Category Archives: Chicano Studies

The University. A Bastion of White Supremacy

At Cal State Northridge, Latino enrollment approached 40 percent. Yet there was only one high ranking Latino administrator of Mexican origin. Seventy-five to 80 percent of the academic departments on campus did not have a single professor of Mexican American extraction, although over 50 percent of the university’s service area was Latino. [1]

The university was supposed to prepare students on how to interact in society, and impart knowledge that was important for an educated person to have. How we get knowledge determines the outcome. Administrators in the California State University system were closely vetted. In 1979 by a vote of 8 to 7 the CSU Trustees appointed James Rosser president of Cal State University Los Angeles over Julian Nava, a former professor at CSUN, a LA School Board member and later ambassador to Mexico. The CSULA faculty openly conspired against Nava fearing that a Mexican president would lessen faculty hegemony.

Many white professors openly played off blacks and browns, and fanned the political ambitions of Trustee Claudia Hampton. For thirty-four years Rosser pursued a policy of dividing and conquering, giving Dean Donald Dewey cover to pander to the white leadership’s obsession of keeping ethnic studies weak. The administration sunk to new lows and encouraged warfare between Chicana/o fulltime and part time faculty who fought over appointments. This is a policy that led to a warfare from which LA State has never recovered.. 

Chicana/o and ethnic studies never recovered from this chicanery. Because of a fall in the enrollment in the College of Humanities, Dean, Beth Say, an academic of limited intellectual capacity has decided to cut ChS  faculty allocations back, basing positions on majors rather than enrollment. This is the epitome of racism or stupidity or both.  Indirectly she was attacking our presence in General Education by minimizing our importance as a service department.

Say has no understanding of what a service department is. Like traditional departments service departments explore the corpus of knowledge of neglected fields such as Chicana/o studies while supplementing the needs of other departments which have minimal or no courses, for instance, on Latinos. Successful programs do this through GE and Liberal studies.

To be redundant over 80 percent of the departments and majors did not have a single Mexican American or Latino course. Most white students had not had a professor of color. In effect Beth Say wanted to limit the students’ knowledge of the Latino population.  Her failure to understand the importance of cultural competency and teacher prep was proof that Say was not an educator. The hypocrisy was that just a couple of years ago Say was trying to save her home department by converting it into a service department. Hierarchies were infallible. 

The Silencing of the Lambs: The Hispanic Generation  

Higher education that is the main vehicle for social mobility was being privatized and sequestered. Half of Mexican Americans had no hope of going to college while reforms such as ethnic studies programs met the fate of the lambs.  The privatization of Cal State Northridge moved like a slow cancer. Most faculty and students were immobilized and thought conditions would improve. They deluded themselves that the headlights would dim or go away. 

During the sixties many would have been moved by the murmurs of the lambs. Today they listened to CSUN President Dianne Harrison announce that she loved the rich Mexican and Latin American heritage and lauded CSUN’s reputation for ethnic diversity. The lambs ignored that she has signed a deal with UNAM not once talking to Chicana/o studies. Only about 3 percent of the faculty were of Mexican extraction. President Harrison ignored that tuition had increased to $3200 a semester; and dorms like flophouses rented beds at $800 and charge over $3000 for a meal ticket.

The lambs grinned as Harrison played Evita Peron and said that she was doing it so students could learn more about Mexico. They forgot that she had done nothing to support Chicana/o studies — the only department at CSUN that had a critical number of courses on Mexico. If she loved Mexicans so much, why didn’t Harrison consult members of that department?

President Harrison repeatedly lied. Her provost told us that it was not about Mexicans, it was about Latin America. Apparently the 35 million people of Mexican descent in this country didn’t count or that Mexico was the largest Spanish-speaking country in Latin America. The lambs were silent the campus lost thousands of jobs to outsourcing, tuition  zoomed from $50 per semester to $3200 and was still rising. We raised this at a meeting and  Harrison replied that students could afford it, they had Pell grants.

The silence of Latino politicos past and present was disappointing. Tony Villaraigosa was once a friend of ChS, but once he became mayor he acted as if he did not know us, frequently visiting the campus without once visiting the Chicana/o students. He knew students we were at odds with the former president over rising tuition and ROTC, but he could not pass up the photo-ops.

The struggle to stop the UNAM accord was similar to NAFTA in the 1991. We lost but history absolved the losers. NAFTA killed the Mexican small farmer, and uprooted millions of Mexican workers and their families, while creating eleven billionaires and more corruption.  NAFTA displaced 682,900 U.S. jobs. Those good-paying manufacturing jobs were replaced by low-paying service sector jobs with little or no benefits. NAFTA accelerated undocumented migration that increased to 12 million from 3.9 million in 1993.

Mexico lost at least 1.3 million farm jobs. Mexican farmers were forced to use more American fertilizers and other chemicals at a cost of $36 billion per year in pollution. Rural farmers have been forced to encroach on marginal lands, resulting in deforestation of 630,000 hectares annually. The prize! Mexico was the leading importer of American corn; Mexican farmers could not compete with subsidized U.S. farmers; and large corporations such as Monsanto invaded Mexico.

NAFTA accelerated the privatization of Mexican higher education. A consequence is that today students are protesting the lack of space in Mexican universities. This made the UNAM deal even more obscene. UNAM and CSUN were entering into private deals to bring in more foreign students that would displace local applicants. Why? 

Why were the lambs silent? Didn’t they remember the January 1, 1994, the day that NAFTA went into effect the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN), revolted in Chiapas. The EZLN cited the neo-liberal policies of PRI that threatened their autonomy and way of life. The EZLN was right.  Today PRI was scrapping the 1917 Mexican Constitution.

Mexicans cared about education; they won this human right in a bloody Revolution. Yet there are hundreds of thousands of high school graduates who are annually turned away from Mexican public universities. Twenty years after NAFTA, fewer Mexican students are attending college from working-class barrios and Mexican rural villages.

Similarities between Mexico and the U.S. were striking. Fewer U.S. Latino students were being admitted from hard core barrios; access was restricted to those who can afford it. The safety net was being shredded and Pell and other forms of aid were threatened species.

The Trojan Horse

In the case of the UNAM movida President Dianne Harrison and Dean of Social and Behavioral Science Stella Z. Theodoulou planted their virus and encroached on departmental space. Without consulting CHS the campus entered into a deal with UNAM to establish a Mexican American and Latin American Studies research program. Why? Theodoulou openly told professors in her college that Chicana/o Studies did not have a monopoly on Mexico. Why weren’t we told about the negotiations then? Because they knew would challenge the modida chueca.

When ChS labeled the UNAM deal a Trojan Horse, the administration was offended. The opposition was based on the fact that it lessens the power ChS to defend the interests of the department, the community and our students.  As with a computer virus, the Trojan Horse is difficult to remove because the administration dribbles out bits and pieces of information on the deal. At first it assured us that it would not involve classes. It then qualified this statement saying that they may teach English courses, and UNAM could offer online classes through the Tseng College–a fully privatized (CSUN) college that students can attend by paying $1000 a unit.

Apparently CSUN plans to recruit upper middle class Mexican students to take English classes so they can later enroll at prestigious institutions such as UCLA and USC. Further, the students would stay at the student dorms, which were built and subsidized by CSUN students who pay for the costs of the dorms but cannot afford them.

For the masses of people higher education was the key to social mobility. Lack of access was the reason why students in Mexico were taking to the streets. Like Latino students here, they knew that without a degree they would be stuck in jobs earning the minimum wage, This would have a rippling effect for the truth be known the Latino muddle class was forged by higher education. These gains were now threatened by the privatization that froze opportunity.  The struggle to just maintain the status quo would be difficult because university presidents such as Harrison rarely said “I am sorry.” Instead they invent their own narrative and expect others to play by it.

Sisyphus and the Rock. Lessons of Life

Redundancy is defined as excessive repetition.  My take is that redundancy got a bad rap; it was associated the excesses of religious teaching or patriotism where believers are brainwashed into an acceptance of a prescribed truth. In reality, excessive repetition is part of the socializing process that involves learning. For that reason, in political struggle topics such as how to build Chicana/o Studies are repeated. The assumption was that had to know what and how to defend the body from white blood cells that rejected the implant. People are confused because they were intentionally misled by counter narratives.

Albert Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus in which the protagonist is condemned for eternity to roll a rock up a hill. When it seemed  as if Sisyphus made progress the rock rolled back on him.  Sisyphus would not accept that the deck was stacked; he kept on rolling the rock up the hill, and it kept rolling back on him. Some believed that Sisyphus was suicidal or that he was resigned to his fate. [2] Reformers in academe constantly were confronted by Sisyphus’ dilemma. They, however, rarely learned from the experience of rolling the rock up the hill. The reality was that many Latino students were no longer attending public institutions – unlike Sisyphus they had given up hope.

Students today pay 75 to 80 percent of the instructional costs at the CSUN. In contrast, in 1960 when state colleges were publicly supported, there was no tuition. Then why was the UNAM/CSUN accord made without considering the costs to students? Max Weber many years ago wrote about the emergence of the bureaucracy as an organizational form and how bureaucracies developed a rational-legal authority.

For forty-five years, ChS fought to expand the knowledge of Mexicans on both sides of the border. It offered to support the creation of courses on Mexicans and Mexican Americans and not flag them on the condition that other departments hire tenured faculty that are experts in the field of study. ChS also entered into agreements for joint appointment agreements with other departments.

Despite this reaching out, the white faculty resisted diversity. Moreover, the administration for 45 years has avoided giving us the names of Mexican and Latino professors, although it touts itself as being a Hispanic Serving Institution. An estimated 3 percent of the tenured faculty was of Mexican origin in 2014; in contrast 40 percent of the students were Latino. The UNAM accord exacerbated the load of the rock by widening the gap between the racial backgrounds of students and faculty.

Going to the Edge and Prepared to go Over the Cliff

Students often ask why students in the 60s were so militant.[3] The answer is a complex one; in the late sixties times were different. Mexican Americans were a small regional minority who were not known by academicians who had a difficult time distinguishing between a taco and a burrito. The presence of a strong militant black population was invaluable in passing most of our curricular proposals, and pushing for the effective outreach of Mexican American students. We relied on this momentum to increase our presence during the fall 69.  Without student militancy Chicana/o Studies would have been dead in the water. Frankly, the often  irrational behavior  of students was our greatest ally.

That fall there were several conflicts with the student senate and the dean of students. It paid off because the administration feared another November 4, 1968. Each victory added to our presence. This and outside militancy further established our credentials among the left sector of the faculty. We also built alliances with the American Federation of Teachers who needed our votes in committees. The administration was put on notice that we would go to the edge of the cliff, and if need be go over the cliff. We had nothing to lose – remaining insignificant and weak was no way to live.

The students’ militant reputation was invaluable, and after the burning of the Chicana/o House assumed their place at the front of the protest line. The greatest strength of ChS was control over a bloc of classes. A sudden decline in white enrollment made Chicana/o students attractive to other departments who now tolerated Chicana/o students because they needed them to survive. The narrative of white faulty changed, and they popularized a counter-narrative that said that they did not hire Latinos because ChS was so large.

A False Consciousness

A colonial mentality was used very effectively by academe that converted the institution into profit centers.  It was called neoliberalism that made “it harder for poor children to attend college and forces debt-ridden students into an intellectual and moral dead zone devoid of imagination.”[4]

In an interview Henry A. Giroux defined neoliberalism as an ideology that interprets profit making as the essence of democracy and concludes that only the market can solve our problems. “As a mode of governance, it produces identities, subjects, and ways of life driven by a survival of the fittest ethic, grounded in the idea of the free, possessive individual, and committed to the right of ruling groups and institutions to accrue wealth removed from matters of ethics and social costs.” [5] 

At CSUN and most state universities, the academy increasingly relies on part timers to process its classes.  CSUN has not gone as far as some American universities and outsourced online teaching to foreign vendors via profit making centers such as the Tseng College. Using part time or lecturers was cheaper than employing full time professors. The academy saved not only in salaries but costs of sabbaticals, release time, tenure, office space and other perks. In lieu of higher salaries many of the part timers (AKA lecturers) were forced to moonlight. In Chicana/o studies department some teach at two and three other campuses to eke out a living. The result is they parachuted in and out of the university, and students in most cases do not get the benefit of office hours.

Many of the so-called lecturers developed what Marxist used called a false consciousness caused by the systematic misrepresentation of dominant class of reality. Thus the subordinate classes form a false consciousness. The ruling elites systematically conceal or obscure the realities of subordination, exploitation, and domination.  Examples of this false consciousness abound; most obvious were workers identifying with the Republican Party or corporate thieves.

The notion of a false consciousness was confirmed by an email from a part timer (AKA lecturer) who told me that ChS was “biting the hand” that fed it because they criticized the university and the administration for the abuses of neoliberalism and the privatizing of what was once a public institution.  Although she earned $19,000 annually for teaching a full load, she found the colonial overseers benevolent.  She asked for us to take her off the mailing list. But if she loved the university so much why did she tolerate these conditions? Why didn’t she fight to convert part time positions into full time tenured faculty? And why didn’t she fight for effective faculty governance through the California Faculty Association?

Horatio Alger: The Illusion of Public Higher Education

The United States is the land of illusions. Like Disneyland, it is more fiction than reality. The American Dream imposes a form of social control blinded Americans from seeing the injustices, inequalities and imperfections of American society. Like old Shirley Temple movies, Americans are princes and princesses who pass through bad times thinking that they will be saved because they are Americans.

These illusions were constructed by myths such as that of Horatio Alger that has persisted for over 150 years. The stairway to the American Dream was meritocracy and education. America is the land of opportunity, every American if he works hard enough could get an education; it is free and more accessible in the United States than any place in world. Opportunity is knocking, and it is your fault if you did not take advantage of it. The Horatio Alger Myth resembles other fantasy tales. In 1966 the illusion of equal opportunity suffered a fatal blow with the election of Governor Ronald Reagan who led the assault on the University of California.  Reagan vowed to “clean up that mess in Berkeley” that, according to him, was led by “outside agitators” and left-wing subversives. Reagan laid the foundations for a shift to a tuition-based funding model. The goal was to eliminate taxes and privatize public institutions.  Moneyed interests nationwide set out to destroy public two-year schools, which served almost one-half of the nation’s first-year college students.  By the 21st century, as tuition soared at the four year universities, students were pushed down to the community colleges.      

The Great Recession of 2008 ended all illusions of universal public education. By 2011, the UC officially switched from a system of fees to an explicitly tuition-centric model. Moreover, since 2007, the UC promoted the admission out-of-state and foreign students as a way of raising revenues. Incentives were built into the admission process to admit fewer California students. The California State Universities followed suit.

California stopped building new colleges and universities; new buildings were built with student funds.  Most programs such as the UNAM/CSUN accord are vested in student funds. According to many critics the privatization process was irreversible. From 2005 to 2010, over 75 percent of newly accredited colleges and universities were for-profits funded in global capital markets. For-profits now make up over 25 percent of all post-secondary institutions in the United States. Without saying, they are more expensive than the former public universities. The outcome is fewer students graduate and those who do  leave college with higher student debts.

By 2011, California public colleges and universities received 13 percent less in state funding; this was not by accident. By this this time “nearly half of all graduates of public and private four-year schools in California were saddled with an average debt load of $18,000”[6]; the national average was $26,682.It was also not an accident that funding for community colleges remained static although demand increased. Reduced class offerings, fewer sections of the classes, and the laying off of faculty and staff forced many students into for profit schools. These overbooked classes took the two year colleges to the breaking point.

One proposed solution was to charge students an extra fee to get priority registration for impacted classes. In 2010, because of a student uproar, a contract was cancelled with the for-profit Kaplan University to offer discounted online classes to community college students for community college credit.

Globally, education is important. When asked what was the key challenge facing Latin America over the next decade, the top answer among students was education. Students saw it as the key to jobs.  However, increasingly through the intervention of American institutions such as the International Monetary Fund its leaders were adopting the American neo-liberal model, and for-profit colleges are flourishing in Brazil, Mexico and Chile.

Reading about for profit colleges only makes the silence of the lambs more deafening. The Daily Caller published an article titled “Why are the Clintons hawking a seedy, Soros-backed for-profit college corporation?” George Soros supposedly one of the good billionaires hired Bill Clinton as a pitchman for Laureate Education Inc., a for-profit higher education powerhouse. Laureate owns 75 schools in 30 countries. And it boasts of 800,000 students worldwide. Also promoting this venture is Henry Cisneros and other Clinton stalwarts.[7]

The Chickens Will Come Home to Roost

The lambs had a problem hearing the sounds of the clarion because they lacked long term memories. They could not remember the Zapatistas January 1, 1994 revolt in reaction to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) never sunk in. It could be that the word neoliberal was too foreign to the lambs, and they had a difficult time comprehending that the word takes different forms.

News that University of California President Janet Napolitano began two days of meetings to Mexico about expanding academic and research cooperation with Mexican universities and scientific and cultural organizations has raised fears among many of us.[8] The U.S. War on Drugs had ravaged Mexico to the point that few U.S. students wanted to study there. As a consequence, about 40 out of 233,000 UC students study in Mexico each year, while about 1,900 Mexicans attended UC schools in 2013.

Ironically, Napolitano as the former secretary of Homeland Security was involved in making U.S. drug policy; her visit coincides with that of Secretary of State John Kerry.  According to the UC president this part of the, “UC’s many and varied partnerships, exchanges and collaborations with Mexico are integral to bettering lives on both sides of our national border … I’m here to ensure we grow that relationship by establishing our new project to enhance the mutual exchange of students, faculty and ideas across the border.”[9]

For over 50 years, the Mexican American community encouraged exchange programs lobbying for programs with Mexico. However, many had come to realize that just studying in Mexico, or studying in the United States did not always have positive outcomes.

Vicente Ramírez wrote about these exchanges, “They’re [the UC and CSU] not going to recruit the working class–it’s a class war… They’re recruiting Mexico’s elite students so that they can then go back and apply neoliberal policies. All of Mexico’s secretaries of Economy (Secretario de Economía) and Finance (Secretario de Hacienda y Crédito Público) have gotten their Ph.D.’s from American universities since the mid-1980s. Mexico’s current Secretario de Hacienda, Luis Videgarray who successfully pushed for the privatization of PEMEX got his Ph.D. from MIT.” Ex-Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, arguably the intellectual godfather of Mexican neoliberalism, received his MA and PhD in economics from Harvard.”

It should be made clear that exchanges were not about diversity or cultural enrichment. The recruitment was global and it was about profit. When the UC or CSU turned away students the for-profit university sector in both countries thrived.

Neoliberalism at its worse recruited wealthy Mexican students to displace U.S. minority students, charging them out of state and foreign student fees. Not too many if any working class Mexican students would be able to afford the tuition and dorm costs. The prize for the neoliberal university was Mexico set a goal of sending 100,000 Mexican students a year to the U.S. by 2018. In addition, the UC and CSU system recruited in China, the Middle East, Asia and the U.S. The large numbers of international students impacted minorities and working class students who were priced out of the market.  The Mercury News reported that UC Berkley’s “revenue from out-of-state and international students has grown to about $160 million, about 7 percent of its annual operating budget and more than half of its state subsidy.”[10]

At UCLA just under 28 percent of the incoming freshmen were out of state students while just over 3 percent were African American.[11] In 2012, Inside Higher Ed wrote that “The number of foreign and out-of-state students admitted to the University of California’s 10 campuses soared by 43 percent this year, while the overall number of would-be freshmen admitted from within the state’s borders grew by just 3.6 percent, the university system … Out-of-state and foreign students made up nearly one in five students admitted for next fall, 18,846 of a total of 80,289.”[12]

This led to an insidious policy that limits space for low income students and justifies higher fees and tuition. It gave students who were turned away no alternative, but to go to for-profit universities. Recently, a scheme by the community colleges to enter into a contract with the University of Kaplan to offer classes online to community college students (at a substantial fee) was derailed because of public outcry. ( Kaplan was a tutorial center mainly for foreign students).

The Talented Ten Percent

During a brief conversation with the candidate for the Mexican presidency Manuel Andrés López Obrador on March 28, 2014, the topic came up as to why so much of the Mexican leadership get degrees from American universities particularly Harvard University. He expressed a preference that Mexican politicians and leaders attend Mexican universities because when a student was removed from his community, it causes alienation.

It hit a chord – education does not bond students to their communities; it gives them the tools to individually succeed. But ultimately universities produce creatures of the state that socialized them and equipped them to socially engineer others. Schooling stratified society, tracked students into groups with the nerds occupying the highest rung. Students learned their place and teachers pined for top groups. High school teachers’ prize their AP (Advanced Placement) classes deluding themselves that this was real teaching.

Alienation takes place with students knowing who is special. Teachers treated “good” students like peers — preferring the geeks to the freaks.  Yet, both groups occupied the same space and were part of the same community.  Off campus they lived in areas with similar institutions and cultural symbols. Parental attitudes and food reinforce an intangible bonding.

Leaders such as AMLO are aware of the fact that Mexican barrio boys or girls do not attend Harvard. Few poor kids got the opportunity to travel abroad, and most don’t even know that Harvard existed.  The ones that did attend were Americanized. Where students went to school is not as important as where they grow up. In my day there were clear distinctions between public and parochial schools. Today the latter were too expensive and havens for students fleeing the public schools. A growing percentage of Latino students in ChHS classes today come from magnet schools and less from parochial.[13] Education produces a vanguard.

American foundations such as Ford followed this hierarchal strategy. The Ford Foundation, for example, supported ethnic studies programs at more prestigious institutions believing that the institutions would legitimatize ethnic studies by making them academically competitive and earn them the respect of mainstream disciplines.  Ford Foundation socially engineered black studies, women studies and to a much lesser degree Chicana/o studies.[14]

By 2014 more Latino students in California were enrolling in higher education than white students. However, two-thirds of them went to community colleges. According to a recent University of Southern California study: “Among graduates of public high schools that ranked in the top 10 percent statewide, 46 percent of Latinos enrolled at a community college, as compared to 27 percent of whites, 23 percent of African-Americans, and 19 percent of Asians.[15] In California, Latino students became separate and unequal majority in higher education.

Current faculty diversity data is almost impossible to obtain. Luis Ponjuan (2012), however, underscores the value of faculty diversity.[16]  He and others have found that a “critical mass” of Latino faculty increased Latino student retention.  Despite this there was a dearth of raw number on Latino faculty members. More Latinos tend to be sequestered in the ranks of part time and temporary faculty.

It is not a stretch to suggest that few community college professors attended Ivy League universities. In the case of Mexicans and Mexican Americans who go to universities away from their home environment they must keep in mind a danger of alienation. When I returned from the army, it took me time to reorient myself. The problem that many do not realize that going to college does not educate them.

[1] Rodolfo Acuña, “The University. A Bastion of White Supremacy, “ Sacramento Progressive Alliance, Feb 9, 2014,

[2] Rodolfo Acuña, “Sisyphus and the Rock. Lessons of Life,” Word Press, April 10, 2014, . Acuña, “Sisyphus and the Rock: Lessons of Life, Hecho en Aztlan, April 10, 2014. .        RODOLFO ACUÑA,  “Sisyphus, Chicano Style,” counterpunch, June 21, 2012.

[3]Rodolfo Acuña. “Going to the Edge And Over the Cliff,” Somos Primos, April 14, 2014,

[4] Victoria Harper, “Henry A. Giroux: Neoliberalism, Democracy and the University as a Public Sphere,”Truthout, Apr 22, 2014.

[5] C.J. Polychroniou, “Neoliberalism and the Politics of Higher Education: An Interview With Henry A. Giroux,”   Truthout, Mar 26, 2013,

[6] ANDREW MARTIN and ANDREW W. LEHREN, “A Generation Hobbled by the Soaring Cost of College,” The New York Times, May 12, 2012,

[7] Eric Owens, “Why are the Clintons hawking a seedy, Soros-backed for-profit college corporation?” Daily Caller, Jan 13,2014,

[8] Rodolfo Acuña, ““The Chickens Have Come Home to Roost”, LA Progressive, Sep 2, 2013, Acuña, “Selling Public Space: The Chickens Will Come Home to Roost,” Dos Centavos,net., May 23, 2014,

[9] Larry Gordon, “UC President Napolitano in Mexico to expand exchange programs,” Los Angeles Times, May 21, 2014.

[10] Katy Murphy, “UC out-of-state students increase as Californians’ admissions slow,” San Jose Mercury News, May 9, 2014,

[11] Rodolfo Acuña, “Our Politicos Have Sold Us Out: Selling Public Space, The Chickens Will Come Home to Roost, Hecho en Aztlan, May 23, 2014,

[12] “U. of California Admits Many More Foreign and Out-of-State Students,” April 18, 2012,

[13] Rodolfo Acuña, “Ivy League Latinos: The Talented 10 percent,” LA Progressive, June 6, 2014,

[14] Noliwe M. Rooks , White Money/Black Power: The Surprising History of African American Studies  and the Crisis of Race in Higher Education (Boston: Beacon Press, 2006), pp. 1-2.

[15] Merrill Balassone, “High number of Latinos in California choose community college,” Society and Culture: USC, November 13, 2013,

[16] Dan Berrett, “Encounters With Diversity, on Campuses and in Course Work, Bolster CriticalThinking  Skills, Studies Find, “ The Chronicle of Higher Education, November  19, 2012,