Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:25:28.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Distinct Minority: LULAC, Mexican American Identity, and Presidential Policymaking, 1965–1972

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

Craig A. Kaplowitz
Craig A. Kaplowitz
Affiliation:
Judson College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, Mexican American civil rights went from being an addendum to civil rights for African Americans to a stand-alone policy with a bureaucracy, federal programs, and an independent rationale. Ever since President Harry Truman accepted civil rights in the Democratic platform in 1948, federal policymakers and politicians tried to fit Mexican Americans, and other minority groups, into the civil rights mold they had carved out for blacks in the South. While subject to severe discrimination and disadvantage, Mexican Americans did not face the consistent statutory segregation and discrimination faced by blacks. Federal civil rights policy for Mexican Americans through the mid-1960s consisted of New Frontier and Great Society funding programs to which Mexican American organizations could apply for money to develop and carry out projects in their communities. By the end of Richard Nixon's first term, a federal bilingual education program was established, agencies and committees existed whose sole function was to coordinate Mexican American programs, and Mexican Americans were recognized by policymakers as a distinct minority group with unique needs that required particular federal remedies.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 192 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Segregation of Mexican Americans tended to be customary and local rather than statutory. Mexican American success in the courts, particularly in Texas, defined the group as white, and therefore not subject to Jim Crow laws. This is not to say that discrimination did not exist, or was not oppressive, but rather that it was de facto rather than de jure, and thus different from segregation of blacks.

2. See, for example, Rendon, Armando B., Chicano Manifesto (New York, 1971), 1Google Scholar; Gomez-Quinones, Juan, Chicano Politics: Reality and Promise, 1940–1990 (Albuquerque, 1990), 109Google Scholar.

3. Of the most often-cited works on Mexican American history, LULAC rarely is mentioned in more than two or three scattered sentences for the period after 1965. See, for example, Quinones, Chicano Politics; Pycior, Julie Leininger, LBJ and Mexican Americans: The Paradox of Power (Austin, 1997)Google Scholar; Barrera, Mario, Beyond Aztlan: Ethnic Autonomy in Comparative Perspective (New York, 1988)Google Scholar; Acuna, Rudolfo, Occupied America: A History of Chicanos, 4th ed. (New York, 2000)Google Scholar; Garcia, F. Chris and de la Garza, Rudolph O., The Chicano Political Experience: Three Perspectives (North Scituate, Mass., 1977)Google Scholar. The only institutional biography of LULAC focuses on membership incentives. It finds LULAC largely irrelevant to most of the Chicano community by the late 1960s, and has little to say regarding its role in national political life. Marquez, Benjamin, LULAC: The Evolution of a Mexican American Political Organization (Austin, 1993)Google Scholar.

4. Mario Garcia argues that LULAC consistently maintained an appreciation for the Mexican elements of its members' identity and considers LULAC as one formidable organization within what he calls the “Mexican American Generation.” But Garcia's analysis of LULAC ends with the late 1950s and thus does not speak to the watershed years of the civil rights era. Garcia, Mario T., Mexican Americans: Leadership, Ideology, and Identity, 1930–1960 (New Haven, 1989), 25–61Google Scholar.

5. On Johnson's preference for certain civil rights leaders, see Steven F. Lawson, “Mixing Moderation with Militancy: Lyndon Johnson and African-American Leadership,” in Divine, Robert A., ed., The Johnson Years, Volume Three: LBJ At Home and Abroad (Lawrence, Kan., 1994)Google Scholar.

6. For the early history of LULAC, see Marquez, LULAC, and Garcia, Mexican Americans.

7. Interview, William Flores with Oscar J. Martinez, 26 November 1975, 4 December 1975, Presidential Papers of William Flores, box 3, folder 18, LULAC. See also Garcia, Mexican Americans, 46–59.

8. For example, in 1942 the Office for the Co-ordination of Inter-American Affairs of the Defense Department planned to record part of LULAC's national convention for later broadcast to South America and Mexico. The war office believed LULAC represented the good citizenship and responsibility that the government wanted to highlight for its hemispheric neighbors. Clippings from Albuquerque Journal and Albuquerque Tribune, folder 3, Benjamin Osuna collection, LULAC papers, Benson Latin American Collection, University of Texas at Austin (hereafter cited as LULAC).

9. Statistics showed that Mexican Americans suffered rates of unemployment, poverty, and education comparable to those of blacks. The 1960 census is the source for most statistics on the condition of the Mexican American population, as the Census Bureau identified people in the Southwest with Spanish surnames for statistical purposes. The insistence that Mexican Americans be considered white left most other government reports of the early- to mid-1960s with only two categories—white and nonwhite. Rowan, Helen, The Mexican American: A Paper Prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights—1968 (Washington, D.C., 1972), 5Google Scholar. Grebler, Leo, Moore, Joan W., and Guzman, Ralph C., The Mexican-American People: The Nation's Second Largest Minority (New York, 1970)Google Scholar, conveniently reproduce statistics on Mexican Americans from both the census and government reports from the 1950s and 1960s.

10. The early history of LULAC is sprinkled with suggestions of racism, which most likely accounted for some of the disassociation with the cause of African Americans. See Marquez, LULAC, 33–34.

11. Minutes, 34th National LULAC Convention, July 1963; Handwritten notes, Resolution #6; copy of proposed resolution #4; all in folder 3, Andow office files; Minnesota State Report, n.d., Minutes,Supreme Council Meeting,30 November 1963Google Scholar; both in folder 2, Andow office files; LULAC.

12. LULAC was not alone in its reluctance to join forces with blacks. In 1963, economic competition between working-class Mexican Americans and blacks combined with racial differences in Los Angeles to prevent local Mexican American leaders from joining a struggle by city blacks to gain civil rights from the city council and local businessmen. The Mexican Americans joined with blacks only after they realized that black gains would come at the expense of Mexican Americans, as when employers began to fire Mexicans to hire blacks to ease the pressure of the protesting group. New York Times, 9 August 1963, 10; 10 August 1963, 8; 11 August 1963, 70.

13. Davies, Gareth, From Opportunity to Entitlement: The Transformation and Decline of Great Society Liberalism (Lawrence, Kan., 1996), 34Google Scholar.

14. It should be noted that this approach helped LULAC with the organizational problem of funding. The national leadership sought sources of income independent of membership dues and found some in Kennedy's housing program, through which LULAC received federal insurance to build housing for low- to middle-income Mexican Americans. See Kaplowitz, Craig A., “Mexican Americans and Federal Policy: The League of United Latin American Citizens and the Politics of Cultural Disadvantage” (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1999), 80–84, 95–99Google Scholar.

15. Graham, Hugh Davis, The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy, 1960–1972 (New York, 1990), chaps. 7, 9, 10Google Scholar; Skrentny, John David, The Ironies of Affirmative Action: Politics, Culture, and Justice in America (Chicago, 1996), chaps. 4, 5Google Scholar; Davies, From Opportunity to Entitlement, chaps. 3, 4.

16. New York Times, 17 October 1965, 82. See also “Another Civil-Rights Headache—Plight of Mexican-Americans,” U.S. News & World Report, 6 June 1966, 46–48. Significantly, the Times report revealed that Mexican Americans considered blacks, but not themselves, to be “colored people.”

17. LULAC News, March 1966, 1; Hernandez cited statistics that showed Mexican Americans made up just over one percent of employees in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and less than one percent in grades GS 9–18, the highest-paying positions. The Mexican American: A New Focus on Opportunity: Testimony Presented at the Cabinet Committee Hearings on Mexican American Affairs (Washington, D.C., 1967), 227–32.

18. Graham, Civil Rights Era, 129–34, 145–52, 177–80, 189–90.

19. See, for example, letter, Belen Robles to President Johnson, 15 May 1965, whcf-subject file box 45, Gen. HU 2–1 Employment 8 May–11 November 1965 folder, Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, Austin, Texas (hereafter cited as LBJL).

20. LULAC News, March 1966, 1; May 1967, 1.

21. Roosevelt's announcement of efforts for the Spanish-speaking was reprinted in LULAC News, January 1966, 2; Letter, Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. to President Johnson, 7 April 1966, whcf-subject file box 46, EX HU 2–1/MC, 1 August 1965–folder, LBJL.

22. Press release, Mexican American delegates, 28 March 1966, located in memo, Carlos Rivera to Marvin Watson, 30 March 1966, whcf-subject file box 380, EX FG 655, 7 December 1965–31 May 1966 folder, LBJL; New York Times, 29 March 1966; Albuquerque Journal, 29 March 1966, A1–A2. Only one EEOC commissioner, Republican Richard Graham of Wisconsin, attended the meeting. There was little in Graham's background that suggested he had any knowledge of the problems of Mexican Americans, as he readily admitted.

23. New York Times, 1 April 1966, 18; 22 May 1966, 44; LULAC News, May 1966, 1; December 1966, 1.

24. Johnson had entertained several Mexican American leaders, including LULAC's Alfred Hernandez, at the White House in May. At the time, administration officials believed the dinner served the purpose of cementing the leaders' loyalty to Johnson, but by the fall of 1966 they feared otherwise. See the front-page story of the LULAC Extra, October 1966, copy located in whcf-subject file box 4, EX HU2 1 September–8 November 1966 folder; letter, Alfred Hernandez to President Johnson, 7 November 1966; letter, José Pacheco to President Johnson, 26 January 1967; both located in whcf-subject file box 24, Gen HU2/MC 16 June–31 July 1966 folder; memo, David North to Larry Levinson, 14 December 1966, office files of Harry McPherson box 11, Mexican Americans folder; letter, Joseph Califano to Albert Pinon, 16 September 1966; memo, Vice President Hubert Humphrey to Joseph Califano, 5 September 1966; both located in whcf-subject file box 23, EX HU2/MC 7 June–12 October 1966 folder, LBJL.

25. Davies, From Opportunity to Entitlement, 105–30.

26. Letter, John Young to President Johnson, 13 October 1966, whcf-subject file box 4, EX HU2, 1 September–8 November 1966 folder, LBJL.

27. LULAC Extra, October 1966, pp. 1–2, copy located in whcf-subject file box 4, EX HU, 2 1 September–8 November 1966 folder, LBJL.

28. Memo, David North to Joseph Califano, 8 September 1966, whcf-subject file box 23, EX HU2/MC, 7 June–12 October 1966 folder, LBJL. North spoke of both Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans, who wanted to be included in any conference on the problems of Spanish-speaking Americans.

29. LULAC Extra, October 1966, 6, copy located in whcf-subject file box 4, EX HU 2, 1 September–8 November 1966 folder, LBJL. 100. Memo, James Falcon to Jake Jacobsen, 2 December 1966, whcf-subject file box 43, EX HU 2–1, 13 April–16 December 1966 folder, LBJL; New Republic, 20 June 1970, 17.

30. Memo, James Falcon to Jake Jacobsen, 2 December 1966, whcf-subject file box 43, EX HU 2–1, 13 April–16 December 1966 folder, LBJL; New Republic, 20 June 1970, 17.

31. Republicans gained similar percentages of the Mexican American vote across the Southwest in 1966, including 23 percent for the Republican gubernatorial candidate and 24 percent for the Republican senatorial candidate in Colorado, and even 13 percent for archconservative Barry Goldwater in the senatorial election in Arizona. Levy, Mark R. and Kramer, Michael S., The Ethnic Factor: How America's Minorities Decide Elections (New York, 1972), 232–240Google Scholar.

32. Memo, [John] Gardner to President Johnson, 11 February 1967; memo, Joseph Califano to President Johnson, 13 February 1967; both located in office files of Joseph Califano box 6, Latin American Conference folder, LBJL.

33. Letter, Alfred Hernandez to President Johnson, 13 June 1967, whcf-subject file box 386, Gen FG 687 Interagency Committee on Mexican American Affairs folder, LBJL.

34. Memo, Victor Ximenes to President Johnson, 14 July 1967, whcf-cf box 39, FG 687 Inter Agency Committee on Mexican American Affairs folder, LBJL.

35. Letter, Belen Robles to President Johnson, 12 July 1966, and attached resolutions, whcf-subject file box 24, Gen HU2/MC 16 June–31 July 1966 folder, LBJL; LULAC Extra, October 1966, copy located in whcf box 4, EX HU2 1 September–8 November 1966 folder, LBJL; letter, Albert Hernandez to President Johnson, 7 November 1966; letter, José Pacheco to President Johnson, 26 January 1967; both located in whcf-subject file box 24, Gen HU2/MC, 16 June–31 July 1966 folder, LBJL.

36. See, in particular, Hero, Rodney E., Latinos and the U.S. Political System: Two-Tiered Pluralism (Philadelphia, 1992)Google Scholar.

37. Skowronek, Steven, The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to George Bush (Cambridge, 1993)Google Scholar; Graham, Hugh Davis, “Richard Nixon and Civil Rights: Explaining an Enigma,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 26 (Winter 1996): 93–106Google Scholar.

38. P.L. 91–181 (83 Stat. 838). Johnson's committee had involved Puerto Ricans and Cubans, but its title reflected Johnson's focus on Mexican Americans. The inclusion of other Spanish-speaking Americans in the new committee's title did not offend most Mexican American organizations. In fact, LULAC called for the committee to be renamed to make it explicitly inclusive. See LULAC News, July 1968, 2. See also Nixon, Richard, “Statement on Signing the Bill Establishing the Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for Spanish-Speaking People,” 31 12 1969Google Scholar, Public Papers of the Presidents: Richard Nixon, 1969, 1048–49.

39. Significant appointments included eleven at or above GS-15 and four at or above PAS Level II. Memo, Bill Marumoto to Fred Malek, 18 November 1971, whcf-office files of Robert Finch box 46 (4), Rayburn Hanzlick File Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for Spanish Speaking (1 of 4) folder, Richard Nixon Presidential Materials, National Archives II, College Park, Maryland (hereafter cited RNPM). Of course, the administration worked diligently to find Republicans, or at least conservative Latinos, to appoint. The numbers are a telling contrast to the Johnson administration because Republican Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans were more difficult to find.

40. Caputo, David A., “Richard M. Nixon, General Revenue Sharing, and American Federalism,” in Friedman, Leon and Levantrosser, William F., eds., Richard M. Nixon: Politician, President, Administrator (Westport, Conn., 1991), 59–76Google Scholar; Reichley, James, Conservatives in an Age of Change: The Nixon and Ford Administrations (Washington, D.C., 1981), 154–173Google Scholar.

41. Letter, John Rhodes to John Ehrlichman, 22 February 1973; letter, John Rhodes to Peter Brennan, 22 February 1973, both located in whcf-subject file box 8, EX LA 2, 1 March–31 March 1973 folder, RNPM.

42. Letter, John Tower et al. to President Nixon, 24 april 1973, whcf-subject file box 8, EX LA 2, 1 April–30 April 1973 folder, RNPM.

43. CETA itself represented a compromise between the Democratic Congress and Republican administration. Democrats insisted on authorization for public-sector jobs to fight unemployment and in turn gave Nixon funding for local prime sponsors to develop manpower training programs. See Franklin, Grace A. and Ripley, Randall B., CETA: Politics and Policy, 1973–1982 (Knoxville, Tenn., 1984)Google Scholar.

44. Graham, Hugh Davis, The Uncertain Triumph: Federal Education Policy in the Kennedy and Johnson Years (Chapel Hill, 1984), 155Google Scholar. Yarborough lost the 1970 nomination to Lloyd Bentsen.

45. Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Bilingual Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, 90th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, D.C., 1967) (hereafter cited as Hearings, 1967).

46. For the sponsorship of the bill, see Hearings, 1967, 2. Senators in the Southwest gave support to appeal to their Mexican American constituents; those in New York and New Jersey did so to appeal to their Puerto Rican constituents. Cuban Americans, who were more united and more politically potent than either Mexican Americans or Puerto Ricans, already received federal support for bilingual schooling. Their representatives in Congress had no need to co-sponsor a bilingual-education bill. See Mackey, William and Beebe, Von Nieda, Bilingual Schools for a Bicultural Community: Miami's Adaptation to the Cuban Refugees (Rowley, Mass., 1977)Google Scholar. I am grateful to Gareth Davies for bringing this fact to my attention.

47. This program, run at the local level and then in Texas with state assistance, was called the Little Schools of the 400. See Miguel, Guadelupe San Jr., “Let All of Them Take Heed”: Mexican Americans and the Campaign for Educational Equality in Texas, 1910–1981 (Austin, 1987), 140–145Google Scholar; Hernandez, Carolyn, LULAC: The History of a Grass Roots Organization and Its Influence on Educational Policies, 1929–1983 (Ph.D. diss., Loyola University of Chicago, 1995), 84–93Google Scholar.

48. Hearings, 1967, 244–47, 399–403. Quotations in this paragraph are taken from these pages.

49. P.L. 90–247.

50. For the controversy over block grants, see Graham, Uncertain Triumph, 149–59; Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 22 December 1967, 2614–17.

51. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 22 December 1967, 2614–17.

52. Memo, Lee E. Wickline to Thomas Purvis, 21 October 1970, whcf-office files of Robert Finch box 21, Spanish-speaking confidential folder, RNPM.

53. Spanish Speaking Programs, Key Scoring Points, n.d., whcf—office files of Anne Armstrong box 71, [Counselor Armstrong Briefing Book 1973–74] (1 of 2) folder, RNPM; Nixon Administration Accomplishment Report for Hispanic Americans, First Draft, 5 July 1974, whcf—office files of Anne Armstrong box 21, Hispanic Americans folder, RNPM.

54. Memo, James B. Clawson to Ken Cole, 28 January 1972, whcf-subject file box 4, EX HU 2 Equality 1 January–29 February 1972 folder, RNPM. HEW was more optimistic about the program, citing examples of increased attendance and above-average performance on standardized tests—when tested in Spanish. See memo, Lee E. Wickline to Thomas Purvis, 21 October 1970, whcf-office files of Robert Finch box 21, Spanish-speaking confidential folder, RNPM.

55. Memo, J. Stanley Pottinger to School Districts with More Than Five Percent National Origin-Minority Group Children, 25 May 1970, whcf-subject files box 4, EX HU 2 Equality folder, RNPM.

56. The most common alternative to bilingual education was instruction in English as a Second Language (ESL), which did not employ the student's native language and simply taught children English as quickly as possible.

57. Memo, Charles W. Colson to John Ehrlichman, 20 December 1971, whcf-subject files box 4, EX HU 2 Equality 1 January–29 February 1972 folder, RNPM. Colson also noted that the administration's parochial school project would help the Spanish-speaking because Catholic schools, the main beneficiaries of the project, normally had a bilingual component to their curriculum.

58. Memo, James B. Clawson to Ken Cole, 28 January 1972, whcf-subject files box 4, EX HU 2 Equality 1 January–29 February 1972 folder, RNPM.

59. Newswire release, “President Johnson Better Not Tuck Away Those Votes Early,” cited in LULAC News, July 1967, 12. George Bush, head of the Republican National Committee, encouraged his party to develop programs for Mexican Americans to take advantage of the Democrats' failure to do so. Corpus Christi Caller, 25 March 1968, 1; New York Times, 22 October 1968, 29; Steiner, Stan, “Chicano Power,” New Republic, 20 06 1970, 16–18Google Scholar; Dallas Morning News, 17 March 1968.

60. Long Range Strategy: Hispanics, n.d., Presidential Materials Review Board Review of Contested Documents, White House Special Files—Staff, Frederic V. Malek, Documents from Boxes 1–4, folder 1 of 1, “Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for the Spanish Speaking (1 of 2) (1967, May 1969–February 1972), RNPM, 25.

61. Ibid., 27–31.

62. de la Isla, José, “The Politics of Reelection: Se habla espanol,” Aztlan 7, no. 3 (Fall 1976): 427–451Google Scholar.

63. New York Times, 28 July 1972, 12. See also José de la Isla, “The Politics of Reelection,” although de la Isla questions Nixon's success in gaining the Spanish-speaking vote because the president won “only” 30 percent.

64. Greenberg, Jack, “Litigation for Social Change: Methods, Limits, and Role in Democracy,” Records of the New York City Bar Association 29 (1974): 9–63Google Scholar; For a discussion of the LDF model in the context of MALDEF, see O'Connor, Karen and Epstein, Lee, “A Legal Voice for the Chicano Community: The Activities of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, 1968–82,” Social Science Quarterly 65 (1984): 245–256Google Scholar.

65. While LULAC had a reputation for success in the courts, it had always used litigation as a last resort, preferring moral suasion and threats of lawsuits to bring change. Miguel, Guadeloupe San Jr., “Mexican American Organizations and the Changing Politics of School Desegregation in Texas, 1945–1980,” Social Science Quarterly 63 (12 1982): 709–710Google Scholar; Interview, Oscar J. Martinez with William Flores, William Flores papers, LULAC.

66. For a brief overview of the proliferation of interest groups during these years, see Berry, Jeffrey M., The Interest Group Society, 2d ed. (Glenview, Ill., 1989), 16–34Google Scholar.

67. For a discussion of the politics of pan-Latino identity, see DeSipio, Louis, “More Than the Sum of Its Parts: The Building Blocks of a Pan-Ethnic Latino Identity,” in Rich, Wilber C., ed., The Politics of Minority Coalitions: Race, Ethnicity, and Shared Uncertainties (Westport, Conn. 1996), 177–190Google Scholar.

68. Milkis, Sidney M., “Remaking Government Institutions in the 1970s: Participatory Democracy and the Triumph of Administrative Politics,” Journal of Policy History 10 (1998): 51–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a study of Nixon's attempts to gain control of the executive branch through administrative means, see Nathan, Richard P., The Administrative Presidency (New York, 1986)Google Scholar. For the growth of interest groups and the changing nature of the American policy environment, see Berry, The Interest Group Society; Heclo, Hugh, “The Sixties' False Dawn: Awakening, Movements, and Postmodern Policymaking,” in Balogh, Brian, ed., Integrating the Sixties: The Origins, Structures, and Legitimacy of Public Policy in a Turbulent Decade (University Park, Pa., 1996), 34–63Google Scholar; Harris, Richard A. and Milkis, Sidney M., eds., Remaking American Politics (Boulder, 1989)Google Scholar; Landy, Marc K. and Levin, Martin A., eds., The New Politics of Public Policy (Baltimore, 1995)Google Scholar: King, Anthony, ed., The New American Political System, 2d ed. (Washington, D.C., 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69. For an overview of MALDEF's organization and activities, see O'Connor and Epstein, “A Legal Voice for the Chicano Community”; for a critical view of MALDEF's organization and funding structure, see Skerry, Peter, “The Ambivalent Minority: Mexican Americans and the Voting Rights Act,” Journal of Policy History 6 (1994): 73–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70. Davies, Gareth, “The Great Society After Johnson: The Case of Bilingual Education,” Journal of American History 88, no. 4 (03 2002): 1405–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71. See Matusow, Allen, Nixon's Economy: Booms, Busts, Dollars, and Votes (Lawrence, Kan., 1998)Google Scholar.

72. Schedule proposal, Anne Armstrong to President Nixon, 11 December 1973; memo, Terrence O'Donnell to Anne Armstrong, 17 December 1973; both located in whcf-subject files box 1, EX FG 145 CCOSSP, 1 January 1973–(9 August 1974) folder, RNPM.