Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T03:32:29.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Struggle Against Separate and Unequal Schools: Middle Class Mexican Americans and the Desegregation Campaign in Texas, 1929–1957

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

Guadalupe San Miguel Jr.
Guadalupe San Miguel Jr.*
Affiliation:
Department of Chicano Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since 1929 Mexican American organizations, headed by middle class leaders, have played a significant and increasing role in challenging discriminatory school policies and practices. Led and inspired by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the G. I. Forum, the challenge to education has been essentially a liberal one. As most liberals, Mexican Americans have perceived discrimination, segregation, inferior schools, and culturally biased curriculum and instructional practices as problems incidental to education, not as specific manifestations of systematic structural inequality. As a result, they have not sought the improvement of the existing educational structure by eliminating those barriers which limit Mexican American access to and participation in that system. Hence, the challenge to education has been limited to abolishing segregated schools and student assignment and classification policies which serve to increase segregation. The following essay is a history of this campaign to eliminate the segregation of Mexican American children in the Texas public schools. Emphasis will be placed on the strategies and tactics utilized by LULAC and the G. I. Forum to desegregate the public schools. The period to be covered will be between 1929 and 1957. The year 1929 marks the period during which the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the first statewide civic organization of Americans of Mexican descent, was organized in Texas. In the latter year the last of a series of desegregation cases filed by the Mexican American community was won. For the next ten years (between 1957 and 1967) because of political, financial, and organizational difficulties, no further legal challenges to educational segregation were made by the Mexican American community. The campaign to desegregate the public schools by Mexican American organizations from 1929 to 1957 has not received the scholarly attention it deserves. This essay will hopefully contribute to this gap in the history of American minority groups by describing and tracing the nature of this campaign against separate and unequal schools for Mexican Americans in Texas.

Type
Articles
Information
History of Education Quarterly , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , Fall 1983 , pp. 343 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 by History of Education Society 

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

Footnotes

1. For a useful and insightful account of the legal campaign to desegregate the public schools in Texas see Alcala, Carlos M. and Rangel, Jorge C., “Project Report: De Jure Segregation of Chicanos in the Texas Public Schools,” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 7 (March, 1972): 307–391. For a history of G.I. Forum's participation in the desegregation campaign see Allsup, Carl, “Education is our Freedom: The American G.I. Forum and the Mexican American School Segregation in Texas, 1948–1957,” Aztlan, 8(1977): 27–50.Google Scholar

2. For a general history of these organizations see Tirado, Miguel David, “Mexican American Community Political Organization: The Key to Chicano Political Power,” in Chris Garcia, F. (ed.), La Causa Politica: A Chicano Politics Reader (Notre Dame, 1974). For a comprehensive view of LULAC see Garza, Edward D., “LULAC: League of United Latin American Citizens,” Unpublished M.A. thesis, Southwest Texas State Teachers College, San Marcos, Texas, 1951 and Sandoval, Moises, Our Legacy: The First Fifty Years (Washington, D.C., 1979).Google Scholar

3. The American G.I. Forum was originally founded in 1948 in Corpus Christi, Texas by Dr. Hector P. Garcia. The name G.I. Forum meant that the organization was primarily a veteran's group (G.I. refers to an enlisted man in the U.S. armed forces) aimed at discussing the issues facing them in an open and democratic fashion, i.e., forum. Thus the G.I. Forum would be a veteran's group organized for the purpose of openly discussing issues confronting them in order to reach consensus on resolving them. For a brief historical overview of the organization see The American G.I. Forum and What It Stands For, (1950), 8 pp. The American G.I. Forum Central Office Files, Corpus Christi, Texas. (Hereinafter to be known as the AGIF Files).Google Scholar

4. Jose E. Limon writes in “El Congreso Mexicanista de 1911: A Precursor to Contemporary Chicanismo,” Aztlan, 5 (Spring and Fall 1974): 85–118, that La Cronica, a Mexican American community newspaper was writing about racial school discrimination and segregation in Laredo and other areas of south Texas as early as 1910. He also notes that at the Congreso Mexicanista a delegation from Houston, Texas, urged the conference participants to make formal protests to the State Superintendent of Public Schools concerning the mistreatment of Mexican Americans in the public schools.Google Scholar

5. See for example, Briegal, Kay Lynn, “Alianza Hispano-Americana, 1894–1965,” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1974.Google Scholar

6. Weeks, O. D., “The League of United Latin American Citizens: A Texas-Mexican Civic Organization,” The Southwestern Political and Social Science Quarterly 10 (December, 1929): 257–278, argues that the founders of LULAC were either born or raised in the United States. LULAC was the first organization founded by American citizens of Mexican ancestry.Google Scholar

7. Concrete evidence concerning the social origins of the leaders and members of these new types of organizations is lacking, but scattered information from historical sources strongly support my contention. For instance, of the seven central individuals responsible for organizing LULAC, four were lawyers, one was a businessman, and two were newspaper editors. See Weeks, O. D., “The League of United Latin American Citizens: A Texas-Mexican Civic Organization,” p. 263. Also, out of the total number of 20 Mexican Americans who have been president for the statewide LULAC between 1929 and 1950, over 50 per cent have been either lawyers, judges, small businessmen, or persons with college degrees. The list of state officers can be found in Garza, “LULAC: The League of United Latin American Citizens,” p. 12–13.Google Scholar

8. The Constitution of the League of United Latin American Citizens, Article LL. LULAC Office Files, Bonilla Building, Corpus Christi, Texas. (Herinafter known as LULAC Files).Google Scholar

9. Dr. George I. Sanchez estimated that 20 percent of the Mexicans in Texas were not citizens. Quoted in Edgar G. Sheldon, Jr. “Political Conditions Among Texas Mexicans Along the Rio Grande,” Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 1946, p. 4. In a study of Mexicans in the public schools Manual, H. T., The Education of the Spanish-speaking Children in Texas. (Austin, Texas, 1930), p. 5, also estimated that nearly 52 percent of the total number of Mexicans in Texas were citizens.Google Scholar

10. The Constitution of the League of United Latin American Citizens, Article II, LULAC Files.Google Scholar

11. Perales, Alonso S., “La Unificacion de los Mexico-Americanos,” La Prensa [San Antonio, Texas] (September 7, 1929), n.p. Google Scholar

12. The Constitution of LULAC, Article II. LULAC Files.Google Scholar

13. Ibid.Google Scholar

14. Tirado, , “Mexican American Community Political Organization: The Key to Chicano Political Power,” for example argues this point.Google Scholar

15. The Constitution of LULAC. Article II. LULAC Files Google Scholar

16. Ibid.Google Scholar

17. Weeks, , “The League of United Latin American Citizens: A Texas-Mexican Civic Organization:” 257–278, provides an excellent discussion of the problems and issues confronting the organizational development of LULAC see Garza, , “LULAC: League of United Latin American Citizens,” pp. 5–7.Google Scholar

18. Weeks, , Ibid: 268, also stated that organizational growth and the nature of the membership were two other major problems LULAC faced in 1929.Google Scholar

19. Ibid.Google Scholar

20. Perales, , “La Unificacion de los Mexico-Americanos,” quoted in Weeks, , Ibid: 268.Google Scholar

21. “The Segregation of Mexican Children at Del Rio,” LULAC News, I, No. 1 (August 1931): 12–13, quoted in Garza, , “LULAC: League of United Latin American Citizens,” p. 27.Google Scholar

22. Perales, , “La Unificacion de los Mexico-Americanos,” quoted in Weeks, , “The League of United Latin-” American Citizens: A Texas-Mexican Civic Organization:” 269.Google Scholar

23. Taylor, Paul S., An American Mexican Frontier: Nueces County, Texas (Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1934), p. 246.Google Scholar

24. For an analysis of the political machines in south Texas see Sheldon, Jr., “Political Conditions Among Texas Mexicans Along the Rio Grande.” Google Scholar

25. Weeks, , “The League of United Latin American Citizens: A Texas-Mexican Civic Organization:” 277–278.Google Scholar

26. Paul Taylor Collection. Interview with a LULAC member in Corpus Christi, Texas, 1929. Bancroft Library, Berkeley, California, n.p. Google Scholar

27. The American G.I. Forum and What It Stands For, p. 2 Google Scholar

28. Letter, Ed. Idar, Jr. to H. T. Manual. AGIF Files, n.p. Google Scholar

29. For a brief discussion of the goals of social reformers in education see Katz, Michael B., Class, Bureacracy, and Schools: The Illusion of Educational Change in America (New York, 1971), especially chapter 3. Tyack, David, The One Best System (Cambridge, Mass., 1974), also illustrates the nature of the structural reforms sought by what he labels the “administrative progressiveness” between 1890 and 1940.Google Scholar

30. Most Mexican Americans regardless of their social standing in the community or their length of residence in Texas attended segregated schools and experienced some form of discrimination. For an historical analysis of the impact public school attendance with Anglos had on Mexican Americans in one school district see Miguel, Guadalupe San Jr., “Endless Pursuits: The Chicano Educational Experience in Corpus Christi, Texas, 1880–1960,” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1978, pp. 184–223.Google Scholar

31. Independent School District vs. Salvatierra, 33 S. W. 2d 790 (Texas Civ. App., 4th Dist., 1930), cert. denied 284 U.S. 580 (1931).Google Scholar

32. Ibid., p. 795 Google Scholar

33. Personal interview. Wilmot, Louis A. May 3, 1977.Google Scholar

34. Ibid.Google Scholar

35. In 1939, L.A. threatened to cut state aid from the Ozona School District in South Texas for segregating Mexican children. See Sandoval, , Our Legacy, chapter 8 and 9, for more information concerning LULAC's educational activities.Google Scholar

36. Ibid., pp. 36–37 Google Scholar

37. The California federal court district court case was decided on February 19, 1946. See Mendez v. Westminster School District. 64 F. Supp. 544 (S.D., Cal. 1946), aff'd 161 F. 2d 774 (9th Cir. 1947) Google Scholar

38. Digest of Opinions of the Attorney General of Texas, V. 128. p. 39 (1947), quoted in Alcala and Rangel, , “Project Report,” p. 335.Google Scholar

39. Ibid., p. 336.Google Scholar

40. Allsup, , “Education is Our Freedom,” p. 32, also notes that on October 1947 three University of Texas student groups—the Laredo Club, the Alba Club, and the American Veterans Committee—charged local school districts in Beevile, Sinton, Elgin, Bastrop, and Cotulla with segregation. The local and state school officials dismissed their charges after conducting an investigation and no further action was undertaken either by the student groups or the school officials. Allsup does not discuss the ethnic composition of the student groups but implies that they were Mexican American in origin.Google Scholar

41. For a discussion of some unanswered questions raised by the California court case see Sanchez, George I., Concerning Segregation of Spanish-speaking Children in the Public Schools Inter-American Education, Occasional Papers, IX (Austin, 1951), pp. 10–13.Google Scholar

42. Delgado v. Bastrop Independent School District. (1948). Civil Action No. 333, District Court of the United States, Western District of Texas (Abstract of Principal Features), p. 1, quoted in Ibid., pp. 68–73.Google Scholar

43. Ibid., p. 1 Google Scholar

44. Ibid.Google Scholar

45. Allsup, , “Education is Our Freedom,” p. 34.Google Scholar

46. Texas State Board of Education, “Instructions and Regulations of the Texas State Superintendent of Public Instruction,” Texas State Board of Education Correspondence, AGIF Files, (1948).Google Scholar

47. Ibid.Google Scholar

48. Cristobal Alderete. Personal interview. July 26, 1979 Google Scholar

49. Del Rio Decision of L. A. Woods, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, April 23, 1949, p. 1.Google Scholar

50. Alcala, and Rangel, , “Project Report,” p. 339.Google Scholar

51. Cristobal Alderete. Personal interview. July 26, 1979.Google Scholar

52. Forum, American G.I., “School Inspection: Report on Fourteen Schools,” 1950, AGIF Files, p. 1.Google Scholar

53. Ibid., p. 2.Google Scholar

54. Ibid., p. 1.Google Scholar

55. Garcia, Hector P. Dr., “Report of Personal Inspection Trip,” April 13, 1950, AGIF Files, found that the following twelve cities segregated Mexican American students: Alpine, McAllen, Edinburg, Nixon, Sequin, Beeville, Edcouch, Lubbock, Sonora, Marathon, Pecos, and Rockspring. “Segregation is still the general rule and not the exception,” states the report. “School officials and school boards are not abiding by the Delgado Decision and is (sic) more important they have no intentions of abiding by this decree unless they are penalized in one way or another,” added Garcia in his report p. 1.Google Scholar

56. Agenda, , State Board of Education Minutes, April 14, 1950, Texas Education-Agency Library Austin, Texas, p. 3.Google Scholar

57. Texas Education Agency, “Statement of Policy Pertaining to Segregation of Latin American Children,” May 8, 1950. State Board of Education Correspondence, AGIF Files.Google Scholar

58. Forum, G.I., News Bulletin, 1, No. 4(December 15, 1952):3.states that LULAC and the G.I. Forum asked the Commissioner of Education, J. W. Edgar, to revise the procedure in appealing school segregation cases to his office. They sought to eliminate appeals to the local school officials “on grounds that it is like asking a jury to reconsider the case of a man it has already found guilty.” Allsup, , “Education is Our Freedom,” p. 38, also argues that the intent of the state official's actions “was to impede the attempts of the G.I. Forum and other organizations to eliminate segregation.” Google Scholar

59. The nine local districts brought to the Commissioner of Education for special hearings were the following: Kyle, Nixon, Hondo, Sanderson, Pecos, Carrizo Springs, Kingsville, Mathis, and Driscoll. The first five cases were decided by the Commissioner in 1953. The Carrizo Springs, Kingsville, and Mathis cases were decided in 1955, and the Driscoll case in 1957. The latter four cases were taken to court by Mexican American organizations but with the exception of the Driscoll case, they were all dismissed before the court reached a final decision. Alcala, and Rangel, , “Project Report,” pp. 340–342: Allsup, “Education is Our Freedom,” pp. 40–45.Google Scholar

60. Editorial, , News Bulletin, v. 5, No. 12 (December, 1957): n.p. Google Scholar

61. Alcala, and Rangel, , “Project Report,” pp. 340–341.Google Scholar

62. Garcia, Gus C., and Lopez, Homero M., “Statement,” Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Salinas School Segregation Case, April 28, 1955. AGIF Files, p. 1 Google Scholar

63. For example Cortez v. Carrizo Springs Independent School District (Dimmit County) Civil No. 832 (W.D. Tex., filed April 20, 1955) was dismissed on June 13, 1955 on plaintiff's motion after the local school board agreed to cooperate “in every respect.” In Villarreal et al. v. Mathis Independent School District (San Patricio County) Civil Action No. 1385 (S.D. Tex. May 2, 1957) the expert witness was afraid to testify and so the case was dismissed.Google Scholar

64. Editorial, , News Bulletin, v. 5, No. 12 (December, 1957): n.p. Google Scholar

65. Herminia Hernandez et. al. v. Driscoll Consolidated Independent School District, et. al., Civil No. 1384 (U.S.D.C. So. Distr., Tex., Jan 11, 1957, 2 Race Re. L. Rep. 329) Google Scholar

66. In September 1955 Linda Perez, a young Mexican American child who spoke no Spanish, was denied the opportunity to enroll in the Anglo section of first grade, until she acquired the assistance of a lawyer. According to the court findings “In the twelve years that the present superintendent had been at Driscoll this is the only Mexican child that had been placed in the Anglo section and then only after the lawyer's intervention.” Ibid. p. 331.Google Scholar

67. Prior to 1949 the school district placed pupils of Mexican descent in separate buildings and on separate campuses through the sixth grade. Ibid. p. 331.Google Scholar

68. Ibid., p. 329.Google Scholar

69. Ibid., p. 333.Google Scholar

70. For a discussion of these practices and the legal challenges to them see Alcala, and Rangel, , “Project Report,” pp. 326–333.Google Scholar

71. Ibid., p. 345.Google Scholar

72. See data in U.S. Commission on Rights, Civil, Mexican American Education Study, Vol. I. (Washington, D.C., 1970)Google Scholar

73. For an example of the extension of the segregated school system into the junior and senior high school grades see Miguel, San Jr., “Endless Pursuits: The Chicano Educational Experience in Corpus Christi, Texas, 1880–1960,” pp. 82–86.Google Scholar