Post-Industrial Systemic Transformative Thinking in the Contemporary Period
Tracing a thread from the 1980s to the present, José Z. Calderón explores the emerging movements to reorganize the structures of production and distribution in our economy.
Hidden too often in the mainstream’s version of history in this country are the many collective efforts that have created economic and political models of systemic structural change — models nationally and globally which have sought to create structural changes in Capitalism.
We have the commonality that there is a need to advance a dialogue on the contradictions inherent in the system of capitalism, deepen research on the new local and global economic models that are emerging, and promote the growth of a movement based on the creation of transformative structural models of equity.
With the inability of traditional politics and politicians internationally not being able to come up with viable solutions to a growing economic crisis, there is a growing movement to advance theories and practices for a new economy.
This movement is one that is based on rethinking the nature of ownership and rethinking the definition of “growth” as a basis for gauging whether there is progress. This is a movement advancing a transformation of the economy so that the public, rather than a small elite, little by little come to control the productive assets in the society.
At the base of this rethinking is the turning around of a system that survives on the existence of an unequal stratification system and the divisions it creates on the basis of wages, wealth, and opportunity.
An emphasis on the quantity of profit over quality of life has led to the rise of a right-wing movement to make sure that our potential power is scattered and decapitated through: deregulating and allowing corporations to spew chemicals in the air that result in more of us dying (particularly in people of color and low-income communities); through the cutting of our cutting health care; through incarcerating us (we have more African Americans in jail now than we had in slavery); through keeping us from voting by gutting the voting rights act and unjust gerrymandering; and through increased enforcement, deportation, and limits on asylum of our immigrant young people, families, and refugees. This movement, particularly evident in the policies of the past Trump administration, continues to rear its head by waging a war against our communities (and particularly those who have been in the forefront of any gains made in civil, human, and environmental rights in the last decades).
We have the Alt-Right, the Bannons, the Rockford Institute, the neo-conservative movements in this country who promote white supremacist, racial-nationalist and neo-fascist ideologies, who push a deregulated free enterprise system, more funding for the military, and stand against anything that promotes a system based on equality. These are movements that continue to defend and promote the privatization of our economy and that, rather than advancing spaces and places of a more just and equal world, are seeking to foment a politics of individualism and ignorance about global warming and the economy.
This trend promotes an unregulated economic system where corporations rule, where the needs of our communities are put aside for the priorities of profit-making interests, and that advances a form of neoliberalism that places emphasis on privatization and consumerism with the outcome of destroying any ideology that truly advances practices for the collective good.
To combat this right-wing conservative trend, we need a program that: transforms power at the top; abolishes a structure that allows the wealthy, the corporations, and businesses to manipulate the tax system in their favor; reverses banking concentration and supports a system of decentralized community accountable banks and credit unions; combats unjust gerrymandering; abolishes the electoral college; moves toward a form of proportional representation and builds a social movement in support of a living wage; health care with universal coverage; accessibility for everyone to a quality education; a guaranteed basic income; investment in pre-school, K-12, and higher education; public financing of elections; and trade agreements that ensure environmental and labor standards.
At the local level, we need a social movement to create transitional forms of a new structure or a new system that is based on the collective and not just the interests of the individual. Some of these transitional forms include employee-owned enterprises; cooperatives; and businesses that are used in the interests of the community.
About 130 million people in the country are members of various urban, agricultural, and credit union cooperatives. In Cleveland, Ohio, a group of worker-owned companies has been developed that is supported in part by the purchasing power of large hospitals and universities. The cooperatives include a solar installation and weatherization company, an ecologically advanced laundry, and a greenhouse capable of producing over three million heads of lettuce a year. The Cleveland model is not simply about worker ownership but the democratization of wealth and building community particularly in the low-income areas. They are doing this through the creation of community-serving non-profit corporations, a revolving fund, agreements that the companies cannot be sold outside the network and that they must return ten percent of profits to help develop additional worker-owned firms in the area. Further, an important element are the agreements with local hospitals and universities who, until recently, spent their $3 billion on goods and services per year, outside the immediate neighborhoods. The “Cleveland model” has now won over these entities to be responsible as publicly-financed institutions and to allocate part of their spending and assets to the worker co-ops in support of a larger community-building vision. There are other cities now creating similar models (Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Amarillo, Texas, and Washington, D. C.) and there are unions, such as the United Steelworkers, that are developing co-op union models of ownership.
This is about an alternative form of municipal development and land use. In some cities, such as Washington, D. C. and Atlanta, cities bring in millions by capturing the increased land values that their transit investments create. The town of Riverview, Michigan has been a national leader in trapping methane from its landfills and used it to fuel electricity generation (providing both revenues and jobs). There are 500 such projects nationwide. Many cities have established municipally-owned hotels. There are nearly 2,000 publicly-owned utilities that provide power and broadband services to more than 45 million people — generating $50 billion in annual revenue. In Alaska, state oil revenues provide each person living in the state, dividends from public investment strategies.
Related to this is the creativity of Community development Banks, like the Bank of North Dakota (a state-owned bank founded in 1919) that are designed to facilitate economic revitalization of poor communities. In recent years, the bank returned $340 million in profits to the state. In Oregon, there are efforts to develop a similar bank, a “virtual state bank,” with no storefront. The South Shore Bank in Chicago is another example (developed in 1973) that provides real estate management, technical assistance, job training, equity investment, and economic consulting. It has assets exceeding $1 billion with $150 million invested in low-income communities.
All these models are closely related to what the New Democratic Movement (that many of us were part of) advocated in the 1980s: the development of a post-industrial society with concrete innovative economic “transitional” forms.
The Post-Industrial Society thinking of the 1980’s proposed a “struggle to develop the material basis for a strong cooperative movement” — and a society, not just based on “high levels of productivity” but on the maximum involvement of all the people. This outlook encouraged the development of small businesses, worker-owned cooperatives, and investment in human capital (particularly in education, housing, and health). It called for a society based on a revolution in the current mode of production where high productivity is possible through the development of the most advanced technologies.
This direction, in the contemporary period, includes some contemporary writers and thinkers that are thinking along the lines of the need for a new economy. Some of the ideas that relate to the post-industrial thinking advocated in the 1980’s by the New Democratic Movement are now being promoted by such economists as Richard Wolff, Emeritus in Economics at the University of Massachusetts; Gar Alperovitz, historian and political economist; Marjorie Kelly and Ted Howard of the Democracy Collaborative; and Joe Guinan, Executive Director of the Next System Project and Martin O’Neill, Political Philosophy at the University of York. There are many names being given to these models that, in addition, to post-industrial a post-industrial economy, include: stakeholder capitalism, the solidarity economy, new economy, sharing economy, regenerative economy, and the living economy.
In connecting with some of these themes, in the contemporary period, economist Richard Wolff, proposes systemic change “where the nature of work is transformed;” where people “once again control production;” where the creativity of workers is valued, and where they are in “control of the entire product.” Agreeing with Marx’s notion of surplus value, Richard Wolff proposes “workers self-directed enterprises where workers, who produce the surplus capital, are in charge of the profit (and not the managers or executives). Similar to aspects of the post-industrial article, Wolff proposes that production works best “when performed by a community that collectively and democratically designs and carries out shared labor.” The transformative element for Wolff is the “reorganization of all workplace enterprises to eliminate exploitation … where the workers become collectively self-directed at their work sites.”
In his book Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism, Richard Wolff proposes that these models are fine but that what needs to change is the class structure of production and that many of the systemic models, including private and state capitalism have had the commonality of advancing state-capitalist class structures of top-down production that exclude the workers from production decisions and the distribution of their production. He proposes that even in the transitions from capitalist to socialist economic systems in various countries, there was a lack of prioritization or did not “explicitly include, or if they came to power, institute an economic system in which the production and distribution of surplus was carried out by those who produced it.” Overall, he argues that even in those countries categorized as “socialist,” there was a lack of prioritizing what he proposes as workers’ self-directed enterprises (where the workers who produce the surplus generated inside the enterprise function collectively to appropriate and distribute it). His solution of “workers’ self-directed enterprises” emphasizes that workers must partly or completely own the enterprises where they work and have a decision-making voice in the surpluses they produce. Such a transformation, from his outlook, will also advance the abilities of “workers to become informed, competent, and full participants in the democratic governance of the communities in which they reside.”
Similarly, Joe Guinan and Martin O’Neill in The Case for Community Wealth Building propose that organizing at the local level, in what they call “local justice,” can be a means of developing models (such as the ones that have been presented here as examples) that both take on the power of corporations and “build a more equal and democratic economy.”
Gar Alperovitz, in What Then Must We Do, proposes a direction that builds models of democratizing wealth and the building of a cooperative and community-based economy from the ground up. Like aspects of the post-industrial article, Alperovitz proposes cooperative models that include community land trusts, worker-owned businesses, and employee stock ownership plans.
In this vein, Marjorie Kelly and Ted Howard, in The Making of a Democratic Economy, present models that are “making what was once radical seem more like common sense.” These models include: “cooperatively-owned work places; of cities committed to economic policies rooted in racial justice; of ethical financing and investing; of communities on the frontline of crisis-building” to show us that “a different economy is not just a theoretical possibility but that it is something happening in right now in the real world.” The models include policies such as that of the Green New Deal (proposed by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) to shift to 100% renewable energy in 10 years, to create tens of thousands of new jobs, and to advance the implementation of publicly-owned banks like the North Dakota Bank. Already, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy and California Governor Gavin Newsom have committed to establishing state public banks. This follows with the thinking of Gar Alperovitz that a whole new economic system is emerging that already include models of economic development with racial justice at the forefront, employee-owned companies, and local purchasing by anchor institutions. Agreeing with other economists, Alperovitz presents “anchor” models that are not just about theory but are “real models” that have taken the example in Cleveland (the Cleveland Model) and are now being constructed in other places ranging from St. Paul, Minnesota, to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to Albuquerque, New Mexico, to Rochester, New York, and to Richmond, Virginia.
The rise of this new economy include worker-owned cooperatives ranging from the “Si Se Puede” cooperative (a Brooklyn house-cleaning enterprise owned primarily by Latinas) to union cooperatives (such as the Communications Workers of America Local 7777 in Denver (Green Taxi) where the leadership and board is made up entirely of immigrant drivers from East Africa and Morocco). Further, worker coops are being implemented now in New York City, Newark, Oakland, Rochester, and Madison. There are more than 6,600 employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) throughout the country with $1.4 trillion in assets and “businesses owned by the people they serve” (that include credit unions, agricultural cooperatives, and consumer cooperatives) that represent $500 billion in revenue and employ more than 2 million people.
There are four principles that involve moving in this direction:
- Thinking of new ways to democratize wealth
- Placing the building of community and what is in the interests of community in the forefront in all development
- Decentralizing power in general – so that there is community input
- Planning in the interests of quality of life
The character of capital and corporations is that they have the highest level of planning in individual corporations that do everything competitively to reap the most profits with a culture of greed and selfishness in the forefront. However, there is the capacity for a new kind of planning, with a culture of collectivity in the forefront, to use the earth’s resources to solve the many problems threatening our survival.
Presentacion en “Instituto de Liderazgo Jose Fernando Pedraza”
Por Jose Zapata Calderon – 26 de Enero, 2020
Gracias por la invitacion a esta inaguracion del “Instituto de Liderazgo Jose Fernando Pedraza.” El desarollo de la Red Nacional de Jornaleros y ahora este instituto – esta cerca de mi Corazon. —- Yo era parte del comienso del Centro Jornalero en Pomona en 1997 cuando el concilio paso una ley a multar cada jornalero mil quinientos dolares nomas por pedir trabajo en la calle — y Respondimos con una marcha y llenamos el concilio con cienes de personas hasta que estuvieron en acuerdo con ayudar a desarollar ese centro jornalero. Yo era parte del comienso de la Red Nacional cuando se desarollo la primera conferencia con doce organisaciones comunitarias en Northridge en Julio de 2001 –
Tengo que decirles que mi compromiso – mi pasion – en apoyo de estas luchas –vinieron de que yo era inmigrante de Mexico – que vine a los siete anos – con mis padres – que eran campesinos en Colorado toda sus vidas – y mi padre era jornalero en los inviernos – esperando en las esquinas – hasta cuando habia nieve – por un trabajo – para que pudieramos comer. Nunca olvide – y cuando gradue del colegio – fui a trabajar por un rato con la Union de Campesinos en Delano – y cuando regrese a Colorado con mis padres – comense una escuelita en en un garaje atras de la casa de mis padres – y les tengo que decir que comense a ensenar 18 estudiantes que no sabian ingles en el mismo modo que ustedes estan usando el metodo de Paulo Freire – la educasion popular. Y les tengo que decir hoy que no hay mejor manera de honrar la vida de Fernando Pedraza que con el desarollo de este Instituto porque Fernando verdadera era el ejemplo de un desarollo de conciencia – de un jornalero que organisaba otros jornaleros – en una esquina – para respetarse unos a otros en busca de trabajo – y tambien a luchar en contra injusticia. Fernando era parte de las clases con algunos de mis estudiantes – haciendo para aprender alfabetisacion – pero lo que aprendio y enseno – fue mucho mas que nomas aprender a escribir y leer – Fernando era el ejemplo de usar sus abilidades para luchar en contra injusticia. En 2002, cuando la ciudad de Rancho Cucamonga paso una ley en contra los jornaleros poder buscar trabajo en la esquina – Fernando no tenia miedo en usar su nombre y llevo la ciudad a corte para asegurar el derecho de sus companeros Jornaleros poder a continuar a buscar trabajo en esa esquina. Despues de esa Victoria, Fernando continuo a luchar para un centro para los jornaleros. Y era porque Fernando, Don Gilberto y los demas trabajadores, con apoyo de estudiantes y el centro jornalero de Pomona y la Red — desarollaron una esquina de lucha – que anti-inmigrante grupos como el Ku Klux Klan y los Minute Men comensaron a protestar los trabajadores en esa esquina de Arrow y Grove. Era en Abril 2, 2007 – cuando una docena del grupo Ku Klux Klan protesto a la esquina. Y era nomas un mes despues – en el Cinco de Mayo de 2007 – un dia que se celebra como dia cuando Los Mejicanos ganaron una gran Guerra en contra los Franceses en Pueble – que el grupo Minute Men estaba protestando en contra los jornaleros – cuando dos carros choquearon en medio de la carretera – y uno de los carros atropello y mato a nuestro lider Fernando. Aunque su muerte nos dolió profundamente – Fernando a continuado a vivir en el desarollo del Centro de Pomona, en el continuo de clases y liderazgo en la esquina, y en un memorial atendido por jornaleros, estudiantes, y comunidad cada ano. El ejemplo y espiritu de Fernando esta aqui hoy – con ustedes – lideres – con el desarollo de la Red Nacional (que comenso con unos cuantos y ahora existe en esquinas, centros, y ciudades por toda la nacion).
— Estamos aqui en el espiritu de Fernando a usar nuestras abilidades – sin tener miedo – a derrotar los muros de ignorancia, racismo – y de hacernos chivos expiatorios. En este tiempo cuando los de la derecho y el gobierno usan la frustracion de trabajadores (muchos que no tienen Buenos sueldos y beneficios para sobrevivir) para avanzar odio en contra nuestras comunidades inmigrantes – es mas importante que nunca – para cometernos a luchar y organisar (en el espiritu de Fernando) por justicia, igualdad, y legalisacion por nuestras comunidades que contribuyen billones a la economia con su sudor de trabajo y impuestos. Sabemos muy bien que esto fuera lo que quisiera Fernando y todos esos jornaleros por todo la nacion que han sacrificado sus vidas y ya no estan fisicamente con nosotros. El Espiritu de Fernando y todos esos antepasados esta muy vivo entre nosotros – y con ese espiritu – con la Red, con el desarollo de Instituto – hay que estar seguros que a lo ultimo la verdad va a ganar – que un mejor futuro para nuestras comunidades esta al alcance de nuestros esfuerzos – y que: Pedraza Vive, La Lucha Sigue y Sigue — Pedraza Vive, La Lucha Sigue y Sigue!
Presentation at Fernando Pedraza Celebration
We are here today – on Cinco de Mayo – a day that has been commercialized and its real meaning lost in festivities that fail to mention how a less equipped army of Mexican people defeated the colonial French army in Puebla.
We are here in this tradition of struggle – of organizing — once again to commemorate the life of Fernando Pedraza, a father – a grandfather – and a day laborer leader – who died in 2007. In 2007, at this time, Fernando Pedraza stood alongside other day laborers here – like any other day – waiting for a job. Little did they know that the Minute Men would use this day – Cinco de Mayo – as a day to protest the Rancho Cucamonga day laborers. On any other day, the workers would have been gone by noon – but because of the Minute Men presence – they stayed on. An auto collision in this intersection resulted in the death of our brother Fernando. He died at a time when he had been advocating to the Rancho Cucamonga city council for a day labor center. This was his dream. Since Fernando died, we have continued to organize and fight for the rights of our day laborer and immigrant communities.
The federal government, under Trump—continues to use the sincere frustration of working people (who have lost their jobs and their homes in this economic crisis) – — and use that frustration to blame our day laborers and immigrants. We are here to place the blame where it belongs – on a system that is broken – and continues to create roadblocks to the legalization of our 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country. The year that Fernando died – the Minute Men had protested a number of times before his death and the Ku Klux Klan showed up at one of their protests. We have responded in how Fernando would want us to respond- through organizing as we are doing today – through marches, protests and pickets – but through also carrying out citizenship drives, voter registration drives, getting out the vote – and ultimately prevailing – by throwing out an administration who has been intent on attacking our Muslim communities, refugees, women, LGBTQ communities, unions, workers, people of color, our poor people, our immigrant communities, and our physically and mentally challenged.
Today we gather in memory of Fernando and for all those whose only dream is to have a better life. Today we gather as “bridge-builders” – to tear down the walls of ignorance, scapegoating, and hate. We vow today to continue exposing those who blame our immigrant and refugee communities for all the economic ills in this country – and commit to remember Fernando and all day laborers and immigrant families who have sacrificed their lives—by working to build the kind of sacred spaces that we have been able to create today – one that places the quality of life in the forefront – builds bridges among all people of all backgrounds – and advances our common ongoing efforts to obtain justice and equality for all our immigrant families, workers and communities.
On Cinco de Mayo, 2007, a spontaneous demonstration by the Minutemen against day laborers on the corner of Arrow Highway and Grove Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga, ended with the death of day laborer leader Jose Fernando Pedraza. Fifty-seven year old Pedraza died at the corner where he waited on a daily basis for one-day jobs. It is also the corner where Pedraza organized other day laborers to defend their rights. In 2002, Pedraza was part of a court case against the City of Rancho Cucamonga who wanted to enforce a law disallowing day laborers to gather on the street. In the recent months before his death, Pedraza had attended several meetings of the Rancho Cucamonga city council to support his fellow day laborers so that they could have a job center where they could be safe from hate-based attacks and traffic accidents.
Pedraza, a Mexican immigrant and a father of five daughters and the grandfather of seven, was killed at 1 P. M. on May 5, 2007 when an SUV, that hit a car in the intersection, rolled onto the sidewalk where day laborers were gathered. On any other day, the day laborers would have left by the noon hour. On this day, the day laborers stayed because the Minutemen showed up to protest the day laborer corner.
The memorial march and service is supported by the Latina/o Roundtable, the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, the Latino Student Union, The National Day Labor Organizing Network, CLUE, and a coalition of campus/community organizations.
LA MISMA LUCHA
Derechos de las y los Inmigrantes y la Justicia Educativa
- José Calderón -
Mesa redonda Latino/a y Pitzer College y de los valles de San Gabriel y Pomona,
Pomona, California
José Calderón describe cómo ha establecido una conexión entre las luchas por los derechos de las y los inmigrantes y la justicia educativa en su trabajo como activista académico en la ciudad de Pomona, en el Condado de Los Ángeles. José comienza relatando su propia historia llegando como inmigrante a este país y el papel que la educación pública tuvo en abrir nuevas oportunidades en su vida. A continuación, analiza una serie de campañas paralelas: poner fin a los retenes policiales, la lucha por el derecho al voto, la creación de alternativas a la violencia de las pandillas, y la promoción de escuelas comunitarias. Discute también los profundos procesos de construcción de relaciones que tuvieron lugar a través de estas campañas, creando coaliciones multirraciales con una visión unida que combina los derechos de las y los inmigrantes y la justicia educativa.
MI PASIÓN POR CONSTRUIR PUENTES entre las luchas de nuestras comunidades inmigrantes y la justicia educativa se encuentra en mi propia historia como inmigrante. Llegué a los Estados Unidos a los siete años junto a mi padre y mi madre, quienes trabajaron toda su vida en los campos como trabajadores agrícolas. Vivíamos en el barrio, en un cuarto ubicado en el segundo piso de una gasolinera, con una estufa a leña y sin plomería interior. Comencé la escuela con otros siete estudiantes de México que, como yo, no sabían hablar inglés. En conjunto, enfrentamos el doble problema de ser pobres y no saber hablar inglés. Gracias a una maestra que se quedaba conmigo después de la escuela, logré aprender el inglés y graduarme de la escuela secundaria, la universidad y, finalmente, un programa de doctorado. Otros estudiantes de origen mexicano en mi clase no tuvieron la misma fortuna, ya que gradualmente abandonaron la escuela.
Cuando me gradué de la Universidad de Colorado en 1971, tomé un autobús a Delano, California, para poder conocer a César Chávez y unirme al movimiento de trabajadores agrícolas. Cuando llegué, durante una huelga de trabajadores de la uva, escuché las palabras que cambiaron el resto de mi vida. En un mitin nocturno en Forty Acres, la sede central del Sindicato de Trabajadores Agrícolas Unidos, César desafió a las y los jóvenes estudiantes ahí presentes: nos dijo que solo hay una cosa asegurada, y eso es la muerte. Entre este momento y el de la muerte, la pregunta es cómo usaremos nuestras vidas. Podemos desperdiciarlas fácilmente con las drogas, el egoísmo y las cosas materiales, pensando que esto nos traerá felicidad; pero nos aseguró que, si comprometemos nuestras vidas al servicio de los demás para empoderar a otros, cuando envejezcamos y miremos hacia atrás podremos ser capaces de decir que nuestras vidas han sido realmente significativas.
Transformado por esta experiencia, regresé a mi ciudad, Ault, Colorado, e inicié una escuela con dieciocho jóvenes estudiantes de inglés en una vieja cochera en el patio de mis padres. Cuando la junta escolar local les dijo a nuestras estudiantes que se “regresaran a México” si queríamos una educación bilingüe en las escuelas, treinta estudiantes y yo organizamos una marcha de cuatro días y setenta millas hacia el Capitolio estatal. Cientos de simpatizantes nos encontraron en el camino y nos animaron. Cuando mis estudiantes regresaron, tomaron la iniciativa de organizar escuelas en todo el condado, lo que dio como resultado algunos de los mejores programas bilingües en el estado.
Debido a que la mayoría de quienes estudiaban el idioma inglés provenía de familias inmigrantes, los problemas de justicia educativa en las escuelas se entrelazaron con la lucha por los derechos de las y los inmigrantes en nuestras comunidades. Por lo tanto, algunos de los mismos padres y madres que se organizaron para la educación bilingüe en las escuelas también se organizaron para proteger a residentes sin documentos. Finalmente, obtuvieron el compromiso del Sheriff Richard Martínez y del Departamento del Sheriff del Condado de Weld de que no detendrían a inmigrantes sin documentos. Estas experiencias me llevaron a realizar un compromiso de catorce años para organizar en el norte de Colorado, tanto por los derechos de las y los inmigrantes como por la justicia educativa.
Salí de Colorado para obtener un doctorado en sociología en UCLA, pero fue a través de estas experiencias de organización comunitaria como realmente entendí las conexiones entre las inequidades en nuestras comunidades y los problemas que estudiantes con poca representación enfrentan en las aulas. Mis luchas con el aprendizaje del inglés y el crecer en una familia pobre de trabajadores agrícolas inmigrantes sentó las bases de las conexiones que finalmente llegué a hacer, tanto como estudiante graduado y como profesor, entre los problemas con los derechos de las y los inmigrantes y la educación, lo que me llevó a convertirme en un activista académico. Como activista, he sido parte de los esfuerzos para crear coaliciones entre padres y madres, docentes, estudiantes y organizaciones comunitarias para organizarse en torno a los derechos de las y los inmigrantes y la justicia educativa. Como académico, realicé una investigación basada en la comunidad para apoyar estos esfuerzos de organización. Como activista académico, combino la investigación y la organización para crear cambios dentro de las escuelas y en los vecindarios donde residen padres, madres y estudiantes.
Luchando contra el movimiento English-Only en Monterey Park
Un ejemplo sobre cómo conectar los movimientos por los derechos de las inmigrantes y la justicia educativa ocurrió en la ciudad de Monterey Park, donde residía con mi familia mientras completaba mi doctorado en sociología. Monterey Park, ubicado al este de Los Ángeles, es una ciudad con más de sesenta y dos mil residentes. Ha pasado de ser un 85 por ciento blanca en 1960 a ser una ciudad mayoritariamente minoritaria en la actualidad. Según el Censo de los Estados Unidos en 2015, aproximadamente el 65 por ciento de la población era del Asia Pacífico, el 30 por ciento era latina y solo el 4 por ciento era blanca.1 Muchos miembros de la comunidad del Asia Pacífico y casi toda la comunidad latina son inmigrantes.
Trabajé con otros organizadores y organizadoras en Monterey Park para generar confianza entre miembros de la comunidad y las y los investigadores, y crear así la base para un cambio social. Muy frecuentemente, las y los investigadores de la academia han ido a la comunidad simplemente para recolectar datos y luego irse cuando la investigación finaliza. La creación de confianza lleva más tiempo, ya que se requiere que los miembros de la comunidad vean que las y los investigadores contribuyen a los esfuerzos comunitarios, y luego adopten la investigación como una herramienta para lograr sus objetivos. En mi caso, combiné los roles de investigador y organizador y construí confianza al hacer un compromiso a largo plazo con la comunidad de Monterey Park.
En 1986, el consejo municipal de Monterey Park –compuesto en su totalidad de personas de raza blanca– aprobó una resolución que requería que sólo se utilizase el inglés en la literatura oficial de la ciudad y en los letreros públicos. Formé parte de la Coalición para la Armonía en Monterey Park (con siglas en inglés CHAMP), un grupo multiétnico de residentes que reunió a padres y madres inmigrantes de las comunidades latina y del Asia Pacífico para derrotar la ordenanza y, eventualmente, reemplazar vía votación a sus principales proponentes. Más tarde, en respuesta a políticos de derecha y personas que culpaban a la comunidad china por la congestión de las calles y por la construcción excesiva en Monterey Park, nuestra coalición eligió candidatos y candidatas que propusieron un desarrollo planificado, sin abordar el tema del crecimiento urbano en términos antinmigrantes.
Esta coalición creó un nivel de confianza que también ayudó a resolver conflictos en las escuelas de la ciudad. Cuando surgieron tensiones raciales entre estudiantes latinos/as y del Asia Pacífico en el distrito escolar de Alhambra, los padres y madres inmigrantes trabajaron juntos para crear un Grupo de Trabajo Multiétnico en todo el distrito, compuesto por padres y madres, estudiantes, miembros de la PTA, el sindicato de docentes, el personal de servicio y el personal administrativo. Para contrarrestar las afirmaciones de algunos funcionarios escolares que negaban la existencia de tensiones raciales en las escuelas —culpando el “machismo” o las “hormonas” naturales de las y los adolescentes por las tensiones—, colaboré con el grupo de trabajo para llevar a cabo una encuesta a mil quinientos estudiantes, incluyendo trescientos estudiantes con un inglés limitado. Encontramos que el 86 por ciento del cuerpo estudiantil percibía las tensiones raciales como un problema muy serio en las escuelas. Utilizamos la investigación para hacer que la junta escolar adoptase una política que lidiase con el comportamiento motivado por el odio, para institucionalizar las clases sobre resolución de conflictos y para crear la opción de la mediación como una alternativa a las expulsiones de estudiantes.
Sabíamos que los conflictos en las escuelas y la comunidad estaban vinculados. Al existir una gran afluencia de inmigrantes del Asia Pacífico, principalmente de nacionalidad china que se asentó en Monterey Park, la unión con los padres y madres y estudiantes latinos/as se produjo al encontrar un terreno común radicado en sus historias comunes como inmigrantes. Al proponer una estrategia de formación de coaliciones, los dos grupos pudieron utilizar colectivamente las investigaciones como una herramienta para promover un currículo multicultural y programas de resolución de conflictos que beneficiaron a ambos grupos.
La experiencia en Monterey Park me ayudó a resolver el dilema de cómo conectar mi posición en el mundo académico con la investigación participativa, la enseñanza y el aprendizaje basado en la comunidad. En lugar de perpetuar la idea tradicional de que las y los investigadores no deberían participar en las organizaciones que estudian, esta experiencia de investigación y acción participativa permitió mi participación, tanto en mi rol de organizador como de investigador en la comunidad. Cuando acepté un puesto de profesor en el Pitzer College y me mudé al Valle de Pomona, en el Condado de Los Ángeles, tomé las lecciones aprendidas en Monterey Park y comencé a organizar gente en la ciudad de Pomona. Aquí nuevamente combiné la investigación y la organización para ayudar a los padres, madres y estudiantes a establecer conexiones entre los movimientos de los derechos de las y los inmigrantes y de la justicia educativa.
Terminando con los Retenes Policiales en Pomona
Mis estudiantes y yo nos unimos a padres, madres y líderes comunitarios para organizar una coalición de base amplia para construir un movimiento local de justicia social que expusiera el uso injusto de los puestos de revisión policiales para atacar a las y los inmigrantes. Durante los últimos veinticinco años, la ciudad de Pomona ha experimentado los cambios demográficos que se están produciendo en todo el Sur de California. Según el Censo de los EE. UU., ahora es una ciudad de mayoría minoritaria que en 2015 estaba compuesta por aproximadamente 71 por ciento latinos, un 6 por ciento afroamericanos, un 9 por ciento de asiáticos del Pacífico y un 11 por ciento blancos no-hispanos.2 Cuando la policía de la ciudad de Pomona comenzó a ubicar los retenes de revisión frente a escuelas, negocios y vecindarios que servían principalmente a familias latinas y trabajadores inmigrantes, padres y madres inmigrantes junto a simpatizantes formaron una coalición llamada Pomona Habla (Pomona Speaks). A través de esta coalición, lanzamos un proyecto de investigación que impulsó acciones organizadas contra los puntos de control de tráfico en la ciudad de Pomona. Nuestra investigación descubrió datos que mostraron que menos del .001 por ciento de quienes conducían y fueron detenidos en los puntos de control lo hacían bajo la influencia del alcohol.3 Las estadísticas también mostraron que la mayoría de los detenidos eran inmigrantes sin documentos que no tenían licencia de conducir y no podían pagar las excesivas tarifas de la multa, el remolque y la cuota del corralón.
La coalición Pomona Habla lanzó una serie de protestas y acciones en las que residentes y estudiantes de la comunidad sostuvieron carteles que alertaban a las y los conductores sobre los puestos de control en las calles cercanas. Las tensiones en la ciudad alcanzaron su punto máximo cuando la policía llevó a cabo un punto de control vehicular de cuatro vías (que cubría cuatro esquinas de las calles) que incluía a oficiales de policía de cuarenta ciudades, lo que provocó la detención de 4,027 vehículos, la confiscación de 152 de ellos y la emisión de 172 multas.4 En respuesta, Pomona Habla lideró una protesta de más de mil personas y estableció a estudiantes y miembros de la comunidad en cada punto de control policial. La investigación y las acciones dieron como resultado que el consejo de la ciudad acordara detener los puntos de control de cuatro vías, permitir los puntos de control sólo en áreas residenciales y desarrollar un comité ad hoc para revisar las quejas y recomendaciones de la ciudadanía.
La investigación y organización basadas en la comunidad de esta coalición se convirtieron en un modelo para la aprobación de ordenanzas en San Francisco, Los Ángeles y Baldwin Park, las que permiten ahora que un conductor sin licencia transfiera a otro conductor con licencia la custodia del vehículo en lugar de que éste sea confiscado. Estos esfuerzos en todo el estado llevaron a la propuesta de un proyecto de ley por parte del asambleísta de California Gil Cedillo, la que fue aprobada formalmente por el gobernador Jerry Brown en 2011, restringiendo la capacidad de la policía local para confiscar autos en puntos de control de tráfico simplemente porque quien conduce no posee licencia. En última instancia, esto llevó a la aprobación de un proyecto de ley que permite a inmigrantes sin documentos obtener licencias de conducir. Pomona Habla, que incluía organizaciones comunitarias y estudiantes de escuelas y universidades locales (incluyendo estudiantes de mis clases en Pitzer College), reunió más de diez mil firmas en la región para apoyar este proyecto de ley.
ORGANIZACIÓN E INVESTIGACIÓN SOBRE EL DERECHO AL VOTO
Como reacción a estas victorias, la Asociación de la Policía de Pomona, junto con otras fuerzas conservadoras de la ciudad, se enfocaron en una de las líderes de esta coalición, la concejala de la ciudad Cristina Carrizosa. Intentaron expulsarla de su cargo al proponer un proyecto de ley, la Medida T, en la boleta electoral de noviembre del 2012 para reemplazar la elección de los miembros del consejo de la ciudad por distrito con elecciones generales. La medida buscaba contradecir la voluntad de la gente de Pomona que, luego de las demandas del Fondo Mexicano-Americano de Defensa Legal y Educación y el Proyecto de Registro de Votantes del Suroeste, votaron en 1990 la eliminación de las elecciones a lo largo de la ciudad a favor de distritos de un solo miembro para reforzar la representación de minorías. Trabajando con la coalición, mis estudiantes y yo llevamos a cabo una investigación que reveló un historial de derechos del voto de cómo se crearon las elecciones del distrito y quién estaba detrás de la Medida T. Nuestra investigación reveló cómo la asociación de policías había dado más de cincuenta mil dólares para respaldar este proyecto de ley, descubriendo también su patrocinio a la elaboración de un volante que representa una mano blanca extendida hacia arriba sobre las manos cafés que se extienden desde abajo.5 Una coalición multirracial de miembros y organizaciones de la comunidad llamó a una conferencia de prensa, difundió tocando de puerta en puerta y, en el Día de Elecciones, derrotó a la Medida T y además ayudó a elegir dos concejales adicionales que apoyaban los derechos de las y los inmigrantes.
LA CREACIÓN DE LA COALICIÓN SOBRE VIOLENCIA CALLEJERA
Después de la derrota de la Medida T, el problema de las pandillas y la violencia callejera surgió en la ciudad. En respuesta a la creciente tasa de homicidios, la policía llevó a cabo una redada de presuntos pandilleros que resultó en el arresto de 165 personas. Nuestra coalición creía que las estrategias más exitosas para lidiar con la creciente violencia entre jóvenes tenían que centrarse en la prevención en lugar de la penalización y la acción policiaca. Mis estudiantes y yo, junto con miembros de una coalición progresista liderada por la Mesa Redonda Latino/a y el Local 1428 del United Food and Commercial Workers, investigamos una serie de reuniones comunitarias. Argumentamos que la violencia de las pandillas no existiría si las pandillas no tomaran el lugar de otros satisfactores de las desesperadas necesidades de los jóvenes por una familia, educación, tutoría, vivienda, empleo, atención médica y apoyo espiritual y social. A medida que ampliamos la coalición para incluir a padres, madres, estudiantes, maestros y organizaciones comunitarias, defendimos una estrategia para contrarrestar a las pandillas con un plan de justicia económica y estrategias de creación de capacidad para empleos de calidad, vivienda, salud, educación y educación preescolar / programas extraescolares, particularmente en sectores de bajos ingresos de la comunidad.
En este proceso, estudiamos modelos exitosos de prevención de pandillas, incluyendo uno desarrollado por el Padre Gregory Boyle en Los Ángeles. Este modelo aborda las necesidades de los jóvenes para desarrollar una escuela primaria alternativa, programas de guardería e instancias después de la escuela, organización comunitaria y un extenso proyecto de desarrollo económico de Homeboy Industries, que incluye Homeboy Bakery, Homeboy Silkscreen y Homeboy/Homegirl Merchandise. Convocamos a una conferencia comunitaria basada en este modelo para promover la idea de abordar los problemas estructurales que afectan a las y los jóvenes y a sus familias en Pomona.
PROMOVIENDO ESCUELAS COMUNITARIAS Y UN MOVIMIENTO MÁS AMPLIO
Esta nueva dirección para abordar los problemas de la juventud llevó al desarrollo de una asociación entre la organización comunitaria Mesa Redonda Latino/a, de la cual soy presidente, el Capítulo del Valle de Pomona del NAACP y el Distrito Escolar Unificado de Pomona. Como parte de esta asociación, un comité de desarrollo comunitario ha realizado reuniones mensuales para implementar varios proyectos de construcción de comunidad y transformación educativa. Esta coalición ha incluido a padres y madres de familia líderes de las iniciativas comunitarias sobre los puntos policiacos de control y las pandillas. La coalición también impulsó las propuestas identificadas inicialmente en las reuniones de la conferencia para alejarse de la simple aplicación de la ley e ir hacia estrategias centradas en el desarrollo de la juventud y la comunidad.
La coalición ha comenzado a implementar el concepto de las escuelas comunitarias, donde las escuelas proporcionan educación y servicios sociales y de salud a jóvenes, padres y madres de familia y miembros de la comunidad. Después de que la Mesa Redonda Latino/a y la NAACP se pronunciaron a favor de una resolución para implementar el concepto de escuelas comunitarias, la Junta Escolar Unificada de Pomona votó su apoyo por unanimidad. La Junta Escolar impulsó planes estratégicos avanzados que incluyen (1) currículos culturalmente relevantes y atractivos; (2) un énfasis en enseñanza de alta calidad, no en las pruebas de altas expectativas; (3) sistemas de apoyo que incluyen servicios sociales/emocionales y atención médica; (4) prácticas de disciplina positiva, como la justicia restaurativa; (5) participación de los padres y madres de familia y la comunidad; y (6) liderazgo escolar inclusivo y comprometido a hacer que la estrategia escolar de transformación comunitaria integral se parte del mandato y funcionamiento de la escuela.
Siguiendo el principio de César Chávez de usar la vida de uno para servir a los demás, ayudé a que el distrito escolar se uniera a una coalición que organiza una marcha y festival anual de peregrinación por César Chávez que se centra en temas de justicia social. Estos temas, que incluyen la solidaridad con Black Lives Matter, los estudiantes mexicanos desaparecidos en 2014 y el apoyo a los estudios de minorías étnicas y el Santuario para Todos y Todas, ofrecen ejemplos del entendimiento amplio que hemos desarrollado a partir de las conexiones entre temas de justicia educativa y derechos de las y los inmigrantes.
Con este entendimiento interseccional, la asociación ha implementado talleres para cientos de estudiantes, padres y madres sobre cómo calificar para el programa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA), cómo obtener una tarjeta de Matrícula Consular (un documento de identificación oficial emitido por el gobierno mexicano) y cómo obtener una licencia de conducir de California. Más recientemente, como parte de una coalición estatal de College for All, esta asociación se ha expandido para respaldar e implementar activamente el Proyecto de Ley 1050 del Senado de California (cuyo paso fue dirigido por uno de mis antiguos alumnos, el presidente del Senado pro tempore Kevin de León) para crear un conducto de oportunidades educativas y el éxito desde la guardería infantil hasta la universidad para estudiantes de bajos ingresos, aprendices del idioma inglés e hijos e hijas adoptivas. La asociación en estos temas ha llevado a una serie de desarrollos extraordinarios, que incluyen talleres educativos para cientos de padres y madres de familia, muchas de los cuales luego cabildean con nosotros en el capitolio del estado sobre proyectos ley para proporcionar escuelas seguras para niñas y niños inmigrantes y para prohibir el uso de fondos públicos que permitan acciones de deportación por parte de agentes federales, así como otras leyes para proteger a estudiantes vulnerables y promover la equidad educativa.
CONCLUSION: JUSTICIA EDUCATIVA EN EL CORAZÓN DE LOS DERECHOS DE LOS INMIGRANTES
La experiencia y trayectoria de mi propia vida muestra cómo la búsqueda de la educación es fundamental para la lucha de las inmigrantes. Soy un organizador, un educador y un miembro de la comunidad. Uso la investigación y la organización de base comunitaria para construir puentes entre las comunidades de inmigrantes y entre los movimientos por los derechos de las y los inmigrantes y la justicia educativa. Este tipo de compromiso e investigación muestra la conexión íntima entre ambos, enfatiza los aspectos sistémicos y estructurales de la desigualdad e involucra a investigadores e investigadoras activistas para que trabajen junto a comunidades excluidas en proyectos comunes para abordar las causas fundamentales del racismo, la exclusión, la práctica de culpar a los más vulnerables y la desigualdad en nuestro sistema educativo y en nuestras comunidades.
Las y los activistas de la academia construyen una base de confianza con las comunidades al comprometerse a trabajar a largo plazo en una asociación genuina para encontrar e implementar soluciones a los problemas que enfrentan las comunidades. Este tipo de acción e investigación se aleja de la caridad o el servicio y se alinea con la creación de nuevos modelos de participación democrática y de creación de coaliciones para el cambio social. Este modelo interseccional distingue los fundamentos estructurales de las desigualdades experimentadas por las comunidades de inmigrantes en las aulas y en la comunidad, creando estrategias que conectan las luchas por la justicia educativa y los derechos de las y los inmigrantes.
From Lift Us Up!! Don’t Push Us Down
José Calderón
Presentation at Keeping Families Together Rally
Posted July 4, 2018
I came here as an immigrant child with my parents and appreciated that I had parents who were there for me – as we crossed into this country.
My parents brought me to this country – looking for a better life – and they worked all their lives as farmworkers — died in a barrio as farmworkers — — looking for a better life like many of the families who are coming here from Mexico – from Central America — Families who have been uprooted as a result of poverty, violence, wars – with some of the roots lying in a history of colonization and the role that international corporations have played in making profits from the labor of the workers – from the resources in those countries – and, at the same time, forcing some families to leave – and to work in this country – producing billions in profits and taxes and remittances — while at the same time being scapegoated – blamed for the state of the economy – when workers here do not see any improvement in their quality of life – and are lied to – manipulated – into believing that it is these immigrants – it is these families – it is these children – that are the cause for the economic conditions – where we know the truth – where corporations are making record profits while the wages of workers remain the same for decades.
This is the foundation of why I am here today – why we are here today – for, it is under these conditions that the Trump Administration is breaking up families – and taking children from their mothers – and placing them as nothing more than concentration camps – where even actor George Takai has proclaimed are “worse” than the Japanese-American internment camps during World War II” because, as he succinctly wrote in an op-ed: “At least during the internment, when I was just 5 years old, I was not taken from my parents,”
And let us be clear that that what Trump is proposing now is no backing off of criminalizing all undocumented immigrant families but seeking to quell the international furor over his inhumane policies of separating the children from their families by ensuring that families will continue to be detained- but be incarcerated “together.”
Let us be clear that there is no plan – and that the only plan is to increase the numbers that are being detained and forcing immigrant families to decide whether to leave their children behind or take them with them to face the deadly consequences of why they risked their lives to come here in the first place. Let us be clear that it is an executive order by the President that has created this crisis – and that it is only our organizing efforts and the use of our voting power – that can turn this situation around. To this today – We say — Stop the criminalizing of our families! — Our children and families belong in our communities and not in family concentration camps! – Full legalization for our refugee and undocumented immigrant families! – No Hate No Fear – Immigrants are Welcome Here! No Ban – No Wall – Sanctuary for All!
Presentation to Latino and Latina Roundtable Retreat on “Conditions, Threats, and Opportunities” – February 10, 2018
What is important in looking at conditions – is not to look at it superficially – but to look at the systemic or structural reasons for the conditions – which is primary in our consolidation on why we are doing what we are doing – and how it can be tied to creating what I call sacred spaces of collectivity – with a vision of how we change the structural conditions of our problems.
Internationally – there is the rise of the conservative right in many countries – an anti-immigrant wave. Economies are in turmoil. It is important to look at what is happening internationally and nationally as tied to this system serving the very rich and multinational corporations – for quantity of profit and not quality of life I am sure that you will agree that the character of this system is primarily based on profit. When we talk about the Gross Development Product – it is only measured on the basis of quantity of profit and not quality of life. This has been going on for quite some time. In the past the rich countries such as the U. S. and Great Britain (or what have often been called the first world) have grown rich by extracting profit from the workers in their own countries as well as from countries they have colonized (particularly using the labor power of indigenous populations). Mexico as an example – Puerto Rico as an Example – Haiti as an example – Central America as an example. The profit of major corporations has been derived from labor power – and when this profit decreases – due to many factors including colonies liberating themselves, workers unionizing and winning better wages and benefits – the tendency has been for these major corporations to move abroad (where they get away from paying taxes by creating tax havens – and are able to use the labor power and the resources in those countries – at a cheaper rate than if they had to just use workers in their home country. The other way is to promote migration through keeping third world countries oppressed, poor, and dependent – and accumulate profits in another way – by controlling the resources in those countries – using the labor power there – but also, through their policies, forcing a migration of a sector that crosses borders to survive economically. In this scenario, the corporations, and the political elites who support them, appreciate the labor of this sector – as long as they can use the workers without having to give them any rights. Any giving of rights – can mean a lessening of profits – and they will use every form of enforcement to ensure no rights. The reality is that worldwide – corporations have been pulling in record profits – with the top 1% benefiting – while the conditions of working people have stagnated. We have only to look at the situation in the U. S. where – over the past four decades the U. S. economy has doubled in size but the bottom half of the U. S. households have seen no income gains. ”In 1970, the bottom half of wage earners made an average of $16,000 a year. By 2014, this group’s earnings had risen to only $16,200. Over 85 percent of income gains have gone to the top 1 percent with CEO’s of major firms earning over 300 times more than typical workers. The Forbes 400 – billionaires have a combined net worth of $2.3 trillion – with more wealth than the bottom 61 percent of the U. S. population combined.
The result of this is that workers have had to work longer hours, take-on more debt, and forced more numbers in the family to work. Almost half of U. S. workers earn under $15 an hour – and one in three – less than $12 an hour.
— One of every seven persons in this country – live below the poverty line.
— Since the great recession of 2008, over 85% of income gains have gone to the top 1% of households – and CEO’s of major firms earn over 300 times more than average works in their companies.*
— The growing inequalities of income bring to the fore the inequalities of income and wealth – particularly historic inequalities when comparing Black, Latino, and white households. According to the PEW Research Center – the median wealth of white households in 2013 was `13 times that of Black households. White households had ten times more wealth than Latino households.
— It is this wealth and power that we must look at – when we ask the question about “ what is democracy in the age of trump– Most workers, today, are getting by only on poverty wages – with nearly half of the workforce stuck in jobs that pay less than $15 an hour – earning less than $25,000 a year.*
— We have only to question this structure when elections are run by money – and donors who use tax-exempt funds to influence politics. Look at the networks of the Koch brothers who organized a network of donors (including coal, gas, and oil industries) to prevent environmental regulation and ensure the control of health care by the for-profit drug and medical monopolies. This has included big monies to elect those candidates that represent their interests.
It is under these conditions that a form of power has emerged — where power is at the top – decisions are made – and we feel powerless to do anything about it. This is a form of power that focuses on specific issues that raise emotions and have no context other than to benefit those in power, the wealthy – confuse working people – and divide our movements. This form of power — being promoted as democracy – is now presented in the realm of an authoritarian top-down government and state – where we have a never-ending war, more power being given to corporations, manipulation of the media, an increase in repression, and policies of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. – to foment division. Since the mid-1970’s, there has been a major power shift. Today, fewer than 12% of workers are in unions – while the power of multinational corporations – the power of financial capital — has grown.*
— With this power – laws governing taxes, global trade, wages, and government spending priorities – have shifted to the power of capital and not of wage workers.
Under these conditions, there are blatant Policies that are aimed at blaming the problems in the economy on immigrants, women, and working people – to blame the problems on them – and advance an ideology that the problems will be solved if their power is diminished, if they are incarcerated, kept from voting, and deported. This authoritarianism lives off of the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger and fear. It is here especially – where the economic problems of working people – who are angry at their conditions – are used, much like they were used in Germany against Jewish people – to scapegoat and to dehumanize. It involves power – controlling the power of the state and to violate all principles in ensuring that power.
An emphasis on the quantity of profit over quality of life has led to what I call a form of genocide to make sure that our potential power is scattered and decapitated – through deregulating and allowing corporations to spew chemicals in the air that result in more of us dying (particularly in people of color and low-income communities); through the cutting of our cutting health care; through incarcerating us (we have more African Americans in jail now – than we had in slavery) and keeping us from voting through gutting the voting rights act and unjust gerrymandering – and of course through increased enforcement, deportation, and limits on asylum of our immigrant young people, families, and refugees. This authoritarianism is waging a war against our communities – and particularly those who have been in the forefront of any gains made in civil, human, and environmental rights in the last decades. This authoritarianism is using deficits in the economy to cut Medicare, Medicaid, – to threaten social security – and ensures that the power over the future of our health stays in the hands of the profit-making health and drug industry.
Under these conditions — we have the Alt-Right, the Bannons, the Rockford Institute, the neo-conservative movements in this country who promote white supremacist,racial-nationalist and neo-fascist ideologies — who push a deregulated free enterprise system, more funding for the military, the building of a wall, and mass deportations. This is an authoritarianism that has allowed for the privatization of our economy and institutions to run rampant – that has resulted in more of our people in debt – and remaining on the margins – with the result of creating a foundation of anger among working people – allowing for a politics of scapegoating.
It is a form that, rather than advancing spaces and places of a more just and equal world – is seeking to destroy our educational institutions, our unions – our research and science – to foment a politics of individualism and ignorance about global warming and the economy.
This authoritarianism promotes an unregulated economic system where corporations rule – where the needs of our communities are put aside for the priorities of profit-making interests – and advances a form of neoliberalism that places emphasis on privatization and consumerism – with the outcome of destroying any ideology that truly builds a collective community or engages in practices for the collective good.
There are opportunities in a growing movement nationally that understands the foundations of our conditions and sees the creation of sacred collective spaces as not being abstract – but is concretely uniting around a program that builds power from below to change power at the top – a program that proposes abolishing a structure that allows the wealthy, the corporations, and businesses to manipulate the tax system in their favor; that reverses banking concentration and supports a system of decentralized community accountable banks and credit unions – that combats unjust gerrymandering, abolishes the electoral college, moves toward a form of proportional representation and builds a social movement in support of a living wage; health care with universal coverage; accessibility for everyone to a quality education; a guaranteed basic income; investment in pre-school, k-12, and higher education; public financing of elections; legalization for our 12 million immigrant brothers and sisters, and trade agreements that turn around the profits going to the richer countries and that ensure environmental and labor standards.
On a local level – in California — it is no accident why our political representatives have taken positions of “no ban and no wall” – supporting California as a sanctuary state – and vowing to protect the rights of our immigrant and targeted communities regardless of what oppressive policies Trump tries to force the states and cities to carry out. It has been our grass-roots work and the building of coalitions.
It was not that long ago that many labor unions were anti-immigrant – now, in this last session – it was unions that helped to pass Assembly Bill 450, requiring an employer to require proper court documents before allowing immigration agents access to the workplace or to employee information.
On a state level, it is no coincidence that California is now an exemplary state in its support of undocumented immigrants.
Look at this — and I can only mention a few of the pro –immigrant legislative policies that have been passed: in-state tuition. driver’s licenses, new rules designed to limit deportations, state-funded healthcare for children, a new law to erase the word “alien” from California’s labor code; $40 million in the most recent state budget to provide Medi-Cal coverage to children younger than 19 regardless of legal status – the appointment of a number of noncitizens in the country to state agencies and departments, the passage of SB-54 (called the Sanctuary bill) that prohibits California officers from inquiring about a person’s immigration status and limits cooperation between California police officers and federal immigration agents about people detained by police or in jail awaiting trial; — and there are other bills, in this last session that include measures to protect undocumented immigrants from housing discrimination, workplace raids and block the expansion of immigration detention centers.
On the local level, we have our coalitions that have been exemplary in the development of a partnership between the community-based Latino and Latina Roundtable organization, the Pomona Valley Chapter of the NAACP, and the Pomona Unified School District. In creating connections between the educational and immigrant rights needs of families, the partnership has implemented workshops for hundreds of students and parents in how to qualify for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, how to obtain a Matricula Consular card (an official identification document issued by the Mexican government), and (with a coalition with the Pomona Day Labor Center) workshops on how to obtain a California driver’s license. The partnership on k-12 and college pipeline issues has led to: including family summits and some parents who have gone with us to Sacramento to educate our representatives on bills to provide safe schools for immigrant children and to ban the use of public funds to aid federal agents in deportation actions, as well as other legislation to protect vulnerable students and advance educational equity.
It is the character of the work of these multi-racial grass-roots coalitions in both organizing and turning out the vote on a state, local, and national level that have been the foundation for bringing to the forefront a national dialogue that is now highlighting the contributions of undocumented immigrants – and how much their labor is needed by the service, business, and agricultural establishments.
With these conditions, it is more important than ever to advance the development of cross-border alliances with movements in Mexico, Central America, Latin America, Haiti, and globally — as part of our understanding that immigration patterns will not significantly change because of domestic immigration policies alone.
As part of these alliances, We have to fight to ensure the continuance of this TPS program – defend the rights of these Central American families (some who have been here for over twenty years – with children who have grown up in this country and know no other country except this one).
It was refreshing – after Trump’s announcement on DACA to see how our coalitions responded right here in Pomona with a press conference — in Los Angeles, D. C., New York, Phoenix – with students walking out in Denver – and colleges supporting all over the nation – with the majority – people from all backgrounds – workers, educators, political and business leaders standing up in support. Again, we have to be careful of those politicians and organizations who are willing to use DACA as a “bargaining chip” – and conciliate a tradeoff for supporting Trump’s recent enforcement policy proposals that include funding more funds for border enforcement, a crackdown on sanctuary cities, expansion of the e-verify program, a decrease in the number of refugees allowed to enter, and immediate removal of minors crossing into the U. S. from Central American seeking asylum.
Overall, we need to continue to build multi-racial coalitions that collectively carry out naturalization drives, voter registration, voter turn-out – and education forums that can ensure the election of local, state, and federal representatives who truly represent the interests and issues of our communities – who will fight alongside our communities against immigration and refugee policies that only focus on enforcement – and will fight for policies that will immediately lead to permanent residency and citizenship – with no expansion of temporary guest worker (bracero) programs and with labor law protections.
Finally, on the local level, in addition to our continued work for immigrant and education rights, there is a need for a type of “community schools” or education – that can utilize classes, forums, workshops, and clinics to train a leadership – provide tools to new leaders in deepening their understanding – so that we can build policy campaigns – and advance alternative solutions – to address the structural foundations of a direction which is strategically using the media, educational system, the new technologies, and the global means of communication to confuse our communities – to divide us and to keep us from using our potential political, social, and economic power. What would further strengthen our efforts, in my view, is to build a new sector to our work that is a Leadership School that unites us – and allows for the fullest use of our resources in building the type of equal and just society that we all deserve to live in.
*Note: Statistics primarily from “Reversing Inequality: Unleashing the Transformative Potential of An Equitable Economy”by Chuck Collins, The Democracy Colaborative and Next System Project, 2017.
The Age of Trump and the Rise of Authoritarianism
I like the title of this conference, flirting with Fascism, because what is happening in this country right now – has some vestiges of fascism – although this is not a settled question. We still have democratic forms and some democratic rights – that we must use to advance a more just and democratic society. However, what are some of these vestiges?
There is a form of authoritarianism that has emerged where power is at the top – decisions are made – and we feel powerless to do anything about it. This is an authoritarianism that focuses on specific issues that raise emotions and have no context other than to benefit those in power, the wealthy – confuse working people – and divide our movements. This authoritarianism threatens what vestiges are left of democratic institutions and social movements in our society. The term democracy is thrown around and used by the Trump administration and the alt-right to advance policies based on quantity of profit over quality of life. There are many, such a Noam Chomsky – who I agree with – that what is being promoted as democracy – is now presented in the realm of an authoritarian top-down government and state – where we have a never-ending war, more power being given to corporations, manipulation of the media, an increase in repression, and policies of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. – to foment division. These are blatant Policies that are aimed at blaming the problems in the economy on immigrants, women, and working people – to blame the problems on them – and advance an ideology that the problems will be solved if their power is diminished, if they are incarcerated, kept from voting, and deported. This authoritarianism lives off of the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger and fear. It is here especially – where the economic problems of working people – who are angry at their conditions – are used, much like they were used in Germany against Jewish people – to scapegoat and to dehumanize. It involves power – controlling the power of the state and to violate all principles in ensuring that power.
An emphasis on the quantity of profit over quality of life has led to what I call a form of genocide to make sure that our potential power is scattered and decapitated – through deregulating and allowing corporations to spew chemicals in the air that result in more of us dying (particularly in people of color and low-income communities); through the cutting of our health care; through incarcerating us (we have more African Americans in jail now – than we had in slavery) and keeping us from voting through gutting the voting rights act and unjust gerrymandering – and of course through increased enforcement, deportation, and limits on asylum of our immigrant young people, families, and refugees. This authoritarianism is waging a war against our communities – and particularly those who have been in the forefront of any gains made in civil, human, and environmental rights in the last decades. This authoritarianism is using deficits in the economy to cut Medicare, Medicaid, – to threaten social security – and ensures that the power over the future of our health stays in the hands of the profit-making health and drug industry.
We have the Alt-Right, the Bannons, the Rockford Institute, the neo-conservative movements in this country who promote white supremacist,racial-nationalist and neo-fascist ideologies — who push a deregulated free enterprise system, more funding for the military, and stand against anything that promotes a system based on equality. This is an authoritarianism that has allowed for the privatization of our economy and institutions to run rampant – that has resulted in more of our people in debt – and remaining on the margins – with the result of creating a foundation of anger among working people – allowing for a politics of scapegoating.
It is a form that, rather than advancing spaces and places of a more just and equal world – is seeking to destroy our educational institutions, our unions – our research and science – to foment a politics of individualism and ignorance about global warming and the economy.
This authoritarianism promotes an unregulated economic system where corporations rule – where the needs of our communities are put aside for the priorities of profit-making interests – and advances a form of neoliberalism that places emphasis on privatization and consumerism – with the outcome of destroying any ideology that truly builds a collective community or engages in practices for the collective good.
To combat this authoritarianism – we need a program that transforms power at the top – that abolishes a structure that allows the wealthy, the corporations, and businesses to manipulate the tax system in their favor; that reverses banking concentration and supports a system of decentralized community accountable banks and credit unions – that combats unjust gerrymandering, abolishes the electoral college, moves toward a form of proportional representation and builds a social movement in support of a living wage; health care with universal coverage; accessibility for everyone to a quality education; a guaranteed basic income; investment in pre-school, k-12, and higher education; public financing of elections; and trade agreements that ensure environmental and labor standards.
Jose Zapata Calderon
Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Chicano/a and Latino/a Studies
1050 North Mills Avenue
Claremont, CA 91711-6101
(909) 952-1640
Website: www.josezcalderon.com
No Ban, No Wall Rally Video
Being Able to Elect Candidates is Not Enough
Pomona now is comprised entirely of Latino and Latina representatives on the council. This is in a city that is 70% Latino, 10% Black, and 7% Asian Pacific Islanders. While, on the one hand, this is historic – on the other, it does not mean the interests of our communities will be fully represented. While it is important to elect Latino/a candidates to positions where they can wield some political power, there is also the necessity of our community-based organizations ensuring that they will represent the issues that our communities are most concerned about – and that these representatives truly represent the needs of quality jobs, health care, education, environment, and community development. In Pomona, although the council is now fully comprised of Latinos and Latinas, there is the example of Ginna Escobar who voted against a resolution opposing immigration raids, supporting the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, calling for imposing a moratorium on immigration raids, and calling for all city employees to not collaborate in enforcing federal civil immigration laws. Another Latina councilmember, Adriana Robledo, abstained on the resolution. Hence, electing Latinos and Latinas to political positions does not mean that they will represent the interests of our communities. It is a step forward to register our people to vote and to get them to vote – but this has to be coupled with collaborative educational efforts which focus on the issues in our communities and what is in their interests. Otherwise, Latinos/as can be elected that represent their own interests or those of power elites, such as greedy developers, whose interests are in the quantity of profit and not in the quality of life. It is important for our communities to continue to be organized after the elections to ensure that the individuals that they elect are held accountable – and use their growing power of the vote to vote them out when they clearly are not representing the interests of our communities.
Nevertheless, the election of a new mayor, Tim Sandoval and new city councilmembers Rubio Ramiro Gonzalez, Elizabeth Ontiveros-Cole, and Robert Torres is historic. There was a time when, although the city had a majority of Latino/a people in the city, there was little representation from this community. Back in 1990, after law suits were filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Southwest Voter Registration Project, Pomona residents voted to scrap citywide elections in favor of single-member districts to bolster minority representation, to facilitate more direct communication between the voters and their representatives, and to reduce the costs of running for city council seats. The voters voted in this way, also to stop the reality that, although Pomona had changed demographically to over 50% in ethnic minorities in the city, only two members of racial or ethnic minorities, up until 1986, had ever been elected to the council in the city’s 99-year history. Now, in recent years, we have seen the results of the voters’ decision in 1990 – as we have seen a diversity of city council candidates and elected city council members – and for the first time an all-Latino/a city council. At the same time – why this has been possible is that candidates have been able to run from a district that they live in and not at-large. The possibilities are stronger now, with strong community-based organizing, to have candidates who are closer to the issues that represent the people that they vow to represent, and that can be held accountable. This is the challenge in the coming years in Pomona.
Jose Zapata Calderon Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Chicano/a and Latino/a Studies 1050 North Mills Avenue Claremont, CA 91711-6101 (909) 952-1640 Jose_Calderon@pitzer.edu Website: www.josezcalderon.com
DIA DE LOS MUERTOS EN CENTRO DE LABOR: ACORDANDO JORNALEROS
NOVIEMBRE 2, 2016 –
POR JOSE ZAPATA CALDERON
Me acuerdo de Gerardo, David, Don Luis –
Y todo los obstaculos que confrontaron —
El dolor que tenian en sus ultimos dias –
y verdaderamente –
Yo, como ustededs, no sabia que hacer.
Pero siempre – habia un sentimiento de
Sobrevivir todos obstaculos para hallar
Un espacio de unidad en este centro –
Que para todos de nosotros a venido a
Ser nuestro domicilio – nuestro santuario.
Gerardo, david, Don Luis apresiaban este centro con todo
Sus corazones – y lucharon por este centro
En las oficinas del concilio – En las juntas para asegurar
Que no lo cerraran.
En un tiempo – Gerardo, David, y Don Luis – eran parte de las juntas
De trabajadores – participaban con los estudiantes en los Encuentros
Y eran parte de varios proyectos con los estudiantes.
Me acuerdo que ellos se llenaba con tanta alegria cuando
Participaban con los proyectos de los estudiantes.
Ellos eran quienes somos – personas luchando para mejorar la vida –
Mientras que la ferocidad de la economia nos ataca en modos
Que ultimamente afecta nuestra salud.
Todo lo que tenemos – es uno a otros – y muchas veces
Yo se que este centro es mas que un espacio para buscar
Trabajo – Para Gerardo, David, Don Luis y muchos otros – a sido – amistad,
A sido un abrazo – a sido una fiesta cuando no hubiera navidad
O dia de gracia – a sido – y es lo que quiere decir familia.
Me duele mucho que no pude hacer mas para estos amigos –
Y a veces nos perdemos en tantas otras problemas – que nuestros
Amigos nos pasan – y a veces estamos ciegos –
Pero en lo ultimo – hacemos lo que podemos para sobrevivir –
Y nos acordamos unos a otros.
El acuerdo de Gerardo, David, Don Luis esta aqui en el centro – que continua
A sobrevivir por lo que contribuimos – y por lo que todos ustedes
Han contribuido y continuan a contribuir.
Yo se que Gerardo, david, y Don Luis quisieran que los acordaramos como los estamos
Acrodando hoy – Y yo se que ellos quisieran que los acordaramos en
Continuar la lucha – para que otros no tengan que sufrir –
Y para que el inmigrante que a dado tanto de su sudor para esta nacion
Pueda algun dia recibir la justicia y igualdad que merece.
Nos acordamos de Gerardo, david, y Don Luis hoy – y nos cometemos a continuar
Lo que este es este espacio – un santuario – un abrazo – una amistad
Un Esfuerzo para el futuro – y mas de todo – una familia.
Gerardo, David, y Don Luis y todos Jornaleros que viven en nuestras memorias – hoy y siempre – somos tu Familia.
Pomona Valley Hospital Workers Support Statement
by Jose Calderon
October 19, 2016
I am here today, as President of the Latina and Latino Roundtable of the San Gabriel and Pomona Valley, an Emeritus Professor at Pitzer College – and one who has known about Pomona Valley Hospital and the high quality of work by the service and technical workers – because I have been a patient here. I am here – we are all here — to support these workers. We are calling on Pomona Valley Hospital to show the same commitment to patients as the people who directly care for them. What does this mean? It means respecting the workers’ decision to unite in a union.
-As many of you know, I am a strong union and labor supporter and I have always supported the workers at Pomona Valley Hospital. I was here in 2001 in support of the nurses when the same tactics being used today were used against our nurses. We won then – and we will win now! Recently, I was dismayed when Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center workers and community members informed me about the recent union election at the hospital where Over 1,100 service and technical workers won a union election in January to join SEIU-United Healthcare Workers-West (SE-UHW).
-On the one hand, I was so glad to hear about the National Labor Relations Board ruling that a majority of workers – that were eligible to vote at Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center – voted for the SEIU-UHW in a fair and democratic election. This was a big victory” On the other, I was dismayed to learn that the CEO decided to file “exceptions” with the NLRB’s Regional Director in order to delay the NLRB from certifying the election results and, consequently, preventing the workers from joining the Union. As many of you know, I come from a long history of supporting the unionization efforts of the United Farm Worker’s Union and I am well aware of how these types of tactics result in long delays with the intention of outlasting the wish of the workers. It is my strong view that Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center’s full attention and resources should be focused on its patient care and not on legal tactics aimed at delaying the SEIU-UHW from representing workers.
-In these critical times, it seems that Pomona Valley is more interested in increasing executive pay than doing what is best for the staff and patients. The CEO is paid $1.7 Million – which is far more than CEO’s who run larger hospitals. And this – in Pomona where the median household income is $49,000 per year.
-In light of this, – today – we call on the CEO and top management to work with our service and technical workers – and not against them – to treat them with dignity and respect with a contract that treats them fairly and recognizes their contributions to quality care.
-Today, we call on Pomona Valley Hospital to stop using union-busting tactics and sit down and negotiate a contract that helps the patients, our workers, and our community. We know that when management and employees work together – the patients win, our diverse communities win – we all win. Now is the time for Pomona Valley Hospital management to honor the contributions of our workers here in a win-win direction – in respecting their vote — that will continue to sustain the best patient care – and ensure, in the long-term the retention and attraction of the best staff. Brothers, and sisters – what do we want? A union contract? When do we want it? Now.
Theory to Practice in Community Engagement
I have been deeply thinking about the meaning of the connections between theory and practice, teaching and learning as it connects to our continued efforts to connect the academic with pedagogy, research, and community-based organizing for social change (see my book Lessons from an Activist Intellectual). Some recent books which directly connect to this thinking include: On Intellectual Activism by Patricia Hill Collins (which directly applies to my history of connecting the issues of race, class, and gender to Public Sociology); Community Gardening as Social Activism by Claire Nettle (which directly connects to my practice of creating collective quality of life spaces as examples of the kind of local/global world we can help create); Publicly Engaged Scholars by Margaret A. Post, Elaine Ward, Nicholas V. Long, and John Saltmarsh Liberating Service Learning by Randy Stoecker. The theories and practices in these books are something that I would like to build on to help further the thinking, scholarship, and practice of campus/community engagement for social change. Indeed, the commonality of these works is that they are all seeking new and visionary strategies for social change. All have in common a critique of service learning models based on mere service, charity, or dependence. Patricia Hill Collins focuses on two primary strategies. One that “speaks the truth to power” which harnesses the power of ideas toward the specific goal of confronting existing power relations” and a second strategy of speaking “the truth directly to the people” – one that argues “that ordinary everyday people need truthful ideas that will assist them in their everyday lives.” The others have in common – how to move from diagnosing and theory to actual implementation of concrete new models for social change. Both Liberating Service Learning and Publicly Engaged Scholars critique the practices in academia that have a tendency to implement a practice of market driven privatization. In Publicly Engaged Scholars, the authors argue that “higher education became viewed as a private benefit” where “education became part of the commodification of everything and its larger democratic and social goals were either discarded or redefined in market terms.” It included “relentless attachment to privatization and the destruction of an ethical and relational public – undermining the civic commitments of the movement.” Liberating Service Learning agrees with this perspective that institutionalized service learning “feeds into neoliberalism by promoting the belief that, since individuals all have assets, all they have to do is mobilize those assets and they will be successful in life.” Lacking a critique of the social structure, this perspective proposes that these types of practices result in the destruction of collectivities and turns the “consumer and person-turned-into-capital open to the … market persuaders that manufacture reality in the quest for market share.” All these authors have the commonality of which our work in connecting theory to practice should strive for: structural social change and the creation of spaces and places where community-based engagement is democratic, raises consciousness, builds collective leadership alongside our diverse communities, and results in collective quality of life outcomes.
–Jose–
Presentation by Jose Zapata Calderon
NAACP—Sponsored Forum and Candle Light Vigil in Solidarity With Family and Friends in Louisiana and Minnesota
Madedonia Baptist Church in Pomona, CA
July 8th, 2016
We are all here, as we have gathered before, to reflect – and to continue our work to stop the senseless violence in our communities. We cannot, for one moment, put aside the conditions in this country – and those who use these conditions to spread fear, hatred, negative stereotypes, and hostility. These conditions include the state of the ECONOMY, growing demographic changes — conditions that are forcing our diverse communities to compete, rather than collaborate, for the diminishing resources in health, education, employment, and quality of life. With an increasing global society — it is easy to scapegoat the most vulnerable among us and create anger toward our increasingly diverse communities.
We are all here today – remembering the lives of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castil in Minnesota – two African American men whose deaths once again bring to light the issue – that more than 500 people have been killed by police in 2016 – and that racial profiling and excessive use of force are on the upswing.
We are also here to reflect on what happened in Dallas – and that a peaceful demonstration was turned into a stage of violence – with the media tending to blame “the Black Lives Matter” movement – when the violent acts were clearly carried out by individuals who had nothing to do with this movement. As we have said in the past, there is a foundation to the anger and frustration in our communities – but it is important not to take this anger out on one’s self, or on others (particularly those close to us in our communities) – but we need to turn frustration into organizing to change the conditions which are creating our anger.
It is no accident that we have an increase in hate crimes. When presidential candidates, such as Trump use the frustration of working people with the economy – to call for a ban on Muslims’ entry to the U. S. and targets Mexican and Latino people – and influences public attitude with the help of the news media — to call for the deportation of the eleven million undocumented — and force Mexico to fund a wall to keep them out – there is a direction being promoted here that targets specific groups as a threat to national security – and influences public opinion – (with 25% approving of such policies as religious profiling, surveillance, special ID’s, and incarceration).
There is no getting around the issues of poverty and race in our communities – and the problems of crime, violence, substandard housing, unemployment, lack of jobs, and environmental degradation. Mass deportations and mass incarcerations have been expanding to unconscionable levels in recent years – leading to separation of families – children left without parents – poverty, unemployment, homelessness – in our communities. We do have to change the stereotypical media portrayal of our Muslim and people of color communities. We do have to change the reality of a renewed form of racial segregation, profiling, and criminalization of our communities. We do have to take concrete steps such as those proposed in a report by the Center for Popular Democracy and Policy Link titled Building From the Ground Up: A Toolkit for Promoting Justice in Policing:
- Stop criminalizing everything: de-prioritize enforcing and prosecuting low-level offenses.
- Stop using poor people to fatten city budgets.
- Kick ICE out of your city. The report suggests that cities sever ties between ICE and local police department. ICE should not be able to request these holds. Nor should they have access to the address and names of family members of people detained by local police.
- Treat addicts and mentally ill people like they need help, not jail. Some issue – like acting erratically due to mental illness or possessing and using drugs due to addiction – are actually better served by medical attention, not incarceration.
- Make policy makers face their own racism. The report recommends that policy makers should have to evaluate the potential racial impact of any new laws they create, and involve community organizers and people who work with disadvantaged population in every step of the process.
- Actually ban racist policing. But at the very least, cities, counties and states should provide avenues through which private citizens can take the police to court when they believe they’ve been profiled.
- Obey the Fourth Amendment – prohibiting “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
- Involve the community in big decisions. Every city should have an adequately funded community oversight board with significant investigatory and disciplinary powers.
- Collect data obsessively. The report says that cities and departments should maintain a transparent and searchable database on every stop, frisk, summons, use of force, arrest, and killing they conduct.
- Body cameras. Body cameras are far from the solution. But they can be important and helpful, especially when the local community supports their use, guided by clear regulations.
- Don’t let friends of the police prosecute the police. Cases against police officers would be tried by independent prosecutors, not the district attorney who works with them all the time.
- Oversight, oversight, oversight. The report proposes external oversight committees – ones that oversee the implementation of reforms and proactively identify issues in police operations and practices.
- No more military equipment. President Barack Obama did recently issue and executive order prohibiting police departments from obtaining specific equipment – namely tracked armored vehicles, grenade launcher, large caliber weapons, ammunition, and bayonets.
- Establish a “use of force” standard. The report says that all departments should issue a statement affirming that their officers should use minimum force to subdue people. They should develop clear and transparent standards for reporting, investigating, and disciplining officers who do not comply.
- Train the police to be members of the community, not just armed patrolmen. Police should be trained on how to develop better relationships with their communities – training that incorporates culture, diversity, mental illness training, youth development, bias, and racism.
Brothers and sisters – it is time to build a movement to not take our frustrations, conditions, and fears on oneself – or take it out on our friends, families, and neighbors – but to use our energies and abilities to build unity in our communities – to fight for legislative actions (at the local, state, and national levels) that directly address racial profiling, excessive use of enforcement – without addressing the foundations. With so many problems being faced by our society, there is the need for coalitions to develop between all of us — in advancing a leadership that combats prejudice, racism, sexism, and homophobia — and builds our unity in advancing solutions to the structural issues of racism, poverty, and inequality in our communities.
The Future of Public Education
At the The Next System Teach-in at UC Santa Barbara on
April 16, 2016
By Jose Zapata Calderon
Muchisimas Gracias por la invitacion. Hay momentos en nuestras vidas que nos transforman. Yo se que muchos de ustedes se acuerdan de momentos transformativos en sus vidas. La base de me mi transformacion era entre la connecsion de mi educasion, mi trabajo, mi familia, y movimientos para desarollar cambios. Mis palabras hoy vienen de mis experencias como trabajador, profesor, padre, abuelito, y – mas que todo – como un hijo de padres inmigrantes — y como lider y organisador por la mayor parte de mi vida — en los campos, en uniones, en escuelas, en colegios, y en varias comunidades.
- Siempre comienso mis presentaciones en español para enseñar la fuerza del lenguaje – y tambien para enseñar un ejemplo de algo que se puede usar como forma de opresion o de liberacion. Si uno no puede participar – es muy duro desarollar las mas altas posibidades de desarollar nuestras capacidades. Cuantos de ustedes me entienden? Bueno, a todos ustedes que me entienden – Les damos una A y a los demas una F.
- El poder de la palabra es muy fuerte y sabemos que puede resultar en excluir estudiantes – puede resultar en bajo autoestima – en ellos creer que la culpa es de ellos y no de un Sistema que da la culpa a los maestros y no a las condiciones historicas y estructurales que son el base del problema. En este momento estoy usando el poder de la palabra para oprimir.
I will stop here because I know that there are many of you who do not understand Spanish. I began my presentation by thanking all of your and especially the Next System teach-in coordinators Emily Williams and Gary Lytlefor inviting me to be here with you today. I explained that there are moments in our lives that are transformational and that everyone here can point to transformational moments in their lives that became the foundations of principles and values for long-term change. The foundations of the transformations in my life had all to do with the connections between education, labor, family, and social change activism.
It is in this context — that my presentation today is based on — my lived experience as a worker, professor, father, grandfather – and most importantly – as a son of immigrant farm workers – and as a social justice organizer in the fields, in unions, in the schools, in colleges, and in diverse communities. I always begin my presentations in Spanish to reflect power relations – and to show, for a moment, how exclusion can be used as a form of oppression. If one is not able to participate, there is no way that one can develop one’s capacities to the highest levels. I asked how many of you understand me – and shared that those who understood me would receive an A and those who did not – an F. We know that this form of structural exclusion can result in low self-esteem in our students with a belief that they are responsible – and a power structure that places the blame on our teacher – and not on the historical or systemic conditions that are the foundations of the problem.
It is this systemic and structural oppression that I want to talk about to you today – and I am so heartened to be speaking to so many of you who are building and constructing with the tools of education – for, as we know, education is truly a tool for overcoming domestication, scapegoating, and exclusion.
With the growth of a global economy, there is the need for a type of educational system that promotes the building of new models toward a democratic society. However, there is a trend emerging in our present educational system that wants to take us back to the days of reproducing individuals to fit a more authoritarian philosophy. This trend seeks to promote a managerial “banking” system where the power of disseminating knowledge is being transferred to the needs of the business and political establishments. This shift fits into the early twentieth century industrial model of schools where students were socialized in assembly-like rows to be taught the status quo and not to be heard from. With the promotion of standardized tests and quantitative methods that evaluate the performances of both teachers and students, there is a diminishing of the space for the creation of democratic bridges between what is being learned in the classroom and the challenges of democratic decision-making in our communities. This trend is characterized by the growth of for-profit corporate charter schools and companies who are redefining the meaning of education by taking money out of public schools. In the debate over the state of our educational system, unfortunately — many taxpayers have been led to believe that the issue is only about the quality of our teachers and not about the poverty and racism – the structural inequities that many of our underrepresented students and their families confront every day in their communities. There is no getting around that in many of our cities half of all black and Latino young people are not graduating from our high schools – and that most are finding themselves on the unemployment lines, in poverty, or in jail. Einstein once said that every child is born a genius – but we all know now how easily this capacity can be taken away before and after birth. Think of the mother working in the fields in her 8th month of pregnancy – and pesticides swarming all around her – affecting whether that child is going to be born with hands, with legs, with the brilliant mind of our generations. Think of the child who is born without access to good nutrition, good health care – and immigrant parents who work double shifts without the time needed to fully care for the needs of that child. Think of the young woman who is scorned in school for not being able to speak English – scorned for having an accent – the young woman who is paid less because of her skin color, because of her gender – and the young man and young woman bullied because of their sexual orientation. There are structural issues here and that is why we have to fight for structural solutions such as supporting the campaign of Healthy Kids, Healthy Minds – for we know that the success of our students is also tied to the state of their health and the conditions in the homes and communities from where they come from.
Of course there are those who think that the success of our educational system can be done just by changing the curriculum or improving our teacher training. There are others who hail the growth of charter schools and advocate voucher systems to solve the problem. What we already know is that these efforts have been attempted and that there are consistent flaws in their implementation. We know now that the method of standardized testing has resulted in minimal improvements. And we know that charter schools are overall not doing any better than public schools – and, in fact, educating fewer English learners and special needs children – and contributing to racial segregation.
In this realm of thinking, there are those who advocate that low test scores are caused by bad teachers – and that if you Get rid of the bad teachers — all students will get high test scores. The reality is, as we know, that teachers do not give tenure to themselves. Instead of acknowledging that test scores are highly correlated with family income – instead of acknowledging the structural issues of large class sizes, the lowest per pupil funding rates of k-12 schools in the nation, the decrease in programs and services for students with the greatest needs, the rise in tuition and fee increases in our system of higher education, and the limited access to public preschool — they prefer to blame teachers and the very idea of public education. We know otherwise – we know that the improvement of education will not be done through laws that blame all teachers, campaigns by privately-funded corporations, and solutions that leave out the economic, resource, racial, and historical factors ( the foundations of many of the problems in our educational system). This trend, brothers and sisters, — rather than tapping the passionate reason as to why so many college graduates become teachers — vilifies teachers and is forcing many to turn away from the educational world as a career.
The real issue, we know, is not the quality of education — but it is the issue of inequality. There is no getting around, as Professor Mark Warren in his article Transforming Public Education points out that children from poor families score lower than those from higher-income communities and that there is a growing achievement gap between high and low-income students. There is no getting around that students of color, particularly Black and Latino, end up in schools that have less qualified teachers, larger class sizes, fewer and older textbooks, older facilities, and fewer computers than schools in more affluent communities.
There is no getting around the issues of poverty and race where more than a third of all black children are in poverty – where large numbers of African American and Latino Children grow up in poverty neighborhoods – with problems surrounding them of crime, violence, substandard housing, unemployment, lack of jobs, and environmental degradation. These conditions affect the lives of the young children – young people. These conditions result in Black and Latino have the highest suspension and expulsion rates – with Black students, for example, who make up 16 percent of public school students have over 31 percent of the suspensions and expulsions. And we know where many of these students who drop out or who do not graduate – end up — in what is called the school-to prison pipeline.
Mass deportations and mass incarcerations have been expanding to unconscionable levels in recent years – leading to separation of families – children left without parents – poverty, unemployment, homelessness – in our communities. Our prison population has exploded from about 300,000 to more than 2 million in a few decades. The majority of those incarcerated are black and brown. There are more African Americans under correctional control today — in prison or jail, on probation or parole — than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began. And these realities are connected to the right to vote. As of 2004, more African American men were disenfranchised (due to felon disenfranchisement laws) than in 1870, the year the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, prohibiting laws that explicitly deny the right to vote on the basis of race.
Yes, we know the outcomes — And with a felony conviction – we know that these young people cannot get a job when they get out – they cannot vote.
With so many problems being faced by our society, there is the need for coalitions to develop between our parents, teachers, students, unions, and community-based organizations, and in advancing new forms of research, learning, and practice that can help develop a citizenry and a leadership in the future that takes up the structural issues of racism, poverty, and inequality in our communities. Brothers and sisters, we do have to change our schools. We do have to change the media portrayal of our Black and Latino brothers and sisters – and the low expectations and bias – and the blame of parents — that some of our teachers and administrators have of our people of color as a result of some of these stereotypes. We do have to change the reality of geographic segregation – and the amount of resources that go to higher-income – upper-middle class schools – resulting in these students having less expulsions, more graduating – having privilege pathways to higher education and ultimately higher incomes and better jobs. We do have to change our schools but we also have to change how they interact and deal with the communities of inequality from where many of our students are coming from – yes we have to do this- – by accepting the reality of geographic segregation and that our focus also has to include organizing against all forms of racial segregation and taking up the issues in the communities where our students are coming from – the issues of housing, development, jobs, health, and immigrant rights. This is why, in my work, we are in unity with the movement to amend Proposition 13 so that, while homeowners and small businesses can be protected against escalating property taxes – that large businesses are properly assessed based on the fair market value of their properties – and that there is equality in ensuring equality of resources in all school districts – regardless of where they are located.
We need a movement – an educational justice movement – the seeds of which we are already beginning to see among young people nationally, among teachers, among parents that are focusing on both changing the schools from within but connecting to the larger issues of poverty, racism, inequality in our communities – which are often the source of many problems in our schools.
As an example – In Pomona, a city, which is 70% Latino, 10% Black, and 7% Asian Pacific Islanders – my students used community-based engagement and research, alongside parents, in helping to defeat a bill that would have wiped out district elections (which have resulted in more representation of people of color). We have advanced community and coalition-building (again, with parents, students, teachers, and community-based organizations in transforming a city-based strategy of dealing with “gangs” simply through enforcement and incarceration to one that understands that “gang violence would not exist if they (gangs) did not satisfy the desperate needs of young people for family, education, mentoring, housing, employment, health, spiritual, and social support.” It has been these grassroots efforts that have been effective in developing an “economic justice plan” that includes the capacity-building strategies of quality jobs, housing, health, education, and pre-school/after-school programs (particularly in the low-income sectors of the community). More recently, we have brought Pomona Unified school and city officials together with parents, students, and our community-based organizations in joining together to implement the concept of “community schools.” This partnership has led to the school holding forums with the Center for Democracy – the school being a co-sponsor with community-based organizations and parents in implementing DACA immigrant rights clinics, driver’s license workshops, Matricula clinics drawing thousands – and Cesar Chavez Pilgrimage marches on the issues of funding for education, ethnic studies, and support for the minimum wage. More recently, our coalition has endorsed and is actively organizing support for SB 1050 (introduced by one of my former students, Senate Pro Tempore Kevin De Leon) which, if passed, will help to level the playing field and create a pipeline of educational opportunity and success for K-12 public school students — especially those who are low income(with 58% who are from low income families) and includes English learners – and foster youth of all backgrounds — to be better prepared for and graduate from California’s public universities.
Our support for these initiatives needs to be based on an educational justice movement that is proactive in our schools — that is based on a type of teaching, learning, and organizing where: there is a passion for creating spaces of equity; but – where at the same time – connects to the issues of poverty, racism, exclusion, and inequality in our communities — where students are exposed to a curriculum that does not just deal with the problems in the society but that looks at the systemic and structural aspects of inequity; that brings to center stage the contributions of communities who (because of poverty, racism, sexism, classism, or homophobia) have historically been excluded from our textbooks; and that involves students in working alongside excluded communities on common projects to implement transformative social change.
As we seek to develop coalitions, it is important for us to look toward new ways of carrying out democratic forms of learning and curriculum building in our classrooms – that include a vision goes beyond the measurement of the quality of one’s capacity merely on standardized testing – to one that that allows for the fullest potential, creativity, and capacity of our students, of our teachers, of our parents, of our community leaders – to connect to new models of building democratic participation in our communities– new models that can help in advancing a more democratic and socially just culture in our schools and in the larger society.
There are too many media commentators, too many books, too many politicians, too many pessimists — that have us believing that we cannot cultivate. The reality is that our communities know a lot – but are diminished in the possibilities for positioning and taking back the legacies of creation that have been so much a part of our history.
We know that there is no secret to reaching this level and that it takes our organizing efforts – and the support of each other to change the structural obstacles. Whether the optimal possibilities can come to be realities for our children – for our young people – for our brothers and sisters in the future – has a lot to do with the engagement of all of us here and our communities in advancing an educational justice movement locally and nationally for the resources, leadership, and changes that are needed to meet the needs of our children, parents, and families.
I want to urge all of you – to leave here with a passion – to use whatever opportunity the past and the present have developed – to go as far as you can – in accumulating all the knowledge that you can –and using that knowledge to build new schools — a new society – on the level of the future – in trying out new prescriptions of cultivation in how we structure our communities, our schools, our cities, our spaces of higher education. This is the real challenge – to not shirk our responsibilities of cultivation to the legacies of past generations – and take on the problems of our communities – This is the real meaning of why we need to build strong coalitions again and a strong movement locally and nationally.
We are geniuses – and we have to change the mentality of a society that begins to stratify one from the time one is born – according to the village that raises us – and the resources available to deter or advance the resources of potentiality.
We need you to cultivate – to create spaces in our homes, programs, and with families that are examples of the kind of world that we want to live in.
But, in addition to cultivating and creating those spaces- it is essential to build a powerful and political social movement – where we are together – not alone as individuals – but in coalitions, — in partnerships — finding a common ground with students, parents, and community-based groups – to take on the challenge of organizing our co-workers – in our schools, in our communities to build a strong movement for the future of public education – for the future of social and economic justice — to get involved in building new collaborations to ensure that the priorities of this country are not just about profit for a few – but are about sustaining and ensuring the resources necessary for the many. Let us all cultivate together — then — so that our families – so that our future generations — have the type of high quality education, employment, nutrition, healthcare, and caring that they deserve. Si Se Puede!
Presentation at “Changing Landscape of the U. S”
Presentation at “Changing Landscape of the U. S.: 50 Years Since the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act at Chinese American Museum Panel by Jose Calderon
I want to thank the Chinese American Museum and staff for organizing this most important forum. I am honored to be part of a panel which includes three prominent leaders (Linda Vo, Stewart Kwoh, and Mike Eng) which I, and our communities – strongly respect. I would like to begin with a background to the 1965 Act, bring in a particularity connected to how the ACT affected Latina and Latino immigrants, while promoting the ongoing need to unite our diverse communities.
It was after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Congress passed the 1965 Immigration and Nationality (Hart-Celler) Act – an act which did away with the aspects of national origin, race, or ancestry as a basis for immigration to the U. S.. The act eliminated the restrictive national origins quota system that was originally passed in 1924 when nativism and xenophobia were at an all-time high (favoring Northern and Western European immigrants because they were thought to be genetically superior and restricting others because of their supposedly genetic inferiority). The Act replaced this quota system and replaced it with an allocation of immigrant visas based on a seven-category preference system for relatives and permanent resident immigrants (based on the policies promoted — for the reunification of families) – policies which took into account occupational skills, relatives living in the U. S., and political-refugee status.
Although the U. S. government expected that most of the immigration would come from Europe, many European immigrants had already come earlier and the European economy was doing well. This reality opened the doors to unprecedented numbers of Immigrants from Asia, Mexico, Latin America, and other non-western nations – and dramatically changed the demographics in the U. S..
This is a point to emphasize — Since 1965, the majority of family-sponsored immigrants have come from Asia and Latin America rather than Europe. It is also important to point out that , between 2009 and 2011, immigrants from Africa have outnumbered Europeans. Hence, in the three decades following the passage of the 1965 ACT, more than 18 million legal immigrants have entered the U. S. – more than three times the number admitted over the preceding 30 years.
This happened as a result of this 1965 ACT which limited Eastern Hemisphere immigration to 170,000 and placed a ceiling on Western Hemisphere immigration to 120,000 — with a cap of 20,000 per nation. This Act, for the first time, placed a quota on immigration from Mexico and Latin America – and, given the proximity of the border – this had a particular effect on the Mexican people – many in the thousands who began to cross over without documents.
This fact is important because, as many researchers have written (such as Kevin R. Johnson and Douglas Massey) – not all was equal in the passage of the act – and as it can be argued – did not fully result in equal treatment under the law. The 1965 Act, although appearing to be impartial and fair, included a form of racial discrimination – less visible than the national origins quotas system. There was an anti-Latino underside of the immigration act. Congress backed reforms with a hope of significantly restricting the number of Latina/o immigrants to the U. S. – expressing the fear that, absent bold new restrictive steps in the ACT – that Latino immigrants might overrun – and possibly destroy American society. There was an intent to cap immigration from Mexico as well as Latin America – and thus, establishing a foundation for modern immigration enforcement that resulted in a series of U. S. immigration laws and enforcement measures directed primarily at Latinos. Those measures have continued to the point – where we have had up to 400,000 immigrants being deported yearly today. There is no doubt that the Act created a new path for eliminating discriminatory laws that had excluded Asian immigration. On the other hand, by placing an artificial ceiling on legal migration from Mexico – (coupled with the end of the Bracero program in 1964) the legislation advanced the growth of an undocumented immigrant population subject to removal from the U. S.. It can be argued that this trend in immigration to the U. S. contributed to changes in the racial demographics of American society in the post-1965 period, the public’s view of immigration, and ultimately the overall direction of U. S. Immigration law and its enforcement. With an increase of undocumented, particularly from Mexico and Central America – there was an increase in enforcement of U. S. Immigration laws (a total of fifteen restrictive immigration bills from 1965 to 1995 and 16 enforcement operations between 1993 and 2010)). The restrictive process, primarily directed at Mexican migration, contributed greatly to the steady growth of the undocumented Mexican population. The ACT marked the beginning of a series of escalating restrictions on Mexican migration, greatly bolstered immigration enforcement in the U. S./Mexico border region as well as the entire country, and contributed to a growing concern with the number of Mexican immigrants in the U. S.. The law built on and greatly reinforced the deeply entrenched anti-Mexican racism in the U. S. – which advanced a perspective that undocumented immigrants were an economic and social threats. So, although eliminating the discriminatory national origins quotas system, removing rigid barriers to immigrate to the U. S. from Asia, and offering the appearance of neutrality and objectivity to the American immigration system – the ACT also had some questionable results in limiting the extent of migration to the U. S. from the Western Hemisphere.
On the positive side, we know that the large numbers of immigrants from Asia and from Latin America – have led to major demographic changes with a rise of ethnic enclaves and rise of ethnic businesses. These new arrivals have transformed the demographic, economic, and cultural environment of many communities. At the same time, as we all know (from our experiences in places like Monterey Park), the demographic changes have also led to ethnic/racial conflict between old-time residents and the new immigrants – with some movements, such as the English Only movement, proclaiming that the immigrants are taking over the country and destroying American culture.
The demographic changes have been dramatic. In 1960, the foreign-born share of the population was just 5% – whereas by 2013 – it had doubled to 13%. Further, the ethnic composition of immigrants has changed. In 1960, according to a PEW Research study, the overwhelming share of immigrants were of European origin and few were Latin-American/Caribbean or Asian. By 2013, a census survey found half of immigrants were Latin-American/Caribbean and 27% were Asian, while the share of the immigrant population had fallen to a mere 13%. And the future is no different. Based on the most recent census data, the Pew Research Center is projecting that the first and second generation immigrant segment of the American population will swell to 37% by 2050 as compared to 15% back in 1965. Since passage of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act, family preferences have been the central pathway to legal immigration to the U. S.. In 1970 and 1980, 25% and 40% of legal permanent immigration resulted from family reunification – and in the 1990s about 55 percent used family preference for immigration. Between 2001 and 2010, family reunification represented nearly two-thirds of the total documented immigration to the U. S..
While attention in 1965 focused on fixing policies for regulating immigration, the immigrant rights efforts today are focused on legalizing the 12 million undocumented in the U. S. An argument that is still in the forefront today – which was one of the main arguments for the implementation of the 1965 Act – is the call to not separate families – that to separate families is to go against the values of principles of a just and equal democracy – and that there is the need for legalization measures that can ensure family unification and reunification. This argument makes sense when there are an estimated 8.8 million families with a head of household or spouse who is undocumented – and, when among these mixed-status families (which include 16.6 million persons, there are more than 80% of the children who are U. S.-born citizens (an estimated 4.5 million).
In this context, it is important to understand our diverse histories and how the 1965 ACT affected our particular communities. If we do not absorb and appreciate these particularities, there is the danger of allowing a historical systemic strategy that is used to divide our families and to blame the victim rather than building the types of coalitions which, in recent years, have made California an exemplary state in its support of undocumented immigrants. It is no accident that, alongside the demographic changes, there have been dramatic changes in public opinion – and this has been due to the Dreamers, labor, and people of color coalitions that have united. It is no accident that — In 1990 – over a majority of Americans saw immigrants in a bad light and saw them as a threat. It is no accident that by 2014, 57% saw immigrants as contributing to the country through their hard work – and only 35% now see them as a threat. We need to thank everyone here – and all those who have sought common ground – for these transformations – and we cannot stop here.
The legacy of any gains made from 1965 to the present need to continue in uniting all that can be united in building these exemplary coalitions — such as those that we have seen in recent years that have united our communities of all colors – in working together on a state level for policies such as driver’s licenses for undocumented, collaborating together” on a national level against enforcement policies which racially profile our communities – and “fighting together for” executive orders such as DACA and DAPA – and not stop until there are policies in place that will immediately lead to permanent residency and citizenship for our 12 million undocumented immigrant brothers and sisters- a legalization with no expansion of temporary guest worker (bracero) programs and with labor law protections.
Crossing Campus and Community Engagement Borders
Through Building Sustainable and Democratic Partnerships
Presentation by Jose Zapata Calderon
National Campus Compact Network Leadership Conference
LaVerne University
7/14/14
Muchisimas Gracias a Campus Compact, a La Verne University, por la invitacion. En invitarme – yo veo que ustedes estan cruzando fronteras — porque yo no soy una persona tradicional de la academia. Soy conocido como un activista – y me gusta la categoria de activista intellectual. Y, a veces, personas como yo – no son tan aceptadas como otros que nomas enfocan en sus estudios y no hacen para usar esos estudios para transformer la sociedad. Este momento es un ejemplo de crear fronteras como un obstaculo a nuestra comunicasion, a nuestra colaboracion, a nuestra capacidad de crear espacios de sostenimiento y de democracia. En este momento algunos de ustedes estan sintiendo el mismo character de oppression y exclusion que algunos de nuestros estudiantes, algunas de nuestras familias, algunas de nuestras comunidades sienten cuando hay inigualdades o falta de reservos en la sociedad.
Que pasara si continuara en hablar nomas en el Español?
Siempre comienso mis presentaciones en español para enseñar la fuerza del lenguaje – y tambien para eseñar un ejemplo de algo que se puede usar como forma de opresión o de liberacion. Si uno no puede participar – es muy duro desarollar las mas altas posibilidades de desarollar nuestras capacidades. Cuantos de ustedes me entienden? Bueno, a todos ustedes que me entienden – Les damos una A y a los demas una F.
I will stop here because I know that there are many of you who do not understand Spanish. I began my presentation by thanking Campus Compact, La Verne University President Deborah Lieverman, and all of you for inviting me to be here with you today. In inviting me, I explained, that all of you that invited me have crossed borders – because I am not a traditional academic. I am known as an activist – I actually like being categorized as an activist intellectual. At times, persons like myself – are not as accepted as other academics who primarily focus on their studies and do not use those studies as tools to transform the society around them. This moment (I explained when I was speaking Spanish) right now is an example of creating borders as an obstacle to our communication, our collaboration, and our capacity to create spaces of sustainability and democracy. I explained that, at this moment when I was only speaking Spanish, some of you were being treated with the same type of oppression and exclusion that some of our students, some of our families, and some of our underrepresented communities are treated with – when there are inequalities or lack of resources in the society. I explained that I often begin my presentations in Spanish to show the strength of language – and to begin with examples of the possible two sides of oppression and liberation. If one cannot participate – it is very difficult to cross those borders that help us reach the highest levels of our possibilities or capacities.
It is in this context that I speak to you today – as an activist intellectual whose passion for education emerged from my history as an immigrant, as the son of a father and mother who were immigrant farmworkers all their lives; as a student who learned firsthand the connection of engagement to social change practice by working with Cesar Chavez and the UFW back in the ‘70’s, as a parent of three children and two grandchildren (whose foundation of familia and engagement lies in the love and support of my wife, Rose), and who now — as a teacher and learner — as an emeritus professor — have maintained my passion for connecting the classroom to social change through the building of community partnerships that are both sustainable and democratic.
It heartens me to see the rooting of Campus Compact in 1100 member institutions of higher learning and its tradition of building bridges and sustaining community engagement efforts that are helping to build the kind of diverse, equal, and just society that we all want to live in.
And it is transformative community engagement that we need at this time when there are various trends in competition with each other: – one that wants to take us back before the civil rights movement and one that is about the future. In our educational systems there is a trend that wants to take us back to the days of reproducing individuals to fit a more authoritarian philosophy. It is an outlook that promotes a type of a managerial “banking” system where the power of disseminating knowledge is transferred to the needs of the business and political establishments. It is an outlook that fits into the early twentieth century industrial model of schools where students were socialized in assembly-like rows to be taught the status quo and not to be heard from. At the same time, there is another trend that is advancing new forms of research, learning, and practice that are engaging our teachers, faculty, and students in critical thinking and problem-solving to find solutions to our community’s problems. This is a type of learning that is manifested by a vision of developing a citizenry and a leadership that is more engaged and excited about participating in making the future society. This is a trend that has developed numerous studies that show how much students benefit from connecting their learning in the classroom to community engagement: – that, in addition to improving their grades and advancing principles of collectivity (that go against the grain of individualism); — that it enhances the skills of working with diverse populations, and develops a workforce — a form of career preparation that the report I was part of, A Crucible Moment, identifies as creating a “more informed, engaged, and responsible citizenry.” As many of you know, higher education is being challenged right now by various forces outside of academia – who are reducing the expectations of a college education to “labor market needs” – to “industry availability” – to job preparation alone. The National Governor’s Association report Degrees for What Jobs? Raising Expectations for Universities and Colleges in a Global Economy is one example of this trend where higher education’s function is described as being primarily as “workforce preparation.” However, another trend, does see the value of a higher education that promotes critical thinking, having a public voice, ethical and moral jusdgment, and having a long-termcommitment to act collectively for the public good and for a high quality of life for all. For example there are 700 companies globally that have developed corporate responsibility reports that fit right into our teaching and learning practices of advancing diversity, human rights, economic sustainability, and various community engagement dimensions. It is in this dimension that Campus Compact has made great contributions – and we need to continue to do so.
As part of this latter trend, Campus Compact has indeed been a leader in helping to create spaces of equity; where students are exposed to a curriculum that does not just deal with the problems in the society but that looks at the systemic and structural aspects of inequity; that brings to center stage the contributions of communities who (because of poverty, racism, sexism, classism, or homophobia) have historically been excluded from our textbooks; and that involves students in working alongside excluded communities on common projects to implement transformative social change.
We have advanced and need to continue the creation of examples of democracy in our classrooms. Many of us, from the influence of Campus Compact and community-based participatory leaders, have been in the forefront of practicing what Ira Shor, in his book Empowering Education, calls a critical-democratic pedagogy for self and social change. This approach works to develop a student-centered classroom that involves both the teachers and students in the “habits of inquiry and critical curiosity about society, power, inequality, and change” (Shor, 1992:15). At the same time, it follows with the critical-holistic paradigm that is based on empowering community participants to “help themselves by raising their level of consciousness about their problems and the societal causes and remedies available.” — An approach that combines the creation of a democratic space for dialogue and inquiry in the classroom as part of working alongside community participants to advance models of “social action and social change for the purpose of achieving social justice. This type of engagement has moved our community-based faculty to challenge their traditional control of the classroom and to have confidence that their students will empower themselves to complete their projects. With workshops, retreats, readings, and online examples from Campus Compact and others, engaged faculty have contributed to ensuring curriculum development and structure in the classroom alongside creating a voice for students and community partners in developing their specific interests. Although this type of pedagogy, we have learned, inherently includes ambiguity and uncertainty, the outcomes include hundreds of examples of the benefits to the campus and our community partners.
We have advanced in creating new models of collaborative research – models, such as that promoted by Randy Stoecker —where research develops out of a perspective of “trying to understand” the participants we are working with, what is happening to them, and what they can do about the problems that are affecting them” This type of participatory research and involvement emerges from a question that comes from the participants themselves regarding a problem that they would like to resolve. In this process, the participants, in a sense, become collaborative social scientists. That is, they begin by discussing a problem, analyzing how they will deal with the problem, implementing a plan of action, carrying out the action, and evaluating the results.
We have made great strides in bringing to center stage those who have been historically excluded – a type of “reconstructing knowledge” that Professors Anderson and Collins have described as moving from an exclusionary perspective to one that shifts “the center” to include “the experiences of groups who have formerly been excluded.
This trend is one that promotes the particular histories of individuals and communities as part of appreciating the cultures and histories of the many people who make up this country. The outlook is that, in understanding our historical differences, there is a foundation to genuinely understand what unites us. At the same time, to meet the challenges of an increasingly global society, there is a need for students to learn about the contributions of the diverse mosaic that comprises the various people of the world. There are many examples in our history of individuals who belong at the center stage of our teaching and learning. These are individuals who have used their knowledge to point out injustices and who used their skills and abilities to empower their communities. We have many examples of individuals in our history that our students are often not taught deeply enough about—examples who made a choice to use their skills and abilities as a means of service to the community, as a means of advancing spaces of equality in our communities. Two examples of such individuals are
Michi and Walter Weglyn, in whose name I held an endowed chair position at Cal Poly Pomona for two years. They were examples of individuals who used their lives to conduct research and to use that research in service to the community and to advance social change policies.
They were examples, not only in the academic sense (with Michi Weglyn producing a book, Tears of Infamy: The Untold Story of America’s Concentration Camps) but also in the participatory action sense. Hence, Michi Weglyn’s book and efforts
helped advance a movement that eventually led to reparations for more than 80,000 Japanese Americans interned during World War II and exposed the kidnappings of thousands of Japanese Latin Americans who were forced to serve as prisoners of war during that time.
Similarly, in the last decade, we have had a number of leaders pass away who, like Michi and Walter Weglyn, unconditionally paved the way in frontier areas of service, research, and action in our communities.
We have the example of Kenneth Clarke who, along with his wife Mamie Clarke, studied the responses of more than 200 Black children who were asked to choose between a white or a brown doll. Their findings, which showed a preference of the children for white dolls, led to a conclusion that segregation was psychologically damaging and played a pivotal role in the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregated education. In recent years, we had the passing of Gloria Anzaldua whose book, Borderlands, courageously critiqued both sexism and homophobia in the dominant culture as well as in her own culture. There are other examples: Fred Korematzu, Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta, Rosa Parks, Harvey Milk, Chief Joseph — of everyday individuals who dreamed, who had a vision, and who used their skills and abilities to organize, to empower others, and to turn injustice on its head. Many of my students don’t know their histories and it is only through our classes – that they learn about the contributions made by these individuals and groups in opening the doors to historically excluded groups in this country.
This influence, in applying connections between civic knowledge and civic engagement, helped me in making the connections between history, community engagement, and community-based participatory research.
An example of connecting history to community engagement, I take the students from my classes to Delano California to learn first-hand about the many Filipino farm workers who, because of anti-miscegenation laws in this state, never married and passed away in an elderly farm worker village (Agbayani Village) built through the collaborative efforts of students and farm workers. As part of the reciprocity for the gift of direct experience, and in honor of the legacy of the sixty seven elderly Filipinos who have all passed away, we return to Agbayani every year, to sustain the history of these elderly— and to frame the many pictures of their life stories that they left behind. Before visiting Agbayani, the students read about such leaders as Pablo Manlapit, a farm worker organizer in the farm worker fields and Phil de la Cruz and Larry Itliong, organizers in the fields of California, In addition to framing the pictures of the elderly, some students have written journals as part of documenting the oral histories of those who knew the Filipino elderly. One Pitzer student – Laura Aquino – for example, went back to Delano and made a film on the history of the Filipino farm workers. Last year, other forms of reciprocity that the UFW took as forms of helping their efforts – but, for us, were forms of engagement that led to social change outcomes — involved our students in learning about the ill effects of methyl bromide, making signs and leaflets, and organizing an educational picket to inform the public. Upon returning from the alternative spring break, we learned that methyl bromide had been banned nationally. Another example — On the last day of our visit, Dolores Huerta requested our presence at a county commissioner meeting to protest the cutting of a health program that served poor farm workers and immigrants. After sitting in at the meeting of the county commissioners – we were part of a victory that resulted in the program being continued.
In another class that I taught, Restructuring Communities, students had the opportunity to study the diverse perspectives on the meaning of democracy as applied to the plight of new immigrants, particularly Latin American undocumented workers in the United States. Through jointly reading an abundance of literature on the global factors affecting immigration, we were able to have deep discussions on the myths that are created about immigrants taking jobs and social services from residents.
This class was an example of connecting history to civic engagement for social change. In order for the students to get engaged, they first had to know some of this country’s history when it came to issues involving immigration. We used the book Harvest of Empire by Juan Gonzalez to understand how the United States’ “success was due in large measure to the unique brand of representative democracy, the spirit on bold enterprise, the respect for individual liberty, and the rugged devotion to hard work that characterized so many of American settlers.” At the same time, my syllabus also included literature on one of Gonzales’s other contentions that “there was another aspect to that success … the details of which most Americans knew nothing about, but which was always carried out in their name. It was “a vicious and relentless drive for territorial expansion, conquest, and subjugation of Native Americans, African slaves, Latin Americans, and others … one that our leaders justified as Manifest Destiny for us.”
In this context, students were more equipped to understand the contemporary debates over immigration, free trade, globalization, and the many myths that have been created regarding the immigrant’s taking of jobs, importing disease and crime, and the stealing of social services.
In the class on Social Movements, I developed alongside Campus Compact – where, in the early years – I focused primarily on service learning and a curriculum that primarily taught about the history of farm workers and day laborers dating back to the early 1900s. Over the years, however, the syllabus developed to include articles on the issues of community development and sustainability. Now, in addition to students traveling to the headquarters of the United Farm Workers to carry out such projects as I have mentioned and to work alongside all the historic figures they have read about in their books — A primary aspect now, – is to have the students experience how the union has survived by creating alternative forms of sustaining itself through the development of six radio stations throughout the Southwest, low income housing projects that serve immigrant and farm worker families, and a museum, book store and conference/educational center. In the readings, I include articles that have been written on our Pomona Day Labor Center that got started in 1997 through our efforts – and is an example of sustainability. This aspect ultimately develops discussions on how students will sustain themselves long-term or whether it is possible to sustain a movement based on “doing for the public good: without losing one’s values and principles.
It is important to continue this aspect of curriculum development to advance a trend in our society that appreciates the contributions of diversity and multiculturalism and builds the types of partnership that are necessary to meet the challenges of the demographic changes taking place in our communities and in the global economy.
We see the changing demographics all around us. It was not that long ago – that there were only a few of us at these graduations. When I started at the University of Colorado back in 1968, there were only a few of us Latinos. Now, we are the largest minority group on college campuses with two million Latino and Latina students or 19% of the college population, but we still only obtain slightly less than the 3% of the PhD’s and 9% of the B. A.’s.
Today, we still need to transform our colleges and universities to meet the demographic transformations occurring in the communities around our campuses. There are many inequalities on our campuses – and many of our colleges and universities are stratified much like the larger society. Our colleges still need to embrace community engagement on our campuses – particularly when it involves changing those inequalities – everything from admission policies that are obstacles to the recruitment of underrepresented students to ensuring good wages and benefits for workers of color who are usually the ones who cut the lawns, clean the dorms, put the food on the table in the dining halls, and who maintain the college facilities.
As we have learned from the experience of Campus Compact in the last twenty five years, the global world is close to home – right here on our campuses – but also in our local communities. The reality is that the demographics of the largest twenty cities are now majority Black, Brown, and Asian. In New York City, three-fifths of those residing in the city are foreign born with the majority not being able to vote. This is true in or own backyard here in Pomona where the city is now close to 70% Latino – with many of them being immigrant. – And these immigrants do contribute much to the economy — $70 billion per year according to the Urban Institute – and they do pay taxes. This means that the places where immigrants live are highly overrepresented, yet immigrants are structurally excluded.
In the last ten years – I have been part of various projects — as a Civic Scholar with Campus Compact, — and more recently as part of an AACU National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement — where the idea has been advanced of developing the classroom as part of the civic realm, as part of the reality of global interdependence, that encourages a critical analysis of the challenges that we are facing politically, socially, and economically. There is no contradiction here and the new partners can include, not only unions, but the entrepreneurial communities – many who have stated the qualities of what abilities they want in new employees: effective listening and oral communication skills; creative thinking and problems solving skills; the ability to work with diverse populations; the ability to work ethically, collectively and collaboratively in the decision-making processes; the ability to cross borders in knowing other cultures; and the ability in “thinking on the level of the future” to provide new innovative solutions to systemic problems. These issues are in our backyard. The recent influx of children and families from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador brings to light issues of violence, poverty, drug cartels, and the federal government’s policies on whether they should be treated as refugees or not. These are prime issues for our students, faculty, and community engagement centers to get involved with. The potential is there not only for learning about these communities – and not just reading about policy change theories in the classroom – but to leave room for the actual practice of organizing, empowering, and using research to create new models of social change.
The expansion of this trend with sustainable resources is important for the creation of new knowledge and for the creation of a new future – in connecting the classroom and the community – between the local and the global – not on a short-term basis but long-term – where the campus and faculty make long-term commitments to specific sites, specific communities and specific issues that cross borders in understanding and helping communities to get at the root of problems.
I have the fullest of confidence of Campus Compact with its track record and what it has already achieved – and I am confident that it will continue to strengthen community partnerships and continue creating spaces that are examples of a more equitable and just society – where civic engagement is a tool for the recruitment and retention of underrepresented students – and where it serves as a pipeline for students from k-12 – that can lead to positioning but without loss of principles and values – the principles and values of creating a democracy that is participatory and ensures the full voice of our communities. Campus Compact already has the roots in our universities and colleges – and is positioned not only to advance community engagement – but also create to create the types of models of the kind of world we want to live in – with policies that have the interests of the highest quality of life for our communities.
It is impressive that Campus Compact has survived 25 years within the tidal waves of those who want to reduce higher education to simply career training – and it is more important then ever to build on the achievements to ensure that we, locally and globally, continue in a path that ensures economic development alongside ensuring the fullest potential of advancing the highest levels of democracy in our voice, in our thoughts, and in our practices. As part of how far we have moved along this path, it is imperative that we continue be in the forefront of creating campuses that are models of a long-term commitment to sustain community engagement for positive systemic and structural social change – as a part of the culture of the campus throughout the various disciplines. This takes the development of a long-term strategy and perspective that all of you are here to help develop – a commitment that sees our work in the context of improving democratic spaces of diversity – and that allows for the full participation of our students and our communities together in finding solutions to the problems of inequity that are prevalent on both our campuses and our communities.
“Aqui Estamos! Cultivando Nuestra Esperanza! We Are Here! Cultivating our Hope!,”
Presentation Made by Jose Zapata Calderon at the Cal Poly University, Pomona 20th RAZA graduation with the theme, “Aqui Estamos! Cultivando Nuestra Esperanza! We Are Here! Cultivating our Hope!,” on Saturday, May 31, 2014 with over 1400 in attendance.Let me start by thanking Lorena Marquez, the Cesar Chavez Center, the faculty, the students, and all those who have given me the honor of addressing you today.
Well here we are cultivating our hope – cultivating our future. We have come a long way – look around you – we have come a long way. That is why we sing De Colores – because once in awhile, through the dark clouds, there are rainbows. It was not that long ago – that there were only a few of us at these graduations. When I started at the University of Colorado back in 1968, there were only a handful of us. We had to take over a building to get more of us there. And they still did not believe us. Joe Coors, the owner of Coors Beer Company, made headlines by proclaiming that if we were not smart enough – why should there be affirmative action programs to admit us. We went throughout the state and found over eighty who were qualified – and he still insisted on that position. We boycotted Coors beer at that time – and today I do not drink Coors beer. But, today, there has been a change – and we have to thank all the previous generations who sacrificed to make today a reality. We have to thank our mothers, our fathers, our grandfathers, our grandmothers – our families – Let’s stand up and applaud them – for – if it was not for them and the sacrifices of our previous generations – we know that we would not be here today – Que vivan nuestros padres, nuestras madres, nuestros abuelitos, abuelitas – que vivan nuestras familias
As you know, I am a Doctor – like the other faculty members here. We often get introduced as Doctors in our barrios and it is no surprise how many of our people don’t know what a Doctor is. It is no surprise because there are so few of us. While we have turned hope into action by now being the largest minority group on college campuses with two million Latino and Latina students or 19% of the college population, we still only obtain slightly less than the 3% of the PhD’s and 9% of the B. A.’s. Here is where we still have to cultivate our future. There are only a small percentage of us who have reached the level of obtaining a doctorate. In some of our barrios, there is still a lack of understanding of what a doctorate means. When my mother was still alive and I was working on my doctorate – when I returned to my barrio – and someone burned themselves badly, I was called on to help provide a solution. I had to explain that I was not that type of doctor. A month later, I remember my mother talking to me on the phone and explaining that there was a chisme in the barrio that “Jose is studying to be a doctor, pero no sabe nada.“
The reality is that — we come from a legacy of brilliant scientists. Yes we do. Born with the highest levels of capacity – but historically put down by more dominant forces who squandered our resources and used their means of communication to make our generations believe that they were lesser than they were – in conditions that an economic structure created to use our labor for large profits which kept us at the lowest levels of wages possible – and with an ideology that pushed to make us believe that our conditions were of our own making. Yes – this was so – hiding the conquest of our land, our labor power – and turning our collective indigenous practice of production into individualized manifest destinies of profit for a few at the expense of the many.
Einstein once said that every child is born a genius – but we all know now how easily this capacity can be taken away before and after birth. Think of the mother working in the fields in her 8th month of pregnancy – and pesticides swarming all around her – affecting whether that child is going to be born with hands, with legs, with the brilliant mind of our generations. Think of the child who is born without access to good nutrition, good health care – and immigrant parents who work double shifts without the time needed to fully care for the needs of that child. Think of the young woman who is scorned in school for not being able to speak English – scorned for having an accent – the young woman who is paid less because of her skin color, because of her gender – and the young man and young woman bullied because of their sexual orientation.
The capacity for genius – our esperanza – diminished by the creation of borders – where our land was taken, where our labor – came to be appreciated only to the extent of its capacity to grease the wheels of profit. Our capacities diminished by segregated schools and by generations forced from their land to serve as field workers, domestic workers, janitors, miners, housekeepers, dining hall workers.
Diminished by an educational system that left out the contributions of such leaders as Jessica Govea – who was a national leader in the grape boycott and in exposing the ills of pesticide poisoning – a poisoning that eventually led to her early death at the young age of 58. She labored under the mist of pesticides sprayed by insensitive agricultural interests – who eventually were forced to change their practices when thousands stood up to them and yelled “Huelga” – a cultivation of hope — for the world to hear.
A cultivation of hope to turn around a silenced voice – at every turn – rising up as early as the 1930’s – with the Chicana and Chicano Movement in the late 60’s and 70’s – to the present – with our young people, many of you hear today – now taking the lead and raising your voices – “Ya Basta” – “I am Undocumented and Unafraid” – resulting in many victories for our communities. It was only a few years ago – in 2006 when a million of us marched in Los Angeles in 2006 against the Sensenbrenner bill – for immigrant rights – and began a historic wave of demonstrations – and get out the vote drives that have now turned California from a state that was anti-immigrant – to one who is now the model nationally for immigrant rights. It was not that long ago that the voters supported Proposition 187, Prop 209, and English Only policies in California. Today, the majority of voters support legalization. Brothers and Sisters, because of many of you here today – you have been part of cultivating – California as an exemplary state in supporting our immigrant brothers and sisters – and in cultivating new horizons for all our communities.
Because of your organizing efforts – in this state – we have challenged the federal government’s immigration enforcement policies and have passed legislation supporting: cities opting out of e-verify, implementation of the Trust Act to limit the practice of local police in detaining individuals because of their immigration status, the right of undocumented students to attend college with financial aid, the right of anyone stopped at a checkpoint to call a friend or relative with a license to pick up their car, and the passing of AB 60 that will allow our immigrant brothers and sisters to obtain a driver’s license. We celebrate that this last Wednesday, the State Senate passed a bill allowing our undocumented brothers and sisters to obtain student loans from the state to attend California Universities. And — we continue to work today to pass SB 1005 – a bill that gives the right to health care regardless of immigration status – and to work for COPA – a proposed bill, AB 2014 that will give qualified undocumented immigrants who pay state income taxes to receive relief from federal enforcement.
We are the descendants of scientists who built great pyramids using the highest levels of mathematics and science to tell time – to place building structures in equal proportion to the sun and the stars, to survive movements of the earth and fault ruptures (common practices now adopted in building structures all over the world). We are the descendants of creators who worshipped the balance of nature and the sacredness of the universe (something that our scientists today warn us about with ozone depletion and climate change modifying our earth cycles and threatening our very existence).
It is important for all of us – regardless of what career we follow – to absorb the meaning of our capacities that we have to create – why that capacity was diminished – and how we have been able to cultivate that capacity back. We are celebrating part of cultivating that capacity back by your graduation today! Que vivan los estudiantes!
You are all leaders now — and our future lies in your hands – you are the future leaders. And as leaders – we are called by our communities to be problem solvers.
This was the strength of Cesar Chavez. I dare to say that he was an activist scientist – although he only went to the eighth grade – he was not afraid to experiment – to diagnose a problem, prescribe a solution, implement a plan, and learn from the lessons of applying theory to practice. Of course, he made mistakes – but that is what science is all about – going into frontier areas where no one has ever gone – and learning from trying something new. You know, I was moved by the union’s use of cooperative living in the early years – everyone living on $5 a week. Chavez saw this as part of making a commitment to principles and values based on truly giving of one’s life to change society. However, the practice became problematic when some of the organizers, doctors, lawyers – got married. So, something new had to be tried – the issue of how to sustain oneself – and sustain a movement – without the loss of values and principles based on interests of the community. The solution was found in creating radio stations, low income housing entrepreneurial initiatives, huelga stores – to help fund the organizers and the organizing efforts. There is a lesson here for all of us today. All of you graduates have obtained skills that have the capacity to place you in another economic realm. You are all facing the issues of how to now sustain yourselves – and I am sure that your parents are asking the same question; Ahora, que trabajo puede obtener mi hijo, mi hija? Another question is the same question that Chavez and the union were trying to grapple with – is it possible to sustain oneself and not lose the principles and values of serving community, building collectivity, — using ones’s abilities to create spaces of social justice and equality?
Let me say to you today – this is not only possible – but it is a necessity. And, as I have shared with many of you, in our everyday organizing efforts, when you ask the question “how is it possible to do all that you do” – I respond to you that it is of the essence, (especially now after graduating), to cultivate the keeping of your balance – to find time in creating your mission – to find time in taking care of your health – in taking time to strengthen and develop the mind. I am a runner and have found my role models in the Tarumaras of the Copper Canyon in Mexico who have mastered the art of conditioning the body to run hundreds of miles. Similarly, I have learned that there is no secret to conditioning the mind – and that all the diminishing practices of our educational system and our stratified society can be turned back – by holding our heads high, being both teachers and students in our everyday lives and absorbing all the knowledge possible to create new pathways for higher levels of learning and practice. There are too many counselors, too many books, too many commentators, too many false leaders that have us believing that we cannot cultivate. The reality is that our communities know a lot – but are diminished in the possibilities for positioning and taking back the legacies of creation that have been so much a part of our history.
We know that there is no secret to reaching this level and that it takes hard work, discipline, passion – and the support of each other to change the structural obstacles. Whether the optimal possibilities can come to be realities for you – for our brothers and sisters in the future – has a lot to do with the engagement of our communities in ensuring the resources that are needed to meet the needs of our children, parents, and families.
I want to urge all of you – to not stop now – to use whatever opportunity the past and the present have developed – to go as far as you can – in accumulating all the knowledge that you can – whether as a teacher, lawyer, engineer, manager, community organizer – and using that knowledge to build a new society – on the level of the future – in trying out new prescriptions of cultivation in how we structure our communities, our schools, our cities, our spaces of higher education. This is the real challenge – to not shirk our responsibilities of cultivation to the legacies of past generations – and take on the problems of our communities – This is the real meaning of what we are celebrating today.
We are geniuses – and we have to change the mentality of a society that begins to stratify one from the time one is born – according to the village that raises us – and the resources available to deter or advance the resources of potentiality.
There are two trends developing right now that I sense. One is about the future as it is emerging and one that wants to take us back to a time before the civil rights movement. On the one hand, there is a trend that has been seeking to build unity among this society’s diverse groups in building the types of alliances and partnerships that are necessary to meet the challenges of a global economy. This includes cultivating the resources that are necessary to meet the needs of our students- our families. The other trend is one that is seeking to place the burden of the country’s economic deficit problems on the backs of our young people and their families, our immigrants and poor people, our working people – through cutbacks at the bottom and not at the top. More than ever, we need the voices of our families – we need your voices – to ensure that such programs such as Medicaid – which provides health coverage for millions of our families — is not cut. We all know that such cuts would only result in an increase in the number of uninsured – and directly affect our families – many who are just trying to survive.
We need you to cultivate – to create spaces in our homes, programs, and with families that are examples of the kind of world that we want to live in.
But, in addition to cultivating and creating those spaces- it is essential to get involved in building new collaborations to ensure that the priorities of this country are not just about profit for a few – but are about sustaining and ensuring the resources necessary for the many. Let us all cultivate together — then — so that our families – so that our future generations — have the type of high quality education, nutrition, healthcare, and caring that they deserve.
More than ever, there is a need to build leadership and empower nuestras communidades – para cultivar los mas optimos resultados de vida para nuestras generaciones del futuro – para nuestras familias. Y que tambien puede resultar en espacios de democracia en donde hay espacios para levantar nuestras voces en ser lideres – para asegurar que las prioridades de esta socieded se establecen en nuestros futuros lideres – en nuestros estudiantes – en nuestras familias. Si se Puede!
Monterey Park in the ‘80’s and 90’s: Storefront Signage and the English-Only Movement
![IMG_0767[1]](https://josezcalderon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/IMG_07671-300x224.jpg)
Presentation below by Jose Zapata Calderon as part of a panel, “Monterey Park in the ‘80’s and 90’s: Storefront Signage and the English-Only Movement” on November 14, 2013 (with USC Professor Leland Saito and L. A. Times Reporter Frank Shyong) sponsored by the Chinese American Museum. The panel presentation comes at a time when the Monterey Park city council is once again discussing the requirement of businesses to have signs in “Modern Latin” letters (A through Z) and “Hindu Arabic” numbers (0 through 9). This, although the city’s fire chief told CBS that the department has no problem identifying the buildings through their GPS system. While some city officials and others argue that these requirements would “improve police and fire response times, promoting business and improving public safety” – other residents argue that the requirements are simply another means of targeting the growing Asian Pacific population (which is now 70% of the community) and an attack on the appreciation and historical contributions of immigrants and their diverse cultures and languages.
SHORT HISTORY OF ENGLISH ONLY IN MONTEREY PARK AND THE COALITIONS THAT DEFEATED IT
Monterey Park has exemplified the kinds of economic, demographic, and political changes that have been taking place throughout Southern California. In 1960, Monterey Park’s population was 85 percent Anglo (non-Latino white), 12 percent Latino, and 3 percent Asian. In the 1970’s, however, there were a number of changes which deeply affected the demographics. Briefly, these included the emergence of the Pacific Rim as an interrelated economy; a significant increase in the second and third generation Mexican-origin population; and, (together with the established Nisei – second generation Japanese Americans) an increase in Chinese immigration from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Southeast Asia. By the 1986 Special Test Census, the Asian Pacific population had increased by 70.6 percent to become a 51 percent majority, Latinos 30.5 percent, and African Americans 1.9 percent.
These changes, on the one hand, created an internationally-diverse community but, on the other resulted in conflicts between the varied groups over the issues of land use, condominiums, high-rise apartments, and traffic.
Related to these issues of growth and development, conflict developed over the questions of language and immigration.
In 1985, Monterey Park received a national award for its cross-cultural programs. At the same time, a “slow-growth” coalition emerged, the Resident’s Association of Monterey Park (RAMP).
These developments occurred after two Latino city councilmen and one Chinese councilwoman were voted out of office. The new council majority, with the leadership of Barry, Hatch, an outspoken advocate for restrictions on language and immigration, enacted an ordinance (9004) requiring signs to include an English-language description of a firm’s business. Hence, in 1986, Monterey Park became the second California city (after Fillmore) to pass an ordinance declaring English its official language. The measure also denounced the concept of sanctuary and encouraged local police to cooperate with the U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in apprehending undocumented immigrants.
Barry Hatch went as far as to blame immigrants for a long list of ills including crime, disease, and the use of government services that “might otherwise go to citizens.” These actions, together with an English Only movement throughout the state which attacked bilingualism, deepened the divisions. In response, the Official English law was immediately challenged by a multi-ethnic group of residents, the Coalition for Harmony in Monterey Park (CHAMP), which collected five thousand signatures on a petition to rescind the ordinance. Seeing this broad support, one council member of the three who had supported Official English changed his vote, and the measure was rescinded. The coalition, in addition to including Latino, Asian Pacific, and Anglo residents, also included various growth-oriented developer interests. After the Official English measure was defeated, these individuals formed their own coalition, Americans for A Better Cityhood (ABC) that sought to take the CHAMP coalition in the direction of fighting the “racism” of the leaders of the Official English and slow-growth movements. The CHAMP coalition, rejecting the rampant growth-oriented leaning of the ABC coalition stood back from the recall. The ABC coalition, mobilizing its considerable financial resources, collected enough signatures to hold a special election to recall the two councilmembers, Barry Hatch and Pat Reichenberger, who had strongly supported the Official English legislation. However, in the April 1987, the Monterey Park voters rejected the recall by 62 percent – which appeared to be a victory for the English Only advocates. Part of the reasons for this outcome was that the ABC coalition focused on issues of race and hired bilingual people to go door-to-door focused on those issues (while hiding their pro-growth interests). At the same time, the CHAMP coalition stood back from the recall and continued organizing in preparation for the next election.
In the April 12, 1988 election, both the trends of no-growth and English Only were defeated with the election of a candidate who called for an “inclusivity” of the voice of the residents in advancing “planned development” and an appreciation for the many languages and cultures that were contributing to the economic and social sustainability of the city. This candidate, Judy Chu, brought together a base of majority vote from all the ethnic groups represented in the city – including some of the members of the original Resident’s Association of Monterey Park (RAMP coalition) who proclaimed that their interests were economic — in stopping rampant growth – and not in support of any anti-immigrant measures. An exit poll, carried out by the Southwest Voter Research Institute and the Asian Pacific American Voter Registration Project, showed that the majority of voters went beyond supporting a candidate on the basis of ethnicity to supporting a candidate who was Chinese but represented some of the larger common interests of planned development and ethnic unity.
In 1988, Councilman Hatch tried to revive his campaign on the language issue – and introduced an ordinance requiring two-thirds English on all business signs, led a move to fire the city’s independent and progressive library board, and used his office to complain about the increasing number of Chinese books in the library. None of these campaigns were successful. The city’s Planning Commission and Design and Review Board recommended no action on signs, and in the end a compromise ordinance was passed, requiring only slightly more English signage. (Elsewhere in the San Gabriel Valley, Asian Pacific American business owners won a federal court suit against a Pomona city ordinance requiring at least 50 percent English on their signs; the mandate violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments right to free speech and equal protection according to Judge Robert M. Takagusi – (July 14, 1989). Further, in the April, 1990 election, Barry Hatch was defeated in every precinct in the city, receiving the lowest vote among six candidates.
This segment of history in Monterey Park shows how class and ethnic issues can intersect in the struggles over how a demographically changing community can develop. No-growth movements laid the basis for a united struggle against rampant unmanaged development. Some individuals, such as Barry Hatch, went further to largely blame the Chinese immigrants – and brought on the added dimension of racism which both divided and united old and new residents. Ultimately, an emerging trend which advocated managed development and appreciation for the contributions of the newcomers – became the primary trend.
Hidden in the debate over the issue of growth — was the English Only movement who – still today — proposes that “only English” should be used in our institutions – on our signs — and has been persistent in organizing efforts to eliminate bilingual education and advancing a list of initiatives that it says are meant to combat a “movement to turn language minorities into permanent power blocs.”
I was one of the leaders in the CHAMP coalition and what we argued to defeat the English Only ordinance back in 1987 still holds today. Often hidden in the debate over the use of other languages, is the deteriorating condition of education, literacy, and preparation. Rather than frontally assaulting this national dilemma, energy has been diverted toward seeking someone to blame. In the debate over English Only and the use of no other language other than English (in our classrooms or on our businesses), many taxpayers have been led to believe that the issue is about those who support immigrants and more funding for language programs, and those who don’t. The real issue is how we can go about promoting the appreciation of and respect for the diverse cultures and languages which comprise the mosaic of our society — and rather than excluding immigrants — bringing them into the economic and political mainstream. The reality is that our society, as was promoted by Judy Chu in her city council election back in 1988, has been enriched by the contributions of immigrants through their revitalizing industries, hard work, cultures, taxes and consumerism.
We can best ensure the potentiality of our communities through supporting language rights: the right to the use of different languages, multi-lingualism and multiculturalism as part of advancing a need that even the business sector is saying is needed to survive in a rapidly integrated global economy.
Below is a PDF of an article Jose wrote that was published in the book Transforming the Ivory Tower by Brett C. Stockdill and Mary Danico. Click the link to see it’s contents in the Google PDF reader. – Luci
One Activist Intellecutal’s Experience in Surviving and Transforming the Academy
Affirmative Action Must Remain Part of College Admissions Policies
Jose Zapata Calderon
Posted: 06/28/2013 08:27:12 PM PDT
Updated: 06/28/2013 09:35:17 PM PDT
The recent affirmative action case before the Supreme Court is among many, in recent years, that have sought to wipe out any use of race in college admissions.
These important cases are emerging at a time when diverse groups are being pitted against each other over diminishing resources and where some white students, not sure about having a job in the future, are claiming that there is “reverse” discrimination in the admissions policies of numerous colleges.
The cases are also coming when there is increasing competition for limited local and federal education funds and when racial discrimination is being written off as though it didn’t exist anymore.
Memory is short, and some critics have forgotten how segregation divided this country not too long ago.
Today, there are those who argue that affirmative action has resulted in the development of a growing middle class among underrepresented minorities. They also argue that such policies don’t serve the needs of those who are stuck at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.
What they fail to point out is how affirmative action has helped in opening the doors to social mobility for some of these same individuals now in the “middle class.”
Critics also argue that we need “class-based” solutions such as full employment, national health care and quality education that can pull everyone up simultaneously. What they fail to point out is how people
of color, even if they reach middle-class status, confront unequal resources and a glass ceiling that prevents them from moving into managerial positions.
Critics are hiding behind the argument that we need to strive for a “color blind” society, arguing that affirmative action only serves to divide working people by allowing one group to benefit at the expense of another. This logic leaves out that specific groups, because of racism and sexism, have been historically excluded or left at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. It leaves out the historical existence and use of special preferences for those who are more privileged, such as the children of large donors or alumni.
Affirmative action has not only resulted in diversifying our campuses with more women and students of color, it has been part of a movement to diversify the curriculum.
Affirmative action has helped to pave the way for underrepresented groups to attend college, to graduate and to write the histories of individuals who have been excluded or left out.
Affirmative action has been part of including these voices, to explain why one group got stratified at one level as compared to another and to interpret why some groups were institutionalized at the lowest levels of the society.
There would be no need for affirmative action if every individual who wanted to attend college were granted that right.
In the meantime, we need to support efforts that consider race, ethnicity, gender and economic status in admissions policies. Real unity among all those concerned will be brought about as we direct our energies to the policy-making arena and promote the idea that there is no contradiction in preserving affirmative action alongside “class-based” solutions.
Jose Zapata Calderon is president of the Latino and Latina Roundtable of the San Gabriel and Pomona Valley, and emeritus professor of sociology and Chicano studies at Pitzer College in Claremont. Jose_Calderon@pitzer.edu josezcalderon.com
We need to support efforts that consider race, ethnicity, gender and economic status.
Build Unity For A Just Immigrant Rights Policy
Jose Zapata Calderon
Professor in Sociology and Chicano Studies
Pitzer College
As an immigrant, who was brought to this country by my parents who were farm workers all their lives, the immigrant rights conversation taking place has a special meaning that we see in the eyes of the dreamers and all those who have faced the wrath of a broken immigration system: it is about making way for a new space of equity so that our future generations do not have to go through what our parents and family members – suffered through in sacrificing their lives so that we might survive.
We know that the recent legislative proposal around immigration did not come out of the blue sky but are related to the changing demographics and the growing political power in our communities. In both the 2008 and the 2012 elections – we saw the rise of multi-racial coalitions that clearly were the foundations of Obama’s victories. African Americans, Latinos and Asian Pacific Americans backed Obama by huge margins. Nationally, in the last election, nonwhite voters made up 28% of all voters, up from 26% in 2008. Obama won 80% of these voters, the same as four years ago. Labor was part of this coalition – and came out strongly for Obama.
It was not that long ago that many labor unions were anti-immigrant. Now, it has been immigrant workers that have revitalized the labor movement. Alongside — the Dreamers have played a major role in moving policy at a federal level – like no other organization has been able to do in recent years. The Dreamers, before the 2012 elections, showed the capacities for exerting this political power by presenting 11,000 signatures, courageously leading protests in the streets, and holding a series of sit-ins inside of Obama campaign offices across the country.
It was this pressure, and the work of many community-based legal teams, that led to Obama’s executive order granting “deferred action status” and implementing a Deferred Action Policy.
The best strategy that these combined forces have been able to advance has been one that has organized at the local, state, and national levels.
On the local level, in the city of Pomona, I have been part of coalitions that have included immigrant, labor (UFCW), student, faith-based, and community-based organizations. The Pomona Habla coalition, on a local level, is an example of a coalition that has taken a local issue about immigrant rights and connected it to policy changes statewide (while building support to change immigration policies nationally). The Pomona Habla coalition developed when the police began to openly locate checkpoints in front of schools, businesses, and in neighborhoods that primarily affected Latino families and immigrant workers. The tensions in the city reached an all-time high when the police held a four-way checkpoint, with the involvement of police from forty cities, resulting in the stopping of 4,027 vehicles, the impoundment of 152, and the issuing of 172 tickets. In response, the coalition led a demonstration of more than a thousand people and stationed students and community members at every checkpoint. The research and actions resulted in the city council agreeing to stop “4-way checkpoints, to only allow the conducting of checkpoints in residential areas, and to develop an ad hoc committee to review citizen complaints and recommendations. The coalition became a model for the passage of ordinances in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Baldwin Park allowing an unlicensed driver the opportunity to allow another licensed driver to take custody of the vehicle. These statewide efforts led to the introduction of a bill by Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, restricting local police from impounding cars at traffic checkpoint simply because a driver is unlicensed.
More recently, a similar coalition of labor, students, faculty, faith-based, and community-based supporters helped turn around last year’s firing of 17 undocumented immigrant dining hall workers by college administrators– and joined in a huge victory by dining hall workers voting for a union. These were all examples of bringing together the immigrant, labor, student, and community constituents into one coalition.
On a state level, it is no coincidence that California is now an exemplary state in its support of undocumented immigrants. It was not that long ago that the voters supported Proposition 187, Prop 209, and English Only policies in California. Today, the majority of voters support legalization. Along the way, we have had marches such as the 2006 march, in which one million people marched against the Sensenbrenner bill – a bill that was ultimately defeated in the Senate in 2006. We have had legislation supporting: cities opting out of e-verify, the right of undocumented students to attend college with financial aid, the right of anyone stopped at a DUI checkpoint to call a friend or relative with a license to pick up their car, and now a bill, AB 60 that would give a California driver’s license to any person who shows payment of taxes, regardless of their immigration status.
It is the character of the work of these grass-roots coalitions in both organizing and turning out the vote on a state, local, and national level that have been the foundation for bringing to the forefront a national dialogue that is now highlighting the contributions of undocumented immigrants – and how much their labor is needed by the service, business, and agricultural establishments.
And it is only these coalitions and their efforts that can ensure legislation that is truly just – and that rewards, not criminalizes our 12 million immigrant brothers and sisters for their contributions – contributions that amount to hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy each year through their labor, businesses, taxes, and purchasing power. We know that without the labor or our immigrant brothers and sisters, many industries in California and this country would be in economic distress – and these industries are literally demanding the need for these workers – but want them, as in the past, to continue as cheap labor – with such a long way to citizenship – that there seems to be no end to the line where they want to send them to. Our undocumented brothers and sisters have earned the right to keep their families together and to receive back the benefits that they have already contributed to this economy and to economies abroad.
It is important for our coalition efforts, in uniting all that can be united, that we not get sidetracked, divided, or coopted by the proposals that are now being turned into policy at the federal level.
On one level, we are seeing the enactment of proposals designed to maintain a cheap labor force that is kept waiting. Waiting – without being allowed any public benefits, including health care. Waiting – only allowing those who have been in the U. S. since before Dec. 31, 2011, with no criminal record, to apply. Waiting – and placed in a probationary legal status – only if one is able to pay what is being labeled as a “penalty” of $500, an additional application fee, and back taxes. Waiting – and if one is able to make it through the probationary period of six years – have the “probationary status” renewed by paying another $500 penalty. Waiting for ten years – and then – only if the border is 90% secure – and if one is able to come up with $1,000 – Only then, will one be able to apply for a Green Card of permanent legal residency. Waiting – this is not Citizenship – citizenship would take another three years – and possibly longer — depending on a determination by those in power – whether border security targets have been met.
In order to meet these security targets – what is being proposed is more of the enforcement policies that have resulted in record level deportations that have risen to an annual average of nearly 400,0001 since 2009.
Instead of supporting $3 billion for surveillance technology, including unmanned drones and military-grade radar and $1.5 billion toward the construction of a double-layer fence – our coalitions need to continue to call on President Obama — to listen to the mandate of our communities — to use his executive power to immediately stop the deportations of most undocumented, who are not hard-core criminals, but whose only crimes are to work to feed their families here and abroad!
This focus on enforcement and against a speedy process goes against the many studies that show how much undocumented immigrants would contribute to the economy – stimulate the economy if they were allowed legalization as quickly as possible. According to the American Progress organization – a speedier legalization would result in an additional $1.4 trillion to the Gross National Product between 2013 and 2022. Resident workers would benefit with an additional $791 billion in personal income – and the economy would create an average of an additional 203,000 jobs per year. Within five years of their legalization, undocumented would be earning 25% more than they are earning resulting in an additional tax revenue of $184 billion — $116 billion to the federal government and $68 billion to state and local government. Hence, the sooner legalization can happen – the more the significant gains for all working people – and the greater the gains for the U. S. economy.
In the new proposals being discussed in the Senate, while we can support the policies of an expedited citizenship path for those immigrants who were brought to this country as children (regardless of their age) and agricultural workers, – we must work for a speedier process that results in the immediate legalization of the 4.2 million who have been waiting in line – some up to 20 years. – And fight for a speedier process for the legalization of the 12 million. This means the allocation of funds for processing – and not for enforcement – take the millions being proposed for more fence and more border officers – and use it for a more efficient means of doing away with the backlog – and doing away with anyone having to move to the back of the line and wait 13 years, 40 years, and possibly an endless period of time. It means supporting a policy that ensures immigration rights for same-sex couples – part of keeping families united – ensuring the right of LGBTQ partners here to petition for their immigrant partners to be able to join them in the U. S..
Our coalitions must stay united and not give in to those politicians and organizations which claim that any kind of legalization will lead to loss of jobs for residents. Post-Amnesty studies indicate that while undocumented workers in certain industries do bring downward pressure on wages, the findings show that it is not the immigrant that is to blame. The way to eliminate this downward pressure is by giving undocumented workers labor protection. As the exploitation of wages is reduced and working conditions improved, more equality is created between immigrant workers and resident workers. Again the UCLA research by Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda shows that the legalization of our 12 million undocumented workers would raise wages, increase consumption, create new jobs, generate new tax revenue, and add about $1.5 trillion to the U. S. gross domestic product over the next ten years. Furthermore, it would raise the wage floor for native-born workers and naturalized immigrants alike.”
Our coalitions have to be careful of the proposals by conservative politicians, including Marco Rubio, who propose a temporary worker program, like the bracero program, that is nothing more than a legal means of exploiting workers — paying them low wages with few benefits — shipping them back before they can be organized — and exploiting their cheap labor as part of breaking unions both here and abroad.
Finally, while our work is focused on local, state, and national strategies – our coalitions must keep an eye to cross-border global issues. It is important to understand that immigration patterns will not significantly change because of domestic immigration policies alone. Instead, immigrant workers will remain in — or return to their homeland when the economy in these countries improves. If the U. S. federal government is really interested in doing something about immigration long-term, it must work with other national governments to strengthen the sending countries’ economies. In particular, there is no reason why the U.S. cannot develop bilateral job-creating approaches in key immigrant-sending areas. In the case of Mexico, it is in the roughly 5% of Mexican municipios (counties) that contribute the largest share of immigrants to the U. S. However, the U. S. and Mexican governments have not shown any serious interest in this developmental approach. This is certainly a viable alternative to the punishing enforcement policies being proposed.
Overall, we have to keep our communities united – build exemplary coalitions — such as those that we have seen in recent years that have strengthened the labor and immigrant rights movements – that have seen no contradiction between taking up local issues (such as checkpoints and organizing against racial profiling programs such as Secure Communities), fighting on a state level for policies such as driver’s licenses for undocumented, “fighting together” on a a national level against enforcement policies that only serve to racially profile our communities – and “fighting together for” policies that will immediately lead to permanent residency and citizenship – with no expansion of temporary guest worker (bracero) programs and with labor law protections.
Latin@s and Social Movements in the Obama Years
Jose Zapata Calderon
Professor in Sociology and Chicano Studies
Pitzer College
Although the social movement that crossed race, class, sexuality and gender lines before 2008 was exemplary, there is now another type of social movement that has emerged. This movement, led by conservative right wing groups, has been stirring racial divisions by using the economic crisis to scapegoat immigrants. At the same time, the promises of the Obama administration have not been kept. Instead, under this administration’s immigration policies close to 387,000 deportations have occurred nationally, the implementation of a Secure Communities program has led to arbitrary arrests for minor offenses and violated the due process rights of both citizens and non-citizens, and an existing program of employee immigration-status verification has led to as many as 19,000 people that have been mistakenly identified as being deportable. The ingredients of a social movement are still visible but the strategies have shifted to local organizing efforts that, in California, have resulted in legislation supporting: cities opting out of e-verify, the right of AB-540 students to attend college with financial aid, the right of people without a driver’s license to stop the impounding of their cars, and the establishment of a pilot program designed to protect undocumented workers who pay state income taxes. This paper focuses on these various trends and the prospects for future systemic change.
The significance of the election of Barack Obama in 2008 was in the rising of a social movement of Latinos and broad-based coalitions that advanced a vision for changing the direction of the country and whose interests were served.
The victory by Barack Obama in 2008 represented a transformative social movement that built multi-racial alliances and coalitions, transcended the mythical Black and Brown divide, galvanized new voters, and united hundreds of thousands around a “social change” agenda of issues. In moving large numbers of people around the ideas of equity and full participation in the life and direction of U. S. society, this social movement had the particularity of bringing diverse communities of people together in seeking new answers to their issues and the structural systemic problems being faced by the entire country.
It fit into the ingredients of a social movement where large numbers of ordinary people, disillusioned by the failings of the George Bush administration, came together around “collective and joint actions” with change-oriented goals to assert their rights and to demand a drastic change in the status quo (Snow, Sule, and Kriesi, 2004: 1-13).” The particularity of this activity was that it was manifested in the electoral arena through the use of internet technologies, house meetings, and training of organizers. It had the characteristics of “deep pluralism,” as presented by Phil Thomson in his book Double Trouble, where large numbers of multi-racial alliances emerge in search of a “deeper democracy” to overcome differences, “to achieve power in competitive struggles with other groups,” and to strive “for a politics of common (cross-racial) good (Thompson, 2006: 22-27).”
The author of this paper was part of this social movement. As an academic and community organizer, I was part of a coalition of Latino community leaders and organizations who, very early on in the primary election, developed Viva Obama clubs throughout California (Wall, 1/17/2008). In the primary election, key pro-immigrant leaders in the Latino community were divided in where they would place their vote. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and United Farm Worker’s co-founder Dolores Huerta supported Hillary Clinton while Angelica Salas from the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) and Maria Elena Durazo, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor supported Barack Obama. I was part of a coalition of Latino and African American leaders who came together in the Inland Empire region of Southern California and organized widely publicized press conferences, voter registration campaigns, educational community forums, and get-out-the vote efforts in support of Barack Obama (Wall, 2/1/2008). Some of our supporters and organizers traveled to the states of Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado to get out the vote.
What drove the unity of our coalition, as similar to other alliances throughout the country was Obama’s history in identifying with the causes of oppressed communities and his campaign promises to support immigrant rights, to improve the quality of education, health care, and employment, and to rebuild the type of alliances and partnerships that would be necessary to meet the challenges of a global economy. We were united on the significance of the election as being about the election of a person of color on the one hand, and the possibilities for building a new social movement that would genuinely unite people from diverse backgrounds in advancing a public policy agenda on how the country should be run and whose interests it should serve.
OBAMA’S HISTORY WITH OPPRESSED COMMUNITIES
A number of us, who were part of the national coalition to elect Obama, came out of a history as community organizers. Hence, Obama’s stories in his two books and in his speeches throughout the country resonated with the trials and tribulations that many of us had faced or were facing.
In particular, his stories about moving from a student to a community organizer appealed to social movement organizers who often cited his memoir Dreams from My Father where Obama placed himself in the world of the organizer and the unorganized in seeking solutions to poverty, polluted water, and gang violence. These stories that were often also part of Obama’s speeches throughout the country, fit with the experiences of many who came out of the civil rights generation and many others involved in contemporary regional equity movements (Pastor, Benner, Matsuoka, 2009: 216-218).
It was the issue of “inequity,” for example, in our social system that Barack Obama began to question when he was pondering what to do after graduating from college. It was by placing himself in the image of the “other” through his readings, the image of the SNCC workers “convincing a family of sharecroppers to register to vote” or the images of everyday people organizing the Montgomery bus boycott that led to his commitment beyond the individual to listen to the perspectives of others (Obama, 2004: 134, 135). It was by placing himself in the world of the organizer and the unorganized that deepened his commitment that empowered him to empower others. In carrying out interviews in the poor communities of Chicago, he reflected “The more interviews I did, the more I began to hear recurring themes. The people I talked to had some fond memories of that self-contained world, but they also remembered the absence of heat and light and space to breathe – that, and the sight of their parents grinding out life in physical labor (Obama, 2004: 155).” As Obama listened to these stories, they reminded him of his family, their migration, their hardships, and the tenacity to build a better life.
When the community organizers he was working with got tired, he looked out the window and asked the organizers to look with him: “What do you suppose is going to happen to those boys out there?”… “You say you’re tired, the same way most folks out here are tired. So I’m just trying to figure out what’s going to happen to those boys. Who’s going to make sure they get a fair shot (Obama, 2004: 171, 172)?” In asking these questions and challenging those around him, he was asking the organizers to place themselves in those worlds. In the process, he took the time to listen to others and, in his book Dreams from My Father, provided examples of how he came to move “toward the center of people’s lives” in his community.
And it was this realization, I think, that finally allowed me to share more of myself with the people I was working with, to break out of the larger isolation that I had carried with me to Chicago. .. As time passed, I found that these stories, taken together, had helped me bind my world together, that they gave me the sense of place and purpose I’d been looking for. There was always a community there if you dug deep enough. There was poetry as well – a luminous world always present beneath the surface, a world that people might offer up as a gift to me, if I only remembered to ask (Obama, 2004: 190).”
It was no accident then that the strategy of “story-telling” and listening to the stories of others on a one-to-one basis became a cornerstone of the campaign. More than the successful use of new technologies, this strategy worked in recruiting thousands of new leaders through door-to-door contact in neighborhoods and training them in using their life histories, and those of the communities they worked with, as a basis to reach out to the voting public.
REACHING OUT
This outreach strategy gave rise to an advancement of hundreds of multi-racial collective efforts on a local, regional, and national level comprised of all ethnic/racial groups, hailing mostly from cities and suburbs, largely younger than 30, and among all income classes. With young voters comprising one-quarter of the 44 million eligible voters, the Obama campaign recruited thousands of volunteers between the ages of 18 and 29 (Dreier, 2008). The magnitude of this campaign was exemplified by the field operation in Florida that included 19,000 neighborhood teams led by 500 paid organizers (Stirland, 2008). Using the “organizing approach,” these organizers used personal narratives, a website, and weekend training programs to recruit and train one million volunteers (Burke, 2008). This multi-racial coalition that used the internet, cell phones, house meetings, and door-to-door eye contact with the voting public to find and train teams of community leaders was the foundation of the incredible voter registration and voter turn-out statistics in the primary and on Election Day.
Significantly, as part of this movement, there were two million more blacks, 2 million more Latinos, and 338,000 more Asian Pacific Americans that cast votes in 2008 than in the 2004 presidential election (Lopez and Taylor, 4/30/2009).
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LATINO VOTE
In the primary election, there was a question as to whether Obama could build the type of coalition that it would take to win. In terms of the Latino vote, Hillary Clinton got 63% of the Latino vote, including 67% of the vote in Arizona and California (William C. Velasquez Institute, 2/7/2008). Some journalists attributed this lack of Latino support for Obama in the primary to the Black/Brown divide and to the changing urban landscape where Latino immigrants were moving into inner-city neighborhoods and competing with African Americans for jobs, housing, services, and for positions in local governments. Similar to the research in the edited volume Neither Enemies Nor Friends: Latinos, Blacks, Afro-Latinos, others attributed the divide to prejudices shaped in Latin America where darker-skinned indigenous people are looked down upon by those with lighter skin and a Spanish heritage. Earl Hutchison, author of the “Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House” proposed before the election that “The tensions between blacks and Latinos and negative perceptions that have marred relations between these groups for so long unfortunately still resonate.” He shared his concern that “there will still be reluctance among many Latinos to vote for an African-American candidate…. When you’ve got competing ethnic groups at the bottom level, you’re going to have friction because of the jockeying just to preserve their niche (Reno, 2008).
Although Hillary Clinton was more well-known than Obama in the Latino community, Obama was able to increase the number of Latinos who voted for him by distinguishing himself from Clinton right before the primary in three key areas: “support of drivers’ licenses for undocumented immigrants, a promise to take up immigration reform in his first year in office, and his background as the son of an immigrant (his father was Kenyan) and a community organizer in Chicago (Lochhead, 1/28/08:A-1).” According to a poll and analysis by the William C. Velasquez Institute, “This shift in campaign strategy seemed to correlate with undecided voters choosing Obama as their candidate of choice in the last week of the primary campaign (William C. Velazquez Institute, 2008).
After the primary, the question was whether Obama would get the Hillary Clinton vote or whether it would be divided and alienated. Obama’s ability to retain an overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters was a key factor in his victory over McCain. Among Democratic voters who wanted Clinton to win the Democratic nomination, 82 percent supported Obama. The Latino vote sided with Obama and the Black/Brown division, that the media and conservative pundits had advanced as a given, never became a reality. At the same time, the coalition that had supported Clinton, made up of Latinos, union households, low income voters, and white women, was able to be united on Election Day. Obama won the Latino vote by 66% to 31%, union households by 58% to 40%, and the low income (below 50,000) voters by 60% to 38% (CNN, 2008).
With Latinos turning out to vote for Obama, they shattered the myth of a Black/Latino divide. Two thirds of Latinos voted for Obama. More voted Democratic than in any presidential election since 1996 (Lopez, 11/7/2008). Like voters nationwide, the majority of Latino voters said they had one concern above all others: the economy. This went along with the data that broke down foreclosures by race where Latinos were more than twice as likely as whites to get a high-cost loan, making them particularly vulnerable to foreclosures (Ruggeri, 11/6/2008).
While the Republicans tried to advance a strategy of using “morality” issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion, to influence the Latino vote in much the same way that Bush had used these issues in 2004, the use of these “wedge” issues was overshadowed by concerns over the economy, health care, education and immigration.
In contrast to McCain, the Obama campaign was able to motivate and galvanize a broad based coalition by presenting himself as a symbol of the concerns of a working public that was being affected by a deepening economic crisis. A CNN poll in September, 2008, for example, pointed out that McCain exhibited a gap in “connectedness,” and that the voting public by a 62-32 percentage margin, thought that Obama was “more in touch with the needs and problems” of working families (Silver, 2008). This connectedness was attributed to a number of key factors including his promises to cut taxes for ninety five percent of working families and his position to withdrawal troops from Iraq. Nevertheless, while his position on the war initially placed him ahead in his campaign against McCain, he benefited even more from voter concerns over the crisis in the economy. Although polls showed that half of all voters thought that the economy was in poor condition and were worried about how the economic crisis would hurt them financially, McCain made the serious mistake of minimizing the significance of the economic crisis. While 60% of the voting public said that the economy was the most important problem that the new president would have to focus on, McCain focused on the issue of terrorism, a concern that only 9 percent of the voters saw as their major concern (Vaughn, 2008). This allowed for Obama to further his argument that the election of McCain would only be a continuance of the policies of the Bush administration. Although McCain tried, he could not separate himself from the negative feelings that the voting public had toward Bush. About half of all voters came to believe that McCain would continue Bush’s policies and 75 percent said that the country was on the wrong track.
For those of us organizing in Latino communities, the election victory of Barack Obama proved what many of us had been saying all along: that the marches that many of us had helped lead against the criminalization of immigrants in 2006, and in support for the legalization of the 12 million immigrants in this country, would eventually turn into voting power. Indeed, the theme of the massive marches in 2006, “Today We March – Tomorrow We Vote,” resulted in the galvanizing of immigrants and resulted in their application for citizenship in record numbers. As part of this movement, after 2006, numerous community-based church and community organizations held citizenship and naturalization clinics throughout the country. Hence, the number of individuals naturalized in the U. S. went from 660,477 in 2007 to 1,046,539 in 2008. The Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics not only attributed this increase to organized responses to proposed fee application increases but, most importantly, “to special efforts to encourage eligible applicants to apply for U. S. citizenship (Lee and Rytina, 2008).” Not only did this movement advance citizenship drives, but also spurred voter registration efforts that resulted in over 500,000 new citizen voters. The We Are America Alliance, alone, registered over 83,000 new voters in Florida, 35,000 in Pennsylvania, 52,000 in Nevada, and nearly 40,000 in New Mexico. The large number of newly registered voters bypassed the record 64% of eligible voters which last turned out in the 1960 election.
While there was a tendency to say that the immigration issue was placed in the back-burner in the election results, it was on the minds of our Latino communities and played a role in the galvanizing of the Latino vote. In an NDN/Bendixen poll right before the election that asked Latinos “How important is the immigration issue to you and your family?” Between 74% and 86% of Latinos in the states of Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada responded that it was very important (America’s Voice, 2008). Some Latino voters, who had supported Bush in the last presidential election, were now polled as being disaffected by the Republican stance on immigration. Since 2006, Republicans in Congress had consistently supported immigration bills, such as the Sensenbrenner bill, that criminalized all undocumented immigrants and anyone who would support them. It was no accident that the Obama people understood the impact of such a divisive policy and flooded Latino districts with Spanish-language ads and campaign literature.
OBSTACLES IN CONTINUING THE SOCIAL MOVEMENT
After the election, the ingredients of a social movement that helped to elect Barack Obama has gone by the wayside. While the Obama administration has been forced to focus on the crisis state of the economy, this has not been the only factor that has thwarted some of its initiatives. Consequently, a number of the key policy commitments made before the election are facing legislative hurdles in an environment where the corporate lobbies, defense contractors, drug companies, and conservative special interest groups have staked their ground.
On the economy, Obama’s mortgage payment plan promised to help millions of homeowners by creating incentives for lenders to renegotiate the terms of subprime loans. It also promised to help millions of households by paying off their mortgages and by lifting restrictions on financing. Before the election, Obama also promised a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures by banks and companies that receive any kind of government aid. However, while the stimulus package helped various bank and mortgage lenders to survive, there have been no solid guarantees to renegotiate loans or to help anyone who had already lost their home. Meanwhile, some of the companies who were bailed out a year ago, were given bonuses to their executives. Morgan Stanley, for example set aside $3.9 billion for this purpose while Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. reported record profits of $3.4 billion in the second quarter and bonuses “that would yield a record-setting average payout of $770,000 per employee if sustained the rest of the year (Hamilton, 2009: B-1, B2). The Obama Administration’s calls to stop the abuse of overseas tax loopholes, to develop a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and to give more power to the government to regulate Wall Street have been blocked by the banking industry, the Financial Services Roundtable, and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce (Pazzanghera, 2009: B1, B3; Pazzanghera, 2009: B1, B6).
On the closing of Guantanamo Bay, Obama promised that he would close Guantanamo bay by January, 2009 and that his administration would develop a task force to review exisiting detention policies and the lawful disposition of detainees in U. S. custody. However, in May of 2009, the Senate by a vote of 90 to 6 voted to block the transfer of detainees to the U. S. and denied the Obama administration $81 million that it had requested to close Guanatanamo. Presently, Obama has caved in to the contention of legislators in both the House and the Senate that their constitutents were afraid of placing detainees on U. S. soil and possibly placing U. S. citizens in danger.
Before the election, Obama had criticized the Bush administration for not being transparent and keeping the truth from the American public. However, the Obama administration’s position on state secrets doctrines in urging a federal judge to toss out a law suit by former CIA detainees was questioned as being no different than the Bush administration’s position in using state secrets privilege to dismiss entire law suits before there could be any proceedings.
Although Obama has consistently stressed the need for advancing a strategy of bipartisan cooperation between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, his activist governance stance has been horrendously criticized by the likes of such conservative commentators as Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Rush Limbaugh. The conservatives in the Republican Party, who are now in a position of being the minority party, have thwarted Obama’s strategy of bipartisanship. In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama proposed that a genuine bipartisanship strategy would work if there was “an honest process of give-and-take” and if “the quality of the compromises” served “some agreed-upon goal (Obama, 2006: 131).”
However, the debate over health care reform revealed the pitfalls in this strategy with conservative groups putting aside what was written in Obama’s health care proposals and claiming that his proposals included unlimited coverage for undocumented immigrants, death panels and euthanasia for the elderly, socialized medical rationing, and planned reductions in Medicare benefits. As in some of Obama’s other policy initiatives, the promise that universal health care in America would become a reality “by the end of his first term as president” was blocked by the organized force of these right-wing groups, Republican congressional representatives, and the health insurance industry. Obama’s support for a more affordable “public option,” as an alternative to the status quo proposals of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, has now been put aside with a requirement that all people buy health insurance with some help from federal subsidies to help those who cannot afford it (Levey, 2009: A-1, A-16).
Rather than the broad multi-racial movement that helped to elect Obama, there is an increase in another type of movement that promotes racism and scapegoats immigrants, underrepresented communities, women, people of color, and working people for the economic problems in this country.
This was especially evident when thousands of conservative protesters, many of them Republican, took to the streets in Washington, D. C. questioning Obama’s citizenship status and his administration’s policies with signs that read: “Is this Russia?,” “Traitors Terrorists Run Our Government.” “Don’t Blame me, I voted for The American (Barabak, 2009: A-1, A-19).” The open attacks on the president’s character in this demonstration and the outburst by Representative Joe Wilson’s (R-S.C.) of “You Lie” in the middle of Obama’s address to Congress precipitated such responses as former President Carter’s that: “an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man (Abcarian, 2009: A1, A16).”
At the same time, during the election campaign, Obama proposed that immigration workplace raids were ineffective, and called for an alternative that could bring the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the country out of the shadows. Since the election, although the Obama administration met with immigration rights leaders from throughout the country and promised to take up comprehensive immigration proposals, there has been an implementation of enforcement policies that have resulted in increased immigration raids, audits of employee paperwork at hundreds of businesses, expanded a program to verify worker immigration status that has been widely criticized as flawed, and bolstered a program of cooperation between federal and local law enforcement agencies. With former Arizona Governor Grace Napolitano at the head of the Department of Homeland Security, the Obama administration moved forward in authorizing as many as sixty six law enforcement agencies to work with Homeland Security in identifying “illegal immigrants and process them for possible deportation under a program known as 287g (Gorman, 2009: A-1, A-9).” Under this administration’s immigration policies, deportations reached record levels rising to an annual average of nearly 400,0001 since 2009, about 30% higher than the annual average during the second term of the Bush administration and about double the annual average during George W. Bush’s first term. Under this administration, the 287G Secure Communities programs have used local law enforcement officers to carry out the screening of people, that should be the work of federal officers. Under the pretext that these policies are meant to arrest hard core criminals, the policies have led to arbitrary arrests for minor offenses and violated the due process rights of both citizens and non-citizens. This administration has expanded the use of E-Verify, an existing program of employee immigration-status verification that has been criticized for using a database that contains thousands of errors and has led to as many as 19,000 people ( of 6.4 million checked) that have been mistakenly identified as being deportable.
Rather than putting an end to these discriminatory policies, this administration has called for these programs, especially Secure Communities, to be expanded to every one of the nation’s 3,100 state and local jails by 2013 although these programs have been shown to be fundamentally flawed, incompetently administered, and prone to target, not only immigrants, but Latino citizens.
This focus on enforcement, rather than legalization, policies has been steadily eroding the strong support among Latino organizations that Obama had right before and after the election.
Ina national survey of 1,220 Latino adults 18 and older (between November 9th and December 7, 2011, the Pew Research Center found that, by a ratio of more than two-to-one (59% versus 27%), Latinos disapprove of the way the Obama administration is handling deportations of undocumented immigrants. This study found that more than three quarters (77%) of those who were aware of Obama’s enforcement policies, strongly disagreed with these policies (December 28, 2011, As Deportations Rise to Record Levels, Most Latinos Oppose Obama’s Policy by Mark Hugo Lopez, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera and Seth Motel).
Globally, according to a PEW Hispanic Research Center survey, approval of Obama’s policies has “declined significantly since he first took office, while overall confidence in him and attitudes toward the U. S. have slipped modestly as a consequence (PEW Global Attitudes Project, June 13, 2012.
Hidden in the media onslaught of coverage on these protests have been the many initiatives that the Obama administration has been able to advance under the worst economic downturn since the depression including: using part of the stimulus package to implement an election medical record system, to save some 25,000 education jobs, and to advance clean energy projects; obtaining approval for 2,500 highway projects; advocating a global response to the economic crisis; dropping the use of the phrase “war on terror;” committing to get a ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; opening the doors of diplomacy on an international scale to reduce global tensions; ending policies that withheld funds from family planning organizations abroad; committing to stop discrimination against gays and lesbians and ending the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy;” appointing of five women, four African-Americans, three Latinos, and two Asian Americans to key cabinet positions; and the making of history with the nomination and full U. S. Senate confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as only the third woman and the first Latina to be appointed to the U. S. Supreme Court.
SUSTAINING LEGISLATION WITH AN ONGOING SOCIAL MOVEMENT
One of the problems has been that a strategy has been pursued, without a reliance on the transformative alliances that were harnessed before the election. This follows with a type of disenchantment that Professor Phil Thompson analyzes in his study of African American mayors and their efforts to find solutions to urban decline. In his research, Thompson analyzes how the initial excitement of electing Black mayors was diminished among the electorate when many of these elected officials adopted a traditional “pro-growth” urban policy that ultimately ended up serving the real estate and developer interests. At the same time, as the economies in urban areas moved from manufacturing to service industry employment, these mayors were blamed for the resulting urban problems. When the conditions did not change, it resulted in less political engagement by the black poor and middle class and a strengthening of conservative domination (Thompson, 2006: 4, 5). Only in a few cases are there examples where Mayors bucked the system and, by relying on the base that elected them, implemented “alternative models of community building and economic development” that addressed urban poverty and made their policies accountable to the public (Thompson, 2006: 41, 42).
In order for Latino organizations, such as the one that I have worked with, to have the same passion and to build the types of coalitions that existed before, it would have taken Obama’s continuing support of the type of organizing and advancement of a social movement that took place during the election. Public intellectuals Peter Dreier and Marshall Ganz, in their article We Have the Hope, Now Where’s the Audacity, while criticizing the Obama networks for turning to a marketing strategy of “politics as usual,” proposed that the existence of such a mobilization of communities (such as we experienced before 2008) today would have taken the advancement of a strategy that focused on movement-building:
The White House and its allies forgot that success requires more than proposing legislation, negotiating with Congress and polite lobbying. It demands movement-building of the kind that propelled Obama’s long-shot candidacy to an almost landslide victory. And it must be rooted in the moral energy that can transform people’s anger, frustrations and hopes into focused public action, creating a sense of urgency equal to the crises facing the country(Dreier and Ganz, 2009).
Although Obama has put a progressive and transformative strategy of movement-building to the side, this does not mean that the building of a movement should not be on the agenda of social movements and activists. Rather than allowing for a trend that wants to take the country back before the civil rights movement – that seeks to control the economy for the upper 1% — that thrives on creating fear and divisions among working people and – that uses their genuine concerns to blame immigrants for the economic problems in this country – there is the capacity to build another trend at the grass-roots. This trend is seeking to control the excesses of profit by a few – and build more spaces of equity – examples of democracy — examples of a new economy – with the types of alliances and partnerships that are necessary to meet the challenges of a global economy.
In California, various community-based coalitions have arisen to challenge the federal government’s immigration enforcement policies by organizing and passing legislation allowing undocumented students, not only to go to college, but to receive financial aid. I, and my students, have been part of the Pomona Habla coalition’s efforts in changing the Pomona city council policies that discriminated against undocumented immigrants and were part of a larger movement resulting in the passage of a statewide bill allowing anyone stopped at a checkpoint without a driver’s license to have someone come and pick up their car. This will kill the millions of dollars being made by the tow truck and impoundment companies. The governor, as a result of these movements, also signed a bill that called for “neither California nor any of its cities, counties, or special districts require an employer to use E-Verify as a condition of receiving a government contract, applying for or maintaining a business license, or as a penalty for violating licensing o other similar laws.”
Now, as part of these coalitions, we are still moving forward in organizing to enact a new law that gives qualified undocumented immigrants who pay state income taxes the option to enter a program whose participants will gain relief from federal enforcement and whose labor can be rewarded.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the significance of the election of Barack Obama was not just in the individual but in the rising of a new social movement that united people from diverse backgrounds in advancing a vision for change in the way this country is run and whose interests it serves. While Barack Obama’s exceptional history as a community organizer, lawyer, and state senator placed him in a position of mainstream credibility, it was the social movement of broad-based multi-racial alliances that put him over the top. The movement that developed before the election was one for jobs, health, education, security and equality. It was about the very foundations of local, national, and international democracy with a vision of ensuring the resource capacity of diverse local and global communities to survive. Although the social movement that crossed race, class, sexuality and gender lines before 2008 was exemplary, there are now new types of social movement that are emerging. One trend, led by conservative and right wing groups, has been stirring racial divisions by using the economic crisis to scapegoat immigrants, the poor, people of color, and working people. Unfortunately, the promises of the Obama administration, that moved so many, have not been kept, The issues are still there after the election but, in spite of their collective impact, the social movements that were built on a common ground of defending the right of all people to be treated with dignity and equality were thwarted by the policies of the Obama administration that ultimately served the power of the corporate monopolies and monied interests. However, the ingredients of a progressive social movement are still visible but the strategies have shifted to local organizing efforts that, in California, have resulted in legislation supporting: cities opting out of e-verify, the right of AB-540 students to attend college with financial aid, the right of people without a driver’s license to stop the impounding of their cars, and the establishment of a pilot program designed to protect undocumented workers who pay state income taxes. These progressive social movements on the local level are based on defending the rights of immigrants, decriminalizing the labor of the undocumented, and challenging the federal government’s enforcement policies. At the same time, the local organizing efforts are based on the long-term premise of making the Obama administration accountable for the policies promised and the policies being implemented.
References
Abcarian, Robin and Kate Linthicum. “Conservatives Say it’s Their Turn for
Empowerment. Los Angeles Times. (17 September 2009): A-1, A-16).
Barabak, Mark Z. “Tensions Rise over Afghan Strategy.” Los Angeles Times.
(16 October 2009): A-1, A-17.
Burke, Jim. “Marshall Ganz: Traditional Approach vs. Organizing Approach.”
Organizing For America (9 November 2008)
Dreier, Peter. “Millenials Could Be Key Voters in Swing States.” The Nation
(15 September 2008).
Dreier, Peter and Marshall Ganz. “We have the Hop. Where’s the Audacity?” The
Washington Post (30 August 2009)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/…/AR2009092801817.html.
Gorman, Anna. “Tough Rules on Policing Migrants.” Los Angeles Times (14
October 2009): A-1, A9.
Hamilton, Walter. “Crisis Has Not Altered Wall Street. Los Angeles Times (14
September 2009): B-1, B-2.
Lee, James and Nancy Rytina. “Naturalizations in the United States: 2008. DHS Office
Of Immigration Statistics.” (March 2009)
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/natz_fr_2008.pdf.
Levey, Noam. “A Key Health Goal is Elusive.” Los Angeles Times (13 October 2009):
A-1, A-2.
Levey, Noam and James Oliphant. “Health Bill Passes with 1 GOP Vote.” Los
Angeles Times (14 October 2009): A-1, A-16.
Lochhead, Carolyn. “Obama Takes Big Risk on Driver’s License Issue.” San
Francisco Chronicle (28 January 08) A-1.
Lopez, Mark Hugo. “The Hispanic Vote in the 2008 Election.” Pew Hispanic Center
(07 November 2008).
Lopez, Mark Hugo and Paul Taylor. “Dissecting the 2008 Electorate: Most Diverse in
U. S. History.” Pew Hispanic Center. Washington, D. C., (30 April 2009).
Obama, Barack. Dreams from My Father. 1995. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004.
Obama, Barack. The Audacity of Hope. New York: Crown Publishers, 2006.
“Obama’s Election Redraws American Electoral Divide.” CNN.com. (05 November
2008) http://www.cnn.com/2008/Politics/11/05/election.president/index.html.
Parsons, Christ. “Tensions Rise over Afghan Strategy.” Los Angeles Times (16 October
2009): A-1, A-17.
Pastor, Manuel. Chris Benner, and Martha Masuoka. This Could Be the Start of
Something Big. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009.
Pazzanghera, Jim. “Reform Plan is Likely to Get Rewrite.” Los Angeles Times (24
September 2009) B-1, B-3.
Pazzanghera, Jim. “Obama Slams Plan Opponents.” Los Angeles Times (10 October
2009); B-1, B-6.
Reno, Jamie. “Black-Brown Divide.” Newsweek. (26 January 2008):
http://www.newsweek.com/id/104725.
Ruggeri, Amanda. “Behind Obama’s Victory: A Major Swing by Latino Voters: Back to
The Democratic Fold.” U. S. News and World Report (06 November 2008)).
Silver, Nate. “Why Voters Thought Obama Won.” Five Thirty Eight. (27 September
2008) http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/why-voters-thought-obama-won.html.
Snow, David A., Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. “Mapping the Terrain” in The
Blackwell Companion to Social Movements edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A.
Soule & Hanspeter Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing: 2004: 1-13.
Stirland, Sarah Lai. “Obama’s Secret Weapons: Internet Databases and Psychology.”
Wired ((29 October 2008).
“The Power of the Immigrant and Latino Vote in the 2008 Election.” America’s Voice
(14 October 2008)
http://www.americasvoiceonline.org/page/-/powerofthevote.pdf.
Thompson, J. Phillip. Double Trouble: Black Mayors, Black Communities, and the Call
For a Deep Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Ververs, Vaughn. “A Mandate for Change.” CBSNews.com (05 November 2008)
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/05/politics/main4572553.shtml.
Wall, Stephen. “Political Coalition Hopes to Unify, Harness Latino Vote.” San
Bernardino Sun (17 January 2008).
Wall, Stephen. “Latino Vote Crucial for Presidential Hopefuls.” San Bernardino Sun
(01 February 2008).
William C. Velasquez Institute. “The Latino Super Tuesday: Underneath the Numbers.”
Los Angeles, CA (2 July 2008).