http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-2-2012/tucson-s-mexican-american-studies-ban

Informed by xenophobia, in 2010 Arizona’s governor Jan Brewer signed into law a ban on ethnic studies in school districts. But this ban on ethnic studies is not on all ethnic studies, it is interesting and telling to note that the ban only encompasses Mexican studies. Some of the reasons policy makers gave for the ban of Mexican studies was that it promoted anti-American sentiments. Yet under this logic, African-American studies, Native-Americans studies and all the other studies which are under the umbrella of ‘ethnic’ studies would potentially foster the same anti-American sentiments. Yet none of these other ethnic studies were banned. The ban on Mexican ethnic studies in the Tucson district reflects the anti-Latino immigrant stance of Americans society.

I am a child of Latino immigrants and only until I got to college did I have chance to read about my Latino culture and history. Additionally, only until I came to college was I able to read articles and books written by Latino scholars. This was completely empowering to me and for the first time in my school career I saw people like myself in scholarly work. This gave me a chance to imagine the possibility that I too, could become one of these Latino scholars. In schools, euro-centric mentalities are fostered by emphasizing an importance on dominant-white history or history which only views events through the perspective of the colonizers. The banning of ethnic studies in Arizona is completely detrimental to students of Mexican decent. The ban itself can potentially continue to generate and create anti-American sentiments that I have experienced are commonly held among young Latinos. Banning Mexican ethnic studies sends the message that Latinos do not have a history worth learning. Moreover, in my experience going to high school with a majority of Latino population, students cannot connect with the books they are required to read. It was only until we read a book with a Latino protagonist, did my peers actually become engaged and read a book. It is easy for students to stop caring and trying when they are unable to connect with the material. When we have no Latino role models who have gone on to higher education, it becomes difficult to believe that we ourselves can go on to higher education. Banning ethnic studies is only further marginalizing a group of students who are overrepresented in prisons and underrepresented in higher education.

Yet I come back to this point, why only target Mexican studies? African-American and Native-American studies are no different that Mexican studies. All these ethnic studies have a different take on history that does not comply with the dominant white history. This ban on Mexican studies in a border state is directly tied to the xenophobia which is currently present towards Latino immigrants. The number of people coming from Latino American boomed in the last couple of decades. This boom created fear that they were taking over the United States and culture. This ban, along with SB 1070, which would allow officials to stop people they believe are without documents, is not surprising with the current political and economic climate in the United States. In times of trouble, a scapegoat is necessary. With the economy taking a turn for the worse, Latino immigrants have been blamed for taking away jobs, increasing drug related crimes and overall being a burden to the economy. Targeting the education of Latino youth is just another way of sending the message that we have to assimilate into American culture. Full incorporation seems to be what is required of immigrants. Learning about ones culture is empowering and gives agency, but by banning ethnic studies Latino youth are in schools which pressure them to remove any marker of ethnic and cultural difference.

Despite nativist fears of losing English as the dominant language, studies continually prove that English is the preferred language among new generations of immigrants.  Immigrants are the fastest growing student population in US schools, and half of them don’t speak English fluently (Calderon, Slavin, Sanchez, 2011: 103).  Schools are the site of most of the language controversy because of their historical role of socializing children in the American mainstream, making bilingual education a topic of controversy.  Lacking a common culture or common history, the use of English became the essential part of being “American.” By the 1920s language loyalty oaths from children in schools was commonplace to reinforce English dominance (Portes and Schauffler, 1994: 642).  Furthermore, academics believed bilingualism caused confusion and development problems, which has since been refuted (Portes and Schauffler, 1994: 643).

Assimilation studies seek to measure patterns of language loss among immigrants over time.  Language assimilation among the second generation varies with length of residence, geographical location, strength of the ethnic enclave, and socio-economic status (Portes and Schauffler, 1994: 645).  Although ethnic enclaves influence greater retention of the parent language, the general pattern across many ethnic groups in segmented assimilation studies is a preference for speaking English.  The first generation learns enough to get by economically, the second generation will continue to speak their parent language in the home, and the third generation will most likely be monolingual English (Portes and Schauffler, 1994: 643).

In their work Ethnicities: Children of Immigrants in America, Ruben Rumbaut and Alejandro Portes compile a collection of data for segmented assimilationist studies on Mexican, Cuban, Haitian, Vietnamese, and other ethnic groups.  Part of each study tracked language proficiency and preference from 1992-1995.  In all cases, English language proficiency and preference increased among second and third generations (Rumbaut and Portes, 2001).  Each community differed in rates of proficiency due to different social and economic barriers and ties to an ethnic enclave.  Interestingly, the Cuban community in Miami had the highest rates of bilingualism and Spanish language retention, as well as 95 percent preference for speaking English in everyday communication (Perez, 2001: 115).  For some groups, speaking English is associated with higher self-esteem and better performance in school among children on immigrants.  Language is especially important for children in the school setting.  Immigrant parents often push their children to learn and perfect English because it is associated with success (Espiritu and Wolf, 2001: 174).

Ethnic languages have the fastest rates of disappearance than any other country (Portes and Schauffler, 1994).  Today, many immigrants already come equipped with English skills or are quick to try and adapt linguistically.  Depending on class and location, it is easier for some groups to retain their parent language, and studies have shown the cognitive value of bilingualism.  Yet language remains a controversial issue in school policy and supporting English Language Learners.  There is a double standard for immigrant students to drop their ethnic language, while native upper and middle class families encourage their children to learn Latin, French, or German (Portes and Schauffler, 1994: 643).  There is no clear policy for state school districts on identifying or instructing ELL students, and few teachers are trained on how to teach them (Calderon, Slavin, Sanchez, 2011: 103).  On the other hand, public and private schools have foreign language graduation requirements for students and bilingualism is highly valued.  This difference in expectations and treatment between immigrant and ethnic children and native children of language in schools and in society should continue to be addressed.  The studies mentioned above show that bilingualism in schools and language retention in the community does not negatively affect English preference.  Although the number of Spanish and other foreign language speakers are moving to the US, English is not in danger of being lost.

References:

Calderon, Margarita, Robert Slavin, and Marta Sanchez. 20011. “Effective Instruction for English Learners.” The Future of Children. 21(1): 103-127.

Perez, Lisandro. 2001. “Growing Up in Cuban Miami.” Pp. 91-123 in Ethnicities: Children of Immigrants in America. New York, University of California Press.

Portes, Alejandro, and Richard Schauffler. 1994. “Language and the second generation: Bilingualism yesterday and today.” International Migration Review. 28(4): 640-661.

Rumbaut, Ruben, and Alejandro Portes. 2001. Ethnicities: Children of Immigrants in America. New York, University of California Press.

Throughout the semester we read multiple books/ articles describing the assimilation outcomes of different groups. One group in particular that struck me was the Mexican immigrant group that David E. López and Ricardo D. Stanton- Salazar talk about in “Mexican Americans: A Second Generation at Risk.” Given that I come from a Mexican immigrant family and I am a second-generation child of immigrant, I could connect with the analyses López and Stanton- Salazar presented.

During their Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS) “88 percent [of the Mexican immigrant interviewees] agreed that there is racial discrimination” upon their group, including job discrimination (2001: 74). My father is a first generation Mexican immigrant who immigrated to this country at the age of 21. Upon arriving he said he “immediately sensed discrimination because of his thick Mexican accent and lack of English. It was extremely difficult to find a job.” It took him two months to find a job. And even then he constantly bounced from job to job, mostly doing physical manual labor. The first months he was forced to live in a small apartment with 5 other people because rent was too expensive for him alone. However he did not give up. He knew that if one day he wanted to establish a family here he “had to work hard even if it killed him” and that one day he would “accomplish the American dream of having a stable job and buying a home where he would raise his children.” No doubt, 8 years later he was able to buy his first home where my brothers and I were raised in. Five years ago he was able to get his legal visa. In addition, after taking English classes he is able to almost- fluently speak English. However, he still has that Spanish accent, something he likes because it reminds him that despite being an immigrant he has achieved a lot in this country.

Having gone through these hardships, he does not want us to go through the same. In “The Bumpy Road of Assimilation: Gender, Phenotype, and Historical Era,” Jessica M. Vasquez talks about how first generation immigrant parents are “reluctant to pass on any information that pre- dated their arrival in the U.S. to their children,” perhaps as a “defense mechanism to shield their offspring from knowing the hardships they endured” (725-6). This is not the case in my situation. On the contrary, my father constantly “repeatedly [tells] tales of hardship and sacrifice, including [his] own lack of educational opportunities” to my brothers and I to relentlessly motivate us to do well in school (López and Stanton- Salazar 2001: 79). Because everyone has a right to a K- 12 education, he expected us to graduate from high school, furthermore, in addition he also expects us to attend college- even if it is a 2- year community college.

Through all this, even though they left Mexico at a young age because of lack of advancement opportunities, my parents make sure that my brothers and I do not lose our Mexican ethnic identity. By sending us to visit Mexico once in a while, having/attending Quinceñeras (Sweet 15), cooking Mexican food, and ensuring we talk Spanish at home, my parents have emphasized the importance of keeping in touch with our Mexican origin, thus we identify as Mexican- Americans.

Bibliography

Lòpez, David E. and Ricardo D. Stanton- Salazar. 2001. “Mexican American: A Second Generation at Risk.” Pp. 57-90 in Ethnicities: Children of Immigrants in America. Ed. Rubén G. Rumbaut and Alejandro Portes. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Vasquez, Jessica M. 2011. “The Bumpy Road of Assimilation: Gender, Phenotype, and Historical Era.” Sociological Spectrum, 31: 718-748.

Senators Orrin Hatch and Richard Durbin and Representatives Howard Berman and Chris Cannon first introduced the DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act in 2001. Since then there have been multiple forms of this bill but all have failed to become law. The DREAM Act would offer conditional citizenship to those who entered the U.S. before the age of 16, have been in this country continuously for five years, have earned a high school diploma or GED, and have no criminal record. The individuals will be given a six year period of conditional status during which they will be required to either serve in the armed forces for two years or have completed at least 2 years at an institution of higher learning (associate’s or bachelor’s degree)[1]. Once the 6- year period ends, the individual will be able to qualify for permanent residency. Because the DREAM Act puts individuals on the road for permanent residency, current presumed Republican nominee for the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney “labeled [the Act] a magnet for illegal immigrants” stating that it will only encourage people to continue to enter the country illegally, thus believes it is best to not pass it (Weisman 2012). The DREAM Act came closest to passing Congress in December 8, 2010 when it was passed in the House by a vote of 216-198, however when it reached the Senate on December 18, 2012 it fell short five votes[2].

Given that in order to be eligible for permanent residency through the DREAM Act one must enroll in the military or attend college, it is evidently that this bill benefits the country and the individual. No person will be eligible if he/she is not a productive member of society. The bill will provide millions of immigrant children who graduate from High School the opportunity to seek permanent residency in a country they have lived most of their lives and will also provide them with benefits for college. Currently, tens of thousands of undocumented students graduate from a High School longing to attend college, but their undocumented status makes it extremely difficult. Many of them are not given financial aid, thus must struggle to find a way to pay for college. “Not only would [this bill] grant these students access to in-state tuition rates, [but] it would also make them eligible for federal financial aid programs to help pay for their postsecondary education” (Stevenson 2004: 555). It is completely unfair to prevent a hard working student-who has lived his entire life in the US- from pursuing a higher education because of lack of financial help.

Currently states like Texas, New Mexico and California have passed bills similar to the DREAM Act that extend state financial aid to undocumented youth, however only a small percentage of states have done the same (New York is not one of them). The federal DREAM Act currently sits in Congress waiting to be heard yet once again. Bearing in mind that in 2001 it had no Republican co- sponsors and now it has over 130 Democratic and Republican cosponsors, there is still a chance of hope[3]. President Obama is a strong supporter of the bill and is currently endorsing it in his 2012 presidential campaign. The Act will enable citizenship for those individuals who have worked hard and lived in this country the majority of their life.