Acuna, Rodolfo F <rudy.acuna@csun.

edu>

The category I have the most documents is on the foreign born. I will be cataloging them
and like the Guide to my collection make them available, As I have mentioned, documents
often build history, they build a defense and prosecute. of those conspiring an U.S.
American Holocaust. progressing toward the truth

La zorra nunca se ve la cola

An Examination of Conscience

The proverb la zorra nunca se ve la cola, “the [female] fox never sees her own tail” is a

popular saying in Spanish. The part that is forgotten is that “but does see the tails of

others.” Another part is ni el zorrillo su fundillo, “nor [does] the [male] skunk his ass.” The

word fox can be broken down further; in the female context a fox is a vixen and used

derogatorily or in a sexist way, like meaning a bitch; hooker, prostitute. The male fox comes off

much better. Zorro has taken the aura of the legendary figure of a man in a black mask and attire

saving the underdogs. Countless movies have been made about Zorro, the latest of which

features Antonio Banderas prancing around fighting the bad guys. Even Isabel Allende wrote a

novel called Zorro[1] and Culture Clash, one of the most innovative Chicano teatro groups, in

2006 premiered a political version of el Zorro in Hell. The irreverent rendition of Culture Clash

uses the legend to explore and criticize contemporary society. And not too subtly condemns the

oppression of Mexicans and Latinos in the homeland and the irony of a foreign born governor

being accepted in California while thousands of immigrants are being shipped out.

In an informal conversation with César Chávez, he ruminated as to why women were

better organizers than men. The conclusion was that women listened when being taught the art

of organizing while males were thinking about their responses and missing the point of the

instruction. I added that women were conditioned to listen because they spent their entire lives

listening to males talk about themselves. Regardless of gender we all become less observant and
listen less as we become more professional. With degrees our opinions take on more

authority. As pseudo-activist and scholars, we approach our analysis with certainty that is

reinforced by theoretical models. The result is that we often fail to see our own tails -- instead

we look at the tails of others. The result is petty gossip that erodes trust. As scholars, Chicanos

and Chicanas cease listening looking at the tails of others.

The Gender Question

There is no doubt that Chicana/o studies as a whole did not pay proper attention to the

Chicana Question. Just read the Plan de Santa Barbara. California State University at

Northridge was no exception to the rule--no more or no less sexist than other campuses – none of

them was enlightened. Even so, the chisme circulated that CSUN was especially sexist, and for

many years true believers circulated and repeated myths about the denial of tenure to Anna

Nieto-Gómez in the spring of 1976, which according to them was proof of CSUN’s sexism, yet

they failed to look at the state of Chicana/o studies at their own institutions or assume any

responsibility for the state of Chicana/o studies there. Hence, over the years, the controversy

surrounding this decision has been distorted by scholars and other mythmakers who have never

bothered to research the truth, relying instead on chisme (gossip) and often vicious

motives.[2] Not one Chicano scholar has bothered to contact tor given the campus the respect to

interview anyone at CSUN as to what happened. I was shocked at Carlos Munoz Jr. who could

have easily picked up the phone and gotten the CSUN version of what happened. This is

especially relevant since Carlos was denied tenure at the University of California Irvine for a

lack of scholarly productivity -- although he had a doctorate. He had solicited and gotten my

support, which in retrospect I should have researched and asked more questions about.[3]
 The latest example of this shoddy factual base is a published dissertation at the University

of Texas Austin. In it Lisa Justine Hernández writes:

As a professor in Chicano Studies at California State University Northridge [Anna Nieto-

Gómez] created a strong Chicana feminist presence on a major campus… The anti-

feminist sentiment produced and reproduced by the Chicano movement journals quickly

targeted Anna Nieto-Gómez. Through her writing she threatened the Chicano

movement’s masculinist power structure by highlighting and seeking corrections to

sexism… The underdevelopment of a Chicana community empowered to confront sexist

practices aided the expulsion of Anna Nieto-Gómez from academia and publishing.[4]

Hernández does not put forward a single corroborating document which failure tells as much

about the dissertation’s shoddy research as the lack of integrity of her academic advisers. Does

the author, Lisa Justine Hernández, have the duty to at least name the scholarly journals that

attacked and blackballed Anna?[5]

Hernández goes on to say that in the spring of 1976, Anna accused the “Chicano Studies

department and MEChA at California State University Northridge of sexism when they

requested her resignation.” She then cites two Chicano student newspapers that the reason she

was being terminated was “for being a feminist scholar and leader.” And that “by 1980 she had

disappeared from Chicano/a academia and politics.” Again Hernández makes no effort to

contact anyone at CSUN; she fails to document her accusation. Fact: no one asked Anna to

resign and no one banned her from the movement. In fairness, Hernández is not alone in playing

loose with the truth and delving in chismes.

To set the record straight, the issue was never about feminism; it was about Anna Nieto

Gómez who without a doubt made significant contributions to the founding of Hijas de
Cuauhtemoc and Encuentro Femenil raising awareness of the issue.[6] Anna, like other feminist

activist of the time, called attention to the gender question. Members of the faculty were

supportive of her classes, and worked editing and rewriting her course proposals. Her ideas were

not controversial among the faculty; we knew that we had to confront sexism. By 1976, it was a

priority of most leftist groups and Anna was hired because of student demand for a feminist

perspective. However, she dissipated this goodwill and became a polarizing figure; many

students resented her “my way or the highway” approach.

The truth be told, the decision not to grant Anna tenure was neither arbitrary nor

abrupt. Anna was reviewed by the department’s Promotion and Tenure Committee that turned

her down for tenure. The committee was comprised of three students and three faculty

members. The vote was four to two against Anna; the two male professors voted for her and

four female members voted against her. My sole role was to testify before the committee. I told

the members that I personally would vote for tenure because no matter what happened I would

be blamed. (I did not underestimate Anna’s political organizing skills). Moreover, I pointed out

that several male members of the department had equally weak academic records and they had

been passed on.

As mentioned, at this point, MEChA had three sitting members on the committee.

University policy prohibited student participation. So the committee would make its decision

and a committee of full professors would rubber stamped the decision.[7] The committee decided

to deny Anna tenure based on a weak academic record and student grievances. When the

decision was announced, Anna approached me and demanded to know whether I was for or

against her. I responded that I was going to sit this one out because of a chronic gallbladder

problem–I was passing stones. In any event I added that I would resign before I went against a
committee’s decision unless it was overruled by MEChA. I reminded her that she had the right

to appeal the committee’s decision to the MEChA body. She then said that if I did not intervene

on her behalf she would go after me personally – which she did.

Her partisans circulated the lie that I had always been out to get Anna because she was a

feminist.[8] The facts contradict this lie. Anna was not singled out; we had urged every member

of the department to get a terminal degree. Background: In 1974 Dean Jerome Richfield called

some of us into his office to review future retentions and promotions. He suggested that we

pressure every faculty member (who did not have a terminal degree) to enroll in a doctoral

program. He specifically mentioned Anna’s case since she had been hired with a BA and had a

marginal GPA. At the very least he wanted proof of progress toward a Master of Arts. He also

mentioned that Anna’s articles could not be classified as scholarly. In turn, I spoke to the entire

faculty and relayed the dean’s point of view. He made the same point a year later during the

faculty review and in numerous private conversations.[9]

When the faculty had initially been hired most of them had BA’s and many lacked

masters’ degrees. From the beginning, students themselves questioned the faculty members’

credentials. While liking them personally, they compared themselves to the instructor. If the

area of Chicano studies was to be respected and the students’ degrees mean something, the

faculty had to be vetted in their respective fields. They all understood that this was merely a

window of opportunity; if they wanted to be promoted and retained that they would have to

enroll in graduate school. Francine Hallcom enrolled at USC and earned a doctorate in

education. Gerald Reséndez enrolled at UCLA for a PhD in Spanish literature. He earned a

second MA and is an ABD (All But Dissertation).[10] Three other faculty members enrolled at

UC Riverside – two received their PhD’s there and the third dropped out but got a doctorate in
education from Harvard. Other hires received PhDs. It is true that two male professors were

granted tenure with BAs; however, both of them were evaluated as musicians and it is a common

practice in the music department to tenure renowned performers. This is a point that is not

understood--even by people within the field.[11] All of the faulty that was later hired were

required to be enrolled or have terminal degrees which in the case of writing specialists and

artists meant MFAs.[12]

Anna was not the only faculty member to be pressured to get a terminal degree. We

offered her the UC Riverside alternative. Dr. Carlos Cortés went out of his way in getting our

people admitted to graduate programs. Anna protested that she was a single mother, having

recently divorced her husband, and that this was a hardship. I then contacted UCLA Chicano

sociology grad students, and I made an appointment for Anna and me to meet with them. The

meeting went well and the Chicano students--despite the fact that she did not qualify--made an

extraordinary case and she was provisionally admitted. For my part, I wrote Anna a strong letter

of recommendation, and I went to Dean Richfield who gave Anna six units per semester release

time. (This was incredibly generous. Jorge García received no release time).

Two semesters later we learned that Anna had dropped out before the end of the first

semester. She had not informed us while taking the release time. At this point, if we had been

out to get Anna, we would simply have mentioned it to the dean--it constituted fraud. Several of

us asked Anna why she had dropped out and she retorted that UCLA could not teach her

anything about Chicanas–she was the expert. I told her that it was getting hard to make a case

for her since the dean was under the impression that she was enrolled in a MA program. I then

recommended that she at least learn to read Spanish for her research since the dean was

impressed with people knowing multiple languages.[13] Anna replied that this was a cultural
nationalistic recommendation. At this point I wasn’t going to sweat it. You can’t force a person

to help themselves.

The next point Hernández alleges that MEChA was anti feminist. No, MEChA initially

hired Anna, although it was pointed out at the time that she only had a BA. As mentioned, that

goodwill was dissipated. When Yolanda Huerta was elected chair of MEChA, Anna hit her up,

asking her if she was going to be a loyalist or follow her. Yolanda responded that she

represented all the students. She later accused Anna of trying to divide MEChA. At this time we

had something special going at CSUN. MEChistas served on all departmental

committees.[14] They had the final say in hiring faculty, and even made faculty promise that if

the body took a vote to terminate them that they would resign voluntarily. This built a sense of

student power. When the committee made its decision not to recommend Anna for tenure, as I

mentioned, she could have and should have appealed the decision to the MEChA body. But

aside from attacking me personally,[15] Anna then went to Dean Richfield and appealed for him

to overturn the PP&R (Personnel, Promotion and Retention) Committee, challenging its

legitimacy because it had students on it in violation of university policy. She proposed that he

split the department into Chicano and Chicana studies. This infuriated the MEChA body, and

several hundred members attended a meeting where only a handful supported Anna.

Admittedly things got out of hand. A major source of friction was Anna’s partner Tomás

Zavala who had made sexist comments about Yolanda and other women. Previously he had

been involved in several physical altercations with male students and he was considered a

provocateur. Internally, there was little support for Anna and the opposition of her supporters

quickly fizzled out. Quite frankly, if she would have developed any kind of a student base, it

would have been difficult to reconcile the committee’s negative evaluation and the department
would have been torn apart. As for myself, I was unwilling to go against the will of the students

since I would have subverted the notion of student power. I would have had no other option but

to resign.[16]

The charge that we had anything to do with Anna’s disappearing “from Chicano/a

academia and politics” is ridiculous especially considering the political ambiance of the

times. This was not 1970; it was 1976 when the overwhelming sentiment in the movement was

pro-feminist. Left groups led the charge and the Militant and other newspapers ran articles on

feminist thought.[17] Her main support came from UCLA. When I asked a member of La Gente

staff why UCLA did not hire her, she responded that UCLA had high standards. Anna lasted as

a part time instructor at Claremont for about two semesters, and Claremont let her go. Not a

single institution moved to hire Anna although people not even involved with us insisted that we

hire her. The fact is that at this point, Anna had never published a scholarly article. All of her

articles were popular, newspaper opinion type pieces. They were very important but not

scholarly, according to the standards of the university. Moreover, one of the charges by Francine

Hallcom–the female faculty member on the committee–was that her articles were edited and

partially written by Francine. (It is not my intent to denigrate Anna’s contributions; I just want

to respond to unfounded accusations).

Finally, in all of the years I have been in the movement, I have never known anyone to be

excluded–there is always some group to join. If Anna did not involve herself it was by

choice. (I cannot conceive of anyone intimidating Anna. No one would have kept me from

occupying movement space and I don’t believe anyone could intimidate her. She was a gut

fighter).
 Lastly, the charge has been leveled that we did not have female faculty members in

Chicano studies before Anna. As I have mentioned, one of the first job offers we made was to a

Chicana anthropologist. At the time the committee turned Anna down for tenure there were at

least five full time women in the department. The problem was that aside from Anna only one of

them was political -- Mercedes Páez who was not retained because of health reasons -- it was a

huge loss.

The Chicana/o studies department at CSUN made mistakes, but it did not hide itself in a

cocoon and it set out to change the culture of the department. It did not purge anyone who

supported Anna; it hired strong women with activist and academic credentials. Because of this,

the department today has close to thirty tenured professors. Two-thirds of the professors are

women; with most of the males dying out this proportion will increase. Thank goodness there

are no barriers to gay professors. MEChA has had multiple gay chairs. In my opinion, this could

not have happened if Anna had stayed on the faculty--she was a polarizing figure. Only women

who she approved of were qualified, according to her. Before people criticize, they should have

the facts and then look at the progress of their own programs and compare their progress before

pointing fingers; it is always difficult to see one’s own tail.[18]

A final note: I successfully sued the University of California Santa Barbara for

discrimination. Suing is an option that we all have as workers. At the time of the Anna

controversy, we encouraged the faculty union to take her case. It was not only the right thing to

do but the prudent thing. It would have set the wrong precedent not to support her. At UC Santa

Barbara, if any of the Chicano studies professors had voiced any objection to my candidacy

during the initial interview process, I would have withdrawn my candidacy. If one Congreso

student would have raised an objection, I would have withdrawn. But once the dye was cast and
discrimination occurred, I had the moral duty to fight. Even then, I told the Chicano professors

who opposed me that my fight was not with them, so step aside, I am going after the

institution. However, opportunists like Ray Huerta who had built careers in cooperating and

pandering to the administration cooperated with UCSB testifying that the UC did not

discriminate against Chicanos.[19] Francisco Lomeli also testified that he would be afraid for his

life if I were hired, and denied that the UC discriminated against Mexican Americans.[20] Lastly,

I had the complete support of students throughout the case. Anna eventually went back and got

an MSW; unfortunately she did all of us a disservice by not going back to school in the mid-

70s. If she had there would be not controversy, and I would have been saved a lot of personal

grief.[21]

Beyond A Teaching Field of Study

There are other areas where Chicana/o studies can examine their own conscience. We

most continually keep in mind that there is a difference between existing and living – between

administering and growing programs. In the late 1960s the formation of Chicano studies was

problematic. However, this was not the case in the next two decades; the tremendous growth of

the Latino population in the 1970s changed this equation. According to Rogelio Saenz, “The

number of Latinos in the United States more than doubled between 1980 and 2000, accounting

for 40 percent of the growth in the country's population during that period.” The Latino

population grew in the 1990s from 22,354,059 to 35,305,818 a growth of 57.9; it was largely

driven by the Mexican origin population which grew from 13,495,938 to 20,640,711 during the

decade, a growth of 52.9. Meanwhile, white Americans grew from 188,128,296 to 194,552,774,

a 3.4 percent growth.[22] In 1970 there were only 9.6 million Latinos in the United States; today

there are about 45 million.[23] This huge jump created a market over night which Chicano studies
scholars failed to conceptualize; instead, universities and marketers lumped the groups together

to create a Hispanic market – all but obliterating the thrust of Chicano studies.

There was one area in which Chicana/o scholars were especially remiss. A higher

education has been for all intents and purposes privatized. Increasingly Chicanos, Latinos and

other minorities and working class whites have been relegated to the community colleges, which

unlike four institutions do not require doctorates to teach. Chicana/o studies have not moved to

train scholars to teach or grow Chicana/o studies programs or departments. I have argued

elsewhere that Chicana/o studies is not a single discipline, and that Chicano history, sociology,

literature and the like are not area studies. Special graduate degrees are essential to grow

Chicana/o studies. Indeed, my preference would be a scholar with an MA from a well thought

out Chicano studies curriculum rather than a PhD in a single discipline.

Master of Arts programs are very expensive. Working against Chicana/o studies is that

in the California State University system everything comes down to how many students are in

your class. By the nature of the beast, MA classes are small and thus do not pay the piper. The

original intent of our MA program was to give activists a second chance to enter graduate school

since their GPAs suffered from their undergrad activism.. Often the GPA’s of activists would

fall because they were busy saving Chicano studies. The program was a place that they could

review while improving their writing skills and expand their theoretical and methodological

skills.

The initial CSUN Master of Arts proposal was put forward in about 1971/1972. At that

time it also adhered to the area studies model. Over the years, it was revised by faculty members

who modeled the program after their own disciplines, which made the program incoherent. The

major flaw with the program was not whether there was a corpus of knowledge to justify a
master’s degree in Chicano studies, but its organization. As mentioned, there are very few

Chicano studies departments offering a wide range of classes. In contrast, today, we offer over

one hundred and sixty sections per semester; Chicana/o studies are a fully developed teaching

field. Logically, we should have a premier Master of Arts program and serve as a stop for

students at other programs to go into doctoral programs.

However, there are large gaps between theory and reality, and in my opinion the

establishment of a Master of Arts or a doctoral program will be even more difficult than a

Bachelor of Arts program. This is evident from most of the graduate programs at research

institution that have never developed social bases for the area, which can only be forged and

nurtured at the undergraduate level. The question of which comes first the chicken or egg? --

comes into play. The CSUN program has a selection of courses from different

disciplines. There is a socialization process that takes place; undergrad studies form the social

base. With this said, it has been very difficult for Chicano studies to establish the proper mind-

set and counter the anti-intellectualism of some of the students and even the faculty. Many

students still believe they know the field by virtue of the color of their skin; one of our esteemed

professors made the idiotic statement that he was an expert because he had received his degree

from the University of the Barrio.

The Master of Arts program has never been intellectually defined nor have we answered

the question of how a Master of Arts program differs from a Bachelor of Arts or a doctoral

program. How does it differ from our own pursuit of a doctorate? The definition is confused by

the fact that the MA is becoming an endangered species at research institutions. Teaching

institutions such as CSUN and private liberal arts institutions still preserve it, mostly as a

teaching field. Consequently, the MA is losing its personality and most architects of MA
programs fail to recognize its rhythm. A Master of Arts program is like the first and third years

of an undergraduate program and is introductory, although with the intrusion of teaching

institutions, the student engages in specialization. So, many research institutions are eliminating

the MA in favor of a four-year sequence of courses. This trend makes it much more difficult to

succeed in graduate school since most of the students come with specialized backgrounds, and

few have taken Chicano studies classes outside their individual discipline.[24]

Chicana/o studies’ Master of Arts programs have been generally thrown together,

mirroring the confusion of most baccalaureate programs. This failure is compounded by the

blurring definitions by powerful forces within the university, which want to demonstrate their

diversity by having a Chicano or Hispanic studies option but not wanting to commit resources to

its development. Little consideration is given to Chicano studies as an area studies, and there is

no intellectual commitment to whether the university wants an area studies or an ethnic studies

program. For example, the Ford Foundation called for proposals from area studies

programs.[25] However, CSUN was discouraged from submitting a proposal because it has been

put into the ethnic studies model.

STAYING AHEAD

As I have argued before, there is a difference between administering a program and

growing one. Students always ask me how they can duplicate what I did in Chicano studies; I

always respond that it would be difficult. I follow this up with a story. When I began my career

in the mid-fifties I was a janitor; I was able to buy my first home on a janitor’s salary. Today

how many of my students have enough money to qualify for a loan to buy a house? When I

bought my first home it cost me $8,500 with nothing down. I had a three percent loan. Today

even with the housing crash that home would cost $400,000; that means $80,000 down and a
salary of over $70,000 to qualify. I did not have student loans when I graduated; tuition was

$6.50 a semester. Finally, I was a full professor at thirty-five. While they cannot duplicate the

times, they can do a lot to build on them.

Chicana/o studies cannot grow without playing outside the box. The age of the computer

offers new horizons. For example, in the early 1970s I met with representatives of Brandeis

University, Notre Dame, Harvard and a couple of other universities trying to convince them to

contract with a group of established Chicano studies scholars to supervise their graduate students

in Los Angeles where we would set up an urban laboratory with adjunct Chicano studies faculty

from local universities to meet with students on a tutorial basis. Spinning off the prestige of

these institutions, we hoped to develop a Graduate School of Chicano studies that would grant

doctorates much like the Phillips Graduate Institute does in psychology. I realized at the time

that this was not possible with our faculty members since they did not have PhDs. Hence the

adjunct professor model, employing Chicano professors from other institutions was

appropriate. After a year I gave up the project since the institutions at the time could not think

outside their walls.[26]

Today we have new opportunities. The internet creates new rules; a similar model would

be possible today. The University of Massachusetts system offers advanced degrees online. My

home institution offers an online MA in Library Science. However, Chicano studies remains in

the Stone Age and aside from individual courses there is no online program in Chicano

studies. Our department keeps saying that it is moving in the direction of offering its major

requirements online. But it isn’t happening. There is a huge market for students who cannot

attend college because of costs, distance, time and other reasons. The classes save on classroom
space which is becoming increasingly problematic. There are also sections of this country that

have no Chicano studies classes.

My online course in Chicana/o studies generates 70/80 students per semester, that is

about three classrooms and at least two instructors. I have a student assistant who I draw from

the graduate student pool. We have a master’s program but we don’t have funds to hire

students. The online pays for a student and gives her/him teaching experience. However, there

is a downside. Some professors are lazy; they just don’t want to drive to class. They initially

believe that it is easier than classroom teaching. From my perspective, teaching online is a

privilege and should be treated as such. Every safeguard must be taken that students get a

quality experience. Thus I have pushed for requiring a 40 to 50 page prospectus laying out the

course and its activities. These classes are not for the convenience of the instructors but for the

program and students.

The following is a skeleton view of my Online Chicana/o History Class: It has a model

that can and should be improved by a new generation of scholars who are computer literate. My

typing is still in the hunt and peck stage. Basically the program is set up with a

Homepage; Welcome; Syllabus; Modules with Questions and hyperlinks; Discussions;

Images; Exams; a Mailbox; and Student Resource sections. Every program has a Help

icon.

An online class must be kept simple but at the same time the learning goals must be

clearly defined. At CSUN distance learning is growing to the point that it has two separate

entities – a college of extended day learning and Web-CT. Right off the bat, students are

encouraged to go to Web-CT. http://www.csun.edu/~webteach/ to familiarize themselves with

the instructional portion. It cannot be assumed that they know how to use Web-CT.
 Once into the program they are guided through by clicking on to the icons. I encourage

students to explore. The Welcome Icon introduces the professor. I rarely use the title Doctor

since I once used it with my father and he replied, “?si eres doctor, que curas?” If you are a

doctor what do you cure?” This aside the student may want to know more about me. So I

include my vitae. The syllabus follows the same routine as in a classroom. What is to be learned

and when reading and other assignments are due.

The Content Module section is the guts of the class. Each of the sections has a sub-

text. At CSUN we have the challenge that it is a center for the hearing impaired university and

we are required to include a text of the audio lecture. When the student clicks on to Module One

it tells you the week, the readings, and which group or section you are in. This does not mean

they will be working in a group but points you to which question you will discuss just the

questions you are required to answer. The questions are listed below the groups. Each module

follows a similar format. Some of the links may not work, so the student is encouraged to

research it. If questions 4, 5 and 6, are, for example, not clear and do not have a question, the

student is encouraged to improvise and discuss the material. The discussions are posted in the

appropriate module under the discussion icon.

Under Course Images, each module has a series of images corresponding to the

respective module. Through the course of the class, the student is encouraged to discuss where

you can get more images and how the images relate to Chicano studies. My feeling is that a

sense of history comes from looking at photo albums. People look down at gang kids with

tattoos embellishing their bodies. Condemn them while making Paris Hilton an icon. Maybe life

would be different; and our impressions would be more varied if we would look at photos of the

person we judge when he or she was three and seven years old.
 Unfortunately we have to have exams, which are easy to administer online. The student

signs on and is timed. The exam portal has space for the questions and space to answer them. .

The Discussions (and response) are under another Icon. Late entries are not accepted nor will

entries a week or weeks in advance. However, the instructor must continuously monitor students

for computer literacy. They have the options of visiting my office, seeing the teaching assistant

or going to the Web-CT office. There is also a Student Resource section that has maps, a writing

lab and timeline tips. I have found maps to be a tremendous learning tool. It beats lugging them

to class and the internet is rich with appropriate maps. .

The class is totally online but you have the option of periodically sitting in on my MWF

Class from 9:00 to 9:50. Moreover, I use You Tube extensively including three interviews of me

on You Tube. I prefer lecturing to a class of 40 or more students. However, I realize that online

classes are the wave of the future. It is an exciting tool for those who cannot commute to a

campus but want to continue there education. For example, there are exciting programs in art

therapy where group counseling is done via the Web conferences. As much as we scoff at this,

some people cannot leave the house.

Elite prep schools are using online classes to enrich their students’ education. And

nowhere is the gap between the haves and the have nots as glaring as in this field. I have also

known a lot of students who have delayed their education because they have a child or cannot

afford to come to school. Tuition costs are also a factor. Some of our elite institutions are

initiating Master of Science and Art programs online. It is not only the University of Phoenix

but major institutions such as the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Boston University.

Identity also binds us with the past and future. Identity helps us relate with the less

fortunate. It was identity that led to the survival of Christianity, for example. It is identity that
allows us to question the shrill voices of nativists and bigots. The following is on the huge

“Immigration March in Los Angeles.” People march in support of other people because they

care about others. Justice is a very powerful word.

One of the greatest challenges in teaching history is the lack of visuals. Classrooms must

share space between lectures, maps, images etc. In the shift the Pre-Columbia past has been

neglected. .The internet and sites like You Tube are replete with photos and lectures that the

student can draw from. Abstractions such as Aztlan can be brought into the world of

documents. Sites such as the Sons of DeWitt Colony Texas,

http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/aboutdewitt.htm are rich with documents leading up to and

including the Texas War (1836) and Mexican American War (1847).

Students can view lectures and films on the San Patricios or the Saint Patrick Battalion

was composed of Irish volunteers who joined the army because of poverty. In Mexico, they were

repulsed by the racism and anti-Catholicism of their fellow soldiers and joined the Mexicans.

They were captured, branded on their cheek with a D for deserter and many were executed.[27] I

have found that I can teach about cause and effect more efficiently online; for example, by taking

the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo apart and showing its consequences that remain in play to this

time.

The biggest obstacle in implementing online classes is professors who want to jump into

the class without much preparation. You try to get it over to them that this is not a right but a

privilege. That in order to teach a class that they must hand in a 50 page plan spelling out

content and methods.

We have been working with EOP about the possibility of offering online course to high

school students. One of the problems is the institution that does not want to put resources into
the project. It also wants to charge high school students tuition, which defeats the

purpose. However, we have the potential of reaching twenty-six Los Angeles high schools;

students could get credit for our offerings. We could also politicize students by offering

Chicana/o politics courses that would feature select Chicano/Latino politicos who could chat

online and send field rps out to the high schools. The possibilities are unlimited.

Conclusion: Growing Programs

The future of Chicano studies depends on how trucha Chicano professors are. We can

learn a lot about what to look for by studying the past. However, conditions have changed

radically and new opportunities have to be developed. As I have repeatedly said, it is easier to

manage a department or a program than to grow one. Moreover, you have to constantly ask why

you are in Chicano studies. How can you change the culture of the institution? This is becoming

increasing difficult since the enemy is becoming our friend. We are no longer outcasts with no

degrees or pedigree. I argue that change is more difficult because we are dealing with our

friends.

This is even true internally. For the past ten years I have had running discussions with

the department's leadership on changing or for that matter defining the department's culture. It

takes a lot of effort to criticize one’s friends. You sincerely like the people you work

with. Today, because of its size the CSUN Chicano studies department takes a lot o to just keep

going. The chairs have to manage one hundred and sixty six sections per semester, staff them,

cover multiple committees and deal with the administration. This is on top of dealing with the

moods and personalities of the professors and sometimes irritates students.

Still, they are reluctant to criticize the faculty; you often end up defending them. They

have become the prisoners of their friendships and democratic procedure that compels them to
mimic the illusion of participation. Often as in the case of the online major and the social

science waiver, the project festered in committee. Three years ago, I pushed this committee to

come to some resolution. My friend David Rodríguez called me a Stalinist; the merciful Mary

Pardo said it would take time but said it would happen within two years. We had to be patient.

But we have to be blunt if change is to come about. New faculty are not being

assimilated into the culture of Chicano studies and do not know why they have jobs. Very few

of the faculty members, for example, go to MEChA meetings or student functions. There is no

policy that mandates that faculty members be required to teach a lower division classes; most opt

to teach late afternoon classes and morning classes for at least two days out of the week. For

starters I believe that all new faculty members should be required to teach morning lower

division courses. When I walk the halls of Chicano studies in the morning all I see are part time

instructors. There is nothing wrong with assessments; every faculty member should be required

to submit a vita and a two page summary of what they accomplished during the school year.

A group of us have also proposed that all new faculty members be required to spend half

their load with EOPS for the first year. That is our roots and a major reason for our

success. Faculty members cannot be blamed for assuming the roles of intellectuals. The culture

of the institution determines out behavior. For instance, they want to teach grad courses because

it is easier to teach six students than forty. In the case of our program, some students taken the

route of least resistance and do not do the work. However, they take their cue from faculty

members who are often not prepared and have resisted developing bibliographies. Everyone

knows the flaws in the graduate programs but they are reluctant to criticize their friends. It was

like when I was teaching junior high school (today middle school), we all knew the bad teachers

– even the students knew them. But no one said anything if the teacher liked.
 One of the basic problems in our department is that we hire people to develop areas. For

example, we have hired at least four professors to coordinate our English component, develop a

writing lab and teach the core English writing classes. The moment that these professors get

tenure they want to teach literature or film classes. We hire a community studies specialist to

grow a community studies program. What do we do, we divert her attention and use her for

education classes and the social science waiver program. The fact is that she was hired to

develop a community studies program and we should have asked her for a trajectory in that

field. That she has not developed it is more the department’s fault than her failing. A program

like Operation Teacher required innovative growth and a set of criteria, i.e., grant proposals,

creative of programs such as a legal referral center, a battered women's center. It is the role of

the department to develop a vision.

In reality as a department we are losing ground. The faculty sees life through a mirror

much like the paintings of Frida Kahlo. Whether female or male it's what is good for me and not

the collective good. How can you persuade a faculty such as CSUN’s that has twenty-eight

tenured professors that they are not doing well? I have already mentioned the case of the English

lab and the failed social science waiver. program that has not been reinstated. Include the fact

that students could once take 36 units in General Education credits in CHS and a like percentage

in Liberal Studies. Slowly we have been whittled down but no one really looks at it as losing

ground. Probably the greatest single loss was Operation Chicano Teacher. This was also the

fault of the department; it allowed an excellent teacher to teach more than her load at other

campuses and ignored the fact that she was not growing the program. It was tragic because OCT

had made us players on campus. Not only did it put out a critical number of teachers but it gave

us access to other departments. Once the Ford money went away so did the commitment. As
dean Jorge García ended the program; we all resolved that it would be renewed; however, it has

not been.

The tally: We have no skills program; no OCT; no community studies program; no ESL;
no social studies waiver; no online program; and no trajectory to regain our footing in liberal arts
and education. Like Reis López Tijerina used to say, I don’t want blood from anyone, I just
want them to repent. If we don’t repent, future generations of students will be the losers. The
faculty will survive -- they only have a half dozen to a dozen years left. If and when the
department goes the way of our ancestors the community will be blamed. Students will be said
to have lost interest in Chicano studies and the so-called community of scholars will be
absolved. The assassin will not have been the man but our

[1]
Isabel Allende, Zorro: A Novel. New York: HarperCollins, 2005.

[2]
Carlos Muñoz Jr. Youth, Identity, Power: The Chicano Movement, Revised and Expanded Edition. Verso; 2
edition, 2007 Pp. 190-191
[3]
The irony is that Carlos did not protest the denial of tenure at Berkeley to Julia Curry who had a doctorate and
more publications than Carlos at the time he was denied tenure at Irvine. Julia received tenure at San Jose State.
One of the reasons that Julia did not get her book out at Berkeley was that most of her colleagues were out on leave
and she had to mentor most of the students. Her other contribution has been the maintenance of NACCS which
would have folded if it were not for her management. Carlos had also been denied a position at the University of
Washington after which he filed a complaint and was awarded damages. Calros also fails to mention this case or
Julia Curry’s case in his book.
[4]
Lisa Justine Hernández, “Chicana Feminist Voices:In Search Of Chicana Lesbian Voices From Aztlán To
Cyberspace,” The University of Texas at Austin December, 2001, pp. 106-107.In making her sweeping statements
of Anna’s scholarhip, Hernandez cites the following "Chicana Feminism: Pláctica de Anna Nieto Gómez. " [An
Interview]. Caracol: La Revista de la Raza 2, no. 5 (1976): 3-5. "Chicanas Identify." Regeneración 1, no. 10
(1971): 9. "La Femenista." Encuentro Femenil 1, no. 2 (1974): 34-47. New Directions in Education: Estudios
Femeniles de la Chicana. Los Angeles: UCLA, 1974.
[5]
The claim that CSUN Chicano Studies had power or influence over academic and private presses is numbing.
[6]
Bert Corona who had a much longer record of community activism was not given a tenure track position at
California State University Los Angeles.
[7]
The administration knew of student involvement; we made no secret about it. However, it had a policy of
ignoring it until someone complained. For example, during this time the department marked all of the faculty
ballots. It traded them for votes on committees. This was stopped after faculty members complained.
[8]
The files at UCLA’s sociology department would bear out that I wrote her a strong letter of recommendation.
[9]
While publicly defending our right to hire BA’s by this time I was convinced that not having a majority faculty
members with terminal degrees was hurting the students and the programs. As romantic as it sounds, there is not
doctorate from the University of the Barrio. In academe you are not respected if you don’t have the union card. You
are looked upon as not qualified and others do not take the student’s degree seriously. Other institutions look at the
recommender’s qualifications and evaluate the author as much as they do the candidate. The initial hiring of
instructors with bachelor degrees was never meant to be a final solution. Finally, to continue to grow, we had to
have Chicanos on university committee which are elected and appointed. This generally meant a terminal degree.
[10]
In Gerald’s case, he paid a heavy price for not getting the doctorate. He certainly would have become a dean
and possibly have gone on to get a presidency. He was well liked and respected.
[11]
Fermin Herrera teaches a class at UCLA and has appeared on many campuses nationally and internationally.
Everto Ruiz began one of the first student mariachis and he has cloned groups throughout the San Fernando Valley
where over a dozen groups regularly perform. Mariachi classes are taught by former students in middle and high
schools. We have a continuous fight with the administration that does not factor into the budget that our art and
music classes are not funded at the level that they are in the art and music departments.
[12]
The late Lorenzo Flores, one of the most popular professors, was denied promotion and retention although he had
a Master of Arts. He was forced to get an MFA whereupon he was re-hired as a tenure track professor. He died of
cancer before completing his six year probationary period and was never granted tenure.
[13]
Dean Richfield pushed the candidacy of Fermin Herrera after Fermin gave a faculty wide discourse on why
Nahuatl should be a classical language. Fermin gave the lecture in Nahuatl, English, Latin and Greek comparing the
different languages. He is also an accomplished harpist and an internationally known scholar of Jarocho music.
Richfield evaluated him as an artist which has different criteria than social science. At least, four other persons
spoke to Anna and encouraged her to go to graduate school.
[14]
Anna came out of a different tradition. At Long Beach State, the students ran Chicano Studies affairs; however,
unlike most MEChAs many of their student leaders had paid jobs as consultants for private and public agencies.
Frank Sándoval got embroiled in a fight with Frank Cruz, the Chicano studies chair, and eventually his cabal
overthrew Cruz. I had an encounter with Sándoval over the phone when he slammed me for my supporting Cruz and
I had criticized the notion of MEChA being a conduit for paid consultants or using it as an employment agency.
Anna herself had difficulty in transcending her role as a student leader.
[15]
This was a tactical error on Anna’s part because it forced students to come to my defense.
[16]
Again the myth machine says there was widespread violence which was not true. At the time, the department was
under heavy surveillance and if there would have been a hint of violence, they would have taken the opportunity to
shut us down. LAPD Claudia Luther, Accuse of Political Spying,” Los Angeles Times Jun 9, 1978;pg. D4. David
Johnston; Teresa Watanabe, “Police Had Agents in Council Meetings,” Los Angeles Times, May 8, 1980; pg. D1.
Michael Seiler, “LAPD “Accused of Spying at University,” Los Angeles Times,Jun 11, 1982; pg. D5. The latter
article documents that at least three Los Angeles police officers spied on MEChA meetings from 1976-1978. They
produced over a hundred pages of documents. Since I was a plaintiff in the case against the LAPD, I saw these
documents. The officers were Augustin Moreno, Joseph Ramirez and Donald Rochon. (Moreno and Ramirez filed
reports which appeared in discovery during the CAPA v PDID case). There was mention in the documents of the
Anna Nieto-Gomez controversy but no indication that there was violence or the threat of violence which in all
probability would have led to the closure of Chicano Studies. This surveillance was common.
[17]
Critics do journals such as Aztlán (UCLA) a disservice by making sweeping generalizations about Chicano
journals ignoring the Gender Question.
[18]
Anna was a hard worker. I do not impugn her abilities or her character. But she had a polarizing personality even
as a student.
[19]
Huerta was UCSB’s affirmative action officer; he has a law degree but never passed the California or for that
matter any bar.
[20]
We also learned in discovery that UCLA sociologist Rodolfo Alvárez who had been removed by students as
director of the UCLA Mexican American studies center and UCSD historian Ramón Gutiérrez had been cooperating
with UC lawyers. This was their option. My objection was that they were not in the open. This is a practice that is
all too common among Chicanos in academe. For example, for personal reasons they will give bad evaluations of
fellow Chicanos or ding them when reviewing a grant proposal. They will them hide behind confidentiality not
allowing a response. My archives have over 100 hours of depositions documenting discrimination in the UC.
[21]
What is amazing is the power of the chisme. There have been innumerable other terminations by Chicano studies
that have been worthy of comment. Carlos Muñoz in the 1970s was not given tenure at the University of California
Irvine by fellow Chicanos. He told me that it was based on ideological reasons. He ended up in ethnic studies at UC
Berkeley. Julia Curry-Rodriguez was not given tenure at UC Berkeley despite the fact that she was the most popular
professor in the ethnic studies department and counseled most of its students. Julia could very well be called the
godmother of the National Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies which she has kept alive. Julia is one of the
best teachers I know. More recently Naomi Quiñones was not given tenure in Chicano studies at, California State
Fullerton. In each of these cases the injured party had the terminal degree, scholarly publications and was
movement people. I failed to hear the Greek Chorus on their behalf.
[22]
Rogelio Saenz, “Latinos and the Changing Face of America,” Population Reference Bureau,
http://prb.org/Articles/2004/LatinosandtheChangingFaceofAmerica.aspx
[23]
Roberto Suro and Jeffrey S. Passel, “The Rise of the Second Generation: Changing Patterns in Hispanic
Population Growth,” October 14, 2003, p. 1-3, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/22.pdf.
[24]
Some of these problems are not unique to us. When I studied for my MA in history at Los Angeles State
College, it was run like a doctoral program. Four fields and you had to take four hour written exams in each and an
oral defense. The fields were not coordinated; yu took courses from selected professors who supervised you.
[25]
In 1999 Dominguez Hills received $350,000 for a three-year grant as part of a nationwide project, “Crossing
Borders: Revitalizing Area Studies.” Eighteen universities participated among them UC Berkeley; the UC
Humanities Research Institute, San Diego; and the UC Humanities Research Institute, Irvine. We submitted a
proposal and tried to enter into a conversation with Ford but its facilitators did not even want to talk to us. They did
not have the foggiest notion of what area studies were and wanted to fit it to their notion of globalization and
“intersections.”
[26]
I had met with representatives from Notre Dame, Brandeis and Harvard.
[27] The San Patricios Battalion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7zZkGAvGT0 . Saint Patrick's Battalion
(David Rovics) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4BGrNrkbMU. A Clip From "One Man's Hero”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDlvyIlNJ_o