-->
-->
In the realm of Latino media,
Ruben Navarrette has
solidified his role as a force of supernova proportions.
Whether on the left or the right, his ideas
push buttons, and as he would probably hope, drive them to think about why they
agree or disagree with his opinions; unfortunately, that is what rarely
happens. Instead, there is an onslaught of attacks riddled with
logical fallacies that would make college writing professors very sad. I would know,
because I am a college professor, and as is Ruben’s style, I will highlight
some of my credentials. I am a developmental psychologist and social worker who
teaches courses in those general areas, while my focused research is on Latino
well-being and access to higher education. As a Harvard-educated Latino who
cares deeply about immigrant communities and just immigration reform, I try to
stay abreast of not only the latest academic and policy information around
those issues, but also prevailing attitudes among those not sequestered in the
ivory tower and other elite circles. I teach at a state university in Chicago,
where many of the students are Hispanic, from immigrant families, are
immigrants themselves and who are DREAMers. It is this latter group who have
been the source of much of the recent controversy in regards to Navarrette’s
writing. His opinion is useful because it considers the vast middle, rather
than the cemented opinions of the far left and right. I don’t always agree, but
I do think his ideas are really worth considering
Navarrette’s column argues that some DREAMers, the young
college-age immigrants, who were brought to the United States illegally by
their parents, typically before high school age, are undermining their own
efforts to achieve legal status. Through acts of civil disobedience and making
demands, he argues that they will alienate people who might otherwise be
sympathetic to their cause. After all, culturally and linguistically, these
youth are American, are good citizens (small “C”), and the U.S. is the place
they have come to know as home.
For many
Americans, this is a compelling group to help out by changing our laws. We want
these young, ambitious, smart, college-educated people as part of our country, making
contributions. Change does not happen rapidly, although as Americans we believe
that we can cultivate, or even demand things to change. This is where the
DREAMers and their most ardent supporters and Navarrette part ways.
Stephen Nuño, a professor in Arizona, made a similar argument against DREAMers’ actions
a few weeks prior to Navarrette’s column, but Ruben has a particular knack for
ruffling people’s feathers.
For the DREAMers change is not coming fast enough. It has
been over ten years since the bill meant to regularize their status was introduced
to Congress, and while it has come close, it has never reached the President’s
desk. This is certainly a cause for frustration. Feeling that their backs are
against a wall, some DREAMers have turned to forceful and illegal public acts,
such as locking themselves in the chambers of a congressman to publicize their
desires. For such behavior, Navarrette argued that DREAMers should get a
“scolding” (or was it a “spanking”? I forget because as a Latino he frequently
resorts to figurative corporal punishment with his subjects; hide the
chanclas).
By definition,
civil disobedience is illegal. That is not
the question here. Nor is it a question that these youth are unauthorized to be
here or “illegal.” It is not even a question for many, Navarrette included,
whether DREAMers should get some form of authorized status, if not full
citizenship. The question has been the method, civil disobedience, but no one
who has responded to Navarrette has even touched that issue.
A quick aside, Navarrette has been a writer for a long time
and his views in favor of immigration reform are easily available. He is really
transparent about his biases, a law and order, traditional family values,
capitalistic moderate, who has experienced his share of ethnic bias, making him
sensitive to laws that systematically exclude groups primarily on the basis of
their origins. He is in favor of immigration reform that provides some form of
legal status for immigrants who are here crime-free, but without authorization.
In short, he is like most Latinos. He is also an opinion columnist, and in
this great treatise from Malcolm Gladwell, the best-selling New Yorker writer, we
see that we all have opinions, but the key is to be aware of when those
opinions lead to bias. Navarrette jokingly asserts that his columns are
“dripping” with bias, but in reality, the man has strong opinions, based on
thoughtful reasoning, and being aware of his biases is actually an advantage
that allows him, or anyone for that matter, to construct a good argument. It is
here where the college professor in me has noted the woeful shortcomings of
those who try to refute Navarrette, even
other college professors.
At the most base level, people have launched epithets toward
Ruben about his weight, intelligence, and compassion. These types of ad hominem
attacks can be satisfying in the moment, but they do little more than prove the
point that brash, in your face tactics do little to further a cause.
Individuals have also attacked his politics, as if that alone would be a reason
to discredit his argument. He has been called a Republican and a Tío Tomas, the
Latino version of an Uncle Tom, but there is little evidence of this in the
history of his writing as he frequently takes Republicans to task and is not
reluctant to call those in power to task, even if it means he may suffer as a
result. What kind of Tío Tomas would do that? The more content-minded critics
of Navarrette have approached him as a straw man, trying to argue for why we
should offer an amnesty to DREAMers, but as I mentioned before, this was never
the original point. Navarrette is for immigration reform that is in line with
most advocates of the DREAM Act.
So, it has taken about a thousand words to get here, but the
argument is about the effectiveness of civil disobedience as a method for
achieving social change and the answer is not clear one way or the other. Even
the very left American Civil Liberties Union,
offers arguments both in favor and against the approach. DREAMers have made comparisons of their efforts to
the Civil Rights movement, in which civil disobedience was part of the strategy.
While not a perfect comparison, let’s consider the point: Martin Luther King’s
speech at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial was given with a permit. James
Meredith had the Supreme Court and police escorts in his favor as he entered
the University of Mississippi. Cesar Chavez’s hunger strike broke no laws and affected
no one directly, but himself. While we romanticize Rosa Parks, and this is not
meant to diminish her spontaneous act, much social change happens through legal
channels, especially when what is ironically being argued for is legal status.
I am not trying to defend Navarrette. He can do that for
himself. I am arguing for substantive debate. So, please consider the actual
points being made and the potential consequences. I think the outpouring of
opinion is wonderful; Latinos have really arrived in terms of having political
opinions that are aired. Now let’s just make sure they are well thought out and
productive, rather than reactionary and trivial. We will all benefit from such
a true open exchange.
