Fear of a Brown Planet: Racial Politics and Latina/o Educational Policy

• In Event: Discursive Moves in the Racialization and Education of Latinx Students

Abstract

Objectives or purposes: This paper explores the racial politics surrounding attacks on, and frequently the elimination of, four programs that have significantly increased Latina/o educational access and success: bilingual education, Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican American Studies program, affirmative action, and the DREAM Act. Contextualized within Lakoff’s analysis of issue framing (1996, 2008) and Bonilla-Silva’s (2006) concept of color-blind racism, I argue that the politics of racial fear serve to restrict an already leaking Latina/o educational pipeline. I conclude by arguing that intentional, strong counter-framing is necessary to effectively defend those programs with demonstrated track records of promoting Latina/o educational access and success.

Perspective(s) or theoretical framework: Lakoff (1996, 2008) argued that effective issue framing relies on a combination of factors. First, it is proactive instead of reactive in the work. Second, it has a strong moral center. Specific to this work, the “moral center” is a co-option of Dr. King’s “content of their character” statement to justify colorblindness (Bonilla-Silva, 2006). This framing is not simply about making a moral argument, but also stoking White fears (Feagin, 2010).

Methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry: This Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA; Fairclough, 2013) analyzes the language used to attack educational policies that support Latina/o student success. CDA is an analysis of power relations, and specific to these social policies, the discourse is one of racialized, White power (Bonilla-Silva, 2006).

Data sources, evidence, objects, or materials: The data for this paper derive from the public statements of political and activist leaders attacking policies that support more equitable education for Latina/o populations. Specifically, it examines: Tom Horne in the banning of Mexican American Studies in Arizona; Ron Unz in his attacks on bilingual education; Ward Connerly and his anti-affirmative action work; and anti-DREAM Act rhetoric in the 2012 Republican presidential primary.

Results and/or substantiated conclusions or warrants for arguments/point of view: The consistent themes across all policies was White fear (Feagin, 2010). For example, it is not simply that the term “illegal” was consistently employed when framing opposition to the DREAM Act, but their presence was a potential threat to the country. It was not simply that students taking Mexican American Studies were described as “rude,” but they were also framed as potentially dangerous and “anti-American.”

Scientific or scholarly significance of the study or work: Policy preferences stem from racial politics where Latina/os are framed as illegal, subversive, perpetual foreigners, and worthy of scrutiny (Gonzales & Delgado, 2006; Lakoff, 1996, 2008; Santa Ana, 2002). These messages take hold among a populace where racism does not exist unless it is racism against White people (Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Cabrera, 2012; Mills, 1997; Norton & Summers, 2011). This entrenches the demonization of Latina/os in the public discourse, and it leads to the elimination of effective programs that help address the White/Latina/o educational gap. To support Latina/o educational advancement, it is insufficient to have sound policy. It is also necessary to proactively, intentionally, and publicly frame the debate.

Author

• Nolan L. Cabrera, University of Arizona