"The 'Hispanic' Race Debate: Limitations of the Term in an Orlando School Board Controversy"

About the Author

Kristi McDuffie is a Ph.D. Student in English Studies at Illinois State University with a focus on Rhetoric and Composition. Her research interests center on rhetorics of race, Latin@ rhetorics, language ideologies, and digital literacies. Her publications to date have explored writing center pedagogy, narrative discourse in television, and models of literacy in young adult dystopian fiction.

Contents

Introduction

The Term "Hispanic"

Research Methods

The Use of Hispanic

Hispanic as an Ethnicity

Hispanic as a Race

Conclusions

Works Cited

Hispanic as an Ethnicity

The debate over whether Hispanics should be represented on the board is based on whether "Hispanic" is a race or an ethnicity, since the school board committee is required by law to be comprised of half "white" and half "black" members. The government definition of "Hispanic" is based on national origin, and thus interpreted as an ethnicity, rather than a race, and many comments to the news articles reflect that legal definition:

• Hispanic is not a race…that is all. –MikeBlows
• Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race. If they went to be on the bi-racial committee then black hispanics and white hispanics should participate as members of their respective race. –Still LMAO
• Why do people always confuse hispanic with a race. Hispanic is NOT a race. –BenL [2]
• These comments mimic the legal opinion that the school board obtained, which was included in The Orlando Sentinel’s news article. The opinion cites the government’s definition: “A ‘Hispanic or Latino’ is ‘a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race’” (Ramos, “School District”). The school board used this opinion as the rationale behind its response that Hispanics can be included on the committee as a declared person of white or black race, and the comments continue that rhetoric.

Both the school board and the responding commentators may be sticking to the inadequate definition of "Hispanic" because it benefits them in some way. The school board, for instance, does not have motivation or funds to change a committee that was not even meeting at the time of the protest. It would be time-consuming and expensive to pay for legal costs to try to change the court order, particularly when the school board was trying to lessen oversight, not increase it. In fact, the committee came to public attention because of the school board’s attempts to dismantle federal oversight by seeking court approval for unitary status. The lack of representation for Hispanics extends beyond this specific committee, as evidenced by the makeup of the school board itself, which includes seven white members and one black member (“School Board Information”). Although it is possible that some members are of Hispanic origin, there is nothing to indicate that in their biographies (“School Board Information”). It is also troubling that blacks did not support Hispanics’ desire for inclusion. Randolph Bracy, President of the Orange County NAACP, prefers that the mandate for the biracial committee stand due to its “deep historical roots” (Ramos, “To Join”). Like whites, blacks seem to feel threatened by the potential added representation of another minority group. The online comments illustrate the irony of the NAACP not supporting Hispanics’ desire for inclusion:

• Yep. No point in changing the court precedents set in the sixties. If the good NAACP thinks we shouldn’t disturb rulings with deep historical roots, perhaps he would be happy if blacks had their own lunch counter, bathrooms and water fountains at woolworths. –Gregory
• If this had been a white person speaking of deep historical roots, the NAACP would be screaming. –Deirdre

White community members who wrote the majority of the forum comments mimic this negative response against inclusion most likely because they perceive it as threatening. Linda Martín Alcoff argues that whites are often threatened by “ethnic and racial identities” (26). Mistreated minorities’ demands for attention based on group identity bring a challenging counterdiscourse to the positive narrative that supports the U.S.’s historical expansion and domination (Alcoff 26). Furthermore, whites perceive the existence of group identity as a demand for resources, whether that claim is actually made or not (Alcoff 26). The fact that many respondents posting anonymous comments are annoyed at the request to include Hispanics on the committee supports Alcoff’s claim. In fact, this request for attention and representation leads many respondents to make anti-immigration comments:

• I don’t care if they choose a race or not. I just wish they’d choose another place to work, not contribute to society, and not make their boring food. –Neighbor
• Doesn’t matter, unless they speak and read English. Which they won’t. –jenny

A number of comments focus specifically on the legitimacy and citizenship status of Puerto Ricans:

• Go back to Puerto Rico, which most of you claim is your REAL country anyway, speak Spanish, and call yourself "chicken soup’"if you like. You people are so insistent on forcing your failed culture on another country. I don’t understand why you are here. You don’t want to assimilate? You don’t want or are to lazy to teach your kids English, or learn it yourself? Sell your crap, hit the road. This country isn’t available for annexation. Try Cuba…oh wait. They hate you too. –denhunter

These respondents are not commenting upon the issue at hand—they are expressing prejudicial views that often emerge in debates surrounding Hispanics. This anti-immigration rhetoric illustrates the subjugated position that Hispanics often face in the U.S. As Oboler has stated, Hispanics are often treated as second-class citizens, regardless of their actual immigration status, country of origin, or language.

The idea of Hispanic inclusion as threatening also results in comments about reverse racism:

• Isn’t just the idea of a “Bi-racial Committee” racist? How does being any particular race, on a board or committee, change the effect they have on the school or the children. It seems to be that it opens the door to vote along your race lines, much the same way our government is run, by voting along party lines! Abolish this law immediately and have people chosen on their merits, not their race! –ELZ
• HA! Race is no longer an issue because we have a black president. Fianlly, [sic] since America has elected a black president, can we all refer to ourselves as Americans and can we get rid of quotas and affirmative action? –Sofa King Stupid  
• What happened to the best person for the job? I have no problem voting for someone who is a different race and has gotten beyond it to what’s best for all…but I do have issues thinking someone who is so race or ethnic based, they are blind to the others concerns coz theirs has to met first and foremost over the others. -zymogene 

Jane Hill found similar themes in her analysis of commentary about the word “squaw.” Hill writes, “Many Americans, especially Whites, oppose any racial preferences, especially so-called ‘affirmative-action.’ The idea that affirmative action makes Whites victims of ‘reverse racism’ erases any notion of White power or privilege, and casts White males especially as victims” (79). Hill explains that a focus on race and racial terms is a “violation of a code of colorblindness” according to a folk theory of racism (80). The above comments demonstrate people who adhere to color-blind racial ideology when Hispanics claim that by asking for inclusion, they are engaging in reverse racism.

[2] In including message board comments in this essay, I have retained the original grammar, spelling, and punctuation of the people posting.  Rather than using an approach of inserting "[sic]" after each misspelling, this footnote's explanation covers all instances in transcribed user comments.