Texas Politics and Hispandering

The first debate debate between Senator Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke was intensive and covered many issues of substance to Texas voters.  Interestingly, news coverage of the debate also highlighted the accusation by the Cruz campaign that Beto O’Rourke was engaging in “Hispandering” – that is, trying to win favor among Latino voters by use of his Spanish nick name.  According to O’Rourke, however, the name “Beto” was given to him at birth and a common nickname in his birthplace of El Paso that he has used throughout his lifetime.   It seems curious that the Cruz campaign has focused attention on this issue since Senator Ted Cruz opted to change his own birth name from “Felito“ to Ted because of the taunting that he faced as a teenager and the need to reshape his image. 

For the record, the practice of “Hispandering” has been popularized in past political campaigns by Republicans like Gov. Gregg Abbott who have had no reservations about showcasing their Latino wives and family members, and using Spanish-language ads to gain political favor among Latinos.  The pandering becomes more salient in these campaigns since the programs and policies supported by Gov. Abbott and Senator Cruz are often damaging to the quality of life for Texas Latinos, including the following:

• Associating Latino immigrants with high crime rates despite scientific evidence that disputes claim;
• Supporting voter ID laws that limit Latino  voting rights and civic participation;
• Separating families, mostly Latinos seeking asylum, and placing them in detention centers;
• Planning to eliminate legal immigrants from receiving food and healthcare benefits if they cannot support themselves financially; and
• Supporting the Trump administration that has constantly disparaged Latinos, immigrants, African Americans and women.

By contrast, Beto O’Rourke supports programs and policies that directly benefit Texas Latinos, as well as other groups. He has voiced strong support for the Dream Act, measures to improve gun control, increasing attention on the violence towards African Americans by law enforcement officials, and universal healthcare.  O’Rourke’s position on these issues represents a fresh approach that is desperately needed to replace the punitive political platforms of Republicans like Senator Cruz, Gov. Gregg Abbott, and President Trump. Indeed, showcasing Latino family members and speaking Spanish when it is politically convenient seems more like “Hispandering” than using a name that one is given at birth. 

I would encourage all Texans to get past the name calling and trivia often associated with political campaigns, and focus on programs and policies that are being advocated by the political candidates. Texas Latinos, in particular, should easily dismiss the “Hispandering” by Republican candidates who seek their votes during election season but once in office, dedicate much of their political careers to supporting programs that damage the quality of life for Latinos.   

All things considered, I believe that Beto O’Rourke is on the right path to victory to be our next Texas senator.

Ethnic Cleansing: Trump’s New Strategy

     

          If you were under the impression that ethnic cleansing takes place only in other countries with maniacal dictators, perhaps it is time to reflect on the recent behavior of President Trump in regards to recovery efforts in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria.  By some accounts, the disaster recovery in Puerto Rico was a clear example of the deliberate and prolonged neglect of a large segment of U.S. citizens.

An estimated 3,000 Puerto Rican residents died as a result of Hurricane Maria – not just from the immediate storm but also from the inadequate recovery efforts that allowed too many victims to suffer from the limited access to clean water, food, transportation and medical attention. The level of human misery in Puerto Rico, which continues to this day, was apparently of little consequence to President Trump who boasted that the recovery effort was one of the most successful in U.S. history.  Making matters worse, President Trump even now rejects the estimate of 3,000 deaths from Hurricane Maria, suggesting that the high death estimate was merely a political ploy by Democrats to “make me look bad.”   

Trump’s suggestion that the 3,000 deaths resulting from Hurricane Maria was a political ploy by Democrats is consistent with other conspiracy theories that point to his detachment from reality, including such things as:

·        Promotion of the birther theory regarding President Obama;

·        The claim that Muslims celebrated 9/11 on rooftops;

·        Suggesting that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the JFK assassination; and

·        Claiming that 3 to 5 million illegal votes were cast in the 2016 election.

President Trump has made no secret of his disdain for Puerto Rico and its leadership, even delaying the waiver of the Jones Act to expedite the delivery of needed resources. Indeed, his disdain for other non-white and immigrant groups has been shown through statements and policies, including the separation of Latino children from their families;  legal action to end the DACA program;  travel restrictions based on religious beliefs;  and the consistent derogatory statements made in reference to Mexicans,  Haitians, black athletes, and war heroes like the late Senator McCain.  More recently, the Trump administration announced the transfer of $10 million from the FEMA budget to ICE  -- an action that further underscores the priority placed on the removal of unwanted groups.  Perhaps it is time to ask: Is President Trump developing a program of ethnic cleansing? 

As defined by a United Nations Commission, ethnic cleansing is defined as follows:   

“….rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. “

Since he became president, Donald Trump has implemented a number of programs that could fall under this definition of ethnic cleansing,  including  arbitrary arrest and detention; confinement in ghetto areas (i.e., families in detention centers); forcible removal;  displacement and deportation (i.e., even asylum seekers);  deliberate attacks or threats of attacks on civilians (i.e., especially protestors at campaign rallies); and robbery of personal property (that is, seizure of personal property from forcibly removed persons). 

Although Trump has yet to implement some of the most coercive practices that have been utilized globally by current and past dictators, following is a listing of the various practices that have been used to achieve the objectives of ethnic cleansing:

• Murder
• Torture
• Extrajudicial executions
• Rape and sexual assaults
• Severe physical injury to civilians
• Use of civilians as human shields
• Destruction of property
• Attacks on hospitals, medical personnel and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others.

Without intervention by legal advocates and human rights organizations, one wonders how many of these most coercive practices President Trump would implement given the opportunity and growing support by his conservative base.  Yet, the withholding and delay of needed emergency assistance and the resulting 3,000 deaths of Puerto Rican citizens presents tangible evidence that President Trump has added a new dimension to the ethnic cleansing formula. 

Apparently, it is not enough to separate families, deport asylum seekers, place immigrant children in detention centers, and publicly disparage immigrants and non-whites – it now appears acceptable to simply delay or withhold emergency assistance in order to punish or remove unwanted segments of the U.S. population.  To say the least, this is a disturbing development and made equally frightening by the many “pro-life” Republicans who choose to remain silent on this issue.

Anti-Immigrant Bashers: Time to Look in the Mirror

For many political campaigns, the immigration issue is being elevated as the winning formula for energizing conservative voters who have grown increasingly intolerant of immigrants.  Governor Gregg Abbott, Lt. Governor Dan Kirkpatrick, and Senator Ted Cruz are among the many politicians who have spared no expense in bashing immigrants to advance their campaign objectives. No amount of objective information is likely to change the sentiments of these politicians, who are more likely to follow President Trump’s mantra of dismissing factual information as “fake news” and using isolated instances of crime by undocumented immigrants to paint the entire immigrant community as criminals. Without a doubt, this strategy has been effective in energizing the conservative voter base that supports these politicians.

As conservatives continue their immigrant bashing, however, it might be a good idea for them to simply “look in the mirror” and reflect on the extent to which immigrants – undocumented and legal – have influenced their own experiences and lifestyles. Consider the following points:

·        We are all descendants of immigrants: Unless you trace your ancestry to indigenous tribes of America, you are probably a descendent of previous immigrants who were motivated for the same reasons to start a new life in the U.S. How would your ancestors feel about your current perceptions of immigrants?

·        The real criminals.  Isolated crimes by undocumented immigrants often lead to public outcries for the deportation of immigrants or limits to legal immigration. Historically, white males have been responsible for most of the mass murders in the U.S.  Are you spending any time bashing white males?

·        Taking jobs.  Immigrants are often characterized as taking jobs away from native-born residents. Restrictions on immigration have led to labor shortages in such industries as construction, agriculture, hotels, and restaurants --  leading to higher prices and food shortages. How many native-born friends or family members do you know that are applying for these jobs?  Probably none.

·        Public health safety. Immigrants are often blamed for bringing diseases to the U.S. that threaten public safety. Recent health studies, however, confirm that middle and upper-income white families are the least likely to have their children immunized for highly contagious illnesses like measles and mumps.  Should the standards for public health safety be lowered for the more privileged families?

·        Intellectual competitiveness.  An estimated 70 percent of all patents obtained by top U.S. universities were developed by immigrant inventors. It is very likely that you have benefitted from these inventions in past years. Should the U.S. settle for being less competitive in the global marketplace by limiting the admission of immigrants to U.S. universities?

·        Consumption practices. Look at the product brands that you have purchased for your home or business – automobiles, computers, appliances, toys, etc. In all likelihood, most of these products were manufactured in foreign countries.

·        School quality. What schools are your children attending and how did you select that school?  If school academic ratings were an important selection factor, it is very likely that these ratings were elevated by immigrants who tend to be high achievers and valedictorians.

·        Defense of our country.  Many immigrants have lost their lives in past wars in defense of the U.S. and continue to play an important role in global military operations due to their unique language skills and cultural knowledge. Should immigrants be discouraged from participation in the U.S. military?

While is not likely that any of these points will change the behavior of political candidates who make it a practice of demonizing immigrants, perhaps it might encourage their constituents to re-consider their support of such candidates as they reflect on the many ways in which immigrants influence their collective quality of life.

Unconscious Bias at Starbucks? I don’t think so.

So sitting in a Starbucks and waiting for a meeting with someone is now considered a disturbance that warrants calling the police.  Apparently, a Starbucks store manager in Philadelphia recently decided to call the police on two African American males who were simply waiting for a third person to arrive before making a purchase and starting a meeting. A video captured by a store customer illustrated the embarrassing moment of being handcuffed while observers stared in disbelief.  I have been a loyal Starbucks customer for many years, have held many meetings there that required some waiting time, but have never, ever been required to buy something or leave the premises. Curiously, news reports have described the incident as an example of “unconscious bias”  --- presumably an action by the manager that was done unconsciously or without intent. I don’t buy that.

Why?  Because recent history tells us that such behaviors are not so “unconscious,” but rather deliberate efforts to act out strong beliefs that are held about selected groups of persons.  For example, a news story in the Dallas Morning News described how a police academy in Cambridge, Massachusetts was training new recruits to administer extra doses of pepper spray to disable Latino suspects.  Why?  Because it was believed by the training staff that Latinos and other dark-skinned persons eat and pick hot peppers – thus developing a higher tolerance for pepper spray.  The training program might have been considered an act of “unconscious bias” if not for the fact that it was part of the approved training program.

A second example in the medical area relates to a study about pain management. The researchers administered a test to medical residents and practitioners regarding biological facts and myths about African Americans, such as, “Black skin is thicker than whites,” “Blacks’ nerve endings are less sensitive than whites,” and “whites have larger brains than blacks.”  In a simulated experiment of treating black and white patients, it was found that the medical staff who believed such false statements made more errors in the medical treatment that they recommended to black patients.  Unconscious bias?  Perhaps, but the medical staff were aware of their beliefs, recorded them on the test, and consciously decided to act on these beliefs.

Like many other companies, Starbucks also makes deliberate, conscious decisions regarding the location of their stores which impact the quality of life in many communities.  The following three maps vividly illustrate that Starbucks locations in Dallas County have generally avoided communities of color as well as lower income areas. 

Figure 1 below, for example, displays the location of Starbucks stores by the household median income of Dallas County households in 2016. Even communities with median incomes of $100, o00 or higher in the south, west, and southeast part of Dallas County reveal few Starbucks stores, suggesting that lower income alone does not explain these location decisions.

Figure 2 below shows that few Starbucks stores have been established in predominantly black communities.

Similarly, Figure 3 below shows the same pattern for Latino communities.  That is, Latinos have little access to Starbucks stores in the communities where they are concentrated.

To long-time residents of Dallas County, it is perhaps not surprising that the vast majority of Starbucks stores are principally located in the northern parts of Dallas County where higher income, white families are concentrated. After all, the price for a cup of coffee from Starbucks may be out of reach for lower-income persons. But the maps show that middle to higher-income areas in communities of color are also being avoided by Starbucks.

Another interesting theory that is frequently discussed in online forums is that “blacks do not drink coffee” – a belief that was reinforced by basketball legend Shaquille O’Neal who decided not to invest in Starbucks when presented the opportunity by its CEO. Most blacks, however, do drink coffee as revealed by research cited in the Journal of Nutrition: 61 percent of U.S. black adults drink coffee, compared to 76 percent of whites and 80 percent of Latinos.   What else should one consider to understand the picture presented by these maps?  Is “unconscious bias” influencing the site location decisions by Starbucks’ executives? If so, will a workshop for these executives also change their behavior?    

To their credit, the Starbucks organization recently announced that they are establishing a new store in the re-developed Southwest Center Mall in southern Dallas, which will also serve as a workforce training site for its predominantly black community.  It’s a good start but leaves considerable room for improvement.  It would indeed be interesting to determine if similar location patterns exist in other U.S. communities with a high presence of blacks and Latinos.

In my view, the Starbucks manager in Philadelphia that requested police action to remove the two black customers was not motivated by “unconscious bias,” but rather by conscious beliefs and prejudices against blacks that were not detected in the screening process by Starbucks staff.  These beliefs are a consequence of many factors – family values, a past negative experience, media stereotypes, and growing racial segregation in residences, churches, schools, and social networks – factors that are very resistant to change. In addition, the current political climate in the U.S. has “normalized” racist commentary and behaviors towards blacks and Latinos, making it much easier to mistreat these groups.  While it is common practice for organizations to screen applicants for job skills, personality, career and criminal background,   it seems that screening for knowledge and beliefs about blacks and Latinos should also be part of the hiring process.  Why wait for an incident like the one in Philadelphia to occur that can rapidly blemish the reputation of an entire organization?

The CEO of Starbucks should be commended for wasting little time in personally apologizing to the two black men for their discriminatory treatment, and announcing that all Starbucks employees will be required to attend a workshop to identify and remediate unconscious bias. New employees will also be required to participate in this training program. This training, however, will likely have minimal impact on employees that hold negative beliefs or inaccurate information about groups that they dislike. These bad apples – whether current employees or new hires -- need to be fired or rejected from the organization, not just simply diagnosed as having unconscious bias and hope that a one-day workshop will somehow remediate this hostility towards black or Latinos.  I remain hopeful, nonetheless, that Starbucks’ renewed energy will include better screening practices of employees as well as clear policies with consequences when culturally diverse customers are mistreated by its employees. And it would not hurt for the company to re-examine its site location strategies in Dallas-area communities of color and perhaps similar communities throughout the U.S.

Amazon's Investment in U.S. Immigrants

It was indeed news shattering:  Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos just announced a contribution of $33 million to 1,000 DACA program students to pay for a four-year college education. As you may know, DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program participants includes “Dreamers” – the nearly 700,000 immigrants who illegally were brought into the U.S. by their parents when they were young.  Many of the Dreamers are gainfully employed in the U.S., pursuing a college degree, own or plan to start a business, or have established strong roots in this country.  Indeed, many of the Dreamers have little or no experience with their countries of origin -- countries which, in many cases, have records of criminal violence, natural disasters, and poor economies.

Mr. Bezos, also the son of a Cuban immigrant, is to be celebrated for making this investment.  Unlike other financial investments that this billionaire has made in past years, this one promises to yield significant rewards to the families involved.  Indeed, immigrants are responsible for two-thirds of the patents generated by U.S. higher education institutions, and create substantial employment opportunities for U.S. residents.  The U.S. economy has benefited significantly from the presence of immigrants, and it makes imminent sense to reward their contributions by investing in their college education.

Which begs the question:  Why have other large private corporations remained on the sidelines at a time when immigrants could really use their support?  A number of other high technology companies recently advocated for the DACA program participants and the value of immigrant labor – including Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook and others.  However,  based on the millions in profits that many U.S.  companies have earned as a result of Latino and Asian immigrants consumer power, I would think that their voices and financial support would have been more forthcoming.  Why the silence and lack of investment at this critical time?

By contrast, national and local media have given substantial coverage to the many public agencies that are literally falling over their feet to be considered as the ideal location for the next Amazon headquarters.  It would indeed be interesting to see if Mr. Bezos, who clearly values immigrants, will add another selection criterion for the new headquarters:  immigrant friendly policies.  If immigrant-friendly policies were a consideration to Mr. Bezos, it seems clear that many of the competing communities, including Texas, could end up at the tail end of the rankings given their past positions on sanctuary cities, voter suppression, environmental contamination, and poor funding for health and public education. If he so chooses, Mr. Bezos may now be in the position to shape public policy regarding immigrants in the U.S.

To the corporate community, I would suggest that now is the time to raise your voice and emulate Jeff Bezos by making a financial contribution to immigrant-friendly policies and programs.  To the many public entities that are competing for the next Amazon headquarters, I wish you well and hope that Mr. Bezos will place some consideration on past immigrant-friendly policies and practices.

And lastly, Mr. Bezos, I hope you are listening to this conversation.