Several newspapers have been chastising the Hispanic civil rights groups and organizations that are criticizing Bush's choice for Labor Secretary - Linda Chavez. When Hispanic groups rush to support public Hispanic figures, it's often suspected they only have that support because they are Hispanic. Yet when a conservative Hispanic who opposes the views of the vast majority Hispanic leaders is nominated, we're bad for not supporting her.

Now who's playing the race card?

The New York Post carried an article that echoed Chavez's own views. The writer referred to the "so-called 'civil rights' establishment". So-called? Well, I hope you will excuse me if I take a moment to thank the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) for helping end public and school segregation, voting discrimination, land grabs and other civil rights atrocities in the Southwest. The article goes on to call Linda Chavez a compassionate conservative. She opposes bilingual education, any language other English in government and public life, unions, minimum wage and other rights hard working Americans have won over the years. Is this compassionate conservatism?

An article in the Boston Herald says the groups are attacking her because of her conservative views. The author says that these liberals have "decided that group identity is more important than an individual's character." Well, what do you call it when Hispanics are expected to be supportive simply because she's Hispanic? Some of this started when Clarence Thomas was nominated and Blacks didn't support him. People accused Blacks of being shallow and having a standard for "thinking Black". Now Hispanics are accused of having a standard for "thinking Hispanic". Could it be that Blacks oppose Clarence Thomas because he has made decisions that support car searches without just cause and the right of an employer to refer to his employees using racial slurs? You'll notice that Blacks are supporting Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice and Hispanics are supporting Mel Martinez and Al Gonzales - all of whom are conservative. It could be that Blacks and Hispanics simply want reasonable and qualified people working for them.

Linda Chavez hasn't exactly been playing nice for the past two decades. She consistently names MALDEF in her attacks against the same civil rights groups that won several basic rights for Hispanics, while including other groups in blanket references to "other Hispanic activist groups". She even dismisses entire parts of the Chicano civil rights movement.

Linda might be interested to know that just this year, while most people were focused on Florida, federal agents were watching the polls in New Jersey after they confirmed that off-duty police had intimidated and harassed Hispanic voters to keep them from voting in prior years. This is the same behavior that these "so-called" civil rights groups have been fighting for decades.

She goes on to characterize Hispanic teachers and civil rights groups who oppose her views as money-hungry groups who injure the Hispanic community. When asked about why people attack her for fighting bilingual education she says, "I think I'm challenging their livelihood. I think I'm challenging what they stand for and what I consider to be -- bill of goods they've been selling policy-makers for the last 20 years." In an article called "Why Univision's Perenchio is out to hurt his fellow Hispanics", Linda says, "the campaign to defeat Proposition 227 is not about truth, it's about money -- millions for Spanish-language TV executives and investors and a few thousand dollars apiece for bilingual teachers, who now receive a special bonus for teaching in Spanish. The other major contributor to the anti-English initiative is the California Teachers Association, which has spent $1 million to defeat Proposition 227." It should be noted that Chavez actively supported proposition 227. Also of MALDEF she says, "I think MALDEF's agenda has been bad for Hispanics."

Linda Chavez has consistently attacked the organizations that secured civil rights for Hispanics in the United States. She has belittled the laws that came out of the civil rights movement. She also views the Hispanic community as a group that refused to assimilate like other immigrants have, saying the Puerto Ricans succeed less because they assimilate less. With the energy she has put into assimilation, you would think we were rioting in the streets demanding that the national dance be the merengue and the national anthem be in Spanish. The quality of her rhetoric has declined over the years to the same over-generalizing and stereotyping propaganda that you can find on any talk show. Yet, for some reason, these groups are supposed to support the so-called compassionate conservative. Where is Linda's support for us? Where was Linda while others were working on behalf of Latinos being harassed at the voting polls?

Perhaps conservative groups need to stop viewing themselves as a group and think about whether they have to support someone simply because the person is a conservative. After all, as LULAC points out, Linda Chavez has views that directly contradict the highest-ranking conservative- President-Elect Bush. Chavez has views that go directly against the institution she has been asked to lead and against the values that George W. Bush campaigned on. So far, the nomination looks like a CEO who is brought in just to sell off the company assets bit by bit at wholesale prices. As a member of that company, I reserve the right to object. I also must wonder why Bush has nominated someone who contradicts his own values as well as the job she will hold and why Chavez would volunteer to uphold laws and principles with which she actively disagrees.

We at least have to wonder what it means when you can't find a civil rights group that will support the decision. These aren't simply liberals, but people who have been working for decades to secure human rights in the United States and to overturn laws that were designed to injure and disenfranchise. They are why my children will not go to a segregated school and why we can go into any Texas restaurant and be served. They've earned my respect and my gratitude.

Folks don't dislike Chavez because she's conservative. It's because we disagree with her values and characterization of Hispanics who disagree with her. While she is a very talented, persuasive and intelligent woman, we sincerely believe her values contradict the job she will hold as Labor Secretary. We certainly will continue to think through whom we will and will not support, rather than simply being grateful the person has a similar heritage.

Following are the responses from various groups. LULAC points out exactly how Linda Chavez's views don't match Bush's views or the goals of the Department of Labor. Not only is she unqualified for this specific position, but she has actively campaigned against its legally required programs. NCLR explains how her interests go against the American worker and how her assistance to an immigrant shouldn't have factored in to her downfall. MALDEF reinforces this with background on her civil rights stances. They also make a stinging but truthful point - a Spanish surname doesn't make you an advocate. Does it?

Next page > LULAC > Page 1: Race Card, 2: LULAC, 3: NCLR, 4: MALDEF

Warning: include(/home/.meuser/rvazquez/lasculturas.com/inc/bottom.inc) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /opt/apps/lasculturas.com/aa/aa010901a.php on line 215

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/.meuser/rvazquez/lasculturas.com/inc/bottom.inc' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/php:/usr/share/pear') in /opt/apps/lasculturas.com/aa/aa010901a.php on line 215