Zimmerman: Too Hispanic to be white; too white to be Hispanic!

The inspiration for the title of my article was a chance posting by the Editor/Publisher of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin newspaper, El Conquistador, Victor Huyke, on Facebook. Reading it struck a nerve with me, not only because of the main stream media and many African-American community leaders ignoring of the facts of George Zimmerman's background in order to use the hot button issue of race as a dimension of the Trayvon Martin shooting, but also for more personal reasons which I will get into later.

The alternative and/or non-traditional media is recent days has revisited what the regular media only touched on briefly during the early days following the shooting. It is reported that George Zimmerman's father is a WHITE American and his mother is born in Peru which would indicate both Spanish and Native American ancestry since mestizos(mix of Spanish and American Indian) make up a large portion of the population.

The Everyjoe.com website posted a picture of Zimmerman's mother with its story. Both George and his mother on their Florida voter registration cards self-identify as Hispanic while the father identifies as white.

Activists all along the racial/ethnic spectrum have reason to try and paint George Zimmerman and his background in a way which suits their political agendas. Many right-wing Republicans and their supporters want to make Zimmerman as minority as possible to take the wind out of the sails of those who want to portray George Z. as a rabid racist who used the 'white' race card to escape punishment for killing an African-American youth; Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton and their Liberal and so-calleProgressive friends want to make Zimmerman as white as possible so that they can use him to batter the Right-wing on every issue from gun control to an unjust court/prison system.

Many Hispanic groups don't want to deal with the question of any Hispanic background for Zimmerman because it draws them into the black-white argument. They want to ignore or have amnesia in this case because it would put them smack in the middle of the clash between the extremes of the racial and political extremes. Also it would call to mind in Florida, past cases of Hispanic officers in the Miami area who were accused of abuse of African-American suspects.

Now, for the personal part of the story. I am a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo(Irish-German ancestry) male who is the widower of a 1^st generation Mexican-American woman. I have many friends, relatives by marriage and godchildren who are Hispanic. Up to the time of my move to Sacramento, California in May of this year, I was actively involved in the affairs of the Hispanic community in my hometown of Kenosha and was a very active and vocal member of LULAC Council 320 in the Kenosha/Racine area; I was also a member of the Republican Party of Kenosha County. While for most people in both organizations to which I belonged, I was easily accepted as someone who could walk easily in both worlds and help each try to understand the other. But for some on each side, I was dangerous because I wasn't a simple stereotype. 

For the media, the 'inconvenient truths' of George Zimmerman's background mean, if discussed fully, the need to seriously address racial issues and not merely, no pun intended, present a black and white story. A discussion which would be more than a quick ten, twenty or thirty second sound bite. A discussion which would mean acting like adults and talking to each other, not merely trying to shout

each other down.

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC). Be sure to also follow my articles on the Sacramento Press website

A New Beginning in a 'Cute Cottage'

Even in a Mexican city well-known for its American expatriate population like San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato, Mexico, there is much of the same poverty and poor housing which is rampant through Mexico and much of Latin America. Bad weather can mean a harsh time or even death. A dozen years ago in 2001, the weather was especially bad. The unusually cold winter weather brought home the extraordinarily difficult conditions that many Mexican families lived under. In response to the deaths caused by the extreme weather, Jeffrey Brown, a San Miguel resident, stonemason and graphic artist, with the help of Irma Rosado, a local human-services consultant, secured a small donation and formed Casita Linda, A.C., a Mexican non-profit.

The organization's mission was to create a dignified, safe and empowering environment that will provide a foundation of hope for families living in extreme poverty. The plan developed called for this to be accomplished through the work of four teams that select the families, build the houses, assist in creating a sustainable environment, and link families with local nonprofits that can help improve their way of life.

Casita Linda(Cute Cottage) began to build its first house on July 10, 2004. The house was built for Estefania, a 104 yr. old woman living in La Huerta. The house was finished and inaugurated on August 29th of that year. The second home was started soon after but wasn’t finished until January 2005. It was for Juan Luna Rosales and his family. The long building process was due to the fact there were often only Jeffrey Brown (the non-profit's founder) and one or two other volunteers working.

Casita Linda’s mission was and is to create a dignified, safe and empowering environment that will provide a foundation of hope for families living in extreme poverty through the building of improved housing, reinforced by the creation of strategic alliances with other nonprofit organizations to take advantage of their expertise in areas such as structural engineering, social services, animal care, and the donation of furnishings and other household necessities.

In early 2008, Casita Linda partnered with the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) to design and build a more environmentally and energy-efficient house. The RISD model with subsequent design adjustments and improvements has resulted in houses that are warmer in winter and cooler in summer. Since 2006 Casita Linda has built, on average, eight homes annually.

Casita Linda A.C. now also works in partnership with the San Miguel Community Foundation, a 501c3 US tax exempt charity in its fund raising efforts. US tax exempt donations may be made through the Foundation.

By the way, as of this writing, the organization has passed the sixty(60) house mark.

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC). Be sure to also follow my articles on the Sacramento Press website

Innocent Until Proven Guilty(unless...)

When George Zimmerman was found 'Not Guilty' of murdering Trayvon Martin, many Americans were shocked and outraged by the verdict. They could not understand how the Florida jury of six(6) women could NOT find Zimmerman guilty of either 2^nd degree murder or manslaughter. Most immediately chalked it up to a white Southern jury not being able to convict a white man of the killing a black youth due to the racial element that has been part of the trial from the beginning in most news reports. They also chalked it up as another example of Florida 'injustice' like the same verdict in the Casey Anthony case. After all, we all 'knew' she killed her young daughter and dumped her lifeless body along the side of a road.

After all, everyone 'knew' based on media reports and 'unofficial' police/prosecution leaks that George Zimmerman WAS guilty. Of course, being fair and responsible and progressive Americans, Zimmerman should be allowed his day in court, but, in the end, it was expected that the results would be what was 'just'(i.e. a conviction)--the presumption of innocence that we are entitled to entering a courtroom even being allowed for.

The problem is that the presumption of innocence is not just a nicety in our legal system. It is the bedrock of our legal system. It is a fundamental principle that each and everyone of us holds onto with dear life---it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. If a jury decides that standard was not reached, then they must as a matter of law find the defendant not guilty. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback a decision reached by any jury. It has happened many times before. Besides the two Florida cases, we have seen the same attitude in the OJ Simpson double murder acquittal, the conviction of Mumia Abu-Jamal for the 1981 murder of a Philadelphia police officer, the acquittal of the LA Police officers in the Rodney King beating case, and countless other cases.

The reality is those who speak out condemning and being shocked by the Zimmerman verdict know in their heart of hearts that if we were to decide the guilt or innocence of defendants based on the standard of 'what we know' instead of 'what the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt', we would truly be living in a society where it would be dangerous to be accused of a crime.

I would like to finish up with some lines from Robert Bolt's play, A Man for All Seasons:

 

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

 

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

 

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

 

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC). Be sure to also follow his articles on the Sacramento Press website

Too Fast, Too Furious: The Death of a Jalisco Police Chief

The killing of police officers and police chiefs in Mexico is unfortunately not an uncommon occurrence in that country over the past few years. Drug cartels wage war on each other and law enforcement on a daily basis there. What is special about the death of a police chief, Luis Lucio Rosales Astorga in Jalisco earlier this year is that it appears the weapon used to kill him was part of the cache of weapons that entered Mexico and landed in the hands of the various cartels as a result of the ATF sting operation known as 'Fast and Furious'. It is the deepest penetration into Mexico of weapons from the ill-fated venture.

Operation Fast and Furious was an attempt by US authorities to follow the flow of illegal weapons from the US to Mexico by allowing the weapons to make it past the border. Problems developed when US authorities lost track of the weapons. As a result about 1500 semi-automatic and automatic weapons have been used to kill an unknown number of Mexican civilians and law enforcement officers(with the numbers increasing almost daily). Also killed was US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.  

Several ATF officials were forced to resign as a result of a House investigation into the fiasco. US Attorney General Eric Holder's involvement in the decisions that led to the approval of the plan is still unclear, and he is facing Contempt of Congress charges for failing to turn over all the documents subpoenaed by the House committee investigating the events.

It is interesting to note that Democrats have been quick to point the finger of responsibility at the George W. Bush administration because it ran a similar program in 2007. They of course forget to acknowledge that when the Bush administration ran their program, they did so in cooperation with Mexican police officials so it would be easier to keep track of the weapons involved. Democrats also forgot to mention that the target was American straw-buyers and no guns were allowed to cross the US-Mexican border. Oops!! Details, details, details, my dear Democrats and liberals!

Perhaps before President Obama leaves office, we will have the truth about who knew what and when they knew it. Remember that the biggest mistake that politicians make when they try to cover their errors is that THEY TRY TO COVER THEIR MISTAKES instead of coming clean early.

The biggest part of the problem with Fast and Furious is the steadily increasing body count---victims of the weapons that the President has so forcibly come out against and wants to ban here in the US. If the President and certain members of his Cabinet in the law enforcement had shared this view when it came to Mexican citizens, perhaps Police Chief Luis Lucio Rosales Astorga and hundreds of other Mexicans would still be alive today.

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC). Be sure to also follow my articles on the Sacramento Press website

Barca's La Masia: Model or Misdirection?

The Barcelona Football Club or Barca as it is better known to its many fans worldwide was featured on a recent episode of 60 Minutes. The story focused on Barca's famed La Masia Academy which is the training school for the Catalonian football club. The training center attracts some of the world's most talented pre-teen and teenage soccer players from around the world by offering the players a full, tuition-free education along with the opportunity to develop their soccer talents under the instruction of the world's best soccer coaching staff. The program has had such success in creating world-class soccer players on a consistent basis that many here in the US argue that it should serve as a model for the development of American soccer talent.

While the merits of using this Svengali methodology of developing outstanding athletes is an interesting subject in itself, my question is this: Is the academic training offered anything special or is it all smoke and mirrors?

If you base the discussion of this question on the 60 Minutes report, you would be working with a flawed source. While 60 Minutes makes it look like the academic side of La Masia is run by the Barca like the soccer training side is, this is not the case. The Barca website discussion of the academics clearly shows that this part of the education of the students is farmed off to the local Barcelona school system. Barca merely pays the fees for the students to attend and offers time in their schedule for them to do their homework.

What we have here is another example of the mainstream media adding to its history of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story. CBS also adds to its history of not fully reporting a story and not letting some of the inconvenient facts getting in the way of a story. We all can remember Dan Rather and his expose on George W. Bush's military career back prior to the 2000 Presidential election.

I have to wonder if one of the reasons that CBS and 60 Minutes failed to include the bit of information on the academic side of La Masia was that they didn't want to deal with Barca's methods in recruiting talented soccer players at an early age to insure that they have a talent pool to continually draw from over the years. Perhaps if they had asked questions about the academic side, 60 Minutes would have been forced to ask embarrassing questions about the program in general.

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC)

The New Rome? Games and Circuses...and Bread!

In the heyday of the Roman Empire, the Emperors kept their place at the top by giving the people of the capital city what they wanted most: gladiatorial extravaganzas, circuses and cheap food. Today, the leaders of cities, states, and countries use similar methods. The modern-day 'emperors' are democratically elected so the pressure to provide for the masses is even more pressing.

Case in point: Brazil.

Brazil is in the middle of a long-term project which will make it the center of attention for the world for the next several years. The large South American country is looking to play host to the 2014 CONCAAF championship, the 2016 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics. It is literally spending billions and billions on stadiums and infrastructure improvements for these showcase events. The idea was not only would Brazil show that it was stepping up on the world stage, but it would be able to score political points with its own citizens.

The leftist Brazilian government has found that it is not as easy to do as it thought.

The government has run into numerous issues with its citizens by taking money away from the subsidies it pumped into maintaining low cost public transportation and food prices. This has sparked massive demonstrations across the country protesting the relatively small increases in prices by ordinary citizens, protests whose target besides the government has been the showcase projects. The government has used strong police tactics to quell the protests.

This is very similar to the pattern of experienced by Roman emperors as they sought to balance the demands of keeping the masses satisfied while working on colossal, ego-driven monuments and public projects which drained the public treasury. When there were food shortages, then the people would riot. This would be followed by a government crackdown and a new round of bribes to appease the masses.

It will be interesting to see what the modern 'emperors' in Brazil do to calm the riots.

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC)

Historic Challenge to Voter Rights Act---Update

Though you may have missed it in all the media attention around the ruling on California's Proposition 8, the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in the historic Shelby v Holder this week. It was a suit by Shelby County, Alabama, against the US Department of Justice challenging the pre-clearance provisions of the Voters Rights Act which I originally wrote about on Being Latino three months ago.

The Court in a 5-4, conservative/liberal split, decision ruled that while racism still exists in America-- times and people have fundamentally changed enough that the US government can no longer enforce the formula used to determine which jurisdictions that is based upon 1960sstatistics.

While the federal government is allowed to continue to enforce other provisions of the Voter Rights Act. The Court basically challenged a deeply divided Congress to fashion new standards if they want the Justice Department to be able to enforce any type of pre-clearence of changes to voting laws in jurisdictions formally under the shadow of that provision of the law.

It will be interesting to see if an ideologically-challenged Congress will be able to do so, or whether it will become the talk of political fundraisers and those running for office in 2014 and beyond.

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC)

We need a larger pie not smaller bites for everyone!

“The idea is not to fight over the national pie(the GNP)

but to grow the pie with market-oriented economic policies that generates social mobility.”

(Tweet by Daniel Garza, Executive Director of the LIBRE Initiative)

When we have a celebration or a family get-together and more people attend than we thought were coming, do we expect that the guests(both expected and unexpected) eat less and drink less? No, of course, we don't! What we do is we prepare(or buy) more food and drink.

Why is it then that those who would not skimp on getting more food and drink to satisfy their family and friends have such a hard time with the concept of working to create a larger economic pie instead of merely dividing up the existing supply of wealth and money in a 'more equitable manner'?! Why is it that they don't take the lessons from every day life and champion an economic policy which allows for the creation of more wealth and money? Money and wealth which would be available to those who are willing to work for it and be able to experience the social mobility that is the hallmark of our country back to its British colonial days.

The names that would be part of the list of those who have come from nothing to the top of their professions or have made personal fortunes starting with little or nothing reads like a virtual Who's Who of America! Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Samuel Clemens(aka Mark Twain), John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Joseph Pulitzer, Howard Hughes, Dwight David Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jennifer Lopez, Martha Stewart, Russell Simmons, Emilio and Gloria Estefan, and Oprah Winfrey are but a few examples.

These people and many, many more like them did not get their wealth or achieve their position in American society by looking to take from others but by working to create more economic pie to share, by following their American Dreams.

Ironically, it is this striving for the American Dream, the idea of working hard, getting ahead, and making life better for those who come after you, that draws hundreds of thousands to our shores every year, both through legal immigration and through immigration classified as illegal or undocumented. It is almost comical that those who would fight to the death for immigration reform so that the undocumented can remain here and become citizens are very often the same people who disparage the reason that these foreign nationals want to come here. It is comical that these people are serious critics of the work of groups such as the LIBRE Initiative whose Executive Director provided the tweet which inspired this article and who has received unfair criticism from many people in the Latino community including other writers on this website.

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC)

Aren't Most Crimes 'Hate Crimes' by Definition?!

Do we really need hate crimes laws? Aren't MOST crimes “hate” crimes?

                                                    John Stossel on Twitter(6-6-2013)

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a 'hate crime' as: any of various crimes (as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation).

The question raised by John Stossel in his statement on Twitter is this: if someone who harbors an inner prejudice commits a murder, assault, robbery, vandalism or other crime against a particular individual based that person's membership in a particular group, should there be addition punishment handed out to the criminal? Is a crime any more heinous if there is a bigoted or prejudiced motivation behind the crime?

First, I would like to take a look at the second part of Mr. Stossel's statement. Most crimes are not motivated by hate or malice. They are crimes of opportunity, need, or spontaneous acts of aggression such as the drug addict seeing an unattended purse; the domestic dispute or family argument which gets out of hand.

Hate crimes, on the other hand, are the result of a planned, organized attacks on individuals or institutions who represent the groups for whom the perpetrator has a developed dislike for such as the Neo-Nazi hatred of minorities and Jews; homophobes who hate and fear homosexual males(or males they perceive as being homosexuals base on stereotypes).

To answer the first part of Mr. Stossel's statement, YES, we do need hate crimes laws. It is an unfortunate reality of not only our society but even more so in other countries. Almost weekly, on a frequency higher than in our country, we see stories in the media of 'hate crime' attacks in supposedly more sophisticated and cultured Europe. Their societies which view themselves as far more enlightened and mature than our 'Wild West' America have found themselves having to deal with the questions of integration of minority groups which we have been working on over the past fifty years and which they are coming to grips with now for the first time.

The point that Mr. Stossel should have made about hate crimes here in the U.S. is that we have to make sure what we call 'hate crimes' are really that and not just run-of-the-mill urban violence and crime or publicity stunt or innocent act of self-defense. We have seen the cases that have been exploited for ill by such men as the Rev. Al Sharpton(i.e. The Tawana Brawley case). We have to wait for all the facts of cases to come out(i.e. The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case which is currently going to trial).

Do hate crimes exist? Yes! Should there be added punishment beyond the simple underlying act of violence for those convicted of hate crimes? Yes! Does every crime committed against a particular member of a particular group whose history includes being the victims of hate crimes constitute a hate crime? No!

The answer is to look at each case on its merits not to put it automatically in the category of a hate crime. The answer is to act like responsible and thoughtful adults and not like immature children allowing ourselves to be herded like sheep by some self-aggrandizing, pompous shepard, no matter who that shephard is.

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC)

Image Issues: Ending Stereotypes!

New York Puerto Ricans, specifically Boricuas For A Positive Image, are working to ban Coors Beer as a sponsor of this year's Puerto Rican Day Parade because they feel that it is not only a symptom of the commercialism which has taken over the event but also because they want to promote a healthier lifestyle for Boricuas and other Latinos.

Many Boricuas want the organizers of the parade to move the celebration back to the original idea of a celebration of Puerto Rican culture and families and be less the promotion of the increasing number of commercial sponsors such as Coors.

Boricuas For A Positive Image also want Coors to remove the image of the Puerto Rican flag from the commemorative beer can that the company has planned on releasing for the event. "[The can is] an insult to our culture, history, and flag. We will not allow Coors to insult us," Lucky Rivera of Boricuas for a Positive Image commented.

The group has promised protests if Coors does not comply.

The protest is also an attempt to change the popular perception of Latino men that is too often and inaccurately portrayed in the media, especially film and television, of 'el borracho', the heavy-drinking Mexican or Boricua(Puerto Rican). This myth is the staple of many police procedural series set in New York City as well as many 'gangsters in the hood' movies. A notable exception to this stereotype can be seen in the movie, Trouble in the Heights, which I wrote about earlier this year for Being Latino! Instead, community leaders want the positive characteristics of being responsible, hard-working grandfathers, fathers, sons, and brothers to be what is emphasized when the general public think of Latino men.

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC)

Context: The Meaning of What We Say as Victim of Political Correctness!

A non-tenured, African American Spanish language teacher in the New York Public Schools was fired for using the word 'negro' in a class she was teaching. It seems that her students believed that she was using the term to denigrate them. The term once being used by Caucasians to describe African American individuals. It didn't matter, to either the students or the supposedly more educated school administration that the term is the Spanish word for the color black and that the class was going over the terms for the various colors used in the Spanish language.

The use of words in our society is important. They are the primary means, whether written or verbal, with which we communicate with each other. It has become fashionable and politically-correct in recent years to judge what people say without looking at the context, the setting and circumstances in which they are speaking. This is especially true if what is being said is 'unpopular' or deemed 'old fashioned' or 'offensive' by the media and so-called Progressives.

The most common form of this world policing is the attempt to ban the use in classical literature of terms which today have different meanings or connotations than the era in which they were written. The best example of this is the way people, most notably liberal parents, get all bent out of shape when their children get an assignment in school to read Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. Parents get all shocked and aghast when their children are forced to see the 'N' word(to save the readers of the Being Latino! website from suffering a heart attack or suffer the vapors I'll refrain from using the word here) used as part of the name of Huck's friend, Jim.

Similarly for these people there is also the use of the term 'wetback' by John Steinbeck in his work, Sweet Thursday, where it is used to describe the human cargo that one of the characters is engaged in smuggling into the United States. The term also has the history of being used as the code name for an operation by American immigration officials in the 1950s to repatriate thousands of illegal(read the more politically-correct term undocumented today) immigrants and, sadly, many US-born or naturalized Latinos as well.

There are also times when certain words sound similar to other words which are offensive to modern ears, and, whether through ignorance of the meaning of these words or an overzealous attempt to be progressive and sensitive, people get into trouble for using them. A example of this is the firing of a city government official in Washington DC which has a large African American population for using the word 'niggardly' in a public statement. It didn't matter that the word had nothing to do with the similarly sounding 'N' word nor that it was a perfectly valid use of the word in the context it was used.

In our daily communications with each other, we often use words or expressions which other people may not like. The one thing we cannot do is stop at the point of merely hearing the words. We need to look at the context they are used in. Too often in our hyper-politicized world when dealing with those whose views you may not like, it is too easy to focus more on the words used than the way they are used. The one thing we cannot do is fall prey to censorship of unpopular ideas, words, or thoughts. To quote that great fictional President Matthew Shepard(Michael Douglas in the film, The American President for you non-film buffs): “You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free'.”

IN MEMORIAM: Garnet JohnKay Wolf 'Shredder' Becker

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC)

The Curious Case of the IRS v. Tio Taco

The current developing scandal out of the Cincinnati office of the Internal Revenue Service(IRS) in which right-wing groups, including several conservative Latino ones, were stripped down to their financial and organizational skivvies by zealous bureaucrats of the IRS brings to mind a similar attempt to use the governmental agency to go after 'enemies' of the policies of the Administration in power which occurred about 40 years ago. The only difference that seems to be emerging is that the staff of the current Chief Executive seems to purposely kept the existence of the witch hunt from the knowledge of the President instead of being directly done with the knowledge and approval of the Resident in Chief of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

What I want to address in my piece is not the scandal and abuse of power directly but the deafening silence from the Left when it comes to the seemingly unethical and illegal treatment experienced by the conservative Hispanic groups. The so-called Progressives, especially Latino groups such as MALDEF, La Raza, and LULAC, would be manning the barricades and running to the nearest press microphone if the groups suffering the questionable probing by the IRS were of a more liberal philosophy.

I believe there are two reasons we are hearing, in the words of Simon and Garfunkel, 'the sounds of silence' from these progressive Latinos: [1] the concept of Tio Taco (i.e. the Latino version of the African American Uncle Tom) and [2] hypocrisy of the Left when it comes to tolerating any views but their own.

For many Latinos, especially those who have enjoyed the benefits of a college education, look at any of their fellow Latinos who believe in the basic values of the larger society as traitors to 'la raza'. They view Latinos who believe in the promise and potential of free enterprise as people who are poor, deluded individuals who have sold out to the 'gringo' in order to be welcomed by the larger society at the expense of their membership in the Latino community. Examples of this would be: Alberto Gonzales, US Attorney General(the first Latino to hold that office)under President George W. Bush and Marco Rubio, Republican Senator from Florida, and Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas. They are vilified by the enlightened Progressive Latinos and rest of the Left. Their achievements are minimized and mocked while others like Sonia Sotomayor are honored for their achievements because they hold the 'right' political views.

This attitude also a symptom of the hypocrisy of Progressive Latinos. This attitude reflects that it is okay to hold any political view or speak out for your beliefs as long as those beliefs reflect those of the so-called Progressives. If a Latino holds a view that is anathema to what a 'real Latino' should hold, you can bet that Progressive Latinos will rush to NOT defend your rights or speak out for your fair and equitable treatment.

It is hard to see what the greater scandal here is: the seemingly unlawful treatment of conservative Latino groups by the IRS or the unfair abandonment of these groups by a hypocritical Latino Left.

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC)

Language Accomodation on the Job: When is Enough, Enough?

A dozen Spanish-speaking custodial workers at the Auraria Higher Education Center in Denver have filed formal grievances with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC) against their employer claiming that the school is practicing national origin discrimination because their employer has failed to communicate with them in their native language resulting in unfair working conditions.

Workers who first language is not English often have problems on the job communicating with their supervisors. Over the past few decades, state and federal regulations and laws have been created to deal with these issues. The standard which has developed in EEOC cases is that communications dealing directly with work assignments, safety issues and operational procedures must be done in the worker's primary language.

The issue at Auraria Higher Education Center resulted from what the employees feel is the lack of primary language communication from their employer on issues involving layoffs, transfers and resulting pay losses. The group of custodial workers felt that the Center should provide details of these layoffs in written form in Spanish like other similar institutions in Colorado and not merely rely on translators from the Human Resources Department at the institution.

The group of workers prior to filing their federal action did take the Center to arbitration at the state level. The decision there was that the Center had fulfilled its obligations in the particular circumstance. The group disagreed with this decision and retained counsel to file the federal case.

While it would certainly be respectful of these employees for the Center to be more willing to provide information in all circumstances to them in the primary language, it is not their legal obligation to do so. The standard is 'reasonable accommodation' not 'if this were a perfect world'. Employers must as matter of respect and good conscience and moral responsibility provide employees whose primary language is not English with information that directly affects the health and safety of those employees in their primary language. Common sense dictates this. In other circumstances, the availability of translators should suffice. This standard is the same one used by law in school districts across the country in communications between districts and the parents of their students whose first language is not English.

The situation at Auraria Higher Education Center seems to me to be more of an attorney attempting to use the dozen custodial employees to line his own pocket than in representing his clients' interests.

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC)

The LIBRE Initiative: Hope for Economic Prosperity?!

The publishing last month by the Urban Institute of its latest report, Less Than Equal: Racial Disparities in Wealth Distribution and an email sent out by Daniel Garza, Jr. of the LIBRE Initiative welcoming the report and its conclusions. This prompted me to go and look on the Being Latino! website to see what it had to say about what economic opportunity and freedom should mean to Latinos. As anyone who reads the website faithfully can tell you, it told a sad tale that can be summarized as 'blame big business and white fat-cat businessmen for continuing to marginalize Latinos and other minority groups.

Going back to an article published last year, an unnamed contributor took Mr. Garza to task for being naive enough to trust in the mechanics of what he or she saw as an unfair system that merely promises equal opportunity but not necessarily equal result. The writer also chided Mr. Garza for being against government regulation to make sure that a fair field of play exists for everyone. The writer, whomever he or she is, should either (A)read and reviewed the LIBRE Initiative's website and/or (B)presented those positions honestly.

We should all read the newly released report from a non-partisan think tank originally envisioned by President Lyndon Johnson of the Great Society fame and the intellectual cream of the golden age of JFK's Camel ot and look hard at its conclusion: “...it raises the question of whether social welfare policies paytoo little attention to wealth building and mobility relative to consumption and income.

Because Hispanics and blacks are disproportionately low income, their wealth building is strongly affected by policies aimed at low-income families. Right now, safety net policies emphasize consumption: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, for example, try to ensure that families haveenough food to eat and other basic necessities.
Many safety net programs even discouragesaving: families can become ineligible if they have a few thousand dollars in savings. Wealth-building policies, on the other hand, are delivered as tax subsidies for homeownership and retirement. Since families of color are less likely to be able to use these subsidies, they benefit little or not at all .”

That is right, gentle reader! Your eyes are not deceiving you. The reforms that Mr. Garza and the LIBRE Initiative are calling for regarding federal spending policy and federal regulations are exactly those suggested by the Urban Institute, a child of the liberal Great Society movement. Those so-called liberals and progressives who even today are calling for more federal regulation of business and the creation of a larger federal nanny state are actually the ones who are leading the charge to continue to trap millions and millions of poor Americans, many of them Latinos, in a never-ending cycle of poverty and increased gap in wealth accumulation.

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC).

Final Decision on Deferred Action Lawsuit Deferred

The Obama Administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals which was announced by the Department of Homeland Security in June 2012 will probably not survive its first year of existence.

 

US District Court Judge Reed O'Connor ruled on April 23^rd in the US Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas in a lawsuit brought by federal immigration agents that “the court finds that DHS does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings when the requirements for deportation under a federal statute are met”.

Judge O'Connor stayed any order for implementation of his ruling until at least May 6^th when the parties to the lawsuit {Crane v. Napolitano, 3:12-CV-03247, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas)}further briefs on granting a temporary restraining order against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and the Obama Administration are due.

The Deferrred Action for Childhood Arrivals(DACA) is a program developed by the Obama Administration to do an end-run the inability of Congress to pass DREAM Act legislation which would allow the undocumented, foreign born children of undocumented parents to obtain a path citizenship. DACA requirements include: that they were under the age of 31 as of June 15,2012; they came to the United States prior to the 16^th birthday; they were physically present in the US on June 15, 2012 and at the time of making their request to USCIS; they entered the US without documents prior to June 15, 2012 or their lawful immigration status expired prior to that date; they must be currently enrolled in school or have a high school diploma or GED or an honorable discharge from the US Armed Forces including the Coast Guard; and have no felony convictions, significant misdemeanor conviction or more than two minor misdemeanors as well as not posing a threat to national security or public safety.

Judge O'Connor indicated in his ruling that DHS has to prove in the additional filings he requested that it has the prosecutorial discretion as it claims in its initial brief because the Court's ruling is that the Department does not have such discretion based on current federal immigration statute. Unless the Department is able to convince the Judge otherwise at the scheduled May 6^th hearing, it is likely that the plaintiffs will receive their temporary injunction which will prevent DHS from accepting any new DACA claims or processing existing ones as well as forcing DHS to continue deportation hearings against those individuals it has suspended proceedings against since DACA went into effect.

If Judge O'Connor does issue the injunction in this case and the Obama Administration refuses to abide by it while it is under appeal, the Administration faces the possibility that the fragile framework for comprehensive immigration reform will collapse like a house of cards. The tentative moves that have been seen in the Congress will cease.

I will be keeping a close eye on what happens in Judge O'Connor's courtroom and report back to Being Latino readers!

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity    Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC).

EQUALITY: DOES IT MEAN OPPORTUNITY OR OUTCOME?

An item posted on Facebook caused me to take a step back and think about a question, two questions actually, which has been in the back of my mind for a long time: the classic Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s, 1960s and into the 1970s was concerned with creating equal opportunity for all Americans regardless of race and color. Martin Luther King's “I Have a Dream” speech talks to the proposition that “my four little children will someday live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”. The particular posting on Facebook talked about a study which showed the 'inequality' of income along the various subway lines of New York City and how that 'inequality' was growing, creating an unfair and wrong situation in the eyes of the person posting the item.

The questions for me were these: for equality to exist in America for Latinos, does the outcome for them as a group require that the group outcome be one of affluence for all or is the traditional idea of equal opportunity alone enough? and if the goal is equal affluence not just opportunity, how would this be achieved?

Raising these questions set off a minor firestorm of personally aimed attacks by several Facebook acquaintances which ranged from claims that I was naive and uninformed to suggestions that I have hatred for the poor and/or minority groups for raising such questions. There was even a question of why I write for Being Latino! if I would ask the questions I asked. They wanted to portray me as a conservative white-boy who is ignorant and probably racist.

It was easy enough for me to counter these critics. I have a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and am extremely well-read in History and Economics; my late wife was a 1^st generation Mexican-American; and I am an active member and past local Council President of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC). I have an excellent track record in advocating for my local Latino community and have been honored for my work with LULAC.

What interested me was that no one attempted to answer my questions on how a more equitable income situation could be reached short of setting government-mandated minimum and maximum income and wealth levels along with confiscation of any 'excess' for redistribution to those who don't have what is deemed an equitable level.

I know that it is easier to curse the evils of the capitalist system than it is to offer ideas for reform, and it is easier to go after those that ask uncomfortable questions than to answer them; but, one would hope that those who deem themselves progressive would be able to offer thoughtful ideas and not act like the evil, uncaring people that they supposedly oppose and they would accuse me of being.

The attitudes I encountered reflect the 'something for nothing' expectations of so-called progressives of today and not the original goal and expectations of the early leaders and members of the Civil Rights Movement, men and women who were looking for an equal playing field of opportunity not some pseudo-socialist handouts or mooching off the work of others. In corrupting the honor and goals of those who came before them, they dishonor the memory of the efforts of their forebears and do a disservice to those in the present they claim to want to help.

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC).

Is the new Pope Latin American? Are anchor babies American?

Hector Luis Alamo, Jr. in his March 25th article on this website, Pope Francis is not Latino (and barely Latin American),claimed that as a child of immigrants to Argentina, albeit one born in Argentina, Jorge Mario Bergoglio could not be considered either Latino or Latin American since he is the first generation of his family born in a Latin American country.

 

While I would concede that Pope Francis is not Latino, since this term applies to those children born in the United States of parents from Mexico and countries further south, I would take issue with the second part of his argument that Francis is barely Latin American.

Hector’s questioning of the Pope’s “Latin American-ness” makes me think of two groups of people: the ‘Know Nothings‘ of 19^th century U.S. politics who were a nativist, racist group of Protestants who looked upon the newly-arriving Catholic Irish and Germans as the tools of the Papacy bent on taking over and toppling the American democratic experiment(reflected in many ways by Pat Buchanan and his ilk today) and, more recently, those in Mexico who questioned President Vincente Fox’s “Mexican-ness” and “Latin American-ness” in the early 2000s since his parents were both children of immigrant families—his paternal grandfather being from Germany via the United States originally in the 1870s and his mother being the child of Basque parents who herself was born and emigrated from Spain with her parents as a child. Vincente Fox himself being born and raised in Guanajuato, Mexico.

From reading Hector’s article, it appears that he believes in a “2^nd generation rule” when it comes to being American or Mexican or Argentinian or Latin American. That is, the grandchildren of immigrants to Latin American countries or to the United States only truly deserve the titles. People like Pope Francis or my late wife, who were born to immigrants in their new homeland, are somewhat less than those who have been here at least one additional generation. So, the children of my wife’s siblings can claim the title ‘American’ but my wife and her siblings born here cannot. That seems to put Hector on the same wavelength as those who claim that, despite the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, children born of undocumented immigrants here on U.S. soil, the so-called ‘anchor babies’ should not be eligible for citizenship even if their parents have made their homes here for years and years(de facto if not de jure immigrants).

Hector is reflecting an unfortunate but truly American attitude, whether being argued as a devil’s advocate or not, in that, he argues for an attitude that I would think he would find ugly in his fellow citizens if applied to him or other Americans of Latino descent.


By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity.  Jeffery Cassity is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC).

George P Bush---Young, Latino, and the next President named Bush?

“These are Jebby's kids from Florida, the little brown ones.”

Then Vice President George HW Bush, August 16, 1988

referring to the three children (including George P. Bush) of Bush's son, Jeb and his Mexican-born wife, Columba

George P. Bush has come along since being part of the subject of an awkward grandfatherly quote twenty-five years ago. Later in 1988 while still only 12, he spoke at the Republican National Convention where his grandfather was nominated as the Republican candidate for President. Four years later, George P. spoke again at the 1992 Republican Convention which renominated his grandfather who was seeking re-election as President. He attended and graduated from the prestigous Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami in 1994 and earned his college degree from Rice University in 1998. He received his law degree from the University of Texas Law School in 2003. George P. also worked on the two successful Presidential campaigns of his uncle, George W. in 2000 and 2004.

When asked by the media about his own Presidential aspirations upon graduating from law school, George P. responded with the advice his grandmother, Barbara, wife of George HW and herself the second cousin five times removed of President Franklin Pierce, gave him. She told him, “Make a name for yourself, have a family, marry someone great, have some kids, buy a house, pay taxes, and do the things everyone also does instead of just running out and saying, 'Hey, I'm the nephew of or the son of or the grandson of...'."

Following that advice, George P. quickly started making his own way in the world. He clerked for a federal judge for a year before leaving to work as a corporate and securities lawyer for a couple years. He left the firm to co-founded Pennybacker Capital, LLC, a real estate-focused private equity firm in Austin, Texas, which he left in 2012. From there, he moved on to his position as manager of St. Augustine Partners, an energy and technology-focused investment firm in Ft. Worth.

George married a law school classmate, Amanda Williams, on August 7, 2004 in Kennebunkport, Maine at the Bush family vacation compound. She is a media law attorney in Ft. Worth, Texas, where they reside.

George P. is currently the national co-chair of Maverick PAC, a national political action committee dedicated to engaging the next generation of Republican voters. He is also a co-founder and on the board of directors of Hispanic Republicans of Texas, a political action committee whose goal is to elect Republican political candidates of Latino heritage to office in Texas. Also George P. is currently the Tarrant County chairman for Uplift Education—a Dallas-based public charter network focused on closing the achievement gap in inner-city public schools.

George P joined the Naval Reserve in March 2007, holding the rank of Lieutenant. He said that attending the christening of the aircraft carrier named for his grandfather, the USS George HW Bush and the inspiration he drew from Pat Tillman leaving a successful NFL career to join the military led to his decision to join. George P. served a tour of duty in Afghanistan in 2011 and received the Joint Service Commendation Medal for his time there, serving as an Intelligence Specialist.

Recently, George P. has taken the first step into formally entering politics and what many see as a first step on a political career path which may lead him to the same place his grandfather and uncle ended up---1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Ending months of speculation, George P. announced officially on February 26^th of this year that he will be seeking the office of Texas Land Commissioner in 2014. This office has served traditionally as a stepping stone in the careers of several Texas politicians. To the sound of Beyonce's “Halo”, the next generation of the Bush family entered politics.

Even before his first run for public office has fully begun, speculation is starting about the course George P. will take. Will he work his way up the chain from Land Commissioner to Lt. Governor to Governor, or will he take the route which escaped his uncle, George W., the US House of Representatives?

Whichever route he takes, it is almost a foregone conclusion at this early date that in a matter of a few years, the nation will be hearing rumors and gossip of a new Bush looking to live in the White House: A photogenic 'little brown one' named George P. Bush.

By Being Latino Contributor, Jeffery Cassity Jeffery is a mostly socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Hispanic community as the widower of a 1st generation Mexican-American woman and his active, some would say hyperactive, membership in the local Council of the League of Latin American Citizens(LULAC).

Historic challenge to the Voting Rights Act

Section 5 of the 1964 Voting Rights Act requires certain covered jurisdictions (mostly but not exclusively in the South) to get the pre-clearance of the federal government before they can make any changes in their voting laws. These changes can range anywhere from voter registration rules to changes in polling locations. It was supposed to be a temporary provision that was to last only five years. Instead, it has been maintained and expanded with each renewal by Congress.

Shelby County in Alabama is one of the covered jurisdictions, since it is part of a state that is a covered jurisdiction based on the current formula used by the U.S. Department of Justice, which is responsible for reviewing compliance. When Congress passed the latest extension of the provisions that sunset in 2006, Shelby County filed suit against the U.S. attorney general as the chief agency in charge of the act’s enforcement.

The lawsuit finally reached its ultimate destination on February 26th of this year: the U.S. Supreme Court. The basic argument Shelby County has put before the court is not that the law is no longer needed, but rather, that the current formula used by the Department of Justice and approved by Congress is unconstitutional, as it violates the 14th and 15th Amendments — basically, the ones which outlaw slavery and give African Americans citizenship and the right to vote. They also enshrined in law the principle of due process and equal protection under the law — laws apply equally to all U.S. citizens with few exceptions, none of which involve race and ethnicity.

Shelby County argued that the “opt out” provisions — those standards which would free a political division such as a state or a subdivision such as a county, city or other governmental district — are based on standards from 1968. They argue that current statistics and realities in the covered jurisdictions have changed greatly in the past 45 years. These statistics come from the government’s own Census Bureau.

Shelby County argues that the provisions of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which has no sunset built in, provide adequate remedies for any cases of discrimination, since it allows for lawsuits by individuals, groups or the U.S. Department of Justice to correct action by state and local governments.

The problem pointed to by the Department of Justice and others opposing Shelby County is that it was and is up to Congress as to determine the special provisions for pre-clearance as still needed and what the standards for “opting out” should be. They note that in the history of the act, many jurisdictions have been able to meet the formula of Section 5. The department also argues that while most pre-clearances are granted, there are enough cases where proposed changes have been blocked to justify the continuation of the pre-clearances.

Based on a transcript of the oral arguments for Shelby County v. Holder, I believe the court will, along the existing 5-4 conservative/liberal line, rule in favor of Shelby County. The court will rule that the disputed formula is unconstitutional but the concept of pre-clearace passes constitutional muster, and it will be up to Congress to fashion a standard that will be acceptable based upon the court’s decision. It will recognize the need for the pre-clearances to remain in covered jurisdictions, but that the realities in those jurisdictions is changing also for the better.


By Jeffery Cassity, guest contributor
Jeffery Cassity is a socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Latino community. As the widower of a 1st-generation Mexican-American woman, he’s an active (some would say hyperactive) member of the his Council of the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

Mexico’s new education laws: reform or political power play?

On Feb. 26, just days before radical new educational reforms were scheduled to take effect, Elba Esther Gordillo, head of Mexico’s powerful teacher’s union for almost a quarter century, was arrested and charged with embezzling 2 billion pesos (approximately $160 million) from her union during her tenure.

The question that is foremost on everyone’s mind: is this a move by President Enrique Peña Nieto to get rid himself of a leading political opponent, or is it another move to break the power of the teacher’s union nearly monopolistic control of the Mexican educational system and an effort to bring about actual reform?

Mexico is currently ranked last among the members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), according to the organization’s 2012 report. This is not the result of lack of funding. While the country spends 22 percent of its gross national product on education, with over 80 percent of that going to teachers’ salaries, fewer than half of students graduate high school.
Among OECD countries, only Brazil and Chile have a lower graduation rate.  In testing results for math, science and critical reading skills, only 1 percent of Mexican students post “advanced” results, compared to 18 percent of Canadian students and 10 percent of U.S. students.

So what are the reforms that Sra. Gordillo and her union members oppose?  First, the teachers whose salaries are paid for by the federal government would be hired by the government; no longer would teachers be chosen by the union. The long-standing and well-documented practice of union leadership at the national and local level, choosing who receives appointments based on the payment of bribes and the inheritance of positions from parent to child, would be abolished.  Second, promotion and pay raises would be based upon merit and not whom you know or how loyal you are to the union.  Third, the approximately 1 million Mexican teachers would be subject to an evaluation   system that is current being developed.  Finally, teachers would have to provide proof of qualification to be teachers by taking exams. Under the current system, many teachers lack even a high-school education.

None of these reforms are inconsistent with what most governments around the world do in relationship to their educational systems. Most are basic functions of governments at various levels around the world.

In the past, Sra. Godillo and her union have been partnered with President Peña Nieto’s Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), until the union moved its support to Calderon’s National Action Party (PAN) following Calderon’s election in 2006.  Many have viewed her arrest and the passage of these reform laws as Peña Nieto’s attempt at revenge against the union. The evidence to date shows that it is a calculated move by the current president to do more than one thing. Peña Nieto realized the changes in the law as a way to wrest control of the educational system from the union and put it in the government’s hands — and also get his revenge on Sra. Godillo and her union for not supporting him.

The hope of many parents and educational reform groups in Mexico, such as Mexicanos Primero (“Mexicans First”) and the Citizen Coalition for Education, is that President Peña Nieto actually makes good on reforms and creates a quality education system in Mexico that improves the lives of children and puts Mexico on a path for development, bringing the nation into the 21st century.


By guest contributor Jeffery Cassity
Jeffery Cassity is a socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative Anglo male who is involved in his local Latino community. As the widower of a 1st-generation Mexican-American woman, he’s an active (some would say hyperactive) member of the his Council of the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC).