Forgotten History: Mexican American School Segregation in Arizona from 1900–1951¹

Abstract

Abstract This article documents the efforts by Mexican Americans to challenge school segregation in Arizona in the first half of the twentieth century. As in Texas and California, although state law never formally mandated the segregation of Mexican American students, school districts in Arizona often established separate "Mexican Schools" for Mexican American students. While districts argued that segregation was necessary because of students' poor English skills, the segregation of Mexican American students in Arizona's public schools was not an isolated practice but occurred in tandem with other discriminatory practices that restricted the social rights of Mexican Americans, many of whom were American citizens. However, Mexican Americans challenged segregation in the courts. Notably, in Gonzales v. Sheely, a case heard in the United States District Court of Arizona in 1950, Judge Dave Ling declared segregation unconstitutional over three years before the Supreme Court's historic decision in Brown v. Board (1954). Notes 1. The author thanks Lirio Patton for her able research assistance and feedback. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers whose comments helped me improve this paper. 2. This term refers to the Anglo residents of the territory of Arizona. 3. The U.S. Census Bureau created a separate racial category for Mexicans in 1930. After the Mexican government and Mexican Americans protested, the Census Bureau stopped using the separate category and included Mexican Americans in the white population counts (CitationFoley, 1998; CitationU.S. Bureau of the Census, 1943). 4. Majoritarian stories are cultural narratives that naturalize the perspectives of people in privileged social locations: Whites, men, the middle and upper classes, and heterosexuals (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). 5. The term whiteness denotes the material benefits, privileges and status that people and ethnic/national groups socially understood as white have access to in the United States (CitationHarris, 1993). Historically, these have included: the right to naturalize, the right to own land, the right to vote, access to educational and employment opportunities, and, as I document here, unquestioned access to public facilities. The contemporary manifestations of whiteness are more subtle but persistent. CitationSee Lipsitz (1998) and CitationKatznelson (2005) for analyses of how white privilege was institutionalized in twentieth century social policy. 6. For accounts of segregation in municipal swimming facilities, see CitationMarin (2005), CitationOrtiz (2003), and CitationReynolds (1998). For accounts of segregation in Catholic churches in Phoenix and Tempe, see CitationHormell (1993) and CitationReynolds (1998). See also Marin's (2005) discussion of segregation in churches, the YMCA, and community dances in Miami, Arizona. For redlining in Phoenix, see CitationReynolds (1998). 7. Other notable Supreme Court decisions that expanded civil rights during this period include Shelley v. Kraemer Citation(1948), Citation Oyama v. California(1948) and Citation Henderson v. United States (1950). Shelley v. Kramer declared that actions by state agencies to enforce racially restrictive real estate covenants violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Oyama v. California the Supreme Court found that California's Alien Land Law prohibiting Japanese immigrants from owning land was unconstitutional. Finally, in Henderson v. State (decided on the same day as McLaurin and Sweatt) the Court ruled that requiring patrons of railroad dining cars to dine at separate tables designated by race was a violation of the CitationInterstate Commerce Act (1946). 1. See Citation Arizona v. Pass (1943) p. 883; Independent School District v. Salvatierra (1930), p. 794; Reporter's Transcript (1945b), p. 267; Citation Sanchez v. State (1951) p. 701. See also Citation Perez v. Sharp(1948), pp. 22–23.