MLB Strike of 1994- Final Draft

Scott Autenreith

Dr. Brown

English 306

April 27, 2016

Major League Baseball Strike of 1994

            Baseball: America’s pastime, the game that brought families, cities, and America together. Everyone hears the amazing stories of the Great Bambino, of Lou Gehrig, and of Ted Williams. They hear of the “Shot heard round the world”, the curse of the Red Sox (ended in 2004), and Randy Johnson’s fastball vs. a rogue bird. Who knew that one season, one disagreement, and one issue could change the outlook of the game forever? The MLB (Major League Baseball) strike of 1994, not only involved the players and owners, but the fans had a larger impact after than the contract settlement itself. The strike of 1994 affected the loyalty of fans to baseball, the United States (economically), and the image of the players.

            Baseball lockouts were nothing out of the ordinary. Since 1972, there had been five strikes and three lockouts prior to the 1994 season (CNN). Two strikes resulted in games being missed but neither had the magnitude of the 1994 strike (CNN). The players stood against the owners as long as they could until a judge resolved the issue, but the lasting effect of the fans viewpoints of the players was drastically changed (BLS). The players went from heroes to zeroes in the eyes of the spectator within a matter of months. The game of baseball was different, it was not valued, and the fans did not respect the players.

            This situation has been very common in other sports leagues such as the National Football League (NFL), when owners proposed lower salaries, as well as increase the number of games played in the regular season. This created tension and caused a lockout from the NFL Players Association. Lockouts between players unions and owners have been a very common occurrence. In sports, there are three parties that must all be satisfied with the business plan: the owners, the players, and the fans. When one of those parties is not satisfied, they will protest until what they believe is the best situation for them. In 1998, the National Basketball League team owners locked out the players. This had to do with losses in profits from more than half of the organizations. The owners and players reworked contracts that pleased both sides. In 1995, it was the MLB fans that protested. The way that fans protested was by not attending as many games, as well as through emotion. Through the signs, constant boos, and lack of interest, the fans made it clear how they stood about the lockout. This was a rare occurrence when the fans were so against a strike (CMC).

            The strike arose by a proposition of incorporating a salary cap by the owners (BLS). Cambridge defines a salary cap in any institution as a limit that any one person can be paid. In baseball, the owners would be given a ceiling on the amount of money that they could give to their players. As a result, it would limit the value of a player. The players Union did not agree with the proposal so they decided to walk out on the organization, the fans, and the chance at hoisting the World Series trophy into the air.

            In 1994, the Montreal Expos looked like the next great baseball dynasty. They were loaded with young talent: Moises Alou, Larry Walker, Pedro Martinez, and Marquis Grissom. They posed a serious threat to the Atlanta Braves, the best team in the National League. By the end of July, the Expos seemed unstoppable. They were developed through their minor league system, eager, young, and could play stellar defense. Montreal was not the only city that was playing great baseball that summer. In San Francisco, Matt Williams was hitting home runs at a furious pace. Possibly on track of breaking Roger Marris’ record of sixty-one home runs in a single season. In San Diego, Tony Gwynn, the Padres great right fielder had been hitting so consistently that he had been able to keep his batting average above .390. By August, it seemed that he might do what no one had since Ted Williams in 1941; hit .400 in a season (PBS). But then, developments off the field stole the spotlight.

            Ever since the players had developed a union in 1966, tensions with the owners had steadily escalated. There had been a strike or a lockout every time they had had to negotiate a new contract. Over the years, court rulings had given the players more and more power (CNN). Now in the middle of the 1994 season, the two adversaries were embroiled in their bitterest contract dispute yet. Desperate to unify their own ranks, the owners, who had also been squabbling among themselves over revenue, had ousted commissioner Fay Vincent, replacing him with one of their own, Milwaukee Brewers owner, Bud Selig. Selig was certain that if baseball was going to thrive, the owners had to work in concert (PBS). During the 1994 season, the owners made a proposal they knew the Players Union would never accept. They offered to share revenue with each other, but only if the Union agreed to a limit on a total amount each team could pay its players; a salary cap. Tom Glavine, a start pitcher for the Atlanta Braves said that, “We are ready to play, but we are not going to play under the terms of a salary cap.” (Billionaires vs. Millionaires). On August 12^th, the players walked out (PBS).

The baseball season was suspended indefinitely. The owners were prepared to wait them out, confident that the Union would give in. At this time, the players’ average compensation was $1.2 million dollars (BLS). The owners Chief Negotiator, Richard Ravitch said, “all the owners are trying to find out are how much more they want.” (Billionaires vs. Millionaires). Don Fehr of the Players Association said, “this dispute arises because the clubs could not get their own internal house in order and redefine their revenue sharing rules” (Billionaires vs. Millionaires). Soon after, Bug Selig officially stated that the remainder of the season and postseason were going to be suspended. When the season ended after 117 games, Tony Gwynn’s batting average was .394. George Will talked to Tony Gwynn and he said, “Tony did not hesitate about striking. Tony the he was a Union guy, people sacrificed for me and he will sacrifice for the future generation of baseball players. The Montreal Expos were in first place in their division, with a six game lead over the powerful Atlanta Braves (BLS). They would never find out if they were in fact, the greatest team in baseball. That was the beginning of the end for the Expos. The Expos would never play that well again. Their fans never came back. Twelve years later, the city of Montreal would lose its baseball team.

During the offseason, the owners declared that negotiation had reached an impasse, and that they would therefore implement a salary cap unilaterally. They also outraged fans by starting to hire replacement to put on the field in place of the striking major leaguers. In March of 1995, federal judge Sonia Sotomayor found the owners guilty of negotiating in bad faith. The players then agreed to go back to work under the contract that been in effect before the strike began (BLS). In the end, the owners had lost more than $700 million without winning a single concession. The players had lost the respect of the fans did not understand why they had walked out in the first place since many of the players were earning more in one week than the average American made in a year. When stadiums opened back up in 1995, many stadiums were half empty (Billionaires vs. Millionaires). The fans that did come out seemed more interested in booing their hometown teams than cheering them on. At Shea Stadium in New York City, fans ran onto the field and tossed dollar bills at the feet of Mets players. In Detroit, they threw bottles, cans baseballs, and lighters. All across the country, the games biggest stars were met with choruses of boos. The loudest taunts were reserved for players that had spoke for the Union, like Atlanta’s Tom Glavine (PBS). A month into the season, attendance was down 20% (Cornell). Pedro Martinez, an outstanding pitcher for the Expos at the time, understood why fans were upset but he said that, “Baseball has an ugly face, and it’s the business part. Negotiations are not pretty, but fans need to remember that we love to play for them” (Billionaires vs. Millionaires).

The cause of the strike was an emotional roller coaster for the owners and players, but mainly for the fans. For the players, baseball was their job and they, as employees, were seeking more value. Baseball was a way of life for some fans, and if baseball was not going to be played, it was an issue. The players and owners use of logos carried throughout their standstill. Meanwhile, the fans focused on the use of pathos during and after the strike occurred.

When the owners and players went head to head against each other, they both had their reasoning. For the owners, they sought the idea of a salary cap for a number of reasons (BLS). First, it would evenly distribute the competition. At the time, teams could spend as much as the owner was willing. This meant that some teams spent way more than others did and in a way, was a bit unfair. For example, ten years prior to the 1994 season, only one team (Minnesota Twins) had a lower payroll ($25,000,000) than half of the MLB teams and won the World Series (BR). The owners made it clear that they wanted to spread out the competition. They were using the strategy of logos because it was a cheaper expense to impalement a salary cap, and the cap would generate more excitement for fans knowing that their team had an equal shot at a championship.

The players also used logos in their stance against the owners proposed salary cap. The idea of the salary cap would even out the playing field but it would limit the value of the players’ income. As employees, if the boss said they were going to limit how much a worker was paid, chances are the employees would not react positively. Also, the Players Union explained the lack of a chance for an “underdog” in the game if the salary cap was implemented (BLS). For example, the Atlanta Braves had the second highest payroll, only behind the New York Yankees, and Atlanta had an amazing roster containing at least two Hall of Fame pitchers in John Smoltz and Greg Maddux (BC). Their payroll exceeded $44,000,000. That was an average of $1,800,000 per player. The team finished 2^nd in the National East and was destined to make a World Series attempt prior to the strike (BR). On the other hand, the Montreal Expos were leading the NL East standings by a landslide. What was the big deal behind this? Their team payroll was south of $19,000,000 (BR). That was an average of $750,000 per player. This was a Cinderella story. No one expected the Expos to be winning, let alone be ahead of the talented Braves team by a landslide. The Expos were good for baseball, and they were an inspiration. With a salary cap in place, the players argued that a Cinderella run would not be significant in the game. When the strike occurred, many fans were upset because the Expos had a chance to win a World Series when few teams with such a low payroll could barely make it to the eight-team playoffs.

            The fans expressed a great deal of pathos when responding to the strike. In a news story told by a station in Virginia, they interviewed kids and adults and asked about the strike. When they talked to kids, they simply asked them, “Should the players play for free?” One kid responded with, “Yes. It’s just a game. It should not matter how much you get paid”. Another boy said, “They should play for free because if they love it, then they should want to do it without worrying about money”. Then, the news station interviewed adults. The adults responded with negativity against the owners and players. One person talked about the owners and players expressing interest in more money and he said, “The question is, what is enough money?” Another man was interviewed and he responded saying, “There’s something about the business of baseball that takes out the pleasure of baseball” (WAVY-TV 10). This directly pulled from the emotion of the fans. The strike created heartbreak for some, and anger for others.

            President Clinton met with the press following negotiations prior to the start of spring training in 1995 between players and owners that did not result in a contract solution. He started off by saying that the real losers in the situation were the spectators. The president ordered that they give back “our” national pastime. Clinton then explained that he would send a bill to congress that would contribute to resolving the strike. Also, this legislation would allow the American people to be heard (WHTV). The entire speech was filled with pathos. Explaining instances where it hurts the American people and that baseball has become “who we are”. President Clinton then called on both sides to reach an agreement. He hoped that they would work “expeditiously” in finding a middle ground so that the American people, “do not lose another World Series” and so the country can make up the “millions and millions of dollars lost” (WHTV). When the President of the United States spoke he spoke more so as a fan rather than a partner of the sides. He honed in on the emotion of the American people that missed the game of baseball. He too wanted baseball back. Soon after, congress did not pass the legislation that Clinton proposed, but because the Players Union board sought injunction, the fight then went to court. Judge Sotomayor ruled that the Players Union calls off the strike and that the owners call of the lockout. Baseball was to resume in the near future.

In 1995, baseball was back. Because of government action, the old collective bargaining agreement was put back in place and legal action against the owners began. Players returned to playing again, owners went back to making money again, but the fans did not come back. Stadiums had 20% less people, boos were heard throughout from spectators, and fans felt betrayed (BLS). The players made a decision to go on a strike for reasons of their own. Little did the players and owners know, that the strike of 1994 would be remembered as a time where respect for professional baseball players was lost from the fans. This event changed the way that players were seen in the eyes of the fans.

            ^{In the weeks leading up to the 1994-95 MLB strike, fans let players and owners know they might not return following the work stoppage. (AP file photo)}

            The fans made it very clear to the players of their disapproval of the strike. In the image above, a fan wrote how they felt about the strike in baseball terminology, “NO BALLS… ONE STRIKE… WE’RE OUT!” (AP). The term, “NO BALLS… ONE STRIKE” refers to the pitch count in an at-bat between the pitcher and the batter. The sign is a direct pun, related from the game of baseball, to the players from the fans. The term, “NO BALLS” meant the fans thought the players showed a lack of courage or valor. On the sign, “ONE STRIKE” resembled that strike that happened between the players and owners. The term, “WE’RE OUT”, referred to the fans as a whole were going to stop supporting Major League Baseball. Those words resembled so much more than fan-made sign at a game. It spoke about the emotions that fans felt when the strike occurred. Threatening to leave, as fans, was a clear message to the MLB that although a strike may have been beneficial for the players and owners, it was not beneficial for the fans.

                                        ^{Lifetime Topps Project. January 25, 2012.}

                        

The sign above was directed towards the players on the field. Growing up, being a baseball player was along the lines of being an astronaut or being the President of the United States. It was a dream that many strived to do. For those that accomplished that goal, it was a tremendous feat. For those that did not, they became spectators of the sport. They became the fans and most of them and always dreamed of the opportunity to play professionally. After the strike occurred, the sign shown above represented that the fans viewpoint of the players changed completely. In the fans minds, the players went from childhood heroes to athletes solely seeking more and more money. To dedicated fans, the game of baseball was more than a “game”. It was a way of life. Many fans talked about it, read about it, and watched baseball as if it were their religion. For fans, to watch their favorite players support the strike would have been a slap in the face.   

            The players went on strike, asking for more money. The fans made a point that if the players were going to be greedy, then the fans were not going to be there for them either. For the players who saw this sign, did it make them think about the strike? Were the players going on strike because they wanted more money? Or, was it because they did not want the owners to profit so much?

The fans negativity of the strike challenges the identity of players as laborers within baseball.

            The data above, from ESPN Sports Business, is a clear understanding of the impact that the strike had on the fans. Prior to the strike in June 1994, baseball was just as popular as the National Football League (NFL). It was also clearly above the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the National Hockey Association (NHL), which had the lowest fan base in June. Not only did the strike displease baseball lovers, but also about half identified as no longer being fans of the sport. In fact, the percentage of fans was so low, that there were less baseball fans than NHL fans (ESPN). America’s pastime had fewer fans than Canadian culture in the United States of America. Shortly after the 1994 season, the fans picked up quite a bit hut it was not where it was in June, and the NFL pulled far ahead when it came to fan percentage (ESPN).  

             The players took a hard hit from the fans for standing up for themselves against the MLB team owners. The spectators booed, yelled, and made signs directed at the players for being people that seemed to only play for the money. Fans argued that baseball players should not worry about salary issues because they “love the game”.

            The MLBPA went on strike in 1994 and although the fans responded negatively, it was best for themselves as players. Major League players in 1994 signed contracts to work for a team for a certain amount of time. They were being paid under the agreements of that contract. For owners, their entire goal was to make the team as profitable as possible. As a result, an opportunity to incorporate a salary cap was a clear business plan that would make the organizations much more money. The players realized that although the team would make money, themselves as individuals would not see an extra dime of the new proposed collective bargaining agreement. As laborers, they understood this and took a stand against the owners. They played a sport that generated billions of dollars in cash flow. Without the players, there would have been no interest for fans, and without fans, the sport of baseball would not still be around. The players and owners learned their lesson when it came to handling collective bargaining agreements and have been more prepared when negotiating new deals. The players were looking out for themselves as well making sure that they were being paid fairly. When they realized they were not, they took a stand against the owners and fought for what they thought was right.

            Baseball is America’s pastime for a reason. It has always been there for people. In the movie, “Field of Dreams” J.D. Salinger’s character Terrance Mann says, “The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is a part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again. Oh people will come, Ray. People will most definitely come" (Umpire). Baseball has gone through many ups and downs. In 1994, baseball had a severe low point but since then, the fans came back, low payroll teams have won multiple World Series’ and the value of the average MLB players has risen exponentially (BLS). They were employees within an industry and they were fighting for their rights. Inside the clubhouse may not be pretty, but baseball is still baseball. Stories are still going to be told, kids will grow up learning how to play catch, and magic will always occur in October. America would not be the same without baseball. That is why it is our pastime.

Works Cited

"Salary Cap Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary." Salary Cap Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.

"Pro Sports Lockouts and Strikes Fast Facts." CNN. Cable News Network, 28 Jan. 2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.

"1994 Baseball Payrolls." Baseball Chronology. Google, n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.

"1994 Atlanta Braves Roster by Baseball Almanac." 1994 Atlanta Braves Roster by Baseball Almanac. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.

"1994 Atlanta Braves Batting, Pitching, & Fielding Statistics | Baseball-Reference.com." Baseball-Reference.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.

Sometimeandplace. "The 1994 Baseball Strike." YouTube. YouTube, 26 Oct. 2009. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.

           

Luker, Rich. "Survey Says: Twenty Insights from Poll's 20 Years." - SportsBusiness Daily. N.p., 6 Jan. 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.

Clintonlibrary42. "Pres. Clinton's Remarks Regarding the 1994-1995 MLB Strike." YouTube. YouTube, 28 Jan. 2013. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.

Di Pietro, Joe. "The One Constant through All the Years, Ray, Has Been Baseball." The One Constant through All the Years, Ray, Has Been Baseball. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.

Burns, Ken. "Millionaires vs. Billionaires." Dark Days. PBS, n.d. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.

Staudohar, Paul D. "The Baseball Strike of 1994-95 : Monthly Labor Review: U.S. Bureau ofLabor Statistics." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar.1997. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.

Yankwitt, Russell M. "Buy Me Some Peanuts and Ownership: Major League Baseball and the Need for Employee Ownership. CornellJournal of Law, Apr. 1996. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.

Caldwell, Terrence. "An Overview and Comparative Analysis of the Collective Bargaining Agreements in the NBA, NFL, and MLB." Claremont Colleges. CMC Student Scholarship, 2010. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

Shapiro, Nina, and Jim Brunner. "No School Monday for Seattle as Talks Continue in Teachers Strike." The Seattle Times. Local News, 13 Sept. 2015. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.

Chicano Movement - Final Draft

Saphire Miramontes

Dr. Brown

English 306

26 April 2016

The Chicano Movement meets Tucson

Introduction

            Education in America is thought to be one of most progressive on the globe. According to the 14^th Amendment, all individuals have a right to an equal education under the Constitution of the United States of America. The equal right entitles all people to have a similar educational experience regardless of age, race, and gender (U.S. Constitution). Starting at the age of three and four, young children are placed into a Pre-Kindergarten program to learn colors, shapes, numbers, and basic communication words and phrases. By the time students leave elementary and middle school they are expected to read, write, and have problem-solving skills. In high school, these students are encouraged to think for themselves as they apply their problem solving skills towards real life scenarios. Eventually, by the age of 18, youth are expected to be functional members of society, with a right to vote and even live on their own. In America, the educational experience leaves a lasting impact on students that will later influence their future. For example, if an individual had a great scholastic experience, they are more likely to be successful; and vice versa.

            In this research analysis, a look at the relationship of education and Chicanos will take place. For the purpose of this analysis, it is important to point out that the words, “Chicano and Mexican” will be used interchangeably as they represent the same identity. Moreover, a clear focus is placed on Chicano students in education because they are experiencing an intense level of racism as their educational rights are placed under attack as a result of decisions made by school board administrators. As a culture, Chicanos are a marginalized group of people that have been historically forced to assimilate to American culture for reasons unclear to them; until now.

            In the past, the ultimate goal of education in America was to Americanize students of the Chicano, Black, and Asian descent. Americans very much feared that minorities would one day become more superior to them and they would no longer have power. From this standpoint, one can see that Americans knew from early on that having an education would be the strongest weapon against the oppressor. Also, by Americanizing these students, their culture and history would be erased, destroyed, and eventually non-existent to the memory of all people. Society has experienced this level of oppression once again in a Tucson protest relating ethnic studies, Chicano students, and Tucson Unified School District Administrators. Therefore, in the following sections, historical context of the Chicano Movement, rhetorical context of the Tucson Mexican American Studies protest, and an artifact analysis will take place.

Historical Context

In order to understand what the Chicano Movement is, we must first define the word “Chicano” on its own. Historically in United States, the word Chicano, during the 1960s “[…] elevated from its 1920s denotation of working-class Mexican immigrants, and from the slang of the 1940s and 1950s when it was substituted for Mexicano, to symbolize the realization of a newfound and unique identity” (Rosales 82). Though many people at the time argued that the word was demeaning to Mexican people; others like Las Adelitas (female camp followers and soldiers during the Mexican Revolution) opposed this claim. They argued, “We always referred to ourselves as Chicanos… We gave it to ourselves, the Anglos did not…” (Rosales 83). Las Adelitas were suggesting that the Chicano community embrace their cultural identity to reclaim the word and any negative connotation it may have carried in the past. Moreover, the word “Anglo” describes a white American of non-Hispanic descent (including Spaniards but not Brazilians); whereas Chicano is anyone with Mexican descent (excluding Spaniards).

The need for this new identity is a result of constant pressure for Chicanos to assimilate to American culture and society. As time progressed into the 1970s, more and more Chicanos were educating themselves to be aware of the intentions of Americans that took interest in incorporating Chicano history into American text books (MacDonald and Hoffman). This quickly became a hot topic for Chicanos because many of the younger generations were facing more levels of racism and discrimination in schools during the segregation period compared to previous decades (Gonzalez 30). According to Gonzalez (1990), based on the ideologies of educators and school administrators, “[…] Americanization was the prime objective of the education of Mexican children” (30). The concept behind that mentality was to acculturate the Mexican children so that they would not challenge American beliefs, expectations, and success. Acculturation, is defined as forced adaptation to one culture over another to “unify” everyone. The issue with this concept is that in its attempt to get rid of “othering” minorities, it is developing a sense of colorblindness that has the reverse effect, which is enabling “racism” (Aguirre 17).

Once younger generations of Chicanos used their identity to fight for their place in schools, it was like taking one step forward and two steps back for them. For example, as described by author Gilbert Gonzalez during the 1970’s (1990):

Americanization teachers viewed immigrant communities as threats to the well-being of society. The immigrants and their cultures became the locus of destabilizing influences in society for supporters of Americanization. With such negative frame of mind toward the immigrant community, these practitioners launched Americanization programs throughout the Southwest (35).

From this moment in the 1970s, the Chicano Movement began to flourish with more emphasis on the aspect of Chicano education and Mexican American Studies (MAS) programs to provide more opportunities for Chicano students to succeed. Mexican American Studies, is an ethnic focused curricula that emphasizes Mexican culture, traditions, and lessons. In Aguirre’s work Colonialism and the Chicano Community (1974), he mentions that “It is also a well-known fact that schools in the barrios tend to be inadequate both faculty and teaching wise. A recent State Supreme court decision found that schools in the poorer districts which provide inferior education violate the child’s constitutional rights to equal education” (20). Chicano students were being deprived of resources that would help them be successful as scholars in comparison to students of other races.

            Moving forward to the 1980s until now, the new mentality of Chicanos in education is suddenly enamored by the idea that “The Chicano Movement has brought too many of us together, and we have become too strong to be completely silenced or dismissed” (Hammerback, Jensen, and Gutierrez 171). Thus, upon this 30 year progression of the Chicano Movement in education, a temporary halt transpired because of the radical decision made by a Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) Administrator to remove MAS from curriculum and class lists for high school students in Tucson, Arizona. The Chicano Movement as a whole, is deeply rooted in the success of Chicanos in education and occupations; therefore, as a movement, a smaller-scale focus was placed on Tucson because there was no longer going to be an equal right to education and success for all Chicano students without an MAS program.

As researchers, Meier and Stewart (1991) put it, “…the American educational system has tried to Americanize Hispanics, thus undercutting support for their language and culture. The final and most important similarity is that educational policies affecting Hispanic students reflect the realities of the political system” (83). Reflecting on the previous claim, United States politics teaches citizens to show little value on the culture of immigrants which minimizes the opportunity for cultural awareness and cultural expression for all individuals. Having to fight against a system created to destroy them, Chicano students had now gained a new drive to end the oppression set upon them indefinitely.

            Between the years 1990-2010, there was an inconsistent move away from Mexican American Studies, depending on who was on the teaching and administration staff of the school in different moments in time. Tucson Unified School District’s MAS protest developed from the decision of the state superintendent at the time named Tom Horne and later carried on by his successor, John Huppenthal, in the year 2010 to eliminate MAS programs from all high schools in their district (Cabrera). According to journal author, Melinda Anderson (2016), during Huppenthal’s district campaign for TUSD he stated his desire to, “‘stop la raza’ […] — that is, the people of Mexican descent in Arizona” from succeeding at all costs. Following his victory of being elected into his position as a TUSD Administrator, Huppenthal was now working towards his goal to eliminate the MAS program as it was a cultural threat to the Anglo students (Cammarota). However, many of these Anglo students never reported any threat or racial provoking from their Chicano peers.

            The main speakers of the Tucson Unified School District MAS protest were a student led group known as UNIDOS (United Non-Discriminatory Individuals Demanding Our Studies, established in 2012) and their counter-part being the TUSD administrators (Planas). In regards to Leland Griffin’s work The Rhetoric of Historical Movement (1952), a protest moves generally in three stages: inception, crisis, consummation. As part of the larger Chicano Movement, this protest is in the crisis stage as both sides, UNIDOS and TUSD, are both battling out the decision that was made regarding the MAS program.

Further in this paper, a large focus will be placed on the rhetorical acts of the UNIDOS students to raise awareness of the educational injustice that is occurring in their school district. Therefore, placing the Mexican American Studies protest development past the inception stage and resting on the stage of crisis. As a result of their constitutional rights being violated, seen in Amendment 14 of the United States constitution and explained further in the next section of analysis, Tucson Unified School District’s Chicano students are protesting the historical context of marginalization and Americanization forced upon them by their school administrators. This protest is part of the larger Chicano Movement because it is working to empower the Chicano community, as well as gain equal treatment and opportunity specifically for Chicano students. Historically, the Chicano Movement goes to show how Chicanos have been disadvantaged in America because of their deep connection to their rich heritage; when in reality, much of American society stems from a variety of diverse cultures.

Rhetorical Analysis

            As claimed by many of the active students in the group, UNIDOS, the protest emerged from the moment of inception on December 30, 2010. On this day, the state superintendent at the time, Tom Horne, decided that the Tucson Unified School Districts MAS program was, “out of compliance with A.R.S. § 15-112 (introduced as HB 2281)—a law enacted in May 2010 that effectively banned the teaching of ethnic studies in Arizona’s K–12 schools and primarily targeted TUSD Mexican American Studies” (Cabrera). This law was in direct contrast of the United States of America Constitution, Amendment 14 which states that all students are allowed equal protection and rights to education and opportunity regardless of race, gender, or religion.

The Chicano Movement, specifically in Tucson, Arizona, has a lot of support from the community to bring back Mexican American Studies to Tucson Unified School District. This could be considered a result of the community demographics being mostly Chicano. As a whole, Tucson is considered to be a border town since it is in close proximity of the Nogales, Sonora, Mexico and Agua Prieta, Sonora, Mexico. According to Daniel and Roland Solorzano (1995) there is an underrepresentation of Chicanos in the educational and professional pipeline throughout the United States which has resulted in loss of talent and role models for next generation Chicanos. It is important to point out that without MAS programs, there is a lack of opportunities in education which perpetuates lower numbers of Chicano teachers and school administrators for Chicano students to look up to. Having a lack of diversity in faculty can cause in a disconnection between minority students and school staff; thus, allowing room for misunderstanding the intentions of Chicano students in their demand for MAS to be brought back to their schools. Diversity is defined as representation of multiple races and ethnicities (Cammarota); in this protest a lack of diversity was present.

On April 26, 2011 the school board hosted a meeting to discuss their consensus to dismantle the MAS program; on this day, the school board met their match. The UNIDOS chained themselves to chairs in the boardroom so that their voices would finally be heard by the administrators with support of the Tucson Chicano community (Cabrera). Nolan Cabrera, a well-known researcher, professor, and activist at the University of Arizona (2011) quotes a member of the UNIDOS:

“We felt that if we didn’t do something [on April 26], then our history would be erased. This action was needed to stop the vote and to save our roots from being slashed away. We knew what this action entailed when we decided to go through with it. Arrest was definitely something we knew could happen, but we felt this action was needed. If we didn’t stand up for what we believed in, then who would? Our job as citizens is to stop unjust laws or be pushed around unjustly. And we chose to take a stand no matter the consequences.”

Thus, these students were practicing their civic responsibility to voice their opinions and demands from Arizona politicians as they had been taught in school and by the government.

Moreover, this student’s analysis of their protest strategy rhetorically appeals to logos because the logistics of their actions allowed a reaction from the school board to reschedule and reconsider their decision to eliminate the program (Cabrera). According to Three Sonorans News (2011) the UNIDOS appealed to pathos in their protest by chaining themselves to the seats and chanting, “Our education is under attack. What do we do? Fight back!” Lastly, in attempt to appeal to ethos, the UNIDOS “[…] met on the weekends and studied the teachings of the Zapatistas, the Black Panthers, and Dr. King. They focused on redefining the term resistance, and worked to become critical analysts and media strategists who could create the space for other youth to become politically engaged” (Cabrera). All three of the persuasive appeals used, reflect the rhetorical goal of saving the MAS program within Tucson Unified School District.

In addition, a social goal for the UNIDOS at the time was to gain community support so that their voice would have enough pull to be listened to. Moreover, the legislative and political goal of the UNIDOS was to gain enough credibility as an opponent so that “Educators, policy makers, community leaders and other stakeholders […]” (Diverse) would give them their attention and time to discuss communal issues. With such progressive goals, community members assessed their positionality in the protest by supporting either the UNIDOS or the TUSD school board.

In this Mexican American Studies protest two main identities are seen. The first being Chicano community surrounding the Tucson Unified School District and the second being the TUSD school administrators. The Tucson community stood in solidarity with the Chicano students in their mission to bring back ethnic studies to their schools. Thus, the founding of the group known as UNIDOS. UNIDOS was founded in January 2011 by nine students that had the courage to stand up during a TUSD board meeting to practice their right to “defend ethnic studies, and Mexican American Studies in particular” (Cabrera). These students are seen as “grassroots, radical youth” (Cabrera) because of their strategy to chain themselves and chant in the boardroom was beyond their years and traced to the Civil Rights Movement sit-ins. As moments passed, many individuals caught wind of what was happening and automatically identified with the oppressed UNIDOS students and showed support by joining them (Cabrera). As the nine UNIDOS students were chained to the chairs in the front of the boardroom, supporters of the UNIDOS were standing, chanting, and fist pumping with them in the crowd around the room. This identity is essential to the protest because without them, TUSD would have relinquished MAS without hesitation and severed equal education opportunities for all students.

The second identity from the protest is the Tucson Unified School District administrators. These are individuals like state superintendent, Tom Horne and his successor John Huppenthal, as well as all other school board members and educators. Their role in the protest was to remove sections of curricula and ban any books regarding ethnic studies because they felt it was offensive, demeaning, and threating to the Anglo students (Cabrera). These officials believed that Mexican American Studies was teaching Chicano students how to overthrow the government and how to essentially hate White people. The identity of the TUSD administrators as professionals and policy makers was tested because the Chicano community was challenging them to show how their decision was constitutional and ethical by showing the effects of depriving students of equal education and opportunity.

In this way, the two identified groups use their goals to distinguish what is important to them as an outcome of the Mexican American Studies protest. The Chicano community, unified with the UNIDOS student group, used their research and cultural pride to motivate them to bring back MAS to TUSD. Meanwhile, Tucson Unified School District administrators utilized their power as policy makers and district leaders to diminish the existence of MAS with support of government policy. Common ground for both sides would be administration wanting what was beneficial for all students; needless to say, there was no common ground for the two identities to agree or settle on because the administration only wanted what was best for their White students. The outcome was solely based on the decision of the TUSD administrators to allow the return of the MAS program, or keep their decision of having it banned from their district until further notice. In a perfect world of politics, the influence of the community to have the administration change their decision would be enough; however, the TUSD school board demonstrated signs of unwillingness to revoke their decision.

Movement Artifacts

            As previously mentioned, there are two primary identities involved in the Mexican American Studies protest in Tucson, Arizona. The first being the TUSD administrators for making the decision to invalidate the MAS program from their high schools; and the second being the Chicano student group known as the UNIDOS that were protesting to protect their ethnic studies. These passionate students found themselves doing research and evaluations of past protest strategies of the Civil Rights Movement to achieve rhetorical victory for themselves. At the same time, the TUSD administrators were working to achieve the same accomplishment and also to save their reputation as professionals in the school setting. The following section will further analyze the UNIDOS use of chaining themselves and chanting in the same board room that TUSD administrators called upon Tucson Police Department (TPD) for security on April 26, 2011 as forms of movement artifacts.

            The scene started off when nine students heard of the board meeting that was going to take place with all Tucson Unified School District administrators to discuss the rapid decision of state superintendent Tom Horne to remove MAS. Already ignited with anger and frustration the UNIDOS decided they would make an appearance that was going to have their voices essentially be heard by the school board. Since board meetings were open to the community, the students began to invite and inform others of their plan to invade the meeting and find themselves a seat that no one else could take from them. Some of the TUSD educators caught glimpse of this plan and helped the district administrators seek help from the Tucson Police Department to prepare for the worst case scenario.

            Upon the morning of April 26, 2011, the UNIDOS made their first move right as the doors opened. Running into the facility with chains wrapped around their wrists and interlocked within one another, the nine UNIDOS were able to move past police officers, board room security guards, and Tucson Unified School District staff (Cabrera). Battling shoves and dodging the screaming threats of officials, these board room warriors were able to sit in solidarity against the TUSD administrators (Cabrera). Once they were able to settle in their seat and chain themselves to the chairs, the UNIDOS raised their linked wrists and smiled at the crowd with great cultural pride. They proceeded to show enthusiasm and dedication to their protest by chanting in unison, “Our education is under attack. What do we do? Fight back!” (Cabrera). Not only did those nine students gain respect from their peers, they gained support from parents, family, and friends that were also part of the cultural community of Tucson.

            On the other side of the fence, the Tucson Unified School District found it in their best interest to reach out to the Tucson Police Department for help with the situation at hand. TPD found it necessary to respond by providing K-9 units, bomb squad patrol officers, and a hovering helicopter (Cabrera) to observe the outside area. Inside of the school boardroom, security was hired to prevent students from passing the doors to find seats before administrators. As seen in Three Sonorans News, “Unidos take over TUSD school board” (2011), two grown men dressed as security and possibly TPD took on several high school students with strong force but lost the scuffle as the UNIDOS outnumbered them as they charged ahead into their seats. Michael Hicks amongst other board members witnessed first-hand that, “The meeting [was] cancelled, no vote [took] place, and the students [were] victorious!” (Three Sonorans News).

            Looking closely at the identities of UNIDOS and TUSD administration, a clear divide occurred that shocked the community and resulted in unanimity for most people. The UNIDOS found a sense of identity within one another which reflects the meaning of their name “UNIDOS.” From Spanish to English, “unidos” translates to “united” which happens to be the first word in their name’s acronym, United Non-Discriminatory Individuals Demanding Our Studies (Cabrera). The founders of this student-led group, UNIDOS, are all Chicanos and pride themselves in learning and sharing stories of heritage, traditions, and survival ways of living with their peers, family, and community. Mexican American Studies does not only provide historical knowledge, it provides confidence to the normally marginalized group of Chicano students (Meier and Stewart). Thus, by the UNIDOS chaining themselves to their seats and chanting words that show how bound they are to their ethnic studies, their motive becomes clear; by saving their ethnic studies, they were saving themselves from education system failure.

            As for the Tucson Unified School District administrators, their professionalism as policy makers was challenged during the protest as they continually showed dismissive behavior towards the demands of their Chicano students. Leaders within this identity such as Tom Horne, John Huppenthal, and Michael Hicks, refused to address the issue with the UNIDOS via open dialogue at the school board meeting on April 26^th (Three Sonoran News). Tucson Unified School District only showed unity with the Tucson Police Department (Cabrera) which further demonstrated their lack of connection with their students leaving them in no place to properly make or destroy a policy with a one-sided perspective. Consequently, without any school district administrator releasing a statement or rebuttal to the rhetorical actions of the UNIDOS, silence was taken heavily and triumph was seen to be of the Chicano students and not of TUSD.

            To conclude this section, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of the movement articles used by the UNIDOS and TUSD. For the Chicano students in the UNIDOS group, the use of chains and their chant was extremely effective because they were able to gain two things from it. One being community support and the second being a voice that would finally be heard by their TUSD administrators. These two artifacts really tied into their identity as Chicano students because they showed their district administrators that they were taking responsibility of their education and success in the classroom by protesting the decision to remove Mexican American Studies from their schools. Tucson Unified School District only used the Tucson Police Department as a movement artifact which ended up dwindling their effectiveness and success. Nevertheless, TUSD administrators lost community support and reliability as policy makers for their district since they failed to show interest in the needs and wants of their students. As local authoritative figures, TUSD’s movement artifact tied to their identity because the administrators sought out help from other authoritative figures in the community to help maintain their status and protection under the law.

Conclusion

            As a whole, the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican American Studies protest served as a learning experience for both sides, the UNIDOS and the school board administrators. The UNIDOS learned that by doing their own research on civil rights and patterns of behavior within the realm of education, they were able to be successful in protesting their school board to bring back MAS to their curricula. As for the TUSD administrators, the lesson learned was that they needed to reconvene with the UNIDOS to reevaluate their decision of removing MAS to better meet the needs of their students. The UNIDOS took responsibility of their education and their future success by showing the negative effects of removing Mexican American Studies; meanwhile, TUSD refused to take responsibility for their radical decision that would continue to haunt them as policy makers and educational leaders within their community.

            Looking towards the future after the April 26, 2011 boardroom protest, the UNIDOS were able to claim their final victory by the getting the Mexican American Studies program back to their school after a year and half of fighting (Cabrera). This victory over the TUSD administrators ties into the bigger picture of the Chicano Movement because it allows the students to feel empowered through their ethnic studies and cultural pride. The entire purpose of the Chicano Movement is to help Chicano individuals do better than previous generations; which in turn is the reason activist of this movement decided to bring this protest under their wing to help the UNIDOS further succeed.

            Lastly, there are some theoretical takeaways of this TUSD Mexican American Studies protest that are identity based. As mentioned previously, there is research to show how minorities, especially Chicanos, are discouraged and often underqualified by educational standards in comparison to their White counter parts. Which in retrospect, much of Chicano history in the United States was compromised with a colonial approach to Americanizing education and Chicano students. By doing so, the effects of Americanization resulted in student failure, lack of diversity and cultural awareness, and the idea of racial colorblindness that is considered to be a modern form of racism. Overall, the Chicano students have earned their right to protest their need for Mexican American Studies at their school, as well as a much anticipated apology from their Tucson Unified School District Administrators for being unjust in their decision making processes.

Works Cited

Aguirre, Manuel E. Colonialism and the Chicano Community. San José, CA: Marfel

Associates, 1974. Print.

Anderson, Melinda D. "The Ongoing Battle Over Ethnic Studies." The Atlantic. Atlantic

Media Company, 7 Mar. 2016. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.

Cabrera, Nolan L., Elisa L. Meza, and Roberto Rodriguez. "The Fight for Mexican

American Studies in Tucson." NACLA. NACLA, Nov.-Dec. 2011. Web. 31 Mar.

2016.

Cammarota, Julio. "Challenging Colorblindness In Arizona: Latina/O Students’

Counter-Narratives Of Race And Racism." Multicultural Perspectives 16.2

(2014): 79-85. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 Mar. 2016

"Educational System Fails Chicano Students at Every Level” Diverse:

Issues in  Higher Education. CMA, 24 Mar. 2006. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.

Gonzalez, Gilbert G. Chicano Education in the Era of Segregation. Philadelphia: Balch                 Institute, 1990. Print.

Griffin, Leland. "The Rhetoric of Historical Movements." Readings in the Rhetoric of Social

Protest. Browne, Stephen Howard, and Charles E. Morris, eds. State College, Pa Strata Publishing, Inc. Print.

Hammerback, John C., Richard J. Jensen, and José Angel. Gutiérrez. A War of Words:

Chicano Protest in the 1960s and 1970s. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1985. Print.

MacDonald, Victoria-María, and Benjamin Polk Hoffman. "'Compromising La Causa?':

The Ford Foundation And Chicano Intellectual Nationalism In The Creation Of

Chicano History, 1963-1977." History Of Education Quarterly 52.2 (2012):

251-281. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Mar. 2016.

Meier, Kenneth J., and Joseph Stewart. The Politics of Hispanic Education: Un Paso

Pa'Lante y Dos Pa'Tras. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. Web. 26 Mar. 2016.

Planas, Roque. "Why ‘Book Ban' Is The Right Term For What Arizona Did To

Mexican-American Studies." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 26

Sept. 2014. Web. 30 Mar. 2016

Rosales, Francisco A. Dictionary of Latino Civil Rights History. Houston, TX: Arte

Público, 2006. Print.

Solorzano, Daniel G., and Ronald W. Solorzano. "The Chicano Educational Experience:

A Framework for Effective Schools in Chicano Communities." Educational

Policy 9.3 (1995): 293-314. Web.

Three Sonorans News. “UNIDOS takes over TUSD school board.” Online video clip.

YouTube. YouTube, 27 Apr. 2011. Web. 31 March. 2016.

U.S. Constitution. Art./Amend.  XIV, Sec. 1.