wish I had the solution to this complex problem. It will probably take a really long time to address. Despite my ideals, I’ve learned that for our Latina daughter, we simply couldn’t wait for the answer to arise in the public schools. Unfortunately, so few other Latinos have this choice.

Latinos and the Politics of Cynicism

While the politicians, pundits, media personalities, and others continue to dissect Wednesday’s Presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, I continue to digest the news announced early this week of the record number Latinos eligible to vote in this year’s election.  As announced by the Pew Hispanic Center, upwards to 24 million Latino voters could go to the polls this November.  The lingering question remains, however, how many actually will vote?  Despite their growing numbers, the Pew report states, “the turnout rate of eligible Latino voters has historically lagged that of whites and blacks by substantial margins.  In 2008, for example, 50% of eligible Latino voters cast ballots, compared with 65% of blacks and 66% of whites.”  As such, getting more Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Rican-origin voters to the polls could tip the election for one candidate or the other, which is why the presidential candidates continue courting these ever-increasingly important populations.

As widely reported earlier this week, both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney made overtures to Latino and Hispanic voters in the run-up to their debate.  The President announced plans for a César Chávez memorial, while the former Massachusetts Governor visited a Chipotle restaurant and declared he would maintain the current administration’s halting of deporting younger undocumented immigrants.  (For the record, I have long admired César Chávez, and had the pleasure of meeting him twice when he visited my alma mater during the late 1980s and early 1990s.  A national monument to his memory is long overdue.)

While having Hispanics and Latinos playing a more prominent role in national politics is undoubtedly a good thing, the ploys both candidates used this week bother me on a couple of levels, and I am not sure what bothers me more.  For one, the candidates seemingly think that cynical moves like these will persuade Hispanic and Latino voters to vote for them.  Moreover, these kinds of cynical moves might actually work.  Politicians would not make such overtures unless there was some evidence that they did.  And if these cynical political moves do ultimately persuade those Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, and other voting-eligible populations to cast their ballots for one candidate over the other, than can we legitimately ask to be taken seriously as a political constituency?  I fear the answer may be “no.”

When is Cheating not Cheating?

When I was in graduate school, I remember coming across a quote that said, in effect, school is where children learn that helping their neighbor is cheating.  I think I read it in an early work by my former advisor, but cannot say so with 100 percent certainty, which I regret.  Nevertheless, I thought about that sentiment this past month when I heard about the alleged cheating that occurred at Harvard University.  This story gained some national media attention for a while, which one would expect given Harvard’s long-storied and Ivy League pedigree.  As details slowly emerged, I began to wonder about the parameters of the assessment on which the students allegedly cheated.  It turns out that the assessment was a take-home exam for an introduction to government course on which students were allowed to use their course books, class notes, and even Internet resources, but were not to discuss the test with anyone.  For the record, I do not know the faculty person who administered this test for his class and have no further knowledge of the matter than what I have read in different media outlets.  As an educator, however, I think I can state with some confidence that the test itself was flawed as an assessment.

The main purpose of any educational assessment should be to provide students the opportunity to demonstrate what the know and what they can do with what they know as a result of learning particular course content and developing the skills commiserate with that content.  For example, physics faculty should expect their students to demonstrate their knowledge of particular principles of physics and apply those principles to differing scenarios to show they know and can apply those concepts to solve a problem or achieve an outcome.

Education by its very nature is a collaborative endeavor.  Students’ depth of understanding increases when they have the opportunity to discuss theories, ideas, or concepts with one another.  They then can demonstrate that deeper understanding through different modalities, whether it is a written test, presentation, simulation, or debate.  Unfortunately, education by cooperation increasingly is no longer an acceptable pedagogical approach.  Education through competition continues to gain currency.

Education through competition undergirds the penalties states and school districts incur for not meeting the nearly-impossible-to-meet Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) on standardized tests as required by No Child Left Behind.  Education through competition also is at the core of the Obama administration’s Race to the Top initiative.  It also is behind misguided calls for merit pay for teachers, which likely would result in teachers hoarding their best lessons and methods from their colleagues to get a bigger share of incentive pay pot at the end of the year, thus serving neither students nor teachers.

To be clear, I am not saying that the Harvard students are innocent of violating standards of academic integrity.  If legitimate instances of plagiarism exist, for instance, the University should take the necessary steps to minimize it from occurring again.  What does seem evident, however, is that the desire to achieve on misguided, poorly developed, or otherwise poorly executed assessments in an ever-increasing competitive environment is driving more and more academically talented students (and some teachers) to challenge academic standards of behavior.

Here’s hoping the responses at least are more pedagogically sound than the assessments.

Back To School

The Labor Day weekend traditionally is a seasonal milestone - and the end of this year’s holiday weekend also marks the return of The Mexican Intellectual following a summertime hiatus.  Labor Day also usually marks the return to classes for American school children, which provides an opportune moment to take a closer look at those students and consider how best to teach them.

America’s school systems aim to meet the educational needs of an ever increasingly diverse student population.  A cursory examination of available data from 2011 about the city of Chicago (from where this blog originates) and the nearby village of Winnetka provides some insights into not only how diverse the student population is, but also the degrees and types of disparity between districts within the same state of Illinois.

The table below shows percentages of the three largest racial or ethnic populations in Illinois schools along with the percentages of students who are of Limited English Proficiency or bilingual (LEP); who have Individual Educational Programs (IEP) that provide for students with physical or mental disabilities to receive accommodations or additional resources, and who come from households that meet the federal designation of Low Income and thus are eligible for federally subsided or free lunch programs.  (You can find more details about Chicago Public Schools here, and more about the Winnetka school district here.)  With such diversity, the question arises: How can we best teach our students?

Student Demographics	%White	% African American	% Hispanic	% LEP	% IEP	% Low Income
State-wide	51.4	18.3	23.0	8.8	14	48.1
Chicago	8.8	41.6	44.1	15.81	12.23	85.92
Winnetka	92.8	0.1	1.7	1.0	12.3	0.2

For better or for worse, there is no shortage of supply of vested parties or other interest groups who think they have the best answer to that question.  These include parents; residents without school-aged children; labor unions for the diverse workforces within the schools (in addition to teachers there are teacher aides, facilities and housekeeping, administration, and administrative support staff, to name a few); corporations; academics; non-profit organizations; private foundations; and local, state, and national politicians.

Given the cultural and learning diversity of student populations allow me to suggest that the question itself is misguided.  There is no one best way to teach our children, just as there is no one solution to the problems with American education, whether they be real or perceived.  Unfortunately, those claiming to be interested in reforming education seem to lock onto the most politically expedient solution.

That question of how best to teach students is not answered solely by reforming teacher education; by corporate-sponsored curricula; by school take-overs and other efforts to privatize public schools; by accountability through test scores; or by any one reform being pushed as a “magic bullet.”  Instead, we should be discussing the best ways (plural) to teach students or reform schools.  Given the ever increasing diversity of student populations, the methods of educating them should be no less diverse.

Immigration Reform and the Presidential Race

There has been much ado about President Obama's announcement last week that he would use his executive privilege to use discretion regarding dealings with unauthorized immigrants who meet certain criteria. This discretion is focused on Dreamers, the self-named group of young people whose parents brought them to the United States illegally when they were very young, who attended and completed their schooling in the U.S., have no criminal background, and/or have served in the military. Obama has said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement will now use discretion with regards to this group, halting their deportation if they meet certain criteria, and even granting them temporary 2-year work permits. 

Initially, there was elation from immigration reform advocates, especially the Dreamers, but upon further examination that excitement was tempered. 

First, they had to respond to critics that this executive order was unconstitutional and sidestepped the legislative process and Congress. This was despite an open letter to Obama sent by a large group of legal scholars and lawyers  two weeks prior to the President's announcement, criticizing the President for not using executive powers around immigration. They argued that historical actions by other presidents and legal precedent would allow Obama to exercise his authority to halt deportations and grant temporary legal status to some immigrants. 

A second point, was the issue of political pandering by Obama. Some argued that Obama's decision to defer action on the deportation of some unauthorized immigrants was reacting to this pressure and the pressure from Dreamers who were occupying some of his campaign offices. They suggested that Obama's act was purely political, but pragmatically for them it was a step in the right direction. 

This raised a third area of doubt, because the order did not represent any sort of permanent change. Obama had a longstanding position that discretion should be used with regards to unauthorized immigrants who had no criminal records. Despite that he still holds the dubious distinction of deporting record numbers of unauthorized immigrants compared to other administrations. Actually, some wondered if anything changed at all because his current announcement is really just "old wine in a new wineskin." 

These previous points relate to the issue of the President's commitment to immigration reform and  Latinos more generally. Despite promises of comprehensive immigration reform that would occur in his first year in office, he did nothing to move the issue forward. When the less comprehensive DREAM Act reached Congress for a vote, he expended very little, if any political capital to get it passed. When called out by immigration reform advocates regarding his lack of support, Obama has proven "testy" and even "hostile." An extended Washington Post piece cites numerous examples of Obama's defensiveness around immigration issues, and a seeming overall unwillingness to change his actions, leading some to question where he really stands on the issue.

Romeny's political reaction was muted at first, but he finally proposed some potential reforms to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) yesterday. Ironically, despite calling the president's immigration policy unconstitutional, he proposed very similar unilateral executive policies as part of his immigration stance. Overall, though, he presented little of substance in the way of immigration reform, perhaps showing that he still stands on his simplistic "self-deport" platform.

Perhaps Romney believes that his immigration and Latino trump card is Marco Rubio. An article by African American writer Earl Ofari Hutchinson seems to suggest this might be true. In this article I think that Mr. Hutchinson's lens is clouded by the Black-White binary paradigm that pervades American thinking. Latinos are really diverse and complex. While there are some trends such as being opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage, IN GENERAL, when you look at Latino sub-groups, such as generational status, age, specific country of origin, these overall trends disappear; One trend that does seem to trump that complexity and gives Latinos something to stand together on is immigration; we are all still pretty closely tied to our immigrant roots AND many people (using the Black-White paradigm) assume that Latino is synonymous with immigrant. Because we realize that having our nativity questioned is a big source of bias, we tend toward favoring immigration reform that might remove that stigma. We would probably be much more likely to vote on that issue alone, as the Obama bump in the last week shows. That is much more a reason for us to vote as a bloc than whether someone with a Spanish surname was on the ticket of either party. While Rubio may offer some moderate views that are agreeable to Latinos, especially given his Democratic past and love of hip-hop (sarcasm), he too has been pretty much in the background in terms of his immigration stance, with the public still awaiting the immigration reform legislation that he said he would be putting forward a while ago. 

All of this is to say that immigration will certainly be a big deal this election. And, with the Census releasing more evidence of the ever-growing Latino population, it really is time that politicians of both parties stop talking and start acting. 

Whose America?

For those Latinos who live in the United States and have visited their ancestral homelands, they may have encountered friends or relatives as I have who enjoy utilizing the following gambit: “So, what nationality are you?” Naively, a Latino might say that he or she identifies with the country they are visiting. So, twelve-year old me telling my cousins in Mexico City that I am “Mexican” is met with uproarious laughter. “How cute, he thinks he is Mexican.” They may follow up with questions like, “Really, you’re Mexican, so what do you eat?” “Tacos,” I might say, “chorizo con huevos, enchiladas, tortas, frijoles, mole.” Again, laughter that is enough to make even the most radical Chicano separatist exclaim, “Well, then I’m American!” In spite of every playground argument I’ve had, every ignorant teacher who asks where I am from, all which tell me that I am not of this country, only in it, to paraphrase a repeated saying by African American leaders, in that moment I conclude that I am not Mexican either; so, I say I am American. But that is the trap. The argument up to this point was only a prelude to the main event.

“So, you are American?” “What country is that?” “There is no country America.” “Your country does not have a name, so you take a name that belongs to all of us.” “No,” I argue, “Our name is the United States of America.” “But that is not a name,” they say. “That only describes your location and government. We are the United States of Mexico. Mexico is the name. The United States part only describes how our government runs and the same is for you.” “OK then,” I say, “I am American, you’re right about the United States part, but that doesn’t change that I am American just like you are Mexican.” Now the fireworks fly, because this was the trap all along. “No, we are both American.” “No you are not, you’re Mexican.” “No,” my cousin says, “I am American, just like you.” We both live in North America, so I am American too.” “And Brazilians are American and Ecuadorians and Argentines, and so on…” And because I am only twelve and don’t really speak Spanish well enough to continue the conversation, and because it seems that I was destined to lose, and honestly it does seem that my cousin has a point, the conversation ends.  

I have heard this line of reasoning many times and it is at this point a bit tired and cliché, but I have taken it for granted that it is not really a conversation worth having. I imagined that the argument was also a bit disingenuous, an attack meant to put down Americans in at least one way, when materially and in terms of power they have so much. Much to my chagrin, I saw the seeds of the same recently on a Facebook status update of a graduate student I know, “I learned today that America does not have a real name, but nobody questions that. Think about it.” I believe it was the “think about it” part that actually got me thinking. Could it be true that the U.S. of A. does not have an official name and if not, so what?

Upon a quick Google search I learned that our country’s official name is outlined in the Articles of Confederation, section I, ratified in 1777, where it states: “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America’". I posted this as a response to the initial FB post, to which I got a response that followed the “who is American” line of argument I described above. To paraphrase how the student elaborated, American hegemony leads it to believe that it has power and dominion over the Americas. That belief manifests itself in the way that “Americans” believe that they have exclusive right to the demonym, when it can apply to people of all of the Americas, North, South and Central.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it just doesn’t work out chronologically. The signatories of the Articles of Confederation were members of a colony themselves. They were the subjects of British hegemony at that time. They decided to create an independent federation of states to be free of British rule and taxation. There is no way they could have had the foresight to know that they would be an imperial power even greater and at times more oppressive than the monarchy they lived under.

As was noted in a previous post, the U.S. has been screwing Latin America for a while, despite public relations efforts that try and support the contrary. The most recent time happening in both literal and figurative terms. So, trying to return the favor and sticking it to the U.S. can be fun for our friends south of the border; but if they loathe us so much why would they want to share a moniker with us, and if we actually decided to call them Americans, would they even respond? I think energy would be better used to show the innumerable other ways that the U.S. has intervened in Latin America to its own advantage rather than focusing on such a trivial issue as I just have.

Mariachi Americano

Tomorrow is my birthday and because it falls in the middle of the week, my wife and I decided to celebrate a few days early on Sunday by going out for dinner and some live music. A few weeks ago, I read a Facebook update from “Our Tiempo,” an entertainment blog that stated there would be a free show of Mariachi El Bronx at the Double Door here in Chicago. Upon seeing the words “free,” “mariachi,” and the “Bronx” strung together I had to read more.  After reading the post and a few other online sources I learned that Mariachi El Bronx is an iteration of the punk band The Bronx. A few years ago, the Southern California band put together some songs in the mariachi style, along with other Mexican styles such as jarocho and norteño. As they state on their website, “mariachi music is every bit as much of a soundtrack to southern California as punk.” They have a couple of albums now that are completely in these styles.

Compelled further by the story, I had to take an actual listen to their music. I was excited, but reserved my enthusiasm out of fear that their music would be too punk, an unsuccessful mash-up of genres, or simply just bad music. I was more than pleasantly surprised after watching about a dozen of their tracks on YouTube; I even became a little obsessed, finding spare moments to give their music another listen whenever I could. This is a band that has appeared on both Conan and David Letterman, and as you can see by Letterman’s reaction, they have a real wide-ranging appeal and incredibly, play music that is really “beautiful.”

One of the trademarks of Mariachi El Bronx is that they don complete mariachi suits when playing, and that they also play traditional Mexican instruments like the vihuela and the guitarrón. While they include a couple of Latino/Mexican-American members, including the son of David Hidalgo from Los Lobos, they are mostly a bunch of white guys and an Asian on violin (seems like a stereotype, but it’s true). Again, doubt can easily be raised about the authenticity of the motives of this group of musicians: is it parody? Is it a cheap imitation? A gimmick?

Upon seeing them live, I had my answer. These guys are real honest to goodness punk mariachis, from their ostrich skin boots, upholstered belts and customized belt buckles, to their ability to drink Tecate and play music, these guys played original Mexican music sung in English that is no less authentic than La Negra or Guadalajara.

The reaction from a really diverse crowd in terms of age, ethnicity, and gender was amazing. People were singing along, shouting out gritos, dancing and moshing. The love that the band received and gave was great. And as proof of their "mariachi-ness" I felt no less pride on hearing them play, with the bass thumping through my chest, than if I were hearing mariachis play at a wedding.

What I took away was that culture from south of the border has really mixed with American culture in an incredible way that still maintains an authentic identity. Gustavo Arellano, the writer of the “Ask a Mexican” column in the OC Weekly, and author of a recent book on Mexican cuisine in the U.S. makes the argument that mash-ups and iterations of Mexican food are all authentic and prove the strength of Mexican culture. Rather than decrying what is authentically Mexican or not, these evolutions are beyond flattery and show the adaptability and resilience of a culture whose essence remains. It also shows its allure beyond natives to the point that is able to incorporate them into the mix. The Mexican philosopher José Vasconcelos called the Mexican people “La Raza Cósmica,” or the cosmic race, a race of the future, because of their cultural ability to develop and persist in this way.

This idea comes at a time when there have been two important demographic developments; first, Mexican migration to the U.S. has come to a virtual halt, and second, that minority births, many of those Latino, are now outnumbering white births in the U.S. While it may seem that there is a possibility for a decline in the presence of the Mexican culture because of the first shift, it seems that the salsa is out of the bottle, because what it means to be American is not a change that will happen when those newborns come of age, it is a change that is already here-and it sounds like mariachi music—in English.

All the News that's Print to Fit?

During a poignant scene in the 1988 movie Stand and Deliver, math teacher Jamie Escalante, who became famous for his students’ success on the Advance Placement calculus test, confronts Educational Testing Service agents investigating alleged cheating among his students.  Escalante, as portrayed by Edward James Olmos, implies that his East Los Angeles students’ cultural heritage has more to do with the investigation than any actual cheating.  “There are two kinds of racism, Mr. Escalante,” one agent replies, “singling out people because they’re members of a particular group, and not singling out people because they’re members of a particular group.”  I thought about this construction of race again this past week when reading Sun-Times columnist Alejandro Escalona’s piece about the recent release and publication of Cosmopolitan for Latinas, an English-language periodical based on the original Cosmopolitan magazine.

Mr. Escalona argues in his column that the continued growth of English-language media outlets is a cause for celebration in that major companies not only recognize the purchasing power of Latinos but also the diversity of Latino populations, an ever-increasing number of which whose first language is English instead of Spanish.  Other such high-profile demonstrations exist and have for a while.  Ever hear of the Latin Grammys?  As such, the growth of English-language news and entertainment media for Latino audiences is seen as an integration of Mexican- and similar national-origin populations’ in the United States.

Marketing such media solely to and for Latinos, however, is narrow and shortsighted.  Doing so further balkanizes these target audiences.  If the information these outlets convey is important for one group, is it also not important for the larger population regardless of national, racial, or ethnic heritage?  I think so.  Further, the larger segment of society is somewhat poorer for not knowing about issues confronting the rest, being aware of their concerns, or otherwise being exposed to aspects of their culture.  The Latin Grammys, for example, may reward musical achievement while celebrating Latin music, but do not do enough to expose non-Latino audiences to that very same music.  Relatedly, English-language Latino news and entertainment media will inform an audience but not one large enough to make a lasting impression.

Before celebrating the ever-increasing presence of Spanish-language and English-language media marketed to Hispanic, Latino, and similar populations, we should consider first who and what is excluded by its very nature.

Chicano, Mexican, or Other?

With Cinco de Mayo (a.k.a. the Fifth of May) just around the corner, it is time for that annual effort by Mexicans and non-Mexicans alike to determine what it means to be Mexican in America.  Unfortunately around this time of year that usually winds up being more about an inordinate amount of fools, louts, and assorted douche bags downing shots of Cuervo with Corona chasers and wearing comically oversized sombreros in a ridiculous celebration of what they mistakenly think is Mexico’s independence day.

Other, somewhat more reasonable attempts come from prominent public figures or various celebrities of Mexican descent who assume the role of cultural emissary in their efforts to describe for the uninitiated what it means to be Mexican in America.  To wit, we have Cheech Marin's latest entry into this ongoing dialog.  Mr. Marin, you will remember, made his career as an actor and comedian by playing upon the tired stereotype of the marijuana-smoking, drug-dealing, lay-about stoner Mexican.  So forgive my cynicism at his recent effort in The Huffington Post at answering the question “What is a Chicano?”

Sadly, what Mr. Marin completely ignores about the origin of the term "Chicano" is its roots in Marxism and how the early proponents of the term [who mostly were college students] affiliated with and held particular affinity for the working classes.  Thus, I would submit that a Mexican American who earns a PhD in Chicano Studies and teaches it at a university for 20 years, as Mr. Marin describes, ceases to be a "Chicano" because he or she has ascended the American status and occupation ladder.

Eva Longoria, who recently was tapped by President Obama’s re-election campaign as an appeal to a Latino voting bloc, serves as prime example of what I am talking about.  In describing how she is particularly situated for her new political responsibilities, Ms. Longoria cites her recent scholarly pursuit of a Master's degree in Chicano Studies at Cal State Northridge.  “I really wanted a better, more authentic understanding of what my community has gone through so I can help create change,” she naively has stated.  Unfortunately, Ms. Longoria’s “community” is one of famous models, actresses, and former NBA wives - anyone of whose life struggles Chicanos have not confronted.

And in case anyone is wondering, I do not self-identify as a Chicano.  As an academic with a PhD in History, I long ago admitted that I was pursuing a middle-class life style and thus cannot in good conscious say I am of the working class.  As an educator, I hope to create more opportunities for others – be they Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano, or even celebrities.  In so doing, I hopefully am informing people’s understandings of what it means to be Mexican in America to a greater degree than Mr. Marin, Ms. Longoria, and others of their ilk.

The Real Story Behind the Secret Service Prostitution Scandal

Most of the media coverage surrounding President Obama’s visit to Cartagena, Columbia during the April 14^th weekend has centered on the alleged boorish behavior and subsequent resignations of several Secret Service agents, particularly members of the President’s advance team.  Sadly, few media outlets have reported why the President was in Colombia in the first place.  With its tabloid-like focus on sex and prostitution, U.S. news outlets continue to contribute to people’s poorly informed understandings of U.S. foreign policy or the role the United States plays in the affairs of its neighboring countries.

According to the White House’s website, President Obama was in Cartagena to attend the Sixth Summit of the Americas.  While there, the President finalized negotiations on a free trade agreement that takes effect on May 15^th, agreed to continue joint efforts to fight drug trafficking, discussed ongoing initiatives for energy interconnectedness, and agreed to extend visas of Columbians in the US by ten years.

The Summits of the Americas are arranged by the Organizationof the American States, an international body whose current configuration dates to 1948.  Latin American and Caribbean nations comprise most of the OAS membership, but Canada and the United States are member nations too.

That the current OAS’ origins date to the late 1940s should not surprise for a couple of reasons.  For one, the administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman still were engaged in the Good Neighbor Policy to some extent during that time.  The Good Neighbor Policy was an attempt to reverse the prior foreign policies of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 and its related Roosevelt Corollary of 1910, by stating that the United States no longer would interfere in the affairs of independent Latin American states, but would instead work more cooperatively as partners.  For another, the emergence of the Cold War necessitated the U.S. establishing collective security on a regional basis.  Economical and military alliances with Latin American nations in the interest of U.S. national security seemingly made sense at the time.

Despite its diplomatic overtones and military implications, however, most people think of the Good Neighbor Policy - if they think about it at all - as a cultural exchange between the United States and Latin American countries.  Unfortunately for American audiences, this exchange likely resulted in establishing Latin Americans as campy or cartoonish characters that confirmed existing stereotypes as embodied by Carmen Miranda and Chiquita bananas, or as depicted in by the Walt Disney Company.

The Good Neighbor Policy’s usefulness for subsequent Presidential administrations diminished during the Cold War, as Latin American countries became proxy sites of fighting between the United States and any perceived Communist threat, with the fear of Communists in Latin America resulting in at least one U.S. President circumventing Congress to shape his foreign policy.

As it turns out, then, U.S. involvement with Latin American countries did not start with President Obama’s Colombian visit or with his advance team soliciting prostitutes.  Rather, the U.S. has been screwing Latin America for decades.

Latino Canadians

I was in Vancouver over the weekend attending the American Educational Research Association Conference there. I presented a paper that looks at the development of ethnic identity among Mexican-descent youth in New York City and how these youth come to equate low educational achievement with being Mexican; I argued that the data I collected shows that it is not surprising given some of the discriminatory messages they hear from teachers, and from mixed messages that their parents send, in terms of advocating hard work and a strong Mexican identity, but also with an explicit message that says, “don’t be like me.” I am sure I will have future opportunities to expand on this research that came out of my dissertation, but being in Canada offered me some time to ponder more important things: sports and Latinos.

I ran into a friend from graduate school who is now a professor at the University of Toronto. Rubén Gaztambide-Fernandez was actually a few years ahead of me in our doctoral program. Since arriving in Canada, he became interested in the large number of Latin-American descendants who call Canada home. When we met in passing he let me know that Latino Canadians have been around for over 50 years, yet few people have taken note, and now Rubén finds himself at the forefront of this area of inquiry.

Walking through Canadian streets a few days later, my wife and I were looking for souvenirs for our children and I immediately thought that I’d like to buy my three-year-old son a Canadian hockey jersey or maybe even a mini-hockey stick. Just as my son was entering consciousness a couple of years ago, my hometown Chicago Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup. After a long drought, and fan indifference, Chicago was taken by hockey fever, especially given the dismal state of our other sports teams. One of my close friends, who is Mexican, noted that he felt some ambivalence about the fair-weather fans, especially the Latinos who had taken to the sport, swept up in the championship fervor, when the sport goes virtually unknown in our homelands whose climate is not the most hospitable to hockey. Regardless, my own Mexican family was taken by the success of the Blackhawks and my son and daughter both reveled in the contagious “Chelsea Dagger” that became the team’s anthem that year. For our son, “hockey” became one of the first two-syllable words he would utter with great enthusiasm anytime he saw my father and I watching a game on television.

One of the more popular players on the Blackhawks the year they won was Dustin Byfuglien, who was also notable as one of the few African Americans in the sport. On our search for a pint-sized jersey, I also ran into a few hockey sticks and then my mind drifted at the thought of buying our son one and it being the beginning of his journey to break ethnic and racial barriers in the great sport of our northern neighbors. This led me to wonder whether there was a Latino presence on hockey teams, given their presence in Canada.

Well, it was with a literal bang that I found out. Watching a much less captivating Blackhawks team last night, I saw the awful hit that Blackhawk player Marian Hossa took from Raffi Torres of the Coyotes. It knocked Hossa unconscious and earned him an immediate trip to the hospital. Once I learned from the evening news that Hossa was fine, I began to wonder about the Hispanic surnamed Torres. A quick search on Wikipedia taught me that Canadian-born Torres is in fact of Mexican and Peruvian descent. So, apparently ethnic barriers have already been broken in hockey, although it is probably still a matter of time before we hear about Los Blackhawks, although Coyotes is already a name with Mexican roots.

To carry a theme from the last few blog posts relating the perceived versus actual solidarity of Latinos, I was none too happy to learn of Torres’s ancestry, although it took little time for me to move beyond my ambivalence, as it is hard to stand with someone who could perpetuate such an unsportsmanlike and brutal hit, in addition to other egregious off the ice antics. So, the evidence continues to mount that we can we Latinos are a diverse and complex group that is difficult to generalize under one umbrella.

My wife put the kibosh on the hockey stick, by the way. Hockey, she said, is just too violent, Latino or otherwise.