No simple Americanizers: Three early Anglo researchers of Mexican-American education

Educational Forum, The, Winter 2001 by Davis, Matthew D

Anglo-Hispanic relations in the U.S. Southwest remain contested. The balance of influence, however, was set, at least for the last 150 years, by provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Since that momentous event, the U.S. "way of life" has been desired for, and by, most Mexican immigrants (DeSipio and de la Garza 1998). However, many scholars and activists recognize, particularly in hindsight, that its inculcation has been egregious (Gonzales 1990; Olneck 1989).

Scholars have, however, failed to explore adequately the motivations and operational particulars of educators engaged in developing policies and practices for teaching pupils of Mexican heritage throughout time. Too routinely and without nuance, some scholars have placed these early educators in monolithic agreement about "a one right way" to educate non-English speakers, whether U.S. citizens or immigrants (i.e., Gonzales 1990). Consequently, recent popular wisdom simplistically excoriates school Americanization programs in the early 20th-century Southwest. All educators of Spanish-speaking children, under this blanket indictment, were racists.

Importantly, two Latino scholars recently expanded their notions of Americanization to include categories that they called summative and additive. An impressive broadside of complexity, this twin-- headed typology includes in the "additive" category schools that "promoted maintenance of minority cultures" and "valued minority participation in education" (San Miguel and Valencia 1998, 358). Unfortunately, their characterization of "the school"-like too much scholarship in Latino educational history-is as an anthropomorphized entity. Particularly omitted is attention to critical elements of practical reality (MacDonald 1998). For example, who and where were the people, particularly the offending Anglos, in these Americanizing schools? Individuals, even those in institutions, value others or fail to do so. Schools, furthermore, cannot have a "collective" memory or will, but "persons in relation" (MacMurray 1991) form the integral act of schooling (Davis 1995).

Using Gordon's (1964) assimilation theories, I intend to expand the Americanization idea. To "humanize" this concept, I reveal three faces behind his "masks" or representative ideologies. Based on the assumption that education is an assimilative function in society, Gordon (1964) suggested three distinct forms of that process (McLemore and Romo 1998). First, Anglo conformity presumes full integration within the dominant culture and loss by minority groups of all indigenous cultural forms. Second, the melting pot ideology presumes modest but minimal respect for minority cultures accompanied by a definite cost. Lastly, in cultural pluralism, "members of every American ethnic group should be free to participate in all of the society's major institutions (e.g., schools), while simultaneously retaining or elaborating their own ethnic heritage" (McLemore and Romo 1998, 30).

Certainly, the fragmentary evidence of early Latino educational history indicates that most U.S. educators embraced the ideologies of Anglo conformity or the melting pot. On the other hand, school histories in which Mexican-American students were "treated" well largely remain obscured (Black 1998; Black, Hammer, Daniels, Blankenship, and Davis 1998).

Few 20th-century researchers ventured into this socially marginalized inquiry of "Mexican"* schooling and away from an "American exceptionalist" ideal of education. However, a few walked knowingly in these regions. Three prominent individuals, representatives of Gordon's (1964) trio of assimilation ideologies, included Emory S. Bogardus, Loyd S. Tireman, and Herschel T. Manuel. Though they are not perfect ideological "totems," their research and writing in this area most closely approxi* The term "Mexican" was routinely used by AngloAmericans of the period, despite the fact that, by 1920, most Mexican-origin children were born in the United States (Manuel 1930). mate and symbolize each of Gordon's (1964) ideologies. Sanchez (1993, 97) and others have identified Bogardus as the "intellectual father" of Americanization programs in California. Further east, in New Mexico, Tireman has been remembered for the "contributions and contradictions" (Getz 1997, 66) inherent in the melting pot ideology as applied to Mexican students. At the eastern edge of the U.S. Southwest, Manuel labored in Texas, along with his student George I. Sanchez, for an early20th-century conception of cultural pluralism (Davis 1998). Unfortunately, these three Anglo researchers of Mexican-American education too long have been obscured, hidden, or forgotten. They merit public identification, a type of unmasking, to encourage exploration of the complexities involved in Latino educational history.

These three men's efforts highlight the error in the stereotypic portrayal of Anglo concern for Mexican-American children and youth. "Anglo conformity" held no unilateral sway over the Anglo researchers involved in this enterprise.