1. From Dominating to Dominated The Spanish government began to explore parts of Texas during the early 1500s, but not until the late seventeenth century were tentative efforts made to settle the area. In direct response to heightened French trading activities in Louisiana, permanent missions were established in East Texas near the Neches River by 1716. Within two years a mis- sion and presidio were founded at San Antonio de Bexar as a way sta- tion on the trail to East Texas. Several other missions were founded in Central and East Texas, but Indian raids, frontier conditions, and isolation attracted few coloxists. By 1820 fewer than 2,500 persons lived in Texas. These individuals, comprised of Mexican Indians, a few Spaniards, and countless persons of mixed ancestry, lived in four missions located in three settlements: San Antonio, La Bahia (later called Goliad), and the faltering town of Nacogdoches in East Texas. In addition to Spanish-speaking people, Texas also contained an undetermined number of native Indian tribes. Anglo Americans or Europeans were found only in insignificant numbers along the Sabine River, a narrow stream separating Louisiana from Texas.' In 1821 Texas became part of the new Mexican nation. The new government brought few changes to its northern settlements. “Things changed at the top,” noted Amoldo De Leon, a well-known historian of Texas Mexicans, “but the only difference at the bottom was that the Spanish-Tejanos were now Mexican-Tejanos.”* According to De Leon, the substance and structure of local government remained un- changed, the cultural development of the Mexican population con- tinued unabetted, and the way of life continued to revolve around familiar social, economic, and political institutions. Despite these continuities during the following decade and a half, significant changes did occur. One of the most significant developments was the increase of Anglo immigration into the central part of the state. Mexican authorities in Mexico City, fearful of oa2. FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED continuing Indian raids, opened their northern province to ane cot onization, but due to political struggles at home and to ET i military forces in their northem settlements, they were unable to her trol this immigration.* By the mid-1830s the Anglo population, w os had been only a few hundred in 1821, increased to approximately 20,000. The Mexican population, estimated at 3,500 on the eve of the revolution, was now a minority ethnic group among the dominant Anglo American population.‘ : Besides losing their numerical superiority, Tejanos—that is, Texas Mexicans—also lost political control of the state as a result of the Texas Revolution of 1836.° Unlike the 1821 shift in political power from Spain to the new nation of Mexico, the transfer of state power to Anglos in 1836 marked a major change for the Mexican population. Texas independence introduced a whole new outlook on life and led to the establishment of a new socioeconomic and political order. The native Tejano population came to occupy a distinctly inferior and subordinate position in this new order. From 1836 to 1845, interaction between Tejanos and Anglos in Texas restricted itself to the areas of Central and East Texas, focusing primarily in the old settlements of San Antonio, Goliad, and Victoria. Little interaction between Tejanos and Anglos occurred in the area en- compassing El Paso and other towns of West Texas or in the area be- tween the Nueces River and Rio Grande. Few Anglos resided in West Texas during this early period. The South Texas area during this decade was disputed territory and technically still belonged to the Mexican state of Tamaulipas. Anglos did not penetrate this region un- til the Mexican American War of 1846, The ascension of Anglos to power came at the expense of the native Tejano population. Anglos, from the beginning of the Texas republic and continuing into the next decade, quickly dominated political developments at the state level. A few Mexican elites from San An- tonio served as senators and managed to Participate in key county and state events, but for the most part Anglos dominated. At the county and local levels Anglo political dominance varied. In places populated primarily by Texas Mexicans, Anglos were temporarily absent. Such was the case in San Antonio. For the first several years after in- dependence, for example, the entire city council, with the exception of the mayor, was comprised of Texas Mexicans. Influential citizens such as Erasmo Seguin and José Antonio Navarro likewise filled coun- ty and city judicial posts.” Tejano communities in other parts of Central and East Texas were not as fortunate as San Antonio. Continuing migration of prejudicedFROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 3 Anglos into these areas gave them a numerical advantage and created a threatening climate for the local Texas Mexican population. Many of these families, fearing for their lives, sought refuge in other parts of Texas or in Louisiana.* Once Mexicans left the area, Anglos quickly assumed the local positions of power they had held. In addition to losing political control of the state, Tejano residents also began to lose their property. Texas Mexicans who sought refuge in either Louisiana or northern Mexico during the height of the revolu- tion retumed to find that they had lost most if not all of their worldly possessions. Others lost their lands through a variety of subterfuges, including fictitious lawsuits, sheriff's sales, and dubious transfers of titles. Texas Mexicans also were constantly harassed and persecuted by Anglos who sought revenge against all those viewed as “enemies” of the revolution. As war between the United States and Mexico ap- peared imminent, hostilities between Anglos and Tejanos increased. In many local communities Anglos demanded the banishment of Mexicans from Texan territory; if unsuccessful they formed vigilante committees and forced them to leave their homes under threat of violence." Despised by Anglos, the Mexican population rapidly became outcasts in their own country. Anglo prejudice against them likewise increased during the years from 1836 to 1845."* W/ixereas Mexicans were viewed as racially in- ferior and culturally wanton during the 1820s, by the late 1830s they were also viewed with suspicion and distrust.’ Three events con- tributed to the further distrust of Texas Mexicans: the Cordova Rebellion of 1837 at Nacogdoches; the 1842 “defection” of the promi- nent Tejano mayor of San Antonio, Juan Seguin, to the Mexican army; and the invasion and capture of San Antonio by Santa Anna’s army. All of these events, especially Seguin’s defection to the Mexican ar- my, cast doubt on the loyalty of all Texas Mexicans, not only those residing in San Antonio." Hatred of Santa Anna and Mexico's refusal to acknowledge Texas’ independence only served to reinforce Anglo Prejudice against all “Mexicans.”"* The annexation of Texas to the United States and the ending of the Mexican American War in 1848 caused great changes in the state. For the native population remaining in the conquered areas which were now part of the United States, it signified the beginning of a new Social reality. Despised for being Mexican and suspected of harboring disloyal sentiments, this population was systematically deprived of whatever political and economic resources it had. The effort to telegate it to a subordinate position in the developing social order was4 FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED effective and accomplished within three decades. ive posi- In the political arena, Tejanos quickly lost the few elective pore tions they held at the state level. During the first two years fo Texas legislature only one Tejano, José Antonio Navarre, oom og to serve as a representative from San Antonio. Rising ‘ontributed to Tejanos in that city and the influx of Anglo immigae st '840s.! the election of Anglo state officeholders during the late Ot ney The process of political dominance was also eel aga and local levels in all the major areas of Texas, especially ‘4 political acquired parts of South and West Texas. Anglos achieved political dominance in local areas at different points in time as a result 0! litical and demographic factors. Fi wei the San peaapee Tejanos continued to elect their own to local and county positions but at a decreasing rate. Anglo immigration to this city during the next several decades, discriminatory tactics aimed at minimizing Tejano political participation, and increasing numbers of Mexican residents failing to meet minimum requirements for voting such as literacy and citizenship contributed to their declin- ing participation in local and county elections.'* In parts of South and West Texas, Texas Mexicans maintained their numerical superiority, but they still lost control of the political pro- cesses during the third quarter of the nineteenth century. A variety of legal and quasi-legal methods as well as the use of organized force, especially the United States military and Texas Rangers, were utilized to suppress potential Mexican political activity in these areas.'” After annexation to the United States, Texas Mexicans began to lose their lands and the right to determine their economic future. In East and Central Texas this process of land displacement began during the decade prior to 1846, but it was finalized in the years just after the Mexican American War.'* The process of land displacement took longer in other parts of the state. For instance, in Nueces County in South Texas, Anglos gained ownership of all the land, except for one grant, by 1858." In the Lower Valley, individuals such as Charles Stillman used their legal knowledge and their association with friends in high places to deprive Mexicans of most of their lands during the 1850s and 1860s.” In West Texas, Anglos gained control of land several decades later. The process of land displacement was co; 4 mplete by the 1880s when Anglos had gained ownership of the most valuable real estate throughout the state.”! Having shom Texas Mexicans of political power i Anglos began to relegate them to the bottom of the eae lands Tejanos were confined to the least-skilled jobs available in the local economy, whereas Anglos monopolized the more prestigious ones 22FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 5 Occupational data for various groups of workers in the nineteenth century as shown in Tables 1 and 2 illustrate this pattern of economic subordination. Table 1 Gainful Workers in South Texas Grouped according to Industry and by Indigenous or Immigrant Status, 1850* Indigenous Mexican Texans Immigrants U.S. Immigrants” Industry (N = 80) (N = 142) (N = 132) Agricultural 51.2% 54.2% 46% Professional = 7 4 Civil/personal service 37 - 31. Trade/transportation 12 14 35.6 Manufacture/mechanical 4238 43.7 174 Unspecified (unspecialized) = — = im Source: Based on De Leon and Stewart, “Lost Dreams,” pp. 300-301. * The sample totals were drawn from the South Texas counties of Cameron, Duval, Nueces, Starr, and Webb. Includes immigrants from U.S. territories, excludes indigenous Texans. Table 2 Gainful Workers in South Texas Grouped according to Industry and by Indigenous or Immigrant Status, 1900* Indigenous Mexican i Texans Immigrants U.S. Immigrants Industry (N= 2,008) (N= 2,384) (N = 204) Agricultural 15.6% 18.4% 17.6% Professional 39 24 15.2 Civil/personal service 153 143 18.6 Trade/transportation 10.1 79 279 Manufacture/mechanical 85 13.7 147 Unspecified (unspecialized) 46.6 443.2. 60 sss Source: Based on De Leon and Stewart, “Lost Dreams,” pp. 300-301. The sample totals were drawn from the South Texas counties of Cameron, Duval, lueces, Starr, and Webb. Includes immigrants from U.S. territories; excludes indigenous Texans.6 FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED In 1850, for instance, an insignificant number of Anglos, Mexican immigrants, and Anglo immigrants were classified as unspecialized labor. By 1900 over 43 percent of Mexican immigrants but only 6 per. cent of Anglo immigrants joined the ranks of unspecialized labor, During the same years, the more prestigious occupations—for exam. ple, government and civil service jobs—were not made available to Tejanos but instead were limited to Anglo immigrants. Complementing the relegation of Tejanos to the bottom of the economic ladder was the dual wage-labor system established by Anglos. Under this structure all Mexicans, regardless of citizenship, were paid considerably less than Anglos for the same job.” Anglo leaders also sought to extend their dominance in the cultural domain. This is evident in legislative efforts to mandate the speaking of English in public schools and restriction of the use of Spanish in public affairs during the second half of the nineteenth century. The essence of Anglo dominance was not in the passage of English language laws, but in the attempt to eliminate use of the Spanish language in public affairs and in the disparaging attitude Anglos displayed toward the Spanish language and toward the people speak- ing the language. This disparaging attitude was apparent as early as 1841 when state leaders in both houses of the legislature adopted a joint resolution suspending the printing of laws in the Spanish language. That this was a selective campaign against Spanish-speaking individuals only was illustrated theee years later when the same legislature granted a charter for a foreign-language German university. The effort to eliminate the use of Spanish was carried out through the enactment of legislation. For instance, in 1856 a law was enacted restricting the use of Spanish in the courts. This law allowed the use of the Spanish language in judicial proceedings only if “neither the Justice of the Peace nor the parties are able to write or understand the English language.” The second part of the law stipulated that in cases where at least one of the parties could speak only English “the case should be turned over, upon request, to the closest Justice of the Peace who could speak English.”** This law in theory tolerated Spanish in certain areas. But the reality of Anglo dominance over the political and judicial systems throughout the state, especially in the Mexican communities, ensured that English would quickly replace Spanish in court proceedings. The efforts to ensure Anglo dominance over Texas Mexicans were most evident in the passage of laws mandating the speaking of English in the schools. The original English language law was enacted in 1856, two years after the first law creating a fund for the establishment ofFROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 7 public schools was passed. It simply stipulated that the schools would have to teach the English language at least as a subject. Two years later the law was amended and strengthened. According to this amendment English became the principal language of instruction in the public schools. A dozen years later the School Law of August 13, 1870, prescribed English as the language of instruction for all public schools.” For the rest of the century this English language school law remained in effect. It is no coincidence that as Anglos consolidated their political and economic power throughout the state they strengthened the features of the English language law. Racial conflict and tensions accompanied this process of political disenfranchisement, land displacement, and socioeconomic subor- dination. Furthermore, bitter and long-lasting clashes occurred as a result of (a) attacks against Mexicans, their worldly possessions, and their culture, (b) rivalry over particularly lucrative economic ac- tivities, and (c) border incidents.” Tensions along the border subsided during the 1860s as a result of the Civil War, but by the 1870s hang- ings, lynchings, and other forms of violence against Tejanos were widely reported throughout the state.”* During the 1880s much of this violence against them and lawlessness in general again decreased as a result of Porfirio Diaz’ suppression of bandits in Mexico and the placement of American s in South Texas. This easing of tensic: acided with rapid economic changes tak- ing place throughout the state. By the tum of the century, for instance, Texas was entering a new phase of industrialization as it built better transportation facilities to encourage the rapid economic develop- ment of the border region and the western part of the state. Despite these new developments, Mexicans in Texas continued to suffer in- justices at the hands of Anglos, not only along the border but in other parts of the state as well.”” Although relegated to a subordinate position in the new social and economic order, Tejanos showed tremendous resilience in adapting to their circumstances. They continued to practice their own cultural traditions, maintain their Spanish language, and sponsor their own social activities. Novel cultural pattems, linguistic forms, and social organizations reflecting their bicultural existence in the new American social order were also developed.” : During the last half of the nineteenth century Tejanos adapted to their political subordination in various ways. Although denied signifi- cant representation in state offices, they played an important though decreasing role in county and city politics. In El Paso at the tum of the century, for instance, they worked within existing political machines to deliver the Mexican vote and to obtain jobs and protection for the8 FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED ion in the barrios. In several instances, Tejanos became el eae and established tight control over county elections je es. oS of Texas Mexicans were herded into the polls on behalf of Anglo politicians, they occasionally asserted themselves in the political arena. At times they ran independent electoral cam. paigns, gave their allegiance to the opposition party or faction, and protested discriminatory procedures within the established political 2 re used various creative techniques to adapt to and to challenge their subordinate economic status. For example, they became renowned for their skills as vaqueros (cowboys) and pastores (sheepherders).** In particular cases, Texas Mexicans kept their lands and engaged in entrepreneurship so Prominent among Anglo landowners. They raised cattle and sheep, used novel irrigation techniques to raise cotton, and quickly adopted agricultural innova- tions aimed at increasing the productivity of their lands.** Urban Tejanos, especially those who were American citizens and skilled workers, adapted to their work environment by joining unions and struggling for better wages. While none held major positions within organized labor, a select few acted as union officials or as delegates to union conventions. Occasionally, they engaged in work stoppages, strikes, and other forms of organized labor protests for bet- ter conditions. While few in number, they became professionals and used their social status and knowledge of American Society to struggle on behalf of the less fortunate. Tejanos adapted to their social subordination in various ways. Education was considered an important factor in social adaptation. Despite poor public school facilities, formidable obstacles to school enrollment, and high illiteracy rates, Tejano Parents enrolled their children in school whenever circumstances allowed. Tejanos sought education from different Sources—religious authorities, public schools, and private institutions, During the first half of the nine- teenth century only a few tlers were too poor, Preoccupied, and pressured to establish public Of those taught by missionaries, the majority were from the ¢ promi- nent families who had helped found the original settlements. In the second part of the nineteenth century, Tejanos began to seek education in larger numbers. Prior to the establishment of public schools in the final quarter of the 1800s, most of them enrolled inFROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 9 religious institutions. Examples of these can be found in such places as San Antonio and Brownsville. William Knox, a teacher and prin- cipal of a public school for Tejanos in San Antonio, for instance, reported that most of the rich families sent their sons to the Mexican parochial school behind the Catholic church on St. Mary’s Street dur- ing the period from 1860 to 1875. Upper-class Texas Mexican females attended the Ursuline convent sponsored by the Catholic church.” The earliest Catholic school attended by Tejanos was probably the Incarnate Word of Brownsville. This religious convent, established in 1853 by four Catholic nuns, was for females between the ages of five and eighteen years of age. Its student enrollment was not limited to Catholics: “Protestants, Jews, [and] Infidels” were also received. The convent closed temporarily in 1858 due to a yellow fever epidemic, but it continued into the twentieth century. In 1893 it had 28 boarders from Brownsville and Matamoros, its sister city in Mexico, and ap- proximately 325 “day scholars.” Tuition was fifteen dollars a month “in Mexican coin” for boarders, and from fifty cents to three dollars a month for day scholars. Music, painting, plain sewing, fine needlework, and embroidery were some of the subjects taught.** In 1872 a parochial school for boys, St. Joseph’s College, was established in Brownsville hy six teachers—three Anglos and three Mexicans—under the dires of Catholic priests. The school had primary, intermediate, and high school grades. Although reasonable tuition fees were charged, the teachers were unable to keep the school open during the late 1870s. In 1887 the sisters of the Incarnate Word assumed operation of St. Joseph’s.” Catholic schools were not the only religious institutions in which Tejanos enrolled. They also attended Presbyterian schools. The earliest one of record was established in 1852 under the sponsorship of Melinda Rankin, a lay protestant missionary and teacher. In 1853, the school was closed for a year to raise funds on the East Coast for buying property and building permanent school facilities. On May 3, 1854, with funds from various sources including the Presbyterian church, Rankin, Rev. Hiram Chamberlain, and others opened the Rio Grande Female Institute in Brownsville. The school, under the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, had one teacher and one assistant. Between thirty and forty Mexican girls enrolled in this school during the latter part of the nineteenth century. Its major emphasis was on teaching English and Christian—that is, Protestant—values.” : In 1878, Mr. and Mrs. Carrero, under the auspices of the foreign mission fund of the Presbyterian Church of the Southern States, Opened a mission school for Texas Mexican students on Washington10 FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED Street in Brownsville. The school’s principal was Mrs. Hall, wife of the Presbyterian church’s pastor in the city. She had one assistant Janet Houston, who had come from West Virginia. In a portent of future development, a Mexican woman named Luciana Medina was hired as assistant to the assistant. Medina most probably acted as a teacher's aide and taught all the children in grades 1 through 8. The school had approximately sixty Mexican females aged five and older. Spanish was the medium of instruction in this school with English taught as a separate subject. There was no tuition; expenses were paid from the foreign mission fund of the Presbyterian church. According to one source, the mission school was extremely popular among the Mexican residents of Brownsville.’ Besides religious institutions, Tejanos also attended private schools. Private Mexican schools could be found in many localities throughout the state, but they were concentrated in the border coun- ties, especially in South Texas. They had three major purposes. They were to (a) maintain a Mexican “spirit” in the youth of the border by imparting Mexican ideas and ideals, (b) uphold these ideals by imparting knowledge of Mexican national traditions and history, and {c) arouse racial pride in the youth. The course of study was similar to that of schools in Mexico and included Mexican history, civics, character develogient, grammar, general science, math, reading, and writing in Spanish.” Depending on the financial support of the community, these schools operated from six to ten months a year. A board of directors, comprised of the leading Texas Mexicans in the community, developed policies for the schools, paid the teachers, and organized oral examinations for the children that lasted from two to five days.” Private Tejano schools began to emerge in the latter part of the nine- teenth century. One of the best-known private schools was the Co- legio Altamira. This school was founded in Hebbronville (Jim Hogg County) in 1897 with an enrollment of over one hundred children, and was still in existence in 1930. This school was maintained by the Mexican population in Jim Hogg County and was the pride of many South Texas residents.“* Whenever possible, parents sent their children to the local public schools, but they had to go through great personal hardships to do s0. Because of their poverty and lack of political influence, Tejano parents had to contend with the indifference and antipathy of local school of ficials. School officials were obligated to provide educational oppo tunities for all the children in the district, but in many cases they failed to extend these rights to the Texas Mexicans. In select urba areas, as a result of growing numbers of Tejano school-age childre™FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 11 and community pressures for education, local district officials did provide these children with some school facilities. These schools were usually segregated, overcrowded, and lacked adequately trained teachers and school equipment. Despite their deficiencies, Tejanos flocked to them for knowledge. Little information is available on the experiences of these children in the public schools during the nine- teenth century, but the examples of public education in El Paso, San Antonio, and Brownsville are illustrative of the parents’ high regard for education. A handful of Tejano children enrolled in the first public school established in El Paso in 1883. Although there were more than a hun- dred Tejano school-age children in the city at that time, the unwill- ingness of the local school officials to teach those who did not know any English discouraged more from attending. In an effort to over- come the language barrier, Tejano parents several years later encour- aged Olivas V. Aoy, an elderly Spaniard, to establish a private school whose purpose would be to teach English to their children to prepare them for the public schools. Most appropriately, the school, estab- lished in 1887, became known as the Mexican Preparatory School.** The first year it opened twenty-nine children attended. Due to the growing number of Tejano -n in the city and the need to provide them with an education, wing year the local school board voted to incorporate Aoy’s school into the public school system but ona segregated basis. Enrollment surged during the first several years, so that by the early 1890s there were almost one hundred students enrolled in the school. In 1897 the school’s enrollment increased to two hundred, and by the turn of the century approximately five hun- dred students were attending it in double sessions. The Tejano parents’ desire for education gave Aoy Elementary the distinction of having the highest enrollment of all the El Paso schools during this period. The Tejano community in Brownsville did not have as difficult a time in enrolling their children as did their counterparts in El Paso. Since the majority of school-age children—from two-thirds to three- fifths of the total population—were of Mexican descent when Brownsville opened a public school in 1875, it was attended primarily by Tejano children. For several years classes were held in some of the old buildings located throughout the community. In 1880, a perma- nent public school building was finally constructed for these children. According to one source, the majority of the Tejano children did not Speak or understand the English language. As a result of the large number of non-English-speaking children, school officials enacted a local policy that speaking English would not be required until the12. FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED fourth grade. “Tt will be readily seen,” noted one commentator, “that infinite patience, and versatile talents were called for in the teachers who undertook the task of Americanizing these young sprigs and buds of our sister Republic.” _A few wealthy Tejanos attended the first public school established in San Antonio in 1875. Within a decade, two schools in the barrio were established for the use of the Texas Mexican population. One of them, the Old Flores Street School established in 1879, contained some Anglos. Unlike the first public school, this one had Tejano children who came not only from prominent families but also from the poorer classes. In 1885 another school located in the center of the ‘Texas Mexican colony, on South Pecos Street, was opened. One of the first teachers of the Mexican public school on South Pecos Street later wrote that the children did not know English. Teachers such as himself had to leam the Spanish language in order to communicate with both the children in the classroom and the parents in the com. munity. Althoug? tending sc) ers, some public schools, called rancho schools, were k se areas. The rancho schools were unsight- ly and lacking in ‘it and in properly trained staff, In some South Texas counties the rancho school buildings were jacales, thatched-roofed huts with dirt floors. There were neither blackboards nor desks of any kind; the children wrote on slates and sat on crude backless benches or boxes. Teaching was generally conducted in Spanish, since the children did not know any English. Teachers were rarely trained and teaching positions were usually based on political rather than educational considerations. “The taxpayer who assured the political boss the greatest number of voters,” noted an educator from South Texas, “was sure of getting {teaching} certificates for all his sons and daughters.” Since the teachers in private schools offered better opportunities, most Tejano families did not send their children to these rural public schools; instead they were sent to Mexico, when possible, or to the Mexican private schools, if any were available.” Thus as a group Tejano students sought to overcome their subor- dinate status by enrolling in a variety of educational institutions. In several cases they excelled in their academic ventures as well as in eX tracurricular activities. They took part in spelling bees, presented Spanish plays to select audiences, Participated in school concerts, graduated with distinction in such activities as Spanish and English recitations. A select number were fortunate enough to become teachers or instructors in these educational institutions. For instan©®, De Leon reported that during the nineteenth century Tejano teaches;FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 13 while few in number, could be found in West, Central, and South Texas counties having large numbers of Texas Mexicans. In general, they were public school teachers, principals or directors of private or parochial educational institutions, and in several cases “community teachers.” Deprived of political resources and relegated to a subordinate po- sition in the new social order, Tejanos adapted as well as could be ex- pected to their ninteeth-century surroundings. But the society they came to know so well was about to be transformed beyond recogni- tion by the rapid development of the state economy and especially by the tremendous growth of agriculture and industry in South Texas. The New Economic Order, Mexican Immigration, and Public Education Texas experienced rapid economic growth during the early part of the twentieth century. Large lumbering concerns in the eastern pinewoods, extensive cotton development in East Texas, and the discovery of large petroleum reserves, especially oil, contributed to the rapid growth of the economy in the first three decades. Of primary importance, especially for the Tejano population, was the develop- ment of commerical agriculture in West Texas and in the south near the Rio Grande. This area had been dominated by the cattle industry since the late nineteenth century. During the first decade of the twen- tieth century this region was transformed by the emergence of cotton and vegetable production. “Baronial beef empires,” noted T.R. Fehrenback, a well-known Texas historian, “gave way to remarkably similar baronial cotton and vegetable empires.’”*! The replacement of the cattle industry by cotton and vegetables was made possible through the use of extensive irrigation and fertilization techniques as well as the development of such important twentieth-century prod- ucts as tractors, steam-powered brush-clearing equipment, and giant harvesters. These economic changes also would not have been possi- ble without the railroad. i Railroads, sponsored by northern capitalists eager to exploit the state’s vast natural resources, began to link and integrate parts of Texas into the national economy during the latter part of the nine- teenth century. Emphasis was placed on linking the northeastern and central parts of the state with national markets, yet the southwestern Part of the state was not totally ignored. Railroads, for instance, reached San Antonio by the late 1870s and the border town of Laredo by 1881. El Paso in the far west was reached by rail in 1883. For several reasons, including a yellow fever epidemic, no railroads were14 FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED built in the southem part of the state during the late nineteenth tury. A major result was that, despite these early links to national intemational markets, the southem tip of South Texas continued «= be dominated by the cattle industry into the twentieth century. The beginning of the new economic transformation in South Te began in 1904 with the completion of the St. Louis-Brownsville Mexican Railroad. This railroad linked Brownsville and the A undeveloped areas of South Texas to Houston in the north and © Laredo in the west. The expansion of railroads into South Tee opened this remote land to settlers and to development of the land fon the first time. Although the old Tejano families kept some of thatt property, they sold much of their vast holdings to land companies whose executives talked of extensive irrigation and drainage schemes, With new machinery, these individuals dug immense networks of canals and brought water to the arid and semiarid counties of South Texas. For the next three decades the combination of railroad expan. sion, land parceling, and extensive irrigation projects opened the Rio Grande Valley and the western part of the state to rapid economic development. New cities were laid out and vast tracts of land were cleared and planted with fruit, vegetables, and cotton. Mexican labor, especially immigrant workers from Mexico, came to play an extreme- ly important part in this transformation of the economy. During the period from 1900 to 1930 the demand for cheap labor became so great that labor agents, either authorized contracting com- panies or private individuals, began to recruit Mexican immigrants for work in Texas and other parts of the United States.“ Developments in Mexico facilitated the recruitment and importation of Mexican workers. By the year 1900, for instance, the regime of Gen. Porfirio Diaz aided private landowners in dispossessing millions of rural peasants of their communal lands. Combined with overpopulation, low wages, rising food costs, and exploitative working conditions, Diaz’ policies forced hundreds of thousands of Mexican peasants in- to a northern-bound migratory labor stream in search of better jobs. The Mexican Revolution of 1910 and the political and social strife it caused provided further reasons for Mexicans to leave their country in search of a better life.** From a trickle at the turn of the century Mexican immigration, both legal and illegal, turned into a tidal wave in the next several decades. Table 3 indicates the number of reported Mexican immigrants coming to the United States from 1820 to 1930. Immigration scholars ques- tion the validity of these official figures and argue that the numbers were probably two, three, or four times greater than reported. we these figures probably underestimate the actual number of MexicFROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 15 immigrants, they do provide an indication of the rapid growth of im- migration over the years.” The data provided likewise do not include the number of illegal or undocumented persons immigrating to this country. This type of data is generally unavailable or else inaccurate. The census figures in 1930, for instance, showed that over 450,000 Mexicans illegally entered the United States between 1921 and 1930. The commissioner general of the immigration service claimed that only 289,000 of them were located for the same period.* Table 3 Number of Mexican Immigrants Entering the United States, 1820-1930 oan ee ‘Years N 1820-1880 25,119 1881-1890 1,913 1891-1900 971 1901-1910 49,642 1911-1920 219,004 1921-1930 459,259 Source: Based on Bogardus, Mexican in the United States, p. 13. The migration of Mexican laborers into Texas and other parts of the Southwest was not a new phenomenon. Historically, Mexican im- migrants had been crossing the border and coming to the United States for decades, primarily to work in agriculture. As early as 1890 Mexicans from both sides of the Rio Grande were following the cot- ton crops on foot into the old cotton-producing sections of East Texas. Most of these Mexican immigrants came in as laborers and, unlike European immigrants who became farmers, remained laborers. No ex- act figures are available on how many Mexicans shifted back and forth between Texas and Mexico during the first three decades of the twen- tieth century, but the numbers are exceptionally high. Max Handman, for instance, in 1926 talked to a San Antonio government labor agent who estimated that over 200,000 Mexicans had been shipped out of San Antonio in just one year. During the early part of the twentieth century a new pattern of migration emerged as Mexican immigrants began to search for jobs in other parts of the state besides the border areas.” Mexican immigrants continued to work in agricultural areas, but they went to the interior Parts of the state in search of this work. In his study of illiteracy, E. E. Davis noted the migration patterns of Mexicans from 1900 to 1920. According to him, in 1900 the wave of Mexican migration into Texas16 FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED had passed slightly beyond San Antonio into the cotton fi ields of Co. ia ae cuscaloe) and Caldwell counties, all located nares nas show by ‘i ¢ Mexican immigration had passed Austin ang ar aie 2 a lency to follow the backland counties toward Waco ae In his view, the railroads were carrying a considerable tumber of Mexicans to Dallas and Tarrant counties, and the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth were beginning to “spill them out” upon the cotton fields of Ellis and Kaufman counties. Many of these Mexicans could also be found in the cotton fields and the lignite mines of Milam County and in Robertson County where they were employed as wood. choppers. Davis also noted that the Mexicans followed the railroad lines across South Texas to Houston and even as far east as. Beaumont during the 1910-1920 decade. “But it must be observed that the Mex. icans in this portion of the State (with the exception of those con- regated in the city of Houston] are much more sparsely distributed than those in the vicinity immediately to the northeast of San An- tonio,” he stated. Another important trend appeared among the Mexican immigrants: they began to settle down permanently in agricultural and urban com- munities around the state. According to one reseacher, Mexican im- migrants began to settle down in the ranching and mining counties of Southwest ‘l'exas, in the new cotton lands of West Texas, and even in the north and northeastern parts of the state. These individuals started buying property in the rural areas and purchasing homes in cities and towns.* Most of them continued to work in agricultural oc- cupations, but they had a tendency to retum to their new permanent home base once the work was over. This increase in the number of Mexicans making the United States their permanent home was reflected, to some extent, in census data. Table 4 provides census data on the size of the Mexican-origin popula- tion in the state of Texas and in the Southwest for the forty-year period from 1890 to 1930. Again, these figures probably underestimate the actual size of the Texas Mexican population in the Southwest, but they do provide an indication of its rapid growth over the years. In 1890 the number of Mexicans residing in Texas was 51,559 or 2.3 percent of the total population. By 1930, as a result of immigration and high birth rates, the absolute number of Mexicans increased to 683,681 or 11.7 percent of the total population. A similar growth in the Mexican population is evident when the area is expanded to the five southwestem states of Arizona, California, Col orado, New Mexico, and Texas. These figures show that 75,368, or 19 percent of the total population, were of Mexican descent in theFROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 17 Southwest in 1890. The Mexican population increased to 1,282,882 or 9.6 percent of the total population in 1930 (see Table 4), Table 4 Total Population and Mexican Population of Texas and Five Southwestem States, 1890-1930 * Total Population Born in Mexico Population N % 1890 Texas 2,235,523 51,559 23 Five states 4,069,064 75,368 19 1900 ‘Texas: 3,048,710 71,062 23 Five States 5,391,704 100,243 18 1910 Texas 3,896,542 124,238 3.1 Five states 8,604,670 219,802 25 1920 Texas 963,228 (249,652 5.3 Five states 9,728,230 427,387 43 1930 Texas 5,824,715 683,681 1i7 Five states 13,396,647 1,282,882 96 Source: U.S. Census, 1894, part 2, p. 600; 1901, part 1, p. 734; 1913, vol. 2, pp. 82, 157, 211, vol. 3, p. 804; 1922, vol. 3, pp. 77, 109, 139, 667; 1933, vol. 2, p. 446. * The five southwestern states are Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. * The Mexican population totals do not include persons born in Mexico who were classified as white or who had parents bom in the United States. Who were these Mexican immigrants coming to Texas? Some, as Handman pointed out in 1920, were political exiles who were chiefly concentrated in San Antonio. They were educated, sophisticated, and lived among themselves and for themselves. The major group of Mex- ican immigrants, however, was comprised of “casual” and “sedentary” laborers. Unlike the political exiles, this group was Perceived as being, first of all, a foreign group. Robert Montgomery, a noted social scientist, described them in the following terms: ‘They [Mexican immigrants] did not speak the English language, knew next to nothing of the customs and traditions of the community, they were18 FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED not Methodists, and their children did not attend school.” Not onk were they foreign in outlook and behavior, but these Mexicans hadn, intention of becoming Americans.” Secondly, Mexican immigrants were “deplorably ignorant” and extremely poor. “Few of them owng, more than an unbelievably few crude household necessities,” Noted Montgomery. “Occasionally,” he added, “one would own a wom ou Pony or a superannuated mule.” Third, they were an industrious group of workers, employed largely in agriculture and “willing to live in any sort of shack that might be provided, on a diet that required minimum of cash outlay.” The influx of Mexican immigrants into Texas had a tremendous impact on existing Mexican communities as well as on public institu. tions and on those in charge of directing the state’s Political, economic, and social development.” Mexican immigration had a par. ticularly strong impact on educational institutions. The presence of Tejano children in local school districts as well as in the schools themselves gave rise to a multitude of governance, curricular, and ad. ministrative problems of immense proportions. Schools with large numbers of Tejano children, for example, had to decide whether public education was going to be provided for these children, the nature of that provision, and the content to be taught. Local ad- ministrators, once these children enrolled in the schools, had to solve the special problems asso: d with their presence—overcrowded conditions, overageness in ¢] :gular attendance, late enroll- ment in the fall, and early withdrawal in the spring.” Inside the schools teachers were confronted with the problem of teaching children who could not relate to their instructional methods or to the language of instruction. Many of these teachers tried their best to in- struct these little “foreigners.””! In general school officials, especially state leaders, were unsure how to deal with the “Mexican problem” in the local schools. Historically, state school leaders had paid little attention to Texas Mexicans in school for various reasons. First, they had concentrated their efforts on laying the legal and social foundations for the establishment of 4 public school system in Texas. Beginning in January 1854, when alaw establishing the first public school system in Texas was enacted, school officials promised to take serious Steps to ensure that a perm nent educational structure would be created. But the poverty of the state, the Civil War, and an underdeveloped economy acted as barriets to educational growth and frustrated their efforts. Not until the eatlY decades of the twentieth century were the legal and social foundations of a strong public school system laid.” Second, school officials be lieved in the tradition of local school autonomy. According to state ofFROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 19 ficials, the issue of educating Tejano children was predominantly a local responsibility and problem. At the tum of the century, Tejanos were an extremely small minority in Texas concentrated in some sural areas and in isolated pockets of urban areas such as San Antonio and El Paso. For all intents and purposes, their education was not a state concern, But during the 1920s the rapid growth and distribution of the Te- jano school-age population forced educational policymakers, ad- ministrators, and teachers to consider the “Mexican problem” in the schools.” This increased interest was reflected in the publication of several reports that discussed the problems schools were having with Mexican children and how to resolve them. Complementing these reports were others done by educational researchers, teachers, and ad- ministrators.’* Most of the educational researchers had both the sanc- tion and assistance of public school officials. Collectively, these studies identified the major dimensions of the demographic trends in the state and their possible impact on the public schools. They also proposed possible avenues for solving them. The multitude of reports published by various authorities found several important trends related to the growing Texas Mexican population and its implications for public education. First, these studies indicated that tie problem of educating non-English-speaking children in the public sclicois was not local or regional but statewide in character. For instance, Davis in his report on illiteracy reminded educators that the problem of educating Texas Mexican children was “by far the most difficult human problem confronting elementary education in Texas today.” The Texas Educational Survey Commis- sion of 1925 also noted that the training of teachers for instructing these children was no longer a local issue. “It is a State problem,” declared the Educational Survey Commission, and the state “has no tight to expect San Antonio, El Paso, and other places to conduct such training at local expense.” In 1928 additional detailed information on the statewide nature of educating Texas Mexican children was obtained by H.T. Manuel, a professor of psychology and testing at the University of Texas. On the basis of school census returns, he showed that these children could be found not only in a few rural counties but in most parts of the state. According to Manuel’s data, in 1922 the Tejano school-age population was found in all but 8 of the 252 counties in Texas. In 1928, the school-age population could be found in a total of 228 counties. A second major finding of these studies indicated that the number and ji -age children was increasing at a much Percentage of Tejano school-age Jeger peees faster rate than the Anglo or black population.20 FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED Manuel estimated that there were 128,620 Tejano scholastics, that is, school-age children between the ages of six and seventeen. They com- prised 12.8 percent of the 1,001,598 white scholastics and 10.5 per- cent of the total scholastics. Six years later, Tejano scholastics com- prised 182,489 or approximately 15.6 percent of the total white scholastic population. According to Manuel, the percent of increase of Tejano scholastics between 1922 and 1928 was more than five times that of other white scholastics and more than nine times that of black scholastics. “In terms of buildings alone,” he emphasized, “it would require the erection of 18 ten-room buildings annually to care for new Mexican scholastics if all entered and were housed in this way.” Additionally, Manuel noted that the number of counties with significant proportions of Texas Mexican school-age children was rapidly increasing. In 1922, for instance, there were twenty-three counties in South and West Texas where Texas Mexicans comprised 50 percent or more of the total scholastic population and nineteen counties where they comprised between 25 percent and 50 percent. Six years later there were thirty-one counties in which Texas Mex- icans comprised between 50 percent or more of the total school-age population and eighteen counties where they comprised between 25 and 50 percent. Thus the number of counties where Tejanos com- prised 50 percent or more of the total scholastic population jumped from twenty-three in 1922 to thirty-one in 1928, The number of coun- ties where they comprised betwe nt to 50 percent decreased by one from 1922 to 1928. In total, the number of counties where Te- janos comprised more than 25 percent increased from forty-two to forty-nine from 1922 to 1928. While most Tejano scholastics were located in rural counties, Manuel found that a significant proportion of these children were located in urban areas. According to his data, the top five cities in Texas contained approximately 23 percent of all the Texas Mexican scholastics in the state.” A third major finding of these studies was that the majority of children were non-English speakers and came from families of low socioeconomic background. E.E. Davis and C.T. Gray in a 1922 sey for nen) noted that most of the Texas Mexican population in Karnes County in Central Texas spoke a “foreign language.” Few of oe cael Bl cee cen edly reno, Mex erocer ase aes scarcely purchase their supplies at the they know.””® PI a person who speaks the form of Spanish Manuel’s study several years later also pointed out that the majorit of these children knew little English. Although exact figures on aeFROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 21 language proficiencies of Tejano children were not available, H. T. Manuel estimated that in Texas over 90 percent of those entering the first grade in 1928 were not proficient in English.” The percentage of the number of children who understood or spoke English, as indicated in Table 5, varied in different schools. Table 5 Language Ability of Mexican Children on Entering Texas Schools, 1928 School ‘Understood English ‘Spoke English Read Spanish District Yes No Tot.* Yes No Tot.* Yes No Tot.* 1 3 212025 — 198 198 41 171 215 2 12 85 97 8 89 97 ~ 97 97 3 39 143,187 36146187 23153181 4 15 214241 3 237° 252 68 186 © 256 5 12 47 59 9 SO 59 27 87) 4 6 252 380 642 28 «604 642. 106 = 527 642 7 1 2 8 1 7 8 3 5 8 8 1 105 106 1 105 106 1 90 91 9 45 (28 73 29 44073 38 35 73 10 5 47 82 0 47 52 9 48 52 ul 7 48 55 eee 54sec, 230032 55 12 dae 1S: 19 Osea 9 eae 19) 0 0 0 13 Oo 115 115 oO MS MS 5 110 11s 14 Ase O2: 69 6 6 69 Saat OF 69 15 33292 325 10 315-325 6 282 288, 16+ 8 84 92 2 ee 90 ee 92 | 4 86 90 Total 444 1,884 2,355 134 2,183 2,349 359 1,968 2,346 Source: Based on Manuel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children, p. 121. “The number of students in the Total column in some instances is larger than the sum of the Yes and No columns. This discrepancy reflects the number of students for whom no information on language ability was available. These students were included in the total. Because of their small size, several rural districts were included in District 16+. As the table shows, many of the children observed by Manuel had Various proficiencies in the English language. Some understood Spoken English but did not speak it, while others both understood and22, FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED spoke the English language. As a group, though, Tejano children could neither speak nor understand English when they entered school. Th data also show that in general these children did not know how iS read Spanish. Thus Tejano children had a “dual language handicap” when they enrolled in school, since they were neither Proficient iS English nor in their own native language.®° This was an important finding considering that approximately §5 percent of all the Texas Mexican schoolchildren had been bom in the United States. The percentage of citizenship among the parents of these children was slightly lower, ranging from 55 to 75 percent.*! Besides not being able to understand English, Tejano students also came largely from poor working-class families. Based on data from widely scattered sections of the state, Manuel found the information provided in Table 6 on the occupations of the parents of more than twelve thousand Tejano children enrolled in school. Table 6 Occupations of Parents of Mexican Schoolchildren in Texas, All School Districts, 1928 Occupation N % Agriculture 4,569 34 Minerals 91 07 Manufacturing/mechanical 2,569 19 Transportation 1,150 9 Trade L719 13 Public service 524 4 Professional 214 17 Domestic/personal service 1,622 12 Clerical 651 5 Total 13,277 98.4 Source: Based on Manuel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children, p. 14. As can be seen from the table, Tejano parents were located in all the census occupations but were overrepresented in the unskilled categories and underrepresented in the professional and white collar ones. Comparative occupational data for parents of Tejano and Anglo schoolchildren, obtained from one representative city in South Texas, indicates a similar pattern (see Table 7). The data in this table indicate that in all the major occupations ex- cept one Tejanos and Anglos were both represented but in different proportions. The proportion of Tejanos found in the professional, clerical, and public service categories was less than 5 percent, whereas the proportion of Anglos was approximately 28 percent. This propor- tion was reversed in the domestic/personal category. Approximately aFROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 23 quarter of the Tejano population was found in this type of job in con- trast to less than 5 percent of the Anglos. Table 7 Occupations of Parents of Mexican and Other White Schoolchildren, Grades 1, 4, 7, and 10 of Brownsville Schools, 1928 ‘Mexican Other White Total ‘Occupation N % N % N % Agriculture 241 18 46 7 287 18 Minerals = = 2 08 2 Ol Manufacturing/mechanical 282 21 47 18 329 21 Transportation 109 8 8 3 117 7 Trade 1380 see 25 fea 7 7029) 4076 Public service 46 35 38 14 84 5 Professional 15 aS) 48 3 Domestic/personal service 299 23 12 45 311 20 Clerical 3 02 4 18 7 04 Total 1325 99.7 267 99.8 1,592 100.5, Source: Based on Manuel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children, p. 15. A fourth major finding of these studies was that Tejano children were not provided with equal educational opportunities because of racial prejudice.** Generally speaking, Tejano children either were systematically denied school facilities or else provided with limited and inferior educational provisions. In his 1928 study, Manuel sought empirical data on the extent to which school officials denied school- ing to these children. He asked several hundred county superintendents to respond to the question “How many districts have Mexican American scholastics but make no provision for their educa- tion?” A total of seventeen districts were found to contain Texas Mex- ican schoolchildren but not to provide any facilities for them. This number was probably much higher, since less than one-fifth of the total number of counties surveyed provided a response to this ques- tion. “It is certain,” reported Manuel, “that this does not tell even ap- proximately the whole story.” “Even where facilities are technically available to all the white children of the community,” he added, “a Policy of antagonism on the part of the other white population too often means that actually the Mexican child has no school open to him." This pattern of deprivation was also reflected in school enrollment i tion in Karnes County, data. For example, in their study of educat Davis and Gray found that during the 1921-1922 school year TexasVas 24 FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED Mexican school-age children comprised 1,497 or 45.4 percent Of the total county school-age population of i imately 70 percent, or 1,027, were eee survey was made in March 1922. In contrast, the Percentage of a white” school-age children not enrolled during the same sch: al eas approximately 22 percent. © school year 1928 Manuel found a similar pattern jano children at the state level. eae ee ie 40 percent of the Tejano school-age children but only 9 aaa Anglos were not provided with any educational facilities or ; during the 1927-1928 school year If provided an education, they ‘were usually given a shorter school year than Anglos and ee eancational facilities. In most cases, the segregated Mexican schools ‘acked proper school equipment, had poorly trained teachers, and con- tained a curriculum that did not reflect the heritage and interests of Spanish-speaking children.® Finally, these reports showed that as a group Tejano children did not do well in school. The majority of those enrolled in the public a pattern of low average daily attendance and snd “push-out” rates. Few of them made it past the fourth grade. A. or result was that enrollment in the secondary and post secondary grades was either abysmally low or practically nil. Ac- cording to Manuel’s data, less than 4 percent of Texas Mexican children attended junior or senior high school and only a handful enrolled in college. Anglo attendance in both secondary and post- secondary institutions was relatively high. Approximately 60 percent attended the secondary grades and a respectable percentage went to college.*” The pattern of underachievement in the schools was reflected in test scores. Tejanos tended to have lower intelligence and achieve- ment test scores on the average than other white children of similar ages. Some researchers found that test scores seemed to decrease with the increase of Indian ancestry.* There were two major sets of explanations for the pattern of underachievement. One of these argued that Tejanos had lower in telligence and achievement test scores than Anglos because they were racially or culturally inferior.” The other interpretation attributed the pattern of underachievement to nonhereditary factors. Prominent among these were language difficulties, poverty, migratory labor pat- terns, inferior educational opportunities, inappropriate curricular ar rangements and, most important, prejudice toward this population by Anglo school officials.” The debate over the relative influence of nature versus nurture on intelligence, which was to resurface in theFROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 25 coming years, was not resolved, but the racial arguments gained pro- minence over the socioeconomic ones.*! The picture painted by the reports of the 1920s and early 1930s reflected in large part the social subordination of Tejanos in one par- ticular institution. It also indicated the extent to which Anglos dominated the decision-making structures of public education and controlled the conduct of the public schools. The condition of economic subordination and political powerlessness among the Te- jano population as well as the prejudice of Anglos toward them assured their continued exclusion from and denial of equal public education. Unlike the past when school officials could ignore Tejano students, however, the rapidly changing socioeconomic conditions and demographic trends forced them to deal with the issues raised by this population. As the reports indicated, Tejano children were now a significant part of the total scholastic population and their presence was having a tremendous impact on various aspects of public educa- tion. These reports called upon the state to exert leadership in pro- moting educational change and, if need be, legislative solutions to the “Mexican problem.’”* School officials had to respond to these new concems if for no other season than to alleviate the problems they presented to local admini: 's, teachers, and parents. Notes 1, Amoldo De Leén notes that by 1835 several hundred Mexicans could be found living on approximately 350 ranchos in the southern part of Texas between the Nueces and the Rio Grande (Tejano Community, p. 4). For descriptions and estimates of the Texas population during the early part of the nineteenth century see Juan Antonio Padilla, “Report on the Barbarous Indians of the Province of Texas, December 27, 1819”, Stephen F. Austin, “Descriptions of Texas”; José Maria Sanchez, “A Trip to Texas in 1828”, and Juan N. Almonte, “Statistical Report on Texas, 1835.” 2. De Leon, Tejano Community, p. 4. 3. Mattie Austin Hatcher in Opening of Texas to Foreign Settlement provides a history of Spanish policies and the views of officials with respect to the admission of foreigners, including the first Anglo Americans, to Texas from 1763 to 1821. For an analysis of the 1830 decree to halt Anglo immigration into Texas see Allein Howren, “Causes and Origins of the Decree of April 6, 1830.” 4. Almonte, Statistical Report. For a review of conflicting accounts and estimates of the Mexican ition in East and Central Texas between 1820 and 1845 see Fane Downs, “The eet Mexicans in Texas, 1820-1845” (Ph.D. diss, pp. 8:50. 5. In this study the terms Tejanos, Texas Mexicans, and Mexican Americans will be used interchangeably to refer to the native population of Mexican-Spanish descent and to those of Mexican descent who have become American citizens. The term Mex- ican will be used to refer to individuals of Mexican descent residing in ee United States who are not citizens. Anglo Americans or simply Anglos will be used to refer to individuals residing in Texas who are of white European descent.26 FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 6. Several prominent Mexican families participated in the struggle for in, dependence from Mexico. On the De Leon family see A. B. J. Hammet, The Empresarig Don Martin De Leon. On Seguin see John N. Seguin, Personal Memoirs, 1834-1842, Fo, a history of his life and activities see Ida S. Vernon, “Activities of the Seguins in Early Texas History,” and Jerry D. Robias, “Juan Seguin” (master’s thesis). On José Antonio Navarro see Naomi Fritz, “José Antonio Navarro” (master’s thesis). For a general over. view of Mexican contributions to the colonization and independence of Texas see Eugene C. Barker, “Native Latin American Contribution to the Colonization and In. dependence of Texas.” 7. De Leon, Tejano Community, pp. 24-26, Downs, “Mexicans in Texas,” pp. 249-257. 8. For instance, the De Leén family, original founders of Victoria, Texas, and patriots of the independence movement, were physically threatened and forced to seek refuge in Louisiana. See Hammet, Empresario. 9. Hammet, Empresario, pp. 47-60, 68-70; Andrew Anthony Tijerina, “Tejanos and Texas: The Native Mexicans of Texas, 1820-1850” (Ph.D. diss.}, pp. 317-320. Downs of. fers a different view of the Tejanos’ treatment. She argues that, while some Tejano families such as the De Leons were deprived of their property, most of them suffered little if at all and resumed “life as usual” after the revolution. According to her, some Tejanos were granted new lands by Texas officials after they became part of the United States (Mexicans in Texas,” p. 38). 10. De Leon, Tejano Community, pp. 14-15. 11, For an analysis of the historical origins of these attitudes see Raymund Paredes, “The Origins of Anti-Mexican Sentiment in the United States,” and David J. Weber, “Scarce More Than Apes: Historical Roots of Anglo-American Stereotypes of Mex- icans in the Border Regions.” 12. For insightful studies of Anglo attitudes toward Mexicans in Texas see James Emest Crisp, ““Anglo-Texan Attitudes toward the Mexican, 1821-1845,” and Amoldo De Leon, “White Racial Attitudes toward Mexicanos in Texas, 1821-1900” (both Ph.D. diss.’s). The latter has been published in book form as They Called Them Greasers. See also Samuel Harmon Lowrie, Culture Conflict in Texas, 1821-1835. 13. Downs, “Mexicans in Texas,” pp. 259-265, 14, Ibid., p. 267. 15. Ibid, pp. 250-253. 16. De Leon, Tejano Community, pp. 23-24. 17. For a discussion of the techniques utilized by Anglos to gain power in South Texas see Frank Cushman Pierce, A Brief History of the Lower Rio Grande Valley, and Jovita Gonzalez, “Social Life in Cameron, Starr, and Zapata Counties,” especially pp. 83-100. 18. See Tijerina, “Tejanos and Texas,” p. 317, and Hammet, Empresario, pp. 47-60, for a description of the techniques used by Anglos to acquire ownership OF ae ‘ied belonging to Mexicans. Paul S. Taylor also reports that unsuccessful efforts were made at the Constitutional Convention of 1845 to confiscate all the lands of Mexicans who gave aid to Mexico against Texas (An American-Mexican Frontier: Nueces County, Texas, p. 182). 19. Taylor, American-Mexican Frontier, p. 182. See pages 179-190 for a description fo cte mnate in which lands belonging to Tejanos were “transferred” to ‘Anglos and 1 sion of the difficulties encountered by the Mexican land grant owners in their attempts to keep their property.FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 27 20. J. Lee Stambaugh and Lillian J. Stambaugh provide an overview of the assign- ment of Spanish land grants to settlers in South Texas and some of the controversies involved in the transfer of these to Anglo hands (The Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, pp. 26-44, 85-109). 21. Ralph Wooster ("Wealthy Texans”) in his analysis of the 1860 Census argues that Anglos completely dominated the Texas economy by the time of the Civil War. 22, See Mario Barrera, Race and Class in the Southwest: A Theory of Racial Ine- quality, pp. 34-57, for a theoretical understanding of the establishment of a subor- dinate labor force in the Southwest. 23. Mario Garcia ("Racial Dualism in the El Paso Labor Market, 1880-1920") il- lustrates how this dual wage system operated in the El Paso labor market from 1880 to 1920. 24. Heinz Kloss, The American Bilingual Tradition, p. 175. Myrtle Cockrell states that the German university was actually chartered in 1846 ("Education in Texas, 1836-1860” [master’s thesis}, pp. 29-30). For a copy of these laws see also H. P.N. Gam- mel, School Laws of Texas: Acts Incorporating Schools, 1837-1871, vols. 1, 2. 25. Kloss, Bilingual Tradition, p. 177. 26. Ibid. For a discussion of legal developments in education during the second half of the nineteenth century see Frederick Eby, “The First Century of Public Education in Texas,” pp. 31-47. 27. Much has been written about these clashes between Anglos and Mexicans on both sides of the border. See, for instance, J. Fred Rippy, “Border Troubles along the Rio Grande, 1848-1860"; Pierce, Rio Grande Valley; and Ralph Wooster, “Texas Military Operations against Mexico, 1842-1843.” 28, Pierce, Rio Grande Valley, pp. Valley, pp. 110-140. 29. See generally Rodolfo Acufta, Occupied America, pp. 24-48; T. R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans, pp. 554-568, 687-701. 30. De Le6n (Tejano Community) refers to this as the process of biculturation. Ac- cording to him, a mature Mexican culture was simultaneously American and Mexican, For other views of Mexican culture along the border see Mario Garcia, Desert Im- migrants, pp. 197-232, and Downs, “Mexicans in Texas,” pp. 51-89. 31. Garcia, Desert Immigrants, pp. 155-171; Edgar Greer Shelton, Jr., “Political Con- ditions among Texas Mexicans along the Rio Grande” (master’s thesis), pp. 18-86; Gonzalez, “Social Life,”’ pp. 83-100. 32. O.D. Weeks, “The Texas-Mexican and the Politics of South Texas”; Garcia, Desert Immigrants, pp. 155-171; De Leon, Tejano Community, pp. 23-49. 33. J. Frank Dobie in “Ranch Mexicans” provides a colorful view of the Mexican va- quero and his skills. 34. See De Leon, Tejano Community, pp. 77-84, for some of the techniques adopted by the Tejano ranchero. 35. Garcia, Desert Immigrants, pp. 96-109. For other views of Mexican participation in labor struggles in Texas during the early decades of the twentieth century, see Emilio Zamora, “Chicano Socialist Labor Activity in Texas, 1900-1921 ),” and Victor B. Nelson Cisneros, “La clase trabajadora en Tejas, 1900-1920.” 36. Although the first public school was established in 1826, the settlers failed to establish permanent educational structures in the first half of the 1800s. See James D. Carter, "The First Free Public School in Texas, 1826,” for a look at the first public school in Texas, and the 1853 survey conducted by Almonte ("Statistical Report”) on '-76; Stambaugh and Stambaugh, Rio Grande28 FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED the educational opportunities offered by the colonies in East and Central Texas, overview of educational efforts in San Antonio during the Spanish and nro" periods, see I. J. Cox, “Educational Efforts in San Fernando de Bexar.” For aan state during the same period see Max Berger, "Education in Texas during these and Mexican Periods”; Frederick Eby, The Development of Education ©; ne, Ph C.E. Evans, The Story of Texas Schools. in Texas, ang 37. William J. Knox, “‘The Economic Status of the Mexican I tonio, Texas” (master’s thesis). 38. W. H. Chatfield, The Twin Cities of the Border Rio Grande, pp. 10-11. a and the Country of the Lowe, 38 Chatfield states that the school had a checkered period after its initial ope in 1865. The school had to close several months after it opened because of oe associated with the Civil War. In 1869 it was reopened, but three years Men religious instructors let the area, For several months after its closing in 1872, Cachet Priests sought sponsors for the school. Several months later six teachers responieg. their request (Twin Cities, pp. 17-18). aeied 40. Melinda Rankin, Twenty Years among the Mexicans: A Narr sionary Labor. See also Introduetion by John C. Raybum in Melinda Rankin, Tex 1850, and R. Douglas Brackenridge, Francisco O. Garcia-Treco, and John Stover “Presbyterian Missions to Mexican Americans in Texas in the 19th Century.” : 41. Chatfield, Twin Cities, p. 18. 42. Gonzalez, “Social Life,” pp. 69-71. 43. Ibid,, pp. 73-74. 44. Ibid., p. 75. 45. See Bertha Archer Schaer, Historical Sketch of Aoy School, for a brief sketch of the school. 46. Garcia, Desert Immigrants, pp. 110-112. 47. Chatfield, Twin Cities, p. 16. 48. Knox, “Economic Status,” pp. 18-20; Georgia Lee Dorsey, “A History of the Education of Spanish-speaking People in Texas” (master’s thesis), pp. 55-56. 49. Gonzalez, “Social Life,” pp. 70, 80. 50. De Leon, Tejano Community, pp. 188-194. 51. Fehrenbach, Lone Star, p. 666. 52. Stambaugh and Stambaugh provide a detailed description of the role railroads and irrigation had on agriculture, the livestock industry, and the establishment of towns in the southern part of Texas from the 1890s to the second quarter of the twen- tieth century (Rio Grande Valley, pp. 141-203} 53. Ibid., pp. 182-203, 231-252. 54. Victor S. Clark, Mexican Labor in the United States, pp. 475-476. 55. Lawrence Anthony Cardoso (Mexican Emigration to the United States, 1900 to 1930: An Analysis of Socioeconomic Causes” [Ph.D. diss.|) points out that the need for Mexican labor also increased in the 1920s as a result of the passage of the restrictive immigration bills of 1917, 1921, and 1924. Employers, especially those in the in- dustrial centers of the Midwest, increasingly tured to Mexican immigrants to meet their need for cheap labor. 56. Acufia, Occupied America, p. 150. 57. Statistical information on Mexicans in the United States is usually taken from two primary sources: immigration and census data from both sides of the border. These primary sources, as most immigration scholars have noted, are deficient 0 many respects and are the basis for many of the statistical discrepancies found in the Immigrant in San Ap,FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 29 data. For an overview of the problems in immigration and census data see Arthur F. Corwin, “;Quién Sabe? Mexican Migration Statistics.” 58. Information is from the 1935 Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor, cited by Julian Samora, Los Mojados: The Wetback Story, p. 40. 59. Carey McWilliams, North from Mexico: The Spanish-speaking People of the United States, p. 170; Max S. Handman, ‘The Mexican Immigrant in Texas,” p. 35. 60. Clark and Slayden both reported that Mexicans were migrating to areas as far east as Chicago and as far north as Wyoming after 1900. Additionally, Clark reported that prior to 1900 Mexican immigrants in Texas were seldom found more than a hun- dred miles from the border (Clark, Mexican Labor, p. 466; Slayden, “Some Observa- tions on Mexican Immigrants”). 61. E.E. Davis, A Report on Illiteracy in Texas, pp. 9-11 62. T. J. Cauley, “Mexican Immigration,” p. 51; for information on Mexican migra- tion to Dallas see W. T. Watson, “Mexicans in Dallas.” 63. For a discussion of this new group of Tejano property owners in Nueces County, see Taylor, American-Mexican Frontier, pp. 179-190, Handman, “Mexican Immi- grant,” pp. 34-40. 64. Although Mexicans were beginning to settle in different parts of the state, Davis notes that they were not very successful in penetrating certain counties around Central Texas. These counties had the highest concentration of foreign-bom Europeans—for example, Germans, Austrians, and Czechoslovakians—and most of them worked side by side in the cotton ficlds. As a result there was little demand for Mexican agricultural workers in these cour ounties with the highest concentration of foreign-bom Europeans were Lavscs, Fayette, Washington, Austin, Wyler, Lee, and Burleson (illiteracy, p. 11). 65. Frank Colcott, “The Mexic. Immigrant,” pp. 34-35. 66. Robert H. Montgomery, “Keglar Hill,” p, 194, 67. Emory S. Bogardus, “The Mexican Immigrant and Segregation.” 68. Montgomery, “Keglar Hili,” p. 194, For similar descriptions of Mexicans com- ing to the United States see Clark, Mexican Labor, pp. 466-501. 69. See Hernandez, Mutual Aid, for an example of the impact immigration had on the social life of the Mexican community in South Texas. 70. Clark illustrates the impact this increasing immigration had on the public schools in San Antonio. According to him, local school officials in that city found it difficult to provide adequate accommodations “in the Mexican quarter of the city” due to the rapid increase of Spanish-speaking children. “In one district,” he states, ‘where seven-eighths of the enrollment is Mexican, within five years an cight-room building has been increased to sixteen rooms and a seven-room building built in a different part of the city” (Mexican Labor, p. 508). 71. This presence of large numbers of Tejano children throughout the Southwest led to a demand for educational reform aimed at modifying the curriculum in order to more effectively teach these children. The emphasis of most of these efforts was placed eh teaching them English, American customs, and vocational skills, See Chapter 2 of this work for elaboration. ” 72. For a short history of these efforts see Eby, “Public Education,” pp. 20-52; Annie Webb Blanton, Historical and Statistical Data as to Education in Texas, BP. 12, 85, a5 and Richard Burges, “Report of the Governor's Committee on Education, /anuary 7, 1921,” pp. 73-77. 73. Other school officials in different parts of the southwestem United States also ‘in Texas,” pp. 437-438, Handman “Mexican30 FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED began to express an interest in the education of Mexican children during this Period. See, for instance, Nona Rode, Teaching Beginners t0 Speak Englsy California State Department of Education, A Guide for Teachers of Beginning English-speaking Children, S 74. The following is a sampling of these studies: E.E. Davis and C.T. Gra Study of Rural Schools in Karnes County; Davis, Illiteracy, George A. Works, sf Non English-speaking Children and the Public Schools”; Helen Koch and Riettg ae Tons, “A Comparative Study of the Performanc of White, Mexican and Negro Scho Children in Certain Standard Intelligence Tests”; H.T. Manuel, The Education Spanish-speaking Children in Texas; Elma A. Neal, “Adapting the Curriculum 1, Non English-speaking Children.” 75. Davis, Iliteracy, p. 29, Works, Non-English-speaking Children,” p. 237, 76. Data on scholastic population by counties are taken from tables in Appendixes 1 and 2, Manuel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children, pp. 160-170. 77. Manuel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children, pp. 50, 46. 78. Davis and Gray, Rural Schools, pp. 9-10. 79. This information was based on selective data Manuel gathered from children enrolled in the Brownsville schools and in four other school districts. See Manuel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children, pp. 6-7. 80. See also H.T. Manuel and C.E, Wright, “Language Difficulty of Mexican Children,” p. 468, where the authors suggest that one of the possible factors explaining lower reading scores among Tejano children was their “dual language handicap,” ie, having 2 prcblem in understanding both English and Spanish. 81. Manuel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children, pp. 6-7. 82. See, for instance, J. F. Bobbit, The San Antonio Public School System: A Survey, and Davis and Gray, Rural Schoo: 83. Manuel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children, p. 72. 84. Davis and Gray, Rural Schools, p. 38. 85. Manuel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children, p. 95. 86. Works, “Non-English-speaking Children.” During the 1930s educational re- searchers found this pattern of discrimination at the state level and in all the city and county public schools investigated. See, for instance, M. F. Doerr, “Problem of the Elimination of Mexican Pupils from School”; Elmer Cecil Dodd, “A Comparison of English-speaking and Spanish-speaking Children in Brownsville”, Clyde Reeves Robertson, “A Comparative Study of the Progress of American and Mexican Pupils in Certain Elementary Schools in Texas”; Le Roy McLennan, “A Comparison of the Spanish-speaking and English-speaking Children in Nine Schools over a Five-Yeat Period”; James Nicholas Kaderli, “A Study of Mexican Education in Atascosa County with Special References to Pleasanton Elementary School”, W. L. Brown, “Knowledg? of Social Standards among Mexican and Non-Mexican Children”, and B. E. Coan, “A Comparative Study of the American and Mexican Children in the Big Bend Area for 1935-1936” (all master’s theses). er een, pacation of Spanish-speaking Children, p. 103. . See especially W. S. Hunter and E. Sommermier, ” i of Indian Blood to Score on the Os Intelligence Test.” S Eee Os 89. 0. K. Garretson, “Study of the Causes of Retardation among Mexican Childe" ina Small Public School System in Arizona”; Loaz W. Johnson, "A ‘Comparison of the Vocabularies of Anglo-American and Spanish-American High School Pupils.”FROM DOMINATING TO DOMINATED 31 90. Davis, Illiteracy, pp. 10-11, 34-35, Works, “Non-English-speaking Children,” pp. 237-238; Texas State Department of Education, Manual and Course of Study, Elemen- tary Grades, Public Schools of Texas, 1924-1925, Manuel, Education of Spanish- speaking Children, pp. 57-119; Lucy Claire Hoard, “Teaching Beginning Mexican Children”; George I. Sanchez, “Group Differences and Spanish-speaking Children—A Critical Review"; George I. Sanchez, “Bilingualism and Mental Measures: A Word of Caution.” 91. See, for instance, W. H. Sheldon, “The Intelligence of Mexican Children.” 92. Davis, Hliteracy; Works, “NonEnglish-speaking Children,” pp. 236-237.2. Cross-Purposes “In certain portions of our state there are communities nearly as foreign now in speech and in the habits and customs which their forefathers brought with them . . . This is the land of liberty, but has not the war taught us that too great a degree of certain kinds of liberty is unsafe even in a democratic country?) —A. W. Blanton, “The ‘Foreign’ Problem in Texas and the Need for an Hliteracy Commission’ “Some Mexicans are very bright, but you can’t compare their brightest with the average white children, They are an inferior race.” —Rural school superintendent, quoted in P. $. Taylor, An American-Mexican Frontier “A State may, with safety, admit as residents only those capable of being assimilated—those who can adopt its standards of living, its language, and its ideals of citizenship and of government,” noted An- nie Webb Blanton, state superintendent of public instruction, in 1923, According to her Texas had no problem in admitting the “honest emigrant who desires to become a genuine Texan... in fact as well as in name.” But the state did have a problem with those who did not “desire to become one with its citizens.” Blanton of course was refer- ting to the Texas Mexican population, those individuals of foreign descent who were “born and reared in the Lone State State.” Blanton had a special message for them: “If you desire to be one with us, stay, and we welcome you; but if you wish to preserve, in our state, the language and the customs of another land, you have no right to do this.” The Texas Mexican population was given two options. It could either leam American customs and the English language or else, as Blanton noted, “you must go back to the country which you prize so highly and rear your children there." Blanton’s comments signaled the official state interest in the educa- " ed, (b) legitimizing th ' Mexicans as “eternal enemies” of " izing the stereotype io denigration. Additionally this ae State, and (c) encouraging their eee t y undergirded the historical at- Atglo disparagement of Mexican culture and the SpanishCROSS-PURPOSES 33 Blanton's attitude toward Texas Mexicans was also shaped by the national Americanization movement. The Americanization campaign began in a positive light at the tu of the century. It included a three- fold program of agitation, protection, and education of the immigrants in the English language and in citizenship training. Native-born Americans and foreign-born individuals were both targeted for learn- ing about the “set of ideals which constitute Americanism.” Most im- portant, “Americanism” was to be taught and encouraged, not forced, upon the immigrant groups.* But after World War I this campaign assumed a new character. The Americanization movement rapidly shifted its emphasis from pro- moting an understanding of America’s traditions and fostering the positive aspects of the foreign-bom population to forcefully teaching immigrants the “American” way of life. In addition to acquiring American ways, immigrants were expected to give up their foreign language and cultural behavior.* Superintendent Blanton’s comments reflected both the impact of the Americanization movement and the historical attitude of disparagement and dislike of the Texas Mexican population. This at- titude in turn shaped her outlook on the Americanization of non- English speakers and on particular policy options designed to ac- celerate this process. The passage of patriotic legislation during 1918 provided Blanton with specific measures designed to strengthen the Americanization of the Texas Mexican population. Included among this new legislation was a bill making English the exclusive medium of instruction in the public ols. The English-only bill was dif- ferent in several respects from curlier versions. First, it applied not on- ly to teachers but to principals, superintendents, board members, and all other public school personnel. Second, in order to ensure its im- plementation, the state legislature made it a criminal offense to teach in a language other than English.° Although this law highlighted the schools’ assimilationist role, some state leaders felt that it was inadequate since it only applied to public education. Prominent individuals such as Superintendent Blan- ton believed that foreign students for the most part were attending Private and parochial schools which did not have English language in- struction and Americanization as their primary educational goal.’ “In certain counties along our border,” wrote Superintendent Blanton in 1923, “are many men and women, born and reared in the Lone Star State, who speak a foreign tongue and cherish the habits and ways of another country.” “In many of these communities along the border,” she continued, “the children are trained in private and parochial schools in which the medium of instruction is a foreign tongue. .. .”34 CROSS-PURPOSES These children posed a threat to the state for, as Superintendent Blan- ton put it, they were growing up “without having leamed to read or write the English language. . . .” In order to teach the future citizens of Texas, Superintendent Blanton argued that "Texas children must learn the tongue which we speak and you must use the English language as the medium of instruction in your schools. . . .”"“A state cannot safely leave to chance training to the duties of citizenship,” she reminded educators.” In order to quicken the assimilation of those not enrolled in the public school system, Superintendent Blanton sought to extend the role of the state in educational matters. This was apparent in the cam- paign to make English the only language of instruction in the private and parochial schools. “Texas has a law requiring that the English language shall be the medium of instruction in public schools,” she declared in 1919, “but it is one of the few states of the Union which does not require this also as to private and sectarian schools.” “I recommend such a provision in the compulsory attendance law as will require,” she continued, “all private and sectarian schools and private tutors shall make the English language the medium of instruc- tion.” ‘The campaign to regulate the private and parochial schools was a ( oN significant aspect of a larger effort to strengthen the system of public \, school administration. i began shortly after Annie Webb Blanton was a elected state superintendent of public instruction. When she assumed the duties of the superintendency in January 1919, Blanton was faced with a critical teacher shortage, especially in rural areas, and with im- plementing a free textbook law passed by the voters in the general election of 1918. f Gov. W. P. Hobby, a Democrat, responded to this school crisis by f calling for a special session of the state legislature. Prior to the special session he appointed the Committee on Education, a group comprised of educators, university professors, and other socially prominent women and men interested in educational matters, “to make recom- se mendations to him and to the legislature as to the action necessary to improve conditions in this crisis of school affairs.” This committee and a series of subcommittees made several long-range and short- range recommendations regarding the financing of the public schools, the establishment of salary scales, the setting of standards for teacher certification, and special appropriations to the public schools," The short-range recommendations were limited to remedying the emergency conditions facing the public schools while the long-range ones pertained to the strengthening and consolidation of the state school system. Among the long-range recommendations was one re-CROSS-PURPOSES 35 iring English as the sole medium of i ion 4 ji 3 ial schools. As part of its pag ae Come ae oe rulvate and recommended that the compulsory attend area on Education to include modification of the exemy eat ree raeibe ered revision the committee come tha yeuyi sent fe part ot the the English language must be made the ai rem paaees private and sectarian schools accepted in Hewat Se a 7 ing, requiring the restricti i i rain ee eae ee ee aay ie aerepeed Ta lick table sisele eae ee wore bli school standards," schools training must conform ee ae ee Jaw to require the use of English in all eSacb lic ae ae suppor ofthe educational leaders as well as the governor, ie English languag onpublic schools failed to pass.'* S Nee ihe Ene iabronl ye for nonpublic schools received sup- ee Sere : crest groups and from the State Depart- Parent-Teacher an reer fe a oe re E r lorsed a resolution favoring “the mak- Ba oe Se ee eee the basis of instruction in both private and a ae a coneemuod) the Texas State Teachers Association PA) a passed several resolutions concerning the teaching of English in all educational institutions, public and private. One of ties which applied to Texas stated: “We oppose the use of any eee as the medium of instruction in any elementary school in this state, public or private, other than the English language.’”* a supp et this campaign to extend the English-only laws into the 7 public schools, the Texas SDE issued a bulletin in 1922 stressing the need to teach English to the “foreign” child since “the English fansuage is our most precious national possession.” “Respect for our ag, aa a een 1, Should carry with it respect for our Language and loyalty to it.” " The state superintendent of public instruction also worked hard to oe the private and parochial schools under the same regulations as aa governing the public schools. In an attempt to rally the sislators behind the legislation to regulate the nonpublic schools, uperintendent Blanton in January 1923 issued a short but well Publicized article on the “foreign” problem in the Texas schools. In a article, Blanton reminded her readers that, since the war, many tes had passed laws requiring that English be the sole language of instruction in nonpublic as well as public ‘schools. She also stated that36 CROSS-PURPOSES a . introduced into the Texas state legislature but ee a ri ““Aze we too much occupied with business, with pleasure, with social activities, to give further thought to this menace to which the war opened our eyes, only to have it forgotten again when the first poignancy of feeling had passed?” she asked, “will there ever be a more favorable time,” she continued, “than the present to decree that children reared in Texas shall be Texan in spirit as well as in name?” She also reminded her readers that there were many children who | became adults without leamming English because they were being taught in private or parochial schools in which the medium of instruc. tion was a foreign tongue. “Under these conditions,” she asked, “how are we to imbue them with the lessons of Texas citizenship, as we would have it become? Shall we ever awake to [these dangers] and | take such decided steps that no one can again be bom and grow up i Texas pacer learning even the language of his state?” aa Legislation was needed to correct this problem. i this legislation should mandate that all nonpublic pa | pee tutors (a) register in the office of the county superintend ees the English language the medium of instruction, and ic) wo ee the standards of public schools. “No school which AY coaioum Texas citizens,” she concluded, “has a right to obj eal tay quirements, and the future safety of our dem ae pu rr — demands that they be made.” ‘ocratic institutions “~> Similar to Blantoi i eas ah Ee caled ohe ua nine | on illiteracy, he argued that “the unfort Denes schools. In his fale communities in Texas is not the See poe sou out foign s0 much as the fact they still cline + a illiteracy found in them customs.” “In justice to American ae their foreign languages and i pra Is and in justice to the children neighbors in Texas,” he continued,CROSS-PURPOsES 37 Mexicans for several reasons did not o exas PPose the extension of jsh-only law into the nonpublic 20 p. i ee attend school, public as peekire a ae they general- iw did not have an immediate impact on them. §; ‘ Eeslishonly dividuals who did attend were, for the most part, st econd, those in- ericanization in general and of a tongly supportive of Amt such English language laws i cular. Several of the new community organizations, for i ey inserted clauses into their constitutional bylaws requi rae members teach English to their children and promote the English Janguage among their own kind. Unlike school officials, these Texas Mexicans favored the learning of English but not at the expense of their Spanish language or their cultural traditions.” Despite the widespread support for the English-only law, the con- tinuing influx of Texas Mexican children into the public schools made its implementation difficult. The problem of using English only jn the schools was most pressing especially in those counties along the Mexican border. School administrators of local districts in South Texas complained of being unable to teach elementary children who lacked a basic knowledge in English. Several community members also complained that the proximity of these districts to Mexico created a climate conducive to speaking Spanish. In response to the continuing influx of non-English-speaking children into the schools and to local district pressures, three legislators from El Paso in West Texas and one each from Harlingen and Edinburg in South Texas sponsored an amendment to the English- only language law of 1918. This amendment, introduced in 1925, mandated that all school employees “shall use the English language exclusively” in the public schools with the following exemption: “It shall be lawful to teach the Spanish language in the elementary grades in the public free schools in counties bordering on the boundary line between the United States and the Republic of Mexico and having a city or cities of five thousand or more inhabitants according to the USS. Census for the year 1920.” Six local school districts with a total population of 133,753 were eligible for this exemption. Unfortunately, specific estimates of the number of districts which took advantage of this special provision are Not available, but enrollment statistics for the 1927-1928 school year do indicate that Spanish language instruction was an important issue for local school districts in the border counties. F ‘After the cosctenont of the English-only law, Superintendent Blan- ton and other ure Wificials declined to participate any further Tesolving the pressing educational issues confronting local school38 CROss-pURPOSES districts with large numbers of Texas Mexican children. The State leaders’ unwillingness or inability to participate further in the issue, raised by the presence of non-English-speaking children occurred ata time during which researchers and others were recommending that they become more involved in these matters. State educational and Political leaders were called upon to exert leadership in promoti educational change and, if need be, legislative solutions to the issue of educating Mexican children. As early as 1923, for instance, a study of illiteracy recommended that the state take several specific steps to ensure that Mexican children would receive more and better education. First, it recom. mended that the state amend and strengthen the compulsory school attendance laws. Second, it encouraged the legislature to apportion state school funds on the basis of school attendance rather than on the basis of the school census. Third, the report called for the improve. ment of instructional methods used to teach non-English speakers and for better training of teachers of non-English speakers by institutions of higher learning. Finally, it added that enlisting the support of “in- telligent Americanized Mexicans” would be worthwhile. “No persons can understand the Mexican mind better than they,” the report argued.?* The Texas Educational Survey Commission report of 1925 likewise called for an increased state role in educating Mexican children. Ac- cording to the report, there was a certain “danger” of allowing each community to meet the problem as it pleased without state guidance and assistance. It encouraged state leaders to develop a formal state- ment on “the broad outlines of the policy to be pursued,” to encourage a better basis of apportioning school funds, and to initiate a “sane and reasonable” enforcement of the compulsory school laws. It recom- mended a greater participation by state educational agencies in the training of teachers. Additionally, it encouraged the State Department of Education to extend the choice of reading texts to include readers more adapted to the needs of these students, and to collect and disseminate the best that was being done in teaching non-English- speaking children to read and write English.> i The pleas for an increased state role in the education of Texas Mex- icans continued to be made during the 1930s and 1940s. But state school officials, whether for professional considerations, lack of prop- erly trained staff, or inadequate funds and resources, failed to heed these pleas, 'CROSS-PURPOSES 39 Curriculum Local school districts responded differe; : children from the way state officials did. ae pees Mexican pee at seer in the local schools, Sea ogee to immediate action to accommodate and in- One of the major responses local school distri P in the elementary grades was to adapt the oy Re varied strategies for teaching English, teading, hygiene, and ae social habits to these children. Because of the language problem, em- phasis was placed on the development of experimental or novel methodologies for teaching English. Most teachers agreed that the most effective way to teach English was to use English-only methods. Several individuals went to great lengths to emphasize that under no circumstances was the Spanish language to be used to teach Texas Mexicans how to speak English. Teachers, pedagogical wisdom dic- tated, were to train these children to “think” in English rather than to have them think in Spanish and then translate into English.” Several large school distxicts—for example, San Antonio and El Paso—became leaders iz sloping innovative English language ap- proaches. At their own ex these local school districts prepared and published curricular materials on how to teach non-English- speaking children in the elementary grades. At the request of various school districts, some of these curricular guides were published and disseminated by the State Department of Education. The SDE published curricular materials for teachers of non-English-speaking children in 1924, 1925, 1930, and 1936, These publications provided suggestions to teachers on what was needed in the classroom in order to provide effective language learning experiences. For the most part, emphasis was placed on teaching oral English skills rather than Yeading or other content matter. The first curricular guide for instru the elementary grades was issued in Seale ‘ was divided into two major parts. The first part contained information on duti her and suggestions for developing ee eee s for rural schoolchildren. The i bject and second part contained a recommended course of study by subject grade and a list of state-adopted books. Although een subjects ere recommended for study, special instructions for educating cting Texas Mexican children in 1924 by the SDE. This bulletin40 CROSS-PURPOSES ican children were provided under the subject of reading only, “In many sections of Texas,” the bulletin noted, “there are School, in which all ora great part ofthe children come from homes in wes the English language is not spoken.” “Every effort should be Made to Americanize these pupils,” it continued, “by first encouraging later insisting that English be the only language spoken in school,” The learning of English was to be emphasized at the expense of sub. ject matter. “Those teachers in our Mexican schools who have at. tained greatest success through long experience and through a carefyl study of the problem of teaching foreigners,” the bulletin Stated, “have decided that the average Mexican child ..- Should not be ex. pected to accomplish the low first work in one-half of the year.” Ip. stead, it recommended that “the whole year had better be given over to this work, much of the time being spent in teaching English.” During the first year the aims of the instructional program were (a) to stress correct pronunciation, articulation, and enunciation and (b) to establish a working vocabulary for the Spanish-speaking child by acquainting him or her with the classroom and the home environ- ment. The first would be accomplished by repeating drills on pronun- ciation of simple words, phrases, and sentences which related to the life around the child. “The Mexican child who misses the primer reading, the phonics, and the language training of the first year,” the bulletin reminded its readers, “will be handicapped in the accomplish- ment for the work in higher grades, as there is little time in those grades for individual work with pupils who know little or no English.”” There were two approved methods for teaching English to “foreigners”—the objective and the dramatic approaches.’ The former method began with the oral study of concrete nouns which could be presented objectively. According to this method the child was shown an object or a picture of the object and told what it was. Once she or he associated the oral symbol with the object, the child had to say the word and be able to name the object when it was pointed to. The child also had to be able to point to the object and name it. If the name of the object was to be used in reading, the child was shown the written and printed form. Drills that called for the recognition of the object and of the printed or written symbols which represented it were to be continued until the child could identify it out of a group of objects and group of words.*! The dramatic method began with the study of verbs which could be illustrated by actions. The action had to be performed at the moment the sentence was spoken “as an aid to the memory in retaining the word, and as an aid in associating the word with the action.” ThroughCROSS-PURPOSES 41 e use of these action verbs the teacher could enlar, the child’ evcabulany by adding new nouns, adjectives, Seen ee ree prepositions. The teacher could also teach the past tense of verbs ugh language drills and develop the child’s ability to answer ques- tions. The following illustrates this approach to teaching the verb “to see”: The teacher goes to the window, looks out and says, “I see a tree.” She goes back to her desk and says, “I saw a tree,” Then the pupil goes to a window and the teacher asks a question, “What do you see?” Answer, “I see a tree.” Pupil goes to seat, Question, “What did you see?” Answer, “I saw a tree.’ The bulletin suggested some specific drills and exercises that the beginning teacher could utilize for the entire year. “It is impossible to formulate a course of study for the low first grade which would in- clude all that is to be taught and that would include more than a few of the methods to be used,” it reminded its readers. In closing, it stated that “this course has been arranged, primarily, to assist new teachers who have no experience with the foreign speaking child, and it represents the minimum amount of work required in this grade.” In the following year—i¢: he Texas Educational Survey Com- mission appointed by the Texas state legislature issued a comprehen- sive study of the Texas pubisc school system. One chapter was devoted to exploring the problems presented by non-English-speaking children in the schools. In that chapter the survey staff included an il- lustration of the work done by the San Antonio school district in their efforts to improve the teaching of Mexican children. San Antonio had a large number of Texas Mexican children who were not doing very well in school and who were not advancing into the secondary grades as were the Anglo children. Local school officials and teachers believed that the attendance and “elimination” problem of these children was due to lack of comprehension of reading material. “In the early stages of our work with these children,” wrote Elma A. Neal, the local school district curriculum specialist, “we found them reading rather freely, selections in the third and fourth teaders, with little or no idea as to what they were reading." In order to improve reading comprehension the teachers decided that materials “based on the every day experiences of the children, his interests and needs being constantly in mind,” were needed. “The sub- Ject matter,” she added, “was intended to serve as a background of ‘understanding for the content of readers.’ immediate purposes of language instruction were to give42 CROSS-PURPOSES ir eprnen aoEgi n sezui hn 3 were very desirous of having the child, speak English on the playground,” noted Neal, “yet we were an nothing in the schoolroom to build up a speaking vocabulary.” ng Under the direction of Neal, the local school district Prepared Put in mimeographed form a three-unit series of lessons for teachers. Primer, high-first, and low-second lessons for non-English-speakin, children, The source of material for the first series was the child together with the child’s Pets, toys, games, home, and school ac. tivities. “The lessons are developed with the idea of keeping very close to the natural activities and interests of the normal child” stated Neal. The second series was taken up by family life. “In al] in stances,” said Neal, “natural situations for the teaching of English are created; the encyclopedic selection of facts, for the sake of teaching English, is avoided.” The third series emphasized the child in relation to the community. “Our immediate purpose is to furnish the non. English-speaking child with a vocabulary he may use in expressing his needs in the community in which he lives,” noted Neal.°° The methods used to teach these non-English-speaking children were also extremely important. The methods used by Neal and her assistants were experimental in nature. They were developed and tested through repeated classroom demonstrations under carefully controlled conditions, / ‘tionally, the methods were based on language acquisition theory ce we believe it is necessary in the acquisition of any language to educate first the ear, then the tongue, and then the eye,” she stated, “oral instruction is emphasized.” Oral language skills were continually emphasized as teachers held conver. sations with the children. A reading lesson based on these conversa tions was then put on the blackboard. From this reading lesson the children developed additional vocabulary, worked on speech dif- ficulties, and laid the foundation for independent word recognition. Throughout the day the school’s activities revolved around English language learning. In addition to these procedures, Neal also provided general sugges- tions to teachers of Texas Mexican children, According to her, teachers should use objects and Pictures freely, dramatize or act out the lessons, give the child first-hand knowledge where possible through excursions, and multiply associations through repetition ina variety of ways. In addition, teachers should provide generaliza- tions—red, for example, is the color of both red ribbon and red apples. They should also give enunciation exercises to help children over” come speech difficulties. Above all, they should teach “converse tional English” and train children to think in English directly insteadCROSS-PURPOSES 43 of translating words from their own language. “Train . object calls up the Engli ithoat thn 8 that the sign ofthe foreign word” nglish word without the intermediate link Because recognition of the distribution of intel]: children was an important part of her instructioy recommended using standardized intelligence rake na for placing these children in similar ability groups. In San Ant eases) she noted, “sub-normal children, of which there are many, are gowped in special help rooms, and a particular type of training given theme In 1930, as more non-English-speaking children enrolled in the public schools, the SDE issued another English language bulletin, en- titled A Course in English for Non-English-speaking Pupils.” Unlike the 1924 bulletin, this one was devoted entirely to teaching non-English-speaking children. Developed largely by educators from South Texas, this bulletin contained a philosophy on how to teach “foreign” children in the first three grades, general objectives for these children, and a series of activities and drills which could be used to teach them English. “ft is clear that the first need of the non-English-speaking child,” noted the bulletin, “is to learn to understand and speak the language used in the schoolroom.” “Not only his first need,” it continued, “but for some time his chic is for lessons in English.” In order to communicate in the ci. um it was necessary to teach him a usable vocabulary for speaking ish “which will make it possible for him to express himself about everything which he knows, and does, and in which he is interested.” The guide recommended that the child know (a) the names of all the objects about him in the schoolroom and in the schoolyard, (b} all the words necessary to help him to express himself about every activity of the day in which he engaged and about any materials he used when engaged in these activities, and (c) a vocabulary to help him express himself about his home, his family, and himself. According to the guide, the child also needed “a few beginnings in expressing himself about the big outside world of nature and the community in which he lives." _ a The primary objective of these lessons was to train hee iren to think in English. “Unless there is no other way to convey the meanii 8 to the child in English, do not resort to the use of fee reminded the teachers. “Strive to popularize English to such an oe that there will be much of it on the playground,” it further suggested. rate ae ; ; f non-English speakers were The principles guiding the instruction © ene) allow the child simply those used in teaching regular a De aa eee to lear English by listening and speaking sosponn the guide Pupil see a word before he hears it from the ligence among44 CROSS-PURPOSES declared. It continued that the child should not write a word before be. ing able to accurately reproduce it, “Train the ear to tongue to talk before the eye and the hand are enlisted in the Work of language. Follow this rule religiously and you will find your reward” it added. Second, encourage the child to practice speaking the new language. “The pupils will get correct Pronunciation, accurate use of practical English, correct idioms and grammatical forms by practice,” the guide stated. Third, provide lessons that follow the “natural law of learning.” “A haphazard, disconnected, unrelated group of words and sentences must end in tedium, discouragement, and despair,” it stated. “Give all possible aids to the memory and when the strain upon it is reduced to a minimum,” it continued, “the student will be better able to concentrate his mind upon getting the correct sound of the new language and in reproducing what he has heard,’”*" In 1936 another curricular guide for the elementary school teacher was published by. the SDE. This guide had a chapter entitled “Teaching Beginning Mexican Children” by the supervisor of primary instruction in El Paso, Lucy Claire Hoard. This chapter discussed the problems non-English speakers encountered in school, the requisites of a good teacher, and the need to develop adequate methods for teaching these children, According to Hoard, there were several important points all teachers of non-English-speaking children had to know. First of all, teachers had to recognize that English was to these children a foreign tongue. “Understanding and speaking this new language must come first,” she stated, “followed by reading and writing only after the pupil had acquired the ability to speak it fluently for his needs at that level of growth.” Second, the teachers had to help the Mexican child over- come timidity in employing a foreign language as a medium of expres: sion. The first few weeks, it suggested, should be spent getting ac- quainted with the school staff and learning the location of places such as the principal’s office, the playground, the toilets, the drinking foun- tain, and the nurse’s room. In learning these locations the child “will be learning the names of objects, toys, materials, and such like in the room, and learning to use a few verbs in connection with all of the above.” During this early period the children were also to be “in- troduced to simple songs, rhythms, games, and finger play, all of which will be associated with appropriate language expression.’ Third, because of the child’s lack of proficiency in English, the pro- gram for the first year was to be considered almost entirely a non- reading program. While some reading was to be done during the last few weeks of the year, the emphasis was “definitely upon the acquisi- tion of an English vocabulary and experiences which build up 4 hear andCROSS-PURPOSES 45 iness for reading rather than upon reading accomplishment.” By the end of the first year, the Mexican children “should be able to use from 300 to 500 words, and have an understanding of many more as spoken by the teacher and others.” Based on these principles, the author then suggested that the teaching of English could best be ac- complished through informal learning situations rather than through boring and incomprehensible formal procedures, “* ‘Although much excitement was expressed over these curricular in- novations and experimental instructional methodologies, only a handful of districts modified their courses or retrained their teach- ers.© Those few schools which did experiment with new methodologies failed to overcome this obstacle to academic perfor- mance. While the efforts were sincere, the historical neglect of all things Mexican, including the Spanish language, continued. In their overzealous attempts to promote the speaking of English, many school officials blunted whatever motivation or incentive Texas Mex- ican children had to learn that language. For the older Mexican students and those advancing into the upper grades, educators supported a variety of nonacademic programs. One proposed course of study was based on the presumption that Mex- icans excelled in expressive 2 ies, especially drawing, painting, and music. A comment representative of this sentiment was expressed in El Paso around 1929 by Katherine Gorbutt, principal of the Aoy Elementary School—an elementary school that grew out of the community-sponsored Mexican Preparatory School. “There are many things in which a Mexican excels,” she stated. According to her, the Mexican excelled “in his painstaking capacity for little things, in his ability to make the best of a bad bargain, and in his philosophy that is ‘why worry about what cannot be helped.’” She also noted that Mexicans were particularly gifted in art, music, and athletics. “They make good athletes because they like to play,” she stated. Even Elma Neal, who devoted her life to teaching Mexican children in San An- tonio, strongly believed that they excelled in art, singing, and dance. Despite the variety of scholarly studies challenging these stereotypes, teachers—especially those like Gorbutt—continued to believe that Mexican children had special expressive abilities and talents. “They believe that the Mexican child has great possibilities,” said Manuel. “They fortify their expression of this belief,” he con- tinued, “by reference to incidents and persons within their own ex- Perience,”4” On the basis of these stereotypical beliefs, teachers and others argued for the establishment of more classes aimed at enhancing these Presumed traits. Although it is unclear how many school districts ac-46 CROSS-PURPOSES implemented classes to enhance these “exceptional” talents, eae are usually made to them in most official schoo} ts.“ se audition to the curricular reforms aimed at teaching English and enhancing their artistic abilities, educators also supported industrial education for these children. Since most of the Mexican children did not complete the elementary grades, educators argued that they should be provided with some specific vocational skills so that they could find a job in the local economy. In this manner, the economic productivity of the individual could be increased and the needs of the local economy met.” While vocational education was strongly supported by educators at the local level, few classes were developed, since most of the Texas Mexican children dropped out in the early elementary grades. In- dustrial education became more popular as Texas Mexican children began to attend the upper elementary and secondary grades in the late 1920s. But even then very few schools provided funds for establishing these courses, as Table 8 shows. Table 8 Location of Schools Providing Vocational or Industrial Education for Texas Mexican Students, 1929 Vocational Agricuiture Socorro, El Paso County San Ilezario, El Paso County Samfordyce, Hidalgo County aneeye™ oper Vocational Home Economics (for girls over fourteen years of age) . Donna, Hidalgo County Edinburg, Hidalgo County McAllen, Hildago County Weslaco, Hildago County El Paso, El Paso County Smelter District, El Paso County Ill, Trade and Industrial Education (for boys and girls over fourteen years of age] El Paso, El Paso County Smelter District, El Paso County Houston, Harris County San Antonio, Bexar County peer Source: Based on Manuel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children, p. 88. Different types of vocational or industrial education classes were offered by local school officials. In San Benito, for instance, Manuel found that home economics classes were opened to the older Mexican girls in grades as low as the fourth. In Laredo, special efforts wereCROSS-PURPOSES 47 made to provide home economics instruction in “the humble homes from which many of the students come.” El Paso during the late 1920s had two vocational schools which provided industrial training for Mexicans. In November 1928, the city also started an experiment in preparental and parental education with one teacher. “The experiment in teaching personal hygiene and the care of the children,” quoted Manuel, “is an attempt to meet a need which is the greater because of the fact that many Mexican children marry at an early age.” Vocational programs for adults were also conducted during the late 1920s. For instance, in Dallas the local board sponsored cooking, sew- ‘an women three times a week. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, an experiment in the education of adult women began in September 1927 under the supervision of Lillian Peek, state supervisor of home economics education. The local super- visor, Kathryn Shipp Thompson, stated that in the 1927-1928 school year classes for Mexican women were conducted in six centers. The following year, they were conducted in ten centers. Most of these classes were conducted twice a week in the aftemoon.! The aim of most of these classes was to produce homemakers rather than servants. “Incidentally, however,” reported Manuel, “the work does help to place members of the class who desire employment.” “The work is made as practical as possible,” he added. For example, “the women are taught to make use of simple material, which is more apt to be available in the hesne than is more expensive equipment.” ‘In discussion of food,” he o atinued, “simple terms are used rather than the technical names frequently used by specialists.” Compulsory School Law While teachers were finding ways of Americanizing Mexican children, local school off ficials were developing new administrative techniques for providing separate and inferior educational oppor- tunities for them. Their discriminatory behavior was most teadily ap- Parent in the variety of financial and administrative practices they developed in Tesponse to these children, most of whom were found in tural areas, One of the most important practices affecting Mexican children Was the enforcement of the compulsory school law. As a general rule, local school officials did not enforce the compulsory school law or ¢lse they were lax in enforcing it. The low requirements of the school aw, the poverty and “apathy” of the Mexican group, the opposition of board members and other Anglos to their education, as well as finan-48 CROSS-PURPOSES cial reasons were given by different districts for not enforcing the compulsory school law. The following comments of local school officials about Mexican children in three rural counties during the 1920s illustrate this pat. tern. To a large extent, they also represent the character of the educa. tion provided for most of these children throughout the state during the years between the wars. The comments are from studies carried out during this decade. The first study was done in Karnes County in 1922 by E. E. Davis and C.T. Gray. The second study was done in Dimmit County in 1928 and the third in Nueces County on the Gulf Coast in 1929. These latter two were carried out by Paul Taylor as part of a larger study of Mexican labor in the United States. In 1922 Davis and Gray conducted a survey of the public schools in Karnes County, an area located southeast of San Antonio. In this par- ticular rural county the authors found that, while a large percentage of the school-age population was Mexican, for the most part they did not attend the public schools. In 1921, there were 1,497 Mexican school- age children, or 45.4 percent of the total school-age population of eeatnt of this number only 460 or 30.7 percent attended the public schools. The researchexs azgued that, while parents were partially to blame for not sending their children to school, local school officials in general failed to require compulsory school attendance among the rural Mexican people. According to them the school attendance law's requirements were not sufficiently strong for it to achieve its goal. There were two major weaknesses with the law. First, the law was operative only 2 1/2 miles from the schoolhouse. “In some of the sparsely settled counties of southwest Texas the distances from schoolhouse to schoolhouse,” they argued, “are so great that more than 50 percent of the area is geographically exempt from the opera- tion of the compulsory school attendance laws.” “In Karnes County with 692 square miles of area,” they continued, “the 42 schoolhouses in the independent and the common school districts are so distributed over the county that approximately 20 percent of the county’s area is exempt from the operation of the compulsory school attendance laws.”* Second, noncompliance with the school law was punishable by a money fine assessed against the offending parents or guardians. But the Mexican population was so poor that they did not have money or other property that might be levied to pay these fines. In another report Davis stated that he had received estimates from local school authorities that approximately three hundred of the parents and guard- ians of Mexican children not in school were so “abjectly poor that a money fine or its equivalent of any sort could not be collected fromCROSS-PURPOSES 49 them.” “To have thrown these offenders of the law into jail for non- compliance with the compulsory school requirements,” stated Davis, “would have called for an enlargement of the Karnes County jail.” “In- deed, the jail as it now stands,” he argued, “has a humane capacity for fewer than thirty occupants.” He concluded, “If these offending parents and guardians had been committed to jail, most of their dependents would have been made charges upon public charity.”* Placing the parents of these school-age children in jail would have had a debilitating impact on the local agricultural economy. Fearing arrest, many of the Mexicans would have left the county. As a result of this exodus “planted crops would have been deserted by the hun- dreds.” Also, “the fields would have grown up in weeds and the credit merchants, looking to the harvest months of the fall for collections, would have had to close their doors in bankruptcy.” Another difficulty associated with enforcing the law related to the Mexican children’s poverty and the impact their presence could have on other students. According to Davis, those unaware of their living situation “can scarcely conceive of the filth, squalor, and poverty in which many of the Mexicans of the lower class live.” He then con- tinued: Many of the children are too ill-clad and unclean to attend school with other children. The American children and those of the Mexican children who are clean and high-minded do not like to go to school with the dirty “greaser” type of Mexican child. It is not right that they should have to do so. Several years later Paul S. Taylor reported finding a similar pattern of local school responses to Mexican children in the two rural coun- ties he studied. In Dimmit County, a rural area located outside of San Antonio, Taylor found that despite the community's pride in the public schools there was neither pretense nor effort to enforce the school attendance law on Mexicans. The words of a school authority summed up the situation in one of the small rural areas: We don’t enforce the attendance law. The whites come all right except one whose parents don’t appreciate education. We don’t enforce the attendance on the whites because we would have to on the Mexicans.** In another town of Dimmit County, a principal stated that local school officials did enforce the compulsory school law with Anglos t not with Mexicans. According to him, “They just never have en-50 CROSS-PURPOSES forced the law on the A | the Mexicans, “eth alee Amen is also did not . school law in Nueci ‘ot attempt to enforce th | e i e rounding Corpus Cl ee ty, eapecially in the Parealtoy towns in the county stated that wth ey uperintendents of the ar Pulsory attendance.” He further aie won't let me enforce com, led: don’t take e . aS much in. Wh en I come to a new school J always ask the board if they y ol. Here they told me to leave them Another superintend les peal a beatae nt stated that the trustees had told him not t 'y more Mexican enrollment,” si a) already had too many, An older 4 since the school district the local school districts in this sary Who had worked with one of to the superintendents, “As | ity expressed comments similar ayaa id long as they [Mexicans] entitied to the best that we can give them,” he stated, “but py heya timent is against enforcing attendance, and ca en ont ment.”* Public sentiment was not the only Ron for f ili as force ithe dseieel a “We have absentee owners,” dart Asian superintendent, “and they are not interested and the Mexi interested, so we let the law slide.” Se ee Occasionally the compulsory law might be enforced, but these ef- forts were generally ineffective. One superintendent stated, “On November 1 (after cotton-picking is about over], I announce by way of the teachers and the newspaper that the compulsory law is in effect.” “{ send the teacher to the home,” he contiriued, “and if neccessary he threatens a fine on the parents.” “But,” he added, “it is never levied.” ‘Another school leader pointed out that while there was some effort to enforce the attendance law in town, “as a whole, it is not enforced.” In one particular case, a large ranch enforced the attendance of Mexican children only during slack seasons. “There's nothing for the Mexican children to do out of school,” explained a school official, “so they [ranchers] want them in school to keep them out of trouble.” Another i that “if they live close to schools and have a eee no work for them to do, they should truck to bring their children and d ” “But if they are hard up and have work,’ See aaah ei reueeroeths Jaw as rigidly as on the he continued, “they shouldn't whites.”CROSS-PURPOSES 51 Although the low requirements of the school law were partially to blame, Taylor argued that the most prominent reason for nonenforce- ment of the compulsory school law was the opposition of Anglo of- ficials to the education of Mexican children. While educational leaders and officials in both counties exhibited a diverse range of opinions most agreed that it was undesirable to educate Mexican children.” In addition, many other Anglos, especially the politically influen- tial farmers and growers, feared the impact education might have on Mexican laborers. A merchant from Dimmit County, for instance, argued that growers ‘seem to be afraid that if they [Mexicans] leam, they can’t handle them as well as they do now. They seem to be afraid they will unionize and ask higher wages,” he added.® A ranch foreman in Nueces County stated a similar view. “I am for education and educating my own children, but the Mexicans, like some whites, get some education and then they can’t labor,” he said. “They think it is a disgrace to work,” he noted. According to him, “The illiterates make the best farm labor.” One large landowner was concerned that, “if the Mexicans get educated, they will go to the cities where they can get more.’ This prevalent view of the consequences of education on Mexican labor was best expressed by an onion grower of Dimmit County: The little education zet in schools here spoils them, and makes them trifling. become peddlers or bootleggers, or seek some easy way of making a living. They don’t want to do this [onion clipping] or other work. Some of them are bright, and get a good education at San Marcos [College] or some other institutions, and are fine people. They should be taught something, yet. But the more ignorant they are, the better laborers they are. The law which keeps them out if they can’t read [literacy test] keeps out the best laborers and lets in the worst. If these get educated, we'll have to get more from Mex- ico.’ While some feared the negative consequences schools might have on Mexican labor, others simply felt that public education would not benefit them since they were intellectually inferior to Anglos. A school authority from Dimmit County summed up this sentiment when he stated: “It would be grand to educate the Mexicans, but the Mexican ideals are so low and base we really don’t know where to start their education.” A landowner in Nueces County simiarly52. CROSS-PURPOSES argued that it was inherent in the Mexican race not to have an “ex. ecutive capacity.” Not all farmers and school board members were outspokenly against educating Mexican children; some were ambivalent. Several farmers stated that educated Mexicans were the “hardest to handle,” but in deference to the laws they argued that they should be Provided with schools.” Others supported the education of these children on principle. One grower from Dimmit County said he believed Mex. icans should be educated, but when Taylor pointed out that many of the onion clippers in his field were children he became evasive. Final- ly he replied, “Well, I try to tell my families they should send their children to school.” Another grower from the same county also ex. pressed support for educating Mexican children. According to this per. son, education made Mexicans better citizens. But when Taylor pointed out that many of the children on his ranch were forbidden to attend the only school in the district he said, “Of course, they don't have to stay here if they want to send their children to school. They can get jobs elsewhere.”** A small group of individuals interviewed in the studies strongly supported education for Mexicans. This group believed tha: ‘ation made them better workers and better citizens, But for the most part, these individuals were not politically influen- tial nor were they members of the boards of education.” Several school officials provided educational reasons for not enforc- ing the compulsory school law on Mexicans. They argued that the in- crease of Mexican enrollment would financially burden the school budget and “interfere with the regular course of instruction” in the public schools. A school authority who was sympathetic to the con- cers of Mexicans stressed these views to Taylor when he said, “I can’t handle more Mexicans in school. If I bring them here,” he added, “there is a social protest against it, or else protests that they crowd the schools and do neither the Mexcians nor Americans any good.” He concluded: “It would seriously jeopardize the entire system and par- ticularly the American part of it if I enforced the compulsory atten- dance law.” Finally, many school officials did not enforce the compulsory atten- dance law because Mexicans were believed to be apathetic to public education. A rural school trustee pointed out, for instance, that “the Mexicans are interested in educating their children up to a certain point, but not up to the same point as the Americans.” “They won't let school interfere with cotton picking, but afterwards,” he stated, “they send them to school.” A superintendent of a small town stated that “the whites send their children and the Mexicans do so when convenient.” A large landowner in Nueces County summed up thisCROSS-PURPOSES 53 attitude when he stated: “The Mexicans like education but have not the ambition to sacrifice to get it.””" Apportionment and Distribution of School Funds Another practice indicative of the treatment of Mexicans as a separate class of whites was the way public school funds were appor- tioned and distributed. During the 1920s and 1930s most of the funds for school purposes came from two sources—the state and the local district. The funds spent for the maintenance of schools, whatever their source, were disbursed by local or county boards of trustees. The apportionment of state funds was based on the number of children between the ages of six and seventeen reported by the school census.” These children did not have to be enrolled in school in order for the local school district to receive the funds. As a result, many districts took advantage of the state apportionment by including Mexicans in their school census, but then did little to provide educational facilities for them. In 1923, Davis reported thz: the apportionment of school funds worked to the disadvantage ci Mexican children. “There are many small schools attended by white children only and supported almost entirely by funds apportioned to Mexican children who do not go to school,” he reported. “In these districts,” he added, “the greater the number of Mexican children not in school the more revenue there will be for the children who do attend.” Davis recommended that the school funds should be apportioned on the basis of attendance rather than on the basis of the number of school-age children in the district. This, he stated, would go far in removing the inequalities in the distribution of state school funds and in encouraging the school atten- dance of Mexicans and other neglected children such as negroes.”* Discriminatory utilization of public school funds was also found by Taylor in both counties that he studied. For instance, Taylor noted that local school officials in Dimmit County listed Mexicans in the scholastic census but then applied revenues received from listing them principally to the education of Anglo children. A large owner who was sympathetic to the Mexicans told him that “the School board uses money it gets from the State for the Mexican Scholastics on the white school.” “If they didn’t have to,” he added, ‘they wouldn’t have any school for the Mexicans.” He concluded that when you say anything to them about it, their attitude is, ‘Oh, well, ‘te Mexicans,’ According to several other community members and educators,54 CROSS-PURPOSES some monies were provided for the education of Mexicans, but enough to satisfy them and to meet the minimum requirements ry law. As a consequence, the school buildings for Anglos were superior” to many schools for Mexicans.”° In Nueces County, the pattern of obtaining and distributing for educating Mexican children was similar to that found in Dimmj County. Taylor estimated that twenty-one out of twenty-nine | ‘ school districts in Nueces County spent less in 1928-1929 cata education of Mexicans than was received from the state on the Bese of their numbers. An additional four or five spent about the same as was received. He could find no comparative estimates for thre, districts.” : A superintendent of one of the local school districts in Nueces County bluntly acknowledged in 1934 the existence of these discriminatory funding practices. “Mexicans in this district draw about $2,000.” “This is true everywhere in Texas,” he continued. “We also have an $18,000 property tax,” he concluded, “and that all goes on the white school.””” “tap School Segregation Above all, probubiy the most widespread practice indicative of the class-apart treatm: Mexicans was that of placing most of them in separate classes or buildings and providing them with inadequate educational opportunities. According to Manuel, school officials had several options to choose from whenever Mexicans were present. First, they could choose not to provide any educational opportunities for them. A small percentage of local school officials chose this op- tion. A second option was to provide Mexican children with the same educational facilities and opportunities available to Anglos. Although Manuel found some school districts in which Mexican and other white children attended the same schools and were taught by the same teachers, he stated that this was not the case in the majority of school districts.” Finally, school officials could establish separate facilities for Mexicans. They could either place them in separate buildings or, whenever the costs were too great or the numbers too few, they could establish separate classes within the Anglo schools. Most school officials took this later route. Segregation of Mexican children, unlike that of blacks, was not based on constitutional or statutory grounds. Rather, the placement © Mexican children in separate facilities was based on school board at” tions and administrative regulations. School officials and boaCROSS-PURPOSES 55 members, reflecting the specific desires of the general population, did not want Mexican students to attend school with Anglo children regardless of their social standing, economic status, language capabili- ty, or place of residence.” In order to meet both their legal respon- sibility to provide educational opportunities to all the children in their district and their social obligations to the politically influential Anglo population, local school leaders utilized their administrative power to establish separate facilities for the Mexican children.®! Undoubtedly the principle of local autonomy facilitated school segregation. This principle allowed local school officials to control the development of their own schools in conformity with general legislative mandates. It also allowed local school leaders to develop only policies and practices supported by the majority of the Anglos in the communities where these schools were located. Wherever there were significant numbers of Mexican children in school, local officials tried to place them in facilities separate from the other white children. There were two basic sets of reasons given for separating Mexicans from Anglos: those asserting that association was undesirable from the Anglos’ point of view and those asserting that separation was to the advantage of Mexicans.” Anglos usually emphasized the fact that the standard of cleanliness among Mexican children was lower than that among Anglos. Mexicans were perceived to be “dirty,” “lousy,” (fail of lice), and having offensive “odors.” Others believed that Mexicans were socially and economically in- ferior.® Finally, public school officials separated Mexicans on the basis of curricular concerns, irregular attendance, or language ability. Educators argued that because of the language “deficiency” and the lack of school attendance, Mexican children could not effectively par- ticipate in schools or classes with their English-speaking peers. Thus, in order not to hamper the instruction of the English-speaking children and to enable Mexican students to learn English better, it was necessary to place them in separate facilities.“ School officials also supported the educational segregation of Mexicans on the assumption that it was to their benefit to be in these schools or that they themselves wanted or were satisfied with separate schools. Although some individuals might have preferred separate schools, evidence indicates that Mexican parents were strongly opposed to Segregation, * ae Segregation of Mexican elementary school-age children originated at the tum of the century but flourished during the period from 1920-1949 largely as a result of large-scale immigration from Mexico and increasing antipathy toward them by school officials. In 1923, for instance, over seventeen cities spread throughout the state reported56 CROSS-PURPOSES strict ®” Fi one or more Mexican elementary schools Per. ae later, Manuel conducted a survey of the administtani¥® lieXtS in he common school districts cf forty-eight co id echools for Mex. twenty-one counties had established segrega lene Seca cans. In 1929, Taylor found that in Nueces comes lone s par school buildings or rooms for Mexicans were provided in ee common school districts, and in six of the eight independent school districts. “One of the independent districts, however, which did not separate the children,” stated Taylor, “had only 3 Mexican scholastics in the entire district, and in the other they were ‘thinking of separating.’” He also found that separate rooms in the buildings used by Anglo children were provided for Mexicans in two common schools.” During the 1930s it was estimated that over 40 school districts established separate schools for Mexicans. By 1942, Wilson Little reported that approximately 122 districts in fifty-nine widely distributed and representative counties across the state maintained separate schools for Mexican students.” Opinions varied as to the number of years Mexican children should be segregated. In theory segregation was confined to the early grades, but the year in which segregation ended varied from place to place. In 1930, Manuel found that the amount of segregation existing in several South Texas cities varied widely. He found the following pattern of segregation: Grade 1 or grades 1-2 or 1-3 Abilene, Charlotte, Del Rio, Port Lavaca, and Temple Grades 1-4 or grades 1-5 Crystal City, Edinburg, Harlingen, Kerrville, McAllen, Mercedes, Mission, Pharr-San Juan, Raymondville, Uvalde, and Weslaco Grades 1-6 or 1-7 Alpine, Brady, Goose Creek, Kenedy, Kingsville, Rosebud, Runge, San Benito, and Taylor” In 1932 Basil Armour reported similar findings on segregation i several South Texas cities. In the largest “city of South Texan Brownsville, there was no segregation. “However,” he stated, “chere are certain grade schools composed almost entirely of Mexican children as they are the residents of that section, but some Mexi children are found in all sections of that city.” “an _ Even though in theory segregation was supposed to ea children completed the early grades, ae Petes liscouraged Mexicans from attending the “American schools.” Sel tive transfer and transportation Practices were used to keep MexicanCROSS-PURPOSES 57 students away from the American schools. Taylor, for instance, found that in Dimmit County Mexicans who did advance through the Mex- jcan grades were in many cases not permitted to transfer to the American school for advanced work. According to him, either another grade was added in the Mexican school or else pupils would have to go somewhere else to continue their education, This situation in one of the better schools for Mexicans was described by an informed Anglo as follows: There are two Mexicans in the eighth grade. I suppose they will just have to teach them the ninth grade next year [in the Mexican school] . ... They would not let them go over to the American school. The Americans here have always held the idea that the Mexicans are here just to work. They say that if the Mexicans came to the American school they would make it so hot for them they would not stay.” Another Anglo in the same county commented on how local school officials had responded to those Mexicans advancing beyond the early grades. “Three or four Mexican children who finished the earlier grades stopped school when they could not go to the American school,” he stated. “When .. . two insisted on going on they (school board members] added grades for them,” he added, “The principal,” he concluded, “told the teachers to tell these {students} they could not go to the American school.” Two other Anglos also told him that Mex- icans were not admitted into the American school. If they wanted to g0 to school “they can go to San Antonio.” Taylor also found that while some rural districts in Dimmit Coun- ty provided transportation for Anglo children it was not done for Mex- icans. This was the practice in the small community in Winterhaven in the Carrizo Springs district. Approximately 120 Mexican school- age pupils were reported residing in Winterhaven, but only Anglo students were provided busing to attend the local schools in Carrizo Springs.%* _ Mone of the local school districts in Dimmit County, several Mex- cans rode the bus until some children from Mississippi arrived and objected to their presence. When the school authorities explained that “ee Was not enough money to provide separate buses, the Mississip- Plans made it so uncomfortable for the Mexican children that they 'Y quit school. Me Schoo! officials’ responses to the challenges presented by Texas exican children were in many ways multifaceted but limited in ‘T approach. Although aware of the impact these children were hav-58 CROSS-PURPOSES ing on all aspects of education, school official: three major policy areas: English language polic; ministration. Personal prejudices, Political pre: traditions rather than professional training or were the major determinants In general, state school officials suppo: English-only instructional Program to rapidly assimilate |, minority children into the reflected in the extension of the existing Engli nonpublic schools and into the classroo1 tions was to Americanize the imbue the non-English child Is tended to focus on ) Curriculum, and ag. Se and cultural Of school official behavion iSdom rted and developed an established cultural norm, This ish-only policy into the m. The purpose of these ac. Mexican student population—that is, to with the habits, customs, and ideals for which America stood and Particularly to teach her or him the English language. The assimilationist curricular Practices were in contrast to the ex. clusionary ones promoted by local school administrators. The exclu. sionist behavior of public school officials can be most readily seen in their establishment of segregated facilities, in their support of in- equalities in the provision of public schools, and in their discriminatory and unequal treatment of Texas Mexican school children. These policics and practices were at cross-purposes with each other, since one set of thera tried to maintain differences existing between Anglos and Mexicans at the social level while the other tried to eliminate differences at the cultural level. The consequences of such actions were primarily to discourage Texas Mexicans from leaming the language and customs educators were trying to teach them and to encourage poor school performance among them. Notes 1. Annie Webb Blanton, A Han 1918-1922, pp. 22-23. \dbook of Information as to Education in Texas, 2. For a discussion of the legacy of hate see Rodolfo Acuna, Occupied America, pp. 3-23. 3. For an interpretation of the movement's major components see Howard C. Hill, ‘The Americanization Movement.” See Emory S, Bogardus, Esentals of Amet i is ization. icanization, for an analysis of the core elements of Americaniza : sara rari a of the origins and development of the Americanization movement, see Edward George Hartmann, The ‘Movement to Americanize the Immigrant. 5, Promotion of Americanism and strong support for the war effort were the in mediate factors responsible ment of the English-only law. But the facilitated their enactment. In Texas, size of the population, Mexicans ratl for the passage of patriotic legislation, especially the enact: f 7 Sere climate of hostility toward ethnic grou because of continuing border conflicts and the cher than Germans were singled out as beingCROSS-PURPOSES 59 disloyal to the United States. See the statement by James L. Slayden in the Co: mngres- sional Record, March 25, 1916, for an example of the distrust Anglos had of Mca people in Texas. 6, Section 2 of the bill states: “Any such teacher, principal, superi or other school official having responsibility in the Seana tee schoo who fil t comply with the provisions ofthis article shall be fined not less than 825 and nt more than $100, . cancellation of certificate or removal from office, or bot fn ellation, or fine and removal from office” (Texas, General 7. H.T. Manuel estimated that less than 10 percent of the Mexi i mated exican school-a population was envoled in private and parochial schools during the late 1920s. Tes Tia of peat Weukine Calusa pa aca coo 8, Blanton, Handbook of Information, p. 23. i 3 Ane Webb Blanton, Historical and Statistical Data as to Education in Texas, “10. Ibid. 11. Ibid, p. 10, for a copy of the report and its re dati m alk B87 10 or copy of commendations see Burges, ““Gover- i eae Br viewed Committee,” p. 76. 13. One possible reason for its nonenactment was that most of the educati f lucati state leaders were preoccupied with passing other more important pieces of Ieee aimed at strengthening the public schools, See Blanton, Historical and Statistical Data, p13 G eval on needed legislation. See Kathryn Priscilla Haines Floca, “The lew lity of Chicano Education” (master’s thesis}, pp. 21-22, for a brief discussion of 14. Texas Congress of Mothers and Parent-Teachers Associ it q z ciations Bulletin 1 scents par a Thomas Simmons, ' “The Citizen Factories: The Americanization He -xican Students in the Texas Public Schools, 1920-1945" (Ph.D. diss.}, p. 91. ibs pie TSTA ae passed another resolution which stated: "There are already too many elements in this country which have failed to get the spirit of our American in- stitutions.” The TSTA delegates then called on Congress "to close the gates against foreign immigration until our schools can assimilate and Americanize those already oo ree ("Resolutions Adopted by the Texas State Teachers Association,” b. 7h See Simmons, "Citizen Factories,” pp. 9092, for a brief discussion of these 16, Texas ‘ tay Grade, ble Swot of Tora 19oe 90H pp Sead mee 17. Blanton, Handbook of Information, pp. 21-22. is Bevis, Miteracy, pp. 17-18. . Texas, repens ew of retrictive language laws in other pars of the country and to the Lehentts by minority communities to them during the 1920s, see Amold H. nlf te Imposition of English as the Language of Instruction in American Pr Califa Charles Wollenberg, All Deliberate Speed: Segregation and Exclusion ae Schools, 1855-1975, pp. 69-75. See also Kenneth B. O’Brien, “Education, zation, and the Supreme Court: The 1920s.” Fe p court: The 1920s. a Unie example, the constitutions of La Orden Hijos de America and the League Ps tin American Citizens. See Chapter 3 of this work for the Texas Mexican’s Pee toward the English language. . Te : ‘€xas, General and Special Laws, 1927, p. 267.60 CROSS-PURPOSES 23. According to the 1926 Texas Almanac and State Ine ic ji school districts were in the following cities: McAllen, Brownevile Cou the sig Del Rio, and El Paso. Ironically, Spanish language instruction inv ¢ha ie Pas Primarily inthe secondary grades, increased throughout the 19260 Diy Shook, 12,000 students studying Spanish in the independent school distrcrs 2702 Fase 28,000 in 1921 and to 48,000 in 1925 fpp. 209.320), Jeffersen hes {Bt in, History of Spanish Teaching in the United States” [master's theese N°? SPel precedented demand for Sp. I) states that the anish teaching, at least H tical purpose. It is very likely that this ree tas herein epee as a result of the war helped explain i i i Spanish language inetructioa, see 3. M. N eee ciuzng the 1920s, For of Spanish in Texas,” and Vivian h Spanish in Texas Public Schools” 24. Davis, Hliteracy, pp. 29.33, 25. Works, “‘Non-English-speaking Children,” . .” pp. 237-243 26. See for instance, Manuel, Education of § ing Chi See fori , : ‘panish-speaking Chil and Wilson Little, Spanish-speaking Children in Teas pp. GT fees the problems of teaching English to Spani ing chil 1 8 Texas State Department of Education, Public Schools of Texas, 1924-1925, p.27. 29. Ibid. 30. D. J. Chavez argues that there were four methods for teaching Mexican children in general use during the early 1920s ("Civic Education of the Spanish American" [master’s thesis], pp. 93-98). 31. In addition to nouns, the teacher could also teach adjectives and various preposi- tional phrases in sentences such as “The pencil is on the desk” (Texas State Depart: ment of Education, Public Schools in Texas, 1924-1925, p. 28). 32. Ibid., p. 29. 33. Ibid., p. 30. 34. Works, “Non-English-speaking Children,” p. 238. 35. Ibid. 36, Ibid., p. 239. 37. Ibid., pp. 239-241. 38. Ibid., p. 241. 39. This bulletin was reissued in 1932. 40. Ibid, pp. 11, 18. 41. Ibid,, pp. 12-13. 42. Hoard, “Mexican Children,” pp. 162, 169. 43, Besides these instructional skills, teachers of non-English speakers also had t2 have additional competencies. As Hoard observed, they had to be genuinely interes' in the students, know something of their history and culture, about the conditions under which they lived in the United States, and about the social, emotional, and economic problems they had to overcome in adjusting to “our industrial civilizatio: (Mexican Children,” pp. 162-163).CROSS-PURPOSES 61 44. Ibid, p. 163. 45, Manuel found that only a few cities (among them East Del Rio, Eagle Pass, El paso, and San Antonio) were experimenting with English language methods. Only one rellege-—Texas College of Arts and Industries, in Kingsville—had special training for teachers, and in this school there was only one class offered to teachers interested in the education of Texas Mexican children (Education of Spanish-speaking Children, pp. 121-150} "46, Schaer, Aoy School, p. 17, quoted in Garcia, Desert Immigrants, p. 118; Neal, curriculum,” p. 185. Manuel also states that the following alleged traits were at- tributed to Mexicans in general: imitativeness, respect for authority, appreciation of Hrendship, strength of home ties, adherence to customs, patriarchal organization of family, sensitiveness to praise or blame, ignorance and superstition, respect for the church, apathy, disparity between words and deeds, and honor and dignity (Education of Spanish-speaking Children, pp. 23-24) 47, Manuel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children, p. 24. For critical studies of these stereotypes see Alberta Stolz and H.T. Manuel, “Art Ability of Mexican Children,” and H.T. Manuel and Aline Rather, “That One Talent.” 448. See, for instance, Paul Hom, Survey of the City Schools in El Paso, pp. 33:34, where he mentions that Mexican children should receive instruction in those ac- tivities in which they are especially gifted. The two he mentions are music and hand- iwork. For an overview of the education of Mexicans in El Paso during this early period, see Garcia, Desert Immigrants, pp. 110-126. 49. For an early view of the support for “industrial education” see J. C. Ross, “In- dustrial Education for the Spanish-speaking People.”” 50. Manuel, Education of Spaniscrspeaking Children, p. 89. 51. Flora Lowry, "Night Schoo! ‘a Little Mexico”, Manuel, Education of Spanish- speaking Children, p. 89. 52, Manuel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children, p. 89. 53. Davis and Gray, Rural Schools, p. 11 54. Davis, Illiteracy, pp. 29-30. 55. Ibid, p. 30, 56. Paul Taylor, Mexican Labor in the United States: Dimmit County, Winter Garden District, South Texas, p. 373. 97. Ibid, 58. Taylor, American-Mexican Frontier, p. 194. 59. Ibid,, p. 202. 60. Ibid. 61. Ibid, pp. 194-195. 62. Manuel (Education of Spanish-speaking Children) found simil: state level. 63. Taylor, Mexican Labor, p. 37. 64, Taylor, American-Mexican Frontier, p. 196. 65. Ibid, p. 378. 66. Taylor, Mexican Labor, pp. 379; Taylor, American-Mexican 67. Taylor, American-Mexican Frontier, p. 197. 68. Taylor, Mexican Labor, p. 380. : ple American-Mexican Frontier, pp. 1981: 70. Taylor, American-Mexican Frontier, p. 200. ; 1. Thid,, pp. 204-205, For a discussion of the Texas Mexican’s desire for education See Chapter 3 of this work lar results at the Frontier, p. 196. Taylor, Mexican Labor,62 CROSS-PURPOSES 72. Before 1930 school. i Lage child: seventeen (Taylor, American-M, 73. Davis, Works, ape 74. Taylor, Mexican Labor, p. 37 78. Ibid,, pp. 376.377,” 977" 76. Taylor, American 77. Ibid, 78. According to both Armour _, 78: Accor and Taylo1 i ee school was residence, language ability eee hie 01 “0 ” id ern (Armour, “Problems,”’p, 29, Taylor, Americcntas 79. Manuel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children, . . ! PP. 72-73, i cidents of residence” rather than any specific school oad orice ie Eregition of Texas Mexican children, Local school boatd actions gor ret to strengthen segregation in these neighborhoods, See Armour, "Probleme! i re tonite paments on the consequences of these “accidents” on the eden Py ot tunities for Texas Mexican children. oe 80. Armour, “Problems,” pp. 75-82. 81. In most cases, school board members did not have an official poli tion for Texas Mexicans, but an unotfcial one was ioe fe gi Py of serge oxi yr them. For an example of how school officials used construction Policies and transfer practices to establish a ape school system in Corpus Christi, see Guadalupe San Miguel, Jr, “From a ames aaa System: The Origins and Development of Education ‘orpus Christi, Texas.” American-Mexican Frontier, p. 217. 83. For a discussion of these varied views see Davis, Illiteracy, pp. 32-33; Taylor, American-Mexican Frontier, pp. 215-225, Armour, “Problems,” p. 29, Handman, “Mexican immigrant,” pp. 38-39, Manuel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children, . 75-82. Pad. Sec, for instance, the superintendents argument in Independent School Distt v. Salvatierra, pp. 792-793. ; 85. Taylor, American-Mexican Frontier, pp. 200-225. 86. See Chapter 3 of this work. — — 87. Texas State Department of Education, Public School Directory, Bulletin no. 158, quoted in Jorge C. Rangel and Carlos M. Alcala, “Project Report: De Jure tion of Chicanos in Texas Schools,” p. 314. se ee tamvel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children, pp. 69-70. ella 89. Taylor noted that in fourteen out of twenty-two rural laces St childen 0 ie but in January 1929 these fourteen districts had a com Ee ee ealgitl? ‘of the 355 Mexicans enrolled in all twenty-two districts bee - srican-Mexican Frontier, p. 215). Sioa Little, Spanish-speaking Children, pp. ae [ ‘ tion of Spanish-speaking Children, p. a 91. Manuel, Educa’ i i iene segregated grades ‘ found the following: La Feria and Rio at es 92. Armor & fades 1-4, McAllen, San Benito, Harlingen, We Donna, Mission, Pharr-San Juan, and Edinburg segregated fades 1-5; while laco, Donna, Missi -San Juan, yurg segregated grades 1-5; feslaco, , Kingsville segregated grades 1-7 (“Problems,” p. 29). -Mexican Frontier, p. 200, Imission to the ment, and social ican Frontier, pp P. 29; Manuel, Education of Spanish-speaking Children,CROSS-PURPOSES 63 93, Taylor, Mexican Labor, p. 374. 94, Ibid., p. 376. 95. Two replies from local Anglos to inquiries as to whether the facts were correct illuminated the exclusivity prevalent among the population. Both agreed to the cor. rectness of the statement that only Anglos, not Mexicans, were bused, but one added, “don’t think any Mexican children there care to go to school.” The other person, a school authority, stated, “I think we will build a school there for the Mexicans next year” (Taylor, Mexican Labor, p. 376). 96. Ibid., p. 370.3. Roused from Our Slumbers ‘"We were wholly unprepared politically, educationally, socially when the avalanche of Americans fell upon us. ... And it is our place and our duty now to lear American ways, to send our children to American schools to leam the English language, not that we are ashamed of our Mexican” descent, but because these things will enable us to demand our rights and to improve ourselves.” —Graduate of a Mexican private school, quoted in J. Gonzalez, “Social Life in Cameron, Starr, and Zapata Counties” “We have been roused from our slumbers, and may we never sink into repose until we have conveyed a clear and undisputed inheritance to Posterity, to the end that a backward race, in this age of civilzation may tread hand in hand in all the various walks of life amongst the enlight- ened races of today.” —Constitution of LULAC In the 1920s several studies found that Texas Mexicans, especially those residing in the rural areas of Karnes, Dimmit, and Nueces coun- ties, were indiffezent toward public education or else were unaware of its advantages.' Since approximately 75 percent of all Mexicans in the state lived in rural communities, this was a significant finding” Paul Taylor, in his studies of Dimmit and Nueces counties, argued that this attitude was the result of a multitude of contemporary and historical circumstances. Poverty, discrimination, and lack of school facilities helped explain the apparent lack of interest in education. “Historically,” he noted, “the heritage of the Mexican laborers in the county is one.of but very slight formal education, and among a large proportion, none at all, either in Mexico or Texas.”* The Texas Mexican population he interviewed substantiated his argument. For instance, one person at Catarina (Dimmit County] stated that many of the Mexicans there had large families and needed the children to work. “It is good for the parent, but not for the children,” he noted. “The parents who are indifferent to school for their children,” he added, “are those who have had no school themselves [and] who neither read nor write.” Another individual from Nueces County stated that “a lot of non-attendance is due to the parents.” “They are uneducated,” he continued, “and don’t realize what their children are deprived of.’* An old vaquero from Nueces County blamed the “Spanish” leaders for keeping “our eyes closed” but then stated that the Mexicans did not like school because “they like to dance and drink.” Finally, one person from Dimmit County exROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS 65 plained how poverty and the need to work had kept him and his fami- ly from going to school: My father was poco pobre and there were twelve children, so we had to work and could not go to school... My son, born in Mexico, did not go to school in Asherton. We are poor and he had to work.® pooran While the majority of Texas Mexicans were indifferent toward education Taylor found that a select few were beginning to express an intense interest in public schools. For instance, a poor, illiterate tenant farmer growing cotton and com and living in a mesquite, mud- plastered jacal told Taylor, “I don’t want my boy to work, I want him in school.” “If I die and the children have no education,” he con- tinued, “it will be muy duro for them.” Another young Texas Mex- ican cotton picker who had been to school one year exclaimed: Now I cry with both eyes because I have not better education. If I had education I could have a position and work with my head. Now I work hard end only with my hands. This changing attitude small towns, especially a1: + education was most apparent in the better-educated individuals such as clerks, steadily employed ja! ers, and small merchants,’ These in- dividuals—most of whom bc not had to overcome the overt hostility of rural educators, extreme poverty, or lack of educational facilities—showed a great interest in public schools. Their desire for education was expressed in the comments and complaints they made about discriminatory treatment in the schools. One urban Texas Mex- ican complained: “They don’t give us an equal chance. We just want a chance.” Another complained that the superintendents in the county did not want to educate Texas Mexicans. “It is hard to convince the farmers,” he continued, “that you should educate the Mexicans, that the country would be better with good and loyal citizens.”"* Others complained against inadequate instruction and untrained, insensitive teachers. One Texas Mexican said: “In the Mexican schools they have young, inexperienced teachers who are sometimes uninterested.” “They have inadequate equipment,” he added. Ac- Cording to him, local school officials “are just taking the money Teceived for the Mexicans and spending it for the American school.” A leading Texas Mexican made the following observations: They {parents} say, what is the use of sending children to66 ROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS school. We sent them four or five years and they can’ of the first or second [grade] readers, The trouble aaa : ea the teachers. ... [they] don’t know how to teach the childres English, and the children and parents don’t take an interest u til it is too late, and then the children have to go to work? “™ One person, born and raised in Texas, complained that the Mexican schools were no good, the “girl teachers” were inexperienced high school graduates, and the school superintendent was uncaring. Even Texas Mexican from the rural parts of Nueces County agreed that “the teachers don’t put no attention on the Mexican school.” “ children just sit there all day long,” he stated. “It is hard to send children five or six miles in winter,” he added, “and they don’t Pay no attention,’ Several individuals complained against the nonenforcement of the compulsory school law. One of them from Nueces County wished that “they could put in jail all who don’t go to school.” Another said that the attendance law should be enforced. “They are not so poor,” he argued, that they could send their children to school.’””"! Besides expressing dissatisfaction with the lack of educational op- portunities, there was some evidence of individual communities tak- ing the initiative to develop their own schools. For instance, Texas Mexican communities in at least three towns in Dimmit County established private schools or after school classes for their children. Established largely as a result of their dissatisfaction with the public schools and partly to retain their native language and culture, these private schools usually had small classes, irregular attendance, and in- adequate instruction. But they revealed a strong concern for community-controlled education.’” One of these private schools was located in Big Wells, Dimmit County. Although no name was provided, one of the persons associated with the school described it to Taylor. According to this person, the Mexican school was started in November 1928. School was held for five days a week from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. It had three grades and the pupils were from six to eighteen years of age. The cost for at tending was five cents per day per child, however, additional children from the same family would not be charged extra, The school taught the following courses: hygiene, gymnastics, manual training, drawing, Spanish, grammar, arithmetic, geometry, diet, clothing, the cause of high infant mortality. The children, both Mexican 9 tionals and Texas Mexicans, were taught in their own language. teacher was a Texas Mexican female who was provided with fur nished quarters by the parents. According to Taylor, she “eked out #ROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS 67 livelihood by supplementing her tuition fees with commissions from peddling medicines, toilet articles, Mexican periodicals, etc,’ In addition to establishing their own schools, several communities raised money to purchase playground equipment for their children in the segregated public schools." They also pressured local school districts to provide better educational facilities and opportunities for their children. In some cases, parents kept their children away from school as a way of applying pressure on local school districts. One such effort to boycott the schools occurred in 1928 in Dimmit Coun- ty." According to one of the participants, the teachers did not speak any Spanish and did not understand the Mexican children. Anglo students called the Mexican children greasers and other pejorative names. Mexican parents were so upset with the lack of adequate in- struction and discriminatory treatment that they asked for a separate school under their control. When the board denied their request, they took their children out of school until they got a teacher with “a better disposition toward the Mexicans,”"° The greater interest in and desire for public education was a reflec- tion of the profound social and cultural changes taking place within the Texas Mexican community. These changes were in no small part due to the tremendous work of a new statewide organization of American citizens of Mexican descent—the League of United Latin American Citizens or LULAC. LULAC and Attitudes toward Public Education LULAC was the organizational response of a conscientious group of Americans of Mexican descent to the deteriorating socioeconomic conditions which the entire community faced in the first three decades of the twentieth century. During the period from 1900 to 1930 the Mexican population, especially the well-to-do and the least- educated, experienced a tremendous amount of economic deprivation, political manipulation, and loss of social status.” Texas Mexicans were increasingly accused of being disloyal to the United States and of being unworthy of admission to this country. They also were blamed for the growing rates of juvenile delinquency, illiteracy, and crime, Unwanted except as a source of cheap labor, Texas Mexicans were discouraged or prohibited from participating in politics, denied their civil rights, and discriminated against in all spheres of life.” Of particular importance was the increasing violence against per- sons of Mexican descent, their continual denial of justice in the courts, and the heightened contempt shown toward them by Anglos.68 ROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS In South Texas, for instance, Mexicans were brutally murdered lynched by vigilante groups or by law enforcement cea themselves.” In Central Texas signs such as “No lots sold to Mat icans” and “No Mexicans admitted” were prominently displayed, The contempt toward Mexicans was so great that at a 1910 session of the legislature State Rep. J. T. Canales, the only Texas Mexican legislator was referred to as the “greaser from Brownsville.” Several years later Canales’ outspoken defense of Texas Mexicans was reason enough for a member of the much-despised Texas Rangers to threaten his life! Although despised by the larger society and politically powerless, individuals of Mexican descent attempted to better their own working and living conditions. They conducted isolated legal challenges or journalistic exposés of discriminatory practices by judicial, ad. ministrative, and educational agencies.” In some cases, they engaged in school boycotts or in strikes against unfair labor practices.” Most important, the Mexican community throughout the state organized social and civic organizations to defend themselves against increasing acts of physical and cultural violence by Anglos. In 1910, for instance, several prominent residents of Mexican de- scent along the border held a conference to organize an association to protect the rights and interests of all Mexicans in the state.” Although unsuccessful in establishing a permanent statewide organization, this conference laid the basis for future attempts. Organizing efforts con- tinued into the 1920s, but it was not until 1929 that a permanent, unified statewide organization was finally founded. This organization was the League of United Latin American Citizens.”* LULAC was different in many ways from tradition] organizations such as the mutual aid societies found in the Mexican communities.”* First and foremost was the socioeconomic and citizenship status of the founders of this organization. All of the individuals involved in LULAC either were born in the United States or were naturalized citizens. They were the first generation of Americans of Mexican de- scent. They were also part of an extremely small but vocal middle-class element within the Mexican American community.” Despite great obstacles, these individuals managed to achieve a modicum of social and economic success. Printers, lawyers, businesspersons, ane college-trained individuals formed the core of LULAC’s leadership. ‘An example of the type of men who founded LULAC is Ben Garza, first president general of LULAC.” Garza’s story is that “of a no boy who rose from a humble home to the position of leadership or stability which he held during his last years.”" At fifteen, a father died, leaving him as the head of a household of eight. In orderROUSED FROM OUR sLUMBERS 69 help support his mother and his six bro i os later he moved to Corpus Christi Rete peer Three local café. With his earnings he helped his younger brother joe tiv uk high school and then two years of college. During the werhe ens ‘ F le moved to Rockport, about thirty miles north of Corpus Christi, to work in the government shipyards. In 1919 he and three other business associates purchased the Metropolitan Café in Corpus Christi. Several years later, he bought a 50 percent share of the restaurant, and with his one remaining partner he also bought the building in which it was located One month before he died, Garza made the final payment on the building. Besides being a prominent Corpus Christi businessman, Garza was also a civic leader. He dedicated his efforts to bettering the conditions of the Mexican population in the state. At one point he accompanied a delegation to Washington to protest a proposed bill which would have reduced Latin American immigration to the states.! In 1929 he became one of the founders of LULAC and its first general president. M. Machado, another founder, attributed the success of LULAC to Garza's excellent organizational skills, fine common sense, and strong grasp of fundamental principles.** Garza was also a member of several other civic organizations, including the Knights of Columbus and Woodmen of the World. At the age of forty-four he died of poor health in Kerrville. The purposes and aij f LULAC were another way in which the organization was significantly different from the existing groups within the community. Unlike the existing groups which provided primarily social services to the Mexican population, LULAC pro- posed to integrate the community into the political and social institu- tions of American life. The constitution of LULAC illustrates this fundamental transformation from self-help and protective to assimilative activities. According to the constitution, one of the cen- tral aims of the organization was to “develop within the members of our race, the best, purest, and more perfect type of true and loyal citizen of the United States of America.”* The making of citizens itself was not a major concern of LULAC, since over half of all the Mexicans living in South Texas were already citizens,** Rather, they were more concerned with the making of ac- tive citizens who would practice their citizenship by eee a the dominant political, economic, and social institutions of the land. “Ths Hal elena re ” stated the LULAC con- is organization is not a political club,” stat a Vecare gail stitution, “but as citizens we shall participate in all local, sta 7 oa i “in doing so we tional political contests.” “However,” it continued, “in doing70 ROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS shall ever bear in mind the general welfare of our people, and we disregard and abjure once and for all any personal obligation which is not in harmony with these principles.””** In pledging allegiance to the United States government, LULAC members also de-emphasized dependence on Mexico for moral sustenance. Instead of looking to Mexico for guidance, advice, and in. tellectual nourishment, the new generation of Americans of Mexican descent now looked to the political institutions of the United States for solutions to their problems. As the LULAC constitution Stated, the organization was formed to “define with absolute and un. mistakeable cleamess our unquestionable loyalty to the ideals, prin- ciples, and citizenship of the United States of America.” The first generation of Mexican Americans looked toward their own united political and social efforts for solutions to their problems, “We should endeavor to develop aggressiveness of the right sort and be able to pursue our own initiative instead of waiting for someone else to do the things we have thought of doing but never put into ex- ecution,” noted an editorial in the LULAC News, the organization’s newspaper. This sentiment was best expressed by one of LULAC’s members in 1934 in La Prensa, a San Antonio newspaper. According to this LULAC « ex, “The Latin American people, and only they can solve the educational problems that confront us.... Only the Latin American people can do this—a united people, firmly resolute, true to the principles of progress and to the betterment of our brothers.” While desirous of the support of all Mexicans residing in Texas, in- cluding those who were not citizens, LULAC understood that it would have to fight its battles alone. Emphasis thus was placed on selecting “as our leaders those among us who demonstrate, by their integrity and culture, that they are capable of guiding and directing us properly.” Since their unity was essential for advancing their cause, LULAC also proposed to “resist and attack energetically all machina- tions tending to prevent our social and political unification.” Conscious of themselves as an emerging middle class, LULAC members assumed the responsibility of educating and protecting the Mexican American population and incorporating it into the dominant institutions of their country. But their integration was not to be achieved at the expense of their cultural background. This group of individuals was not calling for the total assimilation of the Mexican American population into Anglo cultural society as has been suggested by some authors.” Integration into Anglo American political and social life was to be a selective process. “Un-ROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS 71 doubtedly,” noted Alonso Perales in 1929, “the two for the Americanization of the Mexican in Texas are ae cbetles udice which the Anglo-Saxon harbors against us and certain ous aa which are repugnant to ours, but the Mexi in customs rs exican Ameri ui himself to the latter, adopting only what there is of good ee ta order not to be misunderstood, LULAC encoded this strong belief into the organization’s constitution. Accordit ituti that one of LULAC’s aims was “to oe the education of our children as to their rights and duties and the Janguage and customs of this country, the latter insofar as. they may be good customs.’” Cultural pride was not to be neglected either. “We solemnly declare once and for all to maintain a sincere and respectful reverence for our racial origin of which we are proud.” In 1929 E] Paladin, the organiza- tion's newspaper, emphasized that the above declaration “ought to be proof that our efforts to be rightfully recognized as citizens of this country do not imply that we wish to become scattered nor much less abominate our Latin heritage, but rather on the contrary, we will always feel for it the most tender love and the most respectful venera- tion.”*" The English language and Anglo American social customs were to be learned, but not at the expense of the Texas Mexicans’ own language and traditions. Cultural pride, retention of the Spanish language, and the physical and cultural defense of the Mexican heritage were as much gouls of the new organizations as were the ac- quisition of English, the training for citizenship, and the struggle for equality for the residents of Mexican ancestry. An integral part of the LULAC campaign to incorporate Texas Mex- icans into the political institutions of the society was the eradication of discriminatory treatment based on national origin—or “race” as it was then known.” The LULAC constitution reflected this sentiment. According to one of its bylaws, the organization proposed to “eradicate from our body politic all intents and tendencies to establish discriminations among our fellow citizens on account of race, religion, or social position as being contrary to the true spirit of Democracy, our Constitution and Laws.” The organization also pro- Posed to “destroy any attempt to create racial prejudices against our yy any pt 2 ‘ i be cast upon them, and People, and any infamous stigma which may i ich the C. We shall demand for them the respect and prerogatives which the Con- Stitution grants to us all.’ . Luz Saenz, one of the founders of Organization’s position with respect to the tion against Mexicans in the following way: LULAC, summarized the elimination of discrimina-72 ROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS As long as they do not educate us with all the guaran, Opportunities for free Participation in all the activities whit! Constitute the fountains of national life; as long as they aa Talse up on high the standard of SUPREMACY OF RACES are bts Count OF COLOR... ; as long as they continue to stir up ana of historical Prejudices, past or racial, so much more ey fi put off our conversion [into Americans] and the total c well Out of our obligations as full citizens. ce A third way in which this new organization represented a signi cant departure from past groups concerned the manner in which it planned to accomplish its Purposes. LULAC proposed to involve on) those who met its restrictive criteria for membership. Unlike ae mutualista organizations which welcomed both Mexican immigrans, and Mexican American citizens, LULAC limited its membership tp those who were U.S. citizens of Latin ancestry, eighteen years or over, male, and, to a large extent, registered voters.® : Alonso Perales, one of the founders of LULAC, stated that only by using the rights they had as citizens could they help to solve the socioeconomic problems of all the Mexicans living north of the the Mexican American betters his own conditions # position to make full use of his rights of citizen ship,” he stats 1329, “that day he will be able to aid the Mexican citizen in sec: st is due him and to help him assure himself of his own welfare and happiness.’ LULAC proposed to use all the political means available to a- complish their goals. Not only would they participate in the local, state, and national elections, but “with our vote and influence [we will] place in public office men who show by their deeds, respect and consideration for our people.” In addition to participating in elections, LULAC would seek “to secure equal representation of our people on juries and in the administration of Governmental affairs.” Legal methods for accomplishing their goals were also considered. Generally, LULAC would “use all the legal means at our command to the end that all citizens in our country may enjoy equal rights, the equal protection of the laws of the land and equal opportunities 4 privileges.” “Secretly and openly,” the LULAC constitution stated “by all lawful means at our command, we shall assist in the edu and guidance of Latin Americans and we shall protect and defend the lives and interests whenever necessary.” In addition to legal reo LULAC proposed to “create a fund for our mutual protection, for i defense of those of us who may be unjustly prosecuted and for # education and culture of our people.”*ROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS 73 All means, with the exception of one, were used in their struggle for equality. This one exception was violence. “We shall oppose any radical and violent demonstrations,” LULAC Proposed, “which may tend to create conflicts and disturb the peace and tranquility of our country.” Education in the eyes of many was to play an important role in the general strategy of incorporating Mexicans into the dominant institu- tions of the land and for elevating their general socioeconomic and political status. But in orde ‘T to obtain more schooling, it was necessary to struggle against obstacles impeding the educational prog- tess of all Mexicans. For this reason, the struggle became twofold. On the one hand, LULAC members had to modify existing discriminatory educational policies and practices in order to improve the accessibility and quality of public schooling for Mexican American children. On the other hand, they had to go among their own people and disseminate their faith in public education. LULAC believed that, while Mexican Americans as a group were not provided with adequate public services, they likewise were to blame for not taking advantage of ¢ that were provided for them.*! As a prominent LULAC member from Nueces County stated, “If you have not been treated like you should or have not the standard of liv- ing [you should have] it is your own fault.” According to this LULAC member, if Mexican Americans suffered humiliation or discrimina- tion at the hands of Anglos they had no one but themselves to blame. With respect to public education, LULAC members also believed that Mexican Americans were to blame for their discriminatory treat- ment at the hands of Anglo school officials. According to one of its members, “All the problems in the education [of Mexicans] have two basic considerations: Anglo actions, in many cases, and the lack of Mexican activity in the others.” According to this individual, much of ¢ tacial discrimination seen in the public schools is due “to the Anglos who do not understand or do not desire to understand our peo- Ple’s psychology.” “At that same time,” he argued, “this is the result of the Latin American, who does not demand his rights nor does he try to find solutions to these problems which serve as obstacles for his children,”5+ Two important cultural characteristics of the Mexican American Population were identified as detrimental to school progress: language and attitudes, According to a LULAC member, for example, about 90 Percent of the problem was that Mexican Americans did not talk ish at home or teach English to their children. “If you talk English,” he noted, “you will think and act like Americans.” LULAC74 ROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS members in general firmly believed that lish was “4 the enjoyment of our rights and ers thus decleca=” fer the official language of the organization. Members of the ae nee also pledged to speak and teach English to their children. nadine" to the language problem, LULAC also believed that Mes Americans did not have a strong desire to attend public schools Pat Taylor in his studies of Dimmit and Nueces counties found that en peas the case ace thee who lived in rural areas, but less so with ae siding in towns and i REE STAC ee among the better-educated Mexicans As a way of remedying this problem, LULAC be; adoption of American behest cultural values, Sal Soe een patterns. “We try to impress upon them first, the importance of the English language,” stated a LULAC member, and “second, the impor- tance of educating their children even if it is too late for them.”*” They also began to promote increased access to more and better education. “Without doubt, to the end that we make ourselves valued and respected,” stated Perales, “we shall have to effect our own intellec- tual redemption.” “if we, the Mexican American and the Mexican citizens raised in the United States, are to occupy the honorable place that we merit,” he added, “it is indispensable to educate ourselves.”* Besides promoting education among their own group, LULAC members believed that the organization should strive for better and more formal schooling for all Mexicans.° More education, according to this view, would increase earning power and indirectly improve the living standards of all Mexicans. This, in tum, would elevate the social status of the Mexican community. An editorial in the LULAC News provided this educational perspective in 1931. It said: ‘Again and again at different times our orators of the League have expressed their belief that the fundamental and basic problem of our race in Texas and the United States was educa- | tion. Educate the children of Mexican extraction and we will | measure up to the requirement of American standards.” LULAC and the Campaign for Educational Equality Popularizing the benefits of education among their own group was not as difficult as was the campaign to improve the accessibility and quality of public schooling for Mexican American children. Lacking sufficient resources to bring about significant reform in education,a ROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS 75 C focused largely on challengi: i establishing segregated schools for rise apn ay Te Segregation on t asis of ancestry was perceiv generation of Mexican Americans as the major Gee ey progress and to the learning of English. Local school officials argued that segregation was necessary for instructing non-English-speaking youngsters and for shielding them against the social ostracism they encountered in Anglo schools. But for the Mexican American popula- tion in general and LULAC in particular, segregation was an attempt to deny them equal educational opportunities. One Texas Mexican for example, noted that “the teachers don’t farmer in Nueces County, put no attention on the [segregated] Mexican school.” He continued: LULA! Having children all together is better. Then the teachers who teach the white boys have to do the same for the Mexicans. They know there is a separate school, and don’t pay attention to the Mexicans. If I pay a poll tax and send my children to school it [segregation] is not right." hat when their children attended school English better.” One high school stu- er lear to talk English well,” while A mural Mexican agreed t with whites they “learn to dent stated, “Separate, yo another said, “Together... vould learn faster.” Segregation also was not conducive to making better Americans. “As long as we segregate,” stated a Corpus Christi resident, “we can’t fee good citizens.” He added, “Mexicans will think they are in- ferior.’” While a handful of Mexican Americans argued on behalf of school segregation, many opposed it by the late 1920s. One Anglo teacher in Corpus Christi noticed this change in attitude toward segregation among Mexican Americans. “The Mexican parents used to prefer their children to be Mexicans first, and Americans afterwards,” she stated. “Now, the Mexicans are gradually coming to resent the separate schools.” Ilustrative of the new attitude toward segregation was the com- ment made by a Mexican American in Robstown, near Corpus Christi. He said: They used to keep the Mexicans separate t° the fourth grade. They were slow to leam, and claimed they did not have the Tighy Kind of sescher, Now they have built 2 moder Mit right school. There is separation for three grades. It nee and " on account of lanzuage, But the Bohemian and Ge76 ROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS other non-English speaking children 80 to the American Scho, and some Mexicans want their children to 80 there, “i, LULAC members had a similar view toward segregation, This View was best expressed by R. de la Garza in the LULAC News of 1931. Hy, stated: i Why do they discriminate on our children? They [schoo] of. ficials] claim that a majority of our children are ill-fed and unclean! Are they? I leave your own hearts to answer that, They state that our speaking a different language requires segregation. Let them segregate our children in the first grades until they have learned enough English to hold their own with other whites. If some of them are unclean, let them be placed in different schools until they have leamed to be clean, BUT WE MUST BATTLE SEGREGATION BECAUSE OF RACE PREJUDICES! La Liga Pro-Defensa Escolar (League for the Defense of Our Schools}, a coalition of over fifty social, civic, labor, and religious organizations in San Antonio, also reflected this sentiment when it emphatically stated that “segregation based on race, whether it be in the elementary oF secondary schools, is absolutely intolerable.” Besides being Perceived as ihc sasjer obstacle to educational progress, segregation was also considered the most visible manifestation of discriminatory treatment in the public schools.® The first challenge to the practice of placing Mexican American and Anglo schoolchildren in separate classes Occurred in 1928 before LULAC had become a statewide organization.” In that year Felipe Vela filed a complaint with the state superintendent of public instruc. tion against the Charlotte Independent School District located in Atascosa County, south of San Antonio. The child in the case was represented by Hon. Earl D. Scott, judge of Atascosa.” The Charlotte Independent School District, with fewer than five hundred school-age children, maintained a segregated public school system. “It has been the custom for many years,” noted the summary statement of this decision, “for the children of Mexican nationality to attend school at one building and the white children of all other na- tionalities at the other building.” Felipe Vela had an adopted child, Amada Vela, whose “race” was of unknown origin. The child’s parents sought to enroll her in the building occupied by the other white children, but the board of trustees instead assigned her to the Mexican school. Vela argued that the child was not Mexican and should have the same privilege of in-ROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS 77 struction that was accorded the other American children. Having been. denied the right to enroll his child in the non-Mexican school, he ap- pealed directly to the state superintendent of public instruction for a decision. “The question is before the State Superintendent,” the sum- mary declared, ‘to determine whether or not Amada Vela should be required to attend the Mexican school.” Several issues related to the central question were summarily dismissed by both sides before the case reached the state superinten- dent's office. First, both sides agreed that the board of trustees did not have the legal authority to segregate Mexican children in one school on a racial basis. Thus, “with this admission, the question is eliminated from consideration as to whether or not the child, Amada Vela, is of Mexican parentage.” Second, it was understood that Amada Vela did not live within the ward designated for the Mexican school but because her adoptive parents were Mexican she had been assigned to this school. The school officials defended the assignment of Mex- ican children to one separate school as necessary for instructional reasons. “It is well understood that non-English-speaking children should be given special instruction,” they argued, “and it is probably to the best interests of such children that they be placed in one room or in one school in order that the character of instruction given will be different from that given to English-speaking children.” The superintendent of public instruction, S. M.N. Marrs, agreed with them that if instructional reasons accounted for the separate Mexican school, the local school officials would be within their legal rights to do so. “It would fo!icw, however,” Superintendent Marrs continued, “if there are Mexican children who speak English fluently and understand its meaning that they should be classified with the American children.” Upon examination, Superintendent Marrs found that Amada Vela was intelligent, spoke English fluently, and was able to translate Spanish into English and English into Spanish. He argued that her assignment to the American school would certainly not “in- terfere with the progress of the American children with whom she might be classed.” In addition, Marrs argued that placement in the Mexican school was not in the best interest of the child. “The fact that the large majority of the Mexican children do not speak English, and when they do so it is with reluctance,” he futher noted, “places this child at a disadvantage should she be assigned to the Mexican school.” Unsatisfied with this decision, the board of trustees made a Vigorous appeal to the State Board of Education to reverse the oemintendent’s formal response. The State Board declined to reverse it, Although successful, this particular case had little significant im-78 ROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS pact on the community, since it only applied to one individual, 7 years later, LULAC made its initial legal challenge to segregation in Independent School District v. Salvatierra, Unlike the Vel complaint, this segregation case was a class action suit against ¢ school officials of Del Rio—a small rural border town located in y, Verde County in South Texas.”! This suit is of historical impo, for several reasons. It was the first case in which the Courts were asked to exercise their power of judicial review to determine the constity, tionality of the actions of a local school district with respect to the education of Mexican Americans. The court pointed out this Problem in the following manner: It is a matter of pride and gratification in our great public educa. tional system and its administration that the question of Tace Segregation, as between Mexicans and other white races, has not heretofore found its way into the courts of the State, and therefore the decision of no Texas court is available in the disposition of the precise question present here,”? Second, the findings of the court of civil appeals of Texas reaffirmed isti: i tt, laid the basis for the determination of gation. In this particular court case several Mexican American parents alleged that their children were being denied the equal protection of law under the Constitution because a separate school ‘was maintained for them by the Del Rio Independent School District. The Del Rio school system was comprised of four school buildings and a school athletic field, all located on the same Piece of land. The high school held the following month to determine if they should issn ood sell bonds in the sum of $185,000 “for the Purpose of constructing and equipping public free school buildings of material other than ¢ purchase of the necessary sites therefore in said schodl district.” The election also authorized the levy and collection of taxé3 to pay off the bonds. The bond election Passed and in due course theROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS 79 be enlarged by adding five rooms, includi itori eat ing an auditorium of the The Mexican American parents alleged “that unk this litigation, the school authorities will continue this Psionnealtd the West End building as now constructed and extend it to the pro- posed enlarged structure when it shall be completed and equipped.” More specifically, they contended that i the acts and conduct of appellants are designed to affect, and do actually accomplish, the complete segregation of the school children of Mexican and Spanish descent {in certain elementary grades] from the school children of all other white races in the same grades, thereby excluding the one from the classrooms of the other, and denying to them the right and privilege of min- gling with those of the other races in the common enjoyment of identical school facilities, instruction, associations, and en- vironment.”* The Mexican American parents were not questioning the quality of the facilities nor the content of the instruction provided to these children. Their complaint centered rather on the placement of Mex- ican American children in facilities separate from the Anglo children in the school district. According to the court, ce local school district had not gone beyond the administrative powers delegated to it by constitutional and statutory provisions. hough it agreed in principle that “the school authorities have no power to arbitrarily segregate Mexican children, assign them to separate schools, and exclude them from schools maintained for children of other white races, merely or solely because they are Mexicans,” it found that in this particular case they were not engaging in such activities. The court declared that since school officials were not ‘at this time enforcing unlawful segregation,” the Mexican American parents had no legal course of ac- tion open to them.’ ; The court also found that the school district’s method of classifying Mexican students as non-English speakers for placement purposes was not arbitrary or unconstitutional. The Mexican American parents alleged that local school officials unlawfully discriminated against their children by placing them in separate facilities on the basis of ancestry. The local superintendent replied that Mexican students Were not assigned to the separate facilities merely because a were Mexicans, Their classification, grading, and assignment to ¢ weer End school were based on instructional reasons. “I was not actual80 ROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS by any motive of Segregation by reason of race or color in doing w] said I did,” he declared, “The whole proposition,” he aide re from a standpoint of instruction and a fair opportunity of all children alike. That was the only consideration I had in the matter.” More specifically, the local school superintendent gave two major reasons for placing all these children in the Mexican school. The first teason had to do with their late enrollment and irregular attendance, “Well, we had a peculiar situation as regards people of Spanish o; piece extraction here,” testified the local superintendent. He added: We found a great percentage of these people are at work in cot- ton fields and on ranches, and some of them go entirely out of the district in the fall season, that is, return in the fall and enter school late and in considerable numbers, and where you have already organized your classes on a basis of a certain size which represents the most efficient instruction possible you are greatly hampered if a great number of people continue to drop in. The second major reason used by the superintendent was related to the language problem. According to his testimony, the Mexican stu- dent’s language needs weve @ t from the Anglo child’s. Most of these students when placed in a classroom with English-speaking children, he stated, “are handicapped because they are slow in reading English and read it with difficulty, and as a consequence, fail in con- siderable numbers in English and history.” Although they were more apt in mathematics, he added that the “decided peculiarities” of the Mexican students “can be better taken care of in those elementary grades by their being placed separately from the children of Anglo- Saxon parentage.” Finally, in assessing the constitutionality of the local school of- ficials’ actions the court failed to find any evidence indicating intent to discriminate on the part of the local school officials or evidence of discriminatory action against Mexican American children. It conclud- ed that the placement policies and practices were not “unlawful ot violative even of the spirit of the Constitution.” Thus, in this first important legal challenge to racial discrimination in the public schools, the court stipulated that it was unconstitutional to segregat® Mexican students based on national origin grounds, but it did allow segregation on educational grounds. LULAC members were greatly disheartened by this decision.” At4 special convention called on November 29, 1931, LULAC discussROUSED FROM OUR sLUMBERS 81 what course of action to pursue. Since segregation had to be based er other grounds besides ution was adopted urging LULAC members to encourage S tudies to determine pee constitutes aa segregation for purposes of instruction . . . an long it shot continue.” es financial resources, an adequate professional staff, and an atmosphere conducive to legal change, LULAC lessened its stress on legal challenges to segregation and instead emphasized other measures.” The issue of school segregation, LULAC members de- cided, should be resolved without resorting to the courts if possible. Informal consultations and persuasion were strongly emphasized as a more viable strategy for changing conditions in the public schools. “We would get acquainted with superintendents, principals and teachers,” stated Louis ‘Wilmot, one of the founding members of LULAC, “and we tried to persuade them to do away with segregation and with discriminatory educational practices.” According to ‘Wilmot, “We gained more by getting acquainted with administrators and elected officials than by ‘demonstrations.”*” successful in some cases. Take the ‘The politics of persuasion was case of Seguin, located some forty miles southeast of San Antonio, On September 7, 1932, all its schools were opened except for the “Mex- ican school.” LULAC formed a sm: unittee to find out why it re- mained closed and was told that b an parents did not send their children to school until after the corton-picking season ended. After several negotiating sessions schoo! officials agreed to open. the Mex- ican school if LULAC assured them that students would enroll, LULAC members agreed and within several days approximately nine- ty Mexican American children of both sexes enrolled in the elemen- tary school.** In other cases, legislators in support of bill Mexican Americans. One s when the San Antonio LULAC: LULAC members sent letters to their state ‘Is having an impact on the education of uch incident occurred in February 1937 ‘s encouraged all other chapters to write their local legislators in support of an educational finance bill. They urged that state legislators attach a rider to the next appropriation bill authorizing the state superintendent of public instruction to withhold the state per capita allotment of ‘educational funds from any school district which failed to provide equal educational facilities to all school-age children residing in the district. “Heretofore,” argued the San ‘Antonio council, “these allotments have been notoriously diverted to satisfy political pressure needs while the real need has gone begging.” “Our children have been the victims of these in- justices. We do not ask for any special privileges. All we ask is equal E nN82 ROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS educational facilities to all children irrespective of racial extraction » it added. ’ LULAC also continued to speak out against unfair treatment ang discrimination in the schools. In 1939 Ezequiel Salinas, state presi. dent of LULAC, took several steps to improve the deplorable congj. tion of Mexican American children in the public schools. He en. couraged the state superintendent of public instruction, L. A. Woods, to reprimand several local school districts for discriminating against Mexican American children. He also appeared before an education conference attended by one hundred Texas school superintendents and spoke in favor of eliminating racism and distortions of Mexican Americans in history textbooks. Before his term expired, Salinas worked for and supported a Works Progress Administration school construction project in Hondo aimed at solving overcrowded condi. tions in the public schools." In addition to fighting discriminatory school policies and practices, LULAC members promoted education among their own community in various ways. They spoke to individual parents and appeared before parent groups. At these meetings they encouraged the parents to send their children to school and to make demands upon local school of- ficials."” To promote public schoo! .:teadance LULAC established a scholar- ship fund. The purpose of this fund was to assist “meritorious” and “zealous” students in the community in acquiring a college educa- tion. “The rise and fall of power in a nation is through its citizenry, and history has clearly shown that internal needs, regardless of the nature or size, may be cured by education. Why not then, fight the many hazards that the Latin faces in this country by assisting in our humble way, the coming generation?” Ruben R. Lozano, the chairper- son of the first Educational Committee of LULAC argued. “Let us pro- vide them with the necessary and many times tested weapon of think- ing in a higher sphere,” he added. In November of 1932 LULAC, for the first time in its history, awarded three scholarships.** Complementing LULAC’s scholarship activities were its efforts to organize local chapters of Parent-Teacher Association (PTA). In places large and small where a significant percentage of Mexican American children predominated, LULAC chapters encouraged and assisted parents in organizing local PTAs. At Dilley, Cotulla, San Antonio, Kingsville, and other cities parents organized and began to seek better facilities and an improved education for their children.” Slowly, the faith LULAC had in public education was being disseminated amongROUSED FROM OUR SLUMBERS 83 the Mexican American community, To a |; stilling hope for the future and incorpo: cultural world of Anglo America. In addition to these activities, LULAC became involve ing the public schools provided for their children in ke munities, focusing especially on Overcrowded conditions, San An- tonio was one such community where LULAC members engaged in this improvement campaign. During the early 1930s LULAC organ- ized a school committee to investigate the nature of the schools pro- vided to Mexican American children, especially those residing in-the West Side barrio. In 1934 they issued a status Teport on these schools. The report issued by the LULAC Committee on Public School Buildings and Recreational Facilities fo n und that only 12,334 Mexican American school-age children—or 56.5 Percent—were enrolled in the public schools. Anglo enrollment stood at 12,224. Although the dif- ference in enrollment between Anglos and Mexican Americans was minuscule, the nature of the facilities provided for them was not. For instance, there were twenty-eight schools with 368 rooms in the Anglo communities but only eleven schools with 269 rooms for the Mexican American students. The LULAC school committee argued that the law allowed no more than thirty-five children per classroom, yet there were forty-eight children per room in the Mexican American schools and thirty-three per room in the Anglo schools, In order to meet the requirement: e law, it was necessary to add eighty-four classrooms to the Mexican American schools, The Anglo schools had : total of eighty-two acres of land for recrea- tional purposes but there were only twenty-three acres for the Mex- ican American schools. The school district spent a total of $439,636 or $35.96 per Anglo child, but only $302,224 or $24.50 per Mexican American child. Finally, the Anglo neighborhoods had _air- conditioned “palaces” while the Mexican American community only d deteriorating wooden frame buildings.” The only response received from the San Antonio Board of Educa- tion was that it did not have any funds nor did it expect to have any in © near future. LULAC viewed this response to its demands for better School facilities as “inconsiderate.” According to its data the board of education had in the last several months appropriated $200,000 for One of the junior high schools and $750,000 for the South Side high school. Furthermore, the board had bought parade grounds for the pickenridge High School for the sum of $19,500. It had en er large sum of money to build a roof garden and dance hall for the ‘arge extent LULAC ‘was in- tating the parents into the d in improy- ‘y local com-