Earlier today, I was making fun of the Berkeley College Republicans on Twitter:
“I’m surprised college Republican groups are still doing the pay by race bake sale thing. That’s so 2000. I think they’d be more original.”
A few minutes later I added a link to the cartoon Lalo Alcaraz (above) published after the UCLA Bruin Republicans held a pay by race bake sale in 2003. I’m not sure you can actually call it a bake sale since they sold Oreos, Twinkies and crackers. Heavy handed with the symbolism much? Fellow UCLA alumni told me the bake sale was also done in the mid 1990s.
I wasn’t offended by the bake sale. Instead, I was surprised they were getting so much attention. Must be a slow news week, huh? Plus, these students could barely read when race conscious admissions were banned in 1995 and 1996 (first by the Regents of the University of California and then by the California electorate). SP-1 and Proposition 209 probably mean nothing to today’s freshman, born in 1993. My politics and education were shaped by those policies.
In the spring of 1998, I was part of the first class admitted under the new race-neutral admissions policies at the University of California. As I made my decision about which UC campus to attend, Berkeley or Los Angeles, I read about the severe drop (up to 50% for some groups at UC Berkeley and UCLA) in the LA Times. I didn’t get in to UC San Diego and wondered if I would have been admitted to San Diego under the old policies. When I toured UCLA and Berkeley with my parents, I noticed students protesting the effects of Proposition 209, a severe drop in the numbers of underrepresented minorities admitted. In the fall when I began classes at UCLA, I was well aware that my freshman class was much less black, Latino and American Indian than previous classes.
In the next few years, I got involved with student groups actively working on diversity issues and admissions reform. I continued my involvement as a doctoral student in higher education. I spent a couple of years on the board of the UC Student Association and lobbied California legislators on bills related to higher education access and affordability. I researched and wrote about admissions practices at UC campuses, attended weekly meetings of black alumni and community leaders pressing for admissions reform at UCLA, and was the graduate student representative on the systemwide Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools. I was definitely plugged in to admissions and diversity issues at UC.
Yet despite my years of activism, research, and lobbying, I hadn’t heard about SB 185. The bill, introduced by Senator Ed Hernandez would allow California’s public universities “to consider race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions.” (Source)
I’m thankful the Berkeley Republicans recycled the bake sale. If not for them, I’d still be out of the loop. Now I can email Governor Jerry Brown encouraging him to sign SB 185 and encourage my friends to do the same.
With all the excitement earlier this week, I didn’t get around to posting about the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the San Antonio ISD v. Rodríguez case, an important case when it comes to educational inequality.
In the landmark San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodríguez (1973) case, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a state system of financing public education through property taxes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminated on the basis of wealth. Petitioners in the case also claimed the U.S. constitution provided a fundamental right to an education under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brought by the parents of Mexican American children living in San Antonio, Texas, the case highlighted the blatant disparities in resources among San Antonio school districts. The federal trial court ruled in favor of Rodríguez, holding that the Texas system for funding public schools was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As the case extract illustrates, however, on appeal the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding in a five-to-four decision that education is a responsibility of the states, not the federal government. The Court also noted that it had never held that disparities in resources based on wealth constituted a violation of the Constitution. The Court’s decision had the effect of setting a less progressive tone for educational equality during the 1980s and 1990s.
The Court rejected the rationale that education (although not mentioned in the Constitution) was a fundamental right because it is necessary when it comes to manifesting your First Amendment rights and voting. In the opinion of the majority written by Justice Lewis Powell, the Court stated “we have carefully considered each of the arguments that education is a fundamental right or liberty and have those arguments unpersuasive.”
Ouch.
I didn’t learn about San Antonio ISD v. Rodríguez until I started to look in to the legal foundation allowing undocumented children and youth to attend US schools and colleges.
March 10, 1848:
While February 2nd is noted by some as the original birthday of the first Chicanos, March 10th is notable too. because the version of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ratified by the Senate was different than the one signed in Mexico a few weeks earlier.
Other provisions stipulated the Texas border at the Rio Grande (Article V), protection for the property and civil rights of Mexican nationals living within the new border (Articles VIII and IX), U.S. promise to police its side of the border (Article XI), and compulsory arbitration of future disputes between the two countries (Article XXI). When the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in March, it reduced Article IX and deleted Article X guaranteeing the protection of Mexican land grants. Following the Senate’s ratification of the treaty, U.S. troops left Mexico City.
This would be a significant part of the Chicano Movement in the 60s and 70s as people like Reies Tijerina fought to have the original land grants recognized.
As mentioned above, the civil rights of the new Chicanos were also amended from the version signed on February 2nd.
Article VIII guaranteed that Mexicans who remained more than one year in the ceded lands would automatically become full-fledged American citizens (or they could declare their intention of remaining Mexican citizens); however, the Senate modified Article IX, changing the first paragraph and excluding the last two. Among the changes was that Mexican citizens would “be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States)” instead of “admitted as soon as possible”, as negotiated between Trist and the Mexican delegation.
[Via Wikipedia]
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is still relevant today, especially as states like Arizona pass law after law targeting our community. As Dr. Cintli Rodriguez discusses, the provisions guarding the civil rights of Mexicans in the ceded territories may be useful for those who seek to challenge SB 1070 and proposed laws affecting citizenship rights for children of undocumented immigrants.
As I watched the DREAM Act debate on C-SPAN earlier today, I realized something. I’ve been writing, reading and thinking about this issue since I started grad school in 2004. My first paper for a class that quarter was on the history of the DREAM Act and AB 540. Before that, I had supported California’s AB 540 and pushed for the UC Regents to adopt it in 2001.
All that was before I became friends with undocumented students or worked directly with them. After getting to know students in this situation, my belief in the need for the DREAM Act grew.
Thus, seeing the DREAM Act come up for a vote tonight made me incredibly nervous. I was on edge as I listened to impassioned speeches on the House floor. I cheered when I heard strong remarks from supporters and was angered by the lies and misinformation spread by detractors.
I also felt my UCLA pride grow when I heard it mentioned by four different representatives. Rep. Zoe Lofren mentioned being moved by Tam Tran’stestimony before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law in 2007. Rep. Judy Chu spoke about Ernesto a student who interned while in community college who was then admitted to UCLA. (Curiously, I saw a picture tweeted of him watching Rep. Chu mention him.) And there were two other representatives who mentioned the findings of a report from UCLA’s NAID Center on economic benefits of passing the DREAM Act.
When the final votes were counted and I saw the DREAM Act (HR 6497) passed 216-198, I cheered. My eyes may have watered a bit despite knowing that the fight goes on to the Senate now and knowing that the current DREAM Act isn’t what I’d like to see. It’s a watered down and harsher than past versions. Michael E. Hill explains:
Applicants for relief under the House-passed version of the DREAM Act would have to apply for that relief before reaching their 30th birthday and would have to pay $2,525 in “surcharges” in addition to the fee that the DHS sets for the cost of adjudicating their application. Under the House-passed bill, DREAM Act applicants would be ineligible for a host of federal educational assistance programs.
Still, the DREAM Act provides a path to citizenship to thousands of youth (albeit a long one). It’s the first time in almost 25 years Congress has voted to legalize anyone.
Congratulations to all those who worked so hard and put yourselves on the line for the DREAM Act. Your celebration is well deserved.
If you want to make some calls to Senators here’s scripts, phone numbers and targets.
The bad thing about having a TV and watching it is that invariably I’ll come across political ads. Most are just annoying, but some of them are pretty awful. For example, when I was in Nevada a few weeks ago, I saw one of Sharron Angle’s commercials during the UCLA v. Texas game. The end of the anti-immigrant ad called Senator Harry Reid “the best friend illegals ever had.” It made me feel sick (or it could’ve been the cigar and cigarette smoke in the casino).
Anyway, this message from Danny Oso’s little brother, Eddie, makes me a bit more excited about get out the vote efforts and the upcoming election. Danny writes:
My little brother wanted to get involved with the midterm elections. I ony helped him with some facts and editing the video. He wrote and drew everything himself. Please make sure you vote!
If you’re not yet registered, go here. The registration deadline is coming up!
It is with great sadness that I regret to inform everyone of the passing of Tam Tran and Cinthya Felix. These women were nationally active in the undocumented students Civil Rights Movement through their fight for the DREAM Act. Both were UCLA undergraduates and as graduate students Tam was a Doctoral Student in American Civilization at Brown University, while Cinthya was studying Public Health at Columbia University. These women were amazing activists and put themselves at great risk to fight for this just cause. Cinthya was a working class student from East Los Angeles, California and attended Garfield High School and Tam’s family had been displaced as a result of the Vietnam War and was from Garden Grove, CA. There is much more information in the links below about their lives.
Like many who havewrittenabout Tam and Cinthya’s passing, I didn’t know them personally. I knew of these two young leaders by simply being a fellow UCLA student leader and a supporter of the DREAM Act (both the federal and California versions).
Still, I was inspired by their courage to speak out and tell their stories.
Even though Tam and Cinthya passed on way too soon, I have no doubt they will continue to inspire more DREAMers.
A memorial service will be held on Monday May 17 from 3-5 pm in the Kerckhoff Grand Salon at UCLA.
I was tapped to write a few paragraphs on why fees at public universities should remain low, well lower. It’s been a long, long time since we’ve had low fees.
It was tough to limit myself to 200 words as I can write much more from different perspectives: graduate student in higher education familiar with literature on affordability, accessibility, financial aid and diversity; former board member with the UC Student Association; former chair of the Council on Student Fees and UCLA Registration Fee Advisory Committee; and just plain person concerned about the future (ha!).
I kept my argument focused to concerns that UC is moving to a model similar to the University of Michigan or University of Virginia, two “public Ivies” that enroll only about two-thirds of their students from in-state and have a much lower proportion of low-income students (based on who gets Pell Grants).
I didn’t get into the discussion on why Californians should fund “UC’s gold-plated facilities — the UC Santa Cruz Pilates studio comes to mind.”
Earlier today, the Regents of the University of California approved a 32% fee increase for UC students. Students are once again being asked to make up for the investment from the state which has declined drastically from the goals stated in the Master Plan. I wasn’t surprised that the fee increase was improved, the amount did surprise me. The most recent increases starting in 2003 were usually between 8-10% (not considering the professional students, e.g., law students).
Students protested outside the Regents meeting. Loud. They set up a tent city and even ocuppied a campus building. I didn’t show up to the meeting or protests, but am in solidarity with the students sitting in and disrupting the meeting.
Instead, I did the nerd thing when it comes to fee increases and re-read the Master Plan (1960), or as we higher education scholars like to call it, the Bible:
The Survey Team believes that the traditional policy of nearly a century of tuition-free higher education is in the best interests of the state and should be continued. The team noted with interest an address given in May, 1958, by President James L. Morrill of the University of Minnesota, who commented as follows on the desire of some organizations and individuals to raise tuition and fees to meet the full operating costs of public institutions of higher education:
This notion is, of course, an incomprehensible repudiation of the whole philosophy of a successful democracy premised upon an educated citizenry. It negates the whole concept of wide-spread educational opportunity made possible by the state university idea. It conceives college training as a personal investment for profit instead of a social investment.
No realistic and unrealizable counter-proposal for some vast new resource for scholarship aid and loans can compensate for a betrayal of the “American Dream” of equal opportunity to which our colleges and universities, both private and public, have been generously and far-sightedly committed. But the proposal persists as some kind of panacea, some kind of release from responsibility from the pocketbook burdens of the cherished American idea and tradition.
It is an incredible proposal to turn back from the world-envied American accomplishment of more than a century.
Although the Survey Team endorses tuition-free education, nevertheless, it believes that students should assume greater responsibility for financing their education by paying fees sufficient to cover the operating costs of services not directly related to instruction. Such services would include laboratory fees, health, intercollegiate athletics, and student activities. Moreover, the team believes that ancillary services such as housing, feeding, and parking, should be entirely self-supporting. (p. 173)
I don’t get why a corporation that boasts about giving back to the community (can’t say I didn’t thoroughly enjoy the ¡Bienvenido Dudamel! concert a few weeks ago) and celebrates Nuestra Gente would sell such a despicable costume. (I know not all undocumented immigrants are Latino, but we do make up a plurality of the population.)
Is it to make a buck? Is that enough to alienate (no pun intended) undocumented immigrants, their allies and our dollars? Couldn’t you make a buck by not selling “humorous costumes” that demean and make light of the situation faced by many undocumented immigrants and advance dehumanizing language?
Is it humorous that thousands die trying to cross the US/Mexico border? Between 1998-2004 1,954 migrants died on the perilous journey north source). Since 2004, the Arizona Star Border Death Database has recorded 1,193 deaths at the border.
Funny, no?
What about exploitation from shady employers? How about the rise in anti-Latino hate crimes?
¡Chistoso!
Last, what about undocumented youth who face an educational glass ceiling as college is out of reach without financial aid and high non-resident fees?
I expected something different from Target. I was wooed by those free days at museums, free concerts and all that red (my favorite color). I thought Target wouldn’t be like other vendors who sell racist costumes playing on tired stereotypes and caricatures.
Qué lástima.
Sincerely,
Disgruntled Target Shopper
P.S. Anyone who pays $39.99 (plus shipping and tax) for such a costume is not only racist, but also stupid.
Updated: Target also sells a tequila pop n’ dude and Mexican costumes for adults and kids. Nopal not included. Guess they are showing their appreciation for mi gente.
Clueless is one of my favorite movies. Even though I have it on DVD, I always feel lucky when it pops up on TV, like tonight. I can’t pick a favorite scene, it all depends on my mood.
Tonight, I was touched — once again — by Cher’s triumphant speech in debate class about Haitian refugees.
So like, right now for example. The Haitians need to come to America. But some people are all, “What about the strain on our resources?” Well it’s like when I had this garden party for my father’s birthday, right? I put R.S.V.P. ’cause it was a sit-down dinner. But some people came that like did not R.S.V.P. I was like totally buggin’. I had to haul ass to the kitchen, redistribute the food, and squish in extra place settings. But by the end of the day it was, like, the more the merrier. And so if the government could just get to the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Haitians. And in conclusion may I please remind you it does not say R.S.V.P. on the Statue of Liberty. Thank you very much.
These days, I think our government wouldn’t rush to the kitchen and “rearrange some things.” Instead, some of our representatives would spread lies and heckle those working for reform. I was disgusted to hear the boos and “You lie!” when President Obama mentioned that undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for services under the new health care reform.
I can only imagine the lies, fear and bigotry that will be spread when it comes to tackling immigration reform.
Earlier today, the Regents of the University of California approved a 
