There seems to be more than a slight controversial interpretation surrounding implementation of the Cal State Long Beach Hispanic Serving Institution Grant, as reported in the Daily Forty-Niner. The grant appears to be as messy and confusing as defining the terms Hispanic, Latina/o and Chicano/a.
Perhaps the confusion and lack of universal definition of the term “Hispanic” is what’s causing those involved in its structure to provide minimum-to-zero explanation over what has been done thus far with the federal money.
To compound confusion, the bulk (13 of 17 professors) of the Chicano/Latino studies department faculty issued a letter of “no confidence” more than a year ago. The ballast of the indictment reads exactly as it is titled. They have “no confidence” in how the grant is being strategically handled.
Interested Latina/o student and faculty involvement seems prudent in determining how best to serve those particular students.
The Oct. 24, 2006, CHLS “no confidence” letter to CSULB President F. King Alexander raised important concerns. Its indictments indicate exclusionary practices contrary to his glowing affirmation in his self-written Oct. 16, 2006 Daily Forty-Niner op-ed announcing the HSI grant.
The gist of sculpting such a letter is that a lack of collegiality exists between classrooms, departmental liaisons and administration. In essence, the letter reads, “We don’t have faith in you because we don’t trust you because you don’t respect us.”
The lack of respect was affirmed by the fact that it didn’t seem worthy of reply, until a few breaths shy of its first birthday. Confusing, ain’t it?
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary offers little to help clarify ethnic terminology. The “carne asada” of Webster’s goes much like this:
Hispanic – “[A] person of Latin American descent living in the U.S.; esp: one of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin.”
Latino – “1: a native or inhabitant of Latin America 2: a person of Latin American descent living in the U.S.”
Chicano/a – “[A]n American [insert gender here] of Mexican descent.”
Upon thanking Daniel Webster for that incisive clarification, it was practical to seek a higher journalistic authority – the Associated Press Stylebook (considered the bible of journalism).
Nothing exists in the AP Stylebook between the entries “Chicago” and “chief,” where one would hope to find “Chicano/a.” The closest reference to Latino/a in the “L” section is “Latin America see Western Hemisphere.” All interpretations for the “Hispanic” entry are more confusing than Webster’s and are merely similar designations.
Still confused?
There has been mention of 2,000 T-shirts tattooed with the “HSI” that were passed out to Latinas/os, but it’s hard to conceive that helping “2 to 3” students and a T-shirt consumed the first installment of $570,000.
Digging deeper, it was necessary to, finally, ask a Mexican. So that’s what we did, we ventured to “Ask a Mexican” reporter and noted author Gustavo Arellano of the OC Weekly. Arellano straightened us out, (possibly to the chagrin of administrators) on the definitive of “Who is Hispanic?”
“Hispanic: Anyone who can trace their ancestry to Hispanolia – Spain and/or Portugal.
“Latino: Anyone who can trace their ancestry to Latin America.
“Chicano: People of Mexican-American heritage that (like the chupacabra), people say exist, but no one can really see; also the name of dinosaurs.”
So there you have it Beachites. The definition of what is “Hispanic” is as confusing to administration as their handling of grants and faculty concerns.
Perhaps we should have Arellano lecture on the meaning of collegiality. It’s a shame we have to explore “respect” from outside of our university to establish that we are living in a world of Jurassics and chupacabras.
Maybe confusion justifies having so little to show for $2.85 million (according to our math expert) in taxpayer dinero. If that were the case, though, the feds wouldn’t season the caldo with an additional million bucks, as noted in the Daily Forty-Niner. The federal government doesn’t typically work that way under tight budget constraints.
Is this a different grant administration that is trying to smokescreen as a bonus for a job well-done?
To further muddy the waters, faculty’s suggestion for a one-size-fits-all student center was rejected after administration cited California’s Proposition 209, which forbids discrimination based on sex, ethnicity or race.
This is contraindicative to the U.S. Department of Education’s stipulation that the HSI grant is intended “[T]o expand educational opportunities for, and improve the academic attainment of, Hispanic students.”
If the university’s logical exclusion was based on Prop. 209, approximately 35,000 CSULB students should be wearing “HSI” T-shirts, right? So, where’s ours?
That’s not to say nothing has been done, of course, because the official word is that by November (more than a year after sealing the deal), “2 to 3” at-risk students will receive specialized mentoring and next semester about 100 more will be helped. But how many more will be pushed out before they can be reached?
Alexander professed in the 2006 article that, “[T]he various sets of programs developed under the aegis of the HSI grant will seek to be inclusive and will not embrace exclusionary practices ….” That might indicate prophetic academic policy, but it falls short of acceptability considering the CHLS and so many Latino/a student groups have been left in a vacuum.
The university stands to lose prominence if an onslaught of national coverage, federal investigations, audits and community outrage is unleashed. The natural trajectory could lead to more forceful questions being asked.
Questions like, “Is there a cover-up of problems with the HSI grant? Exactly what has been accomplished? Is CSULB truly a Hispanic Serving Institution, or is it merely serving itself, while allowing remedial Latina/o students to drop out?” could be imminent.
If critical thinking follows the bouncing ball, how are other departments, faculty, students and grants being used? Are targeted federal monies being specifically applied, or are they being absorbed into the university’s infrastructure? How many other federal grants deserve deeper inspection?
Not only is a lack of due respect with the CHLS staff blatant in letting the letter lay dormant for a year, but the administration is delivering a multi-level message of disrespect to our diverse communities.
In teaching a lesson from the “separate but equal” decision of the 1954 Supreme Court in Brown V Board of Education, Alexander admonished in his article that “neo-Conservative ideals that segregate societies should be avoided at all costs.”
However, the ongoing fiasco has the foul stench of segregation. Perhaps that also is a confusing misinterpretation.
